On the marriage of Zara Phillips, the Queen's grand-daughter, and Mike Tindall, rugby player

In a modest affair the Queen's granddaughter Zara Phillips married her rugby player Mike Tindall.

Personally I thought they did the wedding right. It was classy, even with the best man having the black eye, and avoided celebrities, with the exception of someone one of them had known since school. There were no strangers invited, and no David Beckham.

So all done well.

I wish the happy couple all the very best in their marriage. This is what I wish all those who marry regardless of fame or fortune. All those who marry need all the help they can get. They are no different.

Good luck to them both. My they have a long and happy partnership.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On the shameless misuse of disabled parking spaces by the able-bodied.

My father was disabled. Due to his disability he had a "Blue Badge" permit which allowed him to park in disabled spaces and on single, and some double yellow lines.

I drove him.

My father never misused his ticket. Every time we parked we parked legally even if he had extra travel. My father had the sense that we all have our duty to respect our fellow man and not pretend to be something we are not. My father was a remarkable man who spent his life helping people. He did amazing things to improve the lives of people around the world. He made a difference.

One of the biggest bugbears this laid-back man had was people misusing disabled parking spaces. He used to say he wished these people could spend one day as a disabled person to see why the disabled people need parking spaces. God knows the disabled are ignored and marginalised enough without taking their parking spaces. He was never mean enough to wish permanent disability. He wouldn't wish that in anyone. Just one day.

I never misused his Blue Card. Even if it was raining heavily and the only non-disabled parking space was miles away and there was a disabled space by the door I was never tempted. I wasn't stopped because of fear of criminal prosecution, wheel clamps, or public ridicule. I didn't do it because it would have been wrong.

Over the last several months I've been noticing a trend for the disabled spaces to be misused. I think this may have something to do with the repeated stories in the press complaining about the number of spaces the disabled have and how all disabled people are conmen/women who are fitter than everyone else (the last bit may be a slight exaggeration, but not by much, see the Daily Mail). I'm not talking about seemingly able bodied people with Blue Badges parking in disabled spaces. If they were awarded the Badge in their own right they have a serious medical need for the Badge and deserve to use the space. If they misuse someone else's Badge it's a criminal offence. You see some people rush to jealous judgement when they see someone without a wheelchair with a Blue Badge. That's wrong. There are many forms of disability and were aren't doctors.

I don't know if it is against this cultural meme that the disabled are pampered con artists that I've seen a huge increase in non-disabled people parking in disabled spaces. And I'm not just talking about mothers with children using the spaces when their spaces are full, I'm talking about huge fit men in work clothes parking in disabled spaces without any Badge. I'm no medical doctor but I think it's a safe bet that if your fit enough to dig roads for a living you're fit enough to walk a few feet more to get to a non-disabled space.

My irritation isn't a petty whine. Disabled spaces are vital for the disabled person. Some need it because they provide the only way they can use their wheelchair, others need the closeness to the store otherwise they will be confined to their home. These spaces aren't a luxury. They are a necessity.

What I find sad is the lack of respect those who misuse disabled spaces show to the disabled and to our society. Our culture is how we treat each other.

The worst thing though is that recently I see the fit misusing the disabled space shamelessly. They are not even embarrassed about parking in a disabled space. That's pretty low.

That's pathetic.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Christopher Jefferies accepts damages for media lies

In a scandal I've written about several times the press, especially the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Express, Sun, and some of the broadsheets falsely accused an innocent man of murder.

That man was Christopher Jefferies who was the landlord of the tragically murdered Jo Yates.

They way the press hounded him and told the world he was her killer showed an out of control press at it's absolute worst. Luckily for Jo's family and friends, and indeed Jefferies, her killer has been found and is awaiting justice. This man admits killing her so the only debate is if it is murder or manslaughter.

Anyway Jefferies rightly sued the papers. Today he was accepted their apology and 'substantial' damages.

I'm torn by his decision to accept the money without judgement. On one hand I totally accept that taking the money is the easiest thing to do and that it's probably a lot more than he'd get if he'd won his case. I do not blame him from taking the money, I probably would do the same.

But on the other hand it would be nice to have a legal precedent set as to duties of the press and the rights of the innocent victim of their work. Of course this is the reason why the papers settled so there would be no judgment against them.

So I'm split.

I will say all the best to Jefferies.

The decision to charge the Sun and Mirror with contempt of court in relation to this case remains untaken. I do hope they are charged.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Is it right to strip Wade Sanders of his Silver Star for having child pornography?

I can think of nothing as vile, sickening, and downright evil, as child pornography. Those who make or enjoy such filth deserve long, long, prison sentences. How anyone could even think of raping a child is beyond me.

That said the American case of Wade Sanders raises an interesting point. Sanders is in prison after being found with child porn. This is a good thing. However Sanders served in Vietnam on Swift Boats and his bravery earned him a Silver Star.

The authorities have now removed this medal because of his conviction.

Should they?

I have to admit that I was not aware that Americans could have there medals awarded for their bravery removed. This is the first case I have heard of it being done. A lot of people have won medals and a fraction of them will have committed crimes ranging from murder and rape, to littering. And yet their medals are intact.

In the UK if you are awarded a honour like an MBE or a knighthood and you receive a prison sentence this honour is stripped from you. But these awards are honours. They are supposed to be thanks from your country. If you fall down you lose the honour.

But bravery awards are different. They are not an honour. The winner earns their medal. They have risked their lives, in many cases been injured or lost their life. Their actions are recognised by their medal.

As this is the case is it right to remove a medal from bravery from a person for their actions, often many years removed from their bravery regardless of how sick or vile their subsequent behaviour is?

Sanders is sick. He deserves no sympathy. But does he deserve losing his Silver Star?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Is Piers Morgan going to go to jail convicted by his own words?

I really should say that I have never liked (or licked, which is what my predictive text just wrote) Piers Morgan. He has always seemed a smarmy, inherently untrustworthy man who is the personification of all that is worst in the tabloid editor. Though I deplore violence I have to admit to a smile when I heard Jeremy Clarkson punched him. Even worse I still smile at the memory.

Morgan is a man sacked for publishing lies about British troops abusing prisoners in Iraq. He even allowed obviously faked photographs of such abuse to be published. Now I don't deny some horrible acts happened and would support them being brought to light, but this story was a obvious lie. Didn't happen. Morgan wanted his own scandal at the time of the revelations on American abuses were big news.

Not only is he a untrustworthy editor he placed British lives in danger by publishing faked photographs purporting to show Iraqis being abused by British soldiers at a time when real British soldiers were facing death in Iraq. Who knows if Morgan's faked images inflamed the situation in Iraq and promoted more violence against them. How many British troops died because of Morgan's lies?

Then there is his very lucky escape during his paper's insider-dealing scandal.

But now it seems that the smug Morgan may get his comeuppance. It seems the whole hacking scandal may do for him. Not only was he editor of the NoW, but was editor of Daily Mirror which has emerged as a being riddled with hacking and blagging.

Morgan denies he knew anything, then again even the most guilty always do that.

However, in a delightful move, it seems he has been damned by his own words. It has merged that he openly told Desert Island Discs several years ago that he knew of illegal activity in his paper, and even wrote about it in his own books.

When these admissions of guilt were first written or broadcast they went by unremarked. I think we all knew this is what the gutter press did. But now in light of the political storm since the NoW, and the fact going after Mirror illegality is a perfect line of attack for the Tories as the Mirror is a labour paper, means the words will have serious implications for Morgan.

Some very torrid times are ahead for Morgan. I mean to say how can you deny being a criminal when you've freely admitted it several times?

I have written here many times that all those who broke the law should be brought to justice regardless of paper. That the owners and editors should face justice and not just their lackeys. I still believe this. It just makes me warm inside that the slug like Morgan may be the first to face prison for his actions.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Is Glenn Beck wrong to say the murdered Norwegian teens are like the Hitler Youth?

Yes.

I passionately support free speech. That support even goes for people being dicks or stupid but such freedom shouldn't mean we can insult the dead, the injured, or the bereaved.

It does seem to me very shallow for Glenn Beck to say that that the murdered teens on Utoeya Island reminded him of the Hitler Youth.

He has the freedom to say so, as we all do, but to do so even before the innocent victims have been buried is hurtful and extremely distasteful.

The victims were kids who supported the governing party of key US alley. You can agree with their politics or not, like with every other political party, but they weren't fascists. They weren't racists.

They were just young people with an interest in politics and out to have some fun with friends.

In no way did they deserve what happened to them. In no way did their political leanings justify their murder.

I would say the same of any youth group of any party of any persuasion. I was going to add the caveat of legal political party but that would be wrong. Even if kids are part of the most vile of parties with a history of violence they don't deserve to be massacred. They deserve justice and arrest for any crime but not murder.

I feel that Beck's idiotic musings on the innocent victims reflects a nationalistic shallowness of his mindset. These innocent victims are not American so he never thought that common decencies should apply to them. That's sad.

The Norwegian labour party youth group is a harmless part of a modern democratic party not the Hitler Youth. To suggest otherwise is wrong.

Glenn Beck, as a father, should feel ashamed.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On the endemic nature of hacking in the media

We've seen the media convulsed with the phone hacking scandal. The press have given the Murdoch empire a jolly good kicking. This is what happens what people lose their terror of a beast. It allows scores to be settled, it allows other media empires to pick up extra readers.

It's a good story in other words.

They don't talk about their own problems though. They give the impression that all the law breaking was the result of that horrid Rupert...who is foreign don't you know. They spin the line that they are as shocked as we are at the misdeeds and are totally innocent.

Of course this is what the corrupt MPs said before being proved guilty.

Anyway in light of this obsessional focus on Murdoch the following tweet from Guido Fawkes is interesting.




31 publications.

31.

And that's the thing. Illegal activity has become so endemic in the British media that journalists, editors, and owners, have lost sight of the crimes they commit.

The saddest thing about it isn't the hacking and blagging as such but the fact that the vast majority of such illegal acts will have been done to fill their pages with gossip.

A free press is vital. A press unafraid to investigate wrongdoing is vital.

However someone is rotten at the core of a lot of our media.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On the passing of Amy Winehouse

Amy Winehouse - Love Is A Losing Game by AmyWinehouse

The fact that it is not unexpected doesn't reduce the sadness on the tragically early death of Amy Winehouse.

It is tragic that anyone so young, be they rich or poor, should die. Some people seem to think it is only tragic if the person who died was famous. It isn't. To lose anyone we love is devastating no matter how old they are.

Several years ago I was driving along with my late father when we heard Amy being interviewed. She came over as lovely, eccentric, but nice. During this interview it emerged that she kept a lot of her personal possessions in her local pub. At the time we though that this wasn't a healthy sign for anyone much less a young woman.

Her addictions destroyed her. I'm not going to be judgemental or anything stupid. It is a simple fact. All her loving family and friends couldn't save her. Addicts can only save themselves.

I had hoped that with youth and money on her side she could have beaten her addictions and we could have enjoyed her talent for decades.

And that's the point. Amy was the real thing. She was phenomenally talented. I would suggest that she was the best singer of her generation.

All the mass produced singers in pop, or the Amy-clones who emerged in her wake tend not to be real. They are simply pale imitations of Amy or the bland products of the music business. Some cannot sing.

Amy wasn't like that. With her voice and songwriting talent she would have been famous in any era.

And what a voice.

I used to gave this argument that Whitney Houston was, pre-addiction, a great singer technically but lacked soul. Amy had soul.

For all the things being said about her no one has said anything bad about her. The damage that she did was only to herself. You cannot say that for most people.

I know is stupidly simplistic but I've always wondered if Amy was too caught up in jazz mythology and the tragic, in many cases drug fuelled, lives if so many of the greats.

Amy had a remarkable talent.

The press ruthlessly hounded a obviously fragile and unwell Amy for years. They, especially female journalists, held her up to public ridicule. Pictures of her befuddled were published with glee and laughter. Her medical treatment became newspaper gossip column inches.

The pressure the press put in Amy for years was cruel and heartless.

And yet today they want us to forget the way in which they mocked her. Times like this make me nauseous. Amy is an example of what's wrong with the press.

In closing I'd like to offer my sympathies to Amy's family and friends.

We need to remember Amy as what she was. A fantastically talented woman. Her legacy is her music.

That's some legacy.

On the Utoeya island massacre

The tiny Norwegian island of Utoeya became the scene of unimaginable horror. At least 84 people, mostly young people, were massacred by a lone gunman. A man who is alleged to have murdered several more in a bomb in central Oslo.

All acts of terrorism are wrong. However I simply cannot comprehend why anyone would set out to specifically murder kids. There is no issue, no dispute, no protest worth the murder of kids.

To lose so many young people in one fell swoop in an act of utter insanity is a nightmare.

My sympathies go out to all the injured and the bereaved.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

How to do a political video: Russian style

Political adverts are fact of life today. Often are tissues of lies. Most are dull. The majority are unwatched.

The Russians do things differently though. They have glamourous girls promising to strip for Putin.

I'm pretty sure this sort of ad won't be seen here....alas. So no vote for Ed and I'll get me kecks off.

This makes me sad.

Anyway what gets me is the image the ad is promoting. It is totally aspirational. The line being if you're young, or want to have a chance to sleep with hotties like this, vote Putin. it's not exactly issue led is it?

The subtext of it being good to strip for Putin marks a cultural difference in it's own right.

Two things strike me though. The first is what do these young women do for a living? I doubt they're businesswomen. So that leaves the suspicion of prostitutes or the daughter/mistress of those enriched by Putin.

This is a very specific market to aim your ad at.

Secondly the ad could have been sponsored by Apple. I imagine it's supposed to show a modern Russia with modern women and all that. However it shows a country in decline. All the technology being lovingly shown in the ad is not Russian. Technically they're American/western but made in China.

It doesn't show economic revival does it.

Its a fun ad though rather dictator-creepy

Johann Harri makes up quotes from war crime victims and wins an award

I've written here about the Johann Harri and his penchant for making stuff up. However his lies are much worse than that. They were also well known. The Private Eye magazine (see here also) has a report on how he lied and was known to lie and got away with it. For example in he wrote an attack on the Daily Mail and their attack on "feral" children. The deputy editor of the New Statesman wondered why there were no quotes form children so he quickly created some which supported his views.

However such lies are as nothing compared to the depths he has sunk to. In 2003 he invented an account of the death of an anti globalisation protester. To lie about a death us pretty low.

But it gets worse.

Harri made up stories and quotes from non-existent Iraqis who wanted the West to invade their country. These lies helped labour in their propaganda battle for war.

This isn't journalism. It's lies. But it goes beyond that, it's the same type of thing which got journalists hung for war crimes and Nuremberg.

Harri even copied a story from Der Spiegel on multiculturalism and woman's rights. He copied their quotes but added false names to those women who spoke to DS as they were anonymous. He also pretended the interviews were his own.

The latest revelation of Harri's lies is his report from the city of Birao in the Central African Republic. This report during a war damns Harri. Too cheap to hire a translator Harri used a charity worker on the understanding that she would have copies of the notes for her own report into the humanitarian disaster.

Harri and the Independent newspaper went back on their word and have refused to give copies of the notes to the charity so their report that could help in future disasters is stymied.

The thing is the report published by Harri and the Independent is different to reality. Harri exaggerated the destruction Birao suffered and made up quotes. His stories if French soldiers having children bringing the heads of their parents to them and being refused help were just that stories.

Harri made them up.

This lie riddled story won Harri great praise and the Orwell prize for journalism.

Journalism isn't popular at the moment. However Harri's lies, blatant pro-war propaganda, and plagiarism is low.

Journalism is so much easier if you make up quotes that support your message. But that's not journalism it's fiction. It's a lie.

Harri is a liar. People knew he was a liar and did nothing about it. Worse they heaped money, praise, and awards on him. Harri was allowed to betray the paying public because editors, journalists, and publishers allowed it.

If you wanted to be charitable you could say it's only a newspaper story. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dead from the war Harri wanted. Due to his lies and political bias Harri was part of the labour party propaganda campaign to take us to war.

Harri's lies and fictions resulted in innocent blood being spilled.

And still Harri is being protected.

And that's a scandal.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Labour party member attacked Rupert Murdoch

I don't understand the stupidity of some people who claim to politically astute. Take the physical attack on Rupert Murdoch. Now it was a very stupid thing to do. It's wrong to attack anyone especially if they are old. Murdoch may be a stain on our culture but he isn't a war criminal so it's morally wrong to attack him. Worse than that the attack is a godsend for Murdoch and his empire ad it allows him to paint himself as the victim.

But it gets worse than that.

You see it turns out the excruciatingly unfunny comedian (really look at YouTube, he's dire) Jonnie Marbles is in reality Jonathan May-Bowles. For a elderly man who is a noted republican and anti-elite in general to be attacked by a hyphenated idiot looks bad. In reality being hyphenated isn't a badge of poshness but many people still think it is. The fact that he lives in very posh Windsor doesn't help.

However the fact that May-Bowles is a labour party member and activist makes it worse.

His physical attack on Murdoch allows the Murdoch camp to spin the line that the attack on NI is party political and simply a case the posh types in charge of the labour party attacking the "people's" newspaper.

It looks bad.

How idiotic is May-Bowles, a politics enthusiast and politics graduate, not to understand how damaging his attack looks for the labour party.

I've spoken widely and have yet to find anyone really upset with NI. They're disgusted by the hacking of dead children but that's it. To most this political elite hysteria reflects an out of touch elite concerned with party political games, self-interest, and revenge, rather than being anything important. To most there are simply more important things to deal with.

I don't agree with that view and am strongly anti-Murdoch however the hypocrisy of politicians and the actions of labour comedians strengthens this view.

May-Bowles is an idiot who damages his own side.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Ed Miliband's real views on News International

One of the things that really depresses me the most is the hypocrisy of politicians. I know I shouldn't be surprised by this but I'm still uncynical enough to be saddened when it happens.

And it does happen.

Regularly.

Today it concerns Ed Miliband and his war on News International. Oh yes he is making great play on the rightful anger and disgust the public feels about dead children and the victims of crime being hacked.

But the reality is somewhat different.

You see Ed as had to rush out a list of his meetings since becoming leader as it seems that a massive haul of data has been hacked from NI which may shine a light on such contacts.

Anyway out of 32 meetings Ed has had 11 have been with NI. This includes those people Ed spins he hates, the editors of the Sun and the News of the World.

And that's the reality behind the spin and and the fake anger.

Not only did he meet them he has spent more time sucking up to them than any other group.

For all the political spin thins is the simple truth. Ed, like his labour predecessors, is friends with NI, and isn't disgusted by their disgusting actions.

Ed's just another multimillionaire out of touch creep making political capital in an opportunistic manner after ignoring and allowing NI act illegally for years.

His hypocrisy stinks.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Rupert Murdoch attacked: how brave is it to attack an man in his eighties?

I despise Rupert Murdoch. Even the most causal of readers if this blog over the years know this as a fact.

However I utterly condemn the way in which a self-proclaimed, though unheard of, comedian physically attacked him whilst he was giving evidence to parliament.

I could say how such an attack is counterproductive by painting him as a victim.

I could say that such an attack hinders the search for the truth into the illegality at the News of the World.

All these are true.

But I won't.

What gets me is what type of man attacks a fragile person in their eighties?

It is wrong to attack an elderly person regardless of who they are. Murdoch isn't a way criminal, murderer, or rapist. He deserves the same protection from physical attack as any person, especially any elderly person.

For an unknown man to try to launch a career by attacking an old person is pathetic.

Any attack of an old person risks killing them. To do so because you don't have the talent to make a comedy career is ignorant.

I want Murdoch's hoards to face justice but he deserves the same respect as all of us do.

Jonnie Marbles is a pathetically sad individual.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Sean Hoare, the News of the World whistleblower, found dead

In sad news the man who shone a light into the murky world of illegal media hacking has been found dead. Sean Hoare will be remembered as the man who changed the British media and perhaps as the man who destroyed a media giant.

We all have a lot to thank Sean Hoare for do I'm sorry that he's died. My sympathies go out to his family and friends.

As of now we don't know why he died. This will not stop the conspiracy theories into his demise. Although it sounds horrible I hope he died of natural causes rather than by his own hand. The death of anyone is tragic, but to have that person die at their own hand because of the pressure they are under is worse.

And so a scandal which started with a few celebrities being hacked descends into real tragedy.

For all the froth and false outrage Sean Hoare's death puts things into perspective.

My sympathies to his family and friends.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

A sanctimonious Sir Paul Stephenson goes not blaming himself.

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Sir Paul Stephenson has resigned.

What made his position untenable is the way in which he accepted huge amounts of hospitality from people. This included £12,000 worth of free spa treatment. (Spa treatment! I'm sorry but this does seem a little un-Sweeney and rather unbutch).

In his longwinded and self-serving resignation statement he ties to deflect the blame onto the Prime Minister by saying that because he employed Andy Coulson Stephenson was scared to mention anything about Andes International.

Now I'm sorry but this is garbage.

I've written here for months that I wouldn't have employed Coulson. Even though he wasn't charged with any offence at the time I simply wouldn't want anything to do with a tabloid journalist. But that's the only reason. It is untenable to say that someone is unemployable because of gossip or innuendo. If they have not been charged you can employ them.

It goes beyond that though. How can a weak man like Stephenson who was to weak to tell the truth to politicians become Met boss? Strength and integrity should be vital to the role. It's pathetic that the most senior policeman to excuse his actions by telling the world he is a coward.

All of the shifting of blame onto a politician shouldn't blind us to why Stephenson had to go. It isn't about News International. The Met's hiring of an ex-NI reporter wasn't down to him. He could have survived this.

No what did for him is his penchant for accepting "treats" worth thousands from rich people and businesses.

I'm not saying Stephenson was corrupt or that such freebies effected his judgement in any way. I'm not saying he was anything but a superb policemen. I am saying that he lost sight of the morality of accepting such gifts.

A ordinary copper couldn't accept such gifts. If they did they'd be sacked. There have been cases of a normal PC being made to resign for accepting a wedding present.

If such harsh rules apply, rightly, to the rank and file police the should apply doubly to the bosses.

Stephenson seems to have fallen for the old danger of thinking he is special and that friends naturally give him treats. That he should take such gifts because he is worth it. This slow gentle seduction into inappropriate behaviour is common to people who get powerful positions and become grand. They suffer a disconnect from what it acceptable behaviour.

At it's worse this gentle corruption can do massive damage and be criminal.

The way in which Stephenson justifies his actions by telling us he is well satisfied with his own integrity it a joke. That's not for him to judge.

Stephenson's resignation was justified. I only hope that all those politicians, policemen, civil servants, and the like who have enjoyed massive freebies also resign. I hope the is going to be an widespread investigation into the role such gifts play and corruption. I hope the corrupt face justice.

I will bet good money on there not being an investigation though, especially one dealing with politicians and their lavish gifts. That's how the powerful corrupt are protected.

Stephenson had to go because of his own choices and actions. No one is to blame but him, no one forced him to accept freebies from the rich and powerful. He should be man enough to take the consequences of his actions and stop being a coward.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Rebekah Brooks arrested!

How the mighty have fallen. Only weeks ago Rebekah Brooks was the chum of the political elite. She had holidays aplenty at the PM's mansion, she had Gordon Brown at her wedding, and his wife planned her birthday party.

She was important.

Now she has been arrested for hacking and corruption and is still in police custody.

What a difference a few weeks make.

I am glad there is a proper police investigation and hope that justice is done. Justice to those who were hacked or subject to illegal actions, and justice for Brooks/Wade. Justice demands fairness and openness to all parities not a politically driven witch-hunt.

However what really gets me is the fact that everyone in power is pretending that this is new. Everyone knew that some in the media were acting illegally. Brooks was so stupid that she admitted on camera before a parliamentary select committee of MPs that she bribed some members of the police. And yet the labour party, who are so vocal now but were the government then, did nothing. Not only did nothing they remained friends with Brooks and kept inviting her to their taxpayer funded parties and mansions.

As I keep saying I want the truth to out. I want all those who broke the law to be brought to justice. I don't care who they are or which paper the work for. If the acted illegally I want them brought to justice.

I want all those corrupt police officers to be found and punished.

I want all the corrupt politicians punished.

This is much more important than a single redheaded woman or media empire.

We need to remember that.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Patricia Kluge: if she owes you a billion why sell her dogs?

I've written about the ex-actress Patricia Kluge who was awarded a very lucrative divorce settlement. How lucrative I hear you ask? Well she's been given over a billion dollars. In my books this qualifies as lucrative.

And she has spent the lot and is now bankrupt.

Now get your head around that if you can: she end a billion and ended up in debt.

I cannot comprehend it, but you may have better luck.

Anyway as part of the bankruptcy proceedings all her assets are to be seized and sold to allow those she owes money to to recoup some of their money. All this is the same old same old.

However it looks like Kluge is going to have her two pet dogs seized and sold.

To me this seems incredibly mean. It doesn't seem to be about people who lost money trying to recoup it. It smacks of punishment. For all Kluge's faults she didn't force anyone to lend her money. No one is alleging criminal wrongdoing in relation to the money.

