The right to know shit

I'll put something right upfront, one career opportunity I'd like to see disappear from the world has the job description 'fuck a famous person and then sell your story'. The press is a plague rat taking it's fetid filth from home to home, from brain to brain for no other purpose than it wants to sell units. If it ruins lives and destroys our culture at the same time, well it's the profit margin that matters isn't it?

Any law and any judge that gets in the way of printing the passing tittle tattle that is the bread and butter of press work has to be brought down. They have to be campaigned against because the untrammeled rights of the press have to trump things like common decency or a society that cares about the welfare of its members.

Now we have a vacuous MP joining in as an unpaid(?) lobbyist for the filth factory, using up valuable Parliamentary time to name someone everyone knew the name of already. John Hemming should step down and let someone who is interested in politics take his place in the House. Whilst Hemming took a malicious glee in naming a footballer whose privacy was protected by an injunction he could have been discussing Libya, climate change, the use we could put Obama's visit to or, God forbid, one of any number of pressing issues his constituents are facing.

No, not for Hemming the route of discussing changing legislation he appears to disagree with, he simply subverted it and in the process showed his utter contempt for the real lives of those involved.

For while there is a general issue around whether the press has the right to print anything it God damn pleases, no matter how vile and mendacious, there are also specific issues around this case which prompted the judge to grant an injunction in the first place. Hemming would have known this had he taken a moment to acquaint himself with the court judgment.

Let's pull out some salient points shall we? Do read the whole thing if you have time.

1. On 14 April, News Group Newspapers Ltd was represented by leading counsel, Mr Richard Spearman QC, who did not oppose the grant of an injunction over the short interval before the return date. Ms Thomas was not represented, and indeed had not been notified of the hearing, since on the evidence I was satisfied that there would otherwise have been a risk of further disclosure of private or confidential information prior to her being served with the order.
   
2. The Claimant's witness statement was to the effect that Ms Thomas had made contact with him by various text messages in March, which led him to conclude that she was at that stage thinking of selling her story, such as it was. She told him by this means that she wanted, or "needed", a payment from him of £50,000. It was against this background that he agreed (he says with some reluctance) to meet her in a hotel where he was staying in early April of this year in order to discuss her demands. Although he had no wish to meet, he eventually agreed because he was concerned that she would go to the newspapers if he refused. On that occasion, which was according to his evidence only the fourth time they had met, they were together for no more than 30 minutes. She had asked him to provide her with a signed football shirt, which he did, but he told her that he was not prepared to pay her the sum of £50,000.
   
3. The next development was that she asked to see him again, in a different hotel, a few days later (where he was also staying). He agreed with reluctance and on this occasion, as she had requested, provided her with some football tickets.
   
4. It now seems that the Claimant may well have been "set up" so that photographs could be taken of Ms Thomas going to one or other, or both, of the hotels. Although the position is not yet by any means clear, the evidence before me on 14 April appeared to suggest that Ms Thomas had arranged the hotel rendezvous in collaboration with photographers and/or journalists. He first began to "smell a rat" when she told him at the first April meeting, perhaps feigning innocence, that she had been followed and recognised when she visited the first hotel.
   
5. On 12 April, the Claimant sent Ms Thomas a message to say that he did not want any further contact with her. Then, in something of a quandary, he thought better of it and sent her a further message the following day. This was to convey to her that he might be willing to pay her some money after all. By this time, however, she made it clear that she was looking for £100,000. She later texted him to say that there was a journalist outside her house.
   
6. The evidence before the court at that point, therefore, appeared strongly to suggest that the Claimant was being blackmailed (although that is not how he put it himself). I hasten to add, as is obvious, that I cannot come to any final conclusion about it at this stage. I have to make an assessment of the situation on the limited (and untested) evidence as it now stands. (That is what is required by s.12(3) of the Human Rights Act, to which I shall return shortly.)
   
7. Ms Thomas made contact with the Claimant again on 13 April and asked him to call her. When he spoke to her, he formed the impression that she had someone with her – probably a journalist. At all events, she told him that The Sun was thinking of publishing a story to the effect that they had had an affair for some six months and that this account would be supported by photographs of her at or near the hotels where the April visits had taken place. She did not give any indication that she herself was in any way responsible for this. It is hardly likely that she would have done so, of course, if she was still hoping to extract money from the Claimant. It seems, nevertheless, that The Sun was ready to take advantage of these prearranged meetings in order to be able to put forward the claim that it was The Sun which had found him "romping with a busty Big Brother babe". This was no doubt to give the impression, which Ms Thomas herself may have fostered, that a sexual liaison between them was still continuing at the time of the two hotel rendezvous in April.
   
8. At all events, it seems probable that she had agreed at some point to contribute to the story in The Sun that was published in its issue for 14 April (i.e. prior to the hearing of the injunction application). It is thus ironic that Ms Thomas has subsequently complained of the court's supposed unfairness in according anonymity to the Claimant but not to her. She was already identified, apparently of her own volition, before any application was made to the court. It seemed to me that the Claimant was fully entitled to the protection of anonymity at the time he came before the court on the first occasion – not least for the reasons acknowledged and explained by the Court of Appeal in JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] 2 All ER 324 at [40]...
   
