Of course, we need far better regulation of politicians. For far too long, they've been allowed to get away with needing no qualifications at all. We need a new regulator - OFPOL, perhaps - to set out principles-based regulation and to have the power to impose fines and bans on errant politicians. A programme of exams, with continuing education requirements to ensure that politicians don't get out of touch with the most up-to-date requirements.
As well as regulation, OFPOL could issue codes of best practice. It should be given powers to enter MPs' offices without notice when it has grounds to suspect misbehaviour with powers to seize computers and correspondence. Given the important work that politicians perform, with untold billions within their control, this is the least that we can expect.
I am still not sure why the press needs regulating other than by the normal operation of the law. Not sure I can say any more as we are not allowed to comment on current events.
However I would change the libel laws: firstly, damages should be no more than an estimate of the actual cost of the lie plus a notional sum for hurt feelings which should not vary according the claimant's wealth.
Also: individuals who seek to promote themselves and earn money through the pursuit of celebrity - such as footballers - should have no right to privacy.
So as you can see, I think the press needs more freedom not less. But if they break the law - phone hacking, bribing public officials - then they should be pursued with the full force of the law.
I do find David's comment about "That deeply corrosive and undemocratic mind-set" deeply worrying, but then he is a Tory and presumably has a Conservative predilection for preserving institutions as they stand. The problem is our current politicians will not hold the Government to account, as the system is corrupt: will someone hold the Government to account if they want a Ministerial post and the enhanced retirement earnings that that brings?
In the end the only way we can hold Government to account is openness: every action of the Government should be deemed to be in the public domain. After all I am a taxpayer, a voter and a citizen: I own the Government, it acts in my name. It should have no right to privacy. The Press helps us to achieve this.
No Richard, everyone, no matter what they do for a living, should be equal under the law.
It isn't just that they break existing laws, Plato, they also behave very badly whilst staying (just) within them.
Surely no one has any obligation in respect of the law other than to "stay (just) within it".
By all means change the law so certain acts become illegal, but in a free society I don't see how you can introduce regulation to stop people doing things which, however much you disapprove of them, are actually legal.
It's outrageous that women in 1938 were allowed to flaunt their mobile phones (third picture). No wonder the whole of Europe erupted into a huge kerfuffle a year later if that sort of thing was allowed to happen.
Personally I think they're mostly rubbish, the worst of the half dozen countries' press that I intermittently follow
I guess these are mostly northern European countries? If you compare the British press to the Japanese, or even the US, I reckon it's pretty good - at least it's not excessively deferential. Compared to most northern European countries it's pretty bad. But you could say exactly the same thing of pretty much any of the political institutions in those countries. Japan is terrible, the US is bad, the UK is in the middle, most of northern Europe is good.
The problem is that the proposed solution to poor Britain's media institutions seems to be to give a bigger role to Britain's political or judiciary institutions, which aren't very good either.
I am still not sure why the press needs regulating other than by the normal operation of the law. Not sure I can say any more as we are not allowed to comment on current events.
However I would change the libel laws: firstly, damages should be no more than an estimate of the actual cost of the lie plus a notional sum for hurt feelings which should not vary according the claimant's wealth.
Also: individuals who seek to promote themselves and earn money through the pursuit of celebrity - such as footballers - should have no right to privacy.
So as you can see, I think the press needs more freedom not less. But if they break the law - phone hacking, bribing public officials - then they should be pursued with the full force of the law.
I do find David's comment about "That deeply corrosive and undemocratic mind-set" deeply worrying, but then he is a Tory and presumably has a Conservative predilection for preserving institutions as they stand. The problem is our current politicians will not hold the Government to account, as the system is corrupt: will someone hold the Government to account if they want a Ministerial post and the enhanced retirement earnings that that brings?
In the end the only way we can hold Government to account is openness: every action of the Government should be deemed to be in the public domain. After all I am a taxpayer, a voter and a citizen: I own the Government, it acts in my name. It should have no right to privacy. The Press helps us to achieve this.
No Richard, everyone, no matter what they do for a living, should be equal under the law.
Huhne went to jail. Nor is he the only politician to have done so of late. Where scandal and corruption is uncovered then there are naturally consquences. Those consequences should obviously be just as serious for politicians and members of the press as for everyone else.
It's outrageous that women in 1938 were allowed to flaunt their mobile phones (third picture). No wonder the whole of Europe erupted into a huge kerfuffle a year later if that sort of thing was allowed to happen.
LOL - a long time ago, a male colleague told me that mobile phones ought to be combined with a make-up mirror. I was Ha Really Funny, then realised he was deadly serious...
I am still not sure why the press needs regulating other than by the normal operation of the law. Not sure I can say any more as we are not allowed to comment on current events.
However I would change the libel laws: firstly, damages should be no more than an estimate of the actual cost of the lie plus a notional sum for hurt feelings which should not vary according the claimant's wealth.
Also: individuals who seek to promote themselves and earn money through the pursuit of celebrity - such as footballers - should have no right to privacy.
So as you can see, I think the press needs more freedom not less. But if they break the law - phone hacking, bribing public officials - then they should be pursued with the full force of the law.
I do find David's comment about "That deeply corrosive and undemocratic mind-set" deeply worrying, but then he is a Tory and presumably has a Conservative predilection for preserving institutions as they stand. The problem is our current politicians will not hold the Government to account, as the system is corrupt: will someone hold the Government to account if they want a Ministerial post and the enhanced retirement earnings that that brings?
In the end the only way we can hold Government to account is openness: every action of the Government should be deemed to be in the public domain. After all I am a taxpayer, a voter and a citizen: I own the Government, it acts in my name. It should have no right to privacy. The Press helps us to achieve this.
No Richard, everyone, no matter what they do for a living, should be equal under the law.
Huhne went to jail. Nor is he the only politician to have done so of late. Where scandal and corruption is uncovered then there are naturally consquences. Those consequences should obviously be just as serious for politicians and members of the press as for everyone else.
Huhne went to jail. Nor is he the only politician to have done so of late. Where scandal and corruption is uncovered then there are naturally consquences. Those consequences should obviously be just as serious for politicians and members of the press as for everyone else.
Of course the law needs to be enforced even-handedly, but I also think we owe a debt to people who risk prison to get us our news. OK, mostly our celebrity gossip, but from a regulatory standpoint the two are probably indistinguishable.
The Tea Party PB Tories do Marxism, or "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"
Surprised they aren't more fulsome in their praise of Cameron's press regulation, seems fairly mild stuff to me considering. But I guess they prefer Paul Dacre chairing the Press Complaints Commission
LOL - a long time ago, a male colleague told me that mobile phones ought to be combined with a make-up mirror. I was Ha Really Funny, then realised he was deadly serious...
Of course, if your phone has a front-facing camera, you can use for exactly that purpose.
I don't want to have to rehearse the numbers but, apparently, they're not being taught in schools anymore – so here goes. Sixty-five million were murdered in China – starved, hounded to suicide, shot as class traitors.
That's an exaggeration, both in terms of numbers and vocabulary. The number of people who died in the "Great Leap Forward" is variously estimated as anything from about 15 million to about 43 million, but not 65 million. And they were not all "murdered"; they died of starvation, illness, malnutrition, ill-treatment, violence, murder, suicide, famine and all sorts of other causes. The word "murder" implies that there was a starting point of a deliberate calculated intention to cause death, but from "Mao's Great Famine" by Frank Dikoetter, it is clear that the main cause was catastrophic incompetence in the management of society, the economy and the infrastructure of production. This was compounded by the lack of proper feedback mechanisms and accountability (i.e. lack of market forces). Thus it can be argued that communism was one of the main root causes of the deaths, but that in itself doesn't make it murder.
That's poppycock Loony. Communism is state license to murder and many other evil things. The same goes for Fascism. Both ideaologies bring forth state gangsterism.
That's poppycock Loony. Communism is state license to murder and many other evil things. The same goes for Fascism. Both ideaologies bring forth state gangsterism.
Quite. If the h*l*c*aust figures were to be reduced by excluding those who died of starvation, illness, malnutrition, ill-treatment, violence, murder, suicide, famine and all sorts of other causes it wouldn't make things any better.
There are two views why Mao and Stalin aren't mentioned in the same breath as the National Socialists
(1) They were on the winning side (2) They're not Europeans and the sort of behviour they exhibited is therefore excusable.
