2193 Presenrt day Mafia 4th TV season rerun begin

It is a bright and mild for the time of the year on the last Sunday in November and I am spending my day working on the submitted testimony of victims of the abuse of the power of the print media and catching up in the latest three episodes of the Sopranos. This was the position until about 4 in the afternoon having also listened to the three disk set of a Satyagraha which arrived on Saturday morning and which means I can also complete my writing of the opera seen a week ago

It was just before 4pm that I first learned news that a former Newcastle and Welsh midfield player, Welsh International and present Manager of his national side had been found dead at his home in Cheshire at the age of 42. It was later suggested that he had taken his own life as there were no suspicious circumstances.

I switched over to various news channels and sports football news and live broadcasts and listened to 606 on radio Five Live BBC. There was a moving film of Shay Given his former Newcastle team mate in tears playing for Aston Villa against Swansea and a succession of influential figures from the world of foot expressed their shock and sadness at the news with several posing the question why? The man was married with two sons he adored and a beautiful wife. He had appeared on a BBC programme the Saturday lunchtime talking about the games to be played over the weekend. Everyone agreed that he was a stable and balance individual, who cared for others, football players, sports journalists and football supporters. There had been no previous indication that he was upset, emotional disturbed, depressed or considered taking his own life.

This tragic event and the immediate public reaction merited headline news during the rest of the evening including a statement issued on behalf of the Prime Minister. It therefore can be argued that his death is a matter in the public Interest as well as being of interest to the public.

But this goes to the heart of the Leveson Inquiry. The family have been asked to left in peace and a subsequent statement that they would contribute to celebrating his life at a later date. My response is to not only accept their request but to argue that the circumstances should remain private for the family unless there is any evidence that the police statement that there were no suspicious circumstances must be questioned.

The news has been filled with hours of stories about the man. When he moved from Everton to Newcastle after a distinguished career at Leeds United where with other midfield players he was known as something of a hard man on the field I had my reservations. However he quickly won over the hearts and minds of everyone including myself and when he moved back to the North West after five years with the club here was regret at his moving on, and there is now as his premature death. I had noted that the Welsh team had won the last three games under his captaincy and that he was bringing pride back to a nation where Rugby union has always been its first love as a national sport and where the football team was not supported because of its repeated failures to progress in the International arena.

Returning to the Sopranos I watched the first episodes of season four and begin and end with Tony being angry frustrated and under increasing pressure from within the family and from his associates.

In one of a couple of brief conversations with Dr Melfi in which he has a few moments of honesty, he confesses that his wife has expressed anxiety about what will happen to her and the children if he should suddenly die or be sent to prison for a long period. Dr Melfi suggests that he gives up his career as a crime boss. The cause of his mental and emotional state is best reflected in the lives of his family and “professional associates”. It follows the disclosure at the end of the previous season that his son has inherited the problem of passing out in moments of great stress, something which Tony has also inherited and which in his instance he is in the wrong profession and no amount of psycho analysis or counselling support will make a difference.

In the first episode For All Debts Public and Private his wife Carmela become anxious about her future and those of her children after seeing the wife of one of his former associates who Tony murdered because he was blackmailed into spying for the Feds, handing out free samples at a local supermarket. She presses Tony for information about the financial provision he has made for her and the children should he come to an untimely end or end up in prison for a long time. Tony assures her that he has made secret provision. He cannot provide the normal family trust provision or investments for having to disclose the source of the income. Tony recognises he is indebted to his wife for tolerating not just his criminality but also his way of life. Later when he does not return home for the evening meal she has prepared she hears of an armed robbery believed to have mafia connections. Tony is elsewhere occupied, on this occasion.

The episode has longer term significance in revealing some of the ways Tony is stashing hundreds of thousands of dollars around the house. His uncle complains to him that organising his defence for his forthcoming trial has cost him over a million dollars and he outlines some of the way that the lawyers continue to demand fees. Tony has told Carmela that there is a shortage of funds for various reasons despite his hoarding of cash. He tells his Uncle the same story and then berates underlings for their failure to increase their earnings from criminal enterprises. Carmela had warned that hiding cash earned no interest a point made in the recent episodes of Romanzo Criminale. Tony then offers to take over a warehouse, a “worthless” site from his uncle for $100000 to help him out when in fact he has been tipped off that he site will needed for a development project worth much more as a consequence.

His mood for parsimony leads to beating up the barman at the Bada Bing for wasting money by throwing away old ice cubes which is just one manifestation of his edginess. Christopher is present and again full of resentment because Tony is using him as his beck and call driver unaware that Tony has significant plans for him. The reason that Tony does not return home for dinner is because he has arranged a party for a visiting New York Crime Boss to discuss the progress of new Esplanade development in which he has a shared financial interest. He takes Christopher to introduce him to the Crime boss. A group of girls dressed as air hostesses (they may be air hostesses) are brought to the party for a sex orgy. Christopher participates but is called away by Tony as the evening is underway.

This is the second purpose and the main cause of the title. He takes Christopher to a roadhouse where he explains that the police officer responsible for his father’s death when he was only a child is holding his retirement party. Tony had though his father’s killer had already been dealt with long time past but Tony admits they have kept the corrupt police officer on the payroll because he had been useful but now with his retirement the account could be closed. He gives Christopher the man’s home address where he lives on his own. Christopher waits and attached the man to the stair banister with handcuffs. The first denies involvement and then attempts to bargain. Christopher turns up the volume of a gangster movie and shoots the officer dead using the man’s own gun so that it looks like suicide. He visits his mother who has remained a widow and a drinker and talks about his father. Before he leaves he pins a 20 dollar bill he has taken from the killer’s wallet to a shrine of pictures and memorabilia in the room.

The new season opens with Tony going out to the gate of his domestic property to collect the local paper. Tony always starts each new season going out to the gate of his home for the paper and what he wears indicates his mood. His is dishevelled in a dressing gown and boxer shorts.

He then enters the breakfast room only to find Carmel going through a pile of papers with AJ for a school project. AJ has just started at the new school following his expulsion and persuading his parents not to send him to army school. Tony complains about the boy’s bad grades so AJ comments that he has not been enrolled long for any grades to be issued. AJ is off the radar for most of the rest of the three episodes.

It is Meadow who causes both parents concern. The daughter spends most of her time in bed or lounging at the family pool with female friends. She walked out of internship and makes excuses about getting any form of summer job. She then announces that she is going to miss a college year and go to Europe with a friend, paying her way with casual work and also participating in a film being made by a contact of her friend in Demark. Dr Melfi suggests that the girl should talk over problems with a professional counsellor because of depression following the murder of her boyfriend despite having dumped him because he was cheating on her rather than his criminality.

When the counsellor presses her about the family interests she clamps down on appearing to confirm that her father is involved with the Mafia. However she later informs the parents that she is still going to Europe with the blessing of therapist and that she can do what she likes as she is eighteen and storms out of the house. The parents think she had gone to Europe as threatened. They do not know that she had gone back to College and as warned finds that all the popular courses have been filled. She takes one under Philosophy which includes morality and social responsibility. The parents do not know where she is after a stand up row with her father.

Carmela attends a monthly social event organised by the Catholic priest for Italian wives and girlfriends and they take along Christopher’s fiancée Adriana. The speaker gains repeated applause by going through various stereotypes about Italian women to establish a sense of Italian pride and then broaden this to stereotypes about all Italians being part of the Mafia. She makes the point that only a minority are part of the criminal fraternity. This incenses one of the party of wives and girl friends who exclusively involved with Mafia criminals. She berates the priest for allowing the woman to make such comments given the position of Carmela and the amount of money the crime family donate to the church.

One of the group rushes off, the wife of gangster Bobby Baccalieri, to get a new tooth crown fitted. When her husband a call from their son to say his wife has asked if he can buy some food on his way home, he moans at this in part because of major traffic hold up which he learns is not only from a car accident but an accident in which his wife is killed. He is overcome with remorse and guilt for having told his son that his mother can be a real pain sometimes. At the usual flamboyant funeral wake attended by the crime family he is distraught and inconsolable and has the sympathy of the women folk because he not taken a mistress as is the custom and considered to be faithful.

Carmela who has so far become emotionally attached to a Parish Priest and to the handyman friend now turns her attention to Furio the killer hard man with a pigtail who Tony brought to the USA after his visit to the Southern Mafia to arrange a new deal on one of the enterprises he took over from Uncle Junior. Furio has bought a new house in the area and that he remains unattached becomes the subject of gossip within the women and of the extended “family.

It will be recalled that in the previous season Tony had a counter productive and destructive affair with another patient encountered at the office of Dr Melfi. He had one previous affair which also was related to the relationship with his mother and her relationship with his father.