9. The courts are required to carry out a balancing exercise between competing Convention rights, as was always overtly acknowledged by the government prior to the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. It was, for example, explained by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, when the bill was before the House of Lords on 24 November 1997 (Hansard, HL Debates, Col.785). He said that any privacy law developed by the judges following the enactment would be a better law because they would have to balance and have regard to both Article 8 and Article 10 (as indeed has been happening over the last decade). When the statute came into effect in October 2000, it explicitly required the courts to take into account Strasbourg jurisprudence when discharging those responsibilities.
   
10. Despite this long history, it has for several years been repeatedly claimed in media reports that courts are "introducing a law of privacy by the back door". Yet the principles have long been open to scrutiny. They are readily apparent from the terms of the Human Rights Act, and indeed from the content of the European Convention itself. Furthermore, they were clearly expounded seven years ago in two decisions of the House of Lords which was, of course, at that time the highest court in this jurisdiction: Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457 and Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593.
    
11. Since those decisions were promulgated in 2004, the law has been loyally applied by the courts in a wide variety of circumstances and exhaustively explained in numerous appellate judgments. In particular, there are a number of important decisions of the Court of Appeal in addition to those I have already mentioned: see Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2006] QB 125; McKennitt v Ash [2008] QB 73; HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2008] Ch 57; Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2008] QB 103; and Murray v Express Newspapers [2009] Ch 481. This does not purport to be an exhaustive list, but it will suffice to establish beyond doubt the legal framework within which the courts are required to operate on applications of this kind. It is widely known that the House of Lords refused permission to appeal with regard to each of the last four cases I have listed. This can only, surely, have been on the basis that it was by that stage recognised that the principles were sufficiently clearly established.
    
12. The majority of cases over the last few years, in which the courts have had to apply those principles, would appear to be of the so called "kiss and tell" variety and they not infrequently involve blackmailing threats. Blackmail is, of course, a crime and in that context the courts have long afforded anonymity to those targeted as a matter of public policy. That has not hitherto been questioned. In the modern context, against the background of the Human Rights Act, it is equally clear that the courts have an obligation to afford remedies to such individuals, to discourage blackmailers and to give some protection in respect of personal or private information where there is a threat of revelation...
    
13. I have to consider whether there would be a legitimate public interest in the revelation of this particular information, in so far as it is not already in the public domain, and whether publication would contribute to "a debate of general interest", in the sense conveyed by the European Court of Human Rights in such cases as Von Hannover v Germany (2005) 40 EHRR 1. Would it help to achieve some legitimate social purpose, such as the prevention or detection of crime? Or again, echoing the terminology of the Press Complaints Commission Code, would publication in some way prevent the public from being seriously misled?
    
14. As in so many "kiss and tell" cases, it seems to me that the answer, at stage two, is not far to seek. Indeed, it was not even argued that publication would serve the public interest...
    
15. ... It has recently been re-emphasised by the Court in Strasbourg that the reporting of "tawdry allegations about an individual's private life" does not attract the robust protection under Article 10 afforded to more serious journalism. In such cases, "freedom of expression requires a more narrow interpretation": Mosley v UK (App. No. 48009/08), 10 May 2011, BAILII: [2011] ECHR 774, at [114].

So, the paper did not argue, in fact could not argue, that this story was in the public interest and the court had the concern that there was potentially evidence of a blackmail plot. Well done Hemming, you may have just publicly facilitated a blackmailer. Twat.

As Burd argues today "For everyone to make this case the cause celebre of all that is wrong with the system is misguided.  There is no public interest here;  this particular footballer has always been an intensely private individual;  the court papers suggest less than fragrant behaviour by the woman involved who appears to have colluded with the media to try and create a story worthy of their attention;  and he has never created a public persona based on his private personage.

"I couldn’t even tell you how many children he has or what his wife’s name is, such is the low profile he has given his family throughout his career. This is entirely the wrong case upon which to demonstrate that the law is an ass and to try to tease out the balance between article 10 (the right to freedom of expression) and article 8 (the right to private and family life)."

However I don't agree this is the wrong case. It is entirely the right case to show that the law is there for a good reason. Where it is used to prevent actual news getting out it needs fixing, but the row over this story shows absolutely clearly that the press are not interested in reporting the news they are only interested in salacious gossip no matter who it hurts, and no matter whether it is substantially true or not. We should have laws to prevent this kind of reporting.

It's also worth noting, as Jennie does, that this is not judges running wild inventing laws but judges making perfectly coherent decisions based on the laws that are in place. If there is something wrong with those laws let's change them, but sweet Jesus let's not change the law to allow the press the power to destroy the lives of footballers.

Right now there is a war being waged to grant the press the power to pry into any aspect of any one's life and print half truths about them for a momentary flash of titillation. Some people have leaped into the fray to enjoy sticking two fingers up to the law with a warm glow that's it's all being done in the name of high principle. I think these people have chosen the wrong side with the best of motives - but I'd like them to reconsider.

We need to challenge the power of the press in the country, not act as its outriders. Until they demonstrate a willingness to exercise that power responsibility we should be holding them to account and limitting their influence. That's my view anyway, but then again I'm sick of the lies, the blackmail, the corruption and the foul influence the press have on our political system.

BBC on the Scottish polls

The BBC have been explaining how the Scottish Parliament elections work here. As you can see they predict that, if current polls are correct, the Lib Dems will come a well deserved fifth. Interestingly, they appear to be saying the English Greens will achieve eight seats which is all very jolly as they are currently busy fighting local elections south of the border... the struggle to keep our broadcasters on brand continues it seems.

Note: polls may in fact be bullshit, but might not be either.

Is Question Time Biased?

