Kavanagh begins by explaining the apology given by someone on Twitter who had accused the Sun of falsifying a photo taken at the funeral of Margaret Thatcher. Kavanagh then writes:
It reflects an incessantly watchful Twitter world of grievance-seeking
vigilantes eager to take offence. But there are signs that it is now seeping
into mainstream British culture, especially those with something to hide.
There then follows a short list of examples Mr. Kavanagh uses to illustrate his point, interspersed with such comments as:
At other times these incidents might be shrugged off as amusing examples of
human error. But they point to an increasingly suspicious and judgmental
atmosphere (#nb - my emphasis) in which people with no axe to grind are encouraged to take
offence on other people’s behalf.
The public? 'Suspicious and judgemental'? Surely not! That's the Sun's and Mr. Kavanagh's job!
Then:
You might think this information was in the public interest. No, they risk
prison for misconduct in a public office in two cases and “perverting the
course of justice” in one.
This is the Leveson Effect. It has begun to suffocate the crucial flow of
information that distinguishes a free country from a police state.
Which came first, Mr. Kavanagh, the questioning, arrest and sometimes charging of News International journalists for 'perverting the course of justice', 'causing misconduct in a public office' or the incidents you itemise? If the police are ultra-strict now about officers' contacts with journalists, who must bear the blame for that?
Britain set an example to the world by establishing a force which polices by
consent. By definition, a wall of secrecy removes that consent.
There now follows a petulant Mr. Kavanagh's railing at the fact that the police no longer tip off his journalists when an arrest is made:
It is now common for suspects — innocent and guilty — to be held in absolute
secrecy while their personal lives and careers are in limbo indefinitely.
Dozens of decent journalists who have been left to swing in the wind,
uncharged for more than a year, know exactly how this feels.
How frustrating that must be! Trial by tabloid denied an unarrested, presumed innocent suspect! Dreadful....
Chief constables have shut down normal channels and begun reacting with
hostility to legitimate inquiries.
The ugly assumption is that journalists with impeccable sources must have
obtained information by skulduggery. It is the perfect cop-out.
But completely understandable?
The Press deserves criticism and has taken it by the bucketload. But this
sinister new culture of suspicion benefits those with something to hide —
not those with the right to know.
Just as, for many years, the silence of editors, journalists and newspaper owners over the phone-hacking scandal benefitted those with something to hide, Mr. Kavanagh?
Lord Justice Leveson barely concealed his contempt for journalists but naively
swallowed Hacked Off’s half-truths and exaggerations and accepted evidence
from left-wing mischief-maker Full Fact as gospel.
Lord Justice Leveson showed no contempt for most journalists, just coolness towards those few who had been proven to have lied, cheated and shown contempt towards the Inquiry.
Lord Justice Leveson barely concealed his contempt for journalists but naively
swallowed Hacked Off’s half-truths and exaggerations and accepted evidence
from left-wing mischief-maker Full Fact as gospel.
His adviser throughout was Sir David Bell, intimately linked with the Media
Standards Trust which spawned Hacked Off — and the discredited Bureau of
Investigative Journalism which smeared Alistair McAlpine.
These oft-repeated accusatory comments against Full Fact, Media Standards Trust and Hacked Off really are wearing thin indeed and need to be left at the bottom of your ammo box, Mr. Kavanagh!
What a shabby basis for new Press laws, stitched up at 2am in a Hacked Off
ambush, which is snuffing out Press freedom and the right of the British
public to hold authorities to account.
Even an inventive tabloid hack could not make this one up. (#nb - My emphasis)
Oh, I'm sure any of your 'inventive tabloid hacks' could make this one up, Mr Kavanagh.....
Along similar lines is this article from Melanie Phillips in Mail Online:
Almost the first statement in Gordon Brown's evidence this morning was a deprecation of the hearsay and tittle-tattle favoured by some of the media, over important details. The following is a limited record of some of the journalists tweeting as they listened to what Gordon Brown had to say. There is much more, from others, in the press mainly, but I've restricted this short blogpiece to a mere handful..... Peter Preston - Guardian:
"I want this inquiry to mean something", not end up as "footnote in some professor of journalism'sanalysis of 21 century history." LJ Leveson in reply to A Rusbridger's submission to Inquiry.
Lord Justice Leveson
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.
