| Lord Leveson Will Decide 19:01 - Aug 22 with 604 views | GlasgowBlue |
Whether Britain's press will publish those naked Prince Harry photos.
Has the freedom of the press been eroded?
Will Leverson decide whether the press can publish the dodgy dealings of crooked MP's? |  |
| |  |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:03 - Aug 22 with 589 views | blue_oyster |
The freedom of deleting voicemail messages of a murdered girl is definitely being eroded. |  |
| |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:07 - Aug 22 with 573 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:03 - Aug 22 by blue_oyster |
The freedom of deleting voicemail messages of a murdered girl is definitely being eroded. |
Keep up. It's since been proven that journalists didn't delete Millie Dowler's voicemail messages.
Anyway, those responsible for the hacking of those voicemails should quite rightly spend some time at her Majesty's pleasure. You are totally missing the point.
Should we be comfortable that a judge can decide what the public does and doesn't know? [Post edited 22 Aug 19:07]
| |
| |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:10 - Aug 22 with 559 views | factual_blue |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:07 - Aug 22 by GlasgowBlue |
Keep up. It's since been proven that journalists didn't delete Millie Dowler's voicemail messages.
Anyway, those responsible for the hacking of those voicemails should quite rightly spend some time at her Majesty's pleasure. You are totally missing the point.
Should we be comfortable that a judge can decide what the public does and doesn't know? [Post edited 22 Aug 19:07]
|
No it hasn't.
It's been established that we'll never know for certain. |  |
| |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:10 - Aug 22 with 556 views | MarinerisGod |
This is easily solved, tell everyone Piers Morgan did it, he gets banged up, win win. |  |
| |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:15 - Aug 22 with 537 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:10 - Aug 22 by factual_blue |
No it hasn't.
It's been established that we'll never know for certain. |
"In a statement to the inquiry, Neil Garnham QC, for the Metropolitan Police, said detectives now thought that Milly Dowler's voicemails had probably been automatically deleted because they were more than 72 hours old by the time her parents got through to her voicemail".
There is no evidence that they were deleted by NOTW journalists.
Regardless; Should a judge decide whether we know of MP's fiddling their expenses or being in the pay of big business?
Should it have been the decision of a judge whether we knew of Liam Fox's connections to Adam Werrity? | |
| |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:19 - Aug 22 with 522 views | factual_blue |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:15 - Aug 22 by GlasgowBlue |
"In a statement to the inquiry, Neil Garnham QC, for the Metropolitan Police, said detectives now thought that Milly Dowler's voicemails had probably been automatically deleted because they were more than 72 hours old by the time her parents got through to her voicemail".
There is no evidence that they were deleted by NOTW journalists.
Regardless; Should a judge decide whether we know of MP's fiddling their expenses or being in the pay of big business?
Should it have been the decision of a judge whether we knew of Liam Fox's connections to Adam Werrity? |
Precisely - we'll never know. I think - as usual - the BBC reports the position accurately.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18002180
There's a world of difference between publishing grubby photos in which there can only be prurient interest and general matters of public interest. The press wilfully blur the distinction. | |
| |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:25 - Aug 22 with 508 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:19 - Aug 22 by factual_blue |
Precisely - we'll never know. I think - as usual - the BBC reports the position accurately.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18002180
There's a world of difference between publishing grubby photos in which there can only be prurient interest and general matters of public interest. The press wilfully blur the distinction. |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16146527
Would the MPs Expenses exposure be risked post Leverson? Have MPs stopped their dodgy dealings? Are there no more high society vice rings?
Because it all seems to have gone quiet since Leverson was appointed. | |
| |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:35 - Aug 22 with 482 views | warky1970 |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:15 - Aug 22 by GlasgowBlue |
"In a statement to the inquiry, Neil Garnham QC, for the Metropolitan Police, said detectives now thought that Milly Dowler's voicemails had probably been automatically deleted because they were more than 72 hours old by the time her parents got through to her voicemail".
There is no evidence that they were deleted by NOTW journalists.
Regardless; Should a judge decide whether we know of MP's fiddling their expenses or being in the pay of big business?
Should it have been the decision of a judge whether we knew of Liam Fox's connections to Adam Werrity? |
What mobile provider automatically deletes voicemail messages once they are 72 hours old ? |  |
| |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:39 - Aug 22 with 461 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:35 - Aug 22 by warky1970 |
What mobile provider automatically deletes voicemail messages once they are 72 hours old ? |
He said "most likely explanation" was that messages were automatically removed after 72 hours, and added that the network provider had confirmed that this was "a standard automatic function of that voicemail box system at the time".
"I can say from Metropolitan Police Service records that the Metropolitan Police did not tell the Dowlers that voicemails had been deleted, for the simple reason that they did not know of any such deletions," he added. | |
| |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:41 - Aug 22 with 450 views | blue_oyster |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:39 - Aug 22 by GlasgowBlue |
He said "most likely explanation" was that messages were automatically removed after 72 hours, and added that the network provider had confirmed that this was "a standard automatic function of that voicemail box system at the time".
