My views on the current suffocation of sex and hacking cases in the news and the courts...

www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php/Attitudes...Sex-and-Hacking.html

Quote JK: "There are far worse crimes to be investigated and far more important areas to spend money. OUR money."

Surely, there are few 'Worse Crimes' than public money NOT spent to help thousands of VICTIMS of:
'Criminal False Allegations'
'Criminal Abusive Sex'
'Criminal Abuse of PRIVATE Communications'.

I'm completely in agreement with you JK. In the midst of a debate about deficits and public sector cutbacks, nobody seems to have grasped how many thousands of pounds of public money are being wasted on prosecuting old men for allegedly grabbing bottoms and journalists for listening to someone else's telephone.

Phone hacking was a hysteria blown up out of all proportion, the biggest victimless non-crime ever. If it is seen as an unethical way for journalists to behave, then fine and it is a good thing that the practice has been exposed and has now ceased (although every major journalistic scoop in history was obtained by someone unethically finding out something someone powerful did not want them to know). The idea that we are now sitting through a year-long show trial to find out what a bunch of executives did or did not know is utterly laughable. Historians in the future will look back on us and marvel at the trivia with which we filled public life.

I am not sure that cost, or police resource allocation should be a factor in trying any criminal charges. I do however think there is a very valid case for a statute of limitations to cover crimes as there are very different moral values to particular times. What was considered harmless "invitations" such as putting your hand on someone's knee is now considered sexual abuse.

Happy to disagree; I feel there are many worse crimes than those listed above.

Yes Gnomo, and I always thought going through dustbins was a pretty immoral way of getting stories although I also felt celebrities foolish enough to put unshredded love letters into bins outside deserved a lot of what they got. A friend once said that hacking phones of people silly enough not to change the factory set passwords was not "breaking and entering" but merely "entering". If you leave your front door wide open, people should not walk in but it's not entirely their fault. Either way, it's a fairly trivial area of crime, in my opinion - as is pinching a bottom (I have never pinched a bottom - or wanted to - in my life, but that doesn't make me a saint).

To devote literally millions of pounds of our tax monies to prosecuting those crimes from decades ago is not just unfair and silly but downright criminal, in my opinion. If it wasn't so unimportant, I'd suggest taking politicians, police, judges, CPS to court and prosecuting them for gross negligence in public office.

MisQuote TBS, who's family might sadly someday be a VICTIM.

"Historians..will look back..and marvel at the trivia with which we filled our lives. While failing to fulfill our public duty to help thousands of VICTIMS. Including VICTIMS in families and communities, including child VICTIMS losing adult relatives and friends.

All potential VICTIMS of:
"Criminal False Allegations"
"Criminal Abusive Sex"
"Criminal Abuse Of PRIVATE Communications"

completely disagree with all the comments on here.

The phone hacking trial is extremely important for several reasons.

Mainly because it exposes a tabloid culture that is totally out of control and which routinely influences government policy and basically, plays merry hell with good governance purely for mischief making for only one reason : profit.

I'm surprised posters haven't recognised the link between tabloids wielding so much power and the promotion of faux scandals like the Savile lunacy, historic abuse claims and so on.

No reasoned debate can be had about anything remotely connected with sex : in perfect fascist style anyone from Barbara Hewsom to hapless BBC stars cannot voice an alternate opinion without being shot down in flames.

The ravings of tabloids causes the diversion of precious resources in dozens of ways : the almighty amount of time being put into chasing aging BBC celebrities means other areas are ignored.

The criminality of several media organisations has been shocking : quite surprised really that some on this board paint it as a case of celebrity tittle tattle when it has been much much more : bribery of those in the police, armed services, hospitals and so on.

And the unraveling of tabloid mentality - the realisation slowly gathering amongst even the most clueless that so-called 'journalists' are irresponsible prats is fascinating to watch: with the accused organisations screeching to High Heaven because they for once have become a Good Story.