So why punish her be taking her pets?

I simply cannot understand how taking Basil and Mr Choo away is going to make a blind bit of difference. The pennies they'll go for won't help those owed money.

Kluge may be a stupid woman but selling her pets just seems mean to me.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Why are criminal journalists made to tell the truth but not criminal politicians?

The illegal practices of a sizeable minority of journalists has been met with justifiable revulsion. The 'shock' of some politicians to the news is as false as a nine bob note however. Everyone knew that some journalists broke the law. Some bribed the police, some riffled rubbish, others, as we now know, bugged and hacked.

Politicians, especially labour, allowed such crimes to go unpunished even though official report after official report proved widespread illegality.

Such despicable practices are not confined to the News International papers either.

In an attempt to get revenge for the press shining a light on the crimes of over half of our MP's and in attempt to garner public support, our politicians have decided to hold a number of public inquires where journalists and witnesses are going to have to testify under oath with the threat of prison if they lie.

I think this is a perfectly justifiable move. Hopefully it will clear out criminal practices and lead to the guilty being sent to jail.

However we know for a fact that well over half our MPs stole from us. We know that over a few years they stole millions. We can sadly assume that their criminal activities didn't start during the time period covered by the documents leaked to the press. Their illegality can stretch back decades.

But parliament has not setup an inquiry with a judge in charge to investigate the rampant crimes of our MPs. The corrupt politicians are not going to be made to give evidence under oath with the threat of jail for any lie.

Sleazy politicians who speak so sanctimoniously about press ethics whilst robbing us of millions are getting away scot free.

The inquiry into the war in Iraq was created by politicians. It also does not make the selfsame politicians tell the truth.

Neither of these political scandals will result in any politician facing justice.

This is wrong. The crimes of some journalists is a scandal however the criminality of more than half of our politicians has done, and is doing, much more damage to our country.

As I say I agree with having a full inquiry into press illegality with the witnesses being made to tell the truth. I also want criminal politicians and war criminals to face the same rigour and threat of prison if they lie.

We deserve the truth and all the criminals deserve justice. It doesn't matter if they hacked people, launched a war that killed hundreds of thousands on a lie, or looted the public purse of umpteen millions. We deserve the truth.

They deserve justice.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Charlie Gilmour jailed! Though not yet.

In a rather surprising move the very posh boy Charlie Gilmour has been jailed for sixteen months for his violence at a student riot.

Seems a bit silly and frankly idiotic for him to have allowed himself to be filmed saying,

"They broke the moral law, we're going to break all the laws."

Not because it's illegal but because it's an embarrassingly childish thing for an adult to say.

Well I say he's been jailed but he actually hasn't. He's been given bail until after he's finished his exams.

Do you think if his daddy wasn't very rich and he wasn't very posh but a working-class bod caught up in a riot the courts would be so lenient?

I don't think so. If he was one of us they'd have thrown the book at him and held him up to be a public menace. The only reason he's got clink is because he was filmed breaking the law repeatedly and they couldn't let him off.

Anyway I hope his spell of real life helps him and opens hid eyes about life. I hope he stops being such a irritating twonk.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Rebekah Brooks resigns

After weeks of controversy the ex-editor of the NoW and current Chief Executive of News International had bowed to pressure and resigned.

There has been debate as to why she hadn't resigned weeks ago. Some have claimed it was because of the affection Rupert Murdoch held her in. Murdoch isn't noted for being a softy. I myself have always thought she was his shield to be thrown under a bus without a second thought if it could protect Murdoch.

Her resignation just before Murdoch attends parliament may prove this.

Personally I think Murdoch will sacrifice anything or anyone to survive. That includes his son.

So Wade/Brooks is gone, which is good. Without such a focus for attention I think the other papers will start to get worried in case their illegal activities come light.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The Guardian admits Gordon Brown lied to them

One of the more hysterical outbursts in this whole hacking scandal has been Gordon Brown's story that his disabled son had his medical records hacked into illegally.

This was a truly sickening allegation and marked a new low for the tabloid press. To exploit and violate a disabled child using illegal methods would be horrible.

The Guardian newspaper had a full page story on this despicable act based on their interview with Gordon Brown.

It's such a shame that Brown lied to them about the story.

In today's Guardian the publish the following retraction of the story.




Now the Guardian are mortal enemies of the Sun and the Murdoch press so for them to admit that their front page story isn't true is a big deal. There is no doubt in the case. The loathsome Sun were actually telling the truth, which is odd in itself.

More than that it proves that Gordon Brown lied to them. Brown accused someone of a criminal act which could have resulted in prison knowing that he was lying.

Hacking and media intrusion is bad enough but a lying politician trying to get people put in prison for something they didn't do is worse.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Is the US credit rating at risk?

In what is potentially a politically devastating move it seems that the American credit rating may be at risk. Moody's have placed the US credit rating on downgrade watch.

Moody is concerned both by the level of US debt and doubts that they'll repay what the owe. It is so bad that the biggest lender to the US, China, has warned them to take action and to look after the interests of their lenders.

This is against a background of massively rising US debt and siren calls for the US to default on relaying their debts.

The degrading of a countries credit rating if you are in the premier league of nations is a big deal. On an economic level it costs you a lot of money. The interest you pay on borrowings goes up, and, depending on how far your rating goes down, many lenders are banned from lending to you because of the extra risk. This reduces who can lend to you and increases the costs of your lending.

All this is economics.

However the blow to national prestige and pride is much worse than the economic costs. If the US is downgraded then many in the US and abroad will take it as a mark of a country in decline. US pride and influence would be reduced.

The US would be seen to be in decline. Perhaps terminally.

This could be catastrophic for President Obama politically. Worse than that if this happens it will be terrible for the US people.

A superpower humbled by ratings. It's an odd world.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Gordon Brown's lies about News International

My contempt for Rupert Murdoch and gutter journalism has been repeatedly stated here for years.

However I find it ridiculous for Gordon Brown to stand up in parliament, during his only time in parliament since the election, and lie about his relationship with the Murdoch's and News International. For him to try to spin the lie that he is the only person who stood up against Murdoch and that the Tories are Murdoch's stooges is frankly ludicrous.

Politicians of all parties have been too close to Murdoch and too afraid but Brown was worse than most.

All these scandals happened under labour. Brown and his party had report after report detailing illegal activity by News International, and other papers. And yet he did nothing.

Worse than that he and his predecessor hired tabloid journalists mired in the tabloid culture.

They changed the law to allow Murdoch to buy Sky TV in order to please him.

For all the sob story about how he was hacked and his disabled son records illegally obtained the reality was different. Far from being outraged Brown and wife went to the person he now accuses of illegalities wedding, organised her birthday party, and had a sleepover for her and Murdoch's wife and daughter at a government owned mansion.

That's the reality. Brown was not upset at the time. He knew of widespread illegality and did nothing in order to please Murdoch.

The lies Brown is saying now shouldn't blind us to the truth.

I despise Murdoch and all the tabloid hacks, from all papers, who break the law and destroy lives. However I hate a lying politician who helped them much more.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Is Gordon Brown using his disabled son to stop investigation into his finances?

As has become apparent some of the press will stoop to anything for a story. It isn't confined to the NI press, nor even the tabloids. Some people who work for many papers have simply lost their moral compass.

Hacking into murdered girls phones, bereaved families and the like is despicable. It is also illegal and the perpetrators should face jail.

However I do find Gordon Brown's tale of his tears about a story of his son's disability odd. More than that it seems he is using his son to stop papers conducting a legitimate investigation on how he got a cheap flat from a criminal.

Brown makes two allegations. The first is that the Sun hacked into his son's medical records. Personally I would not doubt that some reporters would do so. However the Sun has come out and explicitly stated they didn't do so. This is the only time they have denied any action since the scandal broke. Like I've written here before it would be insane for them to lie as the truth will out and admitting it immediately would reduce the damage done to them massively.

And for a man like Brown who says he was in floods of tears by having his young son's privacy violated to then attend the woman who did the violation wedding is simply not tenable.

More than that Brown hasn't called for a criminal investigation to be held into which medical person or support staff who illegally hacked his son's medical records.

To my mind that's suspicious.

However the interesting point of Brown's rant is the bit about the Sun investigating his financial records. Unlike the labour party key advisor there is no allegation into hacking into bank records. What is alleged by Brown is the Sun investigated why Brown was able to buy a nice flat at way below Market value from a criminal, and ex-labour MP, Robert Maxwell. This crook stole hundreds of millions and took the pensions of his hardworking staff leaving many in serious financial hardship. (I do wonder if the destruction of private pensions is where Brown got his ideas from for when he became chancellor).

