Tag Archives: Hugh Grant

July 10, 2025 · 10:25

That old song

That happens, we are at times driven to an old song. Something we sang before, or a song we heard others sing and it is a catchy song. That happened to me mere hours ago when Hacked OFF (https://www.hackedoff.org/) gave me ‘20 years after 7/7, victims of terror are still not protected’ (in an email) and as Paul Dadge states “Victims of press abuse feel let down and betrayed, and victims of terror are still not protected from being hacked and intruded on by the press.” I saw this years ago and I had a proper response (the other idea to shoot them in the head was instantly rejected by myself). You see, the media needs money and as the media is becoming ever pressured by peer pressures, they have to keep on adding the pressures. At first I thought that there was no real solution, but I got to thinking (I do that at times) and as I saw the desperate movement to digital dollars and revenue I saw a solution. You see, what is possible that judges can set the media, towards a new profit driven revenue and as such these people lose there tax exempt setting. Those ‘media’ dodo’s relying on 0% VAT now become fully VAT responsible. A month for every transgression. As such they will face a new adversary, not that pussy organisation called IPSO, but the MP of the victim and a group of three judges, one from the district the victim is in and two additional judges. They decide the fate of the transgressor and when found guilty that Media outlet will face the 20% VAT on the revenue they have that month. So these publications, like magazines, and newspapers will face the brunt of the VAT from 0% (I think it is 20% in the UK at present) and there is no hiding behind the people have a right to know. When you transgress on the privacy of people you get to pay the price. There might be a few snags in my way of thinking, but the publications that this is bound to happen we get to see all these media people crying like little bitches, just like they did at the time of judge Sir Brian Henry Leveson.

Even if it doesn’t come to pass, we can TikTok and Youtube the hell out of these media alleged transgressors and if we learned something in this last two years than it is that they are feeble and money hungry, suddenly lose 20% a month at a time and they might consider being a little more ethically acceptable towards the mess they made themselves.

Just my take on the matter and I reckon even if Nathan Sparkes, Hugh Tomlinson KC, Dr Rosa Malley, Emma Jones, George Eustice, Hugh Grant, Jacqui Hames, Mandy Garner, Professor Paul Wragg, Professor Steve Barnett, Terrence Tehranian don’t think it is achievable or practical, they will go into the weekend with a giggle and a big smile. Isn’t that worth reading this article? 

It also serves as deterrent as the masses of the world are looking for larger solutions to keep the media in an ethical place. Just my 0.0284 cents on the matter (2 cents adjusted for inflation).

Have a great day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 29, 2025 · 11:33

Retrospectively the media

That is what is happening, but how did it start? Around In 2007, News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were convicted of illegal interception of phone messages. According to the News of the World, this was an isolated incident, but The Guardian claimed that evidence existed that this practice extended beyond Goodman and Mulcaire. It started a whole mess which was shown to the world and as such the media was no longer any reliable source. Several cases hit the limelight, but for the largest setting, it was the media that was largely the problem. At some point (after Leveson) Hacked off was created with amongst them Hugh Grant Board member, actor (famous for comedies like Love Actually and Heretic) as well as one of the phone-hacking victims. I do not want to skip the Leveson enquiries. Yet that part is the larger issue, not the inquiry as much as the blatant support of the media by political players and basically the larger stage of a corrupt media. Hacked off gave us “In March 2013, the three main political parties supported the implementation of Leveson’s reforms, and so did the public. In fact more than 175,000 people signed our petition calling for immediate implementation. 10 years later however, this has still not happened. Press abuse continues and in the place of the PCC, the majority of newspapers in the UK are ‘regulated’ by another toothless complaints-handling body, IPSO.” Yet a week ago in ‘A letter from Hugh’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/03/20/a-letter-from-hugh/) I got a letter from Hugh Grant giving us all the option to write to our MP’s and today I received 

Here we see that “Our records show that a staggering 97% of MPs have now received letters from the public calling for action on press reform.” Now, we get the larger view. You see, the media doesn’t want the Leveson papers implemented and the people do. So what will the politicians do? That is the larger setting because the Media will see its visibility crumble when this happens. So what will the politicians do? I have set this stage in my blog several times over the last few years. The media is no longer reliable to any level and the pro-Hamas stories from the BBC is showing too many that the media is basically done for. Consider the fact that the UK is characterised by a comparatively large national press with 11 national daily newspapers, and 10 Sunday sister titles (this is more than France, Germany and USA). Seven of these titles publish special editions for Scotland, and these compete with three Scottish dailies. National newspapers are typically divided into three sectors which relate to their physical size, as well as the quantity of news, values and quality of content: broadsheet (also known as quality), mid-market, and tabloid. They are (mostly) all vying for the attention of the 69 million people in the UK. The turnaround is with “Print newspapers are read by 1 in 4 adults over 15 every day (13.6 million daily) and reach larger audiences weekly (24.9 million) and monthly (30.8 million). Print Circulation has fallen approximately 40 percent between 2010 and 2018.” And all these newspapers have advertising and that is the larger issue. That is money for the publications and as that 40% is cutting deeper and deeper. The media will resort to larger non-news steps, mostly to gain digital dollars from their audience. And with 97% off the MPs are getting requests to act, there is not much to do and I reckon that action will follow. Perhaps we will see another episode from some editor in chief stating like a little cry bitch that they can be trusted, that they will give a tooth to IPSO, but the larger setting of people are over the stage of misbehaving. Oh, and before you all think I am exaggerating, on March 14th 2014 I gave you all ‘Bad Journalism’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/03/25/bad-journalism/) where we were shown “Flight MH370 ‘suicide mission’“, so where is the evidence? Was any evidence ever given to us? The media is done for and I see it as places like the Khaleej Times, the New Arab and Al Arabiya are now more reliable than the western press has been for over 10 years.

So now the wait starts for action from British political parties. I wonder how long they can sit on their hands before the people have had enough. I wonder how many editors will cry like the little bitches they have been for years. And IPSO? Well they are soon to be under a microscope too.

Have a great day. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 20, 2025 · 17:50

A letter from Hugh

Yup, it happened to me, Hugh Grant send me a letter (a modern message in Email).

You know, the man who was made famous through the movie “Four startups and a Bankruptcy”. And behold, this morning there was a letter in my mailbox, stating:

Dear Lawrence,

For over ten years in opposition the Labour Party promised to implement the Leveson reforms.  These reforms would raise standards in the media and protect the public from intrusions into grief, blatant falsehoods, and other abuses. 

Sir Keir Starmer, meanwhile, talked a big game about ending corruption in politics and putting the public first.
Yet since his election as Prime Minister, Sir Keir has done nothing to keep his party’s promises and end the scandal of press abuse.

In his failure to act, he is protecting the status quo and putting newspaper owners ahead of the public.

We need to remind him: his Government is accountable to the British public, not newspaper owners.  And his Party’s promises – to ordinary people affected by press abuse, and the wider public – must be kept.

And here is the link to write to your MP (at https://www.hackedoff.org/campaign-actions/britains-press-power-without-responsibility-demand-real-press-accountability-now?utm_source=brevo&utm_campaign=Hugh follow-up&utm_medium=email&utm_id=38)

You will get to enter your UK Postcode and as I as a test enter a post code of Birmingham (as a test)  The system replies with 

Dear Shabana Mahmood,

Despite reaching over 70% of the public every month national newspapers are unregulated – allowing them to spread lies, disinformation, and to commit intrusions with impunity.

Every issue facing the country – from human trafficking to climate change to domestic violence – is affected by the ability of newspapers and their websites to cover them inaccurately and unethically.

The Government’s inaction on press regulation is holding Britain back from meeting these challenges – as well as leaving newspapers able to cause extraordinary damage to individuals’ lives through harassment and intrusion into grief.

You merely have to add your Name, Address and Email address details and the letter is ready. Easy, peasy, Chicken easy.

It will be a rough reminder for the Labour Party and his fellow minions to do something about the outstanding promise to set the Leveson papers in action. The media has become too much of a clear and present danger to the people, and many people in the UK have had enough. So this is a rather large remembrance page with the automation for the people to add their details and do something about it.

It gave me pause to think of hat the UK media is facing. It is already facing irrelevancy and a loss of readers on a global scale. No matter what our faith is, papers like New Arab, Arab News, Khaleej Times and several other newspapers are making string insides into the world population. And that is not all that is happening. In support we see that Dubai Media (the first recipient of my film script “How to assassinate a Politician”) is making rather larger visibility moves. Mostly in Bangladesh , Egypt and Indonesia, but it is a start). In this Al Saudiya (part of the SBA) is doing the same, but I am unaware how large their foot print is becoming. Mostly due to my lack of Arabic I cannot see the complete setting of the Saudi Broadcasting Authority. A Saudi TV group meant for 33 million is reaching out to a population of over half a billion (the Dubai Media group (UAE) as well). They are diminishing the channels that were until recently the targets of Reuters, AP News and the BBC. The people are through with these false prophets and are now giving these two a chance. After the track of the late eighties and 90’s that CNN had, they are given a green light by the people in many ways a similar setting.

Western people have had enough of the lies and innuendo that Western media gives us. As such the term sports-washing, meaning “Sportswashing is the use of sport to redirect public attention away from unethical conduct. The intended effect is to improve the reputation of the offending entity, by using the immense popularity of sport to ‘wash’ away poor publicity.” A term as I see it invented by the western media and nearly always used to describe Saudi involvement. But as I see it, the Western media should be using the same term (although not always involving sports) to strengthen their innuendo for digital dollars. They do, but to hide the actions of involved people like Sony (TPP policy 2016) and a few others. It was the first clear setting where I saw media ‘protecting’ big tech. I wrote (rather clumsily) about that in ‘Lessening the consumer?’ On April 27th 2016 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2016/04/27/lessening-the-consumer/) after that I saw the actions by Microsoft and others and the media was holding the hands over the heads of Big Tech (speculatively to score advertisement money) and that was how I started to keep my eyes of the media until now and see how the media today has less value than the average porn magazine, they might reflect on ‘Sex Sells’ but the value of their contribution has lost its value and then some. As media largely goes into the same direction, not giving us news, but referring to out as entertainment and as I see it, the ABC News Channel is the only news channel giving Australia actual news, the rest is flaccid entertainment. This is the same all over the western world hiding behind the term “A news and current affairs show”, where the emphasis is set to ‘current affairs show’ and the ‘insiders’ referring to that being the same. The world is waking up to the setting of being lulled asleep by the media and the Leveson papers was the first stage to getting the people awake. That was the first step for the media to wake up and that so far The Leveson Inquiry was a judicial public inquiry into the culture, practices, and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal, chaired by Lord Justice Leveson, who was appointed in July 2011. A series of public hearings were held throughout 2011 and 2012. The result were 4 documents giving us over 2000 pages of wake up medicine for the media regulations. So far it hasn’t happened, for reference the Lord Of the Rings is a novel a mere 1077 pages, so there is that too, one is fiction , the other is a rude awakening of what the media is up to. The News of the world owned by Rupert Murdoch shut down in 2011 when the News of the World, owned by News Corporation, had been regularly hacking the phones of celebrities, royalty, and public citizens. Murdoch faced police and government investigations into bribery and corruption by the British government and FBI investigations in the US. He got out when he was no longer able to hide the actions of some. But not all is lost, the Arabian versions of the news are now shown all over the world mainly the three I mentioned in the beginning. And now we see the growth of Saudi and UAE media and they now have solid systems that can reach the whole western world too. Now we might not get all the shows the 1st gives us, but that is merely one step away from coming. The fires in California have settles the people in optionally leaving California and the UAE and Saudi stations could give them a new beginning, many to Canada, but with the promise of decent incomes Saudi Arabia and the UAE could collect on the cream of American Script writers. I saw this option opening up and (even though magnificently unsuccessful)  , I decided to attempt to sell my first script in the UAE (Dubai media). There is an inkling of faith that it was merely my lack of skills, and it was my first script, but I have three more on route. As such other (a lot more successful than me) could open the road to more scripts and that is what Hollywood fears, the drain of knowledge. They thought they were on top of the world with their setting, yet as Covid hit, followed by the strikes and the California fires, the Hollywood setting is to some degree now an empty shell and that leaves Canada, the UK, Saudi Arabia and the UAE open to wildly grown in all directions. The Guardian gives us “The entertainment industry is estimated to create $43bn in wages every year for the Californian economy and recent events have not only forced a pause in the short term but also raised concerns over long-term recovery.” These incomes have been impacted from 2020 onwards. We were given “Many blockbusters originally scheduled to be released by mid-March 2020 were postponed or canceled around the world, with film productions also being halted.” Then we got the strikes in 2023 which stopped it all again and the fires on January 7th 2025, the impact has roasted the core of Hollywood with burning down what was left. Consider the setting that the people in Hollywood were given $43 billion annually and that their incomes have been impeded with a near 80% lacking of a total of over $200 billion. The quality of life is setting the massive options for the other nations and as the Hollywood moguls are happy to pay the others as little as possible, they and up having no recourse for themselves. 