Every week on BBC's political panel discussion show Question Time we seem to have one, or more, utterly rabid right wing fiends. The spawn of Melanie Philips, as well as Shelob herself, stalk menacingly into the studio cackling as they go. At least that's how it feels to me.

It turns out that the right think it's infested with Communists, a claim so unutterably off the wall as to literally make my head spin round. No, hold on, not literally.

James Dellingpole rails against "the appointment of Vladimir Stalin – or “Nicolai Gentchev” to give him his current SPECTRE agent name – as Question Time’s new editor", an appointment caused by its imminent move.

Now I've met Nicolai Gentchev who is, or was, a Trotskyist and a very nice bloke. He also came across as someone who is professional, and more than capable of objective distance. I miss hearing his name as an editor of the Today Programme but I'd not noticed references to deflected permanent revolution in any of John Humphrey's pieces during his time there. More's the pity.

Personally I think if Gentchev's appointment means less Melanie Philips' and more David Mitchells I think the audience would heartily approve, but it may well not signal a noticable change of direction.

As the exception that proves the rule this week saw Green MSP Patrick Harvie's first ever appearance on BBC QT despite the Scottish Greens having been represented at Holyrood from its inception in 1999. This prompted twitter to cry "Who's this bald bloke? He's rather good."

Even Working Class Tory paid grudging tribute to him saying "The Green guy, Patrick Harvie, rambled on at several points, but the audience seemed to like it. He was the most left-wing panellist they've had on in about three years. He even looked like Lenin."

I'm not sure if he actually is the most left-wing panellist they've had in three years seeing as Bob Crow, George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob have all appeared in that time, and they're *almost* as Lenin-esque as Harvie. However, I know how to take a reflected compliment - so thanks!

However, what is clear is that the Greens provide a distinctive and interesting voice expressing a significant current of thought in this country. They should be part of the mix more often rather than as the occasional after thought when Melanie can't make it. As it happens her eminence Caroline Lucas will be on QT in two weeks time, they're like buses you wait all year for a Green on TV and then two come along at once.

There is a real problem that as the three main parties have come closer together politically (with two of them currently fused) mainstream politics is simply too shallow a pool to draw an interesting panel from that can represent the real political views of the country. One reason to support Jeff's petition to include Harvie in the upcoming Scottish leaders' debates.

Of course, I wouldn't be for excluding the professional ideologues of the right wing press. These off the shelf, bought and paid for opinionbots are part of the political geography of the country, but the same is just as true of those to the left of Labour and no matter what the right think they are simply far too scarce on QT leaving a good proportion of the audience tearing out their hair and feeling unrepresented.

What papers have their say

There is an interesting Early Day Motion doing the rounds in Parliament, all about the Morning Star. It is EDM 1334 and it goes something like this;

"That this House notes the Morning Star is a national daily newspaper available in shops across the UK; further notes that it is the only socialist daily newspaper in the English language worldwide; further notes that the Morning Star and its management have strong links with the trade union movement; welcomes the different light it shines on news and current affairs from that of other daily newspapers; expresses concern that the Morning Star is rarely ever shown on or reported by the BBC on television and radio; and calls on the Director General of the BBC to ensure that the Morning Star is featured regularly and as a matter of course in broadcast newspaper reviews in the interests of fair and balanced reporting."

Considering this is about the house newspaper of the Communist Party of Britain it has accrued a considerable number of signatories, fifty two of them in fact. This includes my favourite Lib Dem MP, Bob Russell, the ever-cuddly Frank Dobson and the SNP's Angus MacNeil... none of whom have openly endorsed the revolutionary transformation of the UK into a Brezhnevian worker's paradise.

It raises an interesting point about what newspapers are seen as fit for those little 'tomorrow's papers' roundup's on news programmes and one that is worth supporting. It would have been slightly better if it hadn't been MPs pressuring the state broadcaster to give preferential treatment to the Morning Star over other minority papers - which steps over the line of political interference in the BBC and smacks of special pleading.

Daily newspapers like The Voice or the Edinburgh Evening News do proper journalism, have a distinct identity, serve a specific community and sell a decent number of copies (40,000 a day in the case of the Voice and 25,000 a day in the case of the Morning Star, I'm told).

These slots would certainly be more interesting if there was a bit more variety. After all the Telegraph, Times, Guardian and Independent all having different headlines on the same story only takes you so far - while a few "black teenager disappearance goes unreported" and "Strike action is brilliant" headlines would shake things up a bit.

Democracy isn't just about majority voices after all.

I was surprised to see that the Morning Star had a rather belligerant piece in their paper about the EDM. They choose, for example, to denounce Michael Meacher and Caroline Lucas for not signing. This is particularly strange seeing as Caroline at least has every intention of signing but you have to literally put your pen to an official document to get your name on an EDM and she hasn't yet been in the same room as that piece of paper.

It's an EDM not a fire that needs putting out here and now.

Personally I think I'd support the EDM too, but why it had to be so self serving I've no idea. Many of us would support the call for more space for minority papers and ideas but for the Morning Star to be singled out over other, more widely read, papers seems a little bit like advertising rather than principle.

Perplexing Pravda Pickle

I think quite a few people sympathised with Eric Pickles when he came out against 'Townhall Pravdas', those mock newspapers produced by your local council promoting your local Labour Mayor or whatever. Sorry, I mean publicising the work of your council.

Back in June Pickles explained that "The previous Government’s weakening of the rules on town hall publicity not only wasted taxpayers’ money and added to the wave of junk mail, but has undermined a free press." I think that's broadly true.