This cycle of destructive relationships is also the record of one of Tony sisters, Janice who has accidentally killed one of her destructive affairs among several. She attends a family dinner organised by Carmela and who also invites Rosalie Aprile with her live lover Ralphie. Ralphie and Janice have a quickie which continues with a passionate affair kept in secret until Ralphie decides that he does not want to cope with Rosalie’s negativity and decides to move in with Janice without advising her of his intentions. She is also in receipt of analytical counselling and her need for approval from her brother through a succession of negative relationships. She throws Ralphie out of the house just as he is moving in.

In No Show Paulie Walnuts has been arrested and is in prison on a gun charge. Paulie had previously indicated his support for one of the New York bosses whose underboss Johnny Sack now has a home within the area under Tony’s control hinting that if there is to be a move on Tony’s it will have his full support. He is angered that Tony and his former associates have not kept in constant contact with him so he rings the underboss to express his dissatisfaction with the situation.

Tony has to keep low because of the imminent trial of Uncle Junior and he is aware that the Feds have been trailing members including himself. The family has a celebration to mark the birthday for made man Albert Barese at the Vesuivio where attention turns to the allocation of no show job at the Esplanade building development. These are official paid work jobs where the appointed individual does not have to work but spend the day on site lounging in chairs and enjoying chat with other given positions. Paulie was the Capo responsible for oversight of the site and he is allocated the first no show hob while he is in prison. Christopher is given the overseeing role held by Paulie while Furio and Paulie’s son are also allocated no work jobs hence Furio no longer being available to drive Tony. Tony who was not at the dinner alienates Barese who is a longer established made man than Christopher and Ralphie who has organised the dinner and subsequent meeting makes a joke about the wife of Underboss Johnny Sack who is significantly overweight.

Later Paulie is told the joke which he regards as bad taste and passes the information back to Sack’s who when discussing the Esplanade projects demands an increased share of the profits and also a share of the profit Tony has made from buying Uncle’s warehouse building as the information came for one of Sach’s associates. Tony does not understand why the Underboss is tetchy or cuts Ralphie.

There is also trouble on site when during a supervisory visit Tony finds out about the value of Internet fibre optics cabling and the no show crew and site manager believe that Christopher is giving the nod to steal and reselling the cabling for a side profit. Tony is not amused because such losses affect the profitability and completion date for the contract. Christopher apologises and takes it out on the crew. There is further trouble when Silvio Dante who is also in bad humour at the sudden rise to position of Christopher arranged for a lorry load of tiles to be stolen. Tony is enraged and comments that the load will be worth tens of thousands of dollars. Silvio hands over a wad of $2000 he has with him and promises the rest. Tony makes the point by adding “by the end of the day“.

The main story during the second show is the role of the Fed agent who has befriended Christopher’s girlfriend. They have become very close which annoys Christopher when he always finds her home when he returns for a drug injection. The girlfriend is giving up drugs and is trying to persuade Tony to do so. He promises after a final getting high following his promotions. He is suspicious about the undercover agent although on the basis that he thinks she is an male minded lesbian. Before this the agent thinks Adriana is about reveals secrets about Christopher and the mob family when in fact she wants to tell her that she had an abortion as a consequence she may not be able to have children which she dares not tell Christopher who has given her a fabulous diamond bracelet and said she would one day replace Carmela as the first lady!

In the third episode Christopher which covers Columbus Day as well as the fortunes of Christopher Moltisanti the Feds decide to cut their losses when under pressure Adriana breaks with her best friend so they arrest Adriana who is sick all over the interviewing table when told she has a choice between charged with possession for distribution of drugs after a search of her home which carries a maximum 25 year penalty or agrees to provide them with up-to-date information on the activities of Chris and his associates.
She does not have to wear a wire. Christopher had built up homes of marriage and of replacing Tony as the boss in future.

The main reason for the title is that native Americans are staging a protest about the attention being given to Christopher Columbus. This leads to various conflicts. Tony and other members visit a stud and racing stables where he has an interest in a horse and where the owner is Jewish and takes offence when a Columbus critic says he behaved as badly towards the indigenous population as did the Nazi in the Holocaust. Those from Southern Italy also do not rate Columbus who they regard as a man representing the hated North. However the majority of the Crewe see the criticism as personal to them and confront protestors assembled at the Columbus statue leading to arrests and violence.

Tony operates a different approach and attempts to blackmail the lead protestor by threatening to reveal that one of their leading hero’s was not in fact from a native Indian family. Tony is also introduced to another wealthy native American who runs one of he new casinos. When they make a hospitality visit they find the purpose is a quid pro quo arrangements getting a national Italian background singer to perform free for a week at the Casino. Worse still the man rings Tony to say that the appeal for restraint has failed.

The trial of Uncle Junior begins with the knowledge that the Feds had placed someone undercover at the hospital which had been used for Tony and other’s to meet with Junior while he allegedly went to see his doctor who had been bribed to facilitate the meetings. The undercover agent appears to be a nurse who Junior offered to take a trip after the court appearance was over, He warns Tony that the woman will have gained information on their meetings and who was there although she was never present inside the room and he had not disclosed damaging information to her. Tony continues to be concerned about his future with considerable justification.

2192 TV catch ups of Cops and Robbers and an Income Tax bombshell turns out to be damp squib

I received an Income Tax notice on Friday which claimed I had underpaid tax by about a third and which as all my income is PAYE deducted was surprising and even more so when it appeared my income was significantly greater than the official notice from my occupational providers who supply the notice for end of year tax purposes. I understood how the mistake had been made but the task of getting an immediate correction proved time consuming and possibly a substantial telephone bill. I spent hours in spells trying to talk to someone being told to wait for an advisor. Eventually I got fed up and rang my occupational pension provider and got another automatic response revealing that the notice was a mistake and should be ignored as there was blunder at the Inland Revenue which was being investigated to find out what had happened. Thinking this was just a regional problem I mentioned to a London based family member who said that another relative who is not a pensioner had a similar experience. Does this mean those who have got an overpayment notice are to be disappointed?

Before continuing with the Leveson Inquiry it is time to catch up on some entertainment TV as the programme bank is nearly full so I will do some cops and robbers 21^st Century style and three stories from Blue Bloods the series based on the NYPD. They are entertainments based on communicating the difficulties confronting an NYPD police officer similar to its predecessor Hill Street Blues but with the added twist of covering a family where five members are hold present or in one instance past ranks from Police Commissioner to Rookie, Street Co Detective or Assistant DA. While this is a device to demonstrate that despite the challenges it is possible to have a married life with extended family lunches around the Sunday dinner table there is a strong dose of reality medicine within the sugar coating.

Tom Selleck is Francis "Frank" Reagan, the USA style Police Commissioner and widowed father of Danny, Erin, and Jamie. His role is more like that of the present London Commissioner working to a Mayor than the elected Public Interest supervisor to be introduced into the UK next year. It appears that Frank is a personal appointee as are the other Chief Officers and once a new Mayor is elected, possibly of a different political party all the chief officers offer their resignations enabling the Mayor to accept any from those he dislikes or seek a major policy change which it is felt the individual opposes.

There has already been a I am a Black Mayor you are a middle class White Cop prejudice start to the new Mayoral reign. This raised its ugly head again in the second episode of three now covered as the second season draws to its close as “Black and Blue”, An outspoken local clergyman and long time friend of the Mayor allowed two of “henchmen” to throw Will Estes as Jamison "Jamie" Reagan, rookie police officer and former Harvard Law graduate, Frank’s youngest son, down a flight of stairs together with his sergeant who is badly injured and hospitalised.

The Clergyman then arranged for a line of male parishioners to prevent the police gaining entry to the building and commenced to harangue them with multi channel TV news crews in attendance and a larger crowd of parishioners all black with the majority of police white. Frank attends the scene as does the Mayor and Frank ignores pressure to commence talking and orders his men to move the non violent civil disobedience blockade of the building and finds that the two men have escaped through the rear. It is amazing this was no planned for but this is the kind of series where it is best to go with the flow and not question too much.

The Commissioners then increases his popularity stakes with the Mayor and Black Community by arranging a search of the Church premises, undertaken by his middle son Daniel "Danny" Detective Reagan played by Donnie Wahlberg together either his sister, Bridget Moynahan as Erin Reagan-Boyle, Assistant District Attorney and single mother or Danny’s female partner Jackie Curatola (Jennifer Esposit). Once on the premises Jamie having been injured, goes along to assist identification of the culprits that could have ended the career of the sergeant is able to confirm the two attackers from named photographs on a wall and this quickly leads to their capture.

