FOLLOWING the statement of Robert Jay QC at this morning's hearing of the Leveson Inquiry, I would like to make the following clarification.
I am pleased to hear Mr Jay does not hold the belief that the News of the World was, 'nothing but smut' and that he was referring only to one particular article. I accept the integrity of what he says as I hope he does when I say this was not the impression I was left with.
Mr Jay is clearly a very able man. But no one is immune from making ambiguous comments.
There are important issues being debated today and I have no wish to get in the way.
I will of course comment on proceedings and will continue to do so in what I consider to be a fair and balanced fashion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hello Neville,
ReplyDeleteThought I would use this medium as communication having been restricted to 140 characters on Twitter during my exchanges with yourself and Owen Fairclough regarding your Leveson evidence and blog. So that you can understand the context, I was using the pseudonym ‘Fuengi’.
My initial question to the ‘Twittersphere’ was whether Leveson would be able to give any credence to your testimony, being that you had (in their eyes) misrepresented the conversation between yourself and Robert Jay QC prior to your evidence?
Notwithstanding your Twitter response and the clarification on your blog, I still find the question a valid one. It seems clear to me that the Inquiry Team finds your account of this meeting inaccurate at best.
I might go further and suggest that your blog on this seeks to portray Mr Jay QC as being somebody who regards The News of The World as ‘smut’. True to journalistic form, this is done by referring to a private exchange out of public earshot. I note that Paul McMullen tried something similar on Newsnight with Steve Coogan.
Regards,
Mark Davison
Thankyou for your comment Mark and I'm happy to publish it as I won't be censoring any comments just because they are critical of me in some way. As I say, this is a debate and there are many opinions and yours is as valid as anyone else's. I will leave my two blogs on the matter to speak for themselves.
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one of the view that the Leveson Inquiry seems to shed more light on the culture, practice and ethics of the legal profession than it does the press? Robert Jay QC and the lovely Carine Patry Hoskins aside, there does seem to be an awful lot of people doing awfully little work; other than fiddling on their i-pads all day. All of course at huge expense to the taxpayer. Perhaps what we need is a little more transparency; so why not let's start with the daily rate of remuneration, including all expenses, received by Mr. Jay. Or indeed the Good Lord himself. Still, am looking forward to when the Plod take the stand; under oath. Now that will be very interesting indeed.
ReplyDeleteJames, Leeds.