Ask Vir Ask Vir
banner

Medium Term: Given what we know now, the Squidgygate scandal can probably be explained

Last week, I wrote about Mick Jagger’s experiences with The News of the World.

This week, I’m going to recount another story – about how the British tabloids treated the most famous woman in the world.

 

   I’m recalling these stories because – judging by the way people are reacting to the current British phone hacking scandal – it seems to me that we in India don’t fully understand the nature of the British tabloid press. At some level, we act as though the tabloids are like our own newspapers. In fact, British tabloids could not be further removed from Indian papers (or American papers, for that matter) or even, from Britain’s broadsheet press (The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, etc.)

 

   Britain’s tabloids do not work on the same assumptions as most of the world’s press. On any given day, their news judgment will be dramatically different from that of any broadsheet paper anywhere in the world.

 

   Let’s take one instance. Assume that an actor in India’s top-rated TV show came out as gay. If this news made the Indian papers, it would be in one of the city supplements. In Britain it would take over the entire front page of every tabloid, for several days.

 

   When tabloids are so obsessed with the personal lives of celebrities, it is almost inevitable that they will try and invade their privacy to get more details of their personal lives. That’s when the methods that are now being discussed – the hiring of private detectives, the tapping of phones, the hacking of messages etc. – are put to use.

 

   The problem is that until this scandal broke, readers were often unaware of the extent to which tabloid editors took recourse to what are called the dark arts. They had no idea that phones were tapped or that private detectives were used so that papers could arms-length the law-breaking.

 

   But, given what we know now, one of the most famous scandals surrounding Princess Diana can probably be explained .Some of you – older people, mainly – will remember the Squidgygate scandal.

 

   What happened was this: Princess Diana spoke to a friend called James Gilbey who, in turn, referred to her as ‘Squidgy’ (hence the name of the scandal). During the conversation, she made several indiscreet observations about the royal family and the tone of the chat suggested that Gilbey knew her rather too well.

 

   The conversation was picked up by a ham with a mobile scanner. In those days, you could buy a device that allowed you to scan the ether for mobile conversations. The device did not allow you to tap individual phones but it let you listen to whatever conversations were taking place in your area even if you had no way of knowing who was doing the talking.

 

   The ham picked up the Gilbey-Diana conversation and taped it. Naturally, he recognized her voice. He then took it to the tabloid press. The newspapers were able to argue that this was a chance event. The ham seemed to be genuine. He had no ulterior motives. He had been listening for anything interesting without any specific agenda when he suddenly stumbled on to the Diana-Gilbey conversation. So, no phones had been tapped. No laws had been broken. Diana was just the unfortunate victim of bad luck.

 

   There was a problem with this version of events, however. Another ham had also picked the same conversation and had also taped it. But here was the problem: she said she had recorded it on a different date from the first ham.

 

   And there was yet another problem. Not only had both hams picked up the conversation on different dates but neither seemed to have heard it when it actually happened! Even the earliest recording took place days after the conversation had occurred, on December 31, 1989.

 

"The real problem with Britain’s tabloids is, that in their lust to sell more copies, they broke every rule and trampled over the rights of private citizens, all the way from Princess Diana to Milly Dowler."

   This left two possibilities. The first was that the hams were liars. They had never actually picked up the conversation at all. Somebody had supplied the tapes to the tabloids which had put the hams up to pretending that they had come across the chat by accident.

 

   This angle was investigated but nobody came up with any proof that the hams were part of some conspiracy. They seemed to be what they said they were: harmless busybodies who got their jollies from listening to other people’s conversations.

 

   The second possibility was that the hams had never actually heard the conversation as it happened. Somebody else had tapped the phone, had recorded the conversation and then, had re-broadcast it again and again in the hope that some ham would record it.

 

   Given that the hams appeared to be on the level, most people went with the second explanation. Princess Diana’s phone had been tapped and the conversation had been rebroadcast.