Meanwhile Frank has been checking out the Pastor with various interests and established that there has been official interest for sometime arising from the misuse of government funds and this also leads to his arrest. It gets the Mayor of the hook who admits that he had his reservations about the lifetime contact which led to him keeping the man at arm’s length long time back but the man had political clout so as a politician he had to go along with the situation.

Jamie also features in the main other story of the episode named Medicade when as an uncover officer working the clubs he is contacted by the son of the local Mafia boss (also under investigation by the Feds) whose life he saved when he overdosed on some bad drugs and Jamie took him to casualty and then departs to protect his position. The Feds had been hoping for this contact wanting James to go under cover again for them but because of the danger this is optional and Jamie has his doubts about maintaining a legend during any ongoing relationship required with involvement in such a family.

Jamie agrees and attends a large family gathering at the son’s restaurant where he is first quizzed by the mafia boss who appears satisfied with the explanation why he did not stay with his son at hospital. Jamie is also warned off the attractive daughter who is rehearsing the song Hallelujah and insists on accompanying the two young men when the Mafia son announces he is off to pay his respects to the drug dealer who gave him the bad stuff. Jamie has been advised that he is to observer and report but not give himself away or actively participate in any criminality. He manages to get out of cutting the man after he is forced to take a lethal cocktail of snorted drugs. James finds the experience unpleasant and not his cup of tea when he is forced to leave the man without medical and quickly returns to uniform street duties. One suspects this is the start and not the end of this particular story line.

This is a grey area where it is evident that on both sides of the Atlantic it is unrealistic and impractical for undercover officers not to participate in unlawful activities to a degree especially in situations where the idea is to gain the confidence of ringleaders and gain access to membership lists and representational meetings with other groups nationally and internationally. In the recent real situation discussed at some length the individual became confused, to put it mildly, commencing a serious long term relationship with one individual and over the eight year period getting to like and have more in common with them than his only family, friends and colleagues.

The episode is called Medicade because of an insurance scam in which there is prior arrangement for a vehicle to be driven into the back of a stationary one, enabling an individual make substantial personal damage claims. What goes wrong is that the person making telephone contact is killed when taking off his seat belt to retrieve the phone which has slipped out of his hand. Danny solves the case. In the story Danny and his wife are having a romantic weekend with an evening meal and hotel stop over away from their two sons who are having a boys out with their dad and great granddad Henry Reagan, retired Police Commissioner, played by Len Cariou who is in fact only five years older than his actor son in real life and therefore requires some aging make up to justify the age difference of father and son.

The boys are taken out for a meal, do some fishing and watch a western until they sleep. They experience a similar time to that which Frank had with his father and grandfather when he was their age and remains a lasting memory. The boys are told to enjoy their food out because when they grow up they will find there is a time when starting their own homes and families they will not be able to afford to eat out which strikes the boy’s as unfair. The story thus making the point of the important role of grand parents and great grand parents can have in passing on their experience (for better or worse).

The romantic evening goes badly at first when Frank is called out but after he returns the evening ends on a high note.

In "Lonely Hearts Club Jackie Danny’s partner goes undercover as an escort Internet site girl when she and Danny track down a serial killer who is murdering prostitutes in hotel rooms.

We see the first part of the latest murder when the girl bribes the reception clerk for a room to meet her client who asks her to turn round and it appears he then strangles her. This is correct but first he has injected a paralysing substance into her neck. The body is washed with surgical spirit as is the room to remove DNA. Later there I a record of two other similar killings and the three girls all have same build and appearance as Danny’s partner who has already had a narrow escape from being raped in an earlier episode. Danny is concerned but the girl is confident about doing the job she has trained for.

Danny interviews the bereaved mother only to find that she has become estranged because of her daughter’s way of life and says that she is not surprised by the death as she assume it would be a matter of time. I saw her behaviour as suspicious noting that we had not seen if the murderer was male or female. Despite having cameras and audio in the room things go awry and the assistant just about escapes with her life again. Danny rescues to find that the murderer(s) is in fact the interviewed mother and her son who believe they are doing God’s work.

Assistant DA Erin Reagan is still concerned that her teenage daughter Nicole "Nicky" Reagan-Boyle wants to join the force and is forcing her on a tour of artistic experience including the Met Opera which she enjoys more than anticipated and a contemporary art centre where she has considerable misgiving. She attributes certain qualities to one picture which her mother pooh pooh’s only to be supported by an attractive man who says he is an art agent who has direct knowledge of the artist. This provides the opportunity for mother to commence yet another romantic engagement. The daughter wears teeth braces to promote the notion that doing so does not make a young woman unattractive.

There is one other story line. Frank is facing union problems because of the political tax cutting budget and the union leader is proposing a pay freeze for a year but no job cuts and no out sourcing. Frank arranges a meeting at which the various departmental head outline their proposals to the union boss. One quip is the threat for the police to develop Blue Fl, mass sickness leave because of the inability to strike.

One of his retired father’s function is to arrange an annual sports event and meets one of his former deputies who boasts he is working for a private security corporation that had contracts in the USA as well as abroad. They want the grandfather onboard because they believe he will carry weight in their bid to take over some non policing functions. He declines because of expensive suits he will have to wear and a long tiresome train journey and not being available for the family as much as he would like especially his weekly Sunday roasts.

The things always ending well or relatively well is not so when looking at Cops and Robbers Italian style 1970 and based on true events when several collectives of young gangsters combined into one collective providing the whole of Rome with illegal drugs in Romanzo Criminale an Italian production with English sub titles. While the comparatively young handsome Police Detective, a kind of middle ranking senior officer with some independence reporting directly to the judicial system on the management of individual investigations, knows that members of the Collective were responsible for the kidnapping and death of someone early on, for several brutal gangland killings since and for the drug racketeering he is unable to gain sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution, although in one instance he did and higher ups arrange for the evidence to disappear.

His is also compromised in two ways. The first is repeated interventions to prevent his communist sister activist from arrest and imprisonment and in the latest two episodes viewed he arranged for her to leave the country to Paris as the situation becomes too hot following the kidnapping and execution of the former Prime Minister. He is photographed although we do not know who by. He is also attracted to the beautiful and confident upper class prostitute girlfriend of one of the senior members of the racketeers who repeatedly offers herself to him in exchange for not being asked to spy on her gangster lover. By the end of the two episodes the Detective has gone with another call girl who as a day job working in a bar.

His previous target Dandi whose a third lead member in the gang continues to cause his colleagues concern so they devise a plan to set up a brothel with his girl as the Madam so that she can become the full time official girl friend of Dandi. There is a complication during the two episodes when a punter dies from a heart condition and in order not to attract attention they get rid of the body unofficially. This causes two problems. The first is that the deceased was a friend of a friend recommended to the brothel because an Asian girl was known to be working there and the family is concerned about the disappearance. The major threat comes when the girl panics about the implications of covering up the death and makes contact with the police. She is silenced by money and threats, just before the Senior Detective arrives.

The focus of the first of the two episodes covered is the wish to get rid of the Gangster Terrible who has continued to control a major part of the city separately from the collective. He attempted to get rid of the leaders and take over their rackets and plans an assassination attempt. This fails and the two assassins are captured and forced to join forces with the Collective and enable the gang to enter the stronghold. However Terrible and escaped and gone into hiding. When this is discovered t Libanese is persuaded to let the leader of the original other gang to take a small group to take their rival out including piercing his heart with Libanese’s knife

The killing takes places on the big celebration of the wedding of the gang member who has got the school age girl pregnant. There are complications because of the need for the gangster to covert to Catholicism before the wedding takes place. The priest is given a large bribe of donation to the poor to expedite matters to enable the wedding to be organised early. Before the happy day there is an indication of the growing wealth of the syndicate in that there is a debate about which style of suit the young man will wear and they settle for a St Laurent.

Meanwhile a bank robbery has taken place with a death and the Detective chief believes he has evidence to pin the robbery on the man who killed Terrible and locks him up. I believe the individual has the nickname as the Cold. He is the one who had a regular girlfriend who had been going out with his younger brother who did not tell abut his life as a gangster until he was arrested in her presence and they have not had contact since. He is introspective and longs for a different life and has become moods and aggressive in his otherwise calm and sympathetic manner acting as brake on some of Libanese rasher moments. It takes time for others to find the man who had stolen the motorcycle of Libanese used in the robbery. The Motorcycle is placed outside the police headquarters while the Cold is in custody thus confirming that there is no real evidence. This all takes time meanwhile some of the friend wondered if The Cold had committed the robbery and this has filtered to him while in prison. Worse was to come when he is discharged and finds that by a majority the decision had been taken to open a casino.

There is more to the coolness between the two men. Libanese has become very ambitious. They had been invited to a lunch meeting with the Mafia who offer a deal to provide all the drugs allowing the new group to keep all the profits without requiring a cut from these. This only serves to increase money and the Mafia offer advice in going into business venture including property and investment speculation. The Cold hankers for keeping things small and for the past relationship. At one point the senior detective visits the small dingy club type haunt where they spend hours together playing pool and card games as well as a crime HQ. After his release The Cold makes friends with the young man who committed the bank robbery and who is more interested in the thrill than the money which to some extent meshes in with the Cold as well as sharing his passion for fast motorbikes so they go off and look at the stars and philosophise about star sign personalities. The Cold has told Libanese that the higher you rise the harder you fall.

2191 Leveson Inquiry 6 Hugh Grant and Paul Dacre

I would like to believe in the court of public opinion but the evidence at the Leveson Inquiry this week demonstrates the extent to which public opinion is being manipulated by popular newspapers supported by a similar army of public relations officers. This is an abuse of the very democracy and the freedom of speech which the tabloids argue is their function to protect.

After reporting and considering the testimonies of the first three of the sixteen witnesses this week I had intended to bring together those of the actor Hugh Grant and the actor, comedian and writer Steve Coogan but it appears appropriate to leave Mr Coogan and investigate why the current Editor of the Daily Mail, Editor in Chief of the Sunday Mail, and Direct of the Mail Plc, Paul Dacre appears to have been allocated the top demonic role in the unfolding drama rather than the Murdoch’s. Although the charge of managing a mafia organisation again reverberated this time around the High Court on Thursday.

Mr Grant gave his testimony on Monday afternoon. His testimony impressed as being carefully considered, selfless, honest and open. The immediate response of the Mail on Sunday echoed by the Daily Mail and clearly directed by Mr Dacre was then relayed by the major broadcasting media without questioning if Mr Grant had said what the newspapers alleged. I appreciate that TV and Radio media are controlled to ensure a balance of viewpoints but my first reaction was one of horror and anger that the orchestrated campaign to denigrate the Inquiry and the victims testifying was being given credence. By the end of the week TV and radio news media had wised up and accurately gauged the shocked and angry mood of the home nations. I thought the best advice of the week came from a member of the Any Question’s Panel who made the point that if people disliked the product they should stop buying it. The advertisers should also reconsider their position. The sooner the worst offenders experience the dole the better. Do we really need so many national Newspapers anyway; better the attention was directed towards preserving local and regional news teams? Or dare I say public services? Is a tabloid journalist worth more than a policeman nurse or home help?

Returning to the evidence of Mr Grant, he regarded himself as a normal person who has occasionally bought and read a tabloid newspaper. He also accepted that he is someone of legitimate interest to such newspapers. He accepted that as a film actor he courts publicity on behalf of individual films and that there is the consequential expectation of being photographed and interest being shown in those who accompany him especially if as early on in his career an individual wore an outfit designed to attract media attention, although again I suspect she would argue, this was on behalf of her studio and the film.

Mr Grant readily accepted that it was it also inevitable there would be a continuing interest in his personal life especially if as has happened, and he declared in his written testimony he has been arrested for physical confrontations with the paparazzi and as he also admitted at the hearing he had been caught with a prostitute. What he objects to and I shall use his owns words in explaining in some detail is the continuous obsession with his private life and those with whom he shares that life.

He also explained that as a consequence of what has happened he became a student of the tabloids, their methods and their influence over the police and government and that as a consequence he is someone who takes an interest in how the laws might protect public interest journalism while dealing with the abuses perpetrated by others who in the view of subsequent witnesses should not be regarded as professionals but very sick and twisted. However I have to interject that it can be argued that by moving from defending his life and those of his friends and their families from excessive media intrusion Mr Grant has moved into becoming a part time campaigner and this is where the tabloids can use the same public interest argument as say is used against politicians who make statements about the importance and value of family life and then undermine family life by their behaviour.

Mr Grant outlined the extent of his experience with specific examples. At the height of the original media storm it was established that the front door of his home had been taken off its hinges but nothing had been stolen. This happened shortly before a newspaper detailed the interior of the flat. Tom Watson the Member of Parliament told him that others in the pubic eye reporting the same experience.

The Daily Mirror and the Today Newspaper published an account which was totally untrue. He sued and won damages in open court. But this episode was a Phyrric victory because it was followed by savage editorial revenge. Other witnesses have drawn attention to the massive up front costs and then because one usually received only up to 70% of personal costs the balance required was then greater than the damages awarded. The deterrent is part of their business model. There is also the new problem of instant circulation through the Internet and once online almost impossible to remove. Mr Mosley estimated that he has spent in excess of half a million pounds removing copies of offending material from the Internet in some European countries.

Damages were awarded to Mr Grant against the Mail on Sunday for another untrue story. He then explained why he believed that a story which had appeared in the Daily Mail had been based on illegal interceptions. He did not say that the journalist who published the story was an employee of the Daily Mail or that the Daily Mail had intercepted or arranged for the phone to Intercepted. In the written statement he made the point that Paul Dacre had denied that the Mail Newspapers have ever based stories on intercepted voices messages. It is therefore difficult to justify the subsequent accusation in a statement issued on behalf of the Mail on Sunday, printed in the Daily Mail and widely reported on mainstream TV stations that Mr Grant had been mendacious in this testimony. Mr Grant challenged the Mail to explain how they came to describe the voice of a receptionist at the film company in California with whom he talked on his phone. Later it was argued outside the Inquiry that the journalist in question was a freelance and so not directly a Mail employee and this Journalist was said to be insisting that the source was someone close to Mr Grant who hated him.

The mendaciousness claim was immediately raised by the Metropolitan Police and Counsel for the victims the following morning as an attempt to intimidate other witnesses of what would happen if they also made similar allegations as well as being an inaccurate description of what Mr Grant had said or inferred. The battle lines were joined. Lord Leveson who had not seen the offending statements or told the repetition made on TV and Radio appeared not to immediately grasp the Contempt of the Inquiry. It remains to be seen if the Journalist in question will give evidence on oath about the matter.

The mail controller Paul Dacre appears not be afraid of controversy and has a mixture of friends and foe alike, some long standing. According to Wikipedia a MORI poll in 2005 asked 30 editors from the national and regional press and from the broadcasting industry for the name of the editor they most admired and Mr Dacre won the poll. For Kelvin MacKenzie, the former Editor of The Sun, he is "comfortably Britain’s finest editor" who arrives at work "determined to crush the life out of his rivals". A poor choice of words? Perhaps not!

He had not only been a member of the powerful Press Complaint’s Commission from 1999 to 2008 but he then become Chairman of the Code of Practice Committee. Presumably he would not have been elected to the Chairmanship if his commitment to the highest standards had been in question by his peer colleagues.

In what can be interpreted as a double edge sword Publicist Max Clifford is reported to have commented that "Paul Dacre is virtually a law to himself" in not being influenced by the Daily Mail's publisher. The complaint against owners such as Rupert Murdoch is that he told editors the broad policy they were to adopt with for example only one of his over 100 titles world wide opposing in the invasion of Iraq to topple the regime.

His general managerial style has been described by Cristina Odone in The Observer, that he then had had a reputation towards underlings of "verbal abuse [and] a drill sergeant's delight in public humiliation" which also includes swearing at them.

According to Nick Davies in his book Flat Earth News his staff call his morning editorial meetings the "Vagina Monologues" because of his habit of calling everybody a "cunt". Mr Davies is scheduled to give his testimony on Tuesday and will refer to his chapter on the Dark Arts so Mouthpiece Caplan will be able to get the Inquiry Counsel to challenge Mr Davis about his remarks, or perhaps be allowed to do so directly

Journalist Polly Toynbee is reported to have said that the newspaper is a "daily blast of fear and loathing" and Dacre himself is "the most arrogant bully of us all". .

Polly Toynbee has also criticised the Mail under Dacre for its attitude to women. In 2007 Toynbee claimed it shared the opinions of Iran's President Ahmadinejad when it responded to his country's release of the hostage Faye Turney in April 2007.

According to Simon O'Hagan in The Independent: "As far as Dacre is concerned, women have no right to go out and earn money of their own, let alone rise to positions of power, when they also have a family."

Rachel Johnson in the Independent in 2001 noted that photographs taken of women for the features pages of the Mail must comply with the 'Dacre Rules'. She quotes a Mail photographer: "No jeans. No black [clothes]. No trousers. Paul Dacre only wants women to appear wearing dresses. If skirts, only to the knee.

In 2005, the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, long in conflict with the London Evening Standard, then wholly owned by the same media group as the Mail, branded the Mail titles "the most reprehensibly edited" publications in the world.