More to the point he also argued that;

"local newspapers have been put under increasing pressure in recent years by the proliferation of town-hall Pravdas. These glossy magazines have been designed for the sole purpose of telling people how great the council is. And they are competing with independent newspapers for readers and advertising space: undermining local newspapers already under threat from the internet and the 24-hour news cycle.

"This has serious consequences for local democracy. Local journalists have a proud tradition of holding councillors to account, questioning unpopular decisions and exposing unsavoury behaviour. These propaganda sheets are no substitute for a free and independent press."

The government using a supposedly independent looking medium to put out subliminal, or all to often very liminal, propaganda is a serious issue. Especially so at a time when local papers are struggling with a lack of advertising revenues meaning they don't have the funds to produce the kind of quality local paper that you can find in some other countries and that local communities deserve.

However, I wonder if I'm the only person to have been surprised to see that while the government is clamping down on this sort of behaviour by local councils it seems to be toying with the idea of using the BBC's network to do the exact same thing on a national level.

The Independent reports that "The Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude is in talks with BBC bosses about running a series of adverts on their TV and radio stations... it could go much further than the long-standing relationship under which the BBC had the power to choose what it broadcast. Insiders believe ministers could now demand regular slots for government information films... Such a move would require a change to the BBC charter, which gives the corporation complete independence over the content of its broadcasts."

The BBC Trust described the idea as having "serious implications for the corporation's independence and impartiality". They said that it was for the BBC "alone to decide what it broadcasts and when". It added: "Furthermore, if the BBC were to broadcast free of charge advertising content that could otherwise appear on commercial channels, that would be likely to have an adverse impact on the wider market."

So basically exactly the same arguments that applied for the Town Hall apply for Whitehall. I hope Pickles doesn't find out, he'll be furious, it will make him look like he has double standards.

Reminder to self: Don't read the Daily Mail

It's the sort of thing you'd have thought would be obvious. If you don't want to annoy yourself don't read the Daily Mail. After all that's what the Mail does, not just to people like me who are diametrically opposed to everything it stands for, it's written to annoy the people who agree with it as well.

The typical Mail reader would feel short changed if they finished the paper with a benign feeling of love and goodwill towards their fellow citizens. They buy it to help feed the bitter seeds xenophobia and bile that lie deep within them. It's deliberately written to get readers in the mood to re-enact Kristallnacht by the time they're through.

It's no surprise therefore that top of the website at the moment is a piece praising a German leader for attacking immigrants. As Labour's Bob Piper pointed out on twitter "Merkel says multiculturalism has failed in Germany. Surely she knows the last time they tried monoculturalism it was hardly a major success."

I should have known better than to flick through a copy earlier, but if there's a paper there in front of me I'll read it. The thing that most impressed me was the piece by Peter Hitchens which is possibly one of the most exciting things I've read for years.

The title, and I assure you this is true and not a parody, was "Is university really such a good thing? I spent three years learning to be a Trot."

Read that again, "Is university really such a good thing? I spent three years learning to be a Trot." Beautiful isn't it? As a piece of writing it would be hard to more succinctly summarise the absolutely bizarre brand of misanthropy and paranoia that is the Mail.

He goes on to denounce "creepy sex education", "parasites" (students to you and me), he announces that "college is a corrupting, demoralising experience" where they teach "anti-Christian, anti-Western, anti-traditional material" and that you can be summarily condemned for "thought crimes" like "homophobia". Oh the woe that is the modern world.

I was particularly interested in the Hitchens thesis that the Iraq War was caused by the modern university. It's undeniable that those who made the case for war had all *been* to university, but then again they were almost all married men, but that wouldn't fit with his view that there is also a "war on the married family" from the same people.

Talking of students, this wasn't in today's paper but I notice here we have the perfect picture combo of a super-model, Cambridge university, the scruffiest student in the world and Trotskyism. However, the caption says it's a punk trying to get an autograph when they are clearly a Socialist Worker seller getting someone to sign a petition... but let's move on.

When the Mail is not spitting chips about people learning things or not being married they're gossiping about Labour politicians.

I discovered that Ed Balls plays football (pictured). I found out that Ed Miliband once shared a house with Yvette Cooper, and, stop me if you think this is far too informative, that brother David used to go out with Ruth Kelly... double shudder.

It's like they're as compulsive-obsessive about politics as I am but they're from an alternative evil universe. For instance, they're quite excited by the news that fascist Brigitte Bardot is thinking about running for French President. I can see why they like this; it combines animal rights, sexy pictures, homophobia and racism.

They do have the good-grace to describe her as 'controversial', although I suspect they might mean that as good thing. Personally I think close friendships with far-right politicians and having a string of convictions for race hatred goes beyond 'controversial' .

Anyway, my statement of the bleeding obvious of the day is that we shouldn't read the Mail, it's designed to make you angry. It's like being shocked when reading a Melanie Philips article that she turns out to be ideologically putrid or Julie Burchill and discovering she's fundamentally puerile. Just don't do it because you know what's coming next, and it ain't pretty.

Cops and Newsmen

Chester Stern, the former head of the press bureau at Scotland Yard, has an interesting piece in The Guardian today recounting his perspective on how the relationship between the press and the police has changed. Stern says it started with reforms intended at tackling police corruption, but it hasn't always worked out that well.