 

   But who would do such a thing?

 

   Princess Diana was a deeply paranoid person so she believed that MI5 was tapping her phone at the behest of the royal family. The secret service had tapped her phone and had rebroadcast the conversation, she told friends.

 

   This explanation never made any sense. For a start, the secret services do not report to the royal family. Nor is there any evidence that they cared enough about Diana’s love life to keep rebroadcasting conversations. Moreover, we know now that she was actually sleeping with James Hewitt even before these conversations were recorded. If somebody in MI5 wanted to discredit her, they would have leaked dirt about her affair with Hewitt, rather than this relatively innocuous conversation.

 

   Moreover, a second tape soon made the rounds. This was a conversation between Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles. That conversation made it clear they were having an affair. If MI5 was functioning at the behest of the royal family, why would it want to embarrass Prince Charles?

 

   In hindsight, it is clear what happened. The tabloids (The Sun in this case) obtained the tapes from a private investigator. Because they could not legally explain how they came by the tapes, they made sure that the conversations were rebroadcast again and again. They were sure that the conversations would be picked up by hams – thereby shielding the papers from the charge of illegal tapping of phones.

 

   So the sceptics were right: the conversations had been rebroadcast again and again. But they were wrong about who did it. The best way to solve any crime is: look for those who benefited.

 

    And the only beneficiaries from this scandal were the tabloids. Sales soared and The Sun even set up a premium telephone line, charging anyone who wanted to listen to the tapes large sums of money.

 

   In those days, the general public did not know that the tabloids had the means – and the inclination – to tap phones. If we did know then what we know now, we would have come to the obvious conclusion: it was a tabloid set up.

 

   I recount this story to put the British tabloids in perspective. Of course, every nation should have a free press but we, as citizens, also have the rights to privacy and dignity.

 

   The real problem with Britain’s tabloids is, that in their lust to sell more copies, they broke every rule and trampled over the rights of private citizens, all the way from Princess Diana to Milly Dowler.

 


 

CommentsComments

  • the baul 27 Jul 2011

    to meditate only one condition is to be fulfilled - you got to have intelligence

    how to check that
    its simple - do you read tabloids ?

  • the baul 26 Jul 2011

    oldies would say that how can one meditate so easily
    50 chochlein karne honge pahle
    pahle to bramh muhurt ho, ya sandhya ho, phir snan karo, phir tilak lagao, phir aasan bichhao. khaas disha me ......

    not only that
    someone sitting in a five star suit also thinks in the same way
    even if the word meditation comes to him, he himself would feel that, it would be hypocritical

    its not only the oldies who think that to do meditation, pahle 50 chonchle karne jaroori hai,

  • the baul 25 Jul 2011

    with time one wrong association has developed between poverty and spirituality

    the thought pattern is this, that if you want to meditate, you should not need five star luxury

    now, who said that to meditate luxury is not needed
    actually it is far easier to meditate in a five star suit

    aaj bharat dharmik nahi hai, roti kapda aur makaan ke chakkar me hi sara time chala jaata hai
    bharat tab dharmik tha
    jab uski haisiyat 1 lakh carore to mandir ko daan de dene ki thi

  • To view all please click on More Comments below
More Comments:(3)Posted On: 23 Jul 2011 10:00 AM
Name:
E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
Description:
Security code:
Captcha Enter the code shown above:
 
Name:
E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
Friend's Name:
Friend's E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
 
The Message text:
Hi!,
This email was created by [your name] who thought you would be interested in the following Article:

A Vir Sanghvi Article Information
https://www.virsanghvi.com/Article-Details.aspx?key=664

The Vir Sanghvi also contains hundreds of articles.

Additional Text:
Security code:
Captcha Enter the code shown above:
 

CommentsOther Articles

See All

Ask VirRead all

Connect with Virtwitter

@virsanghvi on
twitter.com
Vir Sanghvi