On the brighter side, plenty of goals going in for both the blues and the reds.
Why am I not surprised that one of the few representatives of the political class on this site thinks that a neutered press is a good idea.
Ignoring the ad hominem bit, a question I'm curious about is whether people who like the status quo actually think our press is any good? The passing comments on the thread suggest a pretty fundamental disagreement about that. Personally I think they're mostly rubbish, the worst of the half dozen countries' press that I intermittently follow - axe-grinding, sensationalising, voyeuristic, prurient, hypocritical, selective, self-interested, self-congratulatory and a completely unreliable guide to what is actually happening at any moment. If a story about alleged government wrong-doing doesn't fit current editorial preference, it risks being simply ignored - and that works unpredictably (e.g. a former senior Mail journalist told me that they skated over a series of anti-Government stories in 1997-98 because they reckoned it would annoy their readers during the Blair honeymoon).
That said, I agree it's important that the press is able to expose public wrong-doing (and Financier, obviously even our present press is better than in North Korea or wherever it was that you were working). What part of the Charter prevents them from doing that?
The ad hominem bit you moan about is entirely justified given that your world view on this is reflected by your own statist beliefs. You honestly and utterly incorrectly believe that the State is a force for good and can be trusted to behave in a manner that is for the benefit of the citizens. That is a view that needs to be challenged and debunked at every opportunity.
As you know I too have worked and lived extensively in other countries and regularly (at least twice a week) still read original language newspapers from Norway and France as well as English language papers from Germany and Holland. I am afraid that they are simply not a patch on our own broadsheets. All four main UK broadsheets are miles ahead of their European counterparts and that is before you even start to consider the investigative journalism aspects which seem to be almost entirely missing in European papers.
Kicking myself potentially..... saw Moyes did 3 subs at 1/2 time which was 'brave', 45-1 for a draw at that point... clicked £10 on the william hill site and wimped out.... mixed emotions now!
"David Cameron’s attack on the Guardian infuriated my friend. The prime minister was threatening the free press, she cried.
I tried to keep the incredulity out of my voice. ‘Who let the politicians in?’ I asked with what little politeness I could muster. ‘Who opened the door and bowed as they came by?’
She genuinely thought that the state would only go after those nasty right-wing journalists when the old taboos were broken."
"The Co-operative Group is to axe more than 1,000 jobs at its troubled banking arm as part of a complete overhaul of its business and finances.
Sky News understands that the job cuts, which could be detailed as soon as Monday, will account for well over 10% of the Co-operative Bank's workforce.
The redundancies will underline the human toll of the lender's mismanagement in recent years as it finalises a plan to fill a £1.5bn hole in its balance sheet."
@RichardTyndall - why is it incorrect to believe that the State is a force for good? M y experience of the state is hugely positive, not only in my life but in my parents' and grandparents' lives too, as well as many people I grew up with. If your point is that the State isn't *necessarily* a force for good, then that I would agree with. But I find a blanket statement that it is incorrect to see the State as a force for good utterly bizarre, given what the State has enabled in this country over the last 150 years.
@RichardTyndall - why is it incorrect to believe that the State is a force for good? M y experience of the state is hugely positive, not only in my life but in my parents' and grandparents' lives too, as well as many people I grew up with. If your point is that the State isn't *necessarily* a force for good, then that I would agree with. But I find a blanket statement that it is incorrect to see the State as a force for good utterly bizarre, given what the State has enabled in this country over the last 150 years.
I thought that too, but also failed to see the ad hominem part of Richards original post. Pointing out that Nick is a member of the political class?
"Even so, the idea that in a democratic system it is the media and not opposition parties, backbenchers and ultimately the public who hold a government to account has to be challenged"
The public can't hold the political class to account if the accounts in question are being covered up by the media under orders from the political class.
This stealth attempt to impose the same PC censorship on the newspapers that holds at the BBC is just that - an attempt to keep the public uninformed of those things the political class don't want to be held account on.
If the BBC was the only media organisation (or if the entire media is forced to abide by the BBC's PC self-censorship which comes to the same thing) then the political class covering up the grooming gangs would never have been reported and the political class looting public money through expenses would never have been reported.
