Yea like it or not the people who are hysterical over this incident are pretending the murdochs are not supported by paying customers. They do not have the mandate to force people to pay a license fee like the bbc, so their support is entirely democratic which is inconvenient for those who rail against him.
Anyways the idea that he's all controlling or that influential is a nonsense now. If his papers dont report something it will be reported regardless. Even a super injunction can't stop a twitter now, so the concern is based on an absurd exaggeration of his power.
Yea like it or not the people who are hysterical over this incident are pretending the murdochs are not supported by paying customers. They do not have the mandate to force people to pay a license fee like the bbc, so their support is entirely democratic which is inconvenient for those who rail against him.
Anyways the idea that he's all controlling or that influential is a nonsense now. If his papers dont report something it will be reported regardless. Even a super injunction can't stop a twitter now, so the concern is based on an absurd exaggeration of his power.
Except there are allegations that part of the Murdoch's empire may have undermined the commercial viability of its TV competiters by leaking details of competitors encryption software.
The law is catching up with new technology only last week 3 men were arrested for alledgedly naming a rape victim. Tulisa's lawyers showed how quickly & effectively a story could be closed down worlwide if so desired.
The current government is talking of an internet opt in rather than opt out to various sites by parents with children.
The online version of the Daily Mail is completely different to the printed version.
The previous Prime Minister and his side kick flew half way round the world to talk to Murdoch. Rupert slipped into the back door of number 10, presumably not to set up the Sky+ but because it was felt he could provide influence through his papers.
Control is too strong a word, influence is probably more apt.
As witnessed at the NOTW there is a bonding culture within their buisnesses which can lead to corrupt attitudes.
Except there are allegations that part of the Murdoch's empire may have undermined the commercial viability of its TV competiters by leaking details of competitors encryption software.
The law is catching up with new technology only last week 3 men were arrested for alledgedly naming a rape victim. Tulisa's lawyers showed how quickly & effectively a story could be closed down worlwide if so desired.
The current government is talking of an internet opt in rather than opt out to various sites by parents with children.
The online version of the Daily Mail is completely different to the printed version.
The previous Prime Minister and his side kick flew half way round the world to talk to Murdoch. Rupert slipped into the back door of number 10, presumably not to set up the Sky+ but because it was felt he could provide influence through his papers.
Control is too strong a word, influence is probably more apt.
As witnessed at the NOTW there is a bonding culture within their buisnesses which can lead to corrupt attitudes.
Sounds like a bulls*** story to be frank. Hackers have their own motivation for hacking, and people have their own motivation for stealing such services and always have. Either murdoch found a super genius to hack for him..super unlikely, or the system itv used was broken from the start and some amateur cracked it the same as with many other drm schemes. A system that relied on a few codes is probably flawed from the get go, and would have been hacked regardless.
The law isn't catching up, maybe you can firewall the internet in the uk, but that isn't going to happen, like it or not you don't have world wide jurisdiction.
Influence is frankly fine, voters influence politicians, media companies only have influence because of the democratic support of their customers.
Yea like it or not the people who are hysterical over this incident are pretending the murdochs are not supported by paying customers. They do not have the mandate to force people to pay a license fee like the bbc, so their support is entirely democratic which is inconvenient for those who rail against him.
Anyways the idea that he's all controlling or that influential is a nonsense now. If his papers dont report something it will be reported regardless. Even a super injunction can't stop a twitter now, so the concern is based on an absurd exaggeration of his power.
Rupert Murdoch has a mandate for what? Are you suggesting it is wrong for him to be taken to task because people buy the Sun? Are you suggesting that if someone purchases Sky sports where they have Hobson's choice that means that Murdoch's wilful blindness of illegality in his organisation is fine?
Also twitter has nothing to do with what is under discussion here. Twitter doesn't hack peoples phones. Twitter doesn't harass people just because they are in the public eye. Twitter doesn't put mp(s) who are investigating it under surveillance. What is under discussion is illegal behaviour and the way the police turned a blind eye to it.
At the end of the day there is only one body of people the politicians should answer to and that is the British electorate. Prospective Prime Ministers should not have to be interviewed by a foreign media magnate to get his permission to be Prime Minister when that person himself is flawed and his opinion is clearly biased by who will best serve his media interests. If you think the fact that people read the Sun gives him a mandate to do anything then let us all have a vote on it because that is the way democracy works.
