I imagine the rest of ITV are very pissed off - DC isn't going to be in a rush to go on any ITV programs any time soon, so other brands, such as Daybreak, will suffer when it's nothing to do with them
You are a very uptight divisive person, always with the BBC fanboys rubbish. If you cannot see that this was an epic fail on the part of TM and that silver haired moron then i pity you. Feel free to have a hissy fit now.
ITV and the silver haired moron being sued by the lord will be a joy to watch.
epic fail, are you thirteen?
other questions:
why the strong feelings towards phillip schofield?
why would a lord want to sue him?
what is the basis of this legal action?
how are planning on watching the legal action unfold?
The basis for suing him is that he displayed a list of alleged ''paedophiles'' which included Lord McAlpine. As it is accepted the good lord is not a paedophile that was clearly libellous and very damaging to his lordship's standing in society. The law says that merits a payment to compensate.One assumes if anyone on the programme had bothered to consult a lawyer he/she would have advised against it. But then is This Morning actually a journalistic programme ? As it merited a payment of £185,000 plus expenses from the BBC, where McAlpine said he was conscious the licence payer would end up paying, it is presumably worth a lot more from ITV where the advertisers end up paying.
It's a disgrace, but sadly Phil is too important to be sacked. I hope he makes another blunder and gets dismissed as he is no Robin Day, just a presenter of sub standard game shows and a morning show that is well past its best.
But as long as we all remember that this well past its best morning showhas one presenter who is blameless
The basis for suing him is that he displayed a list of alleged ''paedophiles'' which included Lord McAlpine. As it is accepted the good lord is not a paedophile that was clearly libellous and very damaging to his lordship's standing in society. The law says that merits a payment to compensate.One assumes if anyone on the programme had bothered to consult a lawyer he/she would have advised against it. But then is This Morning actually a journalistic programme ? As it merited a payment of £185,000 plus expenses from the BBC, where McAlpine said he was conscious the licence payer would end up paying, it is presumably worth a lot more from ITV where the advertisers end up paying.
was the list visible?
is there a legal defence to say that he made it clear that it was a list of people who have been accused on the internet, probably not.
Parts of the list were visible which is why McAlpine is taking legal action against ITV. He is also taking action against all sorts of people over Twitter allegations, not least the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons. The laws of libel apply equally to social networks - if you publish the allegation to more than one other person it's libel.
I had been thinking "Stupid Schofield" but now part of me wonders how much of the blame he should shoulder. As a mere presenter how much control does he have over his material? Are the production team up all night putting together heart wrenching stories about cats with leukemia for him to front, or does he have the authority to act as an unofficial deputy editor, proposing stories he likes, vetoing ones that don't fit his image?
At the very least he could have had the backbone to say he wanted nothing to do with ambushing one of the few people who ought to stay outside of any involvement in police investigations (percieved political pressure, impartiality of supervision and inquiries).
Having agreed to do it he should have been aware he was playing with dynamite and taken care not to flash names. Lord McAlpine has said the public hatred was "terrifying" and he is not even in the UK. It won't all go away either, there are a lot of thick people around.
Unless it was entirely his idea the production team should share the blame.
The disciplinary action should not be hidden behind veil of secrecy. Personal extenuating circumstances are different, but the details of punishments should be published. That's how it works for footballers, rugby stars and police officers, why should employees of a public company with a public franchise whose offence was in public be different?
Which part of the Ofcom code was broken? A quick look suggests section 2 (Harm and Offence) rule 2.3 (material must be justified by context - libel is not justified, not is content that could result in beatings or death threats), section 3 (Crime) rule 3.1 (lead to disorder), rule 3.6 (endanger lives), section 5 (Due Impartiality), rule 5.1 (due accuracy and impartiality - broadcasting names is taking a side), 5.2 (acknowlege mistakes quickly), rule 5.5 (due impartiality on matters of controversy), 5.11 (same), 5.12 (wide range of views), section 7 (Fairness) rule 7.1 (unfair treatment of individuals - could prejudice a jury), rule 7.11 (opportunity to respond to allegations), 7.14 (contribution obtained by deception - ambush PM), section 8 (Privacy) rule 8.1 (infringement of privacy - widely publishing and giving weight to obscure allegations).
