Freedom of speech in the UK was consigned to history years ago. Now it seems freedom of the press will be joining it soon.
Will be joining it? Freedom of the press has been consigned to the end of a lead for a few decades now. We have freedom of the press barons these days.
< WHILE i do not agree with the pensioner;s view.. SHE has a right to freedom of speech. and her own personal point of view. >
And we have the right to point out how stupid her obvious envy and hatred is, and how her nastiness and total lack of empathy are seen by us.
I am sure you support my freedom of speech to say that her twisted mind is hopefully in a small minority and that you support the people who booed her as they had the perfect right to do.
Don't you think it is extremely bad behaviour when someone has related how horribly their family has been harrassed to retort to the effect that you don't care and they deserve it? I do.
< WHILE i do not agree with the pensioner;s view.. SHE has a right to freedom of speech. and her own personal point of view. >
And we have the right to point out how stupid her obvious envy and hatred is, and how her nastiness and total lack of empathy are seen by us.
I am sure you support my freedom of speech to say that her twisted mind is hopefully in a small minority and that you support the people who booed her as they had the perfect right to do.
Don't you think it is extremely bad behaviour when someone has related how horribly their family has been harrassed to retort to the effect that you don't care and they deserve it? I do.
The reality is both parties had a point but i knew implicity what the old woman was trying to get across(not vey well admittedly) but others clearly on this forum/audience didnt.:o
The age gap gives it away, but it's a pity that charlotte had been schooled in the 'in and out's of journalism but knew little else of note from succesive questions.
First time i've watched QT for a whlle and it's still shocking to see how dumbed down its got since dimbleby took over. An intellectual politcal programme it is not.
stopped watching QT when they started bringing on crap celebrities in place of politicians..probably because politicians today are all bland and lacking any character nowadays
Charlotte wiped the floor with them. She understood everything that The Leveson Report said, she had clearly studied it deeply and was so well prepared. She has sorted herself out, she must have been through a terrible time with her mother, who is not famous and did not ask to be blackmailed nor did her parish priest deserve to have is phone hacked either. That old woman was spiteful.
Charlotte has actually been very low key since having children, she has grown into a very accomplished young woman, with a high level of intellegence. I took remember her on HIGNFY and she was brilliant then too.
I don't think there was anything spiteful in what the lady said about celebs who use the Press when it suits them. She was entitled to her opinion just as Church was allowed to respond. You may not agree with what the lady said but that's the nature of the Programme. As far as I recall she wasn't saying phone hacking etc. was acceptable but rather that " celebs" can't have it all ways.
stopped watching QT when they started bringing on crap celebrities in place of politicians..probably because politicians today are all bland and lacking any character nowadays
Church isn't a crap celebrity, she was (and always has been in relation to her age at the time) interesting and well spoken. In this case, she was exceedingly knowledgeable because of her personal involvement, had a good grasp of the subject (some others too) and was well worth her place on the panel. Having said that, I never did rate her as a singer!
But the old lady was way out of line - there can be NO justification for the press to harass friends and relatives of any famous personality - under any circumstances. Church accepted that it was something she had to accept, but (rightly IMO), nobody else close to her in a personal capacity. The old lady seemed to imply otherwise and came across to me as being a bit spiteful to be honest.
I don't think there was anything spiteful in what the lady said about celebs who use the Press when it suits them. She was entitled to her opinion just as Church was allowed to respond. You may not agree with what the lady said but that's the nature of the Programme. As far as I recall she wasn't saying phone hacking etc. was acceptable but rather that " celebs" can't have it all ways.
The first bit was ok, but she showed a lack of empathy when she implied that her mother's problems were down to weakness, and as was pointed out it wasn't just celebrities phones being hacked even in Charlotte Church's case.
That old woman really was an old witch. What a thing to say to someone when you've just explained that your mum had a nervous breakdown because of the stress. I wish she had been taken to task more but she's entitled to her opinion I suppose, plus, people probably thought "Oh, she's old, we can't say anything to her".
stopped watching QT when they started bringing on crap celebrities in place of politicians..probably because politicians today are all bland and lacking any character nowadays
Many (if not most) of the celebrities talk more sense than the politicians, in my opinion. Unless they are retired politicians, who might actually speak their mind, they just repeat the party line, parrot-fashion.