The Mail's treatment of asylum seekers and members of other vulnerable groups is a particular source of grievance for many critics, not only Livingstone. "Maybe we anti-racists have been naive to think that [the Stephen Lawrence campaign] was anything more than an aberration," suggests Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, adding "wouldn't it be better if this extraordinary editor decided to use his influence to create just a little more understanding of why refugees leave their countries, and what most of them bring to our nation?"

Martin Kettle, a columnist in The Guardian, has questioned whether Dacre's assertion that the Mail represents Conservative voters can be sustained. Kettle points out that in the 2005 general election 22% of Mail readers voted Labour, 14% for the Liberal Democrats and 7% for other non-Conservative candidates. "In this respect, therefore, the editor who claims to have a hotline to the national mood turns out to have something of a crossed line instead", Kettle wrote.

Mr Mosley can be forgiven in view what the Mail and Mr Dacre has personally said and done to destroy him. Mr Mosley hit back at Mr Dacre for his comments to the Society of Editors and in an editorial saying that he was guilty of unimaginable depravity. Mr Moseley said “first of all, it reflects badly on his imagination, (laughter heard in the room) but apart from that, it, it’s not a sensible comment-- I have no idea what Mr Dacre’s sex life is. All I know is that he has this sort of preoccupation with schoolboy smut in his website, with Mrs X in her bikini, Ms Y showing offer suntan et cetera. So he may have some sort of strange sex life, but the point is it’s not up to me to go into his bedroom, film him and then write about it. An equally if somebody has a slightly unusual sex life, exactly the same applies.

There is another way of looking at the role of the Daily Mail in British Society. It is hard hitting in that together with the other tabloids it attempts to reflect the language and feelings of the the majority people in Britain and one has only hear what people say as one goes about daily activities to accept that attitudes and language expressed in the papers is fair. The argument that the Mail does not represent a Tory conservatism because of the out of date quoted figures does not hold because although someone votes Labour does not mean they do not hold Tory conservative views. I would have used the concept of reactionary conservatism as being at the core of both political parties until the past decade when the negative consequence of widening the European Country is the extent of economic migration which in the long term will achieve a more equitable spread of living standards throughout the community but where the price to be paid does include a bigger underclass in the established economies which has implications for the level and approach to police and pubic order and the social welfare state as well as the demonstrable threat to jobs. It is always better for the majority to be allowed to express their views their way through media rather than attempt to suppress however uncomfortable which will always lead to public demonstrations and even rioting as has been evident in north Africa

Having been a regular Daily Mail Purchaser for its competitions (sometime ago won a scratch card type of competition game with first class travel, a central London Hotel, dinner and show, Champagne and chocolates), I am familiar with the single minded moral standards espoused by the paper and their support for traditional values. It is therefore important to differentiate those stories which are intent on exposure and destruction of an individual’s reputation and place in society that use illegal and unacceptable methods from those that do have a public interest dimension or just set out to inform or entertain.

Mr Grant went on to mention the 1997 article in the Sunday Express with a large picture of himself except that he had not written the piece. He sued and won damages.

In June 1996 the Daily Mirror ran an article which included information which could have come from his medical records. He and his doctor complained to the PCC and eventually a small notice was printed in the paper stating that the complaint was upheld with no mention of the misuse of medical records or how the information had been obtained. He subsequently sued the Daily Mirror and was awarded an injunction and damages.

In March 2001 information appeared in the Sun and Daily Express regarding hospital medical attention he had received in the middle of the night. He decided to ask each paper to donate £5000 to charity. The Express refused and the Sun contributed only £1500.

In 1996 two reporters from national tabloids attended the family funeral of a female friend claiming to be walkers, who had come in to the church to pay their respects,

In 2001 while staying in New York when filming there had been an attempted to obtain his hotel phone records by a Blagger,

He then described the tactics of the Paparazzi and differentiated between going to official functions on behalf of his work such as a film Premier or a showbiz restaurant where you expected to be photographed and the harassment encountered when not working. This included cameramen trying to shoot up the skirts of females and then digitally removing underwear. In examples of collateral damage he gave testimony of behaviour which upset the children of friends. One child had become so upset that he mother had moved out of London to escape the constant attention. He argued that a new breed of paparazzi had developed since the explosion in celebrity culture and the advent of digital photography. The new breed is ruthless, show no mercy and have no ethics. The police had said that often these men have criminal records. They work for agencies which following the death of Princess Diana the national papers had said they would support by not purchasing pictures. He had confronted the photographers twice leading to being arrested and once his car surface was damaged.

From 2000 he had be warned by media lawyers to check for electronic devices and to change numbers and codes frequently.

He explained that in 2004 he had been seen by a (former) policeman working for the Information Commissioner. He said that a private investigator had been arrested who he understands was Steve Whitamore which led to Operation Motorman and the Commissioner’s Report. He had information in his note book on names addresses, phone numbers and codes of himself and friends and families. He was told at the time that the man had been working for more of the British Press.

In 2010 he explained how he had a chance encounter with former News of the World Features Editor Paul McMullan. He boasted about phone hacking, about payments to the police and relationships between new International and successive Governments. He went to see him a few months later taking a recorder and published a transcript in the New Statesman omitting anything with made the individual vulnerable to prosecution. Mr McMullan is scheduled to appear next Tuesday before which the issue of the full contents of the tape compared to the New Statesman article appears to be an unresolved issue.

In 2011 Mr Grant was contacted by officers from Operation Weeting and advised of the information in the records of Glenn Mulcaire. The Mail and the Mirror had published a story about a relationship with someone that had not appeared in the News of the World. One of the records referred to the number of the young woman. He has not commenced a civil suit against the News of the World arising so that his present testimony would carry more weight without being accused of having a financial motive.

He summarised his experience saying that even though he had not openly criticised the worst practices and that while after being libelled he had taken legal action and won this was only a short term gain and he was the loser in the long run. This demonstrated the shortcomings of his existing situation. He then made the point that he could not call for police help without paparazzi or a reporter turning up.

Mr Grant then outlined 10 Myths which have been ignored by the media yet are at the core of the case made against the present situations and the unwillingness of the sections of print media to change. Myth 1 has already been exploded that it is only celebrities and politicians that are affected by the behaviour of the Tabloids. Mr and Mrs Dowler, Mr and Dr McCann are just two of the witnesses at the Inquiry which demonstrate how people not in the public eye can suddenly find themselves in the tabloid headlights because of horrific private family developments. Myth 2 is that the egregious abuses of privacy happened only in the News of the World. There was the Information Commissioner’s Report following the arrest of Steve Whitamore and the Police Investigation Operation Motorman in which 32 newspaper were listed. The Information Commissioners Report is to be the subject of forthcoming Witness sessions.

Myth 3 is that by dealing with the rotten apples and bad practices the baby is being thrown out of the bathwater when in fact what should be done is to hold the baby while throwing out the bath water. On Question Time Thursday the Chairman posed the dame question. The Baby is pubic interest journalism. Myth 4 is that the attempt to regulate the press means we are heading for Zimbabwe. The BBC. ITV and SKY TV and Radio stations and other associated services are effectively monitored and supervised by Ofcom established by Parliament and reporting to Parliament whose Non Executive appointed Directors are Independent of the Executive Directors. I do not understand why such a board should not be introduced for the Print Media or in fact the one Board covers both kinds of information and communication systems. Myth 5 is that the current privacy law under the Human Rights Act muzzles the press. (This is rubbish). Myth 6 The Judges always find against the Press. Well the papers should not make so many deliberate or unintentional bad mistakes. Mr Grant refers to the Rio Ferdinand case. Myth 7 is that Privacy is only for the rich. It is as present will be more so if the Conditional Fee Arrangements are abolished or severely restricted. The system of redress should be for everyone. Myth 8 is that the sex exposure cases have a Pubic Interest dimension. Why then do the papers rarely if ever claim Public Interest Defence when they are challenged through the courts? Myth 9 is that because some people invite media attention because of their work it means that there is an entitlement to provide access to private lives regardless of personal wishes. Myth 10 is that the tabloid press hacks are lovable rogues. This myth was fully exploded over the first week of witnesses

Mr Grant submitted a supplementary text concerning his relationship with a female friend which led to her having his child and he recounted the intrusions on her and his relationship, the distortions and at best questionable methods used in an attempt to gain information on the part of the Daily Mail. The behavior was demonstrably unacceptable given that it involved a private mother and her child and again exposed the dark side of this form of media.

What followed on the second third and fourth days of victim testimony proved a mixture of the dramatic, emotional gut wrenching, thoughtful, the angry and the realists.

2190 Leveson Inquiry 5 First witnesses

I begin to write this at four in the afternoon of November 22nd 2011 with Christmas just a month away after watching the second day of victim witness testimony in the Leveson Inquiry, part 1 on the ethics, standards and regulatory mechanism of British Print media.

