Nice to see the odious little cock squirm, if only a little. And his ancient John Major impersonation died a death - much to his surprise. They'll take ages to clear away all of that tumbleweed from court. No questions on Hillsborough, though. I guess his 'there are no absolute truths' assertion - coo, wake up and tell David Hume the news! - was deemed a sufficient justification for not bothering to check any facts at all. What a shambles.

Prunella Minge wrote:
No questions on Hillsborough

Not in this Inquiry's remit which mainly concerns phone hacking by the press - and already well covered by the Taylor Inquiry about 20 years ago.

Trevor wrote:
Prunella Minge wrote:
No questions on Hillsborough

Not in this Inquiry's remit which mainly concerns phone hacking by the press - and already well covered by the Taylor Inquiry about 20 years ago.

Most of the questioning over Anne Diamond, 'Trevor,' wasn't to do with phone hacking, either. And the Taylor Report is what MacKenzie is infamous for not accepting. Bad luck. Anyway, the only time the old rogue got rattled was when it was suggested he wasn't as close to Murdoch as Murdoch's butler. Says a lot about the man: suggest he doesn't give a toss about facts, accuracy or ethics and he sits back and grins, but claim he might not be as close to old Rupert as the bloke who irons his morning papers and delivers his brekkie and MacKenzie is offended.

Leveson IS about phone hacking - but like all Inquiry evidence/debate/answers, there will be some asides.


If MacKenzie did not accept the Taylor Report, so what?


I do not accept my Charles Street parking ticket of today.

Prunella Minge wrote:
it was suggested he wasn't as close to Murdoch as Murdoch's butler. Says a lot about the man


Would it not depend on who made the suggestion or, maybe just irrelevant?

the man's a fucking creep.

Perfect choice for Murdoch though. News Corp is full of arrogant c*nts like MacKenzie.

I've said it before- News Corp is a wounded raging beast so watch out as it lashes out in it's death throes.

Their reaction to The Guardian and the claim they may , or may not have deleted voice mail messages is a good example.

They will look for many more poor souls to crucify to prove the need to exist.

On the plus side- out of all the tabloids -they pay contributors on time.

MacKenzie's "evidence" re Anne Diamond demonstrates everything that is wrong about tabloids, how they manipulate, how they have basically influenced law making (and his complete ignorance).

It matters little what Diamond said and whether her account or his is correct.

They wield unchecked power without accountability.

'Trevor' wrote:
Leveson IS about phone hacking - but like all Inquiry evidence/debate/answers, there will be some asides.


If MacKenzie did not accept the Taylor Report, so what?


I do not accept my Charles Street parking ticket of today.




What about the question about the drunken judge story? Was that about phone tapping? What about the multiple questions about general journalistic ethics - were they exclusively about phone tapping? What about most of the Diamond questions - were they about phone tapping? What about the questions about the dealings with Thatcher and Major - were they about phone tapping? What about the questions about Murdoch's involvement in the Sun's political support for the Tories at the last election - were they about phone tapping? No. Quite a few 'asides' then. To discuss MacKenzie's editorial career at the Sun and his attitude to facts, sources, ethics and responsibility, without discussing, even in passing, his most notoriously egregious error, which he has not yet acknowledged in spite of censure from within the House of Commons, is very, very, poor, and it takes a toady, not a 'Trevor,' to suggest otherwise.

It's quite clear that the Leveson Inquiry is into the "Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Media" and I agree that should have been a question asked.

Prunella Minge wrote:
it takes a toady, not a 'Trevor,' to suggest otherwise


But, 'Pru'...even toadies and trevors are entitled to their opinions, without abuse.

Jill wrote:
Prunella Minge wrote:
it takes a toady, not a 'Trevor,' to suggest otherwise


But, 'Pru'...even toadies and trevors are entitled to their opinions, without abuse.



Trolls with multiple names and even more emoticons, however...

As a sometime browser of this different and interesting site, I wonder why we (the unregistered ones) are often called 'trolls' when a particular view is not agreed with or disputed.

Mainly because there's a hidden negative agenda rather poorly concealed.

I see in Private Eye that JK is to appear at the Enquiry.

I believe GG should (if he could bear it) to tell how he has been repeatedly harassed and driven from his home (not unlike JK Rowling).