Bercow's patience with PMQs sessions snaps

For months, the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has expressed increased irritation with the conduct of MPs in the House of Commons. This week, he took the extraordinary step of writing to the leaders of all the main political parties to discuss how Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) can be cooled amid increasing dissatisfaction from the public.

The viewing public have complained that the shouting, hollering and sniping in the sessions have made PMQs difficult to watch, representing an absurd indictment on the quality of current MPs.

Another recent complaint is that PMQs sessions have become increasingly orchestrated, with the Prime Minister being asked orchestrated questions from his backbenchers, readily identifiable by the similarity of question characteristics throughout the sessions.

Recently, Bercow slammed the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, in the Commons with the rebuke: "You need to write out a thousand times, 'I will behave myself at Prime Minister's Questions'."

Other than encouraging MPs to quieten so questions and answers can be heard, it is unclear how the sessions can be improved, other than naming and removing the worst offenders.

One option could be restricted entry to the session, with MPs scheduled to ask questions permitted access. This has the potential to make the sessions more manageable.

The Hansard Society has included among its recommendations on the issue a rugby-style "sin-bin" for particular wrongdoers and rescheduling PMQs to prime-time to generate viewer interest.

BBC found to be the broadcast wing of the UK Government in bias row

The BBC is biased towards right-wing politics, with much of its output manipulated by government sources, researchers have found.

The findings, revealed last year by academics from Cardiff University found that other broadcasters, such as ITV and Channel 4, drew on academic and scientific sources, while the BBC relied more heavily on official lines from Westminster and contributions from business sources.

A row has broken out over the BBC Trust's lack of response to the findings. The BBC Trust is led by former Tory MP Chris Patten, and is charged with overseeing the work of the state broadcaster and responding to viewers' complaints.

Professor Justin Lewis of Cardiff University has expressed disappointment at the playing down of the findings by the Trust and will continue to pursue a written report on the matter.

The BBC has repeatedly attracted criticism of its right-wing output on social media since the election of the right-wing coalition government in the UK in 2010, which lies in contrast to its past reputation (correctly or incorrectly) of bias in the opposite direction.

The findings will be unsurprising to those who watch current affairs programming on the BBC. Previous BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, and Sunday morning stalwart Andrew Marr had both previously complained about times they felt BBC output sat too close to the left.

Many viewers of BBC News are also aware of Political Editor Nick Robinson's past as Chair of the Young Conservatives. Andrew Neil, the BBC's most omnipresent of figures in the corporation's political programming, is a major figure of the economic right.

Bias of BBC output is thought to be only partially related to the political persuasions of their main protagonists though. An article on this issue published today at The Independent explains how dependency on the government to secure a sizeable share of the licence fee for funding represents a major threat to impartiality.

In short, the BBC is a "Public Service Broadcaster" in name only - the need to appease the government effectively renders the BBC a state broadcaster.

A summary of Professor Lewis's view and some statistical comparisons with ITV and Channel 4 can be found in this article by Ian Burrell of The Independent.

The US accused of talking down the Winter Olympics

A major sports event is always accompanied by a mishap or two and the fear of a major security incident, but US reporting of Sochi 2014 has been dismissed in Russia as a 'dampener' and against the spirit of the Olympics.

Many Russians were dismayed by the pre-event reporting on US news networks, following warnings of terror and calling the area a "war zone". The coverage was described as dampening the excitement preceding the event.

There was nothing too remarkable in itself about the warnings of bombs in toothpaste tubes. The London 2012 Olympics event was also carried out under high security amid similar fears. Russia had already reacted to security concerns by restricting liquids and pastes on flights. It is also accepted that Russia will need to continue the security standard already set.

However, it is argued that some media outlets in America were overly creative when expressing their fears, with the warnings of war on the streets totally unwarranted. While it is true that Russia has had a recent struggle with terrorism, if anything it demonstrates that Russia's problems are not that different to America's.

It is felt in Russia there has been a cultural assault on the games for months. Television viewers in both the US and Britain were treated to imagery of poorly constructed toilets, sparsely-furnished hotel rooms and hotel accessories with components falling off. (Presumably by people who have never had the pleasure of staying or living in a "new build" home or hotel in the UK!)

There was also the moment which amused some, when there was a problem with the firework display at the opening ceremony. Russian TV was criticised for switching to footage of the faultless rehearsal display. It is unlikely that anyone else's media would have dealt with the glitch quite so efficiently.

American media lashed out at the firework display coverage as an example of how secretive and window-dressed Russian society remains.

The relative petty nature of pre-Sochi posturing distracts from an issue that many people, especially EU citizens, are concerned about - the status of homosexuality in Russia. The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, argued that while Russia accepts that "non-traditional" relationship activity takes place, it is against providing information on it to children. A new law has criminalised the presentation of information on homosexuality to children.

Critics say that the new law effectively prevents gay rights protests and educative communication regarding sexuality. Many competing nations appeared to respond the concerns at the opening ceremony of Sochi 2012 by wearing highly decorative suits, with the Germans looking particularly colourful.