What supporters of Leveson P's proposals and HMG's Royal Charter have never been able to explain is how it can be said to be just for newspapers which have never been mixed up in any wrongdoing to be penalised in costs and damages in cases in which they have behaved entirely properly, for nothing more than failing to sign up to a state-approved regulator. That is punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty, and is madness.
In passing, there's one thing the US press gets overwhelmingly right compared with ours, which is that they try to maintain the distinction between reporting the news, and commenting on it
Exactly. If the British press reported the news reasonably straight and then carried on over the editorial pages as they do now, it would make a huge difference.
@RichardTyndall - why is it incorrect to believe that the State is a force for good? M y experience of the state is hugely positive, not only in my life but in my parents' and grandparents' lives too, as well as many people I grew up with. If your point is that the State isn't *necessarily* a force for good, then that I would agree with. But I find a blanket statement that it is incorrect to see the State as a force for good utterly bizarre, given what the State has enabled in this country over the last 150 years.
No.
Seeing the state as a 'force for good' leads to a mindset in some that the state can be excused when it fails, as we have seen on here passim. E.g.: "Oh, Stafford was an exception, and it doesn't matter in the long run because it was an exception, and the rest of the NHS is so wonderful."
And that leads to the hideous behaviour by some so-called 'supporters' of the NHS to anyone who has the temerity to want to know why their relatives and friends were mistreated.
The state is the state. It does some good things, and some bad things. It is neither a force for good or evil. It is what it is. We as a society have to try to make it better. Calling it a 'force for good' does the exact opposite.
In passing, there's one thing the US press gets overwhelmingly right compared with ours, which is that they try to maintain the distinction between reporting the news, and commenting on it
Exactly. If the British press reported the news reasonably straight and then carried on over the editorial pages as they do now, it would make a huge difference.
Ah yes - and it will be politicians who will decide what reporting the news "reasonably straight" means.
Give us a break. We weren't born yesterday. Politicians will want stories unflattering to them not reported, just as celebrities don't want such stories reported. It's all about control - not just over the press - but over what we get to know.
Stuff Leveson and the Royal Charter! What we need is the US's First Amendment. Interesting how those who praise the US press are never quite so quick to praise the constitutional regime under which it operates.
In passing, there's one thing the US press gets overwhelmingly right compared with ours, which is that they try to maintain the distinction between reporting the news, and commenting on it
Exactly. If the British press reported the news reasonably straight and then carried on over the editorial pages as they do now, it would make a huge difference.
The problem is you are of the political class. What you see as 'reasonably straight' news might differ from reality.
Do you think Campbell, McBride or Crosby are or were interested in a 'reasonably straight' version of events getting into the papers?
The political class are just as responsible for this situation as the media.
In passing, there's one thing the US press gets overwhelmingly right compared with ours, which is that they try to maintain the distinction between reporting the news, and commenting on it
Exactly. If the British press reported the news reasonably straight and then carried on over the editorial pages as they do now, it would make a huge difference.
The political class are just as responsible for this situation as the media.
And if they'd showed greater curiosity into established criminality a decade ago into hacking this could have been sorted much sooner. The mills of justice have ground extremely slowly....
@RichardTyndall - why is it incorrect to believe that the State is a force for good? M y experience of the state is hugely positive, not only in my life but in my parents' and grandparents' lives too, as well as many people I grew up with. If your point is that the State isn't *necessarily* a force for good, then that I would agree with. But I find a blanket statement that it is incorrect to see the State as a force for good utterly bizarre, given what the State has enabled in this country over the last 150 years.
The State is occasionally a force for good, but then mostly by accident. Most of what it does is detrimental to our freedoms and liberty. It takes the money we earn away from us, wastes some of it, takes a bit more in admin fees and then gives it back to us. What it does give back is done "progressively" in favour of the feckless, the degenerates and the spongers.
I struggle to think of anything positive the State has done for/to me that I couldn't have done myself more efficiently within a free capitalist society. The State restricts my rights to free speech, to dispose of my property and assets as I see fit, to carry a gun etc etc.
The State, overall, is an oppressive and unwelcome thing.
In passing, there's one thing the US press gets overwhelmingly right compared with ours, which is that they try to maintain the distinction between reporting the news, and commenting on it
Exactly. If the British press reported the news reasonably straight and then carried on over the editorial pages as they do now, it would make a huge difference.
The political class are just as responsible for this situation as the media.
And if they'd showed greater curiosity into established criminality a decade ago into hacking this could have been sorted much sooner. The mills of justice have ground extremely slowly....
2002 – 2006 – 2009 - So many missed opportunities, one might almost suspect it was deliberate.
In Rochester, both shortlisted candidates were BAME.
Judging by names and pics, Labour have new BAME PPCs in the following seats:
Brighton Pavillion Bristol West Colne Valley East Dunbartonshire Ealing Central & Acton Gravesham Hampstead & Kilburn Morecambe and Lunesdale Norwich South Pendle Rochester & Strood
In passing, there's one thing the US press gets overwhelmingly right compared with ours, which is that they try to maintain the distinction between reporting the news, and commenting on it
Exactly. If the British press reported the news reasonably straight and then carried on over the editorial pages as they do now, it would make a huge difference.
The political class are just as responsible for this situation as the media.
And if they'd showed greater curiosity into established criminality a decade ago into hacking this could have been sorted much sooner. The mills of justice have ground extremely slowly....
2002 – 2006 – 2009 - So many missed opportunities, one might almost suspect it was deliberate.
Quite - but the Opposition could have run with it and forced the government into taking a greater interest - but it was in no one's interests to upset the apple cart....
Raikkonen's failed a floor flex test and has been disqualified from, er, qualifying. He'll start last or from the pit lane.
Ladbrokes haven't noticed yet. If you reckon Webber or Vettel may suffer a car failure than Mercedes to top score at 9 may be tempting.
However, the two I've gone for are for Hulkenberg (who now starts 5th) to be top 6 at 2.63 and Rosberg to win without Vettel or Webber at 4 (both Ladbrokes). Mentioning it now rather than waiting until I write the pre-race piece up because the prices should change shortly.
The qualifying highlights suggested there was a small chance of Hamilton getting a penalty (smething broke at the back of his car, causing the spin). That would be ideal, as it would enhance the chances of both bets coming off.
In Rochester, both shortlisted candidates were BAME.
Judging by names and pics, Labour have new BAME PPCs in the following seats:
Brighton Pavillion Bristol West Colne Valley East Dunbartonshire Ealing Central & Acton Gravesham Hampstead & Kilburn Morecambe and Lunesdale Norwich South Pendle Rochester & Strood
In passing, there's one thing the US press gets overwhelmingly right compared with ours, which is that they try to maintain the distinction between reporting the news, and commenting on it
Exactly. If the British press reported the news reasonably straight and then carried on over the editorial pages as they do now, it would make a huge difference.
The political class are just as responsible for this situation as the media.
And if they'd showed greater curiosity into established criminality a decade ago into hacking this could have been sorted much sooner. The mills of justice have ground extremely slowly....
In Rochester, both shortlisted candidates were BAME.
Judging by names and pics, Labour have new BAME PPCs in the following seats:
Brighton Pavillion Bristol West Colne Valley East Dunbartonshire Ealing Central & Acton Gravesham Hampstead & Kilburn Morecambe and Lunesdale Norwich South Pendle Rochester & Strood
Twitter Toby Helm @tobyhelm 45m Latest Opinium/Observer poll. Lab lead at 6%. Lab 37 (down 4 on two weeks ago) Cons 31( +4), Ukip 16 (-1) Libs 7 (-1). So mid range of late.
Why should newspapers unlike every other walk of life not be subject to state control?
Advertisers have to establish beyond reasonable doubt that what they say is truthful and the rules covering offense and taste runs to pages.
Yet newspapers are under no obligation either not to offend or to tell the truth.
TV stations are almost as constrained as advertisers yet newspapers have free reign.
Yesterday Richard Littlejohn wrote a piece on a young girl that was grotesque bullying and a character assassination. If you did did this over a mobile phone you may well be arrested for bullying yet because it's a newspaper it's acceptable.
It's time they were cut down to size and subjected to a code of conduct commensurate with the damage they can inflict. Perhaps a similar code to the one doctors or lawyers have to operate under would do the trick..
Twitter Toby Helm @tobyhelm 45m Latest Opinium/Observer poll. Lab lead at 6%. Lab 37 (down 4 on two weeks ago) Cons 31( +4), Ukip 16 (-1) Libs 7 (-1). So mid range of late.
It was 38-27-17-9 so either he has got his ± figures wrong or he's got the headline figures wrong.
Twitter Toby Helm @tobyhelm 45m Latest Opinium/Observer poll. Lab lead at 6%. Lab 37 (down 4 on two weeks ago) Cons 31( +4), Ukip 16 (-1) Libs 7 (-1). So mid range of late.
The last Opinium was 38/27.
so Lab actually -1.
It never ceases to amaze that people (not you fitalass!) are simply incapable of checking a number and doing addition / subtraction of primary school standard.
Twitter Toby Helm @tobyhelm 45m Latest Opinium/Observer poll. Lab lead at 6%. Lab 37 (down 4 on two weeks ago) Cons 31( +4), Ukip 16 (-1) Libs 7 (-1). So mid range of late.
Toby Helm doesn't know his own polls. Labour is down 1, not 4, from the last Opinium
Twitter Toby Helm @tobyhelm 45m Latest Opinium/Observer poll. Lab lead at 6%. Lab 37 (down 4 on two weeks ago) Cons 31( +4), Ukip 16 (-1) Libs 7 (-1). So mid range of late.
It was 38-27-17-9 so either he has got his ± figures wrong or he's got the headline figures wrong.
Oops! Sorry about that folks, thought that Toby Helm would have double checked his sums before tweeting. Details of poll here. Twitter Toby Helm @tobyhelm 3m Labour's lead over Tories cut from 11% to 6% in latest opinion poll http://gu.com/p/3k44d/tf
Twitter Toby Helm @tobyhelm 45m Latest Opinium/Observer poll. Lab lead at 6%. Lab 37 (down 4 on two weeks ago) Cons 31( +4), Ukip 16 (-1) Libs 7 (-1). So mid range of late.
The last Opinium was 38/27.
so Lab actually -1.
It never ceases to amaze that people (not you fitalass!) are simply incapable of checking a number and doing addition / subtraction of primary school standard.
Re Roger above I've advocated a "professional style" code of practice for journalists for a long time - taking responsibility and some degree of care about what they right. It is extraordinary that some could write that "it only affects major newspapers" -local papers are just as bad. One did a "hatchet type" job on me some years back and decided to embellish the story by describing me as a 'doctor' - never been one, never trained as one, never pretended to be one. Its not about the political spectrum, its about journalists doing their job to the standards of accuracy required of those in every other occupation.
@RichardTyndall - why is it incorrect to believe that the State is a force for good? M y experience of the state is hugely positive, not only in my life but in my parents' and grandparents' lives too, as well as many people I grew up with. If your point is that the State isn't *necessarily* a force for good, then that I would agree with. But I find a blanket statement that it is incorrect to see the State as a force for good utterly bizarre, given what the State has enabled in this country over the last 150 years.
The State is occasionally a force for good, but then mostly by accident. Most of what it does is detrimental to our freedoms and liberty. It takes the money we earn away from us, wastes some of it, takes a bit more in admin fees and then gives it back to us. What it does give back is done "progressively" in favour of the feckless, the degenerates and the spongers.
I struggle to think of anything positive the State has done for/to me that I couldn't have done myself more efficiently within a free capitalist society. The State restricts my rights to free speech, to dispose of my property and assets as I see fit, to carry a gun etc etc.
The State, overall, is an oppressive and unwelcome thing.
Really? What about pensions, schools, hospitals? Only 3% of the welfare budget goes on dole money.
Comments
http://www.fabulous-pictures.com/dating-advice-women-1938/?pid=946
As well as regulation, OFPOL could issue codes of best practice. It should be given powers to enter MPs' offices without notice when it has grounds to suspect misbehaviour with powers to seize computers and correspondence. Given the important work that politicians perform, with untold billions within their control, this is the least that we can expect.
By all means change the law so certain acts become illegal, but in a free society I don't see how you can introduce regulation to stop people doing things which, however much you disapprove of them, are actually legal.
