Tag Archives: Viscount Rothermere


I am angry and I need your help!

This is not some weak story about a person who is lost, this is a story about a person who is determined. You see, we have all had enough of the press to some extend and now the time is right to give them a little medicine of their own. This all started as I saw this article ‘Matrix director Lilly Wachowski comes out as a transgender woman’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/09/matrix-director-lilly-wachowski-comes-out-as-a-transgender-woman). This seemed not a biggie at first, people make choices, they make them of their own accord and initially I shrugged and thought nothing of it. It is the subtitle that got my blood boiling, almost in a literal way. It stated “she went public after Britain’s Daily Mail ‘threatened public outing’“, now add to this the quote “she referred to the incident as a “threatened public outing against my will”, drawing comparisons to a similar incident involving the paper“. Now add the following parts: “Lucy Meadows, took her life after the Daily Mail published a column by Richard Littlejohn titled “He’s not only in the wrong body … he’s in the wrong job”. Michael Singleton, coroner for Blackburn, Hyndburn and Rossendale, criticised the “sensational and salacious” coverage which he blamed for her death” and “I just wanted – needed – some time to get my head right, to feel comfortable. But apparently I don’t get to decide this“. Well, let’s see if we can change that. I think that change is inevitable, especially if we all unite. You see, from my point of view when ‘pussies’ like that prey on those in vulnerable positions, whilst at the same time ignore transgressions by places like Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) and a few other players, I feel it has become important to change the game that some Journo’s have been playing.

So, let’s turn the tables, especially for those in the UK. Let’s open our offensive on people like Paul Dacre, the Journo’s at the Daily Mail and DMG Media with Viscount Rothermere (for now). Let’s put them in the spotlight!

First up – Viscount Rothermere

Rothermere believes the Daily Mail has been “built on solid ground” and a unique place in the market (Leveson testimony). In my view, as seen in the Guardian as stated by Lilly Wachowsky: “a journalist from Britain’s Daily Mail attempted to coerce her“, so Harold, that unique place, is that coercing people? Why not show some balls and try that on Ian Powell and Gaenor Bagley and coerce some information regarding PwC’s alleged action with Tesco? Perhaps they will give you the goods or that coercing Journo and you will end up with a real scoop, you know, the kind of real ground-breaking stuff towards possible criminal indictment and so on. Or is that a little bit too much of a stretch? Or perhaps there is the ever so slight chance that they will strike back in different ways? Now consider “Rothermere says: “built on a fundamental belief in a trust in journalism as opposed to technology. That’s what makes me proud“, yes, coercing laptops is a little hard, unless you hack them, which might be not all on the up and up legally seen. Finally we get the quote (from the Leveson part) “he is confident the Daily Mail has acted ethically. ‘And I am willing to stand up for us’“, which can be clearly thrown out of the window regarding Lilly Wachowsky. I wonder if we see shrugs, excuses (by stating: ‘It’s on the desk of Paul Dacre’) and other modes of a trans-neglecting mindset.

Second up – Paul Dacre

In December 2015 he proclaimed that he is all about Freedom of Information. He stated: “In the main, I suspect, dislike of FoI is driven by Whitehall’s belief that civil servants should be exempt from public scrutiny. This is in my view counter-productive, and perceived by the public simply as a compulsion to cover backsides“, so is that FoI under any option? Like coercion, blackmail, hacking? Whilst Paul was nice enough to have the quote: “an elitist political class protecting its own interests“, which is like the Journo calling the Politician selfish. That is not the idea we get when their profit is numbers of circulation and now includes Coercion, we can hope it is ONLY coercion (meaning the least offensive way) you get to feed your papers circulation with.

Now let’s get back to 2013 (at http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/03/miliband-daily-mail-inquiry_n_4038824.html), where we see: “The chairman of the Daily Mail and General Trust has apologised to Ed Miliband after a reporter turned up uninvited at a family memorial service, but insisted the incident did not reflect the “culture and practices” of his papers“, which we can of course set as fictional when we see the ordeal of Lilly Wachowski just faced.

So until the Daily Mail starts their front-page with ‘alleged trans gender’s Harold Jonathan Harmsworth and Paul Dacre surprised their staff by growing some balls‘, they have now promised to actively dig into the involvement of PwC regarding Tesco. I very much doubt that it will ever happen, so until that moment comes, why don’t we make sure that the public at large gets to see every act from these Daily Mail journalists and their family members? I reckon that the public has a right to know, let’s see how many articles and photographs it takes for these revelations until we get:

  1. Some fake apology
  2. Threats that there is oppression against the freedom of the press
  3. Demands from Whitehall against acts that endangers the independence of journalists.

In all this, it seems utterly unlikely that the Daily Mail will hold itself up to any scrutiny and any level of Ethics and/or Integrity.


Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

About the child

This all started innocently enough. Here I was, reading on the facts for an exam next week and suddenly, during my break the news on David Beckham passes by. Now, personally I do not care about him (no offense intended). He is a soccer player, and I am not much of a soccer fan, so I was about to click next when the title hit me ‘‘No right to criticise’: David Beckham hits back at Daily Mail coverage’, which is funny on two parts, the first that someone gives any consideration to the Daily Mail is funny enough, especially when ‘Still in the honeymoon phase! Michelle Keegan flaunts her long legs in stripy mini-dress as she goes hand-in-hand with husband Mark Wright in LA‘ is considered headline news. The second reason is that this is about a child (yes, a small non-grown up individual) using a dummy.