The Andy Coulson affair has not just revealed some of the illegal tactics that sections of the gutter press have been willing to stoop to, it's also provided an insight into the the relationship between the press and the Metropolitan Police. Let's look at a specific example;

Many people believe that the police were reluctant to take the investigation seriously, a claim they strenuously deny. Andy Hayman (CBE, QPM), who was the police officer in charge of the hacking investigation, has defended the operation which has left so many dissatisfied that News International was not properly held to account before the law.

In definitely unrelated news, when Andy Hayman left the Met he got a lucrative job with News International. It's nice to know that retirement does not always mean inactivity but can lead to media stardom.

Suggestions of corruption would probably be entirely unfounded, particularly when you have possible incompetence staring you in the face. Like the time he was criticised by the IPCC when "he misled senior officers by failing to tell them that the Brazilian electrician was not a wanted suicide bomber."

A better example would be the time under pressure "Hayman apologised to two brothers who were freed without charge after an anti-terror raid at Forest Gate, east London." A raid in which one brother was shot despite being both unarmed and, well, innocent of any crime.

He was also in charge of the sickening witch-hunt against Ali Dizaei which, among other things, involved the police indulging in potentially illegal phone tapping. But to be fair to him that was a meticulously planned and thorough investigation that used loads and loads of resources - so you couldn't accuse the attempt to destroy a fellow police officer as incompetent.

I'm glad he managed to find work after all of that. In short, everything is fine. No police officers are corrupt. No media corporations are breaking the law and no politicians are complicit in the whole stinking mess. Hold on, I'm getting a call from my non-existence legal department.

A level results in pictures

It's become such a clich矇 that A level results are always illustrated with pictures of joyous young women. In fact, it's such a clich矇 that I thought the papers would make a conscious effort to buck the trend.

Let's take a sample of the lead picture illustrating the A level results story in some of our national papers. (Excludes papers behind pay-walls or without lead pictures on the web)

Daily Mail:

Independent:

Guardian:


Daily Telegraph:


So, not only does the Telegraph accept that boys get A levels too, it seems to be the only paper that accepts that black people also pass exams. Shocking.

I wonder if there's some sort of law of nature that it has to be this way...

Manufacturing austerity

There's nothing like an economic crisis to provide excuses for your ideological commitments. The government's announcement that the BBC license fee may be cut is a case in point.

The Tories have long held a grudge against the BBC, because it isn't directly owned by one of their pals (which is why they've scrapped rules saying that newspaper owners can't own TV stations). It's also increasingly clear that whilst many cost cutting measures are taking place under the heading 'tackling the deficit' this really isn't the whole story.

After all why cut corporation tax if your worried about the gap between income and expenditure? Why say you're going to ensure council taxes do not rise unless you want to ensure that councils do not act to create jobs while the national government is slaughtering them?

Jeremy Hunt, the Minister for Culture, simultaneously attacked the BBC's independence and revenue when he said that "There are huge numbers of things that need to be changed at the BBC. They need to demonstrate the very constrained financial situation we are now in."

Surely though Hunt is talking about artificially creating a "constrained financial situation" by cutting their funds? Certainly Hunt is suggesting maximising it. It looks to me like the government is ideologically committed to laying people off.

That's not to say that there is nothing to criticise in the license fee, which is the kind of flat tax that Tories used to like, when it might be fairer to include the BBC's funding in income tax - although there is something to be said for a hypothocated tax if it allows for more political independence.

It's also true that the BBC could spend it's money more wisely. The mega-fees paid to competent entertainers like Graham Norton or Jonathon Ross seems disproportionate when compared to the salaries of other staff members. However, I suspect Hunt is not looking for anything except scaling down of the size of the state broadcaster.

Soon the number of people able to pay tax at all is going to be severely reduced - and where will the deficit be then, hmmm?

Raoul Moat, David Cameron and Facebook

David Cameron was taking a swipe at Facebook users today. The Prime Minister spoke for a lot of people when he spoke of his disgust that people had been expressing admiration for the wife beating, misogynist murderer Raoul Moat.

Moat had recently been released from prison after serving time for assaulting a child. His widely reported last, self-pitying words "I had no Dad" were uttered moments before he left his own children fatherless. This was no radical, anti-police, community champion but a reactionary thug whose violence was usually directed towards working class women and children.

I'm all for attempting to understand Moat's motives but some have bordered on sympathy, something I think we should strongly argue against. Empathising with a perpetrator of domestic violence without any but the most cursory nod towards the victims of that violence is to place the importance of Moat's feelings above those of his victims.

However, Cameron has asked Facebook to remove Moat fan pages where tens of thousands have signed up to say what a "legend" the killer was. Facebook, I think rightly, refused to take the page down - although their inconsistency on what they censor is frustrating. You can't ban these ideas, you need to argue against them.

The fact that large numbers of men and women are leaving supportive messages on the page speaks to something that many people never see spoken out loud, and it's an opportunity to look facts in the face. A few examples of posts left by women on the site include;

• love got the better of you moat, RIP x
• His head went, simple as that, anyway he had a fucked up childhood, his baby mom was messing with his brain while he was serving a sentence. them man up newcastle there heads are all fucked, beer drinking steriod taking dudes. Never the less rest in peace Raoul Moat I don't think you are a legend, but a man whos' heart is torn and whose integrity was no more, R.I.P.
  
• RIP, guess it all just got too much for you man :/

The fact that people can say things like "love got the better of you" in response to Moat's killing spree is a product of the way the media focused its attention on an "exciting" movie-like narrative without once giving the thing its proper name - domestic violence.

