In spite of what was considered on Twitter, The Guardian and Channel 4 opinion polls as a resounding success for Vince Cable, the BBC has seized control of the agenda once again by almost completely ignoring the Liberal Democrats.
I am watching Newsnight at the moment, and the generally stated that there are only a few occasions during the Ask The Chancellors Debate that the audience came to life, and showed the only clip where the audience came to life over something that Alistair Darling said as opposed to the other four times the audience burst into rounds of applause when Vince Cable spoke.
They are now showing clips of the bickering between Darling and Osborne.
Finally 10 minutes in, the BBC stated that Cable gained the most audience popularity.
An Analysis of the Transcribe
Cable's opening statement was a clear win for the Liberal Democrats, as he correctly identified the Liberal Democrats warned about the financial collapse and introduced the larger audience to the Liberal Democrats plan to increase the basic tax rate to £10,000.
The first question made me think that Cilla Black was about to emerge from behind a screen and start shrilly proclaiming to the audience what a wonderful evening tonight would be.
"What personal qualities do you have that would make you a better chancellor than your counterparts?"
Again Cable came out as the dominating force, identifying that he'd predicted the economic crash and illustrating how his policies have been embraced by the government to try and improve things.
In sharp comparison, Osborne could not provide any practical examples. From a Human Resources point of view, he immediately had lost points on the "interview". As one canny tweeter observed, "His only experience is managing his family Trust Fund".
Question two is a straightforward "what needs to be cut".
As per the dominating headlines, Darling talks about cutting the debt while Osborne informs us that he's told us what they going to come (even though they haven't). Again, in sharp comparison, Vince Cable is able to identify £50 million worth cuts including Triton and ID cards.
The show begins to get going here, with a little of the bickering going on between Darling and Osborne, then Cable interjects with a cutting remark that the Tory cuts announced today are entirely fictional.
Questioned three is with regards to the NHS, which many activists will know is the number one topic when campaigning.
Osborne immediately launches into a political farce of not answering the question, instead buffering himself with "David Cameron's pledge" to protect the NHS.
Darling then seems to follow Osborne's cue, failing to answer the question and stating that the Labour Party have also pledged to protect NHS funding.
Cable then makes them both appear to be completely amateur, stating "it would be "totally irresponsible" for any of them to give cast-iron guarantees about the NHS".
Public sector pensions, a bit of a "Daily Fail" topic, forms the fourth question.
The Tory proposal of a £50,000 a year pension the senior public sector employees is hilarious when you consider the pension and "golden handshake" payoffs given to members of parliament not to mention peerages!
Darling commits an equivalent faux pas by, as Osborne points out, discussing the future as though his party had not held office for 13 years.
As the two major parties descend into secondary school bickering, Cable makes sensible remarks, commenting on the need to reform, the scandalous current situation and the need for cross-party consensus.
Discussing projected rises on income tax and national insurance, the petty bickering continues while Cable states the Lib Dems would cut income tax for many people.
Question six seemed so cleverly interwoven, that one cannot imagine that these questions were selected at random, and targets the the risks of people leaving the country if taxes change.
While the Tory and Labour parties quote their usual rhetoric, Cable received a round of applause for stating;
"Britain is being "held to ransom" by bankers threatenign to flee to Switzerland. In the 1970s Britain was held to ransom by Arthur Scargill. Now we have got these "pin-striped Scargills"."
Leading smoothly into question seven about bankers' bonuses, Cable states that the Liberal Democrats had always supported a bank tax, where is the two other parties had originally ruled this out. Why?
The final question, about students being unable to find jobs and buy houses turned into a fairly heated debate between Osborne and Darling and there is no opportunity for Cable to identify so many of the key policies that the Liberal Democrats hold in this field.
The Tragic Overreaching Conclusions
I know that I'm going to be slightly biased towards Vince Cable, I openly admit to being a liberal. But I cannot comprehend how anyone could watch the same programme that I watched and see anything good in what George Osborne presented, and although Alistair Darling projected a fairly comprehensive argument, it seemed very evident that Vince Cable was the overall winner.
And yet as I type this (or, yes, dictate this, if you want to be picky), there is a furore on Twitter about Michael Crick MP fervently insisting that George Osborne was a clear-cut winner within the Ask The Chancellors Debate.
