Leveson Inquiry: Witness Lists - January 9th - 12th

LEVESON INQUIRY:CULTURE, PRACTICE AND ETHICS OF THE PRESS

"I want this inquiry to mean something", not end up as "footnote in some professor of journalism's analysis of 21 century history." LJ Leveson in reply to A Rusbridger's submission to Inquiry.

Lord Justice Leveson

The Panel : 

Top row (left to right)

• Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty
• George Jones, former Daily Telegraph political editor
• Sir David Bell, former chairman of the Financial Times

Bottom row (Left to right)

• Elinor Goodman, former Channel 4 political editor
• Lord David Currie, former chairman of Ofcom
• Sir Paul Scott-Lee, former West Midlands chief constable

• Videos of Hearings From Leveson Inquiry Website

• Leveson Inquiry Witness Statements

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inquiry resumes Monday January 9th 2012

From Guardian:

Here's a quick reminder of the four modules within this first year of the inquiry.

Module 1: The relationship between the press and the public and looks at phone-hacking and other potentially illegal behaviour

Module 2: The relationships between the press and police and the extent to which that has operated in the public interest

Module 3: The relationship between press and politicians
Module 4: Recommendations for a more effective policy and regulation that supports the integrity and freedom of the press while encouraging the highest ethical standards.

Witnesses 

Monday:

Appearing in person: 

Duncan Larcombe (The Sun)

Kelvin MacKenzie (formerly with The Sun)

Dominic Mohan (The Sun)

Gordon Smart (The Sun)

Justin Walford (The Sun) 

John Edwards (The Sun)

Witnesses whose evidence statements will be read:

Stuart Higgins (The Sun)

Simon Toms (The Sun)

David Yelland (The Sun)

Tuesday:

Appearing in person:

Lionel Barber (FT) 

Chris Blackhurst (Independent)

Tony Gallagher (Telegraph)

William Lewis (formerly Telegraph)

Murdoch MacLennan (Telegraph)

Manish Malhotra (Independent)

Andrew Mullins (Independent)

Finbarr Ronayne (Telegraph)

Witnesses whose evidence statements will be read:

Tim Bratton (FT)

Benedict Brogan (Telegraph)

Adam Cannon (Telegraph)

Alison Fortescue (FT)
Stefano Hatfield (Independent)

Wednesday:

Appearing in person:

Liz Hartley (Associated Newspapers)

Peter Wright (Associated Newspapers)  

Witnesses whose evidence statements will be read:

Kevin Beatty (Associated Newspapers)

James Welsh (Associated Newspapers) 

Thursday:   

Appearing in person:

Paul Ashford (Northern and Shell)

Richard Desmond (Northern and Shell)

Peter Hill (Northern and Shell)

Dawn Neesom (Northern and Shell)

Nicole Patterson (Northern and Shell)

Robert Sanderson (Northern and Shell)

Hugh Whitlow (Northern and Shell) 

Witnesses whose evidence statements will be read: 

Martin Ellice (Northern and Shell)

Gareth Morgan (Northern and Shell)

Martin Townsend (Northern and Shell)

Desmond and his tottering soap-box hit the air-waves..

Tonight, Radio 5 Live, as part of its regular phone-in programme, went down the immigration path - again. (Recording of the programme - 'Race or Class?')

This time, however, free rein was given to some extremely overtly racist callers. As I sat with my lower jaw sinking ever closer to the floor, the 'P' word was spoken and phrases reminiscent of the 50s and 60s were used. I realised I was listening to an audio version of Richard Desmond's Express, Dacre's Mail and Murdoch's Sun! Same words, same phrases.

20.11.2011

If ever proof of this were needed, today's Sunday's Express blares its consistent message from every newsstand.

The article itself, under the byline of James Murray, is a fine example of its kind. If you must, you can read the article here.

The piece has quotations from several unnamed 'whistleblowers' and 'insiders'.


Protecting sources is understandable, but this whole piece, dubbed by Mr Murray 'a Sunday Express investigation', suffers from a complete lack of firm evidence or credibility and is as much an investigation as my foot!

I mean, for goodness' sake - there's no sign of the obligatory quotation from the experts from Migration Watch!

MIGRANTS IN COSMETIC OPS SCAM

"One of the more astonishing claims came from a man who said it was his human right to have his penis enlarged to boost his sexual confidence."

Does this not smack of Theresa May's story which caused her such problems at the recent Conservative Party Conference, when she assured us she was 'not making it up' that a man was allowed to stay in Britain because he had a cat?

Theresa May

The article continues:

"Foreign women with dubious stories about why they should remain in Britain also regularly sought IVF treatment on the National Health Service."