Miliband and Cameron gender quarrel disguises true parliamentary failings

Labour leader Ed Miliband has criticised the lack of promotion of women by David Cameron's ruling Conservatives in a fiery Prime Minister's Questions session.

Describing the Conservatives as an "old boys' network", Miliband slammed a decision by the party to deselect long-serving Member of Parliament Anne McIntosh for the next General Election.

Embarrassingly for the Prime Minister, his front bench was full of male MPs for the session, while Miliband packed his front bench with women.

Miliband also noted that there are just as many members of David Cameron's cabinet from two fee-paying schools as there are female members. The ruling coalition has been criticised in the past for hindering social mobility, with the current cabinet the least diverse in years, if not decades.

There has been activity in all of the major UK political parties in recent years to promote more women to Parliament, occasionally controversially in the form of 'all-women shortlists' in some parliamentary constituencies.

The coalition parties have been wholly unsuccessful in returning women to Parliament though. In the aftermath of the 2010 General Election, 31 percent of Labour MPs were female, compared with 16 percent of Conservatives and 12 percent of Liberal Democrats.

This deficit has given the government a headache, as Labour has a broad pool of female talent to draw from. In contrast, promising female MPs on the government benches have largely fallen by the wayside.

Louise Mensch was part of the parliamentary committee charged with interrogating Rupert Murdoch over the phone-hacking scandal that engulfed his newspapers. Following that role, she suddenly stood down as MP citing family reasons and now writes for Murdoch's Sun newspaper.

Other promising female careers in the coalition government have also fizzled out, including that of Sarah Teather - now a regular rebel against government policy. Teather has announced she is stepping down at the next election.

Others, including Nadine Dorries, have also taken to frequently opposing their own party. Indeed, Dorries has also criticised the Conservative leadership, dismissing them as "posh boys."

However, there must inevitably be an allowance for the prospect that any MP, regardless of gender, may fail to fulfil early promise - at best serving as a good constituency MP. The problem for the coalition is there are still not enough female MPs to source talented potential cabinet members in sufficient numbers.

The true failing, it would seem, is not just the failure to get enough talented women into high-profile government roles, but getting them into Parliament in the first place.

London's railway workers take industrial action over jobs

London Underground workers have taken industrial action against Transport for London, following the authority's decision to cut around 1,000 jobs.

Union members started their 48-hour walk-out at 9pm on Tuesday (4th February) hoping that planned ticket office closures will be dropped.

The decision by Transport for London to close some ticket offices is in stark contrast to election pledges made by the chief of Transport for London, Mayor Boris Johnson.

British news outlets have been reporting that fans faced disruption to their journeys to watch Taylor Swift perform at Greenwich. Meanwhile, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, described the strike as "shameful".

Union bosses claim that ticket office closures will lead to a decline in service to commuters and that the jobs provided are vital.

UK opposition party promise tax increase for wealthy

Britain's Labour Party has promised voters that it will raise the top level of income tax to 50p for those earning over £150,000 per year.

The pledge is likely to be popular with the poorest people in the UK, already puzzled by the decision made by the current regime to lower the rate to 45p. This reduction is despite a struggling economy and the imposition of new levies on the poorest (such as the despised 'Bedroom Tax').

Such government decisions on taxation and levies have led to repeated concerns in Britain that the wishes of the wealthy are being prioritised over the poorest.

Labour's shadow chancellor, Ed Balls commented: "When the deficit is still high, it cannot be right for David Cameron and George Osborne to have chosen to give the richest people in the country a huge tax cut."

Critics have commented that the move will jeopardise the fledgling UK economic recovery by deterring investors and potentially causing a drain of perceived talent. However, this view is somewhat contradicted as they also say the tax rise will not raise such a great amount of money.

Labour MP Danczuk's comments risk alienating party members

It is difficult for any Labour Party campaigner when elected members of Parliament behave in a way so far removed from the grassroots, one wonders if they ever knew what it meant to be Labour in the first place.

The latest MP to speak in alienating terms to the Labour Party masses is an apparent cuckoo in the Labour nest, the MP for Rochdale, Simon Danczuk.

Danczuk has some "interesting" opinions which any member of society's working class - who expect Labour to uphold their interests - needs to know about. His agitation process began a few days ago with a risible Twitter post that suggested those about to lose their jobs and face a seven days' wait before benefits (instead of the previous three) should simply "save up." Classless - and I do not mean that in the context of Britain's class system.

Since Twitter seems to be the platform to engage in wide political dialogue there days, I sent a tweet to the Labour Party as a concerned member to find out if this is now the party's position on any worker in Britain facing unemployment - to just save up. A letter is also on its way.

I appreciate that as a country we are looking down the backs of all the sofas for some spare cash (except the bustling higher tax rate sofa of course). However, a policy inflicting further financial punishment on someone who has just lost their job is not the type of policy that any "Labour" party should be endorsing.

If a Labour Party is compelled to honour Tory cuts, at the very least they should refrain from appearing as though they are extracting pleasure from it. The "save up" comment was so distasteful, it could have been lifted from the Tory textbook of nasty party putdowns. It is no wonder some are viewing Danczuk as a Tory cuckoo in the Labour nest.