Not sure how people can justify it. Surely they know it's not about snapping a celeb falling drunkenly out of a nightclub or similar?
What about Denholm Elliot's daughter who was a drug addict and beggar when a jouranist 'finally' tracked her down (he heard that the daughter of an actor was in a bad way and went out of his way to track her down) he paid her for sex for the sole purpose that he could 'do a number on her' (in his own words) by naming her as a prostitute in his headline/article.
Did Denholm Elliot's daughter ask or deserve that?
I remember seeing that being mentioned on the Hugh Grant documentary the other night. IIRC didn't Denholm Elliot's daughter commit suicide not long after that delightful journalist (Paul McMullen I think his name is) 'did a number on her'? Absolutely disgraceful and indefensible IMO.
The first bit was ok, but she showed a lack of empathy when she implied that her mother's problems were down to weakness, and as was pointed out it wasn't just celebrities phones being hacked even in Charlotte Church's case.
Yes, I agree with that.
Interesting to read some of the comments here about the lady who is variously described as "old", "pensioner" and even "witch". A touch of kettle and pot maybe?
While the whole phone tapping matter was a disgrace, I can't help wondering how many of those who shout the loudest were readers of the "News of the World" and similar rag papers? They tend to forget that the high readership of such papers had some part in fueling the need of reporters to resort to the disgraceful tactics they used to gather gossip and tittle tattle. Sadly, even today, there are plenty who relish all this stuff about so called "celebs".
Interesting to read some of the comments here about the lady who is variously described as "old", "pensioner" and even "witch". A touch of kettle and pot maybe?
While the whole phone tapping matter was a disgrace, I can't help wondering how many of those who shout the loudest were readers of the "News of the World" and similar rag papers? They tend to forget that the high readership of such papers had some part in fueling the need of reporters to resort to the disgraceful tactics they used to gather gossip and tittle tattle. Sadly, even today, there are plenty who relish all this stuff about so called "celebs".
End of rant!:(
If Newspapers were open about how they obtained their stories then you might have more of a point.
By buying their papers isn't a tacit agreement to the methods they use, otherwise there'd be little or no 'outrage, scandal' and the News of the World would still be about.
That said there are no end of hypocrites who'll have a shout about phone hacking then buy the same bs celeb stories and repeat the contents as if it's fact.
Most of them got bored with Levenson as soon as the celebs weren't involved and don't really understand the wider issues IMO.
Virtually nobody was interested for the years the Guardian was poking about with the whole hacking thing, says it all IMO.
I remember seeing that being mentioned on the Hugh Grant documentary the other night. IIRC didn't Denholm Elliot's daughter commit suicide not long after that delightful journalist (Paul McMullen I think his name is) 'did a number on her'? Absolutely disgraceful and indefensible IMO.
It's alright though he felt 'sorry' about it afterwards.
She didn't commit suicide immediately afterwards either, so that made him feel a little better.
As he 'knows' celebs and their families have somehow agreed to pay whatever 'price' the press have decided for their celebrity status.
If someone goes off the celeb radar for whatever reason, they're round there quick enough doing gloating 'how the mighty have fallen' stories.
If Newspapers were open about how they obtained their stories then you might have more of a point.
By buying their papers isn't a tacit agreement to the methods they use, otherwise there'd be little or no 'outrage, scandal' and the News of the World would still be about.
That said there are no end of hypocrites who'll have a shout about phone hacking then buy the same bs celeb stories and repeat the contents as if it's fact.
Most of them got bored with Levenson as soon as the celebs weren't involved and don't really understand the wider issues IMO.
Virtually nobody was interested for the years the Guardian was poking about with the whole hacking thing, says it all IMO.
Weren't the Guardian also hypocrites in admitting to have indulged in some hacking but of course it is "different" when they do it.
It seems no newspaper was free of guilt even if the Murdoch group was targeted most in the investigations.
Weren't the Guardian also hypocrites in admitting to have indulged in some hacking but of course it is "different" when they do it.
It seems no newspaper was free of guilt even if the Murdoch group was targeted most in the investigations.
I don't know what hacking the Guardian got up to.