If you're ex-partner beats you or tries to kill you it is not because "love got the better" of him but because he's a violent misogynist. By turning Moat into the central figure of an exciting man-hunt media circus the press inevitably gave him a more glamorous appearance than he deserved.

But back to Facebook for a moment - the reason it works is by harnessing the enthusiasms of the general public. Cameron is opposed to that when they express ideas he doesn't like, but this comes just a week after Cameron hoped to harness the site for his cuts agenda.

Here he is speaking to the owner of Facebook about winning the hearts and minds of the public for cutting public spending by using social networking.



The fact is you can't have it both ways. If you want to use social networking you have to understand that it works because it is unfettered, and if you start banning groups because you think they're distasteful - guess what - some people might find laying off public sector workers a downright disgrace.

For me I've no particular time for those criticising the police on this occasion. While there may be lessons to learned it is the extraordinary behaviour of the media that needs to be under the spotlight. Hyping up a sad little man into a hero while cavalierly putting his life, the lives of the public and the police in danger is beyond excuses.

See also Obsolete, Organized Rage, Green Reading, Doc Richard, The F Word, Richard Osley, Martin.

This is the news

Pluralism: Lib Dems get it right

I'm fast becoming a fan of the blog of Richard Osley, the editor of one of the best local papers in the country, (the Camden New Journal). It really is a must read for Camden gossip and takes an often scathing journos-eye-view of local politics.

Recently he wrote a piece taking a gentle dig at Camden's Lib Dem Parliamentary candidates (sorry, shadow MPs, snigger) for taking opposing views on a very serious issue, Israel. He points out that;

In the north of Camden, Ed Fordham has been said to be ‘courting’ Jewish voters in Hampstead. He’s actually just back from Israel, a trip which Labour unkindly called a “publicity tour” during last week’s council meeting.

And in the south, Jo Shaw has signed her name to leaflets demanding that Britain no longer helps to arm Israel and denouncing a ‘lacklustre’ response to last year’s air strikes in Gaza.

Well, it may be that Labour and Conservatives politicians find this discrepancy irritating but this pluralistic approach to politics is entirely appropriate. Richard does describe this as "fair enough, all very democratic" but I don't think it would be unfair to say that he dishes this up with a large spoonful of lovely cynicism. That's one of the reasons I'm enjoying his blog.

However, in this case I think he might be wrong.

The public are rightly tired of the tribalism of politics where a bunch of hacks subsume their own personal opinions into the hive mind of today's party policy. Politicians from the same party taking different positions on the same issue is a sign of a healthy internal democracy and we shouldn't be encouraging a culture where it's seen as some sort of problem.

There are lines, of course. There comes a point when someone might be better suited to a different party, but no party that seeks to represent a political movement rather than just a political current has to incorporate difference as a safeguard against doctrinaire tribalism.

I was struck by this when, at a selection meeting for Lewisham Green Party's council candidates, two hopefuls unashamedly announced that they were in favour of nuclear power. A delicious frisson went round the room as everyone there realised we were being asked to select candidates who disagreed with a core part of Green Party policy, and we did.

That could have gone very differently and I was really pleased with the open minded approach we took to these people who were clearly in a minority. It doesn't mean I wouldn't vigorously defend the Green Party's anti-nuclear stance if people tried to change our policy - but the fact that policy is not some sort of thought control also has to be defended, even when people are wrong, I mean disagree with me.

It's to the Lib Dem's credit here that they have two prominent members that have wildly different views on an important issue without coming down on their candidates for daring to have political opinions of their own.

ANC invokes Apartheid era legislation

The South African government has invoked Apartheid era legislation to force journalists to reveal confidential sources or face jail.

The government wants to force a TV station to reveal the identities of two self-confessed criminals it interviewed anonymously who spoke about how criminal gangs are preparing for the World Cup.

ETV issued a statement saying that;

Two eNews journalists have been served with subpoenas in terms of Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

This follows an eNews story by Mpho Lakaje – aired on Friday January 15th – which featured interviews with two self-confessed criminals. One of the criminals stated that he would rob tourists during World Cup 2010. Another said that he would be prepared to shoot his way out of a standoff with police if he felt his life was in danger. This was in response to a question as to what he thought of the police’s new tougher approach to fighting crime.

State prosecutors require Ben Said, eNews Group News Editor and Reporter, Mpho Lakaje to appear in court on 25th January unless they provide the following:

· the identity (names and surnames), addresses and contact details of the persons interviewed.

· full particulars of who brought the firearms visible during the program to the interview, who possessed the firearms during the interview and what happened to the firearms after the interview was completed

· the original and unedited footage of the interview.

The matter is currently with eNews’ attorneys.

On the same day it was reported that a man that had acted as a 'facilitator' between the TV station and the criminals killed himself, although the circumstances around his death do not appear to be public knowledge.

It may appear to be worthwhile to infringe a few journalists rights in order to arrest two dangerous criminals (or try to) but the short term benefits would have long term negative consequences, not least that it would prevent journalists being able to guarantee their sources anonymity - massively hampering the ability of the press to do its job, that's a high price to pay which could lead to far more deaths than could be prevented through invoking this law.

Corrupt police: a bit more background

In the last few days you may have noticed that a high ranking police officer is in court over the misuse of his position. There have been a number of reports about Commander Ali Dizaei who allegedly arrested a man because he had a personal dispute with him about a website and falsely alleged he'd been assaulted.