And Brown profited from the crimes of Maxwell.

It seems that Brown is both trying to use his disabled son to get back at NI who abandoned him before the last election and to stop his dubious activities and his profiting from the crimes of others.

Now I despise the actions of the press and their hacking. But investigating politicians links to illegality, corruption, or crime is what the press should be doing.

The lows and crimes of the press should not stop the press doing proper investigative reporting or allow the powerful to hide their crimes.

Brown seemed to be trying to use his disabled son to garner some good publicity, though he didn't make the allegations in parliament like an MP is supposed to do. However it seems this sob story has backfired and swathes of the media and public who hate Murdoch's rags think it is Brown who is lying.

Not the most successful of attacks for Brown is it?



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On the publication of the medical details of Gordon Brown's son

Our medical records should be utterly private. Due to their nature and our need to be honest and open about even the most personal or embarrassing of things we have to be able to trust that they don't become the subject of media intrusion or gossip.

I suppose there could be a justification for the media publishing such private records. For example if a leader who had control of nuclear weapons had been diagnosed with paranoid delusions. In such an extreme example the public would have a right to know.

However this is probably one of the few cases whereby a person's medical records should be anything but private.

The records of children are even more sensitive. Children, especially sick or disabled ones, have so much on their plate without media intrusion.

The rights of children, and indeed common decency, dictates that the health of children is not suitable for press digging up sensitive records for their reports.

Again I suppose there are exceptions but they are only in exceptional cases. To be honest the only reason I can think it could be justifiable to dig around confidential medical records is if their parent is a politician who out of the blue gives extra billions to a rare illness and cuts cancer research by the same amount. If their children had this same rare disease then there could be a public interest defence in publishing details of their child's health.

However these are so extreme examples that I really cannot see them occurring.

My argument is that there should not be a total blanket ban on any reports, even the most unacceptable. That there needs to be some kind of exception to every rule even if the exception could only happen once in a billion cases.

Freedom of the press depend on such things.

This debate has been stimulated by Gordon Brown's revelations that the Sun newspaper had hacked into his son's medical records.

If true this is despicable even by the low standards of this base paper.

However something doesn't seem right to me.

Firstly Brown doesn't actually say the information was obtained by illegal methods.

Secondly, as Guido Fawkes points out, News Corp has pointedly denied the allegation. They are admitting everything else but not this.

Because of the extra damage it would do to them when it was proved that they had hacked Brown's son's medical records it would be idiotic to deny it if it is true. In today's climate that demands a proper investigation into hacking the truth will out.

Why would they deny it in such circumstances?

Thirdly the timing of the revelations about Brown's son's disability was too convenient for Brown. He was at the nadir of his popularity and the revelations gave him a boost. Everyone assumed the information was released by labour for spin purposes. Journalists may be low but political types do use such methods to suit their ends.

And finally if this is true why did Gordon Brown and wife attend the wedding of Rebekah Brooks/Wade? Who in their right mind would want to celebrate the wedding of the person who you know hacked into the most sensitive medical records of your disabled child?

I wouldn't. No parent would.

More than that though. If you are the Prime Minister, even if no one elected you, and you found out that your child's medical records had been hacked why wouldn't you unleash the powers of the state onto the vile perpetrators and quench your justified anger with bringing the criminals to justice?

It's one of the perks of being PM.

I certainly wouldn't socialise with the criminals and only tell anyone after you discover a new bandwagon upon which to jump in order to beg for sympathy.

I loath the tabloid mentality and can believe the worst of them, but this Brown things seems fishy to me.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On the danger of stopping Rupert Murdoch taking over Sky for political reasons

I have been consistent and clear over the years about how I don't want Rupert Murdoch to take over Sky TV, or own any UK media.

However I am a little concerned about the way in which politicians are trying to win favour with what they think is a key part of the public by demanding his takeover is stopped.

Firstly I don't think that most people care if he takes over or not. I fear that this is simply another case of an insulated incestuous group talking to themselves. Most people have more important things to worry about. Most people think that with the economy is in the basket, our elderly are having their care homes closed, thar their families and health are under threat is more important that Rupert bloody Murdoch.

More seriously I worry by politicians trying to exert political pressure over what is supposed to be a apolitical quasi judicial decision. The whole process of taking over media was created by politicians to be independent. Worse than this is the fact that labour changed the law to allow Murdoch to buy Sky. This change being part of the sicking way they sucked up to Murdoch in order to secure his support.

For politicians and labour in particular to try to move the goal posts is wrong. Like I say I don't want Murdoch to takeover Sky but if political pressure can be brought to bear on a independent process the same precedent can be used in other cases.

That allows politicians a dangerous level of power to ignore the laws they write.

More than that by making a independent process political is acting against the spirit and perhaps the letter of the law. This is important because it gives Murdoch an excuse to take any ban to court. It will allow him to have any ban overturned on appeal. Perhaps with damages awarded to him.


Speaking as a person who doesn't want Murdoch owning Sky this is not a good thing.

Politicians really need to realise who their actions and words effect things and understand their unintended consequences.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPa

Is Ed Miliband's golden opportunity turning into a poisoned chalice?

The labour leader Ed Miliband is having a great time attacking David Cameron over his choice of ex-Murdoch hack Andy Coulson. Apparently his hiring reflects a serious flaw in Cameron's character. And he should go.

I've been writing here for months that Coulson shouldn't have been hired. No so much because of his actions which haven't actually been proved wrong. I mean to say to not employ someone because of speculation rather than proof seems unfair. Nope I would not have employed him because he was a tabloid hack who edited a terrible paper and worked for Murdoch.

Any way Miliband is going after Cameron with relish.

But it'll come back and bite him. Indeed I think this whole hacking scandal will do labour more damage than the Tories. These crimes were done under a labour government which Ed was part. Labour purposefully ignored report after report on these crimes. Worse than thar the shameless and degrading sucking up to Murdoch ties them to this horrible man.

Any inquiry will bring this to the light of day and do them damage.

However the damage Ed is seeking to inflict on Cameron due to Coulson is going to backfire now. You see Ed is attacking Cameron for hiring a Murdoch hack alleged to be tied to illegal hacking. Yet Ed himself is employing a Murdoch hack called Tom Baldwin as his chief media wonk. Not only is he said to have a serious drug problem Lord Ashcroft says he has proof that he was behind the illegal acquisition of private bank records and bribing a US official who got time because of the release of secret records illegally to the Murdoch press.

As Ed is making great play on the fact that Cameron is evil because of the hiring of a man who hasn't been proved to have acted illegally then his hiring of a man with a known drug habit who can be proved to have acted illegally makes him worse than the idiot Cameron.

If the Tories had any killer instinct they'd go on the attack over Baldwin. However more dangerous for labour is the Murdoch empire. If I were them I'd release all their records about Baldwin and how we were shocked at his rampant illegal activities and sacked him because we don't do such things ( yea right!).

Murdoch could destroy Baldwin and Ed if they wanted to. They know where the bodies are buried.

Unless Ed is lucky his golden opportunity will turn into a poisoned chalice.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Goodbye cruel World

And so it came to pass that our world changed and the News of the World ceases publication after 168 years. It's final front page enters the history books.




A page full of what they think are their best bits. To my mind some of the front pages are the wrong choice. To brag about breaking up marriages rather than catching criminals seems a tad strange as it was gossip, hacking, and gutter tabloid journalism which destroyed them.

I find it peculiar that they only use recent pages rather than those from it's youth. This was an old paper it must have done something of note before the degrading influence of Murdoch.

Anyway no more NoW.

Speaking as a person who loathed the paper, and it's sisters, I will shed no tears. However I do find the middle-class gloating of many irritating. The whole tenor seems to be that the NoW was for the working classes who are thick.

Such ignorant elitism is frankly pathetic.

But I'm not going to be seduced by nostalgia for a lost paper. Perhaps it was a good paper pre-Murdoch, but it wasn't in my lifetime.

I do sympathise with the blameless people, the printers, support staff, and journalists who have lost their jobs. I hope the guilty are prosecuted.

To all the media gloating in the destruction of the NoW I say I hope you are blameless as to storm may finish you too. Politicians who sense blood, seek to tap into public anger, garner votes, and want revenge on the press for shining a light on their crimes are now a danger to all papers.