Leveson Inquiry Witness Statements HERE Witness list for this week (6th - 9th February) to be found HERE Video Recordings of each day's proceedings HERE Live Feed From Leveson Inquiry Site HERE BBC Democracy Live FeedHERE
Here is a little more from PA on developments in the phone-hacking case at the high court this morning:
The Metropolitan Police Service today accepted at the high court that failure in 2006 and 2007 to warn victims and potential victims of phone hacking was unlawful. News of the acceptance that it had "breached a legal obligation" came as two judges in London heard that a number of claimants – including former deputy prime minister Lord Prescott – had settled judicial review proceedings brought against the Met over "failures to warn victims". Lord Justice Gross and Mr Justice Irwin were told that the two sides had reached agreement by Hugh Tomlinson QC, representing Lord Prescott, ex Met police deputy assistant commissioner Brian Paddick, actor Jude Law's personal assistant Ben Jackson, MP Chris Bryant and an anonymous individual known as HJK.
Financial Times media correspondent Ben Fenton has just tweeted the paper's statement on Buscombe's claim that it threatened to leave the PCC over an adverse adjudication.
"The FT has never complained to the PCC about adverse adjudications nor threatened to quit the PCC because of rulings against the newspaper" — Ben Fenton (@benfenton) February 7, 2012
From Guardian Live Blog: 2:49 p.m.
The PCC has just sent us this statement on Buscombe's evidence:
Baroness Buscombe was giving a personal recollection of her conversations and experiences whilst at the PCC, during her evidence at the Leveson Inquiry this morning. The PCC has not received any formal proposals from these publishers to withdraw from the system in recent years.
Baroness Buscombe ( ex-PCC ) Colin Crowell ( Twitter ) James Harding ( Editor, the Times ) Recalled by LJ Leveson Dominic Mohan ( Editor, the Sun ) Recalled by LJ Leveson Gary Morgan ( Splash ) Neil Turner ( The BPPA ) Ronald Zink ( Microsoft Bing )
Witness Statement to be read:
Simon Citron ( Yahoo )
From Guardian Live Blog:
The inquiry is now under way. Lord Justice Leveson says he is "extremely unhappy" that the conflict between Hugh Grant and the Daily Mail yesterday afternoon "did damage" to the "appropriate flow of this inquiry". Leveson adds that he is "not entirely happy" that the inquiry was "bombarded" with statements relating to Hugh Grant late on Friday. "I won't allow this type of situation to develop again," he says. However, he adds that "the matter should be "ventilated for a little additional time" in the interest of fairness later this week. "That's not negotiable," he says. The concerned parties have until 2pm to consider how this should be arranged for minimum convenience.
The two issues at stake are the Mail on Sunday's "plummy voiced executive" story, which resulted in Grant's allegations about the newspaper group and its "mendacious smear" response; and the intrusion on the birth of Grant and Tinglan Hong's child.
Caplan says it is not right that Dacre should be recalled. It "is going to create an imbalance and avert from the way in which this inquiry has been conducted," he tells Leveson.
Buscombe: Every PCC case is bespoke. System works to minimise harm and hurt and free so access to justice is respected.
From Guardian Live Blog:
PressBof we looking for someone "who was supportive of the system" of self-regulation and could build trust in it, Buscombe says."If you have someone who doesn't even trust a system at the outset then you have a problem," she says. "It doesn't mean they don't want to test the system."
Buscombe says the PCC is fast, flexible, free and can minimise "the harm and the hurt". She says in contrast, very few people leave a court of law happy.She says it would be to society's "peril" if the PCC lost its complaints-handling mechanism.
They hold the power to ensure the credibility of a self-reg system, Buscombe tells
From Guardian Live Blog:
Buscombe says she could not get to the overarching bodies of the press: the Newspaper Publishers Association and the Newspaper Society.
She adds that she is "amazed" those bodies have not been called to give evidence.
Buscombe says she sent a letter to proprietors and the overarching bodies in April last year to "spell out my concern that there was a real issue of trust in the industry now".
Rebuilding trust is "do-able but it's tough call," she adds.
Buscombe accepts that she may have been "too subtle" with a proviso at the end of her Society of Editors speech, when she said:
There is plenty to build on. I have told you about the tremendous range of work we do to help people out, and to right wrongs. That these things work is a great tribute both to the team at the PCC and also to the industry as a whole. It shows self-regulation working at a very basic level. This activity is low key but all the more successful for it. It should be better known. But there is no need – in 21st century Britain – for an individual to feel powerless in 'taking on' the press. The PCC will always be there to help.
