Leveson and Regulation of the Press

The press are still at it. Wittering on about how important they are to a free democratic society as if anyone still believed anything they read in the papers. I've got some news for them. We are increasingly getting our news from the internet and social media. But they still go on in their precious way about being the guardians of freedom despite being controlled, as I've said before by a few self important families or individuals. About the only things they are really good for is telling us what all the other media told us yesterday, mopping up large spillages and training puppies where and where not to piss.

If the press are so important in holding governments to account then that is really a case for giving them fewer powers, because they have usurped the role of democracy and the democratic process. Governments should be being held to account by the democratic process and if the press are doing that job then it is surely the democratic process which needs to be more powerful and not the press.

And when it comes to holding institutions to account, where were the press during the phone hacking that went on for years until it eventually had to come to the surface because it jeopardised a murder investigation? Many of the papers did it and most of them knew. Where was the holding to account when it came to holding their own to account? Criminal conduct was ignored because knowing which celebrity was kissing which other celebrity was clearly in the public interest, or so they would have us believe. Going through pop stars' bins was vital to uncovering … I'm not sure what.

But I've never seen a 'kiss and tell' story published by a newspaper, even a 'quality' newspaper, exposing the peccadilloes of the proprietor or editor of another paper. They must all be real paragons of virtue. But they all knew about Robert Maxwell's conduct and published not a sniff of it until he died falling off a luxury yacht and the workers, as usual, were left without a pension. Where was the holding to account? As I said, they all knew.

Just as they all knew about the systematic corruption of police and other public officials by many newspapers, but said not a word until it all came crashing down around their ears at Leveson. Where was the holding to account when it came to their own? Nowhere in sight, that's where.

So I say again, I'd rather governments were held to account by people I have elected to do the job rather than a troop of Tory 'grandees' wielding more power than they should have and exercising it in their own interests. They want to be above the law and not have their conduct regulated by law. But they have had many opportunities to put their house in order and they are being offered what should be their last chance to act responsibly. They should be told, 'Take it or leave it', and if they won't commit to behaving responsibly and having an oversight body which regulates that behaviour, then there should be legislation to make sure they do. It will take a 60% vote in both houses of Parliament and in the Scottish Parliament to change the deal they are being offered, and to be honest, if all of that lot agrees you're no good then chances are you're bloody awful. They should sign up, and sign up right now.

Leveson and a Free Press

I see that a lot of press people are unhappy with the regulation proposals following on from the Leveson Enquiry so let me throw in my tuppence worth.

We all support a free press, but the fact of the matter is that the United Kingdom hasn't had a free press for many years. It has always been totally under the control of a few powerful families who exercise that control in a completely scurrilous way. They have absolutely no problem in publishing half truths and complete falsehoods to the ruination of peoples' lives and for the sake of, and in the name of, something that will be wrapping a fish supper tomorrow. Provided always that it makes them money.

They are completely undemocratic, setting the agenda that their masters want and even claiming to decide who governs the country, if we are to believe the 'Sun wot won it' headlines. And who wouldn't believe the Sun.

All that is asked of them is that they stay within the law and tell the truth. Is that so very difficult for them. Those are the same rules that the rest of a free society seems to have few problems with. But they want to be completely outwith the law, they want to ride roughshod over everyone else's rights not to be defamed because they know that few if any ordinary people can afford to go to law against them.

So however distasteful, it has become necessary to rein their excesses, and it is only their excesses that are being restricted, because if we don't exercise some sort of democratic control over law-breakers and corrupters in the press and everywhere else then we risk losing democracy itself. But perhaps that is the ultimate objective of the press barons. They want to exercise that ultimate power that ordinary people having a right to vote denies them.

Jean Charles de Menezez

The family are calling it murder, and they're probably right, but the Police Federation are one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country and usually have defended their members even to the point of bullying Chief Officers. That is why you can't sack a sub-standard officer. Any allegations have to be proved to a criminal standard before disciplinary action can be taken, so, even in the unlikely event of his partner admitting to seeing an offence by an officer, it is unlikely there will be corroboration so there will be no action taken.

