Milly Dowler's Parents and Hugh Grant Give Evidence To Leveson Enquiry

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15812762

The investigation into the News of the World phone hacking scandal took a new turn yesterday when the parents of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler gave evidence to the Leveson Enquiry.

The parents of Milly Dowler told the enquiry how, after their daughter went missing they repeatedly attempted to contact her mobile phone but soon the voicemail box became filled and they could pass no more messages. However, when they tried later, they were able to pass another message. This suggested to them that Milly was picking up her voicemails and gave them hope that she was still alive.

The reality of the situation though, was different.

Glenn Mulcaire, a private detective working on behalf of the News of the World is accused of hacking into Milly Dowler's mobile phone and extracting information, including messages from her distressed parents and passing them on to the newspaper. He is accused of then deleting calls from the full voicemail box so that the parents could send more messages for him to access. He denies the allegation.

Hugh Grant alleged in his testimony that, not only had his mobile phone been hacked by The Mail on Sunday, but that he had also been subjected to a campaign of harassment, intimidation and threats to go public with information about a child he fathered with an Asian woman, Jemima Khan. The Mail on Sunday denies the allegations and claims the information they received was passed on to them by a freelance journalist.

More than 50 other celebrities, politicians and even royalty have alleged phone hacking by tabloid newspapers.

The questions raised by this entire issue are quite fundamental to our freedom.

I think we would all agree that a free press is vital to democracy. But how much restraint should they show in their pursuance of a story.

Where should the line be drawn between an individual's right to privacy and what is in the public interest... indeed, what is the point at which a story becomes, or ceases to be, "in the public interest"?

Should the press be regulated..? Oh, how the politicians would love a legitimate excuse to do that..!! With a fettered press, it is very possible (probable?) that stories such as the MP's expenses scandal would never have come to light.

But does the freedom of the press warrant intrusion into the grief of the parents of a murdered daughter, and the cynical exploitation of technology that causes false hope to be later dashed with all the pain and suffering that inevitably leads to.

Milly Dowler's parents were given hope that their daughter was still alive. They clung to that desperately until the day her body was found.

Is a free press worth that..?
Where do we draw the line..?
Can we still trust the press to regulate themselves, or is it time to legislate..?

One of our most important freedoms is at stake here. We really have to get this one right.


.

The press, they always find loop holes in the rules. OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

Jemima Kahn isn't Asian. And Grant doesn't have a child with her.

I think the press should be punished for doing something illegal - like phone hacking, or interfering with a police investigation. And they should be punished harshly.

But free press is important, and a government controlled press is a bad idea.

I agree...I think "the line" is exactly where it ought to be: The media should not be allowed to invade anyone's privacy or otherwise break the law to get their information, and should not be allowed to deliberately publish lies, but beyond that the government ought not to control them.

The line might be in a good place but the press constantly ignore it and dont just step over it, they f***ing well leap over it like triple jumpers on speed.

The press dont give a f*** about anybodys privacy or rights. all they care about it getting the story. Press ethics is a massive oxymoron.

I would like to see a situation where before the press are allowed to publish any story relating to an individual private citizen they must first get the permission of the person concerned or the approval of an ethics committee to establsh that it is in the public interest. I dont give a s*** if it means the news is delayed a day or two. too bad. the press have had plenty of chances to police themselves and they just keep abusing the trust that the public puts in them. they cant be trusted. time for limited legislation.

I'm glad you understood what I was trying to say, because I don't think I put it too well

you would whistle a different tune if it was your phone they hacked when your daughter was missing presumed dead. what they did to the dowler family was disgraceful even by any standards. for anyone to say that things should just drift along as they are and there is nothing wrong is just bollocks. just hope and pray the day never comes when you have the press on your back. I would bet a pound to a pinch of pigs*** you will have something to say about it then.

Nobody said that.

Stop being aggressive.

whose being aggressive. If I was being aggressive I WOULD WRITE IN f***ING GREAT BIG BLOCK CAPITALS. or use lots of seriously nasty swear words or really get into a big rant.

besides, who are you to decide what is aggressive and what isnt? I am expressing an opinion, isnt that what the board is meant to be all about?

when i see what other people get away with on here all the time i suppose free speech depends on who your mates are.

you will only harm yourself, I tried.

Yeah, I agree that it was disgusting. And as I said they should be prosecuted and punished harshly for it. Full force of the law and all that.

But it shouldn't mean that the government take control of the press. Think of all the things that wouldn't have come out into the public knowledge - things about the Iraq war and Dr David Kelly, MP's expenses and other scandals. And I'm not talking who is shagging who, I'm talking about serious corruption.

i didnt suggest that. what I said was that where a private individual was concerned the matter would have to be either agreed by the person concerned or put before an ethics committee before it could be published.

this is private individuals, not the iraq war.

this isnt gagging the press it is making sure the news is actually news that is really in the public interest and not some poor sod being hounded because he got his leg over with a tom.

the press are a pack of animals and they have to be treated as such. they will think nothing of breaking into your house, accessing your private details, following your car on motorbikes and photographing you through the window while your on the move or harassing your wife and kids. they will tell lies about you and spread rumour about you and they can do it with almost total impunity. the press has no morals, no behavioural standards and no pity for anybody or anything. they are a like a bunch of hyenas and you get them on your back at your peril.

I don't understand the questions in the OP. The actions described are illegal already. There are no freedoms at stake.

its very simple, john boy. the press here completely ignore the law. this is how the entire situation arose. they have been doing it for donkeys years and getting away with it.

we wouldnt be holding a f***ing great public enquiry with every man and the bosuns cat giving evidence if nothing happened. one of the most successful sunday newspapers in the world wouldnt have had to shut down in disgrace if nothing happened. one of the worlds most successful media magnates wouldnt have declared the episode to be the most humbling experience of his life if nothing happened. the prime minister wouldnt have nearly lost his job over his association with andy coulson if nothing happened.

but the press got away with phone hacking for years and were carefully minimising the fall out of this latest act of lawbreaking until it came out that the phone of milly dowler had been hacked. that was when public opinion went barmy and they knew there was no longer any chance of letting the whole business quietly slide into oblivion.

this is a british matter. you dont really know whats going on, do you?

Apart from all those things are illegal. If the CPS started prosecuting more, and handing out harsher punishments that type of behaviour would likely die down.

Once the government start interfering with the press, it is a downwards slope. What you are talking about would the start of the state controlling what can and can't be said.

But whatever, if you want to be in that type of society, go to China or something. I'm through.