Labour was set up to defend the interests of workers. As Ed Miliband would say, "the clue's in the name." If workers entering a period of unemployment do not have the party looking after them, then we may as well throw in the towel now.

Events became far more absurd, when the Danczuk appeared on British state TV to discuss the issue with centre-left writer Owen Jones.

Rather than debating the issue at hand, Danczuk proceeded to ridicule Jones, by suggesting that his Oxford education means he is from a privileged background. If that is the case, perhaps Labour should review the entry requirements of its MPs, many of whom graduated from that privileged sphere.

Furthermore, post-war reformist Labour Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, entered politics via Oxford. Danczuk needs to brush up on his Labour Party history. Someone also needs to tell him that non-privileged students who demonstrate ability are allowed to study at Oxford too if they pass the entry ritual.

If Danczuk thinks his attacks on Jones will blunt the writer's popularity, he needs to think again. At present, Jones is proving an effective opponent to the coalition government. Danczuk, on the other hand, will simply alienate voters and increase the risk of a second Tory term.

Pensioners who sold battery eggs deserve no sympathy

A retired couple were fined for fraud after buying battery eggs and selling them outside their home as being from their own free-range chickens.

The Dorset couple bought 12,000 eggs and passed them off as free-range after their own free-range chickens stopped laying last year. They deserve no sympathy.

Intensive battery-farmed eggs is a sensitive issue for many consumers. Those who buy free-range eggs usually do so as part of a considered purchase. There are those who believe the quality of the farming is relative to the quality of the product, and will buy free-range as a premium product. Even more common are those who buy free-range for ethical reasons due to the better treatment of chickens.

The couple, Stephen and Anne Hobbs, of Three Legged Cross, Dorset, can consider themselves fortunate they were fined £300 each in addition to £1,178 court costs. Their age should not be relevant to their defence. They misled those who made the sensitive decision to buy free-range eggs and wanted to buy farm fresh products.

Jeremy Forrest latest: Police now wasting police time

It is the story that will not go away. Britain has long had a voyeuristic obsession with paedophiles, which led to the public feeding frenzy that accompanied the revelation of Jimmy Savile's secret predatory life. Since then, the binoculars behind the venetian blinds have been focused towards Jeremy Forrest, the teacher convicted for having sex with a pupil aged 15.

I have long explained that Forrest needed a short but significant custodial sentence to at least cover taking the mystery girl (Lady X) to France. That is an appropriate punishment for the pain he put her family through, and provide a chance to reflect on his actions. I have also long said that the situation was never as straightforward as we thought. Critics still insist that Lady X was 'groomed' despite the premise of grooming being that the 'victim' is not aware they are being manipulated.

It is clear that in light of being fully aware of what grooming and paedophilia amounts to, Lady X still insists that she is in love with Forrest. She aims to marry Forrest and is supported by her father. Forrest has had unprecedented moral support from his own family. I will refrain from making a judgement for, as I already hinted at above, this case is complicated and I simply do not know enough about it.

Sadly, the authorities continue to bring great embarrassment upon themselves over this case. Police are now wasting their own time trawling Twitter to identify who named the mystery girl in defiance of the law, despite her name being as well-known as that of a minor celebrity.

While the stupidity of defying the law is without dispute, this is clearly a waste of police time and resources. Furthermore, if people are going to get in trouble with the law for naming people in defiance of the law, what about the companies that are facilitating it?

On one social media network and at least one search engine, to find out the name of the girl who entered the relationship with Jeremy Forrest is so easy that a five year old could do it, for the websites in question provide cues to make it more efficient for visitors to search for what they are looking for.

This demonstrates that once again the law in the UK is biased against people in favour of firms and corporations. If you are a company, do what you like. If you are a person, feel the full weight of the law.

If the law applies to the people, it should apply to companies too. Don't hold your breath though.

Q&A on Jeremy Forrest's crime - how can it be best understood?

Before today, it was all so simple. A suspected child abuser would take his place in the dock, have the charges read out, then would either plead guilty or watch his defence decimated in court. We then collectively rejoice at the warm feeling of justice being done, putting our pitchforks away for another day. Then along came Jeremy Forrest, who fled to France with his school pupil – Lady X – and plunged how we respond to child abuse cases into confusion once again.

A lot of absolute nonsense has been written in the press and on social media, ranging from complete misplaced sympathy towards Forrest (and Forrest/Lady X as a pair) to sensational ‘paedophile’ headlines. Here, we aim to settle some of the questions surrounding Forrest.

Was it fair that he was sentenced to five and a half years in prison, when serial child molester Stuart Hall received 15 months, with his sentences running concurrently?

It is not fair, but I feel that it says more about the leniency of Hall’s sentence, rather than the stiffness of Forrest’s.

There is no reasonable defence for the actions of Jeremy Forrest. His behaviour was despicable, and by any standard he is a villain. The decision to run off with his 15-year old pupil when the authorities were closing in on him was an act of gross selfishness, which caused immeasurable distress to her mother (more so than any revelation of sexual activity between the pair). Many questions would have been spinning around her head at that time. “Is my daughter safe? Will I ever see her again? Is she even still alive?”

Having been convicted of child abduction on Thursday (20^th June), the only acceptable outcome was a custodial sentence. The maximum sentence for child abduction is 7 years, but around 2 years ought to have been sufficient for an abduction involving a passenger seat rather than the car boot.

He was subsequently charged with five counts of sexual activity with a minor, each of which he pleaded guilty. I predicted the upgrading of the offences would mean the sentence passed would be between 5 and 7 years. In the end he was given 5 and a half years (or just over 4 “Stuart Halls” in pervert currency).

The press are describing Forrest as a ‘paedophile’. Is that harsh?

It depends on how you base your judgement. In the strictest of terms, Forrest is a paedophile. Within the framework of the law, he would be defined as such. If you want it in more domestic terms, consider it from another angle: if an adult gets on a bus with his or her partner, who in turn buys a child’s ticket, should they really be together? How would you feel if your child started dating someone twice their age?

One lady caller to a daytime radio programme told presenter Jeremy Vine that she was uncomfortable with Forrest being described as a paedophile. She did add however that she would be livid if a Jeremy Forrest entered into a relationship with her 14-year old daughter.

Others still see the situation as an unfortunate love story. Many young people took to Twitter to send their support to the “couple” – yes, you read that correctly.

Overall, rather than widespread disgust, the vast majority of posts on my own news feed merely stressed the Forrest/Hall sentencing distinction. I guess many felt that considering how many pupils and teachers there are in Britain, and how much time they spend in the vicinity of each other, this scenario is inevitable from time to time and the difference in sentencing is unjust.

In sum, while there is cause for huge discomfort in this case, I would refrain from using the toolbox of ‘P’ words to describe him, pending further evidence that suggests otherwise.

What other evidence would be needed to confirm that Forrest is unquestionably depraved?

We need to be sure that this case is an unfortunate one-off and not a snapshot of more dedicated and prolific paedophilic behaviour.

No evidence was presented at the trial that he had a stash of child pornography anywhere – the standard way of removing any remaining doubt of the defendant’s guilt in this Internet age.

At present, there is also no evidence that Forrest has abused or assaulted any other children. At least one woman has made a further allegation against Forrest, but so far she has only taken it to a tabloid newspaper rather than the legal authorities. Until she does that, the allegation must be treated with caution.

If any more evidence emerges, things could promptly change.

What is the difference between Jeremy Forrest and Jimmy Savile then? They’ve both exploited young people, after all.

Ultimately, Jeremy Forrest laid everything on the line for a girl. Logic suggests there must have been some love involved, even if it was misplaced. He risked (and lost) his career. He risked (and lost) his marriage. He risked (and lost) his liberty.

In contrast, Jimmy Savile risked nothing. Every predatory manoeuvre was risk-assessed in his paedophilic mind. He targeted the most absolutely vulnerable. He used his TV programmes, his status and his charity veneer to fill his sleazy boots at every turn. His scheming ensured he did not face justice during his lifetime.

The lack of distinction between the Saviles and the Forrests provide a crisis for the otherwise priceless child protection movement. At present, paedophilia is treated as something dichotomous, something that people either are or are not. There is no scale. In the minds of the most dedicated campaigners, Forrest now joins Savile and Hall in the hall of shame. To illustrate this further, the press could not resist the occasional gleeful use of various words beginning with the letter ‘P’ (most of which have already been used above) as adjectives to describe Forrest.

As this article has tried to demonstrate, Jeremy Forrest’s behaviour was unacceptable and apparently predatory, but to join the Premier League of perverts, more evidence against him would be required.

Did the crime warrant the level of coverage it received in the media, then?

Not ordinarily, but the level of public interest when the pair first went missing meant that the trial was also going to receive unprecedented coverage. This again demonstrates the selfishness of Jeremy Forrest’s actions, rather than taking responsibility from day one.

The outcome is a girl has been left in confused and in pieces, while he has received a custodial punishment that went far beyond what he would have received had he not gone through that tunnel.

One day, Lady X will realise that she was dragged to France, dragged through the media, and then dragged through the courts by a man trying to save himself.

Summary

Forrest was a teacher. Lady X was his pupil. He was in a position of responsibility and should have resisted, however tempting she was to him. He was a professional and should have acted as such. When parents send their children to school, they do not expect them to enter a relationship with Sir or Miss.

Both will require care now to ensure that their mental health does not suffer long-term.

Though I resist casting him in the very harshest of terms, it was only right that Forrest was given some time in the slammer to reflect on what he has done.

Britain's favourite bigot uses Nigella incident to hone his comedy act

Most of the British public will by now be familiar with the incident where Nigella Lawson appeared to have the violent hand of her husband Charles Saatchi thrust upon her neck. With that in mind, I will resist posting the photographs again, for I think we have all seen them enough. Needless to say, the "playful tiff" that Saatchi claimed to be enjoying did not look particularly enjoyable for Ms Lawson.

Society responded by trying to interpret the photographs in order to ascertain the level of aggression by Saatchi and to propose its own sanctions. Some pondered why a photographer was happy to snap away at the sparring pair, yet nobody was prepared to step in and help. Others questioned what sort of potential violence may be going on behind closed doors.

