Tag Archives: David Cameron

April 26, 2013 · 01:27

The press has another go

It is always fun to see a repeat of what has been there already. So I was not that surprised watching Sky News and getting another press approach for their regulations. They found another person to step in front of the camera. They made sure that this time there is an utter lack of arrogance. It turned into a casually moment of pointing blame on the politicians. In this case it was John Witherow from the Times. Well, the message is actually simple Mr Spokesperson we the people do not trust you at present!

All this is happening right when another editor of the Sun is being charged (Duncan Lacombe).

So we have the journalists in a corner for a change, oh goody! THEIR view of ‘the people have a right to know‘ has so far seemed to be nothing less than the option to overrule the people’s privacy at a moment’s notice.

It is of course an issue listening to Sky News for the simple reason that they are journalists themselves. Things seem to be pressed on one side and trivialised on the other. I still hang to the original idea that the Leveson report should completely be implemented with a (non-)political option of legislation.

Before you judge me to be against freedom of speech then you are wrong. I am all for freedom of the press, yet the Murdoch crowd (sorry for generalising this) has proven that their freedom to do whatever they like should not be an option even again. You see, one side we have the freedom of speech and on the other side we have the right to privacy, which too often is crushed by the press stating ‘the people have a right to know‘, whilst in reality it is just about making the quick visible exclusive visibility and their need of ego at the expense of anything else.

Issues that also surfaced (the Milly Dowler case) is yet another example. In that case not only was there no investigation, there is even more issues with a police force that as stated by sky news on April 25th ‘has a case of collective amnesia‘.

Or as quoting a line by the Guardian of April 24th 2013 “while a former senior officer from Surrey police said the press was ‘untouchable and all powerful’“. So not only is the press doing whatever it likes, it is interfering with police investigations, like they are the flipping ‘Special Branch’ (since 2006 known as SO15). Perhaps Commander Richard Walton could confirm whether the press is currently on their pay roll, which would allow for some awesome cost cutting solutions. Mr David Cameron would be so pleased.

We might never know what happened in the case of Milly Dowler. It is not unlikely that the phone hacking resulted in a loss of messages. Lost voice mail messages that could have assisted the Surrey Police department in their investigation. It is interesting that I read in the Guardian “An NoW journalist (name redacted)” It is interesting how that Journalist was redacted. So, Mr Witherow, how about the option of name redaction to be removed as a right for Journalists? How about an open name and shame issue where those people who seemed to have harassing the Surrey Police to be openly known to all. By your own words: ‘the people have a right to know‘.

My bigger issue is with some of the points mentioned (I will be playing the devil’s advocate here).

 1. A majority of independent members on all the bodies of the new regulator, with open and transparent appointments.
– My worry is that those appointments might not be as independent as we would like.

2. Public involvement in how the new Code of Practice will be framed.
– My worry is that this is one certain way to get loopholes placed and more of an issue is the delay that this public involvement brings. Delays the press would love to see going on and on and on.

I do agree that regulation should remain outside of the reach of politicians. Yet, adding regulations, even if it was a clear regulation to the conduct of the members of the press is needed. This is the part all media seem to be fighting, as they seem to prefer to remain footloose, fancy free and non-accountable. This is where I am no longer on their side (as the evidence over the last few has proved).

Yet, there is another side to journalism which I do not want to ignore. For every 500 half-baked phone mail chasers that call themselves ‘investigative jounalists’ there will be a real journalist like Paul Lewis or David Bergman (that group is larger than these two, but a lot smaller than most might realise). Here is the crux as they say. I would not want to hinder a journalist like David Bergman, or those hoping to step in his footsteps. Yet, the kind of ‘writers’ that many have been confronted with in the past, especially celebrities and victims of high profile cases there is one journalist that is there to dig into the shady sides of people, collecting specific information in whatever way they can to uncover the truth and the reality.

This reminds me of a scene in the West wing Season 2 episode ‘War Crimes’:
Will: “I don’t like being a stenographer. And I don’t like writing gossip. I read a column last week where a lady bemoaned the decade of scandals she’s had to cover, as if the news was to blame for the quality of journalism. I don’t know if there’s ever been a more important time to be good at what I do. Can you imagine how much I don’t give a damn about what Toby said to a staffer?“

It makes my point stronger then I could (it is Aaron Sorkin at his best). Too many Journalists are way too happy to cover gossip and get their stardom visibly shown in any way they can. The environment made them that way and it must change. I am still baffled by the issues, delays and opposition against the Leveson report. If anything, that report shows the weaknesses and also called for proper legislation and regulation to protect the privacy of people (without stopping the freedom of speech). Of course this is not what the press wants as they want to just do, post and publish whatever they like, especially when it is about ratings and circulation.

The only thing that is currently interesting is that at present politicians are trusted more than journalists are. Who would have ever thought that such a day would ever become a reality?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

March 16, 2013 · 21:32

More phones on the hack

So, apparently the phone hacking scandal is far from over. Not only are more claims placed against Murdoch, there is also additional talks of other papers being involved in these matters.

This happens just as a royal charter on press regulations could end up getting vetoed by Nick Clegg.

There are definitely sides the parties do not agree on. Also mentioned in the articles from the Guardian is the response by Lloyd Embley, editor in chief for the Mirror. In an article by Mark Sweney he states: “the protracted talks could turn into a ‘political football’.” (article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/13/leveson-discussions-castrate-press-lloyd-embley)

He has a good point, instead of a few pollies thinking they know what they do, it seems decent, to follow Lord Justice Leveson who actually knows what needs doing. Lloyd Embley also states in that article “If we don’t get it right it will end up castrating the press“. To be honest, with all the new phone hacking allegations, making those editors members of boys choir ‘Mare Castratum’ does not seem to be an overly bad idea at present.

I am all for freedom of speech, yet it seems that those members seem to value the news and revenue at the expense of everything and everyone. This has all been said before (by me), but the part that is still lacking visibility is that the investigations will now run into the deep end of 2015. So, the taxpayer will be paying groups of police officers and members of the CPS to get through this mess. So, as the press seems to be lacking in professional issues like ethics. The issue that arrests were made on Thursday 13th March, including FORMER Sunday Mirror editor Tina Weaver. The arrest does not yet mean that Weaver is guilty (others were arrested too). There is now however a phase of damage control which likely falls largely on the desk of Lloyd Embley. With all his efforts in growing the Mirror brand on-line, it seems to me that he needs all this like a hole in the head.

There is however another side to this all. The Tories might find themselves out of the political office sooner rather than later. Reason for this is twofold. First there seems to be a breach between Nick Clegg and David Cameron. They do not seem to be in full agreement here and Labour seems to partner with Liberal Democrats as they seem to be fully in agreement with Lord Justice Leveson on the implementation of regulations.

So next week the PM will have a fun day as he tries to get past attempts to make press regulations to be too toothless. This is in my view the effect if the industry gets to vote on who is in charge of the watchdog that watches them. So Labour definitely has a point there. There is however another side we must not forget. It seems that there is a sizeable group of Tories who are pro-Leveson. This gives Labour a staggering amount of power. So, considering these facts, why would the PM try to continue his approach? Is it because of ideology? Consider that the Guardian reported last November that 30 Tories supported the Leveson report. Whether the all still support that remains to be seen, yet the idea of both sides of the isle supporting such a charter is not that common. Still, it could be a close call. Should labour truly unite, considering the 30 additional votes and perhaps even most from the group of Clegg (aka Liberal Democrats), then the chances of the Leveson report getting implemented would be really strong. The fact that Nick Clegg seems to align with Labour on this only increases the pressure on David Cameron.

This must be one of Rupert Murdoch’s worst nightmares!

