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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment