Unsurprisingly the latest development in Plebgate and concerns about the wider implications of Plebgate following on from the Hillsborough cover up by senior police officers and shootings of bystanders was also featured in two other Sunday morning programmes Sunday Morning Live and the Andrew Neil Sunday Politics Show. It was also
I am not suggesting that Sunday morning Live had been forewarned about the bombshell announcements by the Home Affairs Committee and Independent Police Complaints Commission but the subject was the dominant issue with panel members former Metropolitan Sir Ian Blair at his most defensive and apologetic, the Academic member of the Hillsborough “truth” panel and a young journalist who opened his remark with an apology to Andrew Mitchell for swallowing the lies fed to the media by the Police federation representatives. The programme looked not just at the history of institutional racism and cover up cases but at the ethics and standards of the police, their public reputation and standing in general. Sir Iain appeared to accept that while it was important for the country who have confidence and respect for its police forces recent situations had dented the reputation to an extent which meant that fundamental changes were required.
Andrew Neil and his programme produces had clearly been wrong footed by the development as they had planned concentrating on Labour and the Unite Union with an important interview with the Unite General Secretary, together with the holding of an important conference on the implications of the Muslim faith for societies held in London and attended by the Prime Minister. However in the brief introduction with three studio representatives of the political media the point was made that the Police Federation had been formed by Parliament statute a long time ago and that the Federation appeared to be badly in need of reform a sentiment that will be echoed by the present and a number of past Home Secretaries..
The second issue which attracted my attention in the Andrew Marr programme, covered the studio read of the Sunday press and was later followed by an interview with the present Minister of Culture whose remit includes the media generally and the newsprint in particular,,. This has been the week in which a move by the press barons and their editors to stop a Royal Charter on press regulation was thrown out by the High Court and led to Daily Mirror’s outrageous headline, albeit quoting in part from a Tory Member of Parliament after the Deputy Prime Minister, Cabinet colleague Jeremy Hunt and one other Minister had stood before the Queen and was granted the Charter, which will be printed on vellum something which the media also fussed about.
“Nick Clegg” screamed the Daily Mirror, “ends 300 years of press Freedom in private deal with the Queen.” apparently the gist of what was said by Tory MP Tracey Couch and with former Minister Nick Herbert saying his government and other democratically elected colleagues of all political parties had leapt over the Rubicon of statutory press regulation. If he said this then clearly rather like the Police Fed reps he intentionally grossly misrepresented the position.
All parliament has done is provided a Royal framework for the kind of self regulation proposed by Lord Leveson and which the press moguls claimed to support. What appears to have got up their noses is that if they don’t sign up, gaining the financial and other advantages of the system, if someone take them court over a story and they win the case they will a still be required to meet the legal costs of the complaint, a disincentive designed to get them to settle the matter by conforming to the new system. The idea that this situation would lead to frivolous suing in the courts is absurd.
Maria Miller was at her clever best on the Andrew Marr programme clearly having read the Sunday Observer Editorial as she stated that she and her colleagues wanted press self regulation and which for a moment sounded as if she was giving them the green light to go their own way, which of course in a free society they can do as under the Charter and proposed regulation system they do not have to up. The problem they foresee is that while no one signs up they are protected from the potential negative consequences of staying out, as soon as one major paper agrees to participate and cooperates in the setting up of the new machinery then the rest will be faced with eating humble pie and joining in or facing the potential financial and other risks of not doing so. The current dilemma is summed up in the excellent editorial comment in the Sunday Observer
“New and perplexed readers start here. There is a voluntary royal charter in place for future press regulation, one backed by all three major parties in parliament. It was signed off at the privy council last Wednesday. But the business of printing it on vellum and then constructing the "recognition committee" that will oversee the whole process is grindingly slow. It won't be complete until after the next election, even if the press is minded to join in, which currently it isn't.
Newspapers and magazines, meanwhile, are busy setting up their alternative, non-charter regulator called the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which should commence operations in the spring of 2014. It may or may not come to command public approval. It may or may not be swept aside by an incoming government and replaced by involuntary legislation. For the moment, though, this is an archetypal no-score draw. Nobody – not the press, politicians or pressure groups – wins.
Blame for this fragile state of affairs may be widely shared. Perhaps David Cameron, struggling to secure all-party support for a solution, spent too much time negotiating with Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg and not enough time securing press partnerships. Perhaps Hacked Off overplayed its hand. Perhaps newspapers fought too strident and internally conflicted a campaign, failing to convince the public, let alone the politicians, they were serious. And perhaps Lord Justice Leveson's unwillingness to go beyond his report and actually suggest ways of fulfilling its objectives as the debate floundered back and forth left a vacuum that politicking couldn't fill. None of this matters today. The plain fact, even before Leveson began his deliberations, was that the Press Complaints Commission is a busted flush. Phone hacking and adjacent events have broken its authority. It is good at resolving complaints but not at monitoring or enforcing good behaviour.
If press regulation must be reinforced, as opposed to left to the criminal law, then a new body able to investigate and set standards of editorial conduct is required. There is no real argument about that. The immediate challenge for all sides is to rediscover that bedrock consensus. If we need more proactive, more durable press regulation, then how do we achieve it? Waking up in May 2015, after the next election, to find the old PCC still marking time would be shared failure.
One difficulty, however, is that the royal charter formula, dreamed up in the Cabinet Office as a less obviously onerous alternative to Leveson's smidgen of statutory underpinning, is a wheeze that has blighted rather than boosted progress. The editor-in-chief of the Guardian and Observer called it a "medieval nonsense". The Independent and Financial Times seem no more enthusiastic. If papers such as these aren't on board then the confection simply isn't fit for purpose: too rigid, too archaic in its rituals, too open to political interference just behind the arras. Vellum or no vellum, there is no realistic prospect of this particular charter winning press acceptance now or in the future.
It's a dud idea and one that amplifies the weaknesses in Sir Brian Leveson's approach. Its appendix detailing who and who isn't a "relevant publisher" within its ambit is quill-pen stuff in an era of sweeping digital change. Its aura, unsurprisingly, is relentlessly legalistic, written by lawyers for lawyers, criss-crossed by the audit trails judges love to follow. We can, perhaps, see where such preoccupations lead at the Old Bailey over the next six months. But the news since Leveson put away his laptop has been wholly different: the giant invasions of privacy practised by America's National Security Agency and its pliant partners.
Some of these same objections, to be sure, are there as Ipso begins to take shape. It, too, has been fashioned by lawyers, audit trails awinding (and former presidents of the supreme court presiding over recognition tasks). But at least there's no vellum on display, at least there is the flexible possibility of adjusting its practical reach as the digital revolution sweeps on. If phone hacking was a last decade phenomenon, the present decade looks utterly different.
But will Ipso, once up and running, be able to win public approval? Can it possibly break the impasse? The press can't be sanguine here. It hasn't won the public argument. It has not managed to get three influential national newspaper groups (including this one) on board. The background of trials and arrests is awful. A foreground of ritual snipings and snarlings between papers does not help, either. Press freedom means more than the right to belabour competitors. It also, in current circumstances, needs full transparency as appointments to the new regulator are made. Trust means public trust in those asked to do the regulatory job. No smoke, no closed doors as decisions are made.
It would be ridiculous, after so many changes of direction, if the problem that most vexed Leveson – how to make sure Richard Desmond's Express titles had joined the party – was solved, but that manifestly independent editorial voices on press reform had been forced to sit on the sidelines
So one clear imperative, as Ipso takes shape, is to make sure it represents the whole industry. A matching responsibility, though, lies with government. At no stage, through the year since Leveson reported, has there been a proper, inclusive negotiating process: merely a series of bilaterals over pizza and coffee. Of course, constructing a broader conclave is difficult. But the plain fact is that, on point after point, Ipso is not terribly far away from what Sir Brian Leveson intended, and it might not be incapable of ticking all of his important boxes if, at last, the principals can meet face to face.