Now, we know this sort of thing happens. Some police officers have been known to take advantage of the powers the state lends them to assault, stitch up and otherwise do over members of the public. It is also the case that police officers do occasionally find themselves in court over this kind of behaviour.

However, it seems to me that the reports of this latest episode do seem to be deliberately skirting round a particularly salient fact.

Now, I do not want to comment on whether Commander Dizaei has been guilty of wrong doing or not in this case. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. I do happen to have a memory though and using this possibly unique ability I recognised Dizaei's name from a previous police corruption case.

However, that case was quite different. As a leading member of the National Black Police Association and outspoken critic of institutional racism in the force Dizaei found himself the subject of an extraordinary surveillance operation, Operation Helios.

Helios cost the taxpayer millions upon millions, used up thousands of hours of time of the fifty police officers involved and ended up in one of the most ludicrous court cases you could possibly imagine. A barrage of charges were made against Dizaei ranging from fiddling his petrol expenses, using prostitutes to spying for Iran. Honestly! They charged him with some of the most serious crimes on the books alongside some of the most petty.

The operation was a travesty and a clear example of a police command structure that wanted someone out who it did not regard as "one 0f us". They abused their position to cook up a shopping list of charges as an attempt to destroy one of the leading anti-racist police officers. All the charges were either thrown out or dropped. Not a single one was upheld.

Surprisingly Dizeai did not attempt to screw the Met for every penny they had and focused on being re-instated as a police officer, something he eventually achieved. To my knowledge no police officer was ever disciplined for their part in Operation Helios and whilst Dizeai may have been re-instated he was a marked man.

Back to the present day. Once again Dizeai is up on charges of corruption, once again the press simply prints the state's case against him and seems to have developed amnesia over the extremely relevant fact that Dizeai was previously the victim of false accusations cooked up by the state.

Now, I am not saying that because he had false accusations levelled against him before that he is a saint that could not possibly have done the things that he is accused of today. He should not be immune from prosecution simply because of the way he was treated before. That is a given.

What I am saying is that if the press want to provide balanced coverage the fact that the Metropolitan Police tried every dirty trick in the book to get his head only a few years ago deserves at least a footnote when he is once again charged with corruption.

People might like to read Dizaei's account of Operation Helios in his excellent book 'Not One Of Us'.

The big telly debate

Just want to catch up on a few things I would have written about in the last few days had I not been having my break from the web. It's a bit late I know but I wanted to have my say about the stupendous, amazing breakthrough our democracy will undergo if the leaders of the three main Parliamentary parties have a slanging match on TV.

The first thing to say is all but a handful of people in this country will get to vote for the leaders of the parties, so having a Presidential-style debate without having a Presidential system does jar a little. Everyone in the US could vote for McCain or that other guy, so when they spoke to the nation it helped people choose - our system is far more mediated, where you may be voting in a constituency where the party of your choice is represented by a candidate you dislike - or vice verse.

Secondly, it's bizarre that members of the main three parties seem to be describing SNP and Plaid attempts to be included in these debates as whinging. In Scotland and Wales they are not bit players but real political forces that accrue votes that parties like the Conservatives can only dream of. Excluding them from the debates will *help* their vote by reinforcing with the electorate that the three *London* parties don't want regional voices to be heard.

Brown droning on won't win a quarter of the votes for Labour that the SNP will accrue from the propaganda coup they've been handed by the attempt to exclude them, whether or not they get in there in the end. Just to be clear the SNP and Plaid thrive off every example of complacency on behalf of the Westminster consensus. As long as they make a show of kicking up a stink about being excluded the Lab/Lib/Con pact has made their argument that these are not really parties that put Scotland or Wales first for them.

No amount of pretending will eradicate the actually existing activist and voter base these parties have. That cannot be reversed by what most voters will see as a dull politics programme.

What about the Green Party though?

When it comes to the Greens, well, I'm in no great hurry to see us on the platform, although I have every confidence in Caroline Lucas that should she be invited onto such a debate she'd crush all opposition and delight in the weeping of their loved ones as she glories in their freshly spilled blood. These debates are to the death, right?

Being on the debate actually would help us in those areas where we struggle to maintain a profile. In those areas where we have few members we would benefit from the extra profile. In other areas, like Norwich, Oxford, Lewisham and Brighton we have electoral machines that do the work on the ground and being excluded from that kind of debate could, in a funny way, help us.

For example, in Brighton we've just had a poll showing the Greens well in the lead, a fair amount of that support is coming from people who want a break from the cosy Parliamentary consensus of war, privatisation and cuts. In these areas we don't need a barely watched TV debate to make our mark on the electorate but being excluded will only reinforce our status as an alternative because we have a base of support to work on.

Sadly in the areas where we're less strong one of our big problems is that people a) often haven't heard of us or b) think we're not serious. So if I wanted to take a purely sectional approach it's still six of one and half a dozen of the other as being excluded does help us achieve our first ever MPs even if it's sad for the local parties below the handful of very strong areas.

However, from a democratic point of view it's terrible. I'm particularly excised about the exclusion of the SNP and Plaid because their relative weight in the regions means that for the millions of people who live in these regions the debates will be meaningless, providing them no insight into the choices before them at the election.

Debating climate change with idiots

I see that Peter Cranie was invited to share a sofa with Nick Griffin on North West TV the other night. Quite rightly he turned down the opportunity to give the little fuhrer a cuddle and a kiss whilst he denied that climate change is happening.