Not only is he going to face additional time in the ‘dock’ answering questions regarding the new cases, there is every chance that anything he tries to state with a style of…. what is that word again? Ah yes, diplomacy, will send even more Tories breathing fire as they defect to the side of labour in this case. There is of course the risk that some labour members will actually not support the Leveson report. I did not see any strong voices of this, but it is possible. It seems however that David Cameron would need slightly more than 5% of labour to walk to his side if he is to avoid a not so slightly uncomfortable defeat.

This option seems however less and less likely. Consider other Tories like Lord Fowler (served during Dame Margaret thatcher’s cabinet), who gave his direct support against PM David Cameron in the British Huffington post last January and in favour of the Leveson report. Considering these facts and also considering that Lord Fowler is not the only Tory thinking this, why would the PM continue on the path he currently is on?

In the end should this all come to pass in favour of the Leveson report then Lord Justice Leveson will move as the  with an epic achievement as he becomes the new Chancellor of LJMU (Liverpool John Moores University).

My remaining worry? Whomever takes over from the Lord Justice needs to have the strong backbone the Lord Justice has shown. In addition, those new reported cases, who will sit in judgement when the Lord Justice moves to his new position in May 2013?

I am more than happy to volunteer, as it is on my road to become a law lord. However, I reckon I should finish my Law Masters first and after that at least half a dozen other achievements until the position of Judge of Appeal could be realistically mine. (We should however never ignore our dreams).

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

February 13, 2013 · 00:33

Press legislation, or not?

It was not too long ago, that we heard all manner of harsh words and political contemplations on those bad bad bad press folks. All those phone hackers!

And yes, it did not take too long for parties to react and a long investigation started. It resulted in a report by the Honourable Lord Justice Leveson spanning around 2000 pages, making it a bigger work then the Lord of the Rings; yet, I guarantee it, not as entertaining to read. Many seem to agree with me. The issue however, is not the entertainment, but it was a serious look at the visibly failing ethicality of the press and it’s ‘assistants’.

Yet, it seems that the views from that report will be largely ignored. We await the release of a Royal charter for PRESS regulations in the coming week. So, how do we feel about this? The Guardian reported on the possible compromise by Labour. No matter where you stand as Labour, Tory or Independent. It is clear that there is a high issue. The PM mentioned the dangers on infringing free speech. Whether we see this as a compromise towards the press, or the ideological view is OUR view, and the view of the PM. We all fear dangers and threats to free speech and history proved that this fear is rightly so.
The issue more than team Murdoch getting caught with their fingers in the bugging cookie jar. It is about the standard and ethics of the journo’s that is the question. The evidence seems clear and overwhelming that as their papers need revenue to keep value, some were eager for money (read income) and had not too many issues throwing ethics straight into the Thames and have a free for all.

The questions then becomes, is the PM correct and should the charter suffice, OR is his honour correct and the need for legislation becomes paramount. His deputy Nick Clegg has been outspoken on the side of the Leveson report, and as such it is that the top players do not see eye to eye on this matter.

The question is whether it is a clear eye to eye, or that the involved parties (read people of the press) have lost the credibility and trust to continue the way they currently are. The issue we should not forget is that the true core of the press is a lot larger that most of us realise and most of them work hard, they keep ethics high and get published. Some break our hearts, dent our faith and crush our strength with the facts they report. So the report gives us another view. Can we actually ignore it all? Is that not wrong to those who kept the banner of Journalism high? Legislation would ensure THEIR good handling.

The issue that the PM fairly raises is that legislation would be more complicated and create a vehicle for politicians in the future to impose regulation and obligations on the press. I would like to add to that, that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Even if I ignored the fear he voices on limiting freedom of the press down the road there is an actual impasse. We would all feel divided between the two sides. They are both fair sides.

What stopped me from hailing the move towards legislation is what i had been reading lately involving several economic issues. Could legislation be used as a shelter for economic manipulation? How long until these matters get intertwined and there is such lack of legal clarity that a hedge fund gets ‘misquoted’ and the blame is pushed unto the press with all the, messages of ‘oops’ and reference to an honest miscommunication.

This comes from the NY times 9th July 2012 “Bank Scandal Turns Spotlight to Regulators”

That belief, some regulators say, stemmed from a “miscommunication,” rather than instructions from Mr Tucker. The bank also never explicitly told regulators that it was reporting false interest rates that amounted to manipulation, according to regulatory documents.

So, if this was taken as truth, then we see here an example how media regulation would just complicate matter. What if ‘them’ is a financial reporter, or just anyone in the press picking up a nice piece of news? For that matter, if I got a $1 for every mention of miscommunication I heard over the last 20 years, and if that rule only applied to people who were senior manager of higher then I would buy an island like Guernsey (or the Falkland’s with an additional free Frigate).

From those sides, and views I would see that the PM (alas) has a point. On his side is also Adrian Jeakings, president of the UK Newspaper society. He too believes that the industry is capable of policing the press. That part I wish to oppose. You see, they will play nice, they will be quiet and humble and so on, but how long until the 1,000,000 pound fine will be diminished, because it will only hurt more then it will do good? How long until some of them will transgress to the point that they should be criminally charged? At that point a QC will come into the court mentioning ‘honest mistake’, ‘my client is truly sorry and remorseful’ and so on.
This prospect moves me straight back into Camp Leveson (to coin a phrase). There is no doubt. Some of us will go one way, some the other way. No matter how we feel, we are not indifferent.

Perhaps reading the Royal charter when released will help us to clear our heads and accept that charter, or push us into demanding legislation. I do know that we have not seen the end of this any day soon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

Tagged as , , , , ,

January 7, 2013 · 19:02

Be the change you want to see in the world

Well, here is my second attempt to today’s blog. The first one went almost into burn down mode, so it is not getting published, but it does have elements that might make it later.

Why mention this?

It seems that there are several areas where we could look for a probable initial solution to diminish the danger to women in India. Yes, a straight law and a ‘functioning’ police system there would work, but the overwhelming feeling I had was the oddity of it all. India is not a little village in the middle of nowhere. That place has a few more people than most. Almost 20% of the entire population of the planet lives there, so what to do?

So, now I mention the next fact that bothered me. NO ONE helped! Everyone was standing by all in a state of apathy. This got my goat! I’ll happily spend 20 years in prison for decapitating some rapist in the street, and I know I am not the only one feeling that way (I am likely the only psycho who would actually do it though). SO, if we consider the aggravation a population has when so many people live close together, then the inaction makes even less sense to me. I personally do not belief it would be a religious thing, because we were all children, and most of us become parents, so that primal rage to protect innocence is in all of us.

Good Samaritan laws are there to do something in aid of others. I personally belief that it is for the simple reason that the police cannot be everywhere all the time and the following duty to rescue that follows from it could drive down violence statistics and it also means that people will come to the aid of these innocent women. Isn’t it interesting that hundreds get raped, yet Richard Gere got a warrant instantly for a kiss? How interesting this looks against the rape victims who have to wait for week to get any kind of acknowledgement (especially by the police).
So let’s talk about the Good Samaritan Act.

The US does have Good Samaritan acts; however this does not seem to be the same for all states. In many states this umbrella will only protect professional assistance. Nurses, rescue workers are in those cases protected against liability (as it should), however, a bystander rendering assistance, could in theory get sued in several states, and under certain conditions. Volunteers are often protected (unless gross negligence can be proven).

The Good Samaritan act exists in almost identical forms in many Common Law countries. It is important to note that this is only their as a defence in criminal and Tort law cases. It is not a duty to rescue, a duty that professional workers are bound to (fire fighters, emergency medical staff and so on). We could see the Good Samaritan Act (GSA after this) as a moral compass for those who do not act. Do you really want to be bystander telling a judge in court that you wanted to help, but alas. That darn broken nail prevented you from applying pressure to a fatal wound bleeding out (of course some faint at the sight of blood, and that in not something they can control).

There are however places where the Duty to rescue applies to its citizens. In Germany and Canada (yes go figure), these two have a law in place that OBLIGES a person to give aid where needed, and as long as their assistance was given in good faith, this law also protects them from prosecution. It is a much stronger version then the GSA, I personally am on the fence whether we should go for GSA or Duty to Rescue. However, the Canadian version was short to the point and in simple English written, so it seems to be a simple ‘rule’ to follow. I personally think that it is not a bad thing to render aid when needed. Personally I must notice that Canadians tend to be much too nice and will give aid and render assistance at the drop of a hat (any hat). This makes life north of the US extremely liveable and friendly flavoured.

The Daily News and Analyses from Mumbai reported on the 6th of January “Coming to someone’s rescue — an accident victim or a woman violated — is fraught with risks. The good Samaritan will be summoned to the police station several times, sometimes at odd hours, forced to become an eye-witness, and seldom offered any protection, even if he/she is ready to testify in court against a dreaded criminal who probably has the means to hurt the witness.”

From these words it seems that there is no proper GSA active in India. This changes everything, and the fact that many newscasts seem to have ignored that little fact seems to bias us in the wrong way about India. When the need is there we would all happily help, but often not at our own expense. So it seems that in India the consequences to the financial stability (and therefor the family of the one helping) could be very consequential. It therefor becomes clear that this stops people people from rendering aid. Why was this not tackled?

The interesting part is that:

  1. I am not that clever (really I am not).
  2. This has been going on in India for some time.

No one in Indian Legislation, or the Bar council of India could have started this? This has been going on for years. It is time that questions should be raised quite loudly in this regard and in my humble opinion.

My first thought is that a group of people that others might have heard of at some point should speak out on this issue. For example Prime Ministers Julia Gillard (AUS), David Cameron (UK) and President Barack Obama (US). Then off course a few other names come to mind. Lord Neuberger, Lord Hope, Lady Hale to name just 3 of the 12 that come to mind at present. In that regard Australia might have a few titans to contribute to this cause. There is former Justice Michael Donald Kirby and not to forget Sir Gerard Brennan who is actually presently in office holding the position of Justice of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong. These people are not just names to throw around.

The reason for the three UK justices I mentioned is because I have always seen England as the foundation of law in Australia (it actually is). They are also the roots of law for India, and even though most of us have adapted the protection through the Good Samaritan act, it is interesting that India does not have such an approach (or so it seems to me, so if I am wrong please correct me).

Now, it seems to me that others might be able to help in this regards. The UK at present still enjoys an annoying (read frustrating) amount of red tape all over the place (also locally known as rules of the game). These rules dictate that at some point people become members of an elite squad of people given long term paid vacation (aka pushed into mandatory retirement, and at times against their wills). Amongst these people are Lord Walker, Baron Walker of Gestingthorpe (as per march 2013) and Lord Hope, Baron Hope of Craighead (as per June 2013). These two are Legislative Titans!

As law lords they could be the experts to offer expertise with their views of Legislation, which could assist India direly needs for implementing a clear and quality Good Samaritan Act; one that might give actual support to the women of India, aiding their protection against the current waves of violence that they face. More important, the gang rapes would then be stoppable by all. It would be a strong first step to make things a lot better for women in India.

So, from the thoughts we all might have had on who to blame for their non safety, we moved to a how to fix this. I do think that additional changes are needed. As mentioned in the Daily News and Analyses, people who helped are picked up, have to give statements and it seems that the approach there is extremely discouraging to give aid. That part would have to change too. Combined it will bring improvement to the women in danger there.

Perhaps I am still too naïve at times, but if we selected the field of law, is it not in our interest to make the laws better, more just and more protective for victims?

These thoughts also reflect the thoughts of the founding father of modern India, the Honorable Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Inner Temple), stated as displayed at the bar council of India website “Be the change that you want to see in the world”, words to live by!

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

Tagged as , , , , , ,