Hugh Grant on the Leveson Inquiry

[russycarps]

Or Gossip,

[fred quimby]

this is not the time or the place for you to voice your bith ditto fantasies, thank you

[russycarps]

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.

[fred quimby]

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 November 22, 2011 by fred quimby

[Kowalski]

I saw an interview with him on BBC morning news a while back where in the same interview he talked about his case, and also mentioned the Dowlers case.

That's enough for me.

[russycarps]

Jesus wept. Your entire argument has just collapsed around you.

That is not Hugh Grant's fault though. I have no axe to grind either way, but at no point have I ever heard him say he compares his case to the Dowlers.

[fred quimby]

In way I envy your naivety. Living in a world oblivious to the bigger picture behind peoples motivations must be refreshing.

Edited November 22, 2011 by fred quimby

[Kowalski]

well it's a shame you havent been able to grasp the intricacies of the point but I don't think I can make it any clearer.

In way I envy your naivety. Living in a world oblivious to the bigger picture behind peoples motivations must be refreshing.

[Katster]

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'.

[fred quimby]

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.

[eFestivals]

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.

[fred quimby]

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.

[fred quimby]

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.

[kaosmark2]

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.

[eFestivals]

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).

[fred quimby]

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.

[eFestivals]

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 November 23, 2011 by eFestivals

[fred quimby]

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.

[fred quimby]

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.

[eFestivals]

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.

[Ed209]

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).

[eFestivals]

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 November 23, 2011 by eFestivals

[fred quimby]

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.

[sifi]

Sienna Miller... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15872489http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15872489

21 years old, alone, at night, being chased by a pack of wild animals (journo's)

[russycarps]

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.