The Voice, Surprise Surprise, both successful shows, and also a winning personality.
Thats your opinion of course, in fact you have stated it across this thread a number of times, we know you think highly of Holly.
Holly is an OK presenter, not bad on This Morning, OK on The Voice but pretty dire on Surprise, Surprise in my opinion. I just laugh when I have seen on this thread a number of times how blameless she is, its like we have to be told that in case she gets tarred with the same brush as Phillip and loses her job - she wont! Also we dont know how blameless she is, she may well have been sat at the computer with Phil adding names to the list but he was the one who presented it!
The Mail is reporting that McAlpine's lawyers will be seeking damages from ITV substantially higher than the £185,000 agreed with the BBC. The Mail quotes a figure of "up to £500,000".
I imagine the rest of ITV are very pissed off - DC isn't going to be in a rush to go on any ITV programs any time soon, so other brands, such as Daybreak, will suffer when it's nothing to do with them
Politicians need to get their message across and TV is the best way of addressing the public. The Tories have a problem with female voters who often see the party as uncaring. Day time TV is the best means of doing that. Whatever Cameron feels about This Morning and Philip Scofield, it will make no difference to him appearing on the prog because he needs to do so.
By the way, before going in to politics Cameron worked for ITV, not that makes any difference.
The Mail is reporting that McAlpine's lawyers will be seeking damages from ITV substantially higher than the £185,000 agreed with the BBC. The Mail quotes a figure of "up to £500,000".
The Mail is reporting that McAlpine's lawyers will be seeking damages from ITV substantially higher than the £185,000 agreed with the BBC. The Mail quotes a figure of "up to £500,000".
It has been reported on the BBC News ticker 9and on the One O'clock News):
It seems to me in terms of the level of wrongdoing, ITV should have had to pay more than the BBC. The original figure that was bandied about was he was seeking £500,000.
Maybe he can make up the difference from Sally Bercow.
It seems to me in terms of the level of wrongdoing, ITV should have had to pay more than the BBC. The original figure that was bandied about was he was seeking £500,000.
Maybe he can make up the difference from Sally Bercow.
Agreed, did the BBC actual name him themselves? I thought it was all done by others. They had a failure in their news operation which they apologised for immediately and are correcting.
The ITV case seemed deliberate and malicious to me, they took a long time to issue an apology. No heads have rolled.
It staggers me to discover Philip Schofield and This Morning's editor (who has ultimate responsibility for the programme's actions) are yet to resign over Schofield ambushing the Prime Minister on live television, with a list of names about whom Internet rumours of paedophilia had been made without evidence.
The stunt would have been bad enough even if the list hadn't been caught on camera.
Hopefully ITV's morals will kick in at some point, but I won't hold my breath. :rolleyes:
Indeed. I can't think of anything more stupid and reckless than Schofields action that I've seen on tv.
why the strong feelings towards phillip schofield?
why would a lord want to sue him?
what is the basis of this legal action?
how are planning on watching the legal action unfold?
I love how you George attack the poster but never want to debate the posts, re-minder was spot on with his analysis and looking at his posting history as he is a tube driver then he is way past thirteen.
And as others have said he handed a list of names some of which were clear to see and I'd bet the Lords names was on it as why would ITV make a payout.
Schofieild is damaged goods, TM will eventually get rid of the liability, personally I don't like him either as I don't trust morons who hide behind super injunctions to protect their private life scandals.
Comments
epic fail, are you thirteen?
other questions:
why the strong feelings towards phillip schofield?
why would a lord want to sue him?
what is the basis of this legal action?
how are planning on watching the legal action unfold?
was the list visible?
is there a legal defence to say that he made it clear that it was a list of people who have been accused on the internet, probably not.
Holly, a young woman who is starting prove herself as a presenter.