.... I'm pretty sure newsnight and ch4 devote 1/3 or more of their daily broadcasts to rehashing the same information on this story since it began .....
Even if this is meant to refer to Channel 4's 7pm news bulletin, it is an extraordinary claim, given that both shows devote their time to that day's developing events whilst giving minimum historical context.
That's what always happens with continuing news stories, and is always attacked by those who wish to 'contain' the story.
Twitter doesn't harass people just because they are in the public eye
I should point out that by harass I mean in the fashion described in the media report.
‘People working for the News of the World were paid to watch their every move,’ the agreed Statement in Open Court related. ‘Maria in particular is a vulnerable person, with a complex medical history. The News of the World found out about this and published private details of her hospital treatment. At her lowest moment, the
News of the World issued her with an ultimatum and coerced her into giving them an in depth interview about herself harming and attempted suicide. She felt she had no choice...and was deeply traumatised by the publication of the story in the News of the World .’
Perhaps the fact that people bought the NoW gave them a mandate to treat people in such a fashion?
If everyone hates the Murdocjs so much, how come the Sun is still the most read paper?
As for hacking, there was a bit on science tv show, ages ago now, saying that it was quite easy, and with just a little bit of info, any phone could be 'hacked' into quite easily, just makes you wonder how many (apart from HM Gov, who must do almost every, if not all!) phones they do, maybe the investigation should have been widened to the whole media?
If everyone hates the Murdocjs so much, how come the Sun is still the most read paper?
Why don't we save the expense of having a democratic process and just leave it to how many people buy the Sun? The fact that a couple of million people buy the Sun does not give NI the right to think itself above the law.
As for hacking, there was a bit on science tv show, ages ago now, saying that it was quite easy, and with just a little bit of info, any phone could be 'hacked' into quite easily, just makes you wonder how many (apart from HM Gov, who must do almost every, if not all!) phones they do, maybe the investigation should have been widened to the whole media?
It does cover the whole media but they can only investigate what information they have. Even if they find that other newspapers were doing it that doesn't alter how serious this for NI. What the Leveson inquiry is largely about is how was this illegality known to the police and yet they seemed to be part of the cover up. Also how was somebody mixed up in all of this brought into the heart of government without even being vettted. That same individual was apparently still being paid by a Murdoch company. This is the same Murdoch who Cameron had to have secret talks with to get the support of his newspapers. Can you perhaps see a connection between all of this because many people think their is. Although perhaps they should give up looking into this because of the amount of people who buy the Sun?
If everyone hates the Murdocjs so much, how come the Sun is still the most read paper?
As for hacking, there was a bit on science tv show, ages ago now, saying that it was quite easy, and with just a little bit of info, any phone could be 'hacked' into quite easily, just makes you wonder how many (apart from HM Gov, who must do almost every, if not all!) phones they do, maybe the investigation should have been widened to the whole media?
Those circulation figures are attained even without the residents of Liverpool, which makes them even more remarkable.
I wonder those same people who refuse to buy the Sun as a Murdoch paper have a Sky dish on their house or watch Sky programmes via cable.
Those circulation figures are attained even without the residents of Liverpool, which makes them even more remarkable.
I wonder those same people who refuse to buy the Sun as a Murdoch paper have a Sky dish on their house or watch Sky programmes via cable.
Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't have an investigation into NI thinking they were above the law because people buy the Sun and watch Sky tv? What about the majority who don't buy the Sun or subscribe to Sky? As i have already pointed out anyway people who want to watch sports have Hobson's choice.
Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't have an investigation into NI thinking they were above the law because people buy the Sun and watch Sky tv? What about the majority who don't buy the Sun or subscribe to Sky? As i have already pointed out anyway people who want to watch sports have Hobson's choice.
I think what he is saying is he thinks we should not have an inquiry into the Murdoch's:NEWS CORP:SKY in case they( the Murdoch's) stop the SUN or SKY because then the world would stop:D:D
As for hacking, there was a bit on science tv show, ages ago now, saying that it was quite easy, and with just a little bit of info, any phone could be 'hacked' into quite easily, just makes you wonder how many (apart from HM Gov, who must do almost every, if not all!) phones they do,
I must admit, before all this started I thought 'hacking' was a technical thing using sophisticated equipment, not just having a few guesses at a four digit PIN, which in most cases people left on the factory default.