This is not, essentially, a problem of political positioning ahead of an election – or of somehow securing a surface "victory" in the struggle to keep our press free by the standards of western democracy. Every grubby antic on one side threatens that freedom. Every unthinking assault on the other warps understanding, too. There are solid reasons to fear the royal charter we have, but will not join. As the Daily Telegraph said last week: "The Guardian's investigation into state spying is exactly the kind of reporting that could spark a moral panic among politicians and give them cause to limit what the press can publish. If parliament can find the numbers to impose a royal charter on the industry, it can also find the numbers to censor it." Edward Snowden's world – as a chastened America thinks again – is beyond medieval nonsenses. So is the more insular world of Westminster and Fleet Street opportunity or a Conservative Government outside a Coalition just to allow the proposed fully independent system to stand while that proposed in the Royal Charter gathers more dust as Leveson and most commentators had feared would happen even when the Inquiry as established? .(Comments are closed for legal reasons - their note)
In fact in my original draft notes on the Royal Charter development I speculated that the absence of David Cameron meant that his Party would not finds ways to insist on Charter implementation if they became a majority government in 2015.
More important than press regulation or the antics of leading members of the Police Federation was what former Labour Foreign Secretary and South Shields Member of Parliament had to say to Andrew Marr about Syria, Pakistan and the Taliban when he returned to the UK to deliver a lecture on former President J F Kennedy whose death was 50 years ago.
Andrew Marr had access to an advance copy of the lecture in which David emphasises Kennedy’s supported for a United Europe working with the USA and with the UK playing a leading role in the European unity. Clearly David was using his research to advance the cause of the UK remaining in the ECC rather than necessarily endorsing the former president’s view of a capitalist Europe acting as an extended family member of the States.
Meanwhile I also noted an article in the Mail on Line in which Sarah Bradford updated her biography of Jacqueline Kennedy. The article makes the point that she was well aware of her husband’s involvements with other women but anticipated that becoming President would restrict his activities but instead getting the High office meant he could have almost any women he wanted and she did not help the situation by being away for most of the summer and also spending weekends away at their rented horse farm in Virginia or the family seat in Cape Cod.
The author tells of one experience when a group of young single girls were invited to an after theatre party to meet the President who spent about ten minutes talking separately to each before disappearing with one for about 20 minutes. Jackie was present throughout and paid no attention. Another example was someone who would be “snuck” into the White House in the boot of car and taken down to the pool to swim with the President, What the writer of the latest edition of her book could not understand was why well known women like Angie Dickenson and Marilyn Monroe agreed to become the President’s lollipop of the day, Apparently Kennedy shocked Harold Macmillan by saying that he got a headache if he did not have sex once a day and he is then said to have told a famous secretary to the Senate Democrats that the sex had to be with someone new. The book was published on Friday
David Miliband spoke eloquently about the plight of the people of Syria now that the rest of the world appeared to have breathed a sigh of relief that they would not become more directly involved with the elimination of the chemical weapons. The state continued to disintegrate with between one in three to one in two people having moved from their homes either within the country or to neighbouring states and which he described was like the whole of the UK suddenly moving into the USA. In his role as Chief Executive of the world wide charity ( I wonder where it gets its substantial funds from?) he has to side step political views and this he did on the killing by a drone of the head of the Taliban in Pakistan, a vile man responsible for brutal murders and the promotion of terrorism. The USA argument is by eliminating this wanted individual it will be easier for the Pakistan Government to sort out through negotiation a deal with the Taliban which will enable peaceful coexistence. The medieval Taliban is just one end of a spectrum with the Muslim religious cultures just as there are extremism and an a spectrum of social care and responsibility within the Catholic and Protestant churches.
The issue raised in Sunday Live was the extent to which we in British society should tolerate women being required to cover their whole bodies except for their eyes because they were regarded only as sex objects for the control and pleasure of their men folk once they have reached puberty. On my way back from Newcastle recently I listened to an interview with one of the courageous ladies in Saudi Arabia who risked imprisonment by driving a car and who was pleased by the news that the Saudi government had at long last admitted that it had passed a law endorsing the requirements of its religious leaders who banned women driving in any circumstances.
While, as I have previously said, I was disappointed that in the opening BBC Free Thinking weekend lecture Sir Michael Mermot failed to produce any sort term realistic solution to Health Inequality within the UK, I shared his belief that the world wide solution will only be achieved by mothers insisting on children of both sexes being treated with equal rights and opportunities and which makes the actions and works of Malala such an important contribution.