In return, I will expect the industry to give the PCC the freedom to develop rapidly – if necessary – to exploit the opportunities presented by media convergence. We have shown that we can be trusted with the freedom we have enjoyed from the state and from the industry over the last two decades. Now is our chance to show how our model can be trusted in future.
"You have to remember I am talking to the press. I am talking to people who will mischief make," she tells Jay.
Buscombe says that at the time of her Society of Editors speech she was becoming "more and more frustrated" with the PCC's inability to up its game "due to a lack of resource and a lack of support".
Buscombe is asked about Daily Express and Daily Star owner Richard Desmond.Buscombe brought Desmond back into the fold following the departure of Sir Christopher Meyer.
She says she did not attempt to bring him back in when his newspapers left the PCC last year.
"I knew I was overstepping the mark in terms of the system – it wasn't my role to do that," she says of not attempting to convince Desmond a second time.
She says his departure "compromised the credibility of the system as a whole".
Buscombe: I introduced Kitemark as an idea some time ago [she and I discussed it at the time of that FT article]
Guardian Live Blog:
Buscombe is asked about Lord Hunt's proposals for a new watchdog based on a contractual system.She says it is "very difficult" to compel all publishers to buy into the new body.
She suggests a "statutory backstop" would be a good start, but adds: "A lot of thought should be given … to how all those could be brought on board," referring to online publishers.
She says she has long advocated a system of kitemarking for newspaper websites.
Buscombe withdraws claim that Guardian threatened to resign over a critical adjudication.
Guardian Live Blog:
For the most part the newspaper industry abides by the rules, Buscombe says, adding that the culture of some newsrooms has to be "thought through".She recommends a system of whistleblowing in every news organisation.
"Change must take place. This isn't something that can be a quick fix," she says.
Buscombe says Gdn MD threatened to quit PCC over the 2009 hacking report [later withdrawn, with apologies, by PCC]
From Guardian live Blog:
Financial Times media correspondent Ben Fenton has just tweeted:
[The FT tells me it, like Guardian,rejects the idea it threatened to quit the PCC over an adverse adjudication.Considering a full statement]
1:50 p.m. - From Guardian Live Blog:
Trinity Mirror, publisher of the Daily and Sunday Mirror, has denied that it threatened to leave the PCC, as claimed by Baroness Buscombe during her evidence.
The BBC journalist Henry Price has tweeted a section of Trinity Mirror's statement, which we will publish in full once we have it:
#leveson: if you took down a person's account, there would be nothing to stop someone setting up fresh account and doing same thing
From Guardian Live Blog:
Crowell says that Twitter deals with issues "reactively" so it deals with content after it has been published. "The tweets flow," he says, repeating the company's mantra.Crowell confirms that Twitter's new policy on censoring tweets in certain countries has not yet been used.
The new policy means that Twitter can deal with issues on a country-by-country basis.
Crowell is asked how fast a story can propagate on Twitter.
Crowell says that news events often propagate "very speedily" on Twitter, often before news organisations have learnt of the events.
Barr asks about contempt of court.
Crowell says that Twitter would be able to identify the person behind contemptuous tweets if served with a US court order.
12.56pm: Barr asks whether Twitter would comply with a UK press regulator.
Crowell says it would be a matter of whether the regulator was in the jurisdiction that would have the legal entity to authorise it.
He describes it is up to politicians and courts to decide what the "authorised entity" is in the UK, but Twitter would comply with that.
James Harding, editor of The Times, recalled to answer questions about NightJack and computer hacking.
From Guardian Live Blog:
Harding says from the outset: "I sorely regret the intrusion into Richard Horton's email account by a journalist in our newsroom. On behalf of the newspaper, I apologise."
The reporter, Patrick Foster, was 24 at the time of the incident.
Foster sought to identify the author of the NightJack blog. He did so by accessing the blogger's email account, Jay confirms.
Foster then managed to "crack it", getting to NightJack's identity via publicly available information. Included a Facebook page.
Guardian Live blog:
Harding says that the story did have a public interest but not sufficient to warrant the intrusion.
The inquiry hears how Foster later sent an email to Brett to say: "I can do the whole lot from publicly available information." Harding understands this was through the Facebook friends of Richard Horton's brother.
Brett replied that that may be the "golden bullet" and asked him to set it out on paper.