Well, which is it? Were their stories 'dubious' or did they come specifically for IVF treatment? 

" One whistleblower said: “The bosses would not investigate because it would have cost too much.

“One of the women in the office dealing with all these IVF cases for foreign women was having IVF treatment herself but she was having to pay for it privately because she couldn’t get it on the NHS."

" “Some days she was in tears because the applicants didn’t seem to have any trouble getting it on the NHS, though we had serious doubts about their stories. It was migration for medical reasons.” Our explosive revelations come as Home Secretary Theresa May battles to survive the border controls crisis and further highlights the chaos that is allowing so many bogus asylum seekers to stay in Britain."

The second to last sentence then has the only vaguely attributable quotation in the whole sorry piece:

"A Home Office spokesman said it was “not true” that people sought IVF and penis enlargements on the NHS."

 Mr. Dacre appears to have ordered his minion, Murray, to bash May and the Tories for their policy of cuts to the Border Agency in a sort of two-for-one deal with a dig at disingenuous foreigners. The only thing missing, and it would have been difficult feat to accomplish even for the devious Express, is a link to health fears, Princess Diana, house prices and pensions!

The Express is renowned for its very predictable rolling style of daily front page headlines. Never knowingly deviating from a clutch of overworked gripes to push at their readers.

Headlines to incite hatred, make integration, tolerance almost impossible?

Lapped up by readers who only have this one-sided, often erroneous information as a diet?

Lurid fear-inducing headlines, usually with very little trustworthy scientific evidence in the accompanying articles, miracle cures which turn out to be plain good common sense or sometimes give false hope?

Lapped up by readers seeking reassurance?


Many of us are watching the proceedings at the Leveson Inquiry with a great deal of interest and are hoping that the practice of delivering persistent misinformation and misinformation to readers is aired and discussed leading to rapid eradication of these deliberate ploys to boost readership.

The man who spoke so confidently and intolerantly on the BBC Radio 5 Live programme last night should perhaps have been asked which newspaper he reads! Penny to a pound it was one of the triumvirate of tabloids most guilty of pandering to the fears and prejudices of their readers......

Mail Online puts its fingers in its ears...

BBC executives rule most offensive word in English language is 'a good joke'  on the radio at 6.30pm

By Chris Hastings and Steve Farrell

Last updated at 11:27 PM on 4th June 2011

Continuing its incessant search for issues with which to bash the BBC, the Mail have once again come up with a corker!

"The BBC was at the centre of a new decency row last night after ruling that the most offensive word in English is acceptable for broadcast.
The Corporation decided that the word – most abhorrent to women – has lost much of its 'shock value' and is tolerable for radio and television.
An executive who cleared it for daytime transmission on flagship Radio 4 even said it would 'delight' many of its audience, who would 'love it’."

Having rummaged through my mental lexicon of the most indecent words filed in there over umpteen years of listening to the most colourful language ever uttered in a great variety of working environments and situations, I was surprised, nay shocked, to read that the BBC had allowed such a word through their sieve. 

Had the BBC been besieged by hordes of anguished complainants on hearing the expletive issuing forth from their radios? I read on:

"The BBC’s ruling is outlined in the rejection of a complaint from a member of the public, who took offence to a reference to the word on The News Quiz."

'A member of the public' - so, one person then? One!

"The Mail on Sunday feels it is necessary to the reporting of the story to repeat the joke, and apologises in advance for any offence caused.
Miss Toksvig said: 'It's the Tories who have put the 'n' into cuts.'"

At this point, I dissolved into a fit of almost uncontrolable laughter and disbelief. The Mail's cynical apology for having to fail print a word which was never spoken is ridiculous even by its own standards!

John Whittingdale MP

This abject apology is followed by a few words from John Whittingdale MP: 

"Obscene: John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport select committee, said the term is still offensive and should not have been broadcast"

As far as I can make out, despite all attempts by the Mail to give the opposite impression in this article, the term was not broadcast at all!

 

There is a growing public opinion that exposing the youngest members of society to inapropriate language and images is a bad thing and perhaps there is some justification for attempting to regulate what is available at times when they may be listening or viewing.

 

For the Mail to use this particular example, however, is disingenuous in the extreme. It has the whiff of desperation about it and seems to be more determined hammering of yet another nail into the lid of Auntie's coffin than any genuine disapproval. 

 

After all, while I was reading this article on the Mail Online site, six inches to the right were clearly visible images and text far more lascivious than Sandy Toksvig's joke. A tad hypocritical, perhaps, Mr. Dacre?