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.
52 Responses to “Idiotic pie-attacker will do nothing to boost the anti-Murdoch cause”
Leon Wolfson
Talking Balls, you can be arrested for aggravated trespass, as I’ve said elsewhere, for breaking wind. It’s no surprise that you have no problem with the arrests, or the concept that the police can freely lie or that the CPS can freely make threats to people.
Yes, this guy’s an idiot. But to blame an organisation which calls for things which should self-evidently be done if a society is to call itself modern and civilised? Oh right, Tory, you don’t want either. My bad.
Gilmour deserved to be prosecuted, but the prison sentence is yet another form of the political sentencing you love so much. This is going to backfire, of course, in a further major hardening of public sentiment against the police. But you won’t care, after all the Tory view of the police is a way to keep the poor and unsightly under control…
GS
I wonder if the idiotic pie-thrower will receiving a hagiography in the Telegraph, like this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1330695/Craig-Evans-the-Gentle-Giant-of-Rhyl.html
Mark R. Williams
It's not clever to attack an old man, whoever he may be. Why am I not surprised? http://t.co/MTXd2bW
Anon E Mouse
Leon Wolfson – That’s rich coming from a New Labour activist like yourself.
Under the last Labour government civil liberties in this country were crushed with 3000 new laws, CCTV and speed cameras out of control, £millions spent to force through an ID card database, the loss of thousands of public records, 90 days detention, the arrest of Damian Green, the DNA database and on and on and on.
Even your own namesake (not Walter Mitty) the lifelong Labour member in his 80’s, Walter Wolfgang, who was arrested under the Labour terrorism legislation for heckling Jack Straw or the woman arrested for reading out the names of the dead at the cenotaph.
As for bully boy tactics have you forgotten Liam Byrne, Gordon Brown, Charlie Wheelan, Dolly Draper or Damian McBride?
No one on this blog will take any lectures from you with your New Labour record Leon Wolfson and I think that in keeping with the spirit of this article you should man up and admit that violence against someone that age is wrong.
PS. If you see 007, Jason Bourne or Jack Bauer on your “mission” today don’t forget to remind them you have a “screamer” in your pocket and you’re not afraid to use it. Shhhhh. We know Wolfy. We know.
Selohesra
I watched the whole coverage – but when I got home and watched the BBC news it was like they had seen a completely different session. James was remarkably good ( I had assumed he was just a bit thick and in place because of nepotism) and the MPs failed to land any serious blows – why would a CEO know all the minutiae of every business – that is why there are various levels of management in big business.
What was most repulsive though was the way they played down this physical assualt as slapstick – with refernces to custard pies and foam on paper plates – which whilst tecnically correct completely misses the point. Also I see elsewhere that this ‘comedian’ had been profiled on Newsnight earlier this year in one of their pieces on UK Uncut – would have thought BBC or at least Newsnight might have mentioned that.