And now we get yet again the Leveson inquiry hitting the UK shores. The mess is now near complete and the media will have to surrender market shares to the Arabian nations and see where they end up being, because the events in Saudi Arabia (2030) and the UAE will likely have all the Arabian journalists and very little other ones, especially with vloggers all over the place and YouTube (and TikTok) having the new fields all to themselves and their creators. That is what I see happening al up to late 2027 and that is long before Hollywood becomes a shadow of itself.

That is the reality of exploitation at some point the people give up and seek richer grounds, Hollywood is now becoming largely without cohesion to itself, so where do you go then? You all have a productive day.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 1, 2025 · 05:38

What was that about London Town?

There is a setting that we see and for some reason the media is ‘unable’ to highlight. It reminded me of a setting we saw in Love Actually, the masterpiece by Richard Curtis which included Keira Knightly as the newly created bride, Denise Richards as the pretty one of the family, Claudia Schiffer as the new girlfriend of Liam Neeson. Yet they are not the setting. It is the interaction of Hugh Grant as the Prime Minister and Billy Bob Thornton as the US president. You see, that part reflects on now when we hear Hugh Grant (as Prime Minister of the UK) say “A friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward I will be prepared to be much stronger.” Words that have been unlikely to come from Keir Starmer. On the side of President Trump it was a good tactic. Divide and conquer. An age old tradition to take the UK out of the race to support Canada. That is my first concern. Our Commonwealth brother is in a tough spot and they need our help. I for one was all about setting the stage of the Commonwealth and it has merit. If Whatever is exported to the USA, should now (for as much as possible) set among us, the Commonwealth nations. Moreover, the tariffs need to include all exported energy to America. The said 25%, fine, Canada can do that too. But the larger requirements are to set exports from America to Commonwealth and Europe. The first setting is oil, Crude Petroleum ($107B), Petroleum Gas ($15.7B) and Refined Petroleum ($15.1B). Then we get to deal with the rest. And as far as I can see, either Australia and New Zealand aren’t on their list, or their parts are too small. So lets ramp up what these two nations can deal with. The benefit there is that Vancouver will get a boost of income through shipping and optionally jobs too. After that there is the option how much can we shift towards Europe, as well as how much more can Canada sell to the United Kingdom. It only takes care of 40% of the current needs, but with America losing the 40% of that, especially oil, America has created their own problem. As far as I am concerned we all need to take America off the shopping lists. Australia has its own settings. Two weeks ago we saw “It came after comments on Tuesday from the US president that there would be no exceptions or exemptions on the tariffs, which will start on 12 March unless Anthony Albanese can secure an exemption.” So was there an exemption? And March 12th is less than two weeks away. For Australia the ‘loss’ is a ‘mere’ 51 billion all whilst we import from America $34.6 billion in goods and services. So what happens if we decide to drop the bigger part of $34 billion and get that from Canada and India? I don’t know if it completely balances its out, but two nations dampening America for half a trillion dollars will have an effect. As such we can state that ‘America first’ could become an essential ‘America first to the sewer’. I like it when life balances the bully into desperation. I don’t know that much about New Zealand but that has its own margins, and when that falls down for America as well, and their goods find another destination, we will have been much stronger against the so called ‘bully’.