I must admit, before all this started I thought 'hacking' was a technical thing using sophisticated equipment, not just having a few guesses at a four digit PIN, which in most cases people left on the factory default.
Which makes you wonder why Mulcaire in his notes bothered to record peoples mobile PIN's next to their names if it was common knowledge what they were. In any case whether it was easy or not makes no difference. I have seen it explained how to easily break into the lock that many people have on their front door. That does not make it OK to do it.
Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't have an investigation into NI thinking they were above the law because people buy the Sun and watch Sky tv? What about the majority who don't buy the Sun or subscribe to Sky? As i have already pointed out anyway people who want to watch sports have Hobson's choice.
I think what he is saying is he thinks we should not have an inquiry into the Murdoch's:NEWS CORP:SKY in case they( the Murdoch's) stop the SUN or SKY because then the world would stop:D:D
No, I was commenting on this post —
Originally Posted by ktla5 View Post
If everyone hates the Murdocjs so much, how come the Sun is still the most read paper?
After that comment I wondered why is it that there appears so much hatred for the Murdochs, why despite all this, the products he has got, The Sun and Sky among many others appears do be trading so very well.
Even without zero Murdoch involvement in these products does anyone actually believe there would be a huge surge in the Sky subscribers and Sun readers.
I believe there must be many, who loathe the name Murdoch, given the universal Murdoch hatred, still buys his products, regardless, otherwise they would not be trading so well. For instance have people been cancelling Sky in their droves or cancelling the Sun because of these allegations about Murdoch. I believe many people are simply two-faced particularly many politicians shouting their bit, I bet they still have a Sky dish
What you think I said and what I actually said are very different.
After that comment I wondered why is it that there appears so much hatred for the Murdochs, why despite all this, the products he has got, The Sun and Sky among many others appears do be trading so very well.
Even without zero Murdoch involvement in these products does anyone actually believe there would be a huge surge in the Sky subscribers and Sun readers.
I believe there must be many, who loathe the name Murdoch, given the universal Murdoch hatred, still buys his products, regardless, otherwise they would not be trading so well. For instance have people been cancelling Sky in their droves or cancelling the Sun because of these allegations about Murdoch. I believe many people are simply two-faced particularly many politicians shouting their bit, I bet they still have a Sky dish
What you think I said and what I actually said are very different.
Well you have a point there but whilst BSkyB has an effective monopoly over sports and exclusive deals with movie channels people don't have much of a choice do they? Also I wonder how many NoW readers knew the disgraceful (and illegal) treatment of the Church family when they were reading those stories. I wonder how much they know about NI's wrongdoing even as they wont be reading much about hacking in the Murdoch newspapers will they? Do a search for hacking on the Sun site and see how they have given it minimal coverage whilst giving prominence to any other organisation involved. They certainly haven't had the screaming headlines calling for the head of the guilty organisation like they have with other less serious stories.Even if those people do know and are happy for a News organisation to act in such a way that still doesn't make it right especially as they would surely be in a minority.
Even if this is meant to refer to Channel 4's 7pm news bulletin, it is an extraordinary claim, given that both shows devote their time to that day's developing events whilst giving minimum historical context.
That's what always happens with continuing news stories, and is always attacked by those who wish to 'contain' the story.
Sorry no, its like bad news reporting in the us where a buncha people yack about what they don't know, having no new information to base their opinions, just chewing on the same story endlessly because its cheaper than doing journalism. Go back and look if you can, there are places that *ahem* recorded such shows...or whatever, I watch them pretty consistently and the excessive coverage of nothing new has been happening since it began.
It is the cnn effect. You have a school shooting, you have maybe half a paragraph of information to give to the viewer, but you have to stay on the story hour..after hour..after hour. There is nothing about wishing to contain the story, its just obnoxiously pointless filler that is wasting everyones time. If folks are going to point fingers at murdoch's press, best take a look at themselves too.
Sounds like a bulls*** story to be frank. Hackers have their own motivation for hacking, and people have their own motivation for stealing such services and always have. Either murdoch found a super genius to hack for him..super unlikely, or the system itv used was broken from the start and some amateur cracked it the same as with many other drm schemes. A system that relied on a few codes is probably flawed from the get go, and would have been hacked regardless.