If that system applied to the rest of us no-one could ever be sacked. So we are left in the ludicrous situation where a young man lies dead, and a surveillance officer is going to be given 'management advice'. Presumably that will consist of someone telling him he should manage to point out the right guy.

This man was not mistaken for a suicide bomber. There was no suicide bomber there for him to be mistaken for. It was a cock-up plain and simple and the cover-up swung into operation before the body was cold. The lies that were told as to the young man's appearance (bulky clothing), and whether he was running away (he wasn't) were designed to add to the considerable confusion while a believable lie was found or constructed. If there was another reason for the lies let them come out and say so.

The truth (at least in part) was only told when it was obvious that the papers, and particularly the international press, were on to the story and it was clear that the game was up.

So, for all involved, it isn't too late to do something decent for the mans family and accept your responsibility for his death. 'Management Advice' is either a joke or an insult, and the Independent (another joke) Police Complaints Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service should be ashamed. As accessories after the fact they are as guilty as the trigger men if justice is suppressed..

Terry Kelly, Iran, Iraq, and Labour's American Allies

I've sent this to Terry today, don't hold your breath to see it on his blog.

Funny thing about Labour. Everyone with any sense accepts that they are now a party of the right (don’t listen to the rubbish they talk, look at what they do), But Terry, you still believe that there is a right wing conspiracy in the press against them. It only goes to show that they are as useless at rewarding their support as a right wing party as they were when they were part of the Left. Too busy rewarding themselves, so nothing new there then.

The hypocrisy of believing the polls when they favour you and denying them when they are against you is not new, but you and I were both at McDonnell’s ?? visit to Paisley High Street and we both know that he was roundly abused from one end of the street to the other, not by activists but by shoppers.

As for the problems of the captives in Iran, any decent leader would not have been negotiating their release because he wouldn’t have sent our forces to an illegal war in the first place. If you want to deal with it by black humour then why not consider that we have invaded a sovereign nation, occupied it by thousands of troops, and patrol their waters so that other countries do not meddle in their affairs….now that is funny in a black sort of way.

The treatment of our forces who were the victims of ‘extraordinary rendition’ (which we support in principle as being legal) from Iraq to Iran is that our respected allies would have put them in orange boiler suits and tortured them before making them strip and parade in dog leads before publishing their naked pictures in the press and on the internet. Then they would have taken them to place where international law cannot reach them and local law is denied them, and imprisoned them with no prospect of either trial or release. That is not speculation, that is what they admit to, so how bad is it really?

So you can complain about the captive marines being taken illegally and put on television. You can laugh at them being given clothes and cigarettes, and being well fed and clothed, and it might not make you a bad person, but it must come close when you can make it a cause for your triumphalism. I don’t think the captives in Guantanamo would see the joke. It’s a good job that the marines were not captured by your friend Bush’s forces, or even more dangerous, supported by their air power.

I don’t suppose I will see this comment on your site. You seem happy to publish other anonymous correspondents so I will pay myself the compliment that you find me a bit harder to deal with than them. Only local knowledge can expose your claims as false so I must be a danger.

Benefit Claimants , Lie Detectors and the Tory Media

Just another example of a right wing biased media headline that creates a false impression, and misleads without telling direct lies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6528425.stm

If we read past the headline we find that it is not 'Benefit Cheats' but Benefit Claimants who face Lie Detector tests, but the headline is designed to label all benefit claimants as cheats by implication. It is quite scary what the right will do to turn working people against each other, and this tabloid style is becoming more common even in the BBC.

Why do we not have lie detector tests for people who donate large amounts to political parties and coincidentally receive an honour?

Why do we not have lie detector tests for our MPs and MSPs when they submit their expenses claims?

It is because these groups are presumed to have honour and dignity whereas working people and unfortunate people on benefit are presumed to have none. They can be subjected to any indignity on the grounds of protection of public funds, provided the public can be made to believe that all benefit claimants are cheats.

It's time we had a hard look at the whole system; some of the 'honourable members' of the last Tory Government aren't that long out of jail and some people are seriously thinking of electing the Tories again.