And all of a sudden all of those united liberal dreams of the Party Leader Debates to come in May doing the Liberal Democrat party fantastic good, come crashing down around my ears.
The ultimate cause of all this appears to be the media. With the BBC Radio 4 Today Program establishing an agenda from which the majority of political software tools draw from on a daily basis and Newsnight deliberating whatever it chooses to hear, the battle to get the Liberal Democrat voice heard in the public domain seems a futile.
But on a positive note, we can continue to do what we do best. Which is making the most of volunteers and loyal supporters, continuously spreading the word on the anyways we can find, from leaflet drops to tweeting and blogging, and hope that one day message gets through.
Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Journalism. Show all posts
5 Mar 2010
A Truely Disconcerted Discursive on the Tory Campaign
I am trying to work out just what Peter Bingle's intentions are here.
Is this a spectacular own goal, friendly fire, some sort of trojan horse or a selection of other internal assault idioms?
"Musings of a Tory in despair" is a procrastinating and pensive view on what has to have been one of the worst comprised campaigns in recent history. One almost expects Malcolm Tucker to be swearing profusely behind a host of inept ministers as headline after headline of inconsistent policy, greed and pretentious press statements championing causes that are in fact thinly veiled ways to make financial and quality cuts accross the board.
Shambolic
The Bingle Blog (what a lovely soundbite?) attacks the campaign for failing to appeal to the right people, failing to stand up to scrutiny and essentially being disasterous from start to far away finish.
This multi-faceted, inconsistant and illogical strategy, is certainly not in the campaigner's handbook. However, the Sun's eternal optimism is amusing in the least. Only Murdoch could procclaim the seven point lead in the polls as a good thing and then report in the article in the fourth paragraph that this is a "a two year low". Afterall, not many people get to the fourth paragraph in a red-top tabloid!
Inadvertantly Underlining "Conservative Values"
The great #cashcroft is a further moral discrepancy between the politician and the common man. There is an appropriate parallel between expenses and tax evasion that is "within the rules". With over 2 million people unemployed, the financial lacunas that are a luxury of the rich, from "flipping" to "nom-dom" will not engage the voter with the Tory Party.
Bingle comments "the 'sleaze from Belize' is a toxic issue" and while it has made spectacular news fodder, the growing social divide is beginning to grate on even the young's nerves. Perhaps they will turn to Clegg and his proposal to close "tax loopholes exploited by the wealthy"? Sadly I doubt it.
Tory Policy U-Turns
As Brown said in one PMQT, when the Tories announced a policy a day, he didnt think it would be a policy on marriage tax breaks a day.
And this is just one chop and change. Bingle observes, "I haven't mentioned the lack of a consistent policy agenda because it is simply too depressing. Let's take health and education as an example. Andrew Lansley's core message is one of stability. Michael Gove's is one of radical change. I despair."
Are Ubiquitous "Chavs" In or Out?
Cameron's Blair-like rhetoric on "Broken Britain" is brought up by Bingle, the futile "hug a hoodie" projections earlier on in the decade have become a blitz on young crime and benefits recipients that was such a campaign success for Blair.
Seeing as Blair's much debated legislation on Antisocial Behaviour is deemed to be a disaster with nearly 50% breaching the poorly implemented and policed sanctions, you would think the Tories would have done their research thoroughly before jumping on this bandwagon.
As Bingle states; "Did it convince me that a Tory government would give power back to individuals and reduce the size of the state? No".
Virtual Vulnerability
The vast bill board campaign is trounched by Bingle, and, as he correctly assesses, "the row about David's face being airbrushed damaged him as it seemed to confirm the suspicion that he is all image rather than substance."
The viral internet attacks on the campaign have also kept me amused in recent weeks. There is something of a lateral attack and irony on advertising standards when a poster campaign can be attacked with photoshop and tweeted in three minutes flat.
This is a revolutionary development on politics that I think will have far more of an impact in years to come than a any televised leader debate can do.
However, just as internet humour made some splendid mockups of Nick Griffin on Questiontime, I am sure the leadership debates will be detrimentalised in the same way.
There is no guide to internet campaigning, as yet. Politicians in the UK, perhaps predominately Web Hedgehogs than Web Foxes, are testing the water with Youtube videos, blogs and facebook. But with the virtual revolution one thing is clear. If you mess up, in any way, shape or form, you will be hung, drawn and slaughtered from Inverness to Cornwall and back again. In about three minutes flat.
Inside Intentions?
Yet, while I scavenge on Bingle's article to make my own point about how bloody useless the Tory party is, I am still confused. Is it a charm offensive designed to make the public vote tory? Is it intended to make us pity Cameron and his inept staff? If so, I doubt it will work. Or perhaps it is Bingle's way of opening courting the other parties for a quick side change as the election polls level up?
Is this a spectacular own goal, friendly fire, some sort of trojan horse or a selection of other internal assault idioms?
"Musings of a Tory in despair" is a procrastinating and pensive view on what has to have been one of the worst comprised campaigns in recent history. One almost expects Malcolm Tucker to be swearing profusely behind a host of inept ministers as headline after headline of inconsistent policy, greed and pretentious press statements championing causes that are in fact thinly veiled ways to make financial and quality cuts accross the board.
Shambolic
The Bingle Blog (what a lovely soundbite?) attacks the campaign for failing to appeal to the right people, failing to stand up to scrutiny and essentially being disasterous from start to far away finish.
This multi-faceted, inconsistant and illogical strategy, is certainly not in the campaigner's handbook. However, the Sun's eternal optimism is amusing in the least. Only Murdoch could procclaim the seven point lead in the polls as a good thing and then report in the article in the fourth paragraph that this is a "a two year low". Afterall, not many people get to the fourth paragraph in a red-top tabloid!
Inadvertantly Underlining "Conservative Values"
The great #cashcroft is a further moral discrepancy between the politician and the common man. There is an appropriate parallel between expenses and tax evasion that is "within the rules". With over 2 million people unemployed, the financial lacunas that are a luxury of the rich, from "flipping" to "nom-dom" will not engage the voter with the Tory Party.
Bingle comments "the 'sleaze from Belize' is a toxic issue" and while it has made spectacular news fodder, the growing social divide is beginning to grate on even the young's nerves. Perhaps they will turn to Clegg and his proposal to close "tax loopholes exploited by the wealthy"? Sadly I doubt it.
Tory Policy U-Turns
As Brown said in one PMQT, when the Tories announced a policy a day, he didnt think it would be a policy on marriage tax breaks a day.
And this is just one chop and change. Bingle observes, "I haven't mentioned the lack of a consistent policy agenda because it is simply too depressing. Let's take health and education as an example. Andrew Lansley's core message is one of stability. Michael Gove's is one of radical change. I despair."
Are Ubiquitous "Chavs" In or Out?
Cameron's Blair-like rhetoric on "Broken Britain" is brought up by Bingle, the futile "hug a hoodie" projections earlier on in the decade have become a blitz on young crime and benefits recipients that was such a campaign success for Blair.
Seeing as Blair's much debated legislation on Antisocial Behaviour is deemed to be a disaster with nearly 50% breaching the poorly implemented and policed sanctions, you would think the Tories would have done their research thoroughly before jumping on this bandwagon.
As Bingle states; "Did it convince me that a Tory government would give power back to individuals and reduce the size of the state? No".
Virtual Vulnerability
The vast bill board campaign is trounched by Bingle, and, as he correctly assesses, "the row about David's face being airbrushed damaged him as it seemed to confirm the suspicion that he is all image rather than substance."
The viral internet attacks on the campaign have also kept me amused in recent weeks. There is something of a lateral attack and irony on advertising standards when a poster campaign can be attacked with photoshop and tweeted in three minutes flat.
This is a revolutionary development on politics that I think will have far more of an impact in years to come than a any televised leader debate can do.
However, just as internet humour made some splendid mockups of Nick Griffin on Questiontime, I am sure the leadership debates will be detrimentalised in the same way.
There is no guide to internet campaigning, as yet. Politicians in the UK, perhaps predominately Web Hedgehogs than Web Foxes, are testing the water with Youtube videos, blogs and facebook. But with the virtual revolution one thing is clear. If you mess up, in any way, shape or form, you will be hung, drawn and slaughtered from Inverness to Cornwall and back again. In about three minutes flat.
Inside Intentions?
Yet, while I scavenge on Bingle's article to make my own point about how bloody useless the Tory party is, I am still confused. Is it a charm offensive designed to make the public vote tory? Is it intended to make us pity Cameron and his inept staff? If so, I doubt it will work. Or perhaps it is Bingle's way of opening courting the other parties for a quick side change as the election polls level up?
8 Feb 2010
Paliamentary Priveledge is Incomprehensible and Reduced to Satire.
It may be because I spend too much time reading satirical takes on the news, but this BBC article on the Parliamentary Priveledge Affair reads just like something by the Daily Mash.
A few choice quotes include:
Mr Johnson told the BBC people wanted to see MPs treated like everyone else.
Implicitely interwoven in this is the presumption MPs are not, of course, like everyone else.
"They are entitled to a fair trial and the public... would be aghast if they thought there was some special get out of jail card for Parliamentarians."
When, of course, there is.
"The Bill of Rights was intended to secure freedom of speech, the freedom of speech of members of parliament to speak freely rather than be at threat from an over-powerful monarch at the time."
Perhaps this reporter has a sense of humour?
There is, of course, an additional irony in Cameron lambasting Brown over the row
He is quick to jump on the bandwagon of public outrage over expenses when it suits him, yet he woulld not consider the grave issues within his own party on non domiciles or donations.
One has to wonder if he would be on the band wagon so quick if it had been a majority of his own MPs that were charged with fraud.
Aggressive and robust enquiries continue into Lord Ashcroft's donations and yet we are still without a complete answer.
The Russians have an idiom for corruption;
"The fish rots from the head down"
This is a wonderful way to describe it, and sadly, it does not only apply to the Conservative Party but to a vast amount of business and public holdings accross the country. But that's another story.
A few choice quotes include:
Mr Johnson told the BBC people wanted to see MPs treated like everyone else.
Implicitely interwoven in this is the presumption MPs are not, of course, like everyone else.
"They are entitled to a fair trial and the public... would be aghast if they thought there was some special get out of jail card for Parliamentarians."
When, of course, there is.
"The Bill of Rights was intended to secure freedom of speech, the freedom of speech of members of parliament to speak freely rather than be at threat from an over-powerful monarch at the time."
Perhaps this reporter has a sense of humour?
There is, of course, an additional irony in Cameron lambasting Brown over the row
He is quick to jump on the bandwagon of public outrage over expenses when it suits him, yet he woulld not consider the grave issues within his own party on non domiciles or donations.
One has to wonder if he would be on the band wagon so quick if it had been a majority of his own MPs that were charged with fraud.
Aggressive and robust enquiries continue into Lord Ashcroft's donations and yet we are still without a complete answer.
The Russians have an idiom for corruption;
"The fish rots from the head down"
This is a wonderful way to describe it, and sadly, it does not only apply to the Conservative Party but to a vast amount of business and public holdings accross the country. But that's another story.
22 Jan 2010
A few views on Frig's Day 2010
Hell Boys
I have run one or two diatribes on the "hell boys" so far so I need not impress my opinion on the illogical systems of criminal culpability and social care in this country any more. I will, however, say that no man is without merit, and if I had any faith in our British Psychology, Rehabilitiation or Young Offenders Institutes, I may be more forth coming about their ages.
But, in the true political prevaricating way, can I just say that Ed Balls on Radio 4 made an excellent point about the case being used for political gain by the Conservatives. The sound bite "broken Britain" is more Blairite than Hazel Blears.
The Pirates of Distraction Technique
Somewhere in the reports of bungled rescue attempts and removal of ring fenced budgeting, reporters seem to have forgotton the plight of Mr and Mrs Chandeler. It is almost as an afterthought in this article they add;
[The couple] "had been separated and beaten by the pirates and [Mr Chandler] expected to be killed within "three or four days".
I'm sure the local papers in Tunbridge Wells are clamouring for justice, but has the world got so big that we are blind to people suffering harm unless it is a mass disaster or a political tool? I hazard a cynical guess that were Cameron to take up their cause, it would be the main thrust of the BBC et al. However, "Chandler" does not make for a good soundbite, and he would only target the same story presented, blaming Labour spending cuts for the resulting harm the couple are suffering and may suffer still.
Perceived Terror Threat
This comes a little late in the day, would you say? Nearly four weeks after the event? The event that was farcical at best. The biggest fall out has been that the Dutch will be even more scrutinised in customs, and more personal freedoms will be erased with inept profiling based on stereotypes and masqueraded as UK Border Agency Security.
Brown's Debut at The Iraq Enquiry
Sir John Chilcott may have "said the committee was still concerned about the risk of the hearings being politicised in the run-up to the election. and we all knew it was inevitable.
I fail to understand why anyone would want to enter a ballot for tickets to see Blair dissemble arguments when we had that for 8 years with him as a Prime Minister.
And on the Iraq Enquiry, do they not have Lawyers and Judges because the cost of creating a logo eradicated their budget perhaps?
Munchausens Mother Jailed
While the facts of this case are terrible, it perhaps raises mroe concerns about our National Health System than I had initially perceived. With the advent of medical technology, one has to wonder how a child went through 8 years of medical examinations, in a high profile case, and was still diagnosed with conditions which require medical evidence. While I appreciate she put sugar in his urine samples to make him diabetic, I am not sure how anyone can fabricate cerebral palsy and cystic fibrosis without a level of incompetence in the diagnostacians involved.
It also raises an interesting point about coping with Disability.
"Andrew Macfarlane, prosecuting, told the court that Hayden-Johnson's... medical treatment meant that the child was socially stigmatised."
This in turn makes me think about how society responds to disability. We currently live in a society that pities disability and yet stigmatises those who suffer from it. People with disabilities are constantly pandered to in the worst possible way, with no responsibility, few friends and exclusion from society, yet renounced with charity and gifts. But I will leave this for another post I think.
I have run one or two diatribes on the "hell boys" so far so I need not impress my opinion on the illogical systems of criminal culpability and social care in this country any more. I will, however, say that no man is without merit, and if I had any faith in our British Psychology, Rehabilitiation or Young Offenders Institutes, I may be more forth coming about their ages.
But, in the true political prevaricating way, can I just say that Ed Balls on Radio 4 made an excellent point about the case being used for political gain by the Conservatives. The sound bite "broken Britain" is more Blairite than Hazel Blears.
The Pirates of Distraction Technique
Somewhere in the reports of bungled rescue attempts and removal of ring fenced budgeting, reporters seem to have forgotton the plight of Mr and Mrs Chandeler. It is almost as an afterthought in this article they add;
[The couple] "had been separated and beaten by the pirates and [Mr Chandler] expected to be killed within "three or four days".
I'm sure the local papers in Tunbridge Wells are clamouring for justice, but has the world got so big that we are blind to people suffering harm unless it is a mass disaster or a political tool? I hazard a cynical guess that were Cameron to take up their cause, it would be the main thrust of the BBC et al. However, "Chandler" does not make for a good soundbite, and he would only target the same story presented, blaming Labour spending cuts for the resulting harm the couple are suffering and may suffer still.
Perceived Terror Threat
This comes a little late in the day, would you say? Nearly four weeks after the event? The event that was farcical at best. The biggest fall out has been that the Dutch will be even more scrutinised in customs, and more personal freedoms will be erased with inept profiling based on stereotypes and masqueraded as UK Border Agency Security.
Brown's Debut at The Iraq Enquiry
Sir John Chilcott may have "said the committee was still concerned about the risk of the hearings being politicised in the run-up to the election. and we all knew it was inevitable.
I fail to understand why anyone would want to enter a ballot for tickets to see Blair dissemble arguments when we had that for 8 years with him as a Prime Minister.
And on the Iraq Enquiry, do they not have Lawyers and Judges because the cost of creating a logo eradicated their budget perhaps?
Munchausens Mother Jailed
While the facts of this case are terrible, it perhaps raises mroe concerns about our National Health System than I had initially perceived. With the advent of medical technology, one has to wonder how a child went through 8 years of medical examinations, in a high profile case, and was still diagnosed with conditions which require medical evidence. While I appreciate she put sugar in his urine samples to make him diabetic, I am not sure how anyone can fabricate cerebral palsy and cystic fibrosis without a level of incompetence in the diagnostacians involved.
It also raises an interesting point about coping with Disability.
"Andrew Macfarlane, prosecuting, told the court that Hayden-Johnson's... medical treatment meant that the child was socially stigmatised."
This in turn makes me think about how society responds to disability. We currently live in a society that pities disability and yet stigmatises those who suffer from it. People with disabilities are constantly pandered to in the worst possible way, with no responsibility, few friends and exclusion from society, yet renounced with charity and gifts. But I will leave this for another post I think.
20 Jan 2010
The Kangeroo Court of Tory and Media Influence
The decision to reduce Munir Hussain's sentence for GBH is indicative of a regression in politics and law and a worrying announcement.
The BBC has provided shoddy reporting on this;
[the family] were tied up but the businessman escaped and enlisted his brother to help chase the offenders down the street, bringing one of them to the ground.
Let's be a bit more specific please.
The Businessman telephoned his brother which is the equivilant of planning an offence. Forethought means he cannot have acted in the heat of the moment therefore provocation is not a defence.
Forethought and equates to Mens Rea of the crime, therefore he intended to commit the crime.
Enlisting his brother made this a joint enterprise and they are equally liable for the commission of the offence.
Chasing the offender down, in a car.
The BBC does go on to say;
The pair left Salem with a permanent brain injury after hitting him with a cricket bat.
The force of the blow was so hard that it broke the bat into three pieces.
Now, as I blogged previously, this is Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent. Also known as the most serious offence against the person short of attempted murder.
Sentencing guidelines for GBH with Intent recommend a minimum of 3 years.
Therefore 2 years was a reasonable mitigation of an offence which could be considered excessive force in self defence.
However, I would argue that it was a premeditated offence, noted above, with a weapon, and this would usually acquire a 5 year custodial sentence.
If you had avoided a charge of attempted murder, and received a sentence far below the usual guidelines for that offence, you should keep your mouth shut and get out in a year for good behaviour.
The Court of Appeal did attempt to inform us that they were not bending to public or Conservative opinion.
Lord Judge said: "This trial had nothing to do with the right of the householder to defend themselves or their families or their homes.
"The burglary was over and the burglars had gone. No one was in any further danger from them."
So, if the burglary was over, this would imply it is not excessive self defence, and is in fact a joint enterprise of premeditated wounding with intent?
If we do not have a justice system that upholds the law as it stands, and bends to public opinion, we may as well have a court of public shouting aye or nay and remove all of Hansard immediately.
The BBC has provided shoddy reporting on this;
[the family] were tied up but the businessman escaped and enlisted his brother to help chase the offenders down the street, bringing one of them to the ground.
Let's be a bit more specific please.
The Businessman telephoned his brother which is the equivilant of planning an offence. Forethought means he cannot have acted in the heat of the moment therefore provocation is not a defence.
Forethought and equates to Mens Rea of the crime, therefore he intended to commit the crime.
Enlisting his brother made this a joint enterprise and they are equally liable for the commission of the offence.
Chasing the offender down, in a car.
The BBC does go on to say;
The pair left Salem with a permanent brain injury after hitting him with a cricket bat.
The force of the blow was so hard that it broke the bat into three pieces.
Now, as I blogged previously, this is Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent. Also known as the most serious offence against the person short of attempted murder.
Sentencing guidelines for GBH with Intent recommend a minimum of 3 years.
Therefore 2 years was a reasonable mitigation of an offence which could be considered excessive force in self defence.
However, I would argue that it was a premeditated offence, noted above, with a weapon, and this would usually acquire a 5 year custodial sentence.
If you had avoided a charge of attempted murder, and received a sentence far below the usual guidelines for that offence, you should keep your mouth shut and get out in a year for good behaviour.
The Court of Appeal did attempt to inform us that they were not bending to public or Conservative opinion.
Lord Judge said: "This trial had nothing to do with the right of the householder to defend themselves or their families or their homes.
"The burglary was over and the burglars had gone. No one was in any further danger from them."
So, if the burglary was over, this would imply it is not excessive self defence, and is in fact a joint enterprise of premeditated wounding with intent?
If we do not have a justice system that upholds the law as it stands, and bends to public opinion, we may as well have a court of public shouting aye or nay and remove all of Hansard immediately.
13 Dec 2009
What We Don't Hear
More and more, I find myself becoming disillusioned by the providers of "news" in this country.
What has my goat today is the United Against Fascism demonstration planned today in Harrow.
This came to my attention while I was having a chat online last night with a friend. I've certainly heard of the growing racist parties such as the BNP, the English Defence League and related Nazi extremist groups with anti-Muslim and racist vibes.
Certainly, it has always made me think of JG Ballard's Kingdom Come with a macabre rising of "public" policing of society, complete with St Georges crosses and British Bulldogs.
However, I am genuinely shocked by how little news coverage these potentially dangerous and implicitly uncivilised clashing of extremist groups receive.
I appreciate that too much media presence provided to the horrendous groups like the English Defence Plea would have the effect of inciting further membership and publicity, akin to having Nick Griffin on Question Time.
But that does not mean that riots around mosques where little is done to protect civil liberties is not news.
All perhaps it is an example of journalists protecting Middle England from the nastiness beneath the surface?
(To digress on that, imagine a novel based around Neil Gaiman's Neverwear where the underworld of society is not a sublime fairylike kingdom but rather a bitter combination of all that is wrong with human nature. Actually, that would make an interesting take on A Midsummer Nights Dream)
What has my goat today is the United Against Fascism demonstration planned today in Harrow.
This came to my attention while I was having a chat online last night with a friend. I've certainly heard of the growing racist parties such as the BNP, the English Defence League and related Nazi extremist groups with anti-Muslim and racist vibes.
Certainly, it has always made me think of JG Ballard's Kingdom Come with a macabre rising of "public" policing of society, complete with St Georges crosses and British Bulldogs.
However, I am genuinely shocked by how little news coverage these potentially dangerous and implicitly uncivilised clashing of extremist groups receive.
I appreciate that too much media presence provided to the horrendous groups like the English Defence Plea would have the effect of inciting further membership and publicity, akin to having Nick Griffin on Question Time.
But that does not mean that riots around mosques where little is done to protect civil liberties is not news.
All perhaps it is an example of journalists protecting Middle England from the nastiness beneath the surface?
(To digress on that, imagine a novel based around Neil Gaiman's Neverwear where the underworld of society is not a sublime fairylike kingdom but rather a bitter combination of all that is wrong with human nature. Actually, that would make an interesting take on A Midsummer Nights Dream)
22 Jun 2009
Protesters' depserate attempt to gain newsworthy coverage
The Telegraph ruins political careers.
The Guardian sticks to ambiguous attacks on the police
In an obvious attempt to gain readership back after the Telegraph's recent domination of the Press, the Guardian has produced a neatly spliced footage/interview sample that puts them thoroughly in the Protester's camp.
The nature of this article, while raising many valid points about police actions at protests, is one sided sensationalism. Convenient revisionism of a event no one really remembers because it was so quiet and banal within the many protests that summer.
The last comments on the video can be decided in a court if the Police breached PACE legislation. But the video as a whole only clips the necessary points to uphold the protester's arguments. We see the officers chaining the protester's ankles, but we cannot ascertain if she was being raucous and whether they had probable cause.
Do The Guardian expect the public to suddenly down tools and renege all police officers countrywide? Perhaps they were hoping to gain more coverage akin to the Ian Tomalinson video, hence they had the same voice over artist. But the Tomalinson video was just footage, clearly identifying poor execution of police powers. All I see in this one is evidence of police failing to identify themselves. And a few witness statements denouncing their behaviour with carefully selected footage.
But, lets be honest, if the Guardian hadn't published this story we would hear nothing about it. Like the Tomalinson affair, and the De Menezes and so on, the matter will be swept under the carpet and dealt with on a suitably notorious day like August 27th when no one is interested in a small police complaints review if Diana is on the front page. Credit where credit is due, but the Guardian still wins no awards for biased reporting.
The Guardian sticks to ambiguous attacks on the police
In an obvious attempt to gain readership back after the Telegraph's recent domination of the Press, the Guardian has produced a neatly spliced footage/interview sample that puts them thoroughly in the Protester's camp.
The nature of this article, while raising many valid points about police actions at protests, is one sided sensationalism. Convenient revisionism of a event no one really remembers because it was so quiet and banal within the many protests that summer.
The last comments on the video can be decided in a court if the Police breached PACE legislation. But the video as a whole only clips the necessary points to uphold the protester's arguments. We see the officers chaining the protester's ankles, but we cannot ascertain if she was being raucous and whether they had probable cause.
Do The Guardian expect the public to suddenly down tools and renege all police officers countrywide? Perhaps they were hoping to gain more coverage akin to the Ian Tomalinson video, hence they had the same voice over artist. But the Tomalinson video was just footage, clearly identifying poor execution of police powers. All I see in this one is evidence of police failing to identify themselves. And a few witness statements denouncing their behaviour with carefully selected footage.
But, lets be honest, if the Guardian hadn't published this story we would hear nothing about it. Like the Tomalinson affair, and the De Menezes and so on, the matter will be swept under the carpet and dealt with on a suitably notorious day like August 27th when no one is interested in a small police complaints review if Diana is on the front page. Credit where credit is due, but the Guardian still wins no awards for biased reporting.
12 Apr 2009
Guess what, a journaist scoop.
The Mail online, becoming even more of a tabloid. They have obviously got a student in on work experience. The article screams "archive files", poor literary content and no knowledge of the legal profession whatsoever.
In particular, partly because it is bank holiday and I'm idle, and partly because poor newspaper writing irritates me;
She was writing to congratulate the women on their promotion to Queen’s Counsel – one of the most senior positions in the judiciary.
Being appointed QC is NOT to be appointed to the Judiciary. Wiki will tell you that for @*!&@#'s sake.
While one woman QC was ‘very surprised’ Mrs Blair did not pay for a stamp, another questioned the choice of notepaper.
Was she really? Or did her secretary/PA/clerk/skivvy point this out and when it emerged the letter was from the "honorable" Mrs Blair the elite decided to get a few more pennies for the estate by calling the paper?
One woman lawyer,
And lastly... how foolish of me to consider that the UK has two separate types of legal professional, plus a miscellany of impressionists such as paralegals, executives and moonlighting law students. All collectively referred to as "lawyers".
Is the journalist actually an ignorant child? Or is the role of the unidentified caller so dodgy that no one knows quite who it is? Perhaps I am being too harsh, but even I credit the public with more intelligence than this. Given that CB wrote to female barristers appointed to the Queen's Council, I would assume the woman referred to is a BARRISTER. But the article is sloppy and the writer appears to have used MS Thesaurus.
What is worth noting is;
however, took umbrage over the notes. She said: ‘Why has Cherie Blair appointed herself as a feminist guru and leader of female lawyers?’
I do concur. I have always felt Cherie's legal career was under played when she may have made a reasonable female model for the public. Instead she embraced the smug and supercilious attitude we tend to see in all female professionals in a male dominated atmosphere, as well as an arrogant and regally patronising nature taken by all "wives" in the public eye.
(On a personal note, having moved from the commendable area of employment law, she transferred into the more dubious and pro euro Human Rights carrion hunters and lost much respect I had for her) Bring on Helena Kennedy for Prime Minister, at least she
I still think it is abominable that women still have to congratulate each other on achieving something in a male dominated field.
In particular, partly because it is bank holiday and I'm idle, and partly because poor newspaper writing irritates me;
She was writing to congratulate the women on their promotion to Queen’s Counsel – one of the most senior positions in the judiciary.
Being appointed QC is NOT to be appointed to the Judiciary. Wiki will tell you that for @*!&@#'s sake.
While one woman QC was ‘very surprised’ Mrs Blair did not pay for a stamp, another questioned the choice of notepaper.
Was she really? Or did her secretary/PA/clerk/skivvy point this out and when it emerged the letter was from the "honorable" Mrs Blair the elite decided to get a few more pennies for the estate by calling the paper?
One woman lawyer,
And lastly... how foolish of me to consider that the UK has two separate types of legal professional, plus a miscellany of impressionists such as paralegals, executives and moonlighting law students. All collectively referred to as "lawyers".
Is the journalist actually an ignorant child? Or is the role of the unidentified caller so dodgy that no one knows quite who it is? Perhaps I am being too harsh, but even I credit the public with more intelligence than this. Given that CB wrote to female barristers appointed to the Queen's Council, I would assume the woman referred to is a BARRISTER. But the article is sloppy and the writer appears to have used MS Thesaurus.
What is worth noting is;
however, took umbrage over the notes. She said: ‘Why has Cherie Blair appointed herself as a feminist guru and leader of female lawyers?’
I do concur. I have always felt Cherie's legal career was under played when she may have made a reasonable female model for the public. Instead she embraced the smug and supercilious attitude we tend to see in all female professionals in a male dominated atmosphere, as well as an arrogant and regally patronising nature taken by all "wives" in the public eye.
(On a personal note, having moved from the commendable area of employment law, she transferred into the more dubious and pro euro Human Rights carrion hunters and lost much respect I had for her) Bring on Helena Kennedy for Prime Minister, at least she
I still think it is abominable that women still have to congratulate each other on achieving something in a male dominated field.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
