Comments on: Would it have been OK to hack Jimmy Savile’s phone?

By: moshe

moshe — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:45:29 +0000

nice !

By: Ex-Kiwi

Ex-Kiwi — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:04:17 +0000

What about the paedophiles within St John who are about to be awarded by the Queen’s representative:
http://bit.ly/ourNZexperience

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 09:32:17 +0000

No it wouldn’t have been. Phone hacking is just as bad as child abuse.

By: davelong

davelong — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:26:38 +0000

Hacking his phone would, presumably, have been tried because a journo a. knew Savile was a sex offender and b. thought some evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing was there. So it would be morally (if not legally) justifiable. It’s very different to simply ‘fishing’ for showbiz gossip. Dishonesty is often justifiable in the pursuit of a greater good. Who gets to decide what the ‘greater good’ is – that’s another can o’ worms.

By: Francis Sedgemore

Francis Sedgemore — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 12:31:26 +0000

Nothing to do with libel? On the contrary, libel is largely irrelevant when it comes to the journalistic gathering of and publishing hard evidence of criminal activities. That is part of what journalists do. It is in their job description. You could call it a public service obligation.

Mark Stephens asks a most pertinent question, and one to which there is no easy answer. That the question raises issues concerning the largely vacuous public debate around Leveson says more about the inquiry than it does about journalistic ethics.

By: SadButMadLad

SadButMadLad — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:59:09 +0000

If Jimmy Saville did do all the stuff he is alleged to have done then it’s nothing to do with libel. It’s a case for the police.