Jay shows email between Brett and Horton's lawyer informing him Times will publish article on client.
Guardian Live Blog:
Harding says the first time the Times's senior management became aware of the litigation or the email hacking was after Mr Justice Eady had begun hearing the case – but before judgment.
He adds that it is "very very unusual" that the legal manager will take a case to the high court without reference to the editor.
Brett is an "extremely distinguished and well respected lawyer," Harding says, adding that the lawyer wanted to take this case on partly because of "creeping privacy legislation" and anonymity on the web. Brett is extremely apologetic for not informing him, Harding says.
Harding says he didn't know exactly what Foster had done. Issues all coming at same time. Why were we doing it.Why gone to court?
From Guardian Live Blog:
Jay is reading legal correspondence between a lawyer and barrister for the Times. It suggests that Foster told the legal team on the night before the court hearing that he had used email hacking.
Horton's lawyers wrote to the Times to say Foster was "rusticated" for hacking computers at Oxford University. That made the newspaper's lawyers think there might be a big problem.
The Times's lawyer told Foster "never ever think of doing what you've done again" and was advised by the barrister that there might be a public interest defence. It is suggested that without this possible defence, the reporter would have been dismissed.
Jay points out that there is no public interest defence under the Computer Misuse Act.
Harding first heard of the issue on 5 June at a meeting with the Times's lawyer and a concern that Foster had accessed NightJack's email account.
Harding says "the biggest shock" was that the Times had taken a case to the high court without him being informed. "We probably didn't drill down into what exactly Mr Foster was to have done," he says.
He decided immediately that the paper should undertake disciplinary action against Foster.
Harding: I was involved in decision to publish NightJack story as in the public interest.
From Guardian Live Blog:
Following this, there was a discussion at the paper over whether to publish the story.
An email from a Times lawyer on 14 June shows the newspaper was considering the public interest in publishing the storTen days later Mr Justice Eady's judgment was provided to the Times in draft form.y. "The third issue is what do we do about Patrick?" it added.
Harding says he "aware we had a concern", but did not know exactly what Foster had done.
Harding says he was involved in the discussion over whether to publish the story in the public interest.
He says that he was occupied by events in Iran at the time, and the public interest discussion should have happened before the newspaper went to the high court.
He says he took the view that the story was "firmly in the public interest" based partly on the view that the police blogger was in breach of his public duties, partly on Mr Justice Eady's ruling and the belief that the identity of NightJack had been uncovered by legitimate means. However, he acknowledges there were questions over the behaviour of Foster.
Harding: We take this inquiry very seriously and every time we've learnt new things about this have brought to your attention.
From Guardian Live Blog:
The Times published a companion comment piece by Richard Horton, author of the NightJack blog, on the day that it exposed him as being behind the blog.Horton said in the article:
There was a lot of attention heading towards my blog and I was nervous that somehow, despite my efforts, my identity would come out. As an anonymous blogger, I was just another policing Everyman but if it came out that I worked in Lancashire, I knew that some of my writing on government policy, partner agencies, the underclass and criminal justice would be embarrassing for the constabulary. Also, as an anonymous police blogger I was shielded from any consequences of my actions but without that protection there were clearly areas where I would have to answer for breaches in the expected standards of behaviour for officers. When it became clear that my identity would be published, I went to court to stop The Times from publishing. I failed, as it was decided that the public right to know about me outweighed any claim to personal privacy. My blog is gone now, deleted, slowly melting away post by post as it drops off the edge of the Google cache. My family life has changed in ways that they did not want, and that is down to me.
Harding: If we'd had an audit trail in place then I'm sure alarm bells would have gone off much sooner.
From Guardian live Blog:
Harding admits: "When you look back on this it's terrible."He adds: "We take this inquiry very seriously and when we have learned new things we have brought them to your attention."
Jay points out that a Times news story on 19 January this year still stated: "The role the hacking played in Mr Foster's investigation remains unclear."
Harding says he has attempted to apologise to Horton. Horton has contacted his lawyers, says the editor.
Mohan: Page 3 is a matter of taste. We've crossed the line of the code with transgender issues and had one complaint upheld.
Guardian Live Blog:
Mohan says the Sun has improved its reporting of transgender issues.He points to a front-page article last week whose subject had undergone a transgender operation. This person wrote to Mohan recently to thank the paper for its sensitive reporting.
"We've raised our game in terms of transgender reporting," he says.