In the other side there is nothing against America phrasing ‘America first’ it is a nationalistic setting I never opposed it. Not for Denmark, not for Germany, not for France of any other nation. National pride is essential for any nation. But the larger issue isn’t that America has a Fentanyl problem. It is related to the quote “Since 2013, the illegally manufactured fentanyl problem in the United States has become more deadly and more diverse.” The other side is that federal data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection show Canada plays almost no role in the smuggling of fentanyl or other deadly street drugs into the U.S. Despite that fact, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised in December to step up efforts to secure the northern border. (Source: NPR) so how is “Canada plays almost no role” the setting for the tariffs? It does not. As I personally see it America is now so broke that they have to cut every corner and alleviate every spending that they can dismiss. That is the setting I see and I have been watching this for some years. It might help, but at the most a few months and as we cull the needy Americans from resources they need, that setting will expedite matters against President Trump. And we have a duty to our Commonwealth brothers and now we must unite, because when the Wall Street boat sinks, we need to be ready for what comes next. If you want to guess what comes next. Wait until you see, social funding goes to zero. Veterans, healthcare, pensions, unemployment it all falls down. I reckon that this mess will be ten times worse than the Great Depression, which was a global economic crisis that began in 1929 and lasted until the 1930s. It was caused by the Wall Street stock market crash in the United States. And it will do so again, but this time the stakes are higher. Europe and Japan are directly impacted this time too and what comes next will fuel movies for a decade or two. Perhaps Richard Curtis will create his next gem called ‘Funds Actually’ and its release will be under 5 years after this point is reached. Perhaps a more international cast like the stock broker in Tokyo (played by Hiroyuki Sanada) who sees his wealth and family life dissolve as he trusted the words of Wall Street. And for rockers, the role of Donald Trump played by Alec Baldwin, dropping in on 10 Downing Street asking “Can I have some more please?” I actually doubt that President Trump ever used the phrase ‘please’ but it makes for a better Oliver Twist reference. 

When you see the elements stack up, I see that this is the most prevalent setting and when the numbers are counted, can anyone give rise to the Fox statement “The massive GOP bill would also direct $4 trillion toward raising the debt limit” I think America is about to surpass its debt limit with exceeding arrogance and that is never good, because like gamblers going all in again and again disregarding the issue in front of them just as long as they get one win, that setting is one of the most dangerous. Not only because the current administration is ignorant of the setting of now, but they let the bet it hoping they get some too. When you take approach to the budgets, how does this ever help anyone?

Have a lovely weekend. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, movies, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 1, 2019 · 12:51

The pigs you feed with

There is a notion that is adamant in politics, it is the stage that whatever you do next, will whitewash you from actions you might have taken in the past, it is interesting to see the actions of a politician and now that he had moved on, the stench of a previous post still lingers. That is the consideration that David Javid, the chancellor of the exchequer had to face when trying to shake hands with Hugh Grant.

I found his response to the event “I recognised him and put my hand out and said, ‘Lovely to meet you’, and you know what he does? He refuses to shake my hand“. The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/oct/31/hugh-grant-defends-himself-after-being-called-incredibly-rude-by-sajid-javid) actually has the nicest ring around it with this piece. So David, it is not the spin you give it with “I wonder if people like Hugh Grant think they are part of the elite and they look down on working class people no matter what station they reach in life” it is the consideration you created towards those victims as a cultural secretary. It is clear that David is not alone in the Hacked OFF accusations. with “Grant attacked the Daily Mail and Telegraph newspapers for failing to include his version of events in their news stories covering Javid’s accusation” we see a larger failing, it is the failing of politicians that refuse to see the light that the emanate and the light that they emanate when they take a political position, it will haunt them an at some point it will be the undoing of them.

