News of The World hacked Milly Dowler's voicemail

[Guest MattP]

This is amazing.

 

Now I couldn't give less of a chod about what he's done, I mean, who hasn't gone out with someone for 6 months after meeting them through internet dating before discovering they're a sex worker, but this is literally about a week since his department said it wasn't going to implement Leveson at the moment as it 'wasn't the right time' or something similarly woolly.  I can see what he meant now:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36031743

 

Like all of you I'm confident that the tabloids that decided not to run the story did it out of kindness and definitely not to keep it as leverage over a person with the responsibility to implement some new rules they don't like.

 

My first instinct is that the spin doctors will struggle with this one, but at the same time despite it feeling like a bombshell, if recent experience is anything to go by it probably won't make any difference

 

I'm not totally up to date on what has happened yet with this case, but Whittingdale has always been against Leveson hasn't he regardless of recent events?

 

You can go back as far as 2012 to see those opinions - http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/sep/13/leveson-platform-grudges-press-whittingdale

[Bellend Sebastian]

I'm not totally up to date on what has happened yet with this case, but Whittingdale has always been against Leveson hasn't he regardless of recent events?

 

You can go back as far as 2012 to see those opinions - http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/sep/13/leveson-platform-grudges-press-whittingdale

 

As has been pointed out by the Guardian this morning, and I seem to recall Hacked off being all over it at the time.  His appointment as Culture Secretary given his position and the PM's previous promises to implement Leveson is indeed one of those mysteries, but I don't know enough about the legal side of it all to know if appointing a Leveson sceptic to the position was a tactic employed to stave off the inevitable for as long as possible (or at least until politically convenient) or basically saying that we're not enforcing it, end of or if that's even something they can actually do.

 

The sheer vagueness of the position on Leveson last week made me think they're just stalling, but I didn't give any thought as to the reasons why that might be, and who's to say it's got anything to do with Whittingdale's adventures in exotic romance.  He may have already been 'onboard' as far as the press were concerned, but I don't think for a moment that would rule out having something on him as a bit of insurance that he stays that way.

 

Conjecture aplenty on my part (and lots of other people's), but it does look - sorry, I mean smell - a bit fishy.

 

Ultimately I just want Leveson's proposals to be put into force.  I remember the heady days when Cameron first called for the inquiry into the press, and although I disagree with pretty much everything he represents, I thought well if nothing else one good thing will come from all this, but unfortunately he seems to have spent all the time since wishing he hadn't

[Bellend Sebastian]

Roy Greenslade reckons storm in a teacup.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/media-blog/2016/apr/13/whittingdale-sex-worker-culture-secretary-minister

 

Damn your even-handedness, Guardian

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Roy Greenslade reckons storm in a teacup.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/media-blog/2016/apr/13/whittingdale-sex-worker-culture-secretary-minister

 

Damn your even-handedness, Guardian

He misses one key point however - the full reasons for 4 different newspapers to pass up the story isn't fully known, but there is suspicision that they may not have done as they saw Whittington and some kind of asset in avoiding legislation they didn't want. That they were afraid if they released the story, this would effect this mans position and someone new and less favourable to their interests would be installed.

Now whether Whittington knew about the potential of this story being run (suggestion are he did) isn't the point - neither can we prove (yet) that any decision he may have made was impacted by any knowledge of this story, HOWEVER there is enough suspicion surrounding the reason not to print to cause public doubt - and this is why he should remove himself from decision making on this part of his brief.

I appreciate it may be difficult for him to see this, for he has not really done anything wrong, but it doesn't stop the fact that he's been indirectly compromised by what appears to be a case of indirectly lobbying.

[Jon the Hat]

The story is out now, so if he has done nothing wrong and there is no further leverage then why should he leave?

 

I say story, but this isn't one really is it?  Single man meets lady on Match.com and it doesn't work out because she lied to him.

[The Fox Covert]

Can't quite see what John Whittingdale has to do with Milly Dowler however I can't resist replying to this.

I was at university with Mr Whittingdale and his rise to power is a complete mystery to me.

Such a vacuous nonentity seemingly incapable of expressing an opinion on anything. Just what you want from a politician.

His relationship with a sex worker is likely to go down as what most people remember him for.

Can't even say thanks for the memories because there aren't any.

[ozleicester]

CVNT

 

https://www.change.org/p/press-council-and-acma-suspend-publication-and-an-inquiry-of-news-corp-for-leading-duncan-on-suicide-watch/u/16820756?tk=wfbFsmRSu7UvU7KUsZqRl0u6oL4Kb1E_EVk0Uk4oRC4&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email