Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
George MichaelSINGER GEORGE MICHAEL has taken to Twitter to reveal his experiences with the now-defunct newspaper, the News of the World.
Michael said that he had been asked to talk at the Leveson Inquiry into media ethics, set up in the wake of the phone hacking scandal at the News International title.
However, he declined to take part – saying that the inquiry was “bullsh*t”.
Tweeting yesterday, he said:
It has been several years since two hacking journalists were sent to prison for bugging the royal family. They remain the only people who have been tried in the criminal courts.
Why on earth are the rights of the royal family more important than those of Milly Dowler’s parents, or of any of the hundreds of people whose lives have been violated by the press?
Michael said he would be happy to help in such inquiries “the day they make this sham real and start genuinely prosecuting people”.
This morning, he dismissed reports that he was “lying” about being approached by the Leveson Inquiry.
He said that although he did not wish to take part – for the reasons stated above – he had nevertheless sent the Inquiry a letter of apology from “a poor man who was blackmailed into giving News International a completely fictional account of meeting (Michael) on Hampstead Heath”.
The man, Michael said, had been approached at his home by two News of the World reporters claiming they had night vision pictures of him having sex with a celebrity at the London park – and threatened to publish them if he did not take daylight photographs with them “then and there”.
In the letter, the man allegedly told Michael the reporters would not tell him the identity of the celebrity with whom he was supposed to have had the encounter until after he had agreed to the pictures and given his signature.
When they finally told him, the man responded that it wasn’t possible the person had been George Michael – as the man he had met with “was about 6 foot four and had a Dutch accent”, Michael tweeted.
He told me that he had approached several television and news outlets to refute the story and make it up to me, but no one was interested
… Other than The Sunday Mirror, who said that they might follow up his story but only if (and here comes the sickest bit!) he was HIV positive.
Michael said he thought the letter was a “perfect example of just how horrific the methods of News International had become, and that the inquiry may be more sympathetic to a member of the public than just another celeb complaining about their lot. So I sent it to them.”
He added: “I was going to save it for the memoirs, but f**k it :) “.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Who’s more dishonest?
Prisoners or the ones they’d be voting for?
It seams like prisoners have more rights than their victims
If you read the judgement, the ECHR (not the Court of Justice in Europe, by the way) objects to a blanket ban on all prisoners voting. They agree, in principle, that some prisoners can be banned, but not all. So I’m not sure how you’re arguing that a mugger has more voting rights than the victim or a drug dealer has more voting rights than a drug user.
They’ll have more voting rights than everyone who’s been forced to emigrate. Commit a murder and you get to be involved in shaping a government?! Enforced emigrants can’t vote from abroad so can’t help reshape the government that caused their exodus. Something’s wrong with that picture.
If you read the judgement, you would have noted they don’t say it has to be extended to murderers, simply that a blanket ban against all prisoners is disproportionate. What about those serving minor sentences?
I think it would be really interesting for Irish emigrants to take a case to the ECHR, however. It’d be a good case with these precedents.
Even more reason to leave the EU
The EU and the European Convention of Human Rights are two separate organisations.
Nick, EU Membership requires accession to the ECHR.
Do you think he was referencing that distinction or that he had confused the two? I’m betting on the latter….
I’m more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
You’re clearly less cynical than I am. :-) Regardless, I do think there’s a lack of understanding of the distinctions between the two and it’s important that when we’re talking about it, that it’s clearly pointed out what the ECHR does and what the Court of Justice of Europe does.
How far can the ECHR go in interfering with the way countries are run?
Surely suffrage is a constitutional matter.
I don’t believe that prisoners voting is mentioned in the Italian constitution (certainly not in the UK). I heard the arguments being made on behalf of the prisoners and it was quite compelling – the idea that when politicians (not constitutions) define who should be able to vote, it’s a dangerous concept of democracy.
Suffrage is generally granted by the state. Should it be imposed from above?
And the UK doesn’t have a written consitution it has a history through law.
It seems it comes down to how much you believe that voting is a human right and how much you think it should be a sovereign matter. Considering that voting has typically been denied to women and minorities in a lot of states, I view it as a basic human right (of course, I’m in the minority that believes children should be able to vote, so I doubt I’m representative of the whole populace).
If you perceive voting as a basic human right, this judgement makes a lot of sense. You don’t seem to view it as a right, but as something which states can legitimately deny portions of the population.
Sorry, I’ve been agog since I read that you want kids to vote.
They can’t decide whether they want sausages or fish fingers for dinner but you want them to elect governments.
Mad. As.
I believe in pure democracy. But I don’t think they can do worse than some other voters in Europe!
Diluting the franchise doesn’t strengthen it, unless you believe in homeopathy.
I don’t know what that comparison is about, but if you argue that you believe in universal suffrage, there should be no exceptions. But then we’ve already established you believe governments should be able to take the vote away from people without any form of oversight.
I also would love to live in a society governed by pure democracy but could only ever work if everyone was informed on what they have the power to vote on, take for example some people I’ve meet recently who plan on voting yes, they can only reiterate what the TV told them about “stability” and future bailouts. They hadn’t the foggiest clue what I was on about when I mentioned my concerns and skepticism over certain articles of the treaty or our relation to the ESM if we ratify it what it means to vote Yes and our then commitments, they switch off and say “ah but shure the Gov. are looking for a yes so we can get more money and the no are a bunch of shinners and out from the fringes as usual”
These people who wont go to the bother of looking into what they been asked to make an informed decision and vote on are dangerous, and a sad byproduct of democracy led by laziness and persuasion when they will vote the way they are told if its repeated enough times and made sound the safer option between the ads for Eurovision.
Even though they will not question the accuracy or merits of what they are taking as positive points.
This can be said for people who vote the other way also mind, but since the Gov are pushing these things in a certain direction pure democracy has little chance of achieving its true potential of everyone in society making a valid contribution through their informed decision when real assessments and clear wordings are absent and drowned out with garbage, garjon and scaremongering.
My understanding of an individual being punished for crimes committed means ‘no rights to anything that is happening in the outside world. Did the crime – do the time!
It is in my opinion that if you are in prison for committing a crime you forfeit your right to vote until you are rehabilitated and released!
Next thing you know they’ll expect the jails to let the inmates nip down to their local voting centres, “of course we’ll be back, honest g’vnor.”
Sinn fein will be thrilled!
have your say