Kelvin MacKenzie didn't come across well; a bit truculent; but he made the best point so far - that "the facts" are harder to find than most understand, including the judiciary. And his spat with Leveson about the Judge's case regarding the Christmas Island Veterans appeal was fascinating; Leveson appeared to have the winning specifics to hand (being informed about case details) but Kelvin's point, that it's not always correct facts come to light, was the correct one.

I am a supporter of Kelvin's (I thought he was a brilliant editor though sometimes spectacularly wrong - read my story about Elton John in 65 My Life So Far) but he can be bull headed.

Anyone else irritated by Leveson's habit of saying something is "entirely" appropriate? Surely something is either appropriate, inappropriate or partially appropriate? That is the fact; Leveson's use of language (like the problem with the media and the law) is exaggerated for effect.

What do you think he would have said about how your case was handled? Do you think his argument today would have struck you as palatable then, or now? The jump from 'nothing's 100% true' to 'we needn't bother to try to establish the truth' is an old sceptical trick that most people grow out of in their first year at university. For shits like MacKenzie, however, the conflation becomes a life-long carapace.

Continually scratching my head as to why JK continually defends scumbags like MacKenzie, Murdoch etc. I know he worked for them but following how they went on to massacre him it beggars belief. And if Kelvin MacKenzie was a 'brilliant editor' than god help the rest.

I have to say I expected and accepted the media coverage of my case; given the situation, they were bound to cover it as they did. The Guardian was the most factually inaccurate of the lot actually.

No; my problem was the police (one particular one) and the CPS and how they used the media rather than the media itself.

I never had any personal problems with Rupert, Kelvin or the Sun team when my persecution took place.

As for Kelvin when he was my Editor (almost 10 years); I thought he was superb. His mistakes were as spectacular as his successes - the Sun was selling over 5 million copies a day - around twice the figure today. When it was bad it was ghastly; when it was good it was great.

At least JK you are blessed with insight still, that you were indeed in bed with the beast that is the Murdoch tabloids, and despite your experience still have the same perspective. It's probably tru
Myself, I can't stand McKuntzie. He's an objectionable opinionated bigot who is symptomatic of all that is wrong with the gutter press & thus modern society

JK makes some reasonable points about Mackenzie and how the media works.

I have never met MacKenzie but at times he appears so arrogant (like Paul MacMullen )and exhibits the type of attitude in the media that is very common..an arrogance that they are so right and by telling a tale..no matter how inaccurate..no matter whose life is destroyed or built..is perfectly OK if sometimes...you get it right.

I've worked with his type and it's common...I've worked with others who know they are basically working in a sewer that serves no real purpose except to titilate a bored audience who could easily find entertainment elsewhere...but do it for the dirty dollar.

The real problem is that the media is basically self-regulated (unlike any other industry) and there are no credible avenues for the ordinary citizen to seek re-dress.

He is right about publications taking the high moral ground like The Guardian (which is the hero in all this). The greatest arguments I've had is with Deb Orr who was quite hysterical in her replies to me when I said the media's obsession with GG was unholy and had built an atmosphere that probably resulted in what I believe was a set-up in Asia.

She would never answer and ignored my important point...that not one single complainer had emerged to accuse GG..from Cuba..from the UK..anywhere it was claimed in the media that was a "pedos paradise"..and that lent more credence to my claim that a Vietnamese court could never be trusted (they are corrupt).

The media will not...in any circumstances..accept that they paint a scenario and can result in an outcome. They have it both ways...they report the outright fantasies as truth...such as Haut de la Garenne...and then report it when it's exposed.