Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Hugh Grant on the Leveson Inquiry


Guest tonyblair

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

so his words would only have credibility if he stopped working completely?

He's articulating what a lot of people think. You agree with his words...? that's all really

I thought there were laws that protected everyone/anyone's privacy... that seem to be ignored when the press are involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing he is saying is exactly ground breaking is it? He is being hailed as a hero for stating the bleeding obvious.

Whilst at the same time quenching his thirst for revenge, behaving like a shameless hypocrite and ensuring the box office receipts for his next film will be swollen.

Forgive me for not worshipping at the altar of Hugh Grant.

How does it help the investigation for him to be whoring himself out to do interviews on every TV channel and say "HACKING PHONES IS BAD!"

He's an odious self promoting prick, who will benefit handsomely from this whole scenario.

Edited by fred quimby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole thing just exposes all who are at fault and just how false the media circus is. The general public for lapping up celebrity gossip, the media for selling their souls and the apparent celebrities making up shit because they aren't talented enough to remain famous, or as famous (rich) as they would like.

It also makes me respect people like johnny depp all the more than I already do. He is a fantastic actor who lives a quiet life in the south of France. You never hear any scandal about him now, do you.

If people, famous or otherwise don't want their dirty washing hung out for all to see, they should get a new washing machine, that's all I am saying.

That way the media might have to actually focus on 'news'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT

They "played the game" (as it was put above)... They used the media more than anyone before them to help find their lost child. Today they will complain about the intrusions into their private life apparently.

I think this is the most interesting one to come before the enquiry yet. Milli Dowlers parents have obviously been massively wronged. Phone hacking and intrusions they didn't deserve. But the Mccanns played the media so aggressively (more so than any footballer etc I know of) I suppose there was always going to be the bite back as the press, hungry for more, dug deeper and deeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Harsh

Not really. I think he put that with balance.

The McCanns were not advertisers, able to use a newspaper for their say without comment. The newspapers were (mostly) reporting news, and news that wasn't only given by the McCanns.

I'm not trying to excuse everything with what I've said there, there were instances of papers having gone way too far - I can remember that the Express paid up some compensation to them, for example, for over-stepping the line in some manner. But there was other stuff the McCanns have objected to that fell within what can rightfully be regarded as accurate reporting of the facts, even if it was distressing for the McCanns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. I think he put that with balance.

The McCanns were not advertisers, able to use a newspaper for their say without comment. The newspapers were (mostly) reporting news, and news that wasn't only given by the McCanns.

I'm not trying to excuse everything with what I've said there, there were instances of papers having gone way too far - I can remember that the Express paid up some compensation to them, for example, for over-stepping the line in some manner. But there was other stuff the McCanns have objected to that fell within what can rightfully be regarded as accurate reporting of the facts, even if it was distressing for the McCanns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should say its not entirely my personal view on if its right or not... I am just exploring the argument...

People indicate those who sell their story and use the media for personal gain etc should expect some kick back from the media into their private affairs etc. Well it doesn't take a genius to see how the argument then supports the intrusion in the lives of McCanns.

Fact is that many children go missing and only a few get in the papers and their plight promoted. The McCanns knew this and did EVERYTHING in their power (and personal wealth) to ensure that their kid was consistently highlighted (exactly what I would of done, so not criticism of them).

It might be harsh but its also the truth isn't it ? and my point is... If you support RG and others from having their personal lives invaded you give some level of justification to the lives of the McCanns being invaded in a similar way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I still don't see why they should have their phone hacked bins gone through etc just cus they tried to use the newspaper to find their girl

Part of a newspaper's role is to investigate. If those investigations had discovered that they had done it, then no one would be objecting to those things in this instance.

The whole scenario is vastly different to that around celebrities - whose phones were being hacked for tittle-tattle - or with the likes of the Dowler's where the point was only to get to hear phone calls to Milly of distress that she was missing to include in newspaper reports.

It's of course unfortunate for the newspapers that they found nothing on the McCanns, because it ends up looking like they're simply victimising them further after the sad loss of their child, but it needs considering on a wider basis than just that - especially when it's often the case that people getting a high profile after a high profile disappearance later are proven as being involved in that disappearance.

(I don't know the ins & outs of what the papers might have done to the McCanns, and what I've written there are in response what's said in what I've quoted which I've taken at face value. My words might be off the mark in light of deeper facts, and if so take them as general comments for that sort of scenario).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of a newspaper's role is to investigate. If those investigations had discovered that they had done it, then no one would be objecting to those things in this instance.

It's of course unfortunate for the newspapers that they found nothing on the McCanns, because it ends up looking like they're simply victimising them further after the sad loss of their child, but it needs considering on a wider basis than just that - especially when it's often the case that people getting a high profile after a high profile disappearance later are proven as being involved in that disappearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

See I see it has the role of the police to find these things out and not papers, I really don't want the sun investigating crimes for us. yes they have their part to play but to be able to do anything cus they may have found them guilty is a dangerous road to be going down.

While it would be great and perfect if the old bill uncovered all crime, they're not even capable of pursuing the crimes put under their noses in reality.

We wouldn't even be having this conversation about the good and bad of the press if things had been left to the the police to follow up - because they had a mass of evidence of hacking and worse, and swept it under the carpet. If it wasn't for the tenacity of The Guardian and (amongst papers) just The Guardian then all of this would have been swept under the carpet by the papers too.

I'm not saying that papers should have carte blanch to pursue suspects of crime in whatever methods they fancy, btw. It should be intelligence led.

I'm sure that they were probably after gossip anyway and not really looking for the truth

That might have been the case, it might not have.