There's always the public interest defense for this sort of thing.
That's what they used as a get out for blagging Gordon Brown's bank account details, whether there were unusual amounts in there.
It's similar to accepting documents from whistleblowers who've broken the Official secrets act.
I think they used the Public interest defense in the West Country hacking case too, Operation reproof IIRC.
Brings us back to McMullan and his public are interested/public interest defense which he seems to think is the same thing.
I don't know what hacking the Guardian got up to.
There's always the public interest defense for this sort of thing.
That's what they used as a get out for blagging Gordon Brown's bank account details, whether there were unusual amounts in there.
It's similar to accepting documents from whistleblowers who've broken the Official secrets act.
I think they used the Public interest defense in the West Country hacking case too, Operation reproof IIRC.
Brings us back to McMullan and his public are interested/public interest defense which he seems to think is the same thing.
There is no public interest defence to a criminal offence as far as I was aware. If the police break the law whilst trying to get a conviction then the alleged offender can often escape conviction so why should it be different for a journalist/
I don't know what hacking the Guardian got up to.
There's always the public interest defense for this sort of thing.
That's what they used as a get out for blagging Gordon Brown's bank account details, whether there were unusual amounts in there.
It's similar to accepting documents from whistleblowers who've broken the Official secrets act.
I think they used the Public interest defense in the West Country hacking case too, Operation reproof IIRC.
Brings us back to McMullan and his public are interested/public interest defense which he seems to think is the same thing.
The bits of this post I understand are not correct.
There is no public interest defence to a criminal offence as far as I was aware. If the police break the law whilst trying to get a conviction then the alleged offender can often escape conviction so why should it be different for a journalist/
Oh the 'voyeuristic thrill' thing, read bits of that before.
I'm not going over the public interest thing, very old ground.
CPS uses it all the time and not just related to Journos, but the wider context is another discussion altogether.
Many (if not most) of the celebrities talk more sense than the politicians, in my opinion. Unless they are retired politicians, who might actually speak their mind, they just repeat the party line, parrot-fashion.
Please do you actually read the tripe you have written before submitting??
You become a politician, i dare you, and then see how much common sense you come out with.
Celebrities are in a unique position when they enter a debate with politicians on programmes like QT. They are always going to be applauded for silly 'common sense' views and hence why the programme is not engaging to anyone with moderate intelligence.
I remember seeing that being mentioned on the Hugh Grant documentary the other night. IIRC didn't Denholm Elliot's daughter commit suicide not long after that delightful journalist (Paul McMullen I think his name is) 'did a number on her'? Absolutely disgraceful and indefensible IMO.
It was mentioned - the ex-NOTW journo Paul McMullen (who's now running a pub mentioned it and said he felt guilty)
Comments
Will be joining it? Freedom of the press has been consigned to the end of a lead for a few decades now. We have freedom of the press barons these days.
And we have the right to point out how stupid her obvious envy and hatred is, and how her nastiness and total lack of empathy are seen by us.
I am sure you support my freedom of speech to say that her twisted mind is hopefully in a small minority and that you support the people who booed her as they had the perfect right to do.
Don't you think it is extremely bad behaviour when someone has related how horribly their family has been harrassed to retort to the effect that you don't care and they deserve it? I do.
The reality is both parties had a point but i knew implicity what the old woman was trying to get across(not vey well admittedly) but others clearly on this forum/audience didnt.:o
The age gap gives it away, but it's a pity that charlotte had been schooled in the 'in and out's of journalism but knew little else of note from succesive questions.
First time i've watched QT for a whlle and it's still shocking to see how dumbed down its got since dimbleby took over. An intellectual politcal programme it is not.
Charlotte has actually been very low key since having children, she has grown into a very accomplished young woman, with a high level of intellegence. I took remember her on HIGNFY and she was brilliant then too.
Church isn't a crap celebrity, she was (and always has been in relation to her age at the time) interesting and well spoken. In this case, she was exceedingly knowledgeable because of her personal involvement, had a good grasp of the subject (some others too) and was well worth her place on the panel. Having said that, I never did rate her as a singer!
But the old lady was way out of line - there can be NO justification for the press to harass friends and relatives of any famous personality - under any circumstances. Church accepted that it was something she had to accept, but (rightly IMO), nobody else close to her in a personal capacity. The old lady seemed to imply otherwise and came across to me as being a bit spiteful to be honest.
The first bit was ok, but she showed a lack of empathy when she implied that her mother's problems were down to weakness, and as was pointed out it wasn't just celebrities phones being hacked even in Charlotte Church's case.
I remember when she was on HIGNFY many years ago. There were howls of derision when her appearance was announced.
But she was brilliant on that too.
Many (if not most) of the celebrities talk more sense than the politicians, in my opinion. Unless they are retired politicians, who might actually speak their mind, they just repeat the party line, parrot-fashion.
I remember seeing that being mentioned on the Hugh Grant documentary the other night. IIRC didn't Denholm Elliot's daughter commit suicide not long after that delightful journalist (Paul McMullen I think his name is) 'did a number on her'? Absolutely disgraceful and indefensible IMO.
Yes, I agree with that.
Interesting to read some of the comments here about the lady who is variously described as "old", "pensioner" and even "witch". A touch of kettle and pot maybe?
While the whole phone tapping matter was a disgrace, I can't help wondering how many of those who shout the loudest were readers of the "News of the World" and similar rag papers? They tend to forget that the high readership of such papers had some part in fueling the need of reporters to resort to the disgraceful tactics they used to gather gossip and tittle tattle. Sadly, even today, there are plenty who relish all this stuff about so called "celebs".
End of rant!:(
The Internet: Where you'll find someone willing to argue anything, as quick as all get-out!
If Newspapers were open about how they obtained their stories then you might have more of a point.
By buying their papers isn't a tacit agreement to the methods they use, otherwise there'd be little or no 'outrage, scandal' and the News of the World would still be about.
That said there are no end of hypocrites who'll have a shout about phone hacking then buy the same bs celeb stories and repeat the contents as if it's fact.
Most of them got bored with Levenson as soon as the celebs weren't involved and don't really understand the wider issues IMO.
Virtually nobody was interested for the years the Guardian was poking about with the whole hacking thing, says it all IMO.
It's alright though he felt 'sorry' about it afterwards.
She didn't commit suicide immediately afterwards either, so that made him feel a little better.
As he 'knows' celebs and their families have somehow agreed to pay whatever 'price' the press have decided for their celebrity status.
If someone goes off the celeb radar for whatever reason, they're round there quick enough doing gloating 'how the mighty have fallen' stories.
Weren't the Guardian also hypocrites in admitting to have indulged in some hacking but of course it is "different" when they do it.
It seems no newspaper was free of guilt even if the Murdoch group was targeted most in the investigations.
I don't know what hacking the Guardian got up to.
There's always the public interest defense for this sort of thing.
That's what they used as a get out for blagging Gordon Brown's bank account details, whether there were unusual amounts in there.
It's similar to accepting documents from whistleblowers who've broken the Official secrets act.
I think they used the Public interest defense in the West Country hacking case too, Operation reproof IIRC.
Brings us back to McMullan and his public are interested/public interest defense which he seems to think is the same thing.
The old woman was just one of those typical Daily Mail reading, venom-filled, delusional and bigoted pensioners. Vile old witch.
There is no public interest defence to a criminal offence as far as I was aware. If the police break the law whilst trying to get a conviction then the alleged offender can often escape conviction so why should it be different for a journalist/
David Leigh, The Guardian’s Hacker-in-Chief, Lied to Guido
10 seconds on Google clarifies the position under UK law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest#United_Kingdom_public_interest_law
Oh the 'voyeuristic thrill' thing, read bits of that before.
I'm not going over the public interest thing, very old ground.
CPS uses it all the time and not just related to Journos, but the wider context is another discussion altogether.
Please do you actually read the tripe you have written before submitting??
You become a politician, i dare you, and then see how much common sense you come out with.
Celebrities are in a unique position when they enter a debate with politicians on programmes like QT. They are always going to be applauded for silly 'common sense' views and hence why the programme is not engaging to anyone with moderate intelligence.
It was mentioned - the ex-NOTW journo Paul McMullen (who's now running a pub mentioned it and said he felt guilty)