And the by-line is ‘Experts warn David and Victoria Beckham’s little girl….‘, giving plenty of hilarious consideration as the ‘expert’ either knows all the facts (as a consultant of the parent) and as such he/she has broken all kinds of ethical standards, or the person (in the article named as Clare Byam-Cook) is not entirely aware of the massive lack of data she should have before speaking. Consider the Facts (at http://www.contentedbaby.com/team-Clare-Byam-Cook.htm), she is 49, she is a qualified nurse and ‘retired’ from being a midwife in 1985, which is 30 (yes THIRTY) years ago, so 49-30 is? She retired from being a midwife at the age of 19! Can anyone explain her ‘expertise’ to me? If she retired in 2015, there would be expertise, but that is not the case according to the facts. In addition, it seems to me that she could not have all the facts, so why the warning?

I know life in the NHS is hard, but if you can afford to retire at 19, she must have done something (not sure what).

So what is going on?

Well, for that we need to take a look at the Instagram of David Beckham. Here he states: “Why do people feel they have the right to criticize a parent about their own children without having any facts?? Everybody who has children knows that when they aren’t feeling well or have a fever you do what comforts them best and most of the time it’s a pacifier so those who criticize think twice about what you say about other people’s children because actually you have no right to criticize me as a parent“.

Well, I do not have kids, so I would not know, but I was a kid once and when we feel truly bad we tend to become nightmares and as I see it, the little princess got something from daddy that made her feel a little better, so what is the issue? And it seems to me that an instance is not a pattern, an event is not an overwhelming ‘danger’ to the speech of anyone. Yet the Daily Mail needs to get another page with David Beckham on it and as they tend to be clueless on the best of days, this would constitute some level of Journalism. So let’s take another look.

After about three months, most babies should not need a comforter” is a quote here. Really? If I remember correctly babies start teething at 6 months and I believe that parents will really lose sleep without the pacifier (not Vin Diesel, but that sucking toy). I took a sidestep towards ‘Parenting and Children’s health‘ (at http://www.cyh.com/HealthTopics/HealthTopicDetails.aspx?p=114&np=122&id=1736#8), where I found “Children need the comforter most between about 1 and 3 years of age, before they have learned to feel safe when their parent is not there“. There is a lot more interesting stuff there, but this one applies really nicely, because it applies to Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere and key owner of the Daily Mail! You see, this child is under constant barrage of paparazzi’s and Journo’s (or people calling themselves that) and as such children feel distress, so lacing your paper with recriminations on ‘what a child needs‘ whilst your own media engine could be instrumental in causing distress is like ‘the hack calling the advice of the quack’ (there was a reference to pot, kettle and colour, but I forgot the specifics, all semantics anyway).

So, instead of digging into anything truly newsworthy, we get more invasion of the Beckham’s. Can’t they get a relaxed day with their little one?

Which gets me to me! Why am I picking this up? Well apart from the Guardian siding ever so slightly with David B. We see this quote “Beckham’s Instagram post had been liked more than 404,000 times by Monday evening and attracted more than 12,000 comments, including a large degree of support for his stance” giving us the goods on support, but no one looked at the ‘retired’ midwife herself. She remains casually quoted. I have a partial issue with that, especially after finding more than one ‘health’ source opposing her view.

I do keep a cautious stance regarding some of the health sites, mainly because I have no medical training and I am also not a parent (I am on the other hand one hell of a Medici).

Yet, if I can find these elements so easily, why can’t the Daily Mail do any actual reporting? You see, when we consider “News reports are found in newspapers and their purpose is to inform readers of what is happening in the world around them” we can contemplate that a page was ‘wasted’ on the use of a dummy (read pacifier). Whilst the article is opposed by the health site as it states “As the child gets older and she is able to feel more secure inside herself, she will need the comforter less and it will gradually fall into disuse. It is important for the child to have control over this“, countering more than one statement in the article. In addition there is “If a child still clings to the comforter by school age, it is important to ask what it is that is making the child worried, rather than to take the comforter away“, countering more statements the article makes. Finally there is “It is best for children if they can give up their comforter when they are ready, not when other people think they should“, which takes the cake against statements like “The NHS Choices website recommends parents ‘should avoid using dummies after 12 months of age’ to prevent speech development problems“, I cannot judge this, but several sources have no issues with a dummy being used until she is three, debunking the bulk of all claims. In addition, children do not get permanent teeth until they are 6, until that time they have baby teeth (or milk teeth).

So, as a non-parent, I was able to debunk most of the article, which now just reads like a bad piece of a paper having a go at the Beckham’s. Yet, there is a light in all this, you see, all the information I saw from several sources leave the clear indication “Children use comforters most when they are worried, or afraid, or tired“, if we can prove stress, than it is in view of the court to make it clear that paparazzi and press are a danger to the mental health of a child, which means that no less than 100 meters distance from the child should be kept (which is for a judge to decide). Wouldn’t it be nice that the kids of Beckham will enter an age of privacy only because the Daily Mail ignored basic Journalism?

It’s almost Wednesday! What a lovely day it could be!



Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media