So we can be pleased that a despicable type of journalism is gone, albeit temporally, but the danger now begins for press freedom.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The Guardian admits bribing the police!

It seems illegal activity is so part of the British media that they forget that such actions are illegal.

However there is something amusing that the Guardian which is claiming credit the death of the News of the World to be admit that they have just bribed a policeman for illegal access to a police computer to get confidential information into the arrest of Andy Coulson for bribing the police.



It appears that the Guardian doesn't do irony and seems to think that the law doesn't apply to right on papers like themselves.

In light if the new spirit of frowning on illegality in papers I will expect the Guardian to be closed and the guilty arrested forthwith. I mean they admit to bribery. The group has been caught breaking the law hundreds of times. And they don't pay tax.

If the Murdoch empire can rightly be prosecuted for their crimes so can the Guardian.

Is it arrogance or unbelievable arrogance to admit in your own paper to accessing confidential police records and bribing the police?

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

If media can be closed down because of wrong doing why not the BBC?

As I have been saying here for years I despise Rupert Murdoch and his tabloid rags. I will not mourn if their type of people destroying antics disappear.

I do worry that they will be used to introduce state control of the free press and allow the rich and powerful who are guilty of real crimes to escape scrutiny. I think that it is very possible that ill written legislation will throw press freedom out with the illegal activities.

That is a real danger.

I do wonder why this new precedent of collective punishment and the closing of media outlets is not applied to the BBC. They have been caught lying about the Queen, anti-Semitism, and only recently their premier news series faked scenes of child labour. Faked footage which could have driven Primark out if business leading to thousands of redundancies. It did cause investors in this retail chain to lose money.

So are the BBC going to be shut down, or just the news department.....

No....

Not even the people who faked the footage will be sacked.

So why can a hated media organisation be pressurised into closing a paper for despicable actions of a few but the BBC be immune?

It seems strange to me.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On the passing of the News of the World

And so no one will be able to call the News of the World 'NoW' after Sunday. It won't be there.

Whatever your views on the NoW, and I had boycotted it for many years, it is horrendous that Murdoch sacked over two hundred journalists, and countless support staff just to protect his pet Rebekah Wade/Brooks.

The non-journalists redundancies are literally uncounted as the media are only concerned with other journalists being sacked.

Any way I despised the NoW but to sack hundreds of people not guilty of any wrongdoing, many of whom weren't there when the criminal acts were committed seems wrong.

I do find it peculiar that the National Union of Journalists, the TUC, or indeed the supposed party of the working person, labour, have not condemned the arbitrary sacking of hundreds of innocent people.

Politics seems to trump the poor bloody worker.

I've been writing here and elsewhere for years of my hatred of the NoW. The way in which it destroyed people in order to sell papers is offensive to me. As I mentioned here before I've seen the destructive power of the NoW at first hand when I saw a friend's life, pension, and more importantly, family destroyed in order to sell more papers. He wasn't a criminal. He broke no law. And yet the NoW, the Sun, the Mirror, etc., ruined his life.

It was sicking to see.

He and his family are but one of many ordinary people destroyed in this way. This has always been wrong.

And yet at the end my sentimental nature kicks in even for a hated paper. For all my life the NoW was a despicable rag, I've no idea what it was like before being infested by Rupert Murdoch. For a 168 year old institution to be wiped off the face of the nation saddens me.

The NoW had been a part of this country, for good or bad, for a very long time.

It saddens me that this iconic paper has been destroyed by the malign influence of Murdoch.

There is a song with a line that goes something like 'you don't know what you miss 'till it's gone'. I think the loss of the NoW taps into this vein of British sentimentality.

We are a strange people sometimes I feel. I most definitely am. We come over all misty eyed and nostalgic at the most stupid of things. Even hated papers. The NoW is proof of this.

My sympathies to the redundant support staff and journalists untainted by illegality. To lose your job at any time is horrible, to do so now, in such numbers, and from such a hated paper, is much worse.

I still hope those who broke the law get justice for the illegal and immoral actions.

One final thought strikes me. If it is politically acceptable to sack hundreds of innocent people for the actions of what everyone keeps saying is the illegal actions of a few, why cannot we purge parliament for the illegal fiddling, war criminals, corruption, and who knows what else, of well over half of their number?

It seems such mentality and justice only apply to us lower orders and not out political masters.

Thus the NoW will cease. Our sentimental nature and natural nostalgia shouldn't forget what it became, or the damage it caused. However our bias should not stop us sympathising for the sacked.

I do hope Murdoch's actions comes back to haunt him.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The News of the World to close this Sunday!!

In a remarkable move Rupert Murdoch is closing the scandal plagued News of the World. See here.

Now this is a shock. This is 168 year old paper. It's the largest circulation newspaper in the country. It is also a Murdoch cash cow.

So its closure is a surprise.

Murdoch is not a noted sentimentalist. But he is not prone to give up a cash making business.

From the outside I must say it looks like a serious damage limitation exercise. Three possible reasons for this bold move strike me, and you have to remember I have no insider information.

The first is that he is salvage his bid for Sky TV by getting shot of the infamous NoW. Not entirely sure this is the reason as the decision has been put back months and he may have a legal argument to overturn any ban on his purchase.

I don't want him owning any media Here so I hope he is banned.

The second is that he knows something seriously illegal may come out if a proper investigation occurs. Perhaps impacting him. Closing the paper, dispersing the staff and destroying the records, may be used to stop any investigation. If this is true I dread to think what he's frightened of coming out.

The third is that he is worried that his son will be prosecuted and hopes the closure would stop this. MPs have called for his prosecution and Rupert has been known to protect him regardless of cost.

And so the NoW enters the history books.

I hope that the investigation into their crimes, and that of the wider News Corp, and other media outlets continues and that the guilty are prosecuted.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

A strange world whereby you can hate the NoW and the hypocrisy of politicians

My views on the NoW, the Sun, and all the illegal act committed by the media are well known to people here. More than that I've been saying for years that Rupert Murdoch shouldn't be allowed to take over Sky TV. More than that I've made it clear that Murdoch shouldn't be allowed to own any UK media.

And that he should pay tax to boot!

However I watched the parliamentary debate into this sorry hacking affair with disquiet.

There were some valid points made. Indeed the contributions of Nicolas Soames, a Tory stalwart, made some really good points in a non-political manner. I was surprisingly pleased with the measured way in which the Attorney General Dominic Grieve dealt with the matter in a cool, knowledgeable, and non-political way. My only criticism of him is that he was perhaps too willing to allow interruptions.

It needs to be said that there needs to be a full inquiry into this matter, and the wider media. This inquiry needs to be wide-ranging, open, and under oath. Murdoch shouldn't be able to buy Sky TV.

In all these things I agree with what the politicians said.

But....

Two things struck me.

The first it is a bit hypocritical for labour to try to make political capital out of it when all these crimes took place under their watch. That they had a report detailing all the illegal hacking by Murdoch's minions, and other outlets, and did nothing. That they dropped inquiries into News Corp in order to suck up to him in order to get his support.

More than that though to have MP after MP standing up pontificating about criminal activity or morality when over half of them were caught fiddling is bile inducing. To have Kieth Vaz standing up condemning anyone when he himself is steeped in allegations of corruption and is linked to criminal elements (a corrupt policemen currently in jail, and a criminal struck off lawyer, for a start), and to have Hazel Blears, a woman who is very lucky not to be in jail for her expenses is nauseating.

Blears was worst though as she kept making the same vacuous interruptions which were answered only to say the same shallow point again.

I want all those who broke the law punished. I want Murdoch stopped. However I'm sickened by self-serving, mostly corrupt, in some cases deserving of prison, politicians taking the moral high ground.

Some journalists acted illegally and deserve punishment. No one is saying that well over half of them acted in a criminal manner. But more than half of our politicians did.

We need to remember that.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

War Widows hacked?

Everyday passing more despicable acts are alleged against the News of the World.

Perhaps the worst still remains hacking the phone of a dead girl, however the new allegations that the phones of widows and families of soldiers killied in action is close in it's depravity.

As I keep saying the hacking of anyone's phone or email is an illegal act. However to hack the bereaved solely to make money out of any information is sick.

Perhaps what makes it worse is that the NoW and its stablemates have wrapped the British forces, and their wars around them to sell themselves as the papers for the patriotic. You want to support our boys in danger buy the NoW and the Sun.

And yet as the same time they were violating the widows of those brave men who died fighting for their country in order to make money.