"I can say from Metropolitan Police Service records that the Metropolitan Police did not tell the Dowlers that voicemails had been deleted, for the simple reason that they did not know of any such deletions," he added. |
Don't worry, the criminals will be behind bars soon. | |
| |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:47 - Aug 22 with 439 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:41 - Aug 22 by blue_oyster |
Don't worry, the criminals will be behind bars soon. |
If guilty then I hope they are. And behind bars for a very long time. Then once out I would hope that no publisher offers them fortunes for the book deal.
But you are totally missing the point.
Press freedom, and the right for you and I to know if our elected leaders are up to no good, should not be eroded because of a few bad apples. Lock 'em up but don't gag the press. Because once you lose these freedoms you won't get them back. | |
| |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 21:51 - Aug 22 with 370 views | connorscontract |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 19:47 - Aug 22 by GlasgowBlue |
If guilty then I hope they are. And behind bars for a very long time. Then once out I would hope that no publisher offers them fortunes for the book deal.
But you are totally missing the point.
Press freedom, and the right for you and I to know if our elected leaders are up to no good, should not be eroded because of a few bad apples. Lock 'em up but don't gag the press. Because once you lose these freedoms you won't get them back. |
I agree with your main thrust here, but would add that Judges have been deciding for years which prurient and salacious stories get printed through the injunction system.
FWIW I think that the stories about eg Ashley Cole or say a random from a boy band having sex with a model are of interest to (some of) the public, but are not genuinely "in the public interest". (I know that you will know this distinction, GB) To be honest I would fall down on the side of "right to a private life" injunctions over some spurious freedom of the press notion when it comes to some self-publicising model trying to get a page 3 contract through telling everyone how big a certain singer's penis is, or how good he is in bed.
In contrast the corruption in Parliament was disgraceful and every single MP or peer who committed fraud should have been prosecuted. The whole "oops I made an over-sight but have paid it back" thing was disgusting. A massive well done to the editors who laid their necks on the line on that one. BUT why did we (they) allow the conversation to become fixated on duck houses worth a few hundred quid when large scale fraud was being committed? And why was one MP slammed for claiming for a plug costing less than a pound? Surely they obtained good value for the tax-payer?
It is possible to make a distinction between different types of free speech: tittle tattle about peoples sex lives is different from the right to express political views or holding leaders to account.
Surely we don't think Voltaire would have said "I disapprove of Lindsey Dawn MacKenzie's choice of footballer sex partners, but I will defend to the death her right to tell us all about how they done it on pages 1 to 5 (pictures page 3)"? |  | | |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 21:53 - Aug 22 with 358 views | bournemouthblue |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 21:51 - Aug 22 by connorscontract |
I agree with your main thrust here, but would add that Judges have been deciding for years which prurient and salacious stories get printed through the injunction system.
FWIW I think that the stories about eg Ashley Cole or say a random from a boy band having sex with a model are of interest to (some of) the public, but are not genuinely "in the public interest". (I know that you will know this distinction, GB) To be honest I would fall down on the side of "right to a private life" injunctions over some spurious freedom of the press notion when it comes to some self-publicising model trying to get a page 3 contract through telling everyone how big a certain singer's penis is, or how good he is in bed.
In contrast the corruption in Parliament was disgraceful and every single MP or peer who committed fraud should have been prosecuted. The whole "oops I made an over-sight but have paid it back" thing was disgusting. A massive well done to the editors who laid their necks on the line on that one. BUT why did we (they) allow the conversation to become fixated on duck houses worth a few hundred quid when large scale fraud was being committed? And why was one MP slammed for claiming for a plug costing less than a pound? Surely they obtained good value for the tax-payer?
It is possible to make a distinction between different types of free speech: tittle tattle about peoples sex lives is different from the right to express political views or holding leaders to account.
Surely we don't think Voltaire would have said "I disapprove of Lindsey Dawn MacKenzie's choice of footballer sex partners, but I will defend to the death her right to tell us all about how they done it on pages 1 to 5 (pictures page 3)"? |
You have to say the gutter press had become out of control. A little bit of moderation wouldn't go a miss, they had too much power. |  |
| |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 22:05 - Aug 22 with 346 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 21:53 - Aug 22 by bournemouthblue |
You have to say the gutter press had become out of control. A little bit of moderation wouldn't go a miss, they had too much power. |
Jail the wrong doers. Don't neuter the press. A few years in a grotty prison would be ample deterrent.
As I said earlier; I doubt the Telegraph would consider undertaking such a brave investigation into MP's expenses as they did 4 years ago.
Do you think that they didn't use certain underhanded methods to gain all of the information? But had they not done so there would be MP's claiming for their duck houses and mortgages today. | |
| |
| Lord Leveson Will Decide on 00:32 - Aug 23 with 289 views | IRLangmaid25 |
You don't have to wait to find out. The offending phographs are out there, not that I have seen them of course you have to look in the right places such as the trashy gossip websites. The internet would make such a ruling from Lord Levinson in my eyes a complete irrelevance because all it will do is everyone will go looking for either on Google or Twitter where it is trending now, and we know that the internet has made such injunctions irrelevant when Ryan Giggs tried to gag (unsuccessfully) Imogen Thomas about their affair. |  |
| |
| |
