We have seen a fair collection of choices and changes that adds up towards the life and makings of a situation. If diplomacy fails, you extend it into war. If the statistical answer does not match, you change the question and when you are unable to remain a journalist, you create it through entrapment.
This is what we are confronted with today as we see the header “Sunday Mirror under pressure to reveal details of Tory minister ‘sexting’ sting” (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/28/sunday-mirror-pressure-reveal-details-tory-minister-sexting-sting-brooks-newmark). So as labour sees their political chances fall further and further, we see a labour based paper having a go at the Tories. Now, to be fair, having a go at Tories from a newspaper point of view is not wrong (I am one for the most myself), conservative publications have a go at labour, so I reckon when it is news, then we can state that all is fair in love and political envy. Yet, when the Lloyd Embley machine starts creating it through entrapment, we get another thing entirely.
So what happened?
“The reporter, who is not on the staff of the Sunday Mirror, created a fictional account of ‘Sophie Wittams’ on Twitter, which has since been deleted, and appears to have contacted at least six Conservative MPs including the latest Ukip defector, Mark Reckless“. So the Lloyd Embley machine seems to have played a game involving an exchange of explicit photographs. The quote “Newmark, who owns the investment firm Telesis Management and whose wealth was estimated at £3.2m in 2009, was contacted by ‘Sophie’, before engaging in a series of flirtatious messages and photograph exchanges“, so if this is exchange, whose photos were used?
It seems that the press still cannot get a grip on accountability. I personally think that it is time for the Lloyd Embley machine to feel the brunt of their utter ignorance (or let’s just call it greed based bashing). Instead of going just for a fine, how about shutting down the paper for let’s say three weeks? This means that those with subscriptions will get an alternative paper for three weeks (paid by the Trinity Mirror group). Now let’s see when money stops in its tracks, whether the editors get a firm wake up call.
There is more to this. It seems that even after the phone hacking scandal and after some of these so called journalists claimed that they can police themselves, we see more and more evidence that they can do nothing of the sort. These transgressions just show the essential need for the entire Leveson recommendation to be passed, which makes this new event upsetting to a fair amount of people.
So how about looking at this from the other side using a series of articles that the Mirror MUST publish on page one and it has to be an independent journalist chosen by the Conservative party. That journalist will get the ENTIRE page one, so no ads anywhere on that page.
Wouldn’t that just ‘sting’ the labour paper?
It is the last quote that is actually the most upsetting “A spokesman from Ipso said: “Ipso will look into any complaint about the story concerned if any such complaint is submitted.”“. This seems to clearly indicate that IPSO is utterly toothless (as implied by me in a previous blog) and as such might end up not being of any use, which was pretty much what the people of hacked off claimed IPSO to be. Now consider that IPSO starts their own webpage with this statement “IPSO is the new independent regulator for the newspaper and magazine industry in the UK. We uphold the highest standards of journalism by monitoring and maintaining the standards set out in the Editors’ Code of Practice“. Is that so?
Consider the Crimes Act 1900 for NSW, where we see at Part 5A False and misleading information, which holds section 307b/307c.
A person is guilty of an offence if (partial extraction as these parts seems to have been proven already):
(a) the person makes a statement (whether orally, in a document or in any other way), and
(b) the person does so knowing that, or reckless as to whether, the statement:
(i) is false or misleading, or
(ii) omits any matter or thing without which the statement is misleading, and
(c) the statement is made in connection with an application for an authority or benefit
The result is: Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years, or a fine of 200 penalty units, or both.
So why is the so called ‘reporter’ not arrested?
What was the name of the ‘journalist’?
Is the paper now obstructing justice? All fair questions I would state. Now, I used the Australian version of the Crimes Act, yet I feel at present decently certain that the UK has similar rules.
Whilst getting creative I considered the issues of consent, even though it reflects on sexual assault, we could argue that the MP got screwed by a journalist. So was there consent? Well Section 61HA (5) tells us ‘A person does not consent‘, where ‘(a) under a mistaken belief as to the identity of the other person‘, which is proven as the woman in the images was never part of this. In addition there is subtopic c, which states ‘under any other mistaken belief about the nature of the act induced by fraudulent means‘, well fraudulent means is certainly the case here, so again the paper loses out. In reality, these parts do not apply as there was no real penetration (as described in the Crimes Act 1900), yet the MP got screwed then he got hosed, so I reckon we can be flexible here as IPSO seems to have little intent of keeping the highest standards, just me observing those who do not meet them, which we get from their own quote.
As the Criminal Act 1900 NSW talks about penetration, there are a few issues here, yet as this is the UK, they have a few other sides, as they will use the Sexual Offences Act 2003. I will not go into it, because Matthew Scott, who has the ‘Barrister Blogger’, has quite the article on it (at http://barristerblogger.com/2014/09/28/tricked-sex-fraud-sunday-mirrors-sting-brookes-newmark-criminal/)
I see news coming in regards to monitoring on how we have a right to speak, how we should have privacy, but what about accountability? If the press cannot be held accountable whilst they engage in unadulterated entrapment, should we even be allowed an internet? So, how does that relate? We seem to think that we can do whatever pleases us in a form of freedom of opinion, no matter how false the statements are. We are all de-evolving into a state of anarchy and chaos. If there is a path that leads somewhere then it might be open to debate, but that is not the case. Whilst we ‘bicker’ over how we can speak about everything, we leave big business unchecked to do what they want and leave us without anything.
I have made several observations on a failing press, whilst no one is taking notice on how we never had any rights in the first place. How these ‘holier than though‘ editors seem to regard harlotry above integrity, my evidence in this? The User agreement changes Sony pushed through a week before the release of the PS4 ‘Pricing a Sony game!‘ on November 20th 2013, the list goes on, but this is not about advertising my blog, or revisiting too many old articles.
Because as we see the events unfurl, we now have a new iteration of information as the daily mail is mulling over all that information and these photographs again. It is there where we find these two final quotes: “And criminal barrister Matthew Scott wrote on his blog yesterday: ‘What conceivable public interest was served by tricking Mr Newmark in this way?” Well in my opinion there was no public interest, it is a clear cut slam bash from a labour based paper to have a go at a conservative.
And “Lloyd Embley, editor-in-chief of the Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror, defended the story after former BBC journalist Sue Llewellyn claimed it was ‘unethical’. He tweeted: ‘1) it wasn’t a Mirror sting 2) there’s a nailed-on public interest.’“, my response? It was a mirror sting. From the current information this came from a reporter not employed by the Mirror, which means that in my view you Lloyd Embley are directly responsible and accountable! You see, if you are not, then this means that you are not really an editor (they tend to know EVERYTHING that happens at their newspaper), which makes you redundant! In the second, there is at present direct indication that these events follow from criminal activities. In that we get a nice last issue as presented by the Press Complaints Commission “iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation“.
Yes, now consider that it is the press themselves that is knowingly misleading the public in the most intentional way!
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 