The profiting by muscling in on the affection and pride we have for our armed forces at the same time as violating the pain of their widows is shocking.

My views of Rupert Murdoch's press are well known here. Our distain for this man and his rags mustn't blind us to the facts that the NoW and the Sun are not the only papers who behave like this. Tabloid and broadsheet have behaved the same.

We need a full and proper investigation into all the press to punish the guilty regardless of who they are.

What type of person violates the raw pain of a young woman having to deal with the horror of losing their loved one fighting for their country?

It's sick.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On the mentality of the tabloids hacking the bereaved

It is illegal to hack anyone's phone or email unless you're in law enforcement and have a warrant to do so. Each and every one of us has the right to our privacy.

The tabloids, especially the Daily Mail, don't want this law stopping them selling papers and making oodles of cash out of gossip.

It's strange that the tabloids, especially the Daily Mail, are silent in their campaign to be allowed to spy on people and destroy the lives of children since the latest scandal of phone hacking by the News of the World has come to light.

They are far more interested in hiding their own paparazzi fuelled naughtiness.

If you try really hard you can smell the fear of the tabloids. The hacking case could be the impetus for the introduction of a proper privacy law. They really don't want that.

Neither do I as it happens as I fear it will be used to protect the rich and powerful from having their illegal actions revealed and would damage a free press.

The tabloids are only worried about losing money.

Like I say everyone has the right under law not to be hacked.

But the allegations doing the damage today is about the NoW hacking into the phone of one murdered child, the families of two murdered children, and the victims of a murderous terrorist attack.

I simply cannot understand how anyone can become so wicked as to attack dead children and grieving families.

I use the old-fashioned word 'wicked' here advisedly. All hacking is illegal but this goes beyond that. These attacks on the dead and suffering is about morality. To give the parents of the dead false hope, mislead the police, or impinge upon the raw hurt of victim and their family is a new low. It's immoral. It's wicked.

Any normal person, even if they snooped on a celeb's phone, knows it is wrong to hack the hurt. This isn't about law it's about morality. It's about decency. It's about our shared humanity and understanding of the pain of others. Most have a desire not to make their suffering worse.

For the press to have become so debased and disconnected from humanity to not only attack the vulnerable but to make money out of the act shows that there is something seriously wrong with some of our press.

The people behind these attacks, and I mean reporters, editors, managers, and owners, need to face justice for their illegal activities. I do not care a fig how powerful they are, or how terrified politicians are of them, or how dependent. If they break the law they need to face justice.

This whole sorry affair demeans the press and is utterly unacceptable.

For people, and we are talking about living breathing people here not some abstract entity, to be so corrupted by their work is obscene.

Something needs to be done and this affair shouldn't be swept under the carpet like it has been so many times before.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The list of newspapers and magazines caught breaching privacy laws

The country is awash with outrage with the News of the World's hacking of a murdered girl's phone. Such outrage is right.

However In a 2006 official government report the following newspapers and magazines were caught using disreputable private eyes to obtain stories by breaching privacy laws,




You need to best in mind that these are only the proven cases and that the NoW have been caught lying through their teeth fibbing about the extent of their illegal activity.

For all the sanctimonious outrage of the Guardian you need to remember that the Observer newspaper, the sister paper of theirs were caught breaking the laws 103 times. They are not untainted by illegality.

But what gets me is the fact that 'Woman's Own', which used to be the most staid and old-fashioned of magazines broke the law four times.

How inculcated has illegality and trampling on the privacy of others if Woman's Own feels free to commit illegal acts?

It's a long way away from jam and knitting.

I don't read gossip but I have to say I really want to know who the WO targeted. I feel that that is a much more interesting story than their target.

There must be a hierarchy of fame in terms if who is interested in your life. For the big celeb it is all the media. For others it's the Star. But at the bottom only the WO is interested in you. That's got to be depressing.

I realise it's a out of date and inaccurate list but it this is the list of proven cases. It just shows you how widespread press abuse is.

It's not good is it?




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On Milly Dowler's phone being hacked by the News of the World.

A free and independent press is a vital part of a open developed country. However too often it seems that newspapers can get caught up in the fight for a story and the money a good juicy one brings. This is the reason we've seen police being bribed, lies told, and this is why illegal phone hacking has been done.

It's all to get the story. Well to be perfectly accurate it's to get gossip. Phone hacking never seemed to be about unmasking corruption or lies only titillating gossip.

I think I've made my views about the gutter press and the way they destroy people's lives for money clear.

I don't like it.

Rupert Murdoch's News International is very much in the spotlight for their illegal activities, though it needs to be remembered that they are not the only media empire found to have been acting illegally, the Mirror, and the Guardian have been found acting in an illegal manner.

In light of this widespread illegal activity by an out of control press I have become cynical as to their ways.

However I am stunned and sickened by the breathtaking illegality and cruelty by the News International newspaper The News of the World under then the auspices of Rebekah Wade who was it's editor and is now high up in the NI hierarchy.




The Guardian has a story about how the NoW under Wade acted in the tragic case of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler.

Milly was a young vibrant, beautiful, girl with her whole life in front of her. Her senseless murder was a horrific act which took took ten years to find and convict the murderer.

Video footage of Milly has become etched into our psyche. The footage showed a nice intelligent girl full of potential and hope.

Her murder is a nightmare. One which her family had to endure with the insinuation in the media that they had something to do with her death.

All lies. Milly's family and friends are totally innocent.

Such media speculation and insinuation must be unbearable.

That is nothing to the frankly unbelievable crimes Wade's NoW did.

You see they decided to hack into Milly's mobile phone and listen to her messages. This is illegal it goes without saying. But the crime goes much further than that.

You see the phone had a limited number of messages it could hold. As such it quickly ran out of space due to friends and family phoning the then missing Milly.

So the NoW erased messages to make room for new ones. This being done to allow them to get new story's from this inside source.

All this is illegal. However it goes beyond that. At this time Milly was missing. She was actually dead but her body hadn't been discovered yet. The family and the police were still searching for a runaway.

Having messages deleted gave them false hope. They thought that their
precious daughter had just run off but was still alive and able to check her phone.

To do that to a family going out of their mind with worry is evil. To interfere with a police investigation into a child's murder by having them use resources chasing false hope is disgusting.

I am a cynic as far as the press is concerned. But even I am stunned by this NoW action.

This moves the hacking scandal from a bit of gossip and into the realm of perverting the course of justice, interfering with the investigation of a murder, and who knows what else.

It took ten years for the serial killer who murdered Milly to be convicted. Who knows if the actions of the NoW allowed him to get away with it for so long. Who knows if he killed or hurt anyone else in the interim.

Wade, the NoW, and NI need to be brought to book for this. They shouldn't be able to get off with paying off the family. Wade and those reporters who did these crimes, and the NI management who allowed such crimes to happen, need to face prison.

This isn't about press freedom, or freedom of expression. This is illegally hampering the police investigating the murder of a child. This is about hurting the family and friends of a murdered girl.

There needs to be a full investigation into the illegal activities of all papers to stamp out such rampant activity.

What type of person deletes evidence, gives false hope, interferes with a police investigation, hacks phones in a child murder case?

How out of touch and frankly wicked does a person have to be to do that?




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Children put in care because of Yorkshire culture!

Yorkshire has some great countryside. Like everywhere it's not all rolling dales and 'All creatures great and small' eccentricity, but the people, like most of us, are friendly.

My grandfather was from Yorkshire and he was wonderful.

Yes Yorkshire has its quirks, and yes there are some idiots there, but mostly it's a great place to live. You an say this about most places.

There is a cliche about the Yorkshire mentality and Yorkshire pride. However this is mostly a media exaggeration, humorous artistic licence, tinged with a strong sense of community.

Yorkshire is Yorkshire. It's still part of the UK. Yorkshire people are us with a little local colour.

This isn't a controversial view to take. The same thing can be said about every county, about every part of the UK.

It's fact.

This is why it is so shocking that Hampshire Council Social Services decided to put a young boy and his sister into care rather than allow their Aunt foster them because they thought they couldn't cope with Yorkshire culture. This ludicrous decision took nine months to appeal and resulted in the siblings spending nine months in council care. See here.

I am not one of those people who damn all social workers and see them as incompetent, politically correct, idiots. I'm sure most do their best. Their workload and the stress must be horrific. I for one couldn't do their job.

