Benedict Cumberbatch cosigns Hacked Off ad demanding stricter press regulation

wenn21007301

I haven’t been obsessed with the Hack-gate trial(s) and the enormous, rolling clusterwhoops of information that’s come to light over the past few years. But I have paid attention, I’ve come away disturbed by several realizations: more often than not, it seemed like the Met Police and Scotland Yard were in league with various media outlets, and that many cops were accepting regular payoffs for information, or to look the other way. I’ve also been disturbed by the revelations about just how many celebrities, royals and average citizens had their phones and answering services hacked. While Rupert Murdoch’s empire has certainly taken the most hits, other UK newspapers have unclean hands as well.

Anyway, a few years ago, there was an investigation/inquiry into the media’s myriad violations of privacy and outright illegal behavior. It was called The Leveson Inquiry, and in 2013, they came out with a report outlining what steps the UK media outlets should take to reorganize, reprioritize and review their own conduct. But it was a lot larger than that – go here to read the Wiki entry. So, that was 2012/13. Has much changed in the UK media? Eh. The News of the World is gone and I’ll buy that most newspapers aren’t actively wiretapping people anymore, but really… not much has changed. So British celebrities are forcing the issue. Celebrities like… Benedict Cumberbatch!

‎A group of more than 200 British celebrities and personalities, including Benedict Cumberbatch, Alfonso Cuaron, Maggie Smith and current Doctor Who lead Peter Capaldi, has urged newspaper owners to embrace strict U.K. press regulation, which political parties had agreed on a year ago.

Hacked Off, a group that has been campaigning ‎on behalf of victims of press abuse with Hugh Grant as one of its public faces, ran ads in several U.K. papers on Tuesday to mark the one-year anniversary of the political agreement that calls for a so-called royal charter to underpin a system of self-regulation. The ads cited a declaration supported by a who’s who of famous Brits that called for acceptance of the charter, which was based on the findings of the Leveson Inquiry into U.K. media ethics and standards that was launched amid the phone-hacking scandal.

Some newspaper groups, including Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp’s News UK unit, have focused on starting an alternative self regulator, saying that a royal charter could ultimately give politicians too much oversight‎ of the press. The back-and-forth debate has delayed the launch of any new regulatory system.

Among the other celebrities supporting Tuesday’s declaration for press regulation were former Doctor Who star David Tennant, Russell Brand, Ian McKellen, Steve Coogan and Bob Geldof; directors Danny Boyle, Sam Mendes, Stephen Daldry, Stephen Frears, Guy Ritchie and Mike Leigh‎; TV talk star Graham Norton; Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling‎ and Monty Python members John Cleese, Michael Palin and Eric Idle. Other famous supporters include James Blunt, ‎Trainspotting author Irvine Welsh and entrepreneur Richard Branson. Some of them, including Cleese and Rowling, have also signed previous‎ Hacked Off declarations.

The Hacked Off ads appeared in The Guardian, The Independent, The Spectator and other papers. The signatories of the declaration urged newspapers to embrace the royal charter system of regulation.

“We believe that a free press is a cornerstone of democracy,” the declaration said. “It should be fearless in exposing corruption, holding the powerful to account and championing the powerless. It has nothing to lose, and can only be enhanced, by acknowledging unethical practice in its midst and acting firmly to ensure it is not repeated.”

It added that the royal charter “safeguards the press from political interference while also giving vital protection to the vulnerable. That is why we support it, and that is why we urge newspaper publishers to embrace it.”

In a statement, Cleese said: “The big newspaper bosses are lying though their teeth about the Leveson recommendations. They say their freedom is being threatened, but when anyone points out what self-serving rubbish this is, they ignore these arguments and instead attack the people who are trying to get the truth heard. Their unscrupulousness is breathtaking.”

[From THR]

If you’re an American, this might make your head spin a little bit. Great Britain does NOT have a first amendment, you know? They don’t have an explicit right to a free press or freedom of speech. They have all these little press boards and press inquiries and “unwritten rules of press conduct” and “royal charters.” God knows. Even though so many American newspapers are crippled because of falling readership and ad sales, I do think we do the whole free-press thing a lot better.

Anyhoodle… just an excuse to publish photos of Cumberbatch. There are some new photos of him which we do not have – you can see them here. I’m throwing in Peter Capaldi for good measure too.

wenn20799674

wenn21105625

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

123 Responses to “Benedict Cumberbatch cosigns Hacked Off ad demanding stricter press regulation”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Hello Kitty says:

    In the linked photos Cumby is wearing a chambray shirt and black skinny jeans. Is it still a Canadian tuxedo when the top and bottom are different washes of denim?

    • Green Girl says:

      UGH, I HATE that chambray shirt he seems to wear on every day that ends in “y.”

      But let’s talk about the T-shirt underneath. I am sorry, but if it says what I think it says, then I will be over here, rolling my eyes.

      • Kelly says:

        Green Girl, what does it say? Tell me, tell me, tell me!

        On a different note, how come the dating speculation hasn’t started already? My God, I’m disappointed in you, gossip people! Who is he banging? Blondie or brunette? Or both?
        Or is it the suave monkey-shirt gentleman in the back?

      • MissMary says:

        I’ve been trying to figure out wth that shirt says since last night lol.

        @Kelly: To me, it looks like the blonde is the wife of the guy behind and the brunette is a daughter of the couple and BC is with friends. Since it’s from the Daily Fail, they’re going to imply “OMG dating” but it looks really no chemistry.

        Who knows lol. I’m probably off.

      • Green Girl says:

        I can’t really tell, and I have no idea where the original shirt is from! In general, message shirts aren’t to my taste, and unless his shirt says “Let me tell you how Sherlock REALLY did it at the end of Season 2,” then I am really not interested.

        I wish I could amend my original post to say that I don’t really care what it says, I just hate that it’s a message shirt.

      • Hello Kitty says:

        @Kelly: I think I see the letters “CK OFF” on the under shirt. Maybe it’s “Hack Off” or something.

      • Green Girl says:

        @Miss Mary – I thought they were all the same age or so! LOL He looks super annoyed, I think, to see the press.

      • Kelly says:

        Mary: but blondie looks younger than brunette! No? On another shocking note, even the Fail didn’t bring up any dating speculation, I’m at a loss for words, what is the world coming to.

        Kitty: I pray it says F*CK OFF 😀

      • Green Girl says:

        @Kelly – It wasn’t too long ago when Emily the PA was mistakenly identified as his “mystery girlfriend.” I think Cumby is the type to have lots of female friends and is always seen with them, so you really can’t tell if it’s a date or just friends spending time together.

      • Hello Kitty says:

        @Kelly: I hope it says F– Off too! I love swearing!

        Times like these I wish Cumby had a Twitter account so we could just ask him. Of course he’d probably roll his eyes at the inanity of it all but at least we’d have an avenue for an answer!

      • Green Girl says:

        I am rather disappointed and surprised no one has seemed to figure out where the shirt is from, what it says, etc.

      • MissMary says:

        @GreenGirl: The brunette is kind of giving off the awkward teenager vibe to me so maybe that’s why I assumed daughter/niece of the blonde, who had the mom/older sister thing going on…

  2. ZsaZsa says:

    I didn’t think they went after Benny that much but I’m not surprised he’s signed it to be honest. I think it’s a matter of privacy when they hack into phones. This is not freedom of speech.

    I’ll bring him up first – even though i’m his fan- I can’t see Tommy signing it though, he’s the type that would encourage the press (and fans) then moan when he gets it. That’s always going to be Tommy’s downfall. That and cheesy speeches.

    • GeeMoney says:

      Oh god… get off Tom Hiddleston’s back already. You people that moan about his behavior/courting of the press and media are beyond annoying at this point in time.

      • LadySlippers says:

        I agree GeeMoney.

        I don’t have an issue with people moaning per se. But I do have an issue with the logic ZsaZsa is using. Just because a celebrity might court the press at times doesn’t mean they want the press to be intrusive ALL the time. That’s faulty logic. In fact, it’s the same crappy logic used in rape cases, ‘If she said yes *once* it means it’s a yes for everyone.’ Not true.

      • Sixer says:

        Even I think that’s harsh!

        I’d agree that Puddletom is unlikely to sign it – but that’s because he is very careful to stay the heck away from anything remotely contentious. That’s his schtick – cuddly to the death. If it’s not a cause with a consensus, he won’t be there.

        And even in the snarky world of Sixer, I think that’s fair enough.

      • ZsaZsa says:

        I didn’t say Tommy does it. I hope his need for attention never leads him down that track and all the hassle with Coriolanus taught him that.
        Some celebs do it though and then throw a huge tantrum afterwards. But others who just want to get on with their life don’t deserve their phones hacked so some busy body can hear about something not very important

      • Lilacflowers says:

        I really don’t understand why every “Isn’t Benedict wonderful thread” must include attacks on others, usually Hiddleston, sometimes Fassbender, sometimes somebody else. If Benedict is so wonderful, it should be on his own merits, not in comparison to others. Tearing others down really doesn’t make him or anyone else look better.

    • Froop says:

      Tommy wouldn’t sign it because he’s very careful to stay away from anything political.

      • Janeite says:

        Which is not necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion. I admire that some celebs use their status to bring attention to causes that would not ordinarily get much attention. But when it comes to politics, I don’t see how their opinions are any more valid than anyone else’s.

    • Secret Squirrel says:

      @Zsa Zsa – Whilst Tom is usually happy to do press, I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t want his phone hacked and his private conversations recorded/listened to. There is a difference between welcoming press for publicity of a film and having your private life trawled through. I think he would sign it if he felt his personal life was under threat of exposure.

      I think paparazzo and most media fronts today are unscrupulous in their inane need for a “scoop”, to the point they will interfere with a celeb’s private moments and manipulate them into having to react. I for one would absolutely hate fame because of the monster it has become and somehow having a private life has become a no-no for most celebs.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Hiddleston WAS hacked and so were several people close to him, not by Murdoch but it really doesn’t make a difference who does the hacking. Over 600,000 people have signed that petition so it is quite possible he did sign it or, did what actually has more impact and directly contacted his elected representatives. Petitions are great for making the public aware of the issue but elected officials do not have to respond to them. They do have to respond to direct contact from constituents.

      • Froop says:

        He was hacked? His phone? Or do you mean his FB, because that isn’t quite in the same league.

      • jeni says:

        hiddleston may have signed, a lot of people have.

        forgive me, but is the issue with Hiddleston actually his press engagement around here? he’s just trying to get ahead and certainly isn’t harming anyone. id have though the problem was his image, which is far too thick. he needs to drop his team stat and work on something that allows for some more genuine personality to come through. hes got to be exhausted by now.

  3. Kali says:

    Do you really have to make the big pic of Benny boy the one where he’s CLEARLY got chewing gum tucked in his mouth? Repulsive habit *shudder*

    I followed the Leveson Inquiry quite closely when it came out but it’s been a while since I’ve had a chance to read any recent investigative articles. Anyone got any recommendations?

    • Kelly says:

      What’s wrong with chewing gums? I always have one! It helps prevent cavities and makes my breath better. Especially since I’m a coffee addict, and my teeth always look downright yellow after drinking coffee. Not everyone carries a toothbrush and toothpaste all the time with them.

      • Kali says:

        Apologies, I should’ve specified that I hate it when people are speaking and have the gum in the back of their mouth (or worse, are still smacking away chewing on it while talking to you).

      • Kelly says:

        LOL, granted that is impolite. I am guilty of doing that as well sometimes, sorry.

      • Kali says:

        I had drama with a terrifying teacher at school. Chewing gum was one of her pet peeves. You can imagine with a class of teenagers that it gives endless motivations for rants 😳 I can still remember some of them to this day…

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Oh, you don’t make those little cracking noises with your gum, do you? That drives me crazy! I mean I nearly slapped a woman sitting next to me on a bus once. But I’m sure you don’t do that.

      • Kelly says:

        Kali, oh I had a few nuts at school too, chewing gum was a sin worse than not doing your homework. Odd, now that I look back on it. Must be why I started doing it so fervently in the first place, to rebel and annoy the heck out of old people 😀

        GoodNames – I try to refrain from the noises when I’m in company, but when I’m alone – such as now, sitting in front of my computer, hell yeah cracking away! I am really a terrible person, it’s the universe’s fault.

        Hey, I just remembered Benny is a smoker – could be why he chews gum so much? Maybe he’s trying to quit or gets nervous when he goes a long time without a cigarette or he’s trying to cover up the ciggy smell? Endless possibilities! He’s probably way to polite to chew it for any other reason 😀

      • LadySlippers says:

        Oh Dahling, you never mentioned my cracking annoyed you! So sorry my dear!!!

        On a serious note:

        Chewing gum is actually a good way to get your proprioceptive needs met. (Sensory integration thing)

      • Kelly says:

        I learned a new word, thanks Slippers!

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        LadySlippers, Not crack, dahling, cracking. As in gum. You know, that stuff you gave your servants last year for their Christmas bonus? So odd, how they reacted.

        Kelly, as long as I can’t hear you, crack to your little heart’s content.

    • T.fanty says:

      There’s an article in the guardian today that talks about how the salacious reporting of L’Wren Scott’s death showed that Leveson achieved nothing. And they’re kind of right.

      That said, I’m tired of hearing Cumby pontificate on how difficult it is to get noticed. I get that acting is a profession, and he wants to keep himself separate, but when he starts selling himself as a public figure, hosting the Malaysia sport awards, or whatever the hell it is, turning up at NY fashion week for a free suit, then he’s making himself the commodity beyond what the profession requires. Plus, I don’t think the paps are his problem; it’s his fans. I think he’s just jumping on the bandwagon because he’s a celebrity, and that’s what they do.

      • Sixer says:

        Hello lovely! Are you in Blighty?

        If pushed into snarkery, I’d hazard a guess that Benny thinks he’s cleverer than he actually is.

        PS All of the coverage of this suicide seems to completely ignore the Samaritan guidelines for reporting and it is bothering me.

      • Green Girl says:

        “Plus, I don’t think the paps are his problem; it’s his fans.”

        This, I can see.

      • T.fanty says:

        I think that’s less of a venture into snarkery, than truthery. A big vocabulary does not a big brain make. He also strikes me as that stereotypical Brit who is never happier than when he is complaining about something.

        I am in the UK! Happily ensconced in the sunny Midlands, having a little tea before hitting the RSC tonight (although not literally, because that would hurt).

        P.S. I think that because this connects to Jagger, it’s somehow fair game, perhaps on the assumption that he’s SO famous, he’s immune to the speculation and gossip. It’s all-round distasteful.

      • Sixer says:

        @Fanty – send some moon eyes in Sher’s direction from me? And enjoy!

      • LadySlippers says:

        I do think he’s smart. And also a tad pretentious.

        He probably needs a ball gag too. Or perhaps a lovely cravat stuffed in his mouth. Cravat wins for me… (I just made it a deep, rich purple too.

      • Janeite says:

        @T.fanty,
        Salacious is a good word for it. It’s bad on both sides of the pond.

      • Kelly says:

        You people bring up the most interesting topics!

        “I’d hazard a guess that Benny thinks he’s cleverer than he actually is”
        I’d hazard you’re right. Then again, I’ve never met a man who didn’t.
        Women build their self-worth on appearance, men build it on intellect. Few are actually objective on the matter.

        I also agree that Leveson achieved nothing. I’m not even surprised at this. Just look at the Daily Mail. That paper would not exist if they actually stuck to the rules of basic morality and ethics.

      • Sixer says:

        @Kelly – I say this about Benny the Veep after watching him contort away trying to present that awful propaganda piece about Assange as something thoughtful and balanced. He was in WAY over his head there and by the time he’d managed to include self interest by holding up notes to PAPS of all people, I gave up with any actual opinion outside of self justification coming from him. Having said that, I don’t think he’s stupid or anything.

      • Katie says:

        @Tfanty

        I do think the fans are the issue, but the Fleet Street is also a gross mess. The group behind this was started and headed by a journalism professor who’s completely and rightfully alarmed by the state of the UK press as it goes beyond celebs. I don’t care why they’re signing it because it’s right to draw attention to it.

        The Malaysia sports is for charity, fyi. Laureus is a foundation that helps children. But generally speaking, acting alone is not good enough to get you to the upper levels.

      • Kelly says:

        Sixer, LOL!
        Ah the poor boy was just doing his (rather odd when you think about it) job and desperately trying to get people to see his film, no matter the cost!
        But yes, the idea that a fictional movie can be objective about anything is ridiculous. I bet the film would’ve made more money if they just flat out said “hey we’re doing our own fanfiction of this weird interesting dude from the news, come and see what we’ve come up with”.
        Or better! They should’ve gone all meta-postmodern-bull and make Julie baby a vampire with Bruhl as his loving/hating sidekick lover. They’d sparkle in the end, of course.

      • Jen says:

        I will never understand the idea that actors should just act and being one means you turn your human being card in at the door.

        basically, doing events and things outside of acting is part and parcel for their profession unless they have zero interest in advancing. you cant stop doing that until you reach the plateau that actors like streep are on. Commodity events keep you in the public’s mind as well as that of casting directors and others who can give you work. Unless you believe sitting on your duff is going to somehow magically get you parts…

        That does not mean it somehow becomes okay to hack their phones, stalk them or run crap pieces repeatedly because they won’t give you an interview, a lovely gambit the mail likes to use.

        No one ‘needs to know’ about a celeb, it’s never in the best interests of the public to go after them in favor of real news. For every story about Mick Jagger’s girlfriend, there’s another about world events, public corruption, you name it, that’s not getting followed or reported as a direct result. Any celeb with 1/2 a brain knows theyre part of the genuine news problem.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        The coverage, internationally, of L’wren Scott’s death is just horrifying. It is nobody’s business WHY she took her life and the accusations being hurled in the media are outrageous. My heart just goes out to her friends and family.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @Kelly, the film would have made more money if it hadn’t been so terminally boring.

      • T.fanty says:

        Plenty of actors do just fine without becoming public figures in their own right. It depends what you want out of the game. Of course, certain social events will raise your profile, but nobody can be so dumb as to think that they can’t make blockbuster Hollywood movies, attend fashion week, events at the palace, etc., without making themselves a newsworthy. If you want to be a movie star, that happens by selling out a little. If you want to be an actor, that’s a different issue. Cumby sold out a little bit, which is fine if that’s his choice – carpe diem and all that – but he should just at least own it. This ongoing crabbing about his lack of privacy is getting tired.

      • Jen says:

        If you want to be an actor who makes decent bread and gets a shot a wide variety of choicer roles across industries, you aim to make some noise. Who remembers a teapot that doesn’t whistle?

        Although, let’s be realistic: once you pass a certain point in popularity, youre going to become a public figure by default. even actors who are hermits feel it when making rare public appearances that turn into a spectacle, like DDL. nothing about actors or sports figures dating anyone or drinking or making a mess of themselves is ever going to be “need to know” information. its repeated violations of the privacy of themselves and their family with absolutely no benefit to anyone but the publishers. it does encourage legitimate stalkers, but no surprise there when you think about it.

        People tend to see it as hypocritical because celebs use press to their advantage, but that’s a mutually beneficial arrangement. if celebs were hacking reporter’s phones, stalking them and their family members, chasing them in their car, speculating on their mental illness publicly, sensationalzing tragic events in their lives and all the other unethical stuff the press does for not other than money, then it’d be a level playing field.

      • pru says:

        Maybe the involvement with the Malaysian sports award thingy has something to do with Star Wars? Maybe the reason he wants international press right now is because he will be promoting a super big, international blockbuster in the near future?
        Becoming more cynical by the minute, I am.

      • Katie says:

        @pru

        It’s because he’s a Prince’s Trust ambassador and they work with the Laureus Sports Foundation. The Lauerus sports awards is being held in Malaysia this year but is an annual event that moves around to promote and raise cash for the charity. Last year, it was in Rio with Morgan Freeman as the host.

        Here: http://www.laureus.com/content/what-we-do-0

        It’s actually a bigger charity; I’m surprised people don’t know about it.

    • Chrissy says:

      Agree re the photo, but I suspect it is gum to stop smoking or as a temporary substitute. He’s had gum quite often recently, even at the Oscars, so I think it might have to do with smoking.

    • jen says:

      If you want to be an actor who makes decent bread and gets a shot a wide variety of choicer roles across industries, you aim to make some noise. Who remembers a teapot that doesn’t whistle?

      Although, let’s be realistic: once you pass a certain point in popularity, youre going to become a public figure by default. even actors who are hermits feel it when making rare public appearances that turn into a spectacle, like DDL.

      Again, not sure why being a public figure = not allowed to have privacy. nothing about actors or sports figures dating anyone or drinking or making a mess of themselves is ever going to be “need to know” information. its repeated violations of the privacy of themselves and their family with absolutely no benefit to anyone but the publishers.

      People tend to see it as hypocritical because celebs use press to their advantage, but that’s a mutually beneficial arrangement. if celebs were hacking reporter’s phones, stalking them and their family members, chasing them in their car, speculating on their mental illness publicly, sensationalzing tragic events in their lives and all the other unethical stuff the press does for not other than money, then it’d be a level playing field.

  4. AG-UK says:

    I don’t think they went after him at all. I don’t recall seeing anything about him (Cumberbatch) in the papers when it all happened. He wasn’t that popular then.

  5. Lindy79 says:

    The whole hacking situation disgusts me. It wasn’t only celebrities, it was done for criminal cases too, as ZsaZsa said, it goes beyond freedom of the press.

    • AG-UK says:

      they hacked into the missing school girl’s parents phones as well. My son’s school friends Dad worked there needless to say he was sent elsewhere

      • LadySlippers says:

        That’s just disgusting.

      • Katie says:

        They also gave names of people involved in inquires as persons of interest before they were supposed to, as the police were being paid for the info.

        This lead to people who were cleared of involvement being run in the papers as murderers and the like, effectively destroying their lives.

  6. frisbeejada says:

    Good for him! I have been supporting the ‘Hacked Off’ campaign for longer than I should have had to – mainly because I was disgusted by the way the Murdoch Empire hacked into the phone of the murdered little girl Millie Dowler leaving her parents to believe she was still alive – despicable beyond belief. The British tabloids refuse to recognise the difference between genuine public interest and what the public is interested in. They have long intruded on ordinary people’s lives – using a ‘public interest’ argument merely to sell newspapers and yes they are appalling and most of us recognise they are. We do have decent ‘broadsheets’ who do not indulge in this behaviour, The Guardian and The Independent – the rest aren’t worth the paper they are printed on. Press regulation is needed to curb the tabloids profit inspired intrusions – not to limit free speech which is the hallmark of any civillised society.

  7. Mia4S says:

    I’m all for first amendment (Section 2(b) of the Charter here in Canada) but neither of those could justify the actions of the UK press in these circumstances. Forget the celebs; what about when UK press hacked into a missing girl’s voicemail and gave her family false hope she was still alive? Unforgivable!

  8. Hiddles forever says:

    The British politicians and MPs already have their hands into the British press, look at what the Daily Fail publishes every day 🙁
    Therefore Murdoch was speaking bollocks whilst claiming freedom of speech…
    Good for Cumby he signed that! 😉

    @Kaiser UK has no written constitution at all, therefore there are no amendments or chapters of any sort.

    @ZsaZsa I agree with everything you said, including the Tommy part.

  9. Liberty says:

    I am a movie freak and I wonder, has anyone else seen the old 80s film “Local Hero” starring Peter Capaldi and Peter Riegert? It is wonderful, funny, sweet, shot on gorgeous stretches of Scottish coast. Bill Forsyth directed. So anyway, no matter what I see Peter in, I cannot help but think of him in his Local Hero role, quite unlike his more current work.

  10. LadySlippers says:

    Kaiser,

    While the UK doesn’t have a 1st Amemdment per se it’s because they don’t have a written constitution, they do have Freedom of Speech. It’s something a lot of Americans don’t know.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

    • frisbeejada says:

      We also come under the jurisdiction of the European Convention for Human Rights – article 8 privides a “right to respect private and family life his home and correspondence” – sorry I can’t do the Wikipedia linky thing – something Rupert Murdoch and his ilk have been ignoring for years.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Do you want me to link it? It actually might already be included in my link above (I think it might be in a subheading).

        My point is that a lot of Americans are unaware of the fact that Freedom of Speech is something that most industrialised countries have. And while the UK doesn’t have a written construction, it doesn’t mean they don’t have it at all.

      • frisbeejada says:

        ooh yes please do the link – thank you very much for that. I’m amazed Americans aren’t aware we have free speech! Good grief. We don’t have a written constitution (I personally think we need one but that’s just me…) but we have been operating under ‘rule of law’ since the days of Henry II (1154-1189) whose legal changes are credited with laying the foundations for English Common Law. Freedom of Speech -like most of our rights have developed over the centuries by tradition rather than written formalisation.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I’m American and I knew you had freedom of speech. I think she just meant it wasn’t written in a document similar to our Constitution?

      • LadySlippers says:

        I’m going to get into trouble with this next comment but sadly, it’s very true.

        We Americans are told from almost day 1 we are the most advanced nation on the planet. We are all Special Snowflakes due to the fact we are Americans. We fought evil and tyranny (the British) and triumphed. We are the sole country that champions liberty, free speech, and all that other jazz.

        Unfortunately most Americans don’t know that our society AND the ability to have representation in a government didn’t start with the fabled Romans, it started in the above mentioned evil and tyrannical country of… (drum roll) England. 1216 changed the world forever and we Americans (as well as the British) enjoy the fruits of those outspoken barons that demanded King John sign away some of his ‘Divine Rights’. It was very radical at the time.

        So it’s a perception thing and not taught much as it conflicts with the myths of our country.

      • LadySlippers says:

        GoodNames,

        I think a lot of people honestly aren’t aware of it. Not saying some don’t know it but knowledge and education varies a lot by state and region.

      • frisbeejada says:

        Weeell, it’s understandable , we are a very, very old country, stuff evolves when you are starting a new country you are bound to want to make ‘notes to self’… hence a written constitution – and a bloody good idea I’ve always thought…

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        @LadySlippers
        I’m not speaking to you because you said I wasn’t a special snowflake, and you know that’s a LIE! Lol

        If I was speaking to you, I would agree that lots of Americans can’t name the Vice President, so…

      • LadySlippers says:

        Oh Dahling,

        WE of course ARE special. Just not all those damnable people that we have to interact with all the time*. 😉

        And yes, it’s sad that most people are very uneducated — even about our own country.

        *PS, Darling did you get my note about THAT man?!? You commented earlier today…and I responded.

      • Kelly says:

        Slippers, the Brits may have come up with the Magna Carta, but at least the Americans finally figured out that they can take it a step further and get rid of royalty altogether, not just limit its power. Well, you and the French.

        *runs for cover*

      • LadySlippers says:

        Oh Kelly,

        The Brits were a republic before being a republic was cool. And they realised that only kvetching about the weather and politicians was oh so dull and boring. Much better to make fun of people that were stuck in their positions for life. Oh yes, THAT made life a touch more delicious.

        And there ARE several things leftover from our days of Mummy lording over us. The detest of the French is one of many (as is our form of government, our language, our measurement systems, etc. etc.) We used the
        French ONLY to get back at Mummy and dumped their sorry a**es as fast as we could. And then they had the gall to think we’d help *them* during their skirmish. Shocking! And they still persisted by presenting us with a tacky large gift that we had to stick in a harbour, because, what else do you do with something that enormous?

        Luckily after centuries, the French finally figured out that we were never that into them. Now they don’t like us. Suits us just fine as we never liked them either. (But we do love their fashion, wine, and food. As long as no French people come with it).

        😉

      • Kelly says:

        Dammit, Mummy is persistent, isn’t she? Her republic ideas are stupid anyways, yanks do it better. The measurement system is a drag tho.
        But it’s all for love really, Mummy knows what’s best, and you, the petulant child, kept having your own silly young ideas. Truly dear, what else is one to do if not scold you on your bum. And then you go all Schwarzie style and flog Molly, I mean Mummy, into oblivion. I guess every kid needs to become independent after a while. Mummy learned that the hard way with her other children too.

        If you ask me, the really best thing that’s come out of it all is the latest reincarnation of Ichabod Crane on the tv show Sleepy Hollow. Every time someone mentions the Revolutionary War period and English-Yanks disagreements, I think of him. If anyone still hasn’t seen that show, watch it.

        Also, admit it, you only hate the French because you really love them deep DEEP down, that’s your way of showing affection. I just know it is.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        frisbeejada, many Americans aren’t even aware of what our own Constitution includes. I have cousins who insist that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional (despite the Supreme Court saying it isn’t) because it violates the Third Amendment to the Constitution. The Third Amendment prohibits quartering soldiers in private homes. What that has to do with health care is beyond me but these people send me endless spam emails supporting their argument. And don’t get them started on who can be President.

    • LadySlippers says:

      From the wiki link above:

      The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that “[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”. Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries “special duties and responsibilities” and may “therefore be subject to certain restrictions” when necessary “[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others” or “[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals”.[1][2]

      • Nighty says:

        In Portugal we also follow the Humans Rights Law, and though the press has free speech, there are cases to which the press cannot access… According to our law, only police officers can tap someone’s phone (Polícia Judiciária, the equivalent to Scotland Yard and FBI) and only with a judge’s authorisation to prevent the intrusion on people’s personal lives and well as harming ongoing criminal investigations … There’s what we call justice secrecy… press cannot have access to court sessions and other stuffs,,, If anyone taps another person’s phone (other than Policia Judiciaria with order from the judge) they’ll be arrested…

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Yes, LadySlippers, I saw your extremely fascinating idea and I responded that I love, love, love it! You always make me laugh. I think I’m responding in the wrong place, sorry, dahling.

  11. Kelly says:

    But this isn’t about freedom of speech, this is about the freedom to publish bullsh*t, slander and lies, all wrapped up in the notion of “free speech”. They make it seem like they don’t want the press to reveal political problems, when in fact they want the press to stop publishing unfounded speculation on people’s private lives without proof. There’s a difference.

    From what I gather, they aim to establish an outside regulatory board which would force the newspapers to implement the editors’ code of practice. Read it here – http://www.pcc.org.uk/assets/696/Code_of_Practice_2012_A4.pdf

    I’m all for forcing every news outlet in the world to follow these guidelines as downright law!

  12. Sixer says:

    I’m going to stick my head above the parapet and say I’m not on the side of Hacked Off with regards to regulation. I’m – unusually for me – on the other side from the lefties on this one. You can look up what Fraser Nelson says on this, which I pretty much agree with – and I agree with him on nothing else that I can think of. What went on is disgusting and people should be punished, but…

    Police corruption is already a crime. Hacking phones and emails is already a crime. Stalking by paps can be a crime if it gets too much. Etc etc etc. All the evils committed are already crimes. They can, and should, be dealt with as crimes. People are already in jail over this because these things are crimes.

    So we don’t need to shackle a very important free press to deal with hacking at all. That’s a dangerous path to take.

    • Janeite says:

      Yeah, it’s the whole slippery slope argument. There are other ways to deal with the hacking and invasion of privacy issues that the press has perpetrated. Curbing the press’ right to free speech with government regulation is not the way to deal with those issues. I agree with you, Sixer.

      • Sixer says:

        Exactly. I just believe that you cannot trust the government – or a government-run body – to regulate the press. And when the justification for regulation is for actions that are already crimes, I can’t go for it.

    • LadySlippers says:

      Sixer & Janeite,

      I still haven’t decided one way or another. I see both side of the matter. And that really sucks…

      • Janeite says:

        Nothing wrong with that, LadySlippers. We’re fortunate that we live in countries where we can have a healthy debate about things like this. Freedom of the press/freedom of speech/invasion of privacy, etc. are issues that we have struggled with and will continue to struggle with. Defining the parameters and determining what is or is not appropriate and within the bounds of legality is always going to be thorny.

        And while I most certainly do not question the good intentions of the Hacked Off argument, I still think there is the potential to set a dangerous precedent if any kind of government oversight of the press is allowed to move forward.

      • Kelly says:

        “We’re fortunate that we live in countries where we can have a healthy debate about things like this”
        Or can we?
        *NSA scanning this comment as I hit post*
        😛

      • Janeite says:

        LOL! But in all seriousness, as opposed to countries like China and North Korea, yes. We are very, very fortunate.

      • Kelly says:

        True, yea, I know. What’s more, I think we’re extra fortunate to have grown up being taught that we should all develop and have an opinion and stand behind it, that our opinions matter and that other people’s opinions matter too, even if we don’t share them, and that we should question the world around us and criticize and improve it. That mentality alone is priceless. I find it scary how you see people from very repressive countries who develop a thinking process where it’s inconceivable to think against authority or question anything.

    • smee says:

      I agree with you 1000% percent Sixer. These offenses were already crimes. But a new crime? It is now a (new) crime for the police to talk to reporters ‘off the record’. Meaning much needed exposure for underhanded dealings will go unreported. These new regulations will be a smokescreen. Hollering about (horrible) hacking of the missing school girl’s phone, while sneaking in regulations so that newpapers will no longer be filled with news unfavorable to politicians. A ranking member of Cameron’s cabinet, Patrick Rock, has been arrested for child porn. He was advising Cameron on child porn internet filters. The government told no one. The police mentioned it nowhere. It took 10 days for the story to break. Conflicts of interest will always exist in the corridors of power. What is changing is the public’s ability to know about it, and with this knowledge, the power to do something about it. A bit more info: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2573442/Do-really-want-live-country-No-10-aides-arrested-secret.html

    • Katie says:

      @Sixer

      You’re correct in every thing that they were doing is already a crime, but the issue is that their power through the press allowed it to go on for years. We got lucky that it broke finally, but what if it didn’t? Murdoch was also in bed with Cameron, so the government already had control of the press, tbh.

      I could be wrong, but they’re not looking for a government body to control the press? What Leveson recommended was a self-regulation body made and run by the press but with independent people they picked on the board. It’d be underpinned with statutory law only to give it authority to enforce its rules, and Leveson recommended regulations making it illegal for the government to interfere with the press, ala the US’s freedom of the press.

      • Sixer says:

        Honestly, Katie, I would argue that self-interest lies in the arguments of both sides. But government self-interest is by far the more dangerous for the common weal. There is no such thing as benign statutory regulation of a free press. Replacing the excesses carried out by the tabloids with suppressing stories because they don’t suit those in power – the danger here – is not a good bargain. As Milton warned in the Areopagitica almost 400 years ago.

        We don’t need regulation of a free press.

        We do need to crack down on criminals – and in particular, criminals who work for the police or other state agencies, and those who suborn them, such as journalists. Effective justice and long prison sentences would do so much more than shackling those who are capable of holding the powerful to account.

    • icerose says:

      Sixer I like your thinking

      • Sixer says:

        Well, Icerose, I’ll go to the foot of our stairs. I think we have agreed twice in less than a week!

      • Katie says:

        @Sixer

        Self-interest is at play, definitely. But this goes beyond tabloid scandals; we’re already at the scenario you’re concerned with. News of the World was involved in blackmailing/bribing with government officials to keep stories out the press. Who else is?

        Murdoch was caught on film saying this was standard press practice across the board. All the arrests are going to do is teach those involved to be quieter unless the press community’s culture actually changes. Big money and power are a bigger lure than jail is a deterrent, especially when you’ve got an ‘everyone is doing it’ atmosphere ala Wall Street. The fact that more than a few UK journalists support this in some way is not a good sign as to press culture.

        That being said, Leveson proposed the body would be voluntary and not mandatory, with incentives for joining, so I don’t think that it would work in its current form anyway aside from other genuine concerns.

        But his other proposals–offering victims who can’t afford lengthy court battles a free way to address a newspaper who wronged them, establishing a professional ethics code, etc.–are needed. Otherwise, the press is just going to keep going downhill, especially if people are viewing it as ‘whiny celeb/politician’ issue only without more info.

      • Sixer says:

        But Katie – we are talking about criminal activity. I’m not suggesting it’s ok to be criminal. I’m suggesting the criminal justice system is the redress; not the ceding of an important plank of a free society.

        But on the upside in terms of agreement: I’m all for equal access to the law so I’d be happy with what Leveson recommended there. But even then there’s a rub. More important to worry about the massive curtailment of legal aid for EVERYONE than to spend all our time and attention on the much smaller number of Joe Publics “done over” by the tabloids.

        There’s so much deflection of vital issues going on with all this – and the people benefiting from the deflection are not the little people. It really does worry me.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Sixer, so, in short, the proposal is overkill and redundant?

      • Sixer says:

        I just think it’s tilting at the wrong windmill, you know? And, if implemented, will have many (unintended or not unintended, depending on your level of cynicism) consequences, none of which are good for the little people.

    • Delorb says:

      This erosion of the media has been happening for decades now. Closing foreign bureaus, conglomerates buying up media outlets, substituting celebrity for real news and the outright murder of reporters.

      And we are just as complicit. People were dying in the streets of Egypt and few cared until Benedict held up his sign. A sign that kinda belittled those deaths, while bringing attention to them. Someone actually said that they had no clue, until Benedict held up his sign and ‘isn’t that a good thing?’ Jeez. And yes, I’m a fan of his, but I find that type reasoning disgusting.

      Its sad that all the wins our great-grandparents, grandparents and parents had are being tossed aside with very little thought by a lot of people. But the powers that be know that if they wrap crap up in a glittering box, the masses will pay top dollar for it.

      • Katie says:

        Sixer, I think you have more faith in Fleet Street and the justice system than I do lol.

        Basically, I believe the public at large is already screwed and stories people need to see are repeatedly suppressed via unethical means or shoved aside for a socialite’s drunken night out. The justice system only matters if they get caught.

        Because this press culture has gone largely unquestioned or unchallenged for so long, it’s become the general tone. That will not change unless they come together and set some ground rules for themselves to get back on track. It’s much like a business with a poisonous corporate culture.

        The press did have a self-regulatory body, the PCC, but it was completely corrupted. They’re supposed to be starting their own new one using most of Leveson’s ideas but have been dragging their feet for two years, and quite frankly, it seems a mess. Maybe this will get them moving.

      • Sixer says:

        On the contrary, Katie – I have no faith in ANYONE involved here!

        I would say that I am hyper-aware of all the arguments here. I’m active both within Liberty and PEN and so it’s significant that I find myself on the other side of the argument from many friends and colleagues.

        I would argue that the naivete here comes from those who believe that ANY involvement by government into the regulation of the press can ever be anything other than a threat. Direct and dangerous.

      • Katie says:

        I’m of the mind that something has to be done, Sixer, and the justice system won’t fix it. Hopefully, they’ll get their own self-regulatory body off the ground, but without anyone ever checking it, it will be just as useless as the PCC.

        What Leveson actually recommended is law that creates an independent recognition body to check the press’ new self-regulatory body every three years to make sure it’s following its own rules for recognition purposes, as recognition would give the press members some legal benefits.

        The press is still entirely responsible for setting up the regulatory body and setting its rules, procedures, receiving and handling complaints and making board appointments. Joining a recognized self-regulatory body is entirely voluntary. It’s similar to systems in other countries with far better new systems than the UK.

        Supposedly, the press is creating a new self-regulatory body that won’t be like its failed predecessors, so you’d think they’d have no issue with a third party making sure they’re following their own rules. But, maybe not, since Murdoch is involved.

        Here, for those interested:

        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/03/press-self-regulation-leveson-censorship

  13. Miss Scarlet says:

    Benny boy will be hosting the Laureus Awards in Malaysia. I hope he flies British Airways to get there! If his plane gets lost, a lot of Cumberpeople will be upset. That’s some precious cargo.

    http://www.laureus.com/news/benedict-cumberbatch-host-laureus-awards-ceremony

    • Kelly says:

      Jesus, imagine his plane getting lost! Imagine an all-out worldwide search FIND SHERLOCK, I mean, FIND BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH. Imagine the hysteria.
      I bet you the fans would find him, his plane, and even the missing MH370, ten times faster than the authorities now.

  14. Joanie says:

    Cumby the smarty pants…I love how he’s wearing pretty much the same outfit he’d worn out and about at lunch earlier in the day. He just threw a blazer over it!

    http://instagram.com/p/lujanlIAjp/#

    • LadySlippers says:

      He has the blazer on in that pic too!

      He loves that frickin’ chambray shirt though. Lol

      • ZsaZsa says:

        Benny is such a man to just through on what he wants because he likes it and it’s comfortable.

        We should make out own pub quiz team. Who’s with me?

    • Kelly says:

      pub quiz?? lololol, no way, I can’t believe it, I have two nutty friends who are obsessed with these trivia pub quizzes, and go every week, I always roll my eyes when they try to drag me along

      • Green Girl says:

        Pub quizzes can be fun, but heaven help you if someone takes it a leeettle too seriously!

    • MissMary says:

      I think he’s going for the “Wear the same outfit all the time and pap pics are less valuable” school of dressing.

      Or homeboy just adores that shirt, and his bridge t-shirt.

  15. Felice says:

    That blonde girl looks like London from America’s Next Top Model

    I’m glad that Hacked Off is getting coverage but I feel that a lot of the coverage is because they can slap BC’s name on the front of it.

  16. ZsaZsa says:

    Freedom of speech is not a bad thing but morally I think it’s wrong to hack into the missing later dead girls phone. What sick person does that? It even gave false hope to her parents that she was alive.
    I think we do need tighter rules when it comes within sensitive issues which are under investigation.

    • Kelly says:

      “Freedom of speech is not a bad thing”
      Depends who’s talking.
      LOL, I joke.
      Actually the idea that Kim K, Paris Hilton and Lohan have a right to talk in public and actually be heard makes me sick really.

  17. Amy Tennant says:

    Thanks for the Capaldi pic!

  18. Platospopcorn says:

    Long time reader, first time commenter here, and I’m sorry to say that my motivation for de-lurking is my growing disillusionment with Benedict. I actually don’t fault him (well, actually, I do). I know all too well that I’m guilty of putting him on a pedestal that no mere mortal could infallibly occupy, but all this superfluous self-promotion is ridiculous. I much preferred clueless, bitchy Benedict of circa 2011. This slick-rick, jet-setting version of Cumby is really starting to grate. (And all the once charming self-deprecation is increasingly coming across as disingenuous.)

    Of course, IMHO, YMMV, and all the usual internet disclaimers on unpopular opinions apply, but I feel better for having said it. 🙂