However, the real "fun" began when the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, was allowed loose on Twitter. He promptly attracted revulsion by adding sexism to his already extensively bursting suitcase of prejudice by making light of the situation.

He wrote: "If I had the opportunity to squeeze Nigella Lawson, her throat wouldn't be my first choice."

No great mind-reading feat is required in order to unravel what Griffin was driving at. The subject of most discussion of Ms Lawson over the years has been (in all probability) the size of her chest - as opposed to her cooking skills, her well-to-do background or even how she manages to maintain a naturally youthful appearance.

The use of Ms Lawson's body shape for the benefit of humour is probably is not in itself the biggest atrocity in human history. Britain is full of supposedly edgy comedians who love nothing more than to crack a boobs or backside joke. Some of them are even funny, and I love nothing more than a bit of dangerous comedy. I would not fit the definition of politically correct too comfortably, therefore any attempt by Griffin to characterise someone like myself as a humourless PC bore is nonsense.

The problem, however, is that the situation was inappropriate for comedy. The pictures depicted what appeared to be a woman being physically manhandled. If joking about a woman's breasts is not necessarily crossing the line of decency, then joking about the right place to grab an alleged brutalised woman is. The potential of domestic violence is not a suitable platform for a gag.

Whatever I may think of Griffin, he is supposed to be the figurehead of a legitimate political party. Could you imagine David Cameron, Ed Miliband or Nick Clegg thinking it acceptable to go on to Twitter and joke about where best to get hold of Nigella so soon after those photographs appeared?

The simple truth is that there is a time and a place to try and beat Frankie Boyle and Jimmy Carr in the extreme comedy stakes, and joking about Nigella Lawson on Twitter today was not it.

Hugo Chavez - the final word

I notice that on the day of Hugo Chavez's state funeral, Anglo-American journalists are still being highly disrespectful, with snarky comments about who attended the service, with smug references to their human rights and foreign policy records.

As with many democrats, I am not comfortable with the concept of charismatic personality cults either, such as the one Chavez built, even though, ironically, we do it with our own (highly cherished) royal family. The right-wingers, who often befriend authoritarian regimes sympathetic to their goals, had a tendency to knock the Chavez government in Venezuela though. Why was this?

The reason is that right-wing politics, which has sadly become as much populist discourse in the UK as it has been in the USA for decades, is against the redistributive policies that were championed by Chavez.

This is sad for one significant reason. After the Second World War, the British public actually voted for democratic socialist politics. Labour was elected, and the NHS, an education system, the welfare state and social housing were built, albeit under the much quieter and thoughtful leadership of Clement Attlee. I am convinced that nowadays, such policies, along with a major nationalisation programme, would lead to spiteful vilification in the press along the lines of that subjected to Chavez.

Hugo Chavez may have few friends in the neo-liberal West, but he has now passed away. He deserves a little more than the same obituary that was given to Kim Jong-il, Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, with only the names and a few local details altered.

His status was sufficient enough for our own Conservative Foreign Secretary, William Hague, who is by no means a socialist revolutionary, to pay his respects to Chavez and his family. It was also remarkable that despite the constant criticisms in the UK media, the British public nonetheless still had enough independence of thought to ensure that "RIP Hugo Chavez" was a statement popular enough to briefly trend on the Twitter website.

RIP Hugo Chavez indeed.

Every day is a bad news day under this government

Living in Britain at the moment is a tougher experience than we have been used to. While we continue to struggle to make ends meet, every day it seems as though there is another piece of news that is a slap in the face to us all. Each helping of gloom is supported by a source, which cumulatively are broad and inclusive.

Wednesday 27th February

Centrica, the private company that owns British Gas posts a tasty £606m residential profit in 2012 - up 11 percent on the previous year. In November 2012, the company put up gas bills by 6 percent.
Source: Which (consumer group)

Thursday 28th February

The bank that needed to be bailed out by the government, the Royal Bank of Scotland, made a pre-tax loss of £5.17bn. Many of the losses were due to PPI claims and fines. Bonuses remain set aside for staff. Astonishingly, the hapless organisation has been praised by the government.

Source: BBC

Friday 1st March

The pound plunges to a two-and-a-half year low against the dollar following a "shock" fall in manufacturing output. I place the word "shock" in quotations on purpose, for many of us would hardly be shocked by a fall in manufacturing under a Conservative-led government.
Source: Sky

Saturday 2nd March

From the file marked 'how to win friends and influence people', Philip Hammond, the Secretary of State for Defence decided to suggest that spending cuts should be made to welfare rather than his war chest. Great. We can all starve, but at least our military will be kept strong. Nothing like North Korea at all, of course.
Source: Independent

Sunday 3rd March

The Conservatives are now making noises about withdrawing from the European Court of Human Rights after the next election, in what is seen as a populist move as a knee-jerk response to some high-profile defeats for the government regarding the deportation of terror suspects. A move would put Britain in a minority of two, alongside Belarus – at present Europe’s only remaining dictatorship.
Source: Independent

Monday 4th March

Government policy to encourage banks to lend in order to breathe life into the economy is a catastrophic failure after banks and building societies slashed lending by £2.4 BILLION in the three months to December. The government’s “Funding for Lending” scheme was meant to encourage the banks to lend.
Source: Evening Standard 

Tuesday 5th March

In a slap in the face to all those struggling to make ends meet, George Osborne went to the European Union finance ministers’ meeting to fight the corner of the bankers by voting against a cap on bankers’ bonuses. He lost 26-1.
Source: Telegraph

 

And you wonder why Labour are 13 points ahead in the polls.

