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”
Ed's Talking Balls
Your caricatures never cease to amuse me, Leon. It must be a very interesting world inside your head.
Yes, there are a range of offences for which you can be arrested and convicted. That doesn’t detract from the fact that physical assault of an 80 year old man is rather serious, particularly when it happened in what was thought to be a secure venue.
As for UK Uncut’s role, I was making the point that every time a moron acts as one might expect him to, it seems to emerge later that he is affiliated with that organisation. I then went on to infer that questions should be raised about its membership: if you associate with criminals or count them among your members, you should expect to be tarred with the same brush. Further, my point about purchasing The Guardian is perfectly valid. If you don’t like Rupert Murdoch, don’t purchase The Sun; if you’re against tax avoidance, don’t purchase The Guardian. Simple enough. As for tax avoidance, I demand to know whether any UK Uncut member has an ISA, employs an accountant or has avoided (or intends to avoid) inheritance tax…
Gilmour deserved to go to jail and he deserves his sentence. Wreaking havoc in London while under the influence of drink and drugs should not be tolerated in a civilised society, regardless of how worthy some oafs regard his cause. His sentence wasn’t remotely harsh: he committed violent disorder with numerous aggravating factors, but was given credit for his early guilty plea.
Are you seriously suggesting that people should turn against the police for arresting criminals? How odd. I, for one, am reassured that they still do. My view of the police, since you suggested I hold a bizarre, classist one, is that they should protect the public and uphold the law in all circumstances. And if you think that arresting Gilmour is about keeping the poor under control, let me remind you that he has millionaires for parents, attended Lancing College and goes to Cambridge. Unsightly yes, but poor? Pull the other one.
Anthony Miller
Imagine being in a room with Rupert Murdoch, Keith Vaz and a custard pie.
Which is the most deserving of it? I’d have to go with Keith (5 inquiries) Vaz. I almost fell off my chair laughing when I realised he was chairing.
I would never condone throwing custard pies at Rupert Murdoch.
Keith Vaz on the other hand… well, there’s not many people who make Peter Mandelson look honest.
Leon Wolfson
Anon E Mouse – No, it’s rich coming from a BNP activist like yourself. (Again, just as true as I’m a New Labour activist).
“No one on this blog will take any lectures from you ”
Ah, glad to see that your megalomania is shining though. Give any darkies a good kicking recently to keep the morale up?
Talking Balls –
And there are appropriate offences he can be arrested for. This doesn’t make aggravated trespass itself any less of a bad offence.
UK Uncut have denounced him. Simply because someone is a member of your organisation when he does something bad doesn’t mean that your entire organisation is behind him – or rather, if it is, I’ll blame you for Mouse’s comments. Want that?
And, to take an example from your post, ISA’s are a very good measure for the average citizen to save. They’re a sensible measure, and are limited such that they don’t allow the rich to salt away vast sums tax-free. It’s typical you’d attack them.
Gilmore’s sentencing is clearly political, thanks for making it plain that you support that. More, thanks for making it clear that you support the view that the police’s role is to crush dissent, given the lies given to the UKUncut protesters before their arrest. Can’t have the police serving EVERYONE, after all, only the rich.
Anon E Mouse
Leon Wolfson – You didn’t say if you met 007 today or not?
You also voted for Gordon Brown so to claim you’re not a Labour supporter is frankly laughable….
Ed's Talking Balls
Gilmour was arrested for an offence he committed. He was found guilty and sentenced accordingly. Case closed. (I’m pretty sure that violent disorder was the charge, but I guess there’s a whole sheet full of them given his behaviour that day).
I’m glad UK Uncut have denounced him. I just find it interesting that its membership seems to consist of a fair few of these morons who feel qualified to take matters into their own hands (i.e. commit crimes).
Yes, I’m fully in favour of ISAs. An excellent tax avoiding measure available to the masses which enable us to protect our money from state confiscation and subsequent waste. I don’t attack them at all, so please don’t misrepresent my views as you do others’. You’ve not commented on whether any UK Uncut member buys The Guardian, plans against inheritance tax or has paid a builder cash in hand (I know that’s evasion, but it still has the effect of keeping money from the Exchequer). Surely you would agree that such behaviour, along with having an ISA, would disqualify a person from membership?
Gilmour’s sentencing isn’t political in the slightest. You would have to be certifiable to suggest otherwise. If you smash windows, swing from the Cenotaph and attack a motor vehicle (which incidentally contains the heir to the throne) then expect a hefty custodial sentence, particularly if there are aggravating factors, as there were in his case. I support justice being done. I don’t advocate showing leniency towards thugs simply because they oppose a government with which I disagree. The police’s role is not to crush dissent; I made my views on the proper role of the police crystal clear above.
Proof that the police don’t serve merely the rich was provided by the arrest of Gilmour and it is heartening that the judiciary sentenced a privileged rich kid in accordance with the law rather than affording him preferential treatment. Rich, poor, black, white: if you smash up the capital city in a drunken, drug-fuelled rampage you’re going to jail (don’t pass “Go”, don’t collect £200). That is the right message to send out to yobs across the country.