And there is more of course, the tidbit “after his suspicions were raised that widespread phone hacking by British tabloids was conducted with the consent of the Tory government”, As a conservative, I take great pride in the fact that we need to stand by our actions, even the bad ones, the bad ones show us what acts of stupidity were the ones that will hold us back and the fact that the press can hack whatever they feel like to get the daily circulation up. There is a price that needs to get paid and the press and anyone stupid enough to hide behind ‘the people have a right to know’ claim to do whatever you please needs to be stopped, I had hoped that both sides of the isle had an illuminated showing of souls, but alas it was not meant to be, in light of all that Leveson illuminated and was sold short by the larger papers as well as the political parties need to learn the hard way, I feel strong in that regard and even as this means that we tighten our wrists to beams where we do not know how deep in the water they end up in, the knowledge that we set the waterline in a humane way that way is the only way to guarantee that these follies will never be allowed ever again.

Javid’s spin cycle goes nowhere when we consider “Hugh would like to point out that the victims in question were not celebrities. They were people with personal family tragedies who had been abused by sections of the press” as well as “the victims of press abuse [who] reported back that his attitude in the meeting was ‘borderline contemptuous’”, which in some way has the benefit of David having to deal with past exclamation and past rhetoric in another way as well. The highlight would have been if “I recognised him and put my hand out and said, ‘Lovely to meet you’, and you know what he does? He refuses to shake my hand” had somehow be changed into: “I recognised him and I remembered the treatment I gave him and the victims, I quickly turned to my left further and gave appraise to whomever I remembered from last week’s meeting and let him or her shine a little”, of course the second version would have created a nice ‘non-story’ item and that would have been fine, at the most the personal assistant to the chancellor of whatever borough would have gotten a little limelight, now he gets to deal with the contemptuous feelings of anyone that will talk to the press on how they were treated, so hacked off wins, the victims win and David Javid loses a little more with every statement they made.

Isn’t it great to know what you are doing?

I think it is, I think it is great all the time, but that is just me

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , ,

January 25, 2015 · 23:50

That what is ignored!

I feel a little on edge at present. You see, there are certain things that are just not done. The entire case that is set against Prince Andrew is such an event. I dealt with several issues in my blog called ‘As we judge morality‘ a little over two weeks ago.

Yet as some of these ‘claims’ are set in print again and again, especially the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, should we consider prosecuting Paul Michael Dacre (Daily Mail) and Ian MacGregor (the Telegraph) for libel?

Here is my reasoning, as I went through the Defamation Act 2013:

In section 4 (Publication on matter of public interest), we see in subsection 1:
It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that
(a) the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; and
(b) the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest.

So far so good, we can all agree that published statements of members of the Royal family are indeed public interest. However, is it at (b) where we see ‘reasonably believed‘, as I stated in the previous article ‘As we judge morality‘, I came to serious doubts to some regard of these events as I looked into the PDF of what I believe to be the original affidavit from the Palm beach Police Department. In that regard, none of the papers had picked up the pace and the fact that it took me less than 10 minutes to find then Detective Joe Recarey. None of the papers seem to be clued in at all. Even the Guardian, who remained devoid of innuendo (at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/23/prince-andrew-lawyers-sex-questions-court), did work on this story and as such Alan Rushbridger, as editor of the Guardian should consider the choices he made, especially the choice he did made by not doing them (which is his prerogative of course).

Now I get back to the previously mentioned section 4. Is it that far a jump that to use the defence regarding ‘publication on matter of public interest‘ that the journalistic party has a responsibility to decently investigate the claims it is printing? So now we get to the Joe Racarey part, by NOT properly investigating the claims, can we now get to the part that these negations nullify the defence in section 4 that the press might seem to rely on? This now means that there is a possible case of libel that the press could have to answer to? That negation is found in the part ‘reasonably believed‘, as there was no proper investigation, there can be no reasonable belief as I see it. So now, the press would need to rely on the defences as seen in sections 2 and 3.