It has been an emotionally draining and memory challenging experience to digest what has been said and to make objective assessment of the case being made for a significant change in the behaviour of national newspapers, their journalists, including their use of freelance journalists, inquiry agents and the paparazzi, especially those who can be described be as tabloids although so far the behaviour of the Daily Mail and Sunday Mail in England, the Scottish Mail on Sunday (which is linked to the Scottish Record), the Daily Mirror, the Sun. Express Newspapers and the Evening Standard and the Sunday People, although the Sunday Times has also been singled out in one instance, together with at least two magazines. There have only been eight witnesses which includes two pairs of witnesses out of the 51 victim participants, although I do not know if all 51 will be giving oral as well as written evidence.

My immediate reaction from the response of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday after the first day of witnesses and the testimony of High Grant in particular is that my worse fears have been realised. At the same time the aggressive response they, grossly distorting what one witness said, and which borders on contempt of the Inquiry, should prove counter productive in making the case, if one still needed to be made for significant change. I will come to the issue of concern in the order in which the witnesses gave evidence on Monday. Before this I will mention an issue of Process which to a limited extent caused the problem and about which I have direct experience.

In 1980 I participated in a judicial chaired and organised inquiry of a similar level and standard to that of Leveson in the sense that in addition to a Judge as Chairman and a Leading Counsel for the Inquiry there were a similar number of Core Participants with one notable exception which led two fellow Members acting with support of the Department of Health Advisor/Assessor threatening to leave the inquiry after the first day of witness testimony for the good reason which I shall come to.

In our instance the significant differences were that I and two of the representatives of professions and their management were full members of the Inquiry Panel the Department of Health appointing the advisor/ assessor as we were submitting a report with recommendations to the Secretary of State. The inquiry was not statutory, in the from of Leveson and was commissioned i.e. paid for by one Health and one Local Government Authority and therefore the Inquiry had no separate funds to provide payment for witnesses to be legally represented or could compel witnesses to participate and which lead to the most important potential witness acting on legal advice deciding not to appear.

This consequence of this difference also meant that whereas the main participants, the two authorities, the police, and two individual employees had legal representation as core participants, the lay witnesses which comprised foster parents and neighbours had no legal representation although they were at least advised they could bring a friend.

The result was that there were at least six Counsel, including the Chairman and Counsel for the Inquiry, present throughout the inquiry held over three months, with instructing solicitors and research assistants, together with on the first day other sets of barristers, solicitors for witnesses who had not asked to be core participants and only attended at their discretion and cost. There were 50 legal officers at the hearing on the opening day and a half, listening to opening submissions and during which the media was allowed to be present. One of the Core Participants was represented by a solicitor of the status able to appear in cases alongside barristers.

I mention this because the original plan reached by agreement between the Chairman and the Core Participant, was for the legal Counsel/Solicitor for the Witness to introduce and take them through their statement, followed by interrogation, I use by words carefully, by Counsel for the Inquiry, the Commissioning two authorities and then other core participants, the chairman then asked and then panel members and then the parties had a right to come back on points of concern.

This meant each witness was in the position of being questioned and requisitioned by 11 people which was both intimidating and lengthy. Lord Leveson has attempted to short circuit this usual situation by enforcing that only a member of the Counsel team should ask the questions, dividing their task into three parts, first going through the statement as if it would have been by a lawyer for the witness, then putting questions raised by other core participants on an anonymous basis and then asking about the wider issues raised in the statement. Lord Leveson tops and tails each witness session with a welcome and a thanks but also asks questions at the end of each session.

This has created a number of problems with first one witness yesterday not being clear that Counsel had switched between asking questions on the statement for the Inquiry and those asked on behalf of the core participants. There appears to be a difference of view between News International who want to keep this system and Associated Newspapers for the Mail and Mail on Sunday who pressed for identification on matters of major conflict. In effect Counsel for Associated Newspapers (Mail and Mail on Sunday) said on Tuesday that because he had not been able to directly challenge what was said on behalf of his clients they had felt obliged to react as they had. After representations by two Counsels and a study of the published media response, his Lordship made the point that denial of the allegation made was legitimate but to claim that the witness had deliberately lied was not sustained by what was said as recorded in the transcript. When asked to comment, i.e. make an apology Counsel for the newspaper group failed to respond twice although appeared to grudgingly agree that the paper would provide witness evidence of their objection of the evidence and Lord Leveson indicated that he would make arrangements for this to happen quickly. I will come to the specifics when reporting on the witness in question.

In my experience as a panel member thirty years ago the problem was the aggressive interrogation by Counsel for the Inquiry of the first lay witnesses which led to concerns expressed which nearly ended the Inquiry before it commenced. A meeting was held at which a compromise was reached in which an appropriate member of the panel would commence the questions and then the lawyer for the witnesses with other panels members coming in as appropriate and the other lawyers restricting interventions to points of clarification or interest to their clients with Counsel for the Inquiry acting as long stop at the end if anything was missed. This did result in duplication because I and my colleagues were thorough and detailed which meant that the lawyer for their client duplicated everything almost every issue by issue. This demonstrates the difficulties can arise and which his Lordship has been attempting to short circuit, taking account of the time framework he has been set and the narrow thread between matters to be dealt with in part two of the enquiry after the police enquires and any prosecutions have been completed.

The other difference between the two inquiries were substantial in that the media which had called for the Inquiry were only present on the first and last days, although an original proposal that BBC Panorama should be allowed to have access to witness stages and panel consideration of issues fell through. Even so we insisted that the witnesses were only referred to by their designation Neighbour 1, Foster Parent 2, Paediatrician Acting Superintendent Inspector, Direct or Social Services, Health Authority Chief Executive. I mention these because will be seen that in relation some individuals such Chief Executive the individual was easily identifiable and did not seek anonymity.

There is one other process issue which causes a problem because of live hearings. In addition to the witness statement which were issued to us in blocks in advance as the hearings progressed there was a significant volume of background documents which commenced before the Inquiry opened and became more voluminous as it progressed with the core participants wielding trolleys of boxed documents in and out the hearing each day and where by the end of the report writings I accumulated over 20 lever arch files. The problems has been that the witness statement can only be put online to the public once it has been sworn in before the Judge which means those viewing do not know the context until afterwards. Following representation on behalf of the witnessed the Judge has ordered that the statements should be put on line instantly they have been sworn. I marvel at the situation where everything is not only on line but instantly index through an accumulating database.

Not only did I have to bring a suitcase back and forth with me every weekend but had to create my own limited card reference index and then had to go through every document manually when it came to drafting what became the majority report.
Now to the emotion and drama of the first testimony in the Inquiry that of Sally and Bob Dowler, the parents of murdered Milly who went missing in March 2002 and whose murdered body was discovered in September of that year but where only in June of this year was an individual convicted of that murder. It was fitting they should be the first witnesses because it was the revelations that Milly’s phone messages had been deleted after she had gone missing and was subsequently murdered which led to the public and parliamentary furore, the demand for change and the Inquiry.

The couple in their statement and at the Inquiry emphasised that from the outset they agreed that Surrey police and their media department handled media issues and that when they were subsequently door stepped, or received invitations to give interviews, including interviews for payment they politely declined not wanting to alienate one paper against another and because the media had been helpful in trying to find out what had happened to their daughter. The problem was learning of news stories before being advised of development by the police. There was a body found at a local railway station and then in a local Lock where the Daily Mail printed a full front page headline that said Milly’s body had been found alongside a massive photo of her. This was not so. The Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday are to feature time and time again in witness statements and appearances and which perhaps explains the position of their Counsel at the Inquiry. The testimony is about sanctioned vindictive and persistent reporting.

Mr and Mrs Dowler described the matters which caused them considerable distress, (potentially traumatizing and potentially life lasting in my judgement). The first was the appearance of photos with story when Mrs Dowler decided to meet her husband at the station on the same day of the week and time as when their daughter had disappeared. It had not been prearranged and she had contacted her husband during the day by phone and she had been taken to the station by the police family liaison officer about whom she had nothing but praise.

In addition to retracing the possible steps of their daughter they had checked the missing notices as a new telephone number has been issued. Apart from the police officer the only way anyone from the media could have known about their journey was the mobile phone.

The situation was also one which has become known on an international basis. This was when a short time after their daughter had gone missing and they had gone to look at CCTV records and Mrs Dowler had checked her daughter’s phone as she did several times a day, they police having added funds to the account, and heard the answer message which meant that messages had been deleted which Mrs Dowler understandably interpreted that her daughter was alive and excitedly told her extended family and friends. Someone other than Milly had deleted the messages and it was only subsequently that the reality of the position was established causing the couple great distress and catapulting them again onto the international media stage as had the trial of the killer of their daughter only months before.

