Today’s select committee hearings into phone hacking briefly descended into chaos after a protestor attacked Rupert Murdoch, reports Tom Rouse.
Today’s select committee hearing briefly descended into chaos after a protestor attacked Rupert Murdoch. The incident, which occurred towards the end of the hearing, was the work of a lone protestor, who has identified himself on Twitter as Johnny Marbles.
Murdoch was struck in the face by a paper plate with shaving foam on it, before his wife retaliated, striking Marbles in the face.
UkUncut have confirmed Marbles was one of their activists, but deny any knowledge of or involvement with today’s attack.
The attack will do nothing to boost the anti-Murdoch cause and if anything is likely to generate unnecessary sympathy towards him.
Chris Bryant was entirely right to condemn the attacks and it is unfortunate it will distract from the important questions raised by the committee this afternoon.
Prior to the incident, the Rupert Murdoch that appeared before the committee was not the all-powerful ogre he is so often portrayed as, but neither should we believe he was quite as frail as his appearance today suggests.
He was probably right in acknowledging this was “the most humble day of my career” if only because a month ago we could never have imagined such scenes occurring. Whether this humbleness contributed to his frail persona is something we can only speculate on.
Initially, we learned little of substance that was either new or surprising. James Murdoch’s request to read a prepared statement was rebuffed, but the initial questions were tame enough to allow him to recite much of his material anyway.
Contrition was the name of the day for the Murdochs, but not at the expense of damage control.
Both were quick to establish distance between themselves and the situation at the News of the World, with Rupert in particular stressing how little he knew of the day to day operations at the paper and that he did not consider himself personally responsible for the horrific actions taken by the paper.
This was the most surprising claim, though also one that Left Foot Forward has strong reason to doubt.
In the past Rupert has claimed to have considerable influence over the editorial line taken by his papers. As a stunt it successfully allowed him to blunt many of the questions from the committee, but is not a defence that will stand up to even the most casual scrutiny.
Tom Watson’s expertise on the matter saved the hearings from petering out in a series of meaningless soundbites. Describing the criminal activity at the NotW as endemic, Watson probed both Murdoch’s on what they knew when and what actions they took in the wake of the initial investigation back in 2006.
He drew an admission from Rupert that he had been misled by people he had employed and that he was not aware that one of his reporters had been found guilty of blackmail.
Louise Mensch was the only other committee member to emerge with an enhanced reputation from the session. She was faced with the challenge of getting proceedings back on track after the pie incident and did so admirably, pursuing a similarly robust, determined line of questioning to Watson.
The admission from James that he was only aware of Milly Dowler’s phone being hacked after the Guardian published its story will raise further questions about the virtue of the internal inquiry being carried out by News International.
It remains to be seen the extent to which the Murdochs were really unaware of actions taken by their subordinates, but the claims made today – particularly by Rupert – must have raised serious doubts in the minds of his shareholders as to whether he can still be trusted to run the company.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
52 Responses to “Idiotic pie-attacker will do nothing to boost the anti-Murdoch cause”
Johon
He deserves more than a pie in the face, but thst’s a beginning, well done pie thrower
13eastie
It’s doubtful whether a custard pie could change people’s views on police corruption and media standards (of which, no mention in this article) all that much.
Such actions are likely only to harm those intent on playing the man and not the ball, and whose arguments depend on prejudice e.g someone fighting for “the anti-Murdoch cause”.
Anthony Masters
It was truly disgusting, and I’m happy that you have also stated this. Violence cannot be justified, particularly against an 80 year-old man who was sitting down and looking the other way. Both Tom Watson and Louise Mensch did a sterling job today, though I felt, as Lord Sugar pointed out, that Watson focussed on the minutiae of the business a little too much.
Paul
The elite are secure from even the slightest consequences of their actions 99.9% of the time. Murdoch has controlled the politics of the UK and other countries for decades and become a billionaire from the fruits of subverting democracy.
His taking a pie to the face is being denounced up and down and especially by those on the Right yet this may be the only time he will ever feel the consequences of the very real suffering and death (all 170 of his publications supported invading Iraq) he has supported and pushed for.
So when such a villain takes a pie to the face certainly some will drum up sympathy of the poor old billionaire but the response isn’t to join in being horrified by such a petty thing but to instead highlight and contrast his far greater crimes.
Mr. Sensible
I didn’t see that much of the hearings, but heard about the pie incident on the news, and I, too, think it was a total and utter disgrace.
But beyond that, I find it simply unbelievable that neither the Murdochs nor Brooks were aware of Dowler’s phone being hacked before the Guardian reported it. Either Brooks in particular is being economical with the truth, or she was extremely inept at her job.