Tag Archives: Leveson

July 19, 2013 · 15:44

The Setting of strategies

The danger of any person trying to look through the mud that we know as political strategies related to ‘what is real’ and ‘what is unlikely’. There is no ‘non-reality’!
We know that certain steps have been staged (as a good politician would). This staging is not unlike the game ‘GO’ where we place the pebbles in such a way that entices to other to place their pebbles, completing our strategies.

This I discussed in last week’s blog involving the fading pension plans. Yes, and as suspected, whilst Dutch politicians are in vacation mode, the Dutch pension funds are now filling the Dutch with dread of a possible 10%-20% loss of retirement. That is some fear in their world of quick rising prices. (www.nos.nl)

Today is not about that, even though there are possible links! Today it is about renewed issues on telephone taps and how the powerful Murdoch gets another painted target. Yet are his words so wrong? We had the phone tap probe, we have seen the Leveson report, and instead of actually acting on the Leveson report as much as possible. Parties involved seem to be having another go at Rupert ‘the Piñata’ Murdoch. A lot or the press is getting a little sour as words are hashed and rehashed into statements of whatever they could be called.

You see, is this an ACTUAL criminal investigation, you know the one with barristers, judges and both parties taking notice of the evidence act?

Or is this another inquiry that has gone on for two years, giving more visibility to Chairman Keith Vaz and a few other political head honcho’s? Do not think that I am on Mr Murdoch’s side. I will instantly stand by the views of Hugh Grant and Lord Justice Leveson in the attack on the events that surrounded phone hacking, and not just the Sun/News of the world.

There is however the valid thought that cooperation is required and should be given. However the following quote “The committee has heard from the Metropolitan Police’s assistant commissioner Cressida Dick that since May ‘voluntary co-operation (with News UK) has been significantly reduced’ and that police have had to obtain court orders regards ‘requests for new material’“.

Is that the issue? This has gone on for 2 years now. Is thus the statement by Mr Murdoch “totally incompetent” when it comes to describing the acts by the Metropolitan Police entirely wrong? If this has gone on now for 2 years, then yes, I think it is time to look at the questions being asked, and asking additional relevant questions to the investigating offices.

Not doing so could turn this entire phone hacking scandal into a fair label of ‘Witch hunt’ and as such, I would see this as the premise to attack the Leveson report. This is because the two are linked. I remain in favour of implementing the entire Leveson report. Not because I am so much in the know of things, but because I have utter faith in the wisdom of Lord Justice Leveson. Those who claim to know and judge the report as invalid, whilst not in possession of a Law doctorate are required to remain very silent on the matter, unless they show actual valid documentation! I admit that this is slightly strong wording, yet having listened to a few people blatantly attacking the Leveson report in favour of unmonitored freedom of the press, after which I asked in regards to the reports footnote 417 in regards to the accuracy of information, their….. ‘emotional repartee’ in my direction gave me what I needed to know. (They had no clue, or better stated, having never read the Leveson report).

By the way, that footnote is “Clause 1(i) of the PCC Code requires the press to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures” (page 673, Leveson report).

If we could only apply this requirement to advertisements at times! (Big Smiles).

So we must prevent that these events to ‘evolve’ into a witch hunt. I am NOT stating that this is happening, but after 2 years that image is starting to linger and that is wrong too. My issue is with the statement that was in that same Sky news article (at http://news.sky.com/story/1117618/murdoch-phone-hacking-probe-excessive)

“In his letter he set out how the company disclosed 500,000 documents after 185,000 man hours at a cost of more than £65m.” When the coffers are at minus 1 trillion and student costs are growing and growing, these costs are only excessive if the government is not able to make Mr Murdoch pay for these costs.

I personally have always been to mind that once we need to focus and stretch the actual letter of speech, we lose facts of what is the goal. Basically, in these words I am wondering whether the committee has lost the view of the Big picture. (My apologies if I am incorrect).

So where is the issue of strategy? Well, if we read the “The Leveson Report: implementation” (at http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06535), then at 6.5 (in the full PDF version) we see some additional delays in implementing the Royal charter. I quote: “Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, my briefing says that it is not appropriate for the Privy Council to consider more than one royal charter at a time on the same issue. The noble Lord may consider that the Press Standards Board of Finance has therefore been extremely clever in what it has done and may draw his conclusions from that – and that accounts for some of the delay.”

So we have more delays. Granted that they are procedural, but I wonder how many papers have reported on that delay? I reckon not many! Out of sight, out of mind is a valid strategy that has been in long standing with politicians and corporate spokes people all over the world.

So is this a strategy by Mr Murdoch to keep the focus away, or is this an investigation that is getting stretched in a very expensive way to stop your privacy from getting chartered protection? Not non-privacy by government (aka GCHQ), but by those who are making money out of side stepping commercial reasoning for ignoring privacy for the simple reasons of greed?

The issues of strategies are actually wider set then most will think. Against the Dutch pension issues, there is the view of George Osborne, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is viewed in the subtitle “A majority of directors at the Washington-based International Monetary Fund disagrees with its own advice on UK fiscal policy.” which is part of the article at http://news.sky.com/story/1117069/imf-board-disagrees-over-uk-fiscal-policy.

Even though this sounds good for the Exchequer, the issues of no tax rises in the upcoming years (or after 2015 as he states it) is not just short of wrong (at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/11/george-osborne-deficit-tax-rises) , I feel that this could only be kept if a play is made to the pension funds (like the Dutch are trying now), as well as the shale gas approach which is seen as ‘frackalicious’, yet, we should not forget the issues that the Dutch county ‘Groningen’ is going through as it has seen a rise in small earthquakes giving home owners massive costs to repair and additional losses in house values. These issues are to some extent denied/ignored as the investigation is going on, yet the damages that the people see in the news on a regular bases tells another story. At present corporations are now claiming for millions in damages from both the Dutch gas company (NAM) and the government. (at http://www.dvhn.nl/nieuws/groningen/article9972913.ece/Corporaties-claimen-miljoenen-bij-Nam) there is also the claim for compensation to be awarded for the loss of housing value, which adds up to over 10,000 houses for up to 25000 Euro. (Yet one house in the newscast has a value decrease of almost 150,000 Euro). Let us not forget that these were only test drilling, the actual drilling has not even commenced. If the exchequer is depending on these numbers then he might be in for a rough ride. In addition, even though Isla Britannia is decently larger then the Netherlands, there is enough evidence that these issues will have a serious impact on housings and the environment.

If this is all about strategy, then playing the cards close to the chest seems a debatable wisdom. Because when this all goes south, it is not about the Isle politicians are sitting on, but the issue whether there will be a nation left to serve.

Should you doubt that statement (which is fair enough), then consider on how ‘well‘ the US claims their economy is getting. The fact that Detroit is now bankrupt should be enough concern that the American way is not a solution.
We, the Commonwealth nations must stick together to stay afloat and survive, fight together to become the nations of true prosperity again.

None of these strategies are ready for that essential need!

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as ABP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Cressida Dick, current-events, Detroit bankrupt, GCHQ, George Osborne, Groningen, Guardian, Leveson, Lord Justice Leveson, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, NAM, NOS, politics, Press Standards Board of Finance, Rupert Murdoch, Shale gas, Sky News

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 13^th 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).

Conroy’s freedom of Speech

There have always been reasons to check out the front page banner of any newspaper. Some make us curious, some make us angry and some make us realise that the budgie cage needs cleaning. Whatever we think, we do tend to react to a banner.
So, like most people I also reacted. Now, personally I have a slightly less positive view on the Telegraph. So when a politician gets compared to Stalin, Jong-un, Mao Zedong and Castro, it tends to wake me up. My first thought being, now what is the media trying to get away with?

So I first took a little jump into what other media’s are stating and quoting. ABC quoted the following “He also announced plans to establish a new watchdog to ensure that media companies comply with independent journalism standards.”
In addition another newscast from ABC stated “The Federal Government has unveiled the long-awaited details of its proposal which enshrines media standards and tightens ownership regulation through an arms-length advocate to assess media mergers.”

This does not sound too bad, does it?

There is however opposition. ABC also mentioned the following “But independent MPs Andrew Wilkie and Rob Oakeshott have raised concerns about the laws. Mr Wilkie flagged the proposed public interest test for media ownership, saying the area is open to political interference.”

Both sides make clear arguments, yet, what is really at stake?

You see, from my point of view we need to do whatever we can so that we do not have to live and listen to the world according to Fairfax/Murdoch only. When there is a chance to keep the little ones in the field so that multiple views can be heard, the views we hear remain to be from a fair collection of voices.

For me there is another side that is not mentioned at present anywhere (or so at least it seems). Stronger self-regulations and stronger watchdogs were also clearly stated by Lord Justice Leveson. This issue is out far beyond the borders of Australia. The Leveson report is attacked by so many, yet this report shows how out of control the media is. Even though the report is focussed on the UK, there is a clear indication that the issue is playing FAR beyond those borders, and it is even an issue in nations NOT part of the Commonwealth where ‘Freedom of the press’ is nothing less than freedom to harass, freedom to stalk and freedom to display at the expense of everything and everyone for the need of profit and circulation. They however, refer to it as ‘the people have a right to know’.

The media seemed to be upset when the trials started, however I personally think that they seem to be more upset about the fact that they got found out mainly due to a trivial newscast in my humble opinion, than a ground breaking case of journalism.

Professor Ivor Gaber, professor of political journalism at City University London stated the following in his book ‘After Leveson’: “Many people have had much to say about the Leveson report, most of it pretty negative, but in his broad sweep of the relationship between the press and politicians, the good judge gets more right than wrong“.

As stated, the UK is in the middle of reforms halting and talks are breaking down at present. This was reported by the Guardian yesterday March 12th. So what is Senator Stephen Conroy about?
Well, first of all he is a politician and he is trying to get certain reforms in place. I would think that there is an Ego factor in place as well (let us not forget that he is a politician). If he pulls of certain reforms then not only will he look good to many many people. He will also be known as the man who was able to get reforms done, unlike his English counterparts, who are locked in a stalemate at present. So, I would say ‘Well done Stephen!’ at that point.

So is he a media dictator, or is he just in the way of a small group of upper level directors who need to fuel their altars devoted to money? That fair question is not really asked by the press is it?

He is quoted stating that the Australian people want the press to be held accountable. Is that so wrong? One side of the plans is to cut licensing fees in some instances so that the small players get a fair chance in this game. That part is supported by Independent senator Nick Xenophon. Xenophon mentioned in the same ABC story I quoted earlier that this part of the plan has merit. I reckon we can all agree that if the fees are too high, then the voice of Murdoch and Fairfax are all that remain at that point. This is NOT a good idea! Australians might agree that the small new players could bring us fresh artistic views in both news and media in general.

Consider the history of Oporto restaurant which was founded in 1986 by António Cerqueira. By media standards without the changes Conroy proposes, people like him might not exist in the future. We would be limited to Mac Donald and Hungry Jack. By giving smaller players a fair chance we get options, we will get to read and watch other opinions.

The plan of Conroy allows small media groups to reach a much larger audience in open honesty. That is one of his sides. So let us take a look at that. On the Department of broadband, Communication and Digital Economy the following issues were stated:

1. A press standards model which ensures strong self-regulation of the print and on-line news media.

2. The introduction of a Public Interest Test to ensure diversity considerations are taken into account for nationally significant media mergers and acquisitions.

3. Modernising the ABC and SBS charters to reflect their on-line and digital activities.

4. Supporting community television services following digital switchover by providing them a permanent allocation of a portion of Channel A.

5. Making permanent the 50% reduction in the licence fees paid by commercial television broadcasters, conditional on the broadcast of an additional 1460 hours of Australian content by 2015.