Later on Monday after the couple had given their testimony a solicitor on behalf of the investigator Mulcaire issued a statement confirming what had been said before that he had not deleted the voice messages. The implication being that this had been undertaken by either someone at the newspaper or another person who had also possession of information required to access the mobile phone.

This issue was also the subject of concern expressed by Counsel for the victims and which he asked Lord Leveson to consider in terms of the agreed approach that contested matters should be raised within the Inquiry and not externally in the media although controlling what is circulated instantly through twitter is a separate concern.

While the Inquiry was established because of the illegal interception of phone voice messages its remit covers how the press media behaves in general and this aspect appears to be the issue of contention with the others newspapers and their lawyers who include former journalists and editorial staff who are now appearing aggressively defensive for understandable reasons. I will cover aspect of the wider response in reports on the victim testimonies and aggressive defensive reactions.

Mr and Mrs Dowler also provided evidence on how they responded to the media frenzy which they experienced during those first months and then subsequently. In addition to the understandable emotion of the recounted experiences they went through how the media had behaved in general. They could not go out if their home into the front without being approached. Mr Dowler in particular explained how they had always politely declined to comment

The inquiry also heard how the couple came to be represented by Mr Lewis, their meetings with the Murdoch’s. The Prime Minister and other Party leaders and a letter received from Ms Brooke which mentioned that she had not known about the hacking but accepted it had taken place and apologised. The couple were remarkable dignified throughout their appearance which lasted approximately half an hour and their testimony was widely reported throughout the rest of the day with respect and admiration.

The second witness was Joan Smith, a novelist, essayist, columnist and campaigner for human rights who has worked for the Sunday Times as part of their investigative Insight team for five years who went freelance in 1984 and has since had work published in a wide range of new print tittles and in TV and radio broadcasting. She had six novels and a web site Political Blonde.

Between 2003 and 2010 she was in an adult relationship with a Member of Parliament, Denis MacShane. In April of 2011 she was advised by Denis that he had been told by the Police that his phone had been hacked and she described how her solicitors had obtained information from her phone provider which had been passed to the police who then showed her the information Mulcaire had collected and recorded in the spring of 2004.

At that time she was writing for the Times and the Independent and was chair of Writers in prison committee of P.E.N. (The USA based freedom of Expression organisation). Her cohabite was a Government Minister and learned of the tragic death of his daughter in an accident. She referred to the impact of the death upon Denis and his mother and then of her movements which included discussions on press freedom and human rights internationally. The significance is that they were in different places and communicated by mobile phone leaving information about contact numbers. It was these messages that were intercepted. The recorded purpose of the action linked the couple with a view to making the relationship public. The relationship of the couple was not a secret one and as her partner was divorced she could not understand the purpose of the hacking and being linked.

She had been shocked by the revelations and was upset because the intrusion had taken place within two months of the death of his daughter. She expressed her sense of feeling betrayed by professional colleagues and still does, especially as she was writing for one of the other titles owned by the Murdoch’s, After hearing Kelvin MacKensie speak at the Leveson Inquiry seminar she wrote of her concerns in the Independent 2 days later. She also reported being door stepped by the Mail on Sunday in June 2005 a year after the hacking and she was notified that a report from that paper had been making enquiries about her private life including approaching neighbours and then published an article about their relationship, a relationship of two divorced persons.

In questioning on behalf of other Core participants, in this instance I assume Associated Newspapers; she was quizzed why given what she was submitted she had written about the private life of a named couple. Ms Smith explained that the purpose of the article was, (to repeat an expression used during Tuesday’s session and not be her own but seems to me appropriate), personalities entered into a Faustian pact with the media by putting too much of their private lives into public domain.

She confirmed in answer to a question from Lord Levy that the present system did not work but she was opposed to state controlled regulation and the idea of licensing journalists. She believes in the carrot and stick approach offering a new form of self regulation with perhaps the penalty that they would lose their VAT protection status for serious misconduct. Any system had to work much quicker. The same standard and regulation system should apply to all newspapers. She summoned her position as being Collateral Damage. A phrase that is to recur.

The third and final witness of the morning was Graham Sheer a lawyer with 20 years experience as a commercial litigator and a recognised leader in the subject including sports law, defamation, privacy and media and entertainment law and advises corporates and individuals on a wide range of issues.

He had experience of behaviour which he describes as misconduct some of which was driven by the commercial pressures faced by the tabloid papers, leading to a major reduction in the investigative journalists and newsroom teams switching to chequebook journalism. The situation has led them to become more and more aggressive and to undertake increased amounts of surveillance. This has led them to become interventionists instructed to actively simulate a story with the payment of large sums of money to kiss and tell girls and example of such activity. He said that from a basic £10000 he had heard of payments as high as £500000. There is a now a group of serial kiss and tell women targeting footballers, with some of those he represented being asked to give more money than offered by the newspapers not to reveal their story. This is blackmail.

Until 2001/02 his work was divided between post publication proceedings and preventive action against newspapers to stop publication of defamations and occasional of private or confidential material. Since then the balance has shifted towards Privacy law issues and the Human Rights Act. The situation had been reached where the tabloid calculated the cost of publication against the increase from sales and regardless of subsequent legal costs.

In 2003 there was an incident where 5 footballers were accused of raping a 17 year old girl at a hotel. His client was at the same hotel but had no involvement in the incident and targeted by several tabloids set on vilifying him. This was because of who he was and his existing relationship with the press. They used tactics designed to help the public identify the individual while diluting the potential for a libel claim. The coverage was so prejudicial that he had written to Lord Goldsmith (Attorney General)

In a 2006 paper published a story about a video alleging a homosexual relationship between two individuals including a footballer. The film was a hoax but the paper had published pixelated photos taken from the internet which could lead to identification. Legal action was taken against several newspapers but this led to a three year campaign by the press against the client.

This is the charge which had already been raised several times, that if you take on the press they will only intensify their efforts to get you.

The witness then concentrated on the anger and vilification directed at those who obtained the super injunction where the subject was given full anonymity.

He tacked the argument about the chilling effect of such actions on press freedom or being hampered by the costs of libel and privacy claims.

He then described one of several situations where he was under surveillance. Before the disclosure of phone hacking clients had expressed concerns about their communications being monitored. He quoted a situation where he had left voicemail directions to clients to meet at his home, and three full cars of reports arrived in the roadway outside the house five minutes before the clients arrived. The group of reporters and photographers increased. The group swelled to over 100 people.

Because of his suspicions he wrote in 2008 and 2009 to the information commissioners and to the Metropolitan Police service enclosing a list of clients asking if they had been referred to in the phone hacking information held by them. The response by the Information Commissioner and the Police was negative. In February 2011 he was contacted by senior officers to say that his name and phone appeared in the Mulcaire Notes. Mulcaire knew he was a solicitor and knew which clients he was acting for.

So far the role of the police in all this has been tangential but will be identified more as the witness statements are reported. In addition to personal information there was the issue of legal client privilege. His final point was to mention the hypocrisy involved on the part of the tabloids.

Perhaps the most fundamental issue raised by the witness and one which spreads throughout the whole of the three days of witness testimony is extent to which the existence of the tabloids has come to rest on the reporting and manufacture of stories which interest the public but which are not in the public interest and which breach the human rights, the civil rights of individuals and which leads to libel and slander and a lifelong defamation of character.

2189 Leveson 4 The Moderating voice of Guardian newspapers

The introduction to the evidence of the Guardian Newspaper before the Leveson Committee last Wednesday was a balanced and thoughtful attempt to put the worst aspects for the British Press Media in perspective. The introduction was presented by Alan Rusbridger the Editor in Chief of the Guardian directly rather than through a Queens Counsel. I am not being unkind in say that he could have sat down after his first paragraph. He said:

“First we hope that its apparent to all that the events that led to the Inquiry were shocking and immensely damaging. Damaging because they impacted on the trust in all journalists. Shocking for what they revealed about one powerful and dominant company, about the responses of the police and the flawed nature of regulation, about the limitations of Parliament and the initial unwillingness of much of the press to write about what was going on in the News of the World. There was, in short, a failure of the normal checks and balances in society to hold power to account.”

As I indicated in the previous report it is evident that some are not shocked by what has been uncovered so far, Kelvin MacKensie, former editor of the Sun Newspaper for over a decade, opened his remarks by saying that the Inquiry was unnecessary. This may have been said tongue in cheek or a last moment attempt put a finger in the dam before it breaks but it sounded like intentional two finger arrogance on behalf of the until now untouchables.