Peter explains his reasons eloquently here. Sadly the BBC went ahead with the show and replaced Peter with a hapless Lib Dem (35 and 48 minutes in) who decided raising their profile by debating Nick Griffin was a bit of a lark.

The fact is the climate change debate we need to be having is what are we going to do about it? How do we reduce our emissions? Can we get international agreements? What measures do we need to take to prepare ourselves for climate chaos? What obligation do rich nations have to poor nations who do not have the funds to prepare for a changing climate?

These vital questions are being derailed by a bunch of Flat Earthers who want to question whether anything is happening at all. This discuss was put to bed ten years ago or more. Climate change is not a communist conspiracy to raise taxes but a living reality that we must address.

Giving these people credibility by allowing the debate to be dictated by them is ludicrous. There are sensible people who disagree with greens who are worth debating, of course, but Griffin is someone who seeks to hold us back from action at the very moment that this attitude constitutes criminally irresponsible behaviour.

I'm really proud of Peter for turning down the BBC's offer of air time and I can only hope that at some point the media grows up and starts allowing us to have the debates on climate change that really matter, not the potty bullshit the deniers come out with.

Daily Mail Fat Heads

I was just browsing through the news and alighted on this charming little story from the Daily Mail. I know, I know. I shouldn't have. Anyway...

Dawn French is a bad girl according to a "nutritionist", Mary Strugar, who has spotted a way of raising her profile by shitting on someone famous.

You see French has not shown the necessary shame and self loathing that is required of someone who deviates too far from the socially proscribed weight. French has even had the temerity to say that we should not judge people by how they look and that she is very happy with her size. Horror!

The Mail reports "her stance has now incurred the wrath of a Harley Street nutritionist for "encouraging people to accept their obesity".

"Dawn French is one our most loved comediennes but she has also, perhaps unwittingly become a role model for the overweight and obese. Her constant ‘big is beautiful’ statements, arguably are sending the wrong signals and are perhaps encouraging people to accept their obesity and ignore the health implications of being overweight."

"I only wish she could use her profile to raise awareness of how to go about the process of change as well as giving clear information about the serious health risks associated with obesity, such as diabetes, stroke and heart disease".

Excuse me but who's body is it? I'm not aware of any law obliging French, or any other person in the public eye, to issue mea culpas any time they do not conform to an optimum healthy lifestyle. Feeling good about yourself is neither a crime nor is it to be frowned upon. Unless French is employed as a health professional I see no reason for her to issue health advice, nor does she appear to be someone from whom many people might take such advice.

Anyway, to encourage people to feel bad about themselves is a pretty bad signal in itself - no? Is it really better to take a pot shot at fatty for daring to show herself in public without a sandwich board declaring herself "UNCLEAN".

I think it's fascinating that someone can be offended by the idea that some people think ‘big is beautiful’. It looks like an emotionally stunted position to me when you cannot tolerate other people's right to be themselves without shame.

Three stories from today's Guardian

Today's Guardian is full of really good stuff today.

First we have the German banker who's been taking money out of rich people's accounts and transferring it to the poor.

Get in! I wonder if she's one of these German's I spoke about a while ago who have asked the government to tax them more.

Then we have lying cops getting caught out again.

The police chief in charge of the G20 counter operation explicitly told the Commons that there were no undercover teams on the day. Turns out Commander Bob Broadhurst is a complete liar and there were 25 plain clothes police officers mingling with the crowd that day.

Don't worry Bob, you wont get fired. I mean nothing happened to coppers who made up all that stuff about the camp for climate action. Parliament genuinely doesn't care if you lie to it - it really doesn't.

And lastly we have a possible case of sub-editors revenge. John Crace writes an article on how to deal with bullying and stress at work. There's an interesting choice of first words to the piece which bear little relation to the rest of the article, namely; "Change a word and I'll kill you."

Pardon John? Is this a post-modern meta-deconstruction of an article about bullying at work where you fake bullying the sub-editor, in which case it's very subtle... or more simply is it just the sub taking you at your word and leaving in every damn word. I can't decide.

Quote of the day

Charlie Brooker says;

Jesus "would have doubtless vomited up his own ribcage in disgust at the mere sight of the hollow, anaesthetising capitalist moonbase that is the Westfield Centre."

No doubt he would have. I'm not a fan of shopping centres myself.

More importantly the piece is citing another example of newspapers treating advertising as if it's news, something I was railing against just the other day.

Heroes and Villains

The New Statesman has published its guide to who it thinks are the heroes and villains of the environmental movement. One of the beauties of lists like these (apart from the pantomime-like orchestrated booing and cheering) is there's always something to disagree with, and this one is no exception.

As you know I'm not keen on raising people up onto pedestals (see my controversial Brian Haw post for example) so when we single out individuals for praise or condemnation it's not always about them as an individual (although it can be) it's also about what they represent.

The villains list must have been difficult now that George Bush is out of the White House but he's there in spirit under the guise of Donald Trump but the authors have commendably kept the focus of their ire on the actions of big business (with an side serving of poking for the Labour government).

It's when they come to the heroes list I'm a little more confused. Franny Armstrong, yes, of course, good stuff, but the National Grid? Apparently they published a report saying that wind power was not variable in input. Don't get me wrong, that's not a bad thing to do but heroic? Publishing a paper stating something pretty obvious? If you say so... and the less said about James Lovelock the better. Literally.

I don't know - check it out for yourselves. I'm just glad I don't have to compile a similar list because if I singled out Switch Ninja for praise people might just look confused.