I think its hilarious the way the way the print media are howling in indignation about whether Grant and Coogan's allegations are 100% accurate. Talk about giving it out but not being able to take it.

Its undoubtedly the case that some celebs ask for what they get. And Hugh Grant is never going to attract much sympathy. But it does seems to me that the tabloids treatment of celebs ultimately created the climate where they felt they could get away with their appalling treatment of the Dowlers and Chris Jeffries. If the good guys are to be protected from the worst excesses of the media, those protections are going to have to be extended to everyone, including the celebs. And it should be possible to introduce reforms without curtailing the ability of the press to undertake genuine investigative journalism.

Cibaman wrote:Hugh Grant is never going to attract much sympathy. alternatively, he "could be forgiven for his entire career"

Cibaman wrote:Hugh Grant is never going to attract much sympathy. alternatively, he "could be forgiven for his entire career"

Cibaman wrote:I think its hilarious the way the way the print media are howling in indignation about whether Grant and Coogan's allegations are 100% accurate. Talk about giving it out but not being able to take it. Aye, the Hugh Grant comments were fantastic. Most of his films are trite but I was in admiration at his attempt to scandalise the Daily Mail who have probably peddled more lies than Hitler over the past 100 years or so. Hopefully some of Grant's words will stick although I'm not hoping for that much given their reader's inability to think. Good article here from the Guardian's Peter Bradshaw on Grant's contribution to the debate.

Cibaman wrote:I think its hilarious the way the way the print media are howling in indignation about whether Grant and Coogan's allegations are 100% accurate. Talk about giving it out but not being able to take it. Aye, the Hugh Grant comments were fantastic. Most of his films are trite but I was in admiration at his attempt to scandalise the Daily Mail who have probably peddled more lies than Hitler over the past 100 years or so. Hopefully some of Grant's words will stick although I'm not hoping for that much given their reader's inability to think. Good article here from the Guardian's Peter Bradshaw on Grant's contribution to the debate.

tb wrote:alternatively, he "could be forgiven for his entire career" How true as I almost have lol.

tb wrote:alternatively, he "could be forgiven for his entire career" How true as I almost have lol.

I thought you shared similar interests in your spare time!?

Good point, well made.



I think that, as has been said already, there's a big difference between someone who is well known for their work – and someone who actively courts media attention for every aspect of their life.

Indeed, indeed. Although Remains of the Day was very good.

To paraphrase from Fawlty Towers, you started it.



I'm not defending the tactics or methods of the gutter press, but what I will defend is their readership from the insinuation that somehow Milly Dowler's phone being hacked and her parents being given false hope is as much their fault as it is that of Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch, Glen Mulcare or any of those others at NI and NoTW who chose to turn a blind eye to what was going on.

Oh, I do know that.



I would never, ever excuse the people you mention – and quite a few more. But quite serious question: do you think that we, as consumers, have no ethical responsibility to consider what it is that we buy?