Phone Hacking Scandal and Trelford

For an ex-editor of the Observer with a good reputation, Donald Trelford somewhat blotted his record with his observations on the phone hacking scandal back in February.

"It seems extraordinary that this story should remain so high on the news agenda. It was all a long time ago, two people have been to jail, the paper's editor has resigned twice from senior posts without any convincing evidence being produced against him, the Press Complaints Commission appears satisfied that newspapers now abide by data protection law, and police inquiries have resumed."

He turned his ire onto the Guardian for continuing to dig and ferret out the story when News Corp had done its best to bury it. He incredibly blamed the Guardian for bringing the press into disrepute. 'It's a case of dog eats dog gone barking mad'

Whoops. It is difficult to think of someone being so wrong, misguided and shallow. Recent developments show this story to be massive as Henry Porter spells out in the Observer.

“One of the most serious post-second world war scandals to affect British public life cannot be placed in quarantine and forgotten simply by means of a late apology and millions in damages. It is already clear that admissions made by News International raise huge questions about the competence and ethics of the company's management, including James Murdoch, as well as profound doubts about attempts to quash the police's inquiry into allegations of widespread criminality.

But much more important is that the News of the World operation has penetrated to the heart of the British government and may even have intercepted Gordon Brown's messages. We know that Labour's culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, who was the minister overseeing the media, was hacked, as was her husband David Mills; the former deputy prime minister, Lord Prescott, has been told that the News of the World was listening to his messages; and it seems likely that Tony Blair's communications director Alastair Campbell was also a victim.

Two weeks ago I wrote formally to the former prime minister Gordon Brown to ask if he had received confirmation from the police that his phone was compromised by the News of the World. He has yet to reply, but the very idea that a serving chancellor's phone was hacked by journalists is shocking, to say nothing of subsequent moves to dissuade him from speaking about it in public. That single aspect of the story tells you a lot about Murdoch's power and the fear he can instill in politicians. 

Never mind the footballers, TV presenters and film stars that Rupert Murdoch's people have been busily buying off or threatening since this scandal broke. There are hundreds of them, maybe even thousands, and they all have the right to a private life, but the gravity of this affair lies in this: at the same time as Murdoch's organisation was maintaining sway over the course of politics in this country, his journalists were listening to government ministers' private messages. It is difficult to imagine a more dangerous breach of trust by a public corporation, which of course may even have implications for national security. If the chancellor's phone was hacked, it certainly does.

Since the Guardian's Nick Davies began his investigations, it has become clear that News International would go to extraordinary lengths to suppress the story, including an attempt to derail further investigation by the police after royal reporter Clive Goodman and private investigator Glen Mulcaire had been jailed. There is in an ongoing dispute between the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, and the acting deputy commissioner, John Yates, about advice given by the Crown Prosecution Service to the police, but what must be clear is that the police investigation was stalled and somewhere along the line Murdoch's influence was felt.

This whole sorry affair seems to condemn modern journalistic practices, yet it offers hope, because without the persistence of the Observer's sister paper, the Guardian, and the resolve of a few victims such as Lord Prescott, very little of this story would have been made public.”

Henry Porter Observer online 9/4/11

NHS sell-off: lies, evasions and spin.

One of the worst things (among several) about the government’s plans for the NHS is the downright lies and evasion they have practiced to get to this point. The Coalition Agreement hammered out during those frenetic days in May makes no mention of any reorganisation. The only reference is the following: “The parties agree that funding for the NHS should increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament, while recognising the impact this decision would have on other departments.”  Coalition Agreement document May 2010

It now emerges that the NHS has to make 20 billion pounds of cuts by 2015. Already we are seeing evidence of delaying tactics being applied to all non-urgent surgical procedures. This inevitably  increases the waiting time and suffering of people needing hip operations or cataract treatment. No mention of any of this before the election.

The Conservative Manifesto spelt out a few changes but nothing of the import and the impact of their actual proposals. They even denied any wish to undergo any massive reorganisation! “We are stopping the top-down reconfigurations of NHS services,(my emphases) imposed from Whitehall rather than led by the local NHS, family doctors and local communities.” Conservative Manifesto 2010

Having hit a great deal of opposition, the PR skills of Cameron and his crew have been called into play. The idea of a period of listening is classic PR. It sounds good. It will reassure a few but actually change very little. Like most PR it is all about spin. 

For the actuality, look at the way Lansley is behaving. If this ‘listening period’ is serious then an invitation to speak to the Royal College of Nurses next week would seem to be an excellent opportunity for a frank exchange of views. He is the first Secretary of State to turn down the chance to address the RCN in eight years. [Update: 9th April. Lansley will now attend following the hoo-ha about his initial decision not to go. Should be a lively session.]

Lansley and Cameron addressed the College before the General Election last year. But that was when they were keeping their powder dry on their actual plans for the NHS.

Clegg and the LibDems have been rightly pilloried for the student fees debacle. The lies, evasions and duplicity of the Tories over the NHS is their equivalent. 
Update number 2: 13th April. Craven wormtongue Lansley is attending the RCN conference today but will not risk addressing the delegates. Instead his spinners are putting it out that he is there 'to listen.' What bollocks. He will arrive just after the nurses hold a vote of no-confidence in him and his plans....will he hear what they say? 

Tax Avoidance Exemption for MPs? Never.

A newly-elected MP told journalist Steve Richards in an off-air moment that the thing she found most difficult to handle about being an MP was the disdain of the public. Perhaps there would be less disdain and more respect if MPs stopped putting their own interests before those of their constituents. After the expenses outrage you would think that they would have got the message. Think again. As an article in the online Telegraph reveals.

“New tax year, same old MPs. After Budget promises to tackle tax avoidance, Parliament is passing legislation to block several loopholes – but an obscure clause specifically exempts MPs from these new restrictions.

Yes, really. Anyone who thought the denizens of Halitosis Hall had learned their lesson after the MPs’ expenses scandal will be disappointed. But it seems politicians still cannot get their heads round the childhood adage about sauce for the goose and gander – or why their constituents are fed up with buying them duck houses.

“HM Revenue & Customs says that this legislation is only there to stop ‘tax avoidance’. However, Section 554E(8) specifically exempts members of the House of Commons and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority from the new legislation in situations where they are actually caught by it.

“If the legislation is fair and proportional, what is the need for a specific exemption for members of the House of Commons? Why don’t they rely on the same arrangements that every other employer and employee in this country has to rely on?

“If the legislation only targets tax avoidance, why is there a need for a special exemption for MPs?” Ian Cowie, Daily Telegraph 8/4/11

Why? WHY? WHY?

Up with this we will not put. Contact your MP and make sure they know exactly what you feel about this. Contact campaigning organisations who utilise the internet (38 Degrees, Avaaz etc ) to add this issue to their target list. 

Make sure MPs know that we know.

Suggested letter/email

Dear --------------------(name of MP)

Legislation currently going through Parliament to block tax avoidance loopholes contains Section 554E(8) which specifically exempts members of the House of Commons and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. This is outrageous and indefensible.

What are you going to do about this despicable little clause? 

Yours etc. 

Tories? Doncha just love ‘em.

Climate Change Minister Greg Barker told a business audience in the United States, “We are making cuts that Margaret Thatcher in the 1980’s could only have dreamt of.”

Cabinet Office Minister Oliver Letwin talking to Boris Johnson about whether there should be more airports said, “We don’t want more people from Sheffield flying away on cheap holidays.”

Barker is a junior Minister who hardly anyone has heard of. Letwin is a millionaire member of a predominantly wealthy Cabinet. Both reveal the heart of darkness that lies deep within the Tory psyche. Ruthlessly right wing, uncaring and arrogant. But they do know what they stand for. 

What do the political class that dominates NewLabour believe in?

Obama own goal

“Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, will be tried by a military commission in Guantánamo. It is the latest retreat by the Obama administration from its much-vaunted plans to overhaul the legal processing of terror suspects.

Mohammed and four other terror suspects will be put on trial through a military system that President Obama had vowed to abolish when he began in office in January 2009.

The about-face is hugely symbolic as Mohammed was al-Qaida's main architect of 9/11, according to the commission of inquiry into the terrorist outrages convened in New York. How he is treated arguably sets the tone for America's legal handling of terror suspects.” Guardian online 4/4/11

Apart from the Republicans and some Democrats making it very clear that they would oppose any civil trial on US soil, there was also the issue of using torture to get evidence. The CIA admitted that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was water boarded 183 times in a month. Despite the claims of the egregious Chaney, the use of water boarding is cruel and inhuman punishment i.e. torture. All the ‘confessions’ and the ‘admissions’ would have been ruled as inadmissible evidence because of the illegal methods used to obtain it. So a Civil Trial became a major problem. 

A President who practiced what he preached would have dug his heels in and insisted that the Rule of Law operates above all else. He would have held a trial on US soil under US jurisdiction. Yes it would have been difficult. Yes, great chunks of so called ‘evidence’ would have been ruled inadmissible. Yes, there was a possibility that because of this KSM could have walked free. But it would have been right. Instead Obama has caved in and given in to the thick, the undemocratic and the raving right in his country. 

What he is left with is a mess. The so-called tribunal in Guantanamo is an absolute gift to terrorists and despots around the world. The staging of what is in effect a show trial gives strength to enemies of the US and disheartens their allies and friends. It throws the Rule of Law into the bin. It also helps remind us that the US, significantly, does not recognise the International Criminal Court. 

We will hear no more of ‘the city on the hill’ and ‘freedom’ and ‘justice’ and talk of ‘human rights’ from US spokesfolks around the world. We will remember that when faced with the issue of upholding the Rule of Law (one of the bulwarks of the Constitution) or of giving in to (at best) a more pragmatical approach, this President let the founding fathers down. 

NHS Reform and Lansley

“The confusion over the Government's plans for the NHS is, to put it at its most moderate, surprising. This is a matter not just of ideology but of competence.

The Prime Minister seems to have assumed, despite the evidence over many years, that Andrew Lansley, the Secretary of State for Health, knew what he was doing. When Mr Lansley succeeded in uniting doctors, nurses, public opinion and most Liberal Democrats against his reforms, No 10 seems to have assumed that he needed to communicate the changes better.

It is certainly the case that the communication of the policy has been lamentable. Mr Lansley's main message has been that GP- commissioning was promised in the Tory and Liberal Democrat manifestos, and in their coalition agreement. That claim lacks a basis in fact, to put it politely. (my emphasis) The Tory manifesto spoke of giving GPs the power to commission care, rather than requiring them to do so, and the coalition document was similarly permissive. The Lib Dem manifesto was silent on the issue. The coalition agreement also promises that primary care trusts (PCTs) "will act as a champion for patients and commission those residual services that are best undertaken at a wider level, rather than directly by GPs". The Bill dispenses with the trusts altogether.

As David Owen argues today, Mr Lansley has no mandate for his reform. That is why Nick Clegg felt emboldened to seek changes to the policy; what the changes are precisely we will find out soon. (The main business in private seems to have been a struggle over the extent to which Mr Clegg will take credit for saving the day.) In many ways, however, it is already too late. Our willingness to give the Government the benefit of the doubt has been forfeited. We do not know how the reorganisation of the NHS was supposed to work, and suspect that Mr Lansley does not either.” Independent on Sunday 3/4/11

We know that Mr Lansley is not to be trusted. His justification for promoting these wholesale changes to the NHS without telling the electorate was that he ‘mentioned them in a few meetings.’ This is unsupportable and those greedy GPs who have already jumped in thinking of the wodges of cash they will make should think again. We want Doctors - not accountants, business managers or financiers. 

Lansley is another of the current crop of politicians who seek to line their pockets with another income while working as an MP. They have great difficulty understanding the lot of the great mass of the British people as it is beyond their ken. It does not stop Lansley and his cronies trying to remodel the NHS on American lines. 

Just like Patricia Hewitt, when she stepped down as Secretary of State for Health, Lansley will have his eye on a plum job with a private medicine company when his dirty deeds are done.

April Fools FA

Today is April 1st. All Fools Day. Many media organisations try to slip in bogus items in the hope they will catch out their viewers, listeners and readers. They make up stories such as the Panorama investigation into the Spaghetti tree or the Guardian’s creation of San Serife, a hidden island in the Atlantic. 

The Today programme had an item about 3D Radio. The Independent went with Portugal selling Ronaldo to Spain to help pay off their debt. The Guardian had a leading article waxing lyrical about the forthcoming Royal Wedding which had me going and there was a BMW advert offering a Royal Wedding ‘Special Edition’ car. 

The doozy of the day though was the report that the Premiership were going to improve the behaviour of players and managers, “Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore has announced a crackdown on the "unacceptable" behaviour by players and managers towards referees.” BBC Online.

Now that really is an April Fools cracker.


Later (7-55pm) along comes this little gem to top the lot, "Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson claims the new Premier League initiative to encourage respect for referees is unnecessary, saying “I don’t think managers disrespect referees.” Telegraph online


You couldn't make it up.