Having caught a bit of the McCanns at the inquiry earlier, they don't think their phones were hacked, and the vast majority of their dislike of what was reported was because it didn't suit their purposes for what they wanted to get out of the press.

The only thing* where they could actually point the finger of wrong-doing at the press was where some reports in the Portuguese papers were 'sexed up' in the re-reported versions in our papers - so, for example, a quote by a copper was changed from a "she might be dead" to "she's dead".

While i'm sure that was very distressing for the McCanns, this was several months into things, so the likelihood of that being true was (and remains) very high.

And while it's sloppy reporting, and perhaps for the purposes of sensationalism, it's nothing different to how the NotW reported things for 100+ years with very little complaint. If the press are to be hung for doing this then all of the British newspaper reading public needs to blow in the wind with them. It's not the sort of stuff that this enquiry was established to look in to.

edit: * "the only thing" of the part I saw. There might have been other things before or after, tho from what I saw it didn't seem as tho there would be.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it would be great and perfect if the old bill uncovered all crime, they're not even capable of pursuing the crimes put under their noses in reality.

We wouldn't even be having this conversation about the good and bad of the press if things had been left to the the police to follow up - because they had a mass of evidence of hacking and worse, and swept it under the carpet. If it wasn't for the tenacity of The Guardian and (amongst papers) just The Guardian then all of this would have been swept under the carpet by the papers too.

I'm not saying that papers should have carte blanch to pursue suspects of crime in whatever methods they fancy, btw. It should be intelligence led.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

that...

it's kind of sickening really, that it takes an unprecedented event (the possible deleting of Milly Dowlers texts) to wake people up. That type of behaviour is either acceptable or it's not.. the hypocrisy is everywhere.. from the punters who lap it up, to the publishers, journalists, comedians (yep, plenty of them), etc etc...

while i'm not stepping forwards in support of the standard sensationalism of the tabloid press, I do think that side of things should be omitted from this enquiry.

It's something that has been established as a part of the press for much longer, and while it can sometimes have unfortunate results for those featured within such stories I think most people are able to see it for what it is.

It's something that should perhaps be considered at the conclusions stage of things when they're formulating any new laws to see if anything might be factored into that to lessen sensationalism - but I don't think the enquiry needs to hear evidence that it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I think the whole thing is abhorrent, I have slightly less sympathy with the McCanns. They used the media to raise millions and millions of pounds in donations, a lot of which might have come from people who don't have too much cash themselves. And while it might not be their right to act as judge and jury, I think journalists have some responsibility to look into how they spent that money, (although I don't agree with the tatics necessarily).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

once again I see what you are say and yes the police force is not capable, but because of that we don't just hand some of it to the press.

sorry, but within a democracy, I think we should do, need to in fact.

Someone needs to police the police, as it were. That might also be taken as someone needs to police the govt & councils, uncover corruptions and crimes that for whatever reason are missed bv the formal systems, etc.

Because without the ability for the press, or people with the support of the press, to uncover such things and bring them to wider attention life becomes the corrupter's charter.

I'm unsure if the papers would stick to intelligence led, they are in it for the money and whatever their owners whims are, I'm sure it could actually hamper a proper investigation.

Oh, I'm sure it could.

The issue really comes down to one where the framework is such that the press feel the need both morally and financially to act responsibly. A good start on that would be for retractions of the lies they've printed & apologies for them having over-stepped the mark to be of the same prominence as the original piece.

As in the McCanns I really don't see that they should be trying to prove someone guilty or incocent, and not in criminal cases, plus they start to print what they can and can bias a trial.

What you're perhaps missing is that they're digging around things at every angle, trying to solve a 'mystery' that has the public's full attention.

So what you might be seeing as trying to prove them guilty might have been motivated to a greater extent for unravelling the mystery of Maddie. Hindsight being used in a case where parents lost their daughter forever is always going to incline people's sympathies towards them.

I hate this phrase when it gets used for bankers, but there's a real risk here of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There's a lot that's good about our press as well as the bad, and we don't want to lose that by over-restrictive rules.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry, but within a democracy, I think we should do, need to in fact.

Someone needs to police the police, as it were. That might also be taken as someone needs to police the govt & councils, uncover corruptions and crimes that for whatever reason are missed bv the formal systems, etc.

Because without the ability for the press, or people with the support of the press, to uncover such things and bring them to wider attention life becomes the corrupter's charter.

Oh, I'm sure it could.

The issue really comes down to one where the framework is such that the press feel the need both morally and financially to act responsibly. A good start on that would be for retractions of the lies they've printed & apologies for them having over-stepped the mark to be of the same prominence as the original piece.

What you're perhaps missing is that they're digging around things at every angle, trying to solve a 'mystery' that has the public's full attention.

So what you might be seeing as trying to prove them guilty might have been motivated to a greater extent for unravelling the mystery of Maddie. Hindsight being used in a case where parents lost their daughter forever is always going to incline people's sympathies towards them.

I hate this phrase when it gets used for bankers, but there's a real risk here of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There's a lot that's good about our press as well as the bad, and we don't want to lose that by over-restrictive rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont mean to lower the tone, but by god I would lick sienna millers bum clean. I absolutely adore her. That posh accent, the milliondollar smile, the giggly-laugh. The look in her eye that screams "my back doors are open for business"

We're talking dream girl here people.

Has anyone seen her topless scene in the dreadful remake of Alfie? My slacks were in a right state after viewing that.

What I'm trying to say is I am in love. This is the real thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Ah, well. Never mind, hey.
    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...