Mr Rusbridger accepted as had been stated by the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists earlier, that journalism in general was under threat with Commercial newspapers losing circulation at the rate of 10% a year with the consequential loss of advertising revenue with the digital audiences growing and with as yet no digital revenue model working- “Until recently, a newspaper was something produced by a relatively small number of people in the know for a large number of people who weren‘t in the know. Now virtually everyone has the capacity to publish and inform themselves. The once a day deadline has been replaced by a 24 hour continuous news cycle, newspapers are moving from text to a combination of video, audio and data, as well as text, so there is a convergence of media which will have implications for readers and which may well have implications for regulation.”

In this respect I suggest that 24 hour TV news and digital Satellite and Cable has created more of a problem than the Internet with the ability, as I sometimes do, to switch back and forth between the BBC and Sky CNN and Fox and stations reporting on events in Europe, Russian and China as well as the Middle East and North Africa. An event of significance in any country in planet earth is quickly reported and then extensively covered, until the next event occurs although sometimes the collective media decide to remain focussed, whatever else then occurs. I accept that as News stations including the BBC and Sky ITV, Channels Four and Five carry their coverage also on the Internet computer and mobile phone the challenge to the newspaper industry has become greater. It understandable and defendable that owners protect their business and profit, this is not in issue but the methods adopted by staff and the creation of stories which appeal has to be within bounds and not just those of the law, but the moral decency of the present majority and a sense of what is right for the future.

Mr Rusbridger then made the point that everyone is also able to check facts and question is said in the printed media. This is true and which is why the printed press online, and broadcast programmes in general, have established comment and feedback. He made the positive observation that journalists now have to work in an environment where there can be an external reaction to what is said within minutes of being published. This is also true but still those who published and edit the printed paper or TV News continue to exercise significant control over who writes or speaks and in defining the limits of what they say.

In this sense the Internet remains more free and open for better or worse and there are those now seeking to control and restrain, again for good and bad reasons.

He then argued that issues of privacy had also become matters for everyone’s concern because of the development and I would say dramatic escalation in digital based surveillance. In past it was the rich and famous or the criminal who might find someone going through the rubbish they put out whereas some local authorities have put cameras/digital recorders inside the bin lid!

His third point I hope is true, that citizens are more conscious of the idea of a rights-based society with consequential responsibilities. I have hoped this would emerge from the growth in education to university level although we have still to catch up with many other countries. The problem I forecast was the increasing divide between the educated and the moron although this is not to imply that those who go to university cannot remain the morons they were on arrival or that everyone who does not, is. For many it seems to me the emphasis has been on rights rather than responsibilities and which goes to heart of the Inquiry because the freedom of speech, freedom of the press must be balance against the rights and interests of others.

Mr Rusbridger made the point that although the investigation of how the hacking went was the subject of part two of the inquiry he hoped it would be able to look at the rotten apple defence which occurred after the Guardian told the story in July 2009 until late January 2011.

That he raised the issue and in way he went on to do begs the question of what can be raised in part one and what cannot. The position will become more clear on Monday when the first victims give their testimony. He wanted to know what accounts for the reluctance of the police to investigate phone hacking properly even in 2009. Why did it take four enquiries for them to take it seriously? Why did senior officers make untruthful statements about what happened? Were Members of Parliament intimidated or put under surveillance or threatened? Why did the Press Complaints Commission fail in its attempts to get to the truth, Why was there such a widespread reluctance among other journalists to touch the story. Why did it take an American paper to see the significance of an issue to which so many British Journalists appeared blind?

Why when in November 2009 a News of the World Journalist received a staggering sum of £800000 at a tribunal for bullying by Andy Coulson no British Editor considered it interesting? He asked if the power of the Murdoch’s and their companies over political and cultural life had become too dominant. How did its commercial, political, journalistic and criminal muscle operate? Turning to ways of increasing safeguards in newsroom practices he offered the experience of 15 years of running a truly independent column in the Guardian, something which I was not aware of and will investigate.

Mr Rusbridger then suggested the Inquiry should look at the approach and experience of others highlighting the view of the former director of the GCHQ that in relation to intrusion of privacy one should apply the harm test, the public good test, the proportionality test, the need for due authorization and the ban against fishing expeditions. He suggested that that the issue of regulation should be dovetailed with the thinking on defamation now before Parliament. He argued that the present laws are slow, costly and illiberal and are often used as a sledge hammer to crack a nut and which could be solved as part of a system of mediation within a system of regulation. He proposed that any new body should be called the Press Standards and Mediation Commission.

He was scathing about the so called press regulation system saying it was non existent and that before it is abolished it ought to be tried! In making reference to how it handled the phone hacking complaint and argued that the Commission had been lied to by News International but lacked the will or the powers to do anything about it.

He echoed the views of the national Union of Journalists against any statutory system which involved state control the licensing of journalists, but it was possible that statute could be used to ensure the effective running of self regulation as long as there was careful scrutiny of all concerns regarding press freedom. A new standards and mediation service could cover privacy as well as libel issues but here the issue was defining pubic interest. (I have suggested that it may the attention should be on the process within providers perhaps involving some independent evaluation as it is unlikely that any system could and should cover all case situations which have to be matters of judgement),

His last point concerned the need for plurality within the press media in the situation where there was increasing concentration because of the costs. If the case was made about the dominance that News International then the Inquiry should make recommendations on how such a situation could be avoided in the future.

Any new system had to command support from the entire market including regional editors and magazine tittles. Having spent such time looking inwards he recognised that the Inquiry had come about because of public response and therefore concluded that the position of the public had to be foremost in mind.

Lord Leveson thanked Mr Rusbridger as someone who had evidently spent much time reflecting on the issues which was coming to grips with and looked forward to hearing possible solutions. He was fully aware, (as his interventions and comments to the others who had made their presentations indicated) of the need to ensure protection of press freedom and that the overwhelming majority of journalists had the public interest in mind and at heart but added “But I think you’re right there is a distance to go which we cannot ignore and which we ignore at out peril.”

Lord Leveson raised a number of issues which he provided opportunity for Mr Rushbridger to immediately respond or do so later and he invited all core participants to also respond if they wished.

The first concerned the question of his accepting anonymous testimony from within the industry and which by its nature could not be tested though cross examination. He said the problem was how else to get to the bottom of a situation which people hinted at. How could help those who wished to come forward but were concerned about the implications for their livelihood. It is understood from his response to a question being raised about this at the end of Monday’s hearing that he is close to a protocol being ready on this subject. He mentioned that in relation to a victim witness being heard he court would be cleared except for legal officers and the transcript would only be issued after it had been reacted as appropriate. This seems to me to be the best way forward because it will be important that such individual will be able to speak freely and in detail referring to individual newspaper titles and individuals by post if not by name if relevant but this information should be restricted to the Inquiry and not be made available beyond the parties directly involved.

The second issue on press ethics appeared to stem from core participant complaints that the Inquiry lacked direct knowledge and experience in relation to its assessors of how the tabloids worked and the pressures in which they were under implying a significant difference between them and other journalists. Leveson made that there was no justification for a separate code of ethics for the tabloid journalist which was not applicable to all journalists.

He mentioned he conscience clause raised by Ms Stanistreet and asked if it was appropriate for him to require that. He admitted his natural hesitancy over the law prescribing things. Was there a place for some objective test of the public interest? What would be the circumstances in which to insist upon the pre publication notification? Was there value in trying to find some mechanism that allows for the resolution of disputes short of going to court given the expense involved? How was he going to persuade those who were presently subscribing to the Press Complaints Counsel to join any new system? How was it possible to ensure plurality?

Mr Rushbridger He said that the issue of anonymity was a problem because the way the Guardian, Panorama, the New York Time and Dispatches had managed to bring the matter to public attention is because they spoke to journalists off the record but as soon as they are identified the police get involved and then the journalists are under caution and unable to communicate further. He said that there was those trying to get public evidence and did not get it and those who went off the record and did. However Lord Leveson pointed out that presentation had to also include the possibility were not seeking to get to the truth.
Rusbridger accepted the point made by Ms Stanistreet of the feat factor, of retribution on those who spoke out. A point which he made also made by a witnesses subsequently on Monday that when the tabloids are taken to counter they rarely put up the public interest defence. His Lordship understood that newspapers had different audience and therefore when it cam to challenges the basis was different with privacy the issue for tabloids an libel for the broadsheets. While accepting that some papers had a different commercial model than others if one did not have universal standards and guidelines you end up with the News of the World. The discussion of the issues confronting anyone creating a new system of regulation was further discussed before session ended and which I will leave as they are more appropriate for consideration after the evidence has been heard on the scale and depth of the problem which commences on Monday 21st November 21st.

My hope of addressing the case of the tabloids and the neutrals will have to wait given the decision to write about Satyagrapha and what happened when the Inquiry heard the first victim witnesses on Monday.