As horsemeat scandal escalates, could excrement be next?

The equine jokes are knackered out. As many could have predicted, and some of us already had, the horsemeat controversy is fast escalating towards an infamous scandal, with the police now involved. As the seriousness of non-standard ingredients in everyday food products sinks in, it has emerged that some processed food products contain up to 100% horsemeat and possible veterinary drugs deemed unfit for human consumption (video link - Daily Telegraph). It is therefore evident we have no idea what is added to bulk out these frozen processed food products. Research suggests that in our love of burgers and pies, we could be consuming anything - including excrement. You read that correctly: it is entirely possible we are eating animal 'waste products'.

Any unforeseen and unstated artifact found in a foodstuff is by definition contamination. We have been relatively good-humoured, and typically British, about the shocking news that popular food products used to feed our families are contaminated with horsemeat. The online community have been happily trading jokes in some form of virtual horse play, an indicator of the generally light-hearted response.

Meanwhile, media outlets, including the BBC, have been full of vox-pops from hardy shoppers mostly arguing those who buy cheap food should be neither surprised, nor dare to complain, that they have been sold contaminated food. I avoid the cheapest products myself and have never been allured by sausages and burgers bulked up with rough matter, but even I accept that those who buy the cheapest goods (particularly given these hard economic times) at the very least are entitled to know the ingredients.

The problem is we do not know what is in our food, and the nature of our diet means we lack the sensual capability to detect what is in our food. What other possible explanation could there be for our apparent willingness to scoff a Findus beef lasagne and not even consider that it may have 100% horsemeat content?

For too long many of us have existed in our shallow Anglo-American dietary paradigm, where the textures of our most popular food are beaten down to a flavourless pulp, blended with filler and supplemented with seasonings and sugar to make them desirable. This is how we consume our sausages - bulked out with rusk, herbs and sugar. We consume our burgers in a similar way. We smother them with ketchup, brown sauce or stuff them in a roll full of condiments, ensuring we can barely taste or feel the texture of the meat potentially poisoning us. This is serious, given that we are potentially eating poo, to put it politely.

An escalation of the horsemeat scandal (Source: Wikipedia)

In his investigation of meat packing factories, Eric Schlosser revealed in his excellent book Fast Food Nation that in order to keep meat-processing costs low, production lines were run at the highest possible speed the workforce could cope with. This led to errors, including the frequent incorrect removals of cow stomachs, resulting in excrement spillages contaminating those retail beef products (2002, p.197; p.203). If you think that sort of thing could not happen here, then consider what your reaction would have been to the possibility of horsemeat contaminated burgers just a couple of months ago.

Schlosser argues that higher standards of meat are demanded by the EU, but this offers little in the form of reassurance. I am fully expecting excrement to be a future development of this current food contamination scandal, reducing the horsemeat issue to a level of comparative triviality. With the news that drug-contaminated horsemeat could have been entering our food chain for at least a year before it was discovered, there is some inevitability that other nasties will also have found their way in undetected.

I have some sympathy for the traders, from the smallest grocers to the largest supermarkets. I am a long-term critic of the largest corporations, but other than around-the-clock monitoring of their supply chain and frequent laboratory testing of their own products, it is difficult to know how they could have prevented this fiasco. They are not entirely blameless though, for their desire to provide us with cheap food leads them to use suppliers prepared to supply goods at a dangerously low demand price.

With some hope, the current food scandal will mark the demise of the race to the bottom in our consumer culture. In the meantime, I suspect there will be more unsavoury food discoveries, inevitable government inquiries and eventually legal actions. Regardless of the level of food poverty in Britain, all consumers have a basic right to know what is in their shopping basket.

Normalising the predators - a response to Jon Henley's article on paedophilia

Today, I read an article so ill-conceived, I can hardly believe The Guardian published it.

Jon Henley, in this analysis of evidence on paedophilic desires, has written something widely criticised as heavily apologetic of paedophiles an their behaviours.

Critics include Labour MP, Tom Watson, and Mark Williams-Thomas - the researcher whose investigation revealed the truth about Jimmy Savile's private lifestyle.

Henley's article claimed to be a review of the conflicting evidence about what causes paedophila, and the harm it causes. Closer inspection of the piece illuminates some worrying claims from dubious sources.

The tone of the piece is set from the offset, attributing a quote to the pressure group now known as Liberty, which apparently normalises paedophilia. Henley goes on to say that in light of the Savile backlash, it would be unlikely for any organisation to make such a claim.

The most worrying aspect of the article was the use of Tom O'Carroll as a source, described by Henley as "a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate."