Mohan is asked about a Sun headline, "Tran or woman?". He says: "I don't think that's our greatest moment, to be honest."
The fact is that the Sun publishing medical info about a child is unlawful intrusion regardless of where the info came from.
From Guardian Live Blog:
Jay asks about a Sun story in 2006 that Gordon Brown's son had cystic fibrosis. The Sun later said that a member of the public phoned in with the tip for the story and Mohan understood that consent had been given for the story."I don't think would have been published without consent," says Mohan. "I wouldn't have published it without consent."
The Sun's source swore an affidavit that the story was not illegally obtained, Mohan says.
Asked why he would not run the story without consent, Mohan says the story is "an extremely sensitive issue".
Mohan spoke to the journalists involved in the original story who indicated that consent had been given, he says. An official Treasury spokesman is quoted in the story, Mohan points out.
Morgan: Staff photographers are expected to know the law, the PCC and have experience in newsgathering to know when to stop.
Guardian Live Blog:
Splash relies on its picture and news desk to oversee the behaviour of its staff.
Morgan says there is a "no-shoot list" that contains the names of celebrities who do not wish to be photographed.
Morgan: I believe his story that he didn't drive at her. It's his word against hers.
Guardian Live Blog:
Morgan is asked about allegations by Tinglan Hong, mother of Hugh Grant's baby, that she was pursued by photographers.
Hong's mother claimed that car driven by a photographer drove at her. The car was later traced to Colin MacFarlane, who Morgan confirms is employed by Splash.
Morgan says that McFarlane was interviewed by Splash's London desk and denied that he drove a car at Hong.
McFarlane did not face any disciplinary proceedings from Splash, Morgan confirms.
"If it was established that he had driven at this lady then he would be fired," Morgan says.
We're back. Neil Turner, a freelance photographer and vice chairman of the British Press Photographers' Association, is up first.
Guardian Live Blog:
Members of the British Press Photographers Association (BPPA) are "entirely freelance" and work for several employers, including newspapers, magazines and self-generated projects.Turner says it is estimated that there are between 1,800 and 2,000 freelance photographers in the UK.
#Leveson JK Rowling had chosen different entrance to court. That explains why all shots of Harry potter author were of her in car that day.
Guardian Live Blog:
JK Rowling chose not to enter the Leveson inquiry through the entrance where press photographers were waiting, Turner says.
Newspapers wanted pictures of Rowling leaving the inquiry – even though Rowling clearly did not wish to be photographed. Individual photographers had to decided whether or not they would satisfy the newspaper or risk breaching the PCC code.
"Some freelancers who base their living entirely on whether they get the best picture chose that was the best thing for them to do," he says.
Photographers working for UK national newspapers of agencies were ordered to supply pictures in breach of an agreement with Leveson inquiry officials, Turner says.
Turner talks about amateur freelance photographers – or "stalkerazzi" as journalism professor Roy Greenslade has dubbed them – whom he says sometimes operate in packs.
Turner says about two years he went to famous nightspots to observe paparazzi. He says he was "fairly upset" at what he describes as unethical and illegal activity by the photographers.
[Correction:according to MS website, RonZinK is the COO for EU affairs. #leveson staff seem to have made an elementary mistake in spelling]
From Guardian Live Blog:
Zinc says that tackling the people behind websites hosting defamatory content is more practical and effective than going to the search engine.
"If you can remove the creator of the content then that eliminates the problem across the entire web," he says.
Barr asks about removal of material from Bing's index in relation to defamation and privacy.Zink confirms that Bing will remove the "minimum necessary to comply with the law" (Barr's phrase).
He adds that Bing has "robust" mechanisms for bringing down child abuse content.
Zink says that British internet users can obtain a court order in the UK for Microsoft to remove content from Bing's search results.He adds that users can get in touch with the company through its contact pages. Microsoft will make a judgment on removal requests if it has not been served with a court order.
Zink: we put a lot of thought into privacy-enhancing features. Microsoft a leader in this area
Guardian Live Blog:
Zink concedes that it is a "complicated" process for users to find webmasters and ask them to remove material.He says that Bing will act on a court order or other credible ruling. Earlier he suggested Bing would take notice of orders from a self-regulatory body in the UK.
Barr asks about the Microsoft browser Internet Explorer and whether a user might be able to enter a URL and see offending material that had been removed in Bing's search results.
Zink says this is beyond his technical background and he will answer in writing.
