HACKED OFF WITH HACKED OFF

AS LORD JUSTICE LEVESON said in his opening remarks; (I paraphrase) if it had not been for Millie Dowler and the public sympathy  for the cruel way she was treated by the press, this enquiry would never have seen the light of day.

            Up until it came to light that Millie Dowler’s mobile phone had been hacked, the British public took the wholly sensible view that whining celebrities held little stock with them. Until Miss Dowler became a victim of hacking, it was left to celebrities to seek their own enquiry. But they were fighting a losing battle; for those who live for publicity, and in many cases crave it, should be prepared to suffer from the double edged sword that it is.

            Hugh Grant bemoaned his cruel fate as did Steve Coogan and Charlotte Church. According to Wikipedia; excluding  Millie Dowler and the McCann’s (as genuine victims), over 200 celebrities bared a grudge against British journalism; despite profiting (and I do mean profiting) from the complimentary and flattering endorsements they have all received throughout their careers. They breathed the oxygen of publicity and believed themselves unassailable as celebrities; they courted the journalists who they found alluring with their flattering pieces written in the Sunday supplements; which lead them to perceive themselves as being gifted and therefore above the common stock of humanity.

            When the intrusions from the press they once welcomed, occasionally made them human once more by exposing or criticising a human weakness, the celebrities felt themselves outraged. Like members of the 18^th century bourbon aristocracy; they demanded as it were their right to so do, sympathy of the type the public were not prepared to give. The Divine Right of the celebrity has no anchorage on British soil.

            Phone hacking is illegal and punishable under current laws; and any journalist who stoops to such a level in order to create a headline of such salaciousness in order that their paper’s Sunday sales overwhelm those of their competitors, should feel the full force of the law. The laws are there already. Phone hacking is a crime, and the politicians and the judiciary can strengthen the sentences if needed in order to deter such cowardly and vindictive practices.

THE BRITISH PRESS (known as the Fourth Estate) is a contrary beast. It makes you despise it one minute and applaud it the next. In other words, on occasion, it displeases more than it pleases; but on other occasions it pleases more than it does displease; and this is the way a free press functions.

            Now, through Leveson there is rightly talk of a greater independent oversight of the press…good! A free press should have boundaries, as should human behaviour. But a free press should never be underwritten by politicians (in a democracy) using the law, as Leveson suggests his independent overseers should. The press should be free from politicians, no matter how great or insignificant such a trespass is meant to be.

            Any law passed by parliament regarding the ‘underwriting’ of the independent scrutiny of the press, is a law to far. The law has no role to play, in whatever capacity, regarding the printed word, outside, that is, of the laws of libel and criminal activities by the press and their journalists.

            If a law is passed to underwrite this independent body; then what happens in the future? Amendments will surely follow such a law, to strengthen the politicians grip on a free press. Parliamentary amendments to a law are far simpler to accomplish than a law itself. Politicians, as they always do, will take exception to the press. Until now, they have had to grin and bear it. In a democracy this is the way it should be. But once the law is allowed to trespass upon a free press, the politicians additions will, over time, flourish like a weed.

THOSE WHO SOUGHT, like Leveson, a parliamentary law taking a hand in underwriting this independent body, should be ignored. Our press is free of parliament and has been so for over 300 years; and Leveson will undermine this freedom of the press if his recommendation regarding a political impute materialises. No wonder he departed the stage without being interrogated by the very people accuses.

            A  group of ‘celebrities’ has formed an alliance known as Hacked Off. They have sought to introduce law into press freedom; and so, when, from the QE Centre these members of Hacked Off  sat listening to David Cameron responding to Leveson in parliament; they hoped, but did not expect to hear, Cameron agreeing to every dot and comma of Leveson.

            Hacked Off  remains angry  with Cameron; but such anger should be ignored. Cameron is right to continue to give the press their centuries old freedoms. Hacked Off, like the X-Factor is a celebrity kind of thing. If Cameron wishes to retain his leadership of the Conservative Party, then he must once and for all declare himself free from the Hacked Off .     

ONCE THE LAW wins a place for itself in regulating the press, the politicians will feel themselves free to make further amendments, if they feel that the regulating body made a wrong decision, or is found to be as impotent as the Press Complaints Council is often accused of being.

            The British people, it is said, are full square behind an underpinning law for press regulation. If so, I say this, “Orwell forgive them; for they know not what they do”. The people have such a low opinion of politicians, yet they appear to be in favour of them having a foot in the door of press freedom. I wonder whether the politician’s expenses scandal would have reached the light of day under such a proposed set-up it probably would. But would the politicians not seek to add another amendment to the law on regulation of the press to undermine the next piece of investigative journalism, that seeks to expose further irregularities in the behaviour of politicians?

            Why I believe the prime minister is standing full square behind his decision, is not because he is too close to the press barons; but because, when this insidious legal underpinning becomes an even greater threat to a free press as time passes; Cameron does not want to be held responsible by history… for its authorship.

AS FOR THOSE VICTIMS; those who, like Millie Dowler and the McCann’s , have a truly legitimate grievance against the press; I would say this. An independent regulatory body with teeth is needed, after their experiences, more than ever before. The Dowler’s and the McCann’s would rightly chastise me for asking for giving the press yet another chance to redeem its behaviour.

            Lord Leveson’s findings are excoriating of the press. The press itself knows that its behaviour, after the hacking scandal, has to change. The press crossed a Rubicon when they invited themselves into illegally hacking little Millie Dowler’s phone. They deserve all that comes in the way of punishment for such a nasty, cynical and contemptuous act. I would love to see those individual journalists serving a prison term and the paper they worked for faced with a million pound fine; which has been proposed, and would I support it.

            In fact I would support almost any punishment that fell short of any kind of legal underpinning.

            As for the celebrities; they used the Dowler’s and McCann’s as human shields to make a legal underpinning to regulation palatable to the British people, whose interest in their predicament would have remained apathetic without the righteous anger that the Dowler hacking generated.

            If celebrities, like Hugh Grant, wished to avoid press intrusion, they should avoid his kind of behaviour. The type which procured prostitutes in America.

            Those who live by the press shall perish at the hands of the press. The press in this country is free and lively. It will promote celebrity  because, particularly, the red tops, know that their readers indulge themselves in celebrity to the point of copying their every act of fashion and aping their every life style choice.

            We still have a free press, and long may it remain so for another 300 years. The celebrities should be ignored and told to get on with their lives. If they no longer wish to remain part of the celebrity culture; then let them disappear into disregard. Let them be discounted by the media, including the press if they show willingness to seek a hermitage away from the evil eye of the press. Let us have a system of celebrity monasteries where our icons can parrot  Greta Garbo’s  famous words, “I want to be alone”; and be left alone…period!