O'Carroll was cited as saying "[i]f there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm." The comments are given an air of legitimacy with Henley's commentary that "[s]ome academics do not dispute the view of Tom O'Carroll."

Leading the criticism of Henley's controversial report is Mark Williams-Thomas, who described his main concern with the article as "giving a voice to a convicted child sex offender who wants [to] say adult sexual contact with a child is not abuse."

The respected Labour MP, Tom Watson, added that the article was "[a] jumbled list of arguments for a more sympathetic approach to paedophilia."

Most worrying to my eyes is the normalisation tone of the piece. That is not to say that exceptions do not happen. Relationships between very young people and adults do happen, and some even survive as the younger party moves into full-adulthood.

However, such relationships are not conventional, nor should they ever be considered as such. Fresh in the memory was the relationship between a runaway schoolgirl and teacher that worried and alarmed the entire nation.

The reaction from the public was remarkably mixed, with some even sympathetic to the pair. Fewer would have argued the relationship as justifiable though.

Any attempt to rationalise the behaviour of the predatory minority must be resisted, which is why Henley's article has been widely condemned by observers of all political shades.

Time for everyone to calm down over McAlpinegate

I am sleeping fairly well at night right now. I have never written a tweet implying Lord McAlpine was a paedophile. (Note: tweet is a common definition of a micro-blog post. Additional note: Paedophile is a term describing those attracted to children typically below the age of 13, though in Britain the word is used a little more liberally to refer to anyone who legally is not expected to pay an adult fare on public transport.)

In fact, I have never written a tweet bearing McAlpine's name, prior to his unveiling as the poor bloke BBC Newsnight meant when implying some shadowy relic of the Conservative Party was abusing children.

And despite witnessing many tweets directly claiming he was a paedophile (along with four or five regularly alleged others), I believed it was unethical to "retweet" any of them. (Note for those not familiar with micro-blogging websites: Retweet is the Twitter term for copying someone else's tweet into your own Twitter page for other Twitter members to view.)

There was one notable tweet bearing his name that I may well have retweeted, but it no longer exists, for the author (a highly respected Guardian columnist) has apologised and presumably removed it. For that reason, it is no surprise that I do not even remember if I retweeted it! However, I best apologise just in case.

The tweet in question did little more than question some of the dubious things written about McAlpine on the Internet, but I suspect in the current climate the author will be in trouble over that.

That author apologised in the form of a tweet and linked it towards a more detailed apology. I decided to retweet his apology to my followers - you know, just in case. I hope Lord McAlpine accepts it and that is the end of the matter.

Now that is clear, I add a caveat or two to the above summary of McAlpine vs Twitter. Firstly, I fear that having won the goodwill of the public in light of some rather diabolical allegations, McAlpine (and more significantly those representing his interests post-McAlpinegate) risk overplaying his hand. Secondly, even if McAlpine's response is legally tenable, it is very much in the context of laws that have not caught up with the demands of print and broadcast media, let alone the online variety. First, I shall deal with the former point.

I personally think McAlpine's response is understandable. If I had been subject to the allegations he has faced, I would be on television too, auditioning my croakiest voice and reminding the audience how devastated I am by the allegations. I would have been demanding the BBC justified its research. No question - I would have sought some compensation from the broadcaster.

Having said that, I also think McAlpine has already done very well. His settlement with the BBC must surely be some sort of precedent for dealing with libel through innuendo and cryptic messaging.

I dare say if the BBC was not so on its knees in the fallout of this and the Savile fiasco, they may have had more of a stomach for a fight. They wanted the episode over as quickly as possible and who can blame them?

So you would think that Lord McAlpine would be happy with the settlement for a mischievous report that caused a lot of harmful gossip, and a clear message sent to the world that he is not a paedophile.

No sooner had the BBC surrendered, his legal team outlined their plans to pursue up to 10,000 Twitter users over the publishing of defamatory tweets in what is described as potentially a libel action with the largest number of defendants ever. The response is hardly a surprise when the first defendant (the BBC) settled out of court despite not actually mentioning him by name, instead allowing public gossip settle that matter. I too would be trawling the cyber and the tangible trying to find my next catch.

His next catch seems to be ITV, who broadcast the segment where Phillip Schofield handed a list of paedophilic names to David Cameron. He (McAlpine, that is!) was believed to be on that list and it is rumoured a camera picked it up. (Note the deliberate use of 'believed to be' and 'rumoured' in that sentence.)

I would be absolutely fuming if I was on Schofield's camera-shot list, and understandably McAlpine must be fuming about it. However, has anyone actually seen names on the list? It may have been caught by a camera, but was that particular camera part of the broadcast feed at the time?

These are crucial questions, because as things stand, despite an apology aired on This Morning, nobody seems to have produced the offending screen caption. I would have thought with the millions of feral Twitter users, ready to shine a light on predatory paedophiles at any moment, the offending screencap would have been doing the rounds within minutes of the broadcast ending. I have not seen any image, and I practically live on Twitter at times!

We were told viewers might have seen the list. It seems nobody has seen it. Someone should tell Lord McAlpine. This time, he is in the clear!