The problem is that the proposed solution to poor Britain's media institutions seems to be to give a bigger role to Britain's political or judiciary institutions, which aren't very good either.
Ed Argar out first.
Victoria Atikins out in second round.
Now counting final round between Chris Philp and Thomas Tugendhat
I expect better. If it ain't illegal it ain't a crime - thought or otherwise - innit!
Can't you put some tweets up?
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB3h
Does @DPJHodges have anything else to write about apart from his dislike of EdM? This is just tedious. http://goo.gl/GBpDVo
The same goes for Fascism. Both ideaologies bring forth state gangsterism.
Press, public and politicians – who needs defending from whom
Politici
There are two views why Mao and Stalin aren't mentioned in the same breath as the National Socialists
(1) They were on the winning side
(2) They're not Europeans and the sort of behviour they exhibited is therefore excusable.
On the brighter side, plenty of goals going in for both the blues and the reds.
This article by Nick Cohen makes my points much more eloquently than I ever could - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/10/british-journalists-lock-each-other-up-and-throw-away-the-key/.
As you know I too have worked and lived extensively in other countries and regularly (at least twice a week) still read original language newspapers from Norway and France as well as English language papers from Germany and Holland. I am afraid that they are simply not a patch on our own broadsheets. All four main UK broadsheets are miles ahead of their European counterparts and that is before you even start to consider the investigative journalism aspects which seem to be almost entirely missing in European papers.
"David Cameron’s attack on the Guardian infuriated my friend. The prime minister was threatening the free press, she cried.
I tried to keep the incredulity out of my voice. ‘Who let the politicians in?’ I asked with what little politeness I could muster. ‘Who opened the door and bowed as they came by?’
She genuinely thought that the state would only go after those nasty right-wing journalists when the old taboos were broken."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10422169/Nigel-Farage-We-must-defend-Christian-heritage.html
Sky News understands that the job cuts, which could be detailed as soon as Monday, will account for well over 10% of the Co-operative Bank's workforce.
The redundancies will underline the human toll of the lender's mismanagement in recent years as it finalises a plan to fill a £1.5bn hole in its balance sheet."
http://news.sky.com/story/1163030/co-op-to-axe-more-than-1000-banking-jobs
I however did back Man City on Fantasy Football.
So I guess that just leaves the Shadow Chancellor...
The public can't hold the political class to account if the accounts in question are being covered up by the media under orders from the political class.
This stealth attempt to impose the same PC censorship on the newspapers that holds at the BBC is just that - an attempt to keep the public uninformed of those things the political class don't want to be held account on.
If the BBC was the only media organisation (or if the entire media is forced to abide by the BBC's PC self-censorship which comes to the same thing) then the political class covering up the grooming gangs would never have been reported and the political class looting public money through expenses would never have been reported.
Gower (Lab 6.4% maj): Liz Evans
Dewsbury (Con 2.8% maj): Puala Sheriff (Pontefract Cllr)
Ealing Central and Acton (Con 7.9% maj): Rupa Huq
Rochester and Strood (Con 20.7% maj): Naushabah Khan
Putney (Con 24.6% maj): Sheila Boswell (Wandsworth Cllr)
I am not entirely sure on who Liz Evans actually is.
Seeing the state as a 'force for good' leads to a mindset in some that the state can be excused when it fails, as we have seen on here passim. E.g.: "Oh, Stafford was an exception, and it doesn't matter in the long run because it was an exception, and the rest of the NHS is so wonderful."
And that leads to the hideous behaviour by some so-called 'supporters' of the NHS to anyone who has the temerity to want to know why their relatives and friends were mistreated.
The state is the state. It does some good things, and some bad things. It is neither a force for good or evil. It is what it is. We as a society have to try to make it better. Calling it a 'force for good' does the exact opposite.
Give us a break. We weren't born yesterday. Politicians will want stories unflattering to them not reported, just as celebrities don't want such stories reported. It's all about control - not just over the press - but over what we get to know.
Stuff Leveson and the Royal Charter! What we need is the US's First Amendment. Interesting how those who praise the US press are never quite so quick to praise the constitutional regime under which it operates.
Do you think Campbell, McBride or Crosby are or were interested in a 'reasonably straight' version of events getting into the papers?
The political class are just as responsible for this situation as the media.
Labour have now selected 197 candidates, including 61 incumbents.
I struggle to think of anything positive the State has done for/to me that I couldn't have done myself more efficiently within a free capitalist society. The State restricts my rights to free speech, to dispose of my property and assets as I see fit, to carry a gun etc etc.
The State, overall, is an oppressive and unwelcome thing.
Judging by names and pics, Labour have new BAME PPCs in the following seats:
Brighton Pavillion
Bristol West
Colne Valley
East Dunbartonshire
Ealing Central & Acton
Gravesham
Hampstead & Kilburn
Morecambe and Lunesdale
Norwich South
Pendle
Rochester & Strood
anyone else spotted?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/jul/22/doncaster.prison
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jul/22/justice.prisonsandprobation?guni=Article:in body link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4147696.stm
And riots only started then as well:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-113614/Three-jail-riots-hushed-up.html
No party has a solution to the law and order problems. No party is particularly interested in a solution, either.
Betting PostGood evening, everyone.
Raikkonen's failed a floor flex test and has been disqualified from, er, qualifying. He'll start last or from the pit lane.
Ladbrokes haven't noticed yet. If you reckon Webber or Vettel may suffer a car failure than Mercedes to top score at 9 may be tempting.
However, the two I've gone for are for Hulkenberg (who now starts 5th) to be top 6 at 2.63 and Rosberg to win without Vettel or Webber at 4 (both Ladbrokes). Mentioning it now rather than waiting until I write the pre-race piece up because the prices should change shortly.
The qualifying highlights suggested there was a small chance of Hamilton getting a penalty (smething broke at the back of his car, causing the spin). That would be ideal, as it would enhance the chances of both bets coming off.
How benign are the BBC going to be in their reporting?
Bradford East
Brent Central
Kingswood
Keighley
Harrow East
Keighley
Cleethorpes
Brigg & Goole
Na h-Eileanan an Iar
No, she's a UNISON rep from Pontefract.
Toby Helm @tobyhelm 45m
Latest Opinium/Observer poll. Lab lead at 6%. Lab 37 (down 4 on two weeks ago) Cons 31( +4), Ukip 16 (-1) Libs 7 (-1). So mid range of late.
Advertisers have to establish beyond reasonable doubt that what they say is truthful and the rules covering offense and taste runs to pages.
Yet newspapers are under no obligation either not to offend or to tell the truth.
TV stations are almost as constrained as advertisers yet newspapers have free reign.
Yesterday Richard Littlejohn wrote a piece on a young girl that was grotesque bullying and a character assassination. If you did did this over a mobile phone you may well be arrested for bullying yet because it's a newspaper it's acceptable.
It's time they were cut down to size and subjected to a code of conduct commensurate with the damage they can inflict. Perhaps a similar code to the one doctors or lawyers have to operate under would do the trick..
so Lab actually -1.
It never ceases to amaze that people (not you fitalass!) are simply incapable of checking a number and doing addition / subtraction of primary school standard.
Are our posts on here all going to be subject to state control?
If someone publishes 100 leaflets and puts them through doors are they going to be subject to state control?
He needs to check a number and do primary school addition / subtraction.
He can't manage it. It is too difficult for him.
For those ignorant of regulation in advertising, which would appear to include Roger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_Standards_Authority_(United_Kingdom)
Ed Miliband's party is on 37%, down 1% on two weeks ago, while the Tories are up 4% on 31%.
Ukip remains strong on 16% (-1%) while the Lib Dems are on 7% (-1%).
David Cameron's net approval rating stays at -18% while Ed Miliband's worsens from -19% to -21%.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/02/labour-lead-cut-opinium-observer-poll?CMP=twt_fd
Details of poll here.
Twitter
Toby Helm @tobyhelm 3m
Labour's lead over Tories cut from 11% to 6% in latest opinion poll http://gu.com/p/3k44d/tf
It is extraordinary that some could write that "it only affects major newspapers" -local papers are just as bad. One did a "hatchet type" job on me some years back and decided to embellish the story by describing me as a 'doctor' - never been one, never trained as one, never pretended to be one. Its not about the political spectrum, its about journalists doing their job to the standards of accuracy required of those in every other occupation.