X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Coffee House

Live blog: Guido & Littlejohn vs Bryant & Mosley at The Spectator’s free press debate

30 January 2013

7:37 PM

30 January 2013

7:37 PM

7.15pm A full house here at the IET in Savoy Place – our free press debate, sponsored by Brewin Dolphin, has been a sell-out. A stunning venue and an outstanding lineup. For the motion: Guido Fawkes, Richard Littlejohn and Tory MP John Whittingdale. Against: Max Mosley, Chris Bryant and the celebrity lawyer Charlotte Harris. Chaired by Andrew Neil. And the motion: Leveson is a fundamental threat to the free press.

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN is up first. The Leveson inquiry, he said, was a cross between a Soviet show trial and Graham Norton show. The self-regarding liberal elite seized on an opportunity for this. Leveson was picking over the bones of a corpse: the News of the World was shut down by reader revulsion. A reminder that the press have to stand for election every day – the readers are the statutory regulators. The number of journalists in Britain arrested is now over 60. But we’re seeing a sustained campaign of intimidation, fishing expeditions from police who enter journalists’s homes, overturn their children’s bedroom. Almost as bad is the appalling Filkin report which criminalises all contact between journalists and the police. You can’t have a little bit of press regulation any more than you can be a little bit pregnant, he says.

CHRIS BRYANT (Lab, Rhondda) opens with a fattist joke: ‘I’m not Tom Watson, I’m half the man he is. Referring to the Hollywood film of the hacking scandal, Bryant says: ‘I’m worried my character is going to turn into a woman who has an affair with Tom Watson.’ Not, of course, that Watson has had an affair. He says he likes the press, he confesses that ‘I sometimes look at the Daily Mail sidebar of shame – I love the scabrous, naughty irreverent press we have in this country’ better than the press he grew up with under Franco as a kid. But ‘we regulate Andrew Neil’s programmes’ because ‘we know a fair and balanced broadcaster is good for all of us.’ (Maybe so, but The Spectator’s motto is ‘firm but unfair’.) ‘There are very strange things about me – I’m slightly gay…in fact, I’m a practising homosexual and one day I’ll get good at it.’ (Not sure where this is going). He got involved in the Leveson because a friend of his, an MP, was mugged. He reported it to a policeman and 45 minute later the News of the World were on the phone. Why? He respondes: ‘the police officer was given money by the NOTW for that information.’ He makes the (very fair) point that in evidence to the Media Committee, Rebekah Brooks admitted to paying police for information – seemingly unaware it was against the law. Things have to change. ‘I don’t think newspapers should be our gods.’

[Alt-Text]


GUIDO FAWKES doesn’t think newspapers should be our gods either – he’s up next. He started off in the dead tree press – delivering it. ‘Until some Sunday Times editor quadrupled the size and broke my back…I wonder what happened to him.’ The correct relationship between politicians and the media is that between a dog and a lamppost, he says. He goes for Bryant. ‘He told me he wished to see my site closed down – he now expects me to believe he is the guardian of a free press. What about Tom Watson, the hyperbolic scourge of Murdoch?’ he claimed that Watson called up The Spectator to complain about his No2, Harry Cole. ‘Since the closure of the NOTW, not a single politician has been caught with their pants down. A lack of extramarital affairs reported is an unhealthy state of affairs.’ Cheating MPs tend to be lying ones. ‘Any hint of statutory underpinning’ gives those MPs levers that they should never have.

7.55pm MAX MOSLEY says that just 1pc of the country can afford to sue the press, and if the other 99pc cannot then we cannot say we’re operating under the rule of law. His argument is muted, almost lawyerly. ‘A newspaper doesn’t have to belong” to Leveson’s proposed setup, “it’s entirely voluntary’ but Leveson would then force the newspaper to pay costs even if it wins a case. Under the current system, an oligarch can sue the FT with a hopeless case, he loses – but the FT still has to pay a chunk of the costs. ‘The rich can bully anyone if they are prepared to spend money’ but Leveson proposes a fairer arbitration system. Leveson is not about a Rubicon of statute, it’s about access to justice at reasonable costs. The Press Complaints Commission is already in legal statute, so why the squeamishness now? ‘For the first time ever the public will have a proper system where their rights can be enforced at zero cost’ and that – he says – is what this is all about.