## and just wait until US RICO laws kick in and they pursue News Corp there. We are watching a slow media Titanic sink.

Hopefully not too candid for self-denying VICTIM JK deserving, er, 'Fair Justice'.

It seems that some short-brained longtail types here too soon forget.

The harrowing testimony of the erstwhile child VICTIM Charlotte Church (and other minors) who's PRIVATE and FAMILY communications were not just "Criminally Abused". But who were then 24/7 trolled and doorstepped with foul and abusive language from VILE hacks and Papperrazi Nazis not now needing any 'Nuremberg Trial'.

Aaaaah, poor overpaid erstwhile 'unknown never hacked' gutless slags and whores slaving in the 'PRURIENT-for-BIG profit interest'.

Hedda I totally agree with you that out-of-control tabloid (and broadsheet) behaviour needed - and needs - curtailing. I just don't think this is the way to do it.

So what do I think should happen in the "hacking" situation? Panels like Leveson given much more power; if hacking proven, fine the corporation responsible a massive sum and ban publication of the offending newspaper for a significant amount of time. Let the companies deal with the employees. Put the financial cross on the shoulders of the corporations responsible, not us.

JK2006 wrote:
So what do I think should happen in the "hacking" situation? Panels like Leveson given much more power; if hacking proven, fine the corporation responsible a massive sum and ban publication of the offending newspaper for a significant amount of time. Let the companies deal with the employees. Put the financial cross on the shoulders of the corporations responsible, not us.

certainly there needs to be an adequate Press Council that has teeth. If electricians and plumbers can be hauled over the coals for shoddy work so should media companies who have so much influence.

One important thing Leveson suggested has been completely forgotten : a tribunal where ordinary people could access libel matters. At present libel laws are for the rich only.

The other fascinating thing is this : this whole debacle has come at the very worst time for Old Media and given social media on the net, along with smaller news outlets, a huge boost.

When the News of the World doctored a photo of me sitting in a deck chair in the park and Photoshopped an image of a family behind me, my complaint should have been upheld, the Editor (Andy Coulson) fired, and the paper fined and banned from publication for 2 weeks. That would have made the owners sit up and put their house in order. But the paper should NOT have been shut down, the employees should not have all lost their jobs and this absurd over reaction of prosecutions and expense should not have wasted our tax monies.

Likewise historic allegations of sexual abuse should be investigated without publicity and, if found likely, fines issued, wrists slapped but no long trials and massive costs to the tax payer.

These two areas are eating up money far better used on hospitals, health care, schools and backing proper investigations of serious crime.

All because they are good stories.

agreed the current trials are a sideshow. What is behind them is what's important- whether real change will happen or will big media succeed.

Ah, spot on Hedda, and a very disturbing side effect. Quite apart from the enormous waste of public money, this entire fiasco will deflect attention from the real villains and put it on individuals. The media, sniffing a good story, needs individuals (preferably female and attractive but guys are OK) to carry photos and headlines and simplistic stories. How wicked are the guilty? How destroyed have been their families? How wrecked have become their careers?

Which allows the evil to continue (as it will). Bins will no longer be searched... oh, sorry, that was a couple of decades ago... what's this red herring? Ah, phone hacking! It will stop. No more phone hacking! Triumph! Problem solved! Media morality becomes like that of a convent!

Meanwhile (barely) legal other routes will start up or continue. Encouraging false allegations in return for cash (cunningly disguised as "paying expenses" or "giving to charity"). TV exposure programmes - often about libel free dead people. Affairs uncovered through online peeking (by hackers in other countries with different laws).

And the public won't notice until the next drama, scandal, circulation boosting, ratings lifting revelation - swiftly expanded and inflated by the media.

They really do under estimate the intelligence of the entrepreneurs, don't they? They think it's all so simple.

With all its faults, that's why we need a BBC that is NOT ruled and motivated by profit.

Unfortunately the BBC is now essentially run by morons. Who are only too happy to contribute to the destruction of the BBC as long as they are not, personally, exposed as philanderers or crooks.