The programme also featured Steve Cogan, a leading Hacked off campaigner who directed and starred in the film Philomena which opens this week. I had previously heard Dame Judy Dench, talk about the story in the Mayo and Kermode show and which struck chords with my mother who remained devout in her catholic faith through the hundred years of life despite everything that happened to her. It is the story of a woman whose son was take away from her and who then spent the greater part of her long life in search of what had happened to him. The film has met with universal praise as had the performance of Dame Judy. Coogan made the point that his film is an affirmation of the simple and straightforward faith which many people have rather than an attack on the church hierarchy who pursued various polices and covered up practices which had been rightly condemned. The ITV programme Surprise Surprise has twice in recent weeks covered stories of people who have searched over decades for siblings separated with in one instance a man unaware that he had a brother and a sister having been placed with a couple as a baby.
The Marr programme also coincided with David’s brother Ed publishing an article in which he disclosed his plan to give tax incentive to companies to companies who pay a living wage as opposed to the minimum wage and thus eliminate from those working the need to seek what can only described as poverty credit or go back to the a reliance of benefits. David was also more sanguine about the hateful attack by the Mail newspaper group on the loyalty and integrity of his father to his adopted country, although he appreciated the impact upon his mother.
The programme also included an interview with the remarkable Sir Elton John who eldest of his two adopted children will start school in 2015 and where he intends to focus on being home for the life changing event. The reason for the interview is that he has made the substantial donation for a new modern organ for the Royal College of Music which he attended on Saturdays as a scholar and which gave him the formal musical structure which has since proved invaluable, He also funds eight scholarship so that working class kids like him can also gain a similar opportunity.
Having appeared to take the side of politicians against he media recently although my side is really those who have suffered because of the excesses of the print media as will be unfolded over the coming weeks, I should mention a news item raised on the Marr programme from a Sunday Telegraph article that 340 Members of Parliament have obtained Parliamentary expenses for their second home energy bills and which is said to explain why some of them are not pressing for immediate action to be taken against the robber energy barons/ The Independent on Sunday mentions that individual expense amounts can be as high as £6000.
I decided against going out to see the Newcastle game against Chelsea on Saturday lunch time still recovering from shattered Friday and missed a great treat as I listened to the Five Live Radio broadcast. The side played a caution structured defensive first half when Chelsea for some reason appeared never to get out of first or second gear so that when Newcastle brought on some more of their big guns in the second half they commences to create goal scoring opportunity after goal scoring opportunity. They won the game with a second goal as the final whistle approach although they total could have been fur with the chances that they created.
The win takes back into the top half of the table at ninth while Sunderland after the glory of winning the derby gave away an own goal and then had two men sent of in a matter of minutes as the first half. They fought hard in the second and nearly equalised but they look now doomed to relegation. Chelsea’s defeat means that Arsenal have a 5 point gap over them Liverpool and Spurs on 20 followed by Man City, the surprise team Southampton and Everton on 19 with Man U on 17 and then Newcastle as high as I expect them to remain if Southampton’s great run continues.
The English Rugby League side after losing to Australia last week faced a poor side from Ireland and stormed the first half into a 40 point lead however they failed to hammer home their superiority in the second leading to a long locker room inquisition. The final result was 42 to 0. The great result of the weekend is that the USA beat Wales by 24 to 16. Australia showing their superiority walloping Fiji , England’s next opponents 34 to 2 I Rugby Union England came back to win a tight game against Australia 20 13, while Newcastle back in the top division after a season in the second were thrashed by the leaders 4 to 3 However they are fourth from bottom and have a ten point cushion over Worcester.
Sebastian Vettel does not know how to let up from having won the driver’s championship with races to spare he went on to his fifth successive win earlier today,
I was very impressed by Strictly Come Dancing as the remaining competitions stepped up performances and with one couple gain the first ten, two, of this present series. In contrast the X Factor was a mixture with Disco week proving a challenge as it usually does given that the numbers are for dancing and rave dancing rather than listening to. The surprising exception was ballad singer Sam Bailey and all three of the younger women also did exceptionally well. The boys and the bands did not.
I have viewed two so so films, the Gangster Squad a secret do what necessary against the corrupt rule of a city gangster and Beautiful Creatures about a teen mortal coming into contact with a teen with special powers whose family are split between their light and dark sides. Good for Halloween where some of costumes seen on Thursday revealed some creative hard work. I have also caught up on the first episodes of Masters of Sex which merits special attention sometime.
No comments:
Post a Comment