At the very least he could have had the backbone to say he wanted nothing to do with ambushing one of the few people who ought to stay outside of any involvement in police investigations (percieved political pressure, impartiality of supervision and inquiries).
Having agreed to do it he should have been aware he was playing with dynamite and taken care not to flash names. Lord McAlpine has said the public hatred was "terrifying" and he is not even in the UK. It won't all go away either, there are a lot of thick people around.
Unless it was entirely his idea the production team should share the blame.
The disciplinary action should not be hidden behind veil of secrecy. Personal extenuating circumstances are different, but the details of punishments should be published. That's how it works for footballers, rugby stars and police officers, why should employees of a public company with a public franchise whose offence was in public be different?
Which part of the Ofcom code was broken? A quick look suggests section 2 (Harm and Offence) rule 2.3 (material must be justified by context - libel is not justified, not is content that could result in beatings or death threats), section 3 (Crime) rule 3.1 (lead to disorder), rule 3.6 (endanger lives), section 5 (Due Impartiality), rule 5.1 (due accuracy and impartiality - broadcasting names is taking a side), 5.2 (acknowlege mistakes quickly), rule 5.5 (due impartiality on matters of controversy), 5.11 (same), 5.12 (wide range of views), section 7 (Fairness) rule 7.1 (unfair treatment of individuals - could prejudice a jury), rule 7.11 (opportunity to respond to allegations), 7.14 (contribution obtained by deception - ambush PM), section 8 (Privacy) rule 8.1 (infringement of privacy - widely publishing and giving weight to obscure allegations).
Sky news thought it was visible enough for them to have a need to black it out when doing a report on the situation so I guess it must have been.
What silly questions to ask, do you not know of this case?
http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2012/11/15/ofcom-response-to-mp-rob-wilson/
Really? When exactly was that?
The Voice, Surprise Surprise, both successful shows, and also a winning personality.
Holly is an OK presenter, not bad on This Morning, OK on The Voice but pretty dire on Surprise, Surprise in my opinion. I just laugh when I have seen on this thread a number of times how blameless she is, its like we have to be told that in case she gets tarred with the same brush as Phillip and loses her job - she wont! Also we dont know how blameless she is, she may well have been sat at the computer with Phil adding names to the list but he was the one who presented it!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2234756/Lord-McAlpine-suing-ITV-500k-lawyers-pursue-10k-Twitter-users-wrongly-linking-child-abuse-scandal.html
Politicians need to get their message across and TV is the best way of addressing the public. The Tories have a problem with female voters who often see the party as uncaring. Day time TV is the best means of doing that. Whatever Cameron feels about This Morning and Philip Scofield, it will make no difference to him appearing on the prog because he needs to do so.
By the way, before going in to politics Cameron worked for ITV, not that makes any difference.
Has the Heil demanded that heads should roll at ITV yet??
Has it declared it has a financial interest in ITV ?
It has been reported on the BBC News ticker 9and on the One O'clock News):
It seems to me in terms of the level of wrongdoing, ITV should have had to pay more than the BBC. The original figure that was bandied about was he was seeking £500,000.
Maybe he can make up the difference from Sally Bercow.
Agreed, did the BBC actual name him themselves? I thought it was all done by others. They had a failure in their news operation which they apologised for immediately and are correcting.
The ITV case seemed deliberate and malicious to me, they took a long time to issue an apology. No heads have rolled.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20443186
Hopefully he'll donate the money from ITV and the BBC too.
Indeed. I can't think of anything more stupid and reckless than Schofields action that I've seen on tv.
I love how you George attack the poster but never want to debate the posts, re-minder was spot on with his analysis and looking at his posting history as he is a tube driver then he is way past thirteen.
And as others have said he handed a list of names some of which were clear to see and I'd bet the Lords names was on it as why would ITV make a payout.
Schofieild is damaged goods, TM will eventually get rid of the liability, personally I don't like him either as I don't trust morons who hide behind super injunctions to protect their private life scandals.