Section 2 is about ‘substantially true’, most important is subsection 3, where we see ‘If one or more of the imputations is not shown to be substantially true, the defence under this section does not fail if, having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true, the imputations which are not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant’s reputation‘

So, the defence holds, but only if those that were not substantially true did not harm the claimant’s reputation. I reckon that the accusation in itself is already showing to be damaging beyond belief, which takes care of section 2 and section 3 is about ‘honest opinion’, this is not an opinion piece, this is about an allegation that will be considered a serious crime if proven correctly. So as I personally see it, there is no defence left for defamation should such charges be brought against certain tabloids.

Let’s look at the following quotes: ““I had sex with him three times, including one orgy,” Roberts claims in her affidavit” from the Guardian. Now this is pure reporting, I still believe that in the light of a few articles, the Guardian should have gone a lot further digging before getting on the ‘gossip’ gravy train (even though we clearly accept that reporting is not regarded as gossip), the reasoning of the person making the claim needs to be above a certain level, that part is still not proven. My issue is not with the Guardian in this case, although showing support for the Royal family by digging a little better would not have been the worst idea.

With the Daily Mail it is a different kind of fish. We get a photo with quote “‘On chummy terms’: The Duke of York takes a stroll with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein in New York” (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597308/The-bombshell-court-document-claims-Prince-Andrew-knew-billionaire-friends-abuse-age-girls.html), yet they are adamant of not mentioning when the photo was taken. You see, an actual journalist would mention when it was taken, not imply all with an added picture. In their defence, they also wrote “There is, however, no suggestion that the Duke was involved in any form of sexual exploitation” in that same article. The quote “Miss Roberts alleges she and the royal had sex when she was aged around 17, still a minor under US law in some states” (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2921490/Prince-Andrew-appears-public-Davos-time-emerged-called-swear-oath-innocent-sex-claims.html) gives us more. Yes, it is ‘alleges’, yet not unlike the Guardian they could have done their homework a little better before adding the articles as they had been added. It is my personal view (so feel free to consider that choice, not to just add articles as is, especially when the allegations involve members of the Royal family. I am not stating not to print them; I am stating that a high(er) level of investigative quality would have gone a long way towards giving the audience the quality article that they are entitled to.

The Telegraph has not faltered in remaining massively below expectations either. “It was his ongoing friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, an American financier, that saw him forced to step down as the UK’s trade envoy in 2011” (at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/11364822/Judith-Woods-Prince-Andrew-was-pitch-perfect-for-a-change.html). Whenever there is any mention we see the following by-line ‘Prince Andrew Duke of York’s reputation has already been tainted by his association with the disgraced American financier‘, with each time EXACTLY the same photograph in several papers, all devoid of the mention WHEN that photograph was taken. How tabloids are willing to misinform you for the mere need of circulation!

So what should be done?

Well, I am all about the freedom of the press, but not when it comes to non-accountability. Here is also the problem; the press is in this case as they report on events, not accountable and there would be no case, but in my view, should there be a case? Let us not forget that the circumstances as given in more than one regard. Not that this was reported on, but that the press did not take extra efforts to investigate what could have been investigated. The earlier mentioned detective is only one of several options. When a royal is on some trip, his calendar tends to be filled and usual in company of others. There is no denying he had met Virginia Roberts, but were they ever actually in private areas? Now, the yes and no of that is of course what one person or what the other person states, my issue has a few other directions.

The first part is seen in the Daily Mail (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2896075/Prince-Andrew-flies-skiing-holiday-tell-Queen-s-innocent-underage-sex-allegations-does-immunity-deal-government.html), you see the quote “But today Mr Roberts retracted his claim. In a statement sent to MailOnline, he said: ‘I want to clear up that many years ago Virginia stated to me she was to meet the Queen’s son Prince Andrew and not the Queen herself. I’m sorry for any misunderstanding.’” Can anyone explain to me how a father (or mother for that matter) would allow their child to travel unaccompanied? No matter if that person would have been her Majesty the Queen herself, you do not let your child travel alone! If someone was there in any position as chaperone, then there should be a record of this. In addition, so much travel as a minor, on what passport? Where an on what dates did this person pass through customs with a passport?