I've seen some great lady social workers. I've never actually seen any male ones which is a tad odd but my experience with them is limited. I did study with a high up social worker who told me her favourite client was a family where the mother kept ironing her children. The social worker still kept the children with their mother. I obviously don't know the case but from an outsider perspective repeatedly burning children with a hot iron isn't good. Indeed one would have thought such torture is a seriously good reason to take children into protective care.

But that could just be me.

I simply do not understand the mentality of a social work department that fights to keep children in care rather than allowing them to go to their loving Aunt. There was never any suggestion that the Aunt was anything else but a loving and kind person wanting to do the best for the children.

This isn't about child protection. It's about Yorkshire culture.

Rather it's about a very biased stereotype of Yorkshire culture.

Children in care have a difficult time. The incidences of abuse, violence, illegality, low educational achievements, homelessness, drug addiction, etc., is high. By no means all people in care suffer such things but they do have a higher incidence of such things.

So I don't understand why a social work department would send anyone into care if there was a safer, and cheaper, option of a loving family member eager to take care of them.

Yorkshire may have its faults but it isn't a alien culture. We are not talking about sending children to Somalia here. These are English children being sent to an English family.

I am glad this stupid decision has been overturned and I hope the children and their family have a great life.

I do wonder about the social worker's bigotry though. I really cannot see them refusing to send an Asian girl to a fundamentalist Muslim family because of worries about forced marriage, genital mutilation, or any other stereotype.

It seems for some that bias or bigotry is only wrong when not applied to White English people.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Should we thank a teacher for everything?

The teachers are revolting, as they say. They are having waves of industrial action in their battle with the government.

A key element of this is the spin battle.

I've read the following message all over the place,

If you can read this thank a teacher

Rather clever isn't it and persuasive. However I'm just wondering if it works the other way. The number of people leaving full time eduction who are illiterate and as such damned to a life of unemployment or menial, lowest paid, jobs is huge and growing.

So should we say,

If you cannot read this thank a teacher

It's easy to praise oneself for the good things you or your colleagues do, but much harder to take responsibility for the bad.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

On Dominique Strauss-Kahn's release from prison.

My views on criminal activity are simple: if a person is guilty they deserve their punishment. With sex crimes or crimes against children it is even more important that the guilty are punished after a fair and open trial.

The rich, the powerful, or the famous should not escape justice because of their riches, power, or fame. However nor should they be targeted, falsely accused, or punished more severely because of who they are.

Any sexual attacker convicted in court deserves severe punishment.

It really is that simple.

In light of my views I do find it odd that the ex-head of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn [DSK], has been released on his own recognisance after been accused of a serious sexual assault.See here.

For the prosecutors to agree with such a move for a man they said sexually assaulted someone, a man they fought tooth and nail to put in prison awaiting his trial telling the court he was a flight risk shows something isn't right here.

If the media is correct then the prosecutors have made a monumentally terrifying mistake. Basically they arrested DSK, put him in jail, destroyed his career, reputation, and perhaps political chances, on the say so of a liar. More than this the alleged victim of the sexual assault had been taped phoning her boyfriend who is being held because he is an illegal immigrant and drug dealer and telling him in Fulani something like,

‘Don’t worry, this guy has a lot of money. I know what I’m doing,’

To most people this looks suspiciously like a money making venture to use the law to become rich off a rich man by suing him for damages after he was convicted or demanding money to withdraw her testimony. This is on top of her changing stories and proven lies. She initially said she was a devout Muslim but it turned out she wasn't. Much more seriously she was caught lying about being gang raped as part of her failed attempt to gain asylum in the US. She lied to officials about her finances, lied that a friend's child was hers for tax reasons, lied about her income to remain in subsidised public housing, is friends to criminals, etc.

She also changed her version of her attack. None of these things look good. She has also been receiving thousands of dollars from banks all over the USA without apparent reason.

All of this, and the apparent breakdown with her relationship with the prosecutors looks good.

I need to make it clear here that her immigration status, her friends, or her boyfriend mean that anyone who attacked her should get away with it. If she was attacked she deserves justice like anyone else.

If an illegal immigrant is attacked it is still a crime which deserves punishment of the attacker.

However the phone call, her history of lies, especially about sexual assault, and her apparent desire to make money off of the alleged attack must raise doubts about the alleged attack and her trustworthiness.

My views on DSK are clear: he's not a nice man. He's tainted with allegations of being a groper. However for him to be imprisoned and life destroyed on such a weak case is horrible.

He is a high profile man. I do worry what would have happened to a average bloke if she accused them of such an assault. What would have happened without the phone call?

Now that is scary!

If DSK is guilty he deserves serious punishment no question. However it is shocking how weak the prosecution's case is and a damning testimony that such a tainted witness without any other witness or evidence of violent assault (he admits to consensual sexual activity with the obvious physical evidence that results in) can put someone in prison and destroy their lives.

The unseemly rush to charge DSK, and the political aspects such a high profile case brings, has either resulted in a unjust arrest and charge, or is going to allow a guilty man to escape justice. Either is a terrible outcome.

The more on knows about this case and the facts the more likely it is that DSK is notguilty. And I say this as a person who doesn't like him.

If DSK is cleared,and it seems likely he will be, then he will become president of France. He was popular anyway but being able to play on the French anti-American feeling by saying there was a conspiracy to "get him" , or even the current and unpopular president did it to nobble him may make him unstoppable.

If this happens then I don't think it'll do US-French/EU relations much good.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

What type of person laughs at the deaths of young men: a Guardian reporter.

It's is a tragic story and the stuff of every parent's nightmare. Three nineteen year old students were on holiday in Thailand when there bus was involved in an accident and they were killed. For three young men with their lives and dreams ahead of them it's horrific. Truly life can be cruel. The three are Bruno Melling-Firth, Conrad Quashie and Max Boomgaarden-Cook. All three school friends went to the same state school.

It doesn't matter if they were rich or poor, black or White, British or foreign. It doesn't matter what their political beliefs were. This is a tragedy that must be utterly devastating to their family and friends. My deepest and most sincere sympathies go out to all.

This is a tragedy plain and simple.

Unless you are a Guardian journalist. In that case it's funny. Kia Abdullah believes their deaths are a joke because two of them had hyphenated names.




What type of bigot finds the death of anyone, especially the young funny? These three friends were not criminals, they were not nazis or upperclass oppressors. They were just young men with a life and family ahead of them. There deaths are not funny. Their deaths are not a political statement or a blow to the upper classes.

It's a tragedy.

Abdullah should be ashamed of herself. She's a nasty, narrow-minded, creep without the most basic empathy or understanding of humanity.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Public sector workers aren't "real" taxpayers!

The country is being hit by waves of public sector workers striking to preserve their early retirement age and taxpayer funded index linked pensions.

Now I come off a family who proudly worked in the public sector. Most of whom did their work when the public sector were paid a lot less then the private sector. They did it out of a sense of public duty. Today this seems terribly old fashioned in a world were the public sector tends to be paid more, have a secure job from which they cannot be sacked no matter how incompetent they are, retire sixteen years earlier than anyone else, and has that rarest of things a safe and secure pension.

Although I've met some utterly lazy, useless, incompetent, dangerous public sector staff most have been normal people doing their best in face of the public.

I'm not anti public sector in any way in other words.

However I keep hearing the mantra that pubic sector workers are taxpayers and as such pay for their own pensions and jobs.

This isn't true.

OK those over the income threshold pay tax on their wages, but this isn't "really" paying tax. 100% of their wage comes from our taxes. They return some of their wages but keep the rest. All there income comes from other taxpayers. They are not self-funding. They do not increase our national wealth. They do not work for organisations which generate wealth.

They are a net drain on the income of the private sector.

And as to the claim that their pensions are self funded this is wrong. The pension contribution they make goes into general taxation rather than into a dedicated pension pot. Their pensions are paid out of the same direct taxation by other taxpayers.

After labour's attack on private pensions they have massively been reduced. The same isn't true of public sector pensions. These pensions are paid for by the poor taxpayer and don't depend on interest or earnings on investments like every private pension fund. They are protected from any loss, taxation, and increase year on year. This means that they aren't at the mercy of the stock market or interest rate changes. They revive their pension, and it's increase, regardless.

On average the pension of every public sector worker who has done thirty years is £500,000. We pay the vast bulk of this not the pensioner.

So don't try to spin the line that the public sector is self funding and pay for their pension.

They don't.

I am not anti public sector or think we don't need public sector workers. Many or most do brilliant work. But not all of them. With the massive increase of the public sector under labour to buy their votes waste and incompetency has grown.

We need reform and overhaul. I just hope the good parts are not thrown out with the bad.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad