Department of Health releases minutes of Nadine Dorries, Frank Field abortion meeting: Right To Know campaigners present

Department of Health logo

Following a Freedom of Information request of 2 August the Department of Health has released minutes of a 7 July meeting [pdf] between Nadine Dorries, Frank Field and Anne Milton (Parliamentary Under-secretary of State for Health) in which possible amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill 2011, regarding abortion, were discussed. Two members of the Right to Know Campaign were also in attendance, alongside Department staff.

Also released was a letter from Frank Field to Anne Milton [pdf], in which the Labour MP expresses his thanks for the Under-secretary’s presence at the above meeting—and for “the time of your officials yesterday.” This may refer to another meeting which took place at the Department of Health, about which I was not astute enough to have requested information. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that further discussion of the subject of the Right To Know-backed amendments took place, in addition to that detailed in the minutes published here.

In the meeting Ms. Dorries stated that abortion providers have a vested interest in also providing pre-procedure counselling to women, a claim strongly denied by Ann Furedi of BPAS and Frances O’Grady of the TUC. While the Department agreed with the stated aim of the amendments—to separate the counselling and medical stages of the abortion procedure—it reminded Ms. Dorries that independent counselling “would have to have a health benefit.” Ms. Dorries also reported having “received advice that it was harder to challenge primary legislation [than secondary] and so having this set out in primary legislation rather than secondary legislation would make it more secure.”

It was agreed by the participants that “counselling was non-directional and its purpose was to allow women space to think through their options”. In addition, all present “agreed that it was of paramount importance that any change did not delay or limit access to abortion.” This sentiment was repeated by Mr. Field in his letter of 11 July.

The presence of Right To Know Campaign members in the 7 July meeting may be significant: it shows that the campaign was very closely involved with the Dorries/Field amendments, despite Ms. Dorries’ attempts to distance herself from it. The amendments were rejected in a House of Commons vote on 7 September. The Department of Health still intends to consult on the ‘spirit’ of the amendments, however, in line with its approach as discussed in the released minutes. As shown by the above pop-up at Righttoknow.org.uk, the campaign will attempt to continue its efforts to influence Government policy on this issue. Will they work as closely with DoH as has been revealed here?

The Daily Mail and The Sun sink to new depths with pictures of Michael Jackson’s corpse

sun new depths michael jackson corpse

Displaying greater than usual levels of poor judgement, The Sun and the Daily Mail have plastered images of Michael Jackson’s corpse on the front pages of their websites. I have censored them here. Apparently the images have sparked disquiet among readers, and at least one complaint to the PCC has been filed.

mail new depths michael jackson corpse

mirror new depths michael jackson corpseA sordid circus indeed, un-self-aware Mail sub. Tabloid exploitation does not end at death, it seems.

UPDATE: At left you can see the image which appears on the Daily Mirror‘s website at the time of writing (22:29 BST). I find it interesting that the corpse of Michael Jackson is deemed more newsworthy than the corpse of, say, a Somali child dead of starvation. This hypothetical child may not have had any Number 1 hits, but along with her hypothetical parents and thousands of very real others she would have been part of a much sadder and more urgent story. No front page billing for her.

PCC complaint: Boris Johnson misleads over the BBC and BC/AD

newspapers-bw-3

Following FullFact’s complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about the Mail on Sunday‘s disgracefully inaccurate and misleading article regarding BBC guidance on date notation, I have submitted a similar complaint about Boris Johnson’s pathetic attempt to get in on the “anti-PC brigade” action. Tabloid Watch has a superlative summary of the whole miserable affair. My complaint in full:

The article by Boris Johnson misleads the reader by calling the BBC’s decision to allow the use of date notations BCE and CE an ‘edict’, and implying that these notations will replace BC and AD. (See here: http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/09/bbc-bans-bcad-lie-continues-to-spread.html)

The piece is inaccurate (the BBC’s decision is not an ‘edict’ but a suggestion that other date notations may be used; Johnson’s statement that “some BBC committee or hierarch has decided that this nativity – notional or otherwise – can no longer be referred to by our state-funded broadcaster” is factually incorrect; his statement that “We are asked to call the years-before-the-event-we-cannot-mention BCE, or “Before Common Era”, and the years-after-the-event-we-cannot-mention “Common Era”, or CE.” is factually incorrect; his statement that “Someone needs to get out down the corridor and find the individual who passed this edict and give him or her a figurative kick in the pants.” repeats the “edict” falsehood) and overall, misleads the reader by distorting the known facts.

Johnson’s ramblings are in clear contravention of Article 1. i. (Accuracy) of the PCC Editors’ Code of Conduct. Hopefully the PCC will hold the Mayor of London to account, rather than sanctioning his lies as it has done with Richard Littlejohn.

How well do UK news websites cover Latin America? An overview

Image copyright to the author.

I was curious to see the breadth of stories on Latin American current events on the websites of four UK news outlets: the BBC, the Independent, the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph. I was unable to find a dedicated section of the Sky News website. En primer lugar, I was rather disappointed by the efforts of the Independent. They offer only eleven stories in total on the front page of their ‘Americas’ section—and when I checked, nine of those concerned the United States of America. It’s not as though the page suffers from a lack of space! There is enough for twice as many stories.

The population of Latin America dwarfs that of the United States: 590 million in 2010. It’s a shame the Independent isn’t able to provide more information about what goes on there in an accessible way: one has to click through to other pages to access more stories (perhaps this is good for the advertisers). Even the second page is dominated by the United States, including a story about the ‘interior design tastes’ of the New York mayor.

The Telegraph’s offering is, functionally, an improvement over the Independent’s: they offer 25 stories all on one page, though these go back over two weeks, while the Indy’s eleven are all from today. I would question the relevance of Jonathan Dimbleby: ‘I’ve done cocaine’, but the page wins points for being dedicated to Latin America, instead of lumping in the U.S. and Canada.

The Guardian’s ‘Americas’ page is visually attractive, boasting a greater number of accessible stories than the Independent’s, and which are more regularly updated than the Telegraph’s. One has the option of filtering by country, all of which are available in a drop-down menu which doesn’t need to be drop-down. Something not featured on the other websites is a subscription button for the page’s RSS feed, a rather useful addition. North and South America share the same page, though the United States does not intrude because it has its own page in World News. Make of that what you will.

Of the four, the BBC’s Latin America page is the most visually pleasing (assuming that you are not viewing the recent beta update). The Beeb’s resources allow it to provide over twenty stories on one page covering a few more subjects than the other websites, including such niche interests as Colombian wheelchair rugby. A useful non-news feature of the BBC page is the availability of country profiles which the organisation has created, presumably to meet its brief to inform and educate. RSS feeds are on offer, although a dedicated Latin American feed is not.

.

The Independent is the loser here, by a wide margin. An ugly and clunky website and lack of regional variety doom it to irrelevance: all the other pages provide more news from Latin American countries, and the Indy‘s coverage, although up-to-date, cannot compete. The BBC maintains the best page, in my opinion, followed by the Guardian (for ease of use and more recent stories), and the Telegraph. For stories you may not find on any of these sites I recommend IPS News’ Latin America page which is excellent, bordering on comprehensive.