Did you not see the recent Panorama programme?
Former hackers were being employed to hack into rivals encryption software, they were provided with facilities they would not have had available unless funded by a commercial company.
A hackers website was set up, said to be under the control of companies associated with the Murdoch empire.
The purpose of the website was said to be to prevent hacking, but it was claimed rival companies codes somehow appeared on the website.
Former hackers were being employed to hack into rivals encryption software, they were provided with facilities they would not have had available unless funded by a commercial company.
A hackers website was set up, said to be under the control of companies associated with the Murdoch empire.
The purpose of the website was said to be to prevent hacking, but it was claimed rival companies codes somehow appeared on the website.
And again, if a simple set of codes is all that was required to irreparably break their encryption for all users, their system was broken from the start, and the complaining seems like an effort to cover their own incompetence.
Did you say the same about the frequent allegations of phone hacking too?
This is a specific and different charge, so don't bring that in. How many itv subscribers were lost due to piracy, do tell, this is the part that matters after all if this was supposedly to blame.
Whatever the facts, this story just reeks of "butthurt".
And again, if a simple set of codes is all that was required to irreparably break their encryption for all users, their system was broken from the start, and the complaining seems like an effort to cover their own incompetence.
You don't seem aware how the CANAL+ code was embedded in its cards, that sophiscated technology would be required to get access to the code, before even attempting to decode it.
The process was complex, time-consuming, and very expensive. This was not about a lone hacker sitting at a computer screen trying to guess passwords. Instead, it was an attempt to split the foundation stone supporting an entire industry - the technology protecting pay TV.
The challenge handed in the autumn of 1997 to a team of scientists working quietly at a laboratory in Haifa, northern Israel, was to crack the encryption technique used to unscramble TV signals delivered to many paying customers through cable and satellite across Europe and the US.
The Haifa team knew all about this. They worked for NDS, a Murdoch company which had begun life as a start-up firm, News Datacom, in Israel eight years earlier.
About 2 years ago Panorama ran a programme about phone and computer hacking by the NOTWs which at the time was dismissed as nonsense.... mmmmm.
This was certainly the belief of partisan Tom Watson, who broke ranks with the Select Committee, and offered a tirade against Rupert Murdoch as part of his Book Promotional Tour. Unfortunately, what could have been a good, great or even excellent Select Committee Report, was destroyed by the infantile antics of Tom Watson.
This was certainly the belief of partisan Tom Watson, who broke ranks with the Select Committee, and offered a tirade against Rupert Murdoch as part of his Book Promotional Tour. Unfortunately, what could have been a good, great or even excellent Select Committee Report, was destroyed by the infantile antics of Tom Watson.
I'm afraid none of that bears up to any critical thinking. The majority of the committee members voted for the 'not fit' statement to be added. That is all of the Labour members and the Lib Dem member. Louise Mensch then instead of accepting the majority, toured the tv and radio studios and said that it had been sprung on them whereas it turned out the Conservative chairman had delayed discussion on it. Funnily enough Ms Mensch has kept quite since Watson said he would publish the pro Murdoch amendments that the Tory members of the committee had tabled.
I'm afraid none of that bears up to any critical thinking. The majority of the committee members voted for the 'not fit' statement to be added. That is all of the Labour members and the Lib Dem member. Louise Mensch then instead of accepting the majority, toured the tv and radio studios and said that it had been sprung on them whereas it turned out the Conservative chairman had delayed discussion on it. Funnily enough Ms Mensch has kept quite since Watson said he would publish the pro Murdoch amendments that the Tory members of the committee had tabled.
Despite asserting she stood by claims she made, Ms Mensch has been in that rare priviledged position of having had to apologise to Piers Morgan.
So one day she was touring TV studios asserting her claim was fact but the next day....
Mensch said she had made her remarks after misreading an article in the Daily Telegraph on 13 July which reported on a few blogs about Morgan. "I wrongly stated that Piers Morgan … had been open about personally hacking phones in a book he wrote. This was based on my misreading of [the article]. The Telegraph report covers the claim of a blogger that this story was acquired by phone hacking, and I misread that as Mr Morgan himself claiming this to be true.
Comments
Anyways the idea that he's all controlling or that influential is a nonsense now. If his papers dont report something it will be reported regardless. Even a super injunction can't stop a twitter now, so the concern is based on an absurd exaggeration of his power.
Except there are allegations that part of the Murdoch's empire may have undermined the commercial viability of its TV competiters by leaking details of competitors encryption software.
The law is catching up with new technology only last week 3 men were arrested for alledgedly naming a rape victim. Tulisa's lawyers showed how quickly & effectively a story could be closed down worlwide if so desired.
The current government is talking of an internet opt in rather than opt out to various sites by parents with children.
The online version of the Daily Mail is completely different to the printed version.
The previous Prime Minister and his side kick flew half way round the world to talk to Murdoch. Rupert slipped into the back door of number 10, presumably not to set up the Sky+ but because it was felt he could provide influence through his papers.
Control is too strong a word, influence is probably more apt.
As witnessed at the NOTW there is a bonding culture within their buisnesses which can lead to corrupt attitudes.
Sounds like a bulls*** story to be frank. Hackers have their own motivation for hacking, and people have their own motivation for stealing such services and always have. Either murdoch found a super genius to hack for him..super unlikely, or the system itv used was broken from the start and some amateur cracked it the same as with many other drm schemes. A system that relied on a few codes is probably flawed from the get go, and would have been hacked regardless.
The law isn't catching up, maybe you can firewall the internet in the uk, but that isn't going to happen, like it or not you don't have world wide jurisdiction.
Influence is frankly fine, voters influence politicians, media companies only have influence because of the democratic support of their customers.
Rupert Murdoch has a mandate for what? Are you suggesting it is wrong for him to be taken to task because people buy the Sun? Are you suggesting that if someone purchases Sky sports where they have Hobson's choice that means that Murdoch's wilful blindness of illegality in his organisation is fine?
Also twitter has nothing to do with what is under discussion here. Twitter doesn't hack peoples phones. Twitter doesn't harass people just because they are in the public eye. Twitter doesn't put mp(s) who are investigating it under surveillance. What is under discussion is illegal behaviour and the way the police turned a blind eye to it.
At the end of the day there is only one body of people the politicians should answer to and that is the British electorate. Prospective Prime Ministers should not have to be interviewed by a foreign media magnate to get his permission to be Prime Minister when that person himself is flawed and his opinion is clearly biased by who will best serve his media interests. If you think the fact that people read the Sun gives him a mandate to do anything then let us all have a vote on it because that is the way democracy works.
That's what always happens with continuing news stories, and is always attacked by those who wish to 'contain' the story.
I should point out that by harass I mean in the fashion described in the media report.
Perhaps the fact that people bought the NoW gave them a mandate to treat people in such a fashion?
As for hacking, there was a bit on science tv show, ages ago now, saying that it was quite easy, and with just a little bit of info, any phone could be 'hacked' into quite easily, just makes you wonder how many (apart from HM Gov, who must do almost every, if not all!) phones they do, maybe the investigation should have been widened to the whole media?
Why don't we save the expense of having a democratic process and just leave it to how many people buy the Sun? The fact that a couple of million people buy the Sun does not give NI the right to think itself above the law.
It does cover the whole media but they can only investigate what information they have. Even if they find that other newspapers were doing it that doesn't alter how serious this for NI. What the Leveson inquiry is largely about is how was this illegality known to the police and yet they seemed to be part of the cover up. Also how was somebody mixed up in all of this brought into the heart of government without even being vettted. That same individual was apparently still being paid by a Murdoch company. This is the same Murdoch who Cameron had to have secret talks with to get the support of his newspapers. Can you perhaps see a connection between all of this because many people think their is. Although perhaps they should give up looking into this because of the amount of people who buy the Sun?
Those circulation figures are attained even without the residents of Liverpool, which makes them even more remarkable.
I wonder those same people who refuse to buy the Sun as a Murdoch paper have a Sky dish on their house or watch Sky programmes via cable.
Are you really suggesting that we shouldn't have an investigation into NI thinking they were above the law because people buy the Sun and watch Sky tv? What about the majority who don't buy the Sun or subscribe to Sky? As i have already pointed out anyway people who want to watch sports have Hobson's choice.
I think what he is saying is he thinks we should not have an inquiry into the Murdoch's:NEWS CORP:SKY in case they( the Murdoch's) stop the SUN or SKY because then the world would stop:D:D
I must admit, before all this started I thought 'hacking' was a technical thing using sophisticated equipment, not just having a few guesses at a four digit PIN, which in most cases people left on the factory default.
Which makes you wonder why Mulcaire in his notes bothered to record peoples mobile PIN's next to their names if it was common knowledge what they were. In any case whether it was easy or not makes no difference. I have seen it explained how to easily break into the lock that many people have on their front door. That does not make it OK to do it.
No, I was commenting on this post —
After that comment I wondered why is it that there appears so much hatred for the Murdochs, why despite all this, the products he has got, The Sun and Sky among many others appears do be trading so very well.
Even without zero Murdoch involvement in these products does anyone actually believe there would be a huge surge in the Sky subscribers and Sun readers.
I believe there must be many, who loathe the name Murdoch, given the universal Murdoch hatred, still buys his products, regardless, otherwise they would not be trading so well. For instance have people been cancelling Sky in their droves or cancelling the Sun because of these allegations about Murdoch. I believe many people are simply two-faced particularly many politicians shouting their bit, I bet they still have a Sky dish
What you think I said and what I actually said are very different.
Well you have a point there but whilst BSkyB has an effective monopoly over sports and exclusive deals with movie channels people don't have much of a choice do they? Also I wonder how many NoW readers knew the disgraceful (and illegal) treatment of the Church family when they were reading those stories. I wonder how much they know about NI's wrongdoing even as they wont be reading much about hacking in the Murdoch newspapers will they? Do a search for hacking on the Sun site and see how they have given it minimal coverage whilst giving prominence to any other organisation involved. They certainly haven't had the screaming headlines calling for the head of the guilty organisation like they have with other less serious stories.Even if those people do know and are happy for a News organisation to act in such a way that still doesn't make it right especially as they would surely be in a minority.
Sorry no, its like bad news reporting in the us where a buncha people yack about what they don't know, having no new information to base their opinions, just chewing on the same story endlessly because its cheaper than doing journalism. Go back and look if you can, there are places that *ahem* recorded such shows...or whatever, I watch them pretty consistently and the excessive coverage of nothing new has been happening since it began.
It is the cnn effect. You have a school shooting, you have maybe half a paragraph of information to give to the viewer, but you have to stay on the story hour..after hour..after hour. There is nothing about wishing to contain the story, its just obnoxiously pointless filler that is wasting everyones time. If folks are going to point fingers at murdoch's press, best take a look at themselves too.
Did you not see the recent Panorama programme?
Former hackers were being employed to hack into rivals encryption software, they were provided with facilities they would not have had available unless funded by a commercial company.
A hackers website was set up, said to be under the control of companies associated with the Murdoch empire.
The purpose of the website was said to be to prevent hacking, but it was claimed rival companies codes somehow appeared on the website.
All assertions I've not seen proof of.
Bad encryption is easily hacked, look at dvd john.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lech_Johansen
Was he being supplied keys by competitors or did he just work it out himself...
And again, if a simple set of codes is all that was required to irreparably break their encryption for all users, their system was broken from the start, and the complaining seems like an effort to cover their own incompetence.
Did you say the same about the frequent allegations of phone hacking too?
This is a specific and different charge, so don't bring that in. How many itv subscribers were lost due to piracy, do tell, this is the part that matters after all if this was supposedly to blame.
Whatever the facts, this story just reeks of "butthurt".
You don't seem aware how the CANAL+ code was embedded in its cards, that sophiscated technology would be required to get access to the code, before even attempting to decode it.
A newspaper report as far back as 2002...
About 2 years ago Panorama ran a programme about phone and computer hacking by the NOTWs which at the time was dismissed as nonsense.... mmmmm.
I'm afraid none of that bears up to any critical thinking. The majority of the committee members voted for the 'not fit' statement to be added. That is all of the Labour members and the Lib Dem member. Louise Mensch then instead of accepting the majority, toured the tv and radio studios and said that it had been sprung on them whereas it turned out the Conservative chairman had delayed discussion on it. Funnily enough Ms Mensch has kept quite since Watson said he would publish the pro Murdoch amendments that the Tory members of the committee had tabled.
Despite asserting she stood by claims she made, Ms Mensch has been in that rare priviledged position of having had to apologise to Piers Morgan.
Listen to her claim that had no basis.
So one day she was touring TV studios asserting her claim was fact but the next day....