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
I can only hope that you also grow bored with claiming that violent criminals arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced in accordance with the law are akin to political prisoners. But perhaps we can agree that any members/supporters of UK Uncut who engage in tax avoidance are filthy hypocrites?
Leon Wolfson
Why? Because it’s convenient for your political agenda that people get “bored” of wanting politics not to infest policing?
And no, tax avoidance is legal. The law needs to change, but I won’t condemn people for doing what’s legal, especially lower-paid people who use common tax avoidance measures such as ISA’s and private pensions.
Tax evasion? ANYONE engaging it in is filthy.
Ed's Talking Balls
No, I just would expect that anyone with a brain in their head would recognise that there is no conspiracy. Politics hasn’t infested policing, at least certainly not in Gilmour’s case. I’ve laid out very clearly why his sentence was perfectly proportionate. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. Or do you think Gilmour is a latter day Nelson Mandela?
I’m very glad you recognise that tax avoidance is legal. I’ve had countless arguments (that is, occasions banging my head against a brick wall) with leftist idiots who don’t appreciate the important legal distinction between avoidance and evasion. I’m also glad that you won’t condemn people from protecting their hard-earned money in perfectly legal, entirely moral ways.
I don’t think a change in the law is a golden bullet, either. Some in UK Uncut and other such mobs think that all society’s problems can be solved with a sweep of the legislative pen. But it’s just not that easy. HMRC has been trying to crack down on avoidance for years and no doubt will (and should) continue. Many of the top tax brains in the country have been trying to get to grips with the issue. The truth is that there is no easy solution, so people should stop pretending that there is.
As for evasion, yes, it’s a crime. Still, I’d be interested to know how many people in the UK have ever paid someone cash in hand, because if my guess is correct then that’s a lot of people you’re labelling filthy…
Joe Marr
What makes you think he was doing it to boost the anti-murdoch cause? Or was it just a convenient straw man to build your article around?
Media committee failed to get Murdoch to accept responsibility | Left Foot Forward
[…] all’s said and done, following the drama of Tuesday’s select committee hearings and the prime minister’s Commons grilling, the key question remains unanswered: can Murdoch […]