Last there is the following statement “Epstein, a long-term friend of Andrew, was jailed for 13 months in 2008 for soliciting girls for under-age prostitution. The pair remained friends and were seen together in 2011 after Epstein’s release”. You see, this is stated in more than one form in several places, but was Epstein a long-term friend? Most of us want to be friendly with billionaires, but that does not make such a connection one of friends. When searching through boatload of pages, that part has not been illuminated for one iota (I admit that I might have missed it), but the fact that no one is clearly telling us about that ‘so-called’ friendship is decently worrying. Then we get the ‘seen together in 2011’, there could be several valid reasons. Yes, it is not ideal, but let us not forget the fact that Epstein remains a billionaire! We can speculate all we want, but why did they meet? Was this ever clearly reported on? Was Prince Andrew asked? Epstein has been investing in many philanthropically flavoured endeavours, so the chance that Epstein meets with people of fame and/or royalty is a lot more likely.  Should this make us uneasy? Absolutely, but can it be avoided? Not sure! By the way, they do not look too chummy in the photograph!

However, going back over the previous part, there is actually in the Daily Mail (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905218/Prince-Andrew-admits-s-foolish-friendship-paedophile-billionaire-Jeffrey-Epstein.html), the following “The Duke had previously said he had made an ‘error of judgement’ when he was snapped strolling through New York’s Central Park in 2011 with Epstein following his release from jail”, yet there is no mention why they met (still it is not a good situation to be in), also there was “expressing his regret for the ill-advised friendship”, which gives us enough that the previous statement is seemingly all correct. Still the issue remains, as I see it, that the papers should have done a lot more by giving clarity to the events.

Yet when we look at CNN (at http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/05/europe/prince-andrew-sex-abuse-allegations/), we see that the CNN article has a massive amount of information regarding the accusations and how Alan Dershowitz responded to them. The fact that we get the quote: “Dershowitz offered to waive the statute of limitations and “any immunity.”” Gives added light to the case. If this is proven, not only could her claim be regarded as useless, valueless and foundation less. There would be in addition severe consequences for her legal team. Alan Dershowitz has decided to counter claim those events by having the attorneys for Virginia Roberts to be removed from the role of attorneys. If that is maintained we get the new part, how to deal with the press.

Now we get to the part that has been an issue all along. You see, the press have gotten away with way too much for a long time. As such, if the clear evidence is set against Virginia Roberts, it will be our turn!

You see, I still have an issue with the press to a certain extent, they have played too many games and they still regard them as captains of the fate of others for the ever growing need of more revenue. When proven that the Duke of York was indeed innocent we can change the future, we can finally hold the press to values. It is my belief that once the Duke is proven to be innocent, the people in the UK will possibly unite for a referendum DEMANDING that the full Leveson report is implemented. No space for journalists crying like little bitches on how the freedom of the press is such a valued commodity. As I see it, they threw away the concept quality reporting some time ago. With the Leveson report fully implemented, the press will have no option but to actually create quality journalism, or be held accountable for 8 figure penalties for every transgression made. It will be a brand new day! I wonder if Hugh Grant considered this (perhaps he did) and it could be a new round for that what was ‘hacked off’.

I believe that the people have had enough of a certain journalistically based approach to what is true, good and ethical. The people to a larger extent still have not forgiven the loss of Lady Diana Spencer due to paparazzi (some still consider her to have been murdered through the acts of paparazzi). If these hurtful events against Prince Andrew turn out to be false, I feel certain that enough people can be rallied to force a referendum on implementing the full Leveson report. Let us not forget the headline ‘MH370 suicide mission’, whilst no evidence was ever recovered proving that headline. In the end Epstein might face additional scrutiny, whether they proceed whilst successfully avoiding a situation of double jeopardy remains an issue. Yet, in all this, Virginia Roberts will have as new problem, if Alan Dershowitz can actually bring evidence to make his case, the life of Virginia Roberts will end, because being a victim is one thing, failing prove it and then having to live through evidence proving the opposite is true, will give additional worry to the press in several forms.

This might blow over for some, but for the press this case could soon be the stuff of nightmares, it could have been avoided by properly digging deeper into the story, which is what a journalist was supposed to do to begin with.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,