The first one is a good one. Giving the press some minimum standards cannot be a bad thing. He is NOT impeaching freedom of the press; he is basically stating that a minimum standard is required. In addition there is the part that the press would be held accountable. So when those ‘implied’ newsbytes, which call for rage and later are stated that they were ‘mis-communications’ might come to an end. I see this in the light of reading a newspaper and getting a much higher quality than a Facebook gossip byte. Is that a bad thing? In addition, do not forge that this is about self-regulation, not about government interference. Labor wants a real watchdog with teeth in place that monitors, not one that is government controlled. They want something better than a Chihuahua lapdog that yaps at time.

The second one is likely the one that keeps the big bosses of media awake for some time to come. This is about more than just the fear of big boys buying out the small ones and drown out smaller voices with the voice of the agenda of the big media owner. Make no mistake, that big media owner has an agenda. If you doubt that take a look at the front page of web search giant Yahoo. It is filled and almost drowning us with the Channel 7 views. Their branding, their ruling kitchen, their sunrise. Compare it to the American Yahoo page and see how small THAT American page is. Channel 7 is not the only one, make no mistake, they all do it in one form or another. When I personally interpret the second rule, I see a voice that states that diversity is always considered. This is to ensure that the smaller interest is never forgotten or ignored. Also, do not forget that no laws are broken here, the steps that Senator Conroy tries to implement is to make sure that the small voices are never lost.

The third one is the only one without a voice from me. I watch SBS, I seldom watch ABC, so I have no idea how out of touch their charter is. C’est la vie!

The fourth one is one I believe in. I never watch them, so why do I care? Because community is about just that, communities! There should be space for all, and to guarantee a space for them is just fair dinkum. Is that not the Australian way?

The fifth should be for us all, making it economically interesting for Australian content to be added to their channels. This is about more than just our voice. It will also grow the view of Australian arts. Australian made shows that might even grow our broadcasting interests on an international level.
If this drives us to get us new original drama that could equal shows like New Zealand’s achievement Top of the Lake, which by the way includes our own David Wenham and Thomas M. wright, as well as a respectable groups of high quality playing kiwi’s, then this is not a bad thing.
The fact that ABC pulled out of the funding here is a nice example (for whatever that reason was) and whether it was valid or not.

Now, I will be the first to admit that these issues should be looked at by more than just the mere blogger (like me). And in this regard I have very good company (as does Senator Conroy). We seem to be voicing the Clarion call of Lord Justice Leveson, who said pretty much the same thing and more (he did it in a document sized over 1900 pages). So that is where item’s one and two come from. Three is a local thing, so I will step over that one. Items 4 and 5 seem to be double edged. Not only do they imply to give strength and fair dinkum to the small fish. In addition it will give additional limit to the bigger boys. If they push diversity from within (whether it is for a discounted license fee or not), it will give a diversified voice and one that is not placed on the pedestal of other US/UK sitcoms. So people a lot wiser then me agree with me (OK, in honesty, I agree with them, but my ego requires a little nourishment at times), and the only ones out for the blood of Conroy seem to be those who dislike accountability.

Yet, is there validity from the other side? In all the articles that paint Senator Conroy in a not to favourable light, I actually found one voice that brought a decent point across. It was by Tom Morton at the Australian. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/the-onus-of-the-media-is-to-adopt-decent-standards/story-e6frgd0x-1226297524636)

He has concerns and opposes certain views, but he does address a fear we hold. A journalist SHOULD be held accountable. That is perhaps the biggest fear we have. From what we have seen in the past, most journalists seem to be too shielded with the slogan ‘the people have a right to know’. The fact that most Journo’s seem to get away with murder (figuratively speaking) is why the people would be empowering the acts of Senator Stephen Conroy.

The funny part is that if the press (especially in the UK) had dealt with these issues themselves much stronger, then the current changes might never have had a chance and the British taxpayer could have saved themselves many millions on an extremely chunky sized report.

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.