The psychology of Paul McMullan and his phone-hacking justifications | Deborah Orr

December 3, 2011

It is still dense to believe that Paul McMullan’s Leveson testimony was for absolute. However it was also very revealing of a certain mindsetNotwithstanding the seriousness of the Leveson inquiry, it is still dense to believe that Paul McMullan’s testimony was for absolute. It was so shocking, so absurd in its self-aggrandising amorality, that it has automatically filed itself in the “satire” section of my reminiscence bank. After McMullan’s psychologically revealing testimony, it is simple to see how Hugh Grant managed to persuade McMullan to go for a drink, and spill the beans on telephone-hacking as the actor secretly recorded him. Despite all of McMullan’s claims to despise celebrity, he clearly relished opportunities to be close to the well-known. The sad chap is what’s called in the vernacular “a star-fucker”. He couldn’t fuck stars one path, so he took delight in fucking them in another. The path McMullan justified such actions is deeply instructive. His comment that “privacy is for paedos” says it all. In common with many of his ilk – gaze at the NoW’s pride in their populist campaigning against paedophiles – he appears to believe that if you are not really sexually abusing young children, you are therefore inhabiting the moral high ground. Crucially, it is usually convicted criminals who maintain that attitude most enthusiastically. At least, they tell themselves, they are not “nonces” on the “nonce wing”. For criminals, paedophilia is the only “absolute” crime. The rest is merely what you do to get by in a harsh, dog-eat-dog earth.Telephone hackingCelebrityNews of the WorldPsychologyDeborah Orrguardian.co.uk © 2011 Twitter News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Employ of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

DOWNLOAD: Hedy Lamarr

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: