Continuing on from this thread, former News of the World scumsucker Paul McMullan has testified before Parliament.
Rather than me ranting about what an utter waste of skin he is, let’s let him demonstrate it himself. Here are some of the highlights:
On Jennifer Elliot, actor Denholm Elliot’s daughter, who killed herself after McMullan wrote a series of pieces claiming she was living on the street and taking drugs:
When asked if his editors knew that mobile phone messages were being intercepted:
Yea. After all the “mistakes were made” apologies by people in the public sphere, its kinda refreshing to see someone that not only owns up to what they did, but tells the world that if they don’t like it, they can get bent.
I mean, I still hope he goes to jail, but its nice to see that he’s going there in style.
I’ve seen him speak before and I’m not entirely sure he is the full shilling these days. His total unabashed arse-holery must have an element of either self-promotion, self-delusion or sociopathy.
Or maybe all three? perhaps that is the personality profile you need to be a tabloid scum-hack-twat these days.
I think he’s looking to cash out but he’s playing a dangerous game to do it. Presumably there is a statute of limitations on anything that he did that might be illegal. The guy currently runs a pub, so is able to keep his wages going. So long as he can avoid jail for the requisite length of time, he could write a book on this and probably make some money - “How To Have No Friends and Generally Fuck People Over” or something. The dumbest thing is that, in setting himself up as the type of guy who might well be able to write the UK Journalism equivalent of Motley Crue’s “The Dirt”, he’s sailing pretty close to being convicted.
I don’t really care one way or another what happens to him - but I suspect that these are his motivations.
Hopefully so. Although not as loathsome as the Murdochs, Wade, et al McMullan is the sort of twat who would be massively improved by serious head trauma.
Watching the testimony I kept being distracted by the nasy lookingscarsunder his right eye. In the picture I’ve linked to they look more like a (perhaps partially lasered off) birthmark but I’d like to think they represent a painful injury.
I’m not a violent man and I wouldn’t condone any physical harm…but…
I’d like to think that he sustained those injuries after an attack by Hugh Grant. In the style of Daniel Cleaver (Bridget Jones). i.e. an attack so inept that he is unlikely to be seriously harmed but ends up humiliated because he is beaten by such ineptitude.
One reason he might be OK with it is because it never happened. It’s self-mythologising by the tabloids, to convince themselves they’re powerful beyond the comprehension of man and therefore too big to mess with.
What actually happened is that a paediatrician found the word ‘paedo’ graffitied on her door and moved in with friends while it was cleaned off. There was no crowd, there was no beating. It’s only supposition that the vandal knew what her job was. It’s only supposition that the vandal was in any way motivated by the current NotW campaign to name and shame paedophiles.
Hey, did people like the story? Did they retell it to their friends? Did it briefly distract them from their humdrum lives? Crucially, will they pay money to be told that story or others like it again?
Well then! This “truth and lies” fetish is all very well, but it’s hardly commercial.