8.03pm JOHN WHITTINGDALE says many of the victims – the McCanns, even Max Mosley, were victims of already-illegal behaviour and managed to find redress against the press under existing laws. He agrees with Chris Bryant that a stronger version of the Press Complaints Commission is needed and even agreed with chunks of what Mosley said. So where do they disagree? Not the end, but the means. Leveson wants legislation ‘and that is what I, and the government, regard as fundamentally dangerous. It legitimises the idea that government and parliament should have  a roll in what the press should and should not do.’ He quotes Shami Chakrabati saying ‘that would bring about the danger of political control through the back door.’ It’s now possible to find a solution to bring the ‘tough regulation that Leveson wants and I want’ but to do this with legislation ‘is a step too far’ and does pose a danger to the free press.

8.15pm EVAN HARRIS [standing in for Charlotte Harris, who has apparently been held up with a client]. It was ‘pleasure to hear as well as read Richard Littlejohn’ because he said things ‘that you couldn’t make up.’ (The hall quite liked this joke). The press didn’t expose Jimmy Savile, he said, in fact the supposedly over-regualated ITV that did the hard work. There was ‘mass suicide’ at the BBC and ‘rightly so’ – there was ‘nothing’ at the newspapers, not a single head rolling, after the McCann scandal and the Chris Jeffries scandals . ‘We cannot go on seeing ordinary people damaged by the press.’ And as for Guido’s idea that ‘you can only tell if a politician is lying if you know their sexual history’ is an interesting one, but should it not also apply to columnists and editors? ‘There’s a deal between the Express and the Mail not to explore the interest of the owners…. so there is a double standard there.’ And didn’t Guido engage in a vendetta against the Telegraph journalist who outed him as Paul Staines? ‘It’s his right to do so, but that doesn’t mean he should set rules for the rest of society.’ To say that parliament should have no role in regulating the press ‘is an argument against democracy.’ The Leveson report does not advocate statutory regulation or any compulsion; in fact it’s ‘about as a good a result as the press could get, yet they’re still complaining… to advance their interests against the interests of the public.’ The real threat to a free press ‘is the concentration of media power in a few hands – that’s what the press will not report and that’s what you should be aware of.’

8.27pm END OF SPEECHES – NOW OPEN TO THE FLOOR The highlights..

Guido tells Evan Harris that the Oldie actually broke the Saville story. ‘Great story, why didn’t the tabloids pick it up?’ Harris responds. One of the many questions to which Spectator subscribers know the answer – we ran a story on precisely that question last November.

Littlejohn returns to the ‘arrest of journalists on an industrial scale on a spurious basis… some of these now date back 12 months, bail is extended month after month after month, these people’s lives have been put on hold on a suprious basis’. Andrew Neil: ‘How do you know it is spurious?’ ‘I’m Judge Littlejohn – if the police have evidence, they should put up or shut up.’
The BBC Director Generalship came up. Bryant says to Andrew Neil ‘I know you wanted the job.’ AN: ‘On what possible basis could you think that?’ CB: ‘Because you told me.’ [Laughter]. AN: ‘When did I tell you?’. ‘Three separate times.’ After the show, apparently. Neil tells him to keep taking the tablets and file that conversation under ‘B for bollocks’.
8.53pm Mosley on those NOTW spanking pictures ‘I don’t think anything they published was humiliating, it was just embarrassing.’
Littlejohn on political control The present Speaker is trying to hide behind the law, to protect the details of MPs’ second homes… they may hide behind the McCanns but these people want to protect themselves.
The PCC An audience member puts in a word for the Press Complaints Commission. He put in a complaint to the PCC and it was upheld. If he had he had to go to a lawyer, ‘they would have taken me to the cleaners’.
Guido: I’m sure Dominique-Strauss Khan wishes the US had privacy legislation, if so, he’d still be harassing hotel maids.
9pm Bryant’s 3am visitor: The MP says he’s never made any complaint against the press, but was annoyed when his address was printed because he then had a phone call at 3am from someone who said ‘Hello my name is Colin, I’m very submissive and I’m outside your door.’ He called the police.
And the voting: on the way in it was 177 for the motion, and 85 against it with 149 undecided. The final count was 205 for, 191 against and no undecided. So the motion was but carried, but the huge shift in voting suggests Mosley, Bryant and Harris were the real winners.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close