Except nobody will, as his legal team looks towards holding anyone and everyone to account. It is an approach that risks McAlpine losing the goodwill he has earned in the aftermath. I do not have the biggest Twitter feed in the world, so it is not a representative tapestry of views, however I have noticed a change of mood among those I follow.

When BBC Newsnight originally apologised, there was a mixture of sympathy for McAlpine and irritation that a story about child abuse had been superseded by poor journalism. The sympathy towards McAlpine has fallen away on my Twitter feed, and I wonder if he should retreat from further action while he is ahead.

His reputation has ironically been enhanced, as a weak and feckless media (in part brutalised by arcahic libel laws) made huge steps to apologise to him and stress that he is not a paedophile. Many people were quick to sympathise with him.

My second point regarding the post-Newsnight fallout is that I feel that libel laws in the UK need to catch up with the reality of the Internet, or it is going to destroy what is good about websites like Twitter.

Twitter enables lay members of the population to debate, discuss, talk, have a laugh, sometimes troll, sometimes troll aggressively and sometimes troll unlawfully. It is a big room where everyone can shout at anyone, with the rather obvious drawback that whatever is shouted is rendered into cyber-memory. Those words are there forever.

I am no legal expert, but my understanding is that British law is often cast through precedent. There will be many precedents needed in light of McAlpinegate if we are to prevent an online crisis of communication.

First of all, there will need to be an acceptance that although journalists and writers publish on Twitter and other sites, so do people who are not used to their copy being checked by lawyers before they hit the send button. (Note: Journalists have their work checked, and yet they have been known to wrongly accuse – the Chris Jefferies case springs to mind.)

Any developments of law that see thousands of people with a few dozen Twitter followers going to court will be to the detriment of ordinary people, many of whom who already have enough to worry about in day-to-day life. Lord McAlpine certainly would not have the same anxieties and worries that they face.

There is going to need to be a clear post-multimedia agreement governing Internet use which does not penalise ordinary people. I cannot offer much help to those who are directly tweeting allegations about people. As I already said, I am not a legal expert, but I am now old enough to know by now that to call someone a paedophile requires a stack of irrefutable evidence.

I can offer suggestions for those who have retweeted, or wrote implied comments. By letter of the law, it would seem that those who retweet gain responsibility for taking that tweet to their followers, but how many people know this? Any retweet is clearly marked with the original author's name. Ignorance being no defence is a harsh principle to reply here. This is not as black and white as knowing that violence or sexual abuse is legally wrong.

This is important, because there may be no end to this. Courts could find themselves being a revolving door for trivial Twitter actions, with judges having to rule on who retweeted someone else's innuendo. The fact of the matter is that people could potentially be sued for retweeting a comment by a respected Guardian journalist originating from a rather dubious news report by the respected (but heaven knows why!) BBC.

That is the reality, and it seems wrong because it is wrong.

I would suggest that judges become familiar with the Twitter architecture. It is clear how the site works. If someone tweets something potentially libellous with 100,000 followers in tow, then it is obvious that it is going to be spread much wider. This puts the onus on the original author to get it right. Retweeters do so with the original source of their tweet clearly marked, and those retweeters who are clearly not media-savvy should not be punished for not knowing the rules of engagement. If some of those who are media-aware (and legally-aware) cannot get their Twitter activity right, what chance the rest of us?

One logical conclusion is that people will not just be sued for tweets and retweets, but they will also be sued for mentioning the names of high-profile people who are tweeting potentially libellous material elsewhere on the website. For example, Sally Bercow has come in for a lot of unfair criticism for also being little more than careless about who she saw "trending" on the website (McAlpine, since you ask). Assuming her tweets are deemed unlawful, what fate could befall anyone who simply tweeted the text “I wonder what Sally Bercow is up to today?"

Most of the "chattering classes" know who Sally Bercow is.

To find out what Sally Bercow has been writing, she is well-known enough to be the first twitter result if anyone enters "Sally Bercow" into the search box.

If I wrote a tweet "I wonder what Sally Bercow is up to today," there is the argument that I am effectively signposting people to her page containing lots of questionable tweets.

This could happen to a lot of other people too. This is why the law as it stands cannot work.

I also fear what the consequences of these issues could be for opinion. A lot is written about high-profile Members of Parliament, for example, Nadine Dorries, who has recently been a resident of a jungle somewhere on the other side of the world. Dorries has always attracted a lot of criticism from those on both the left and the right because of her unconventional approach to public office.

Nobody can expect to be sued for describing her as a ghastly, awful woman, as it is an opinion that is not necessarily damaging. However, some may feel that Dorries has gone on a TV show to boost her own profile. They may argue that she is deserting her constituents while doing that. They may believe she is not fit to be an MP on that basis.

My fear is that Dorries may consider those viewpoints to be damaging and contest them on that basis. If a portal is opened to sue people for expressing such sentiments on Twitter, then the whole principle of debate is at risk.

Admittedly, criticising someone's fitness for office is not comparable to calling someone a paedophile, but the recipient could still fight the Twitter membership on the basis they feel it is damaging to their future employment opportunities and reputation. There are stakes here that are much bigger than context of one accusatory episode where this is located. The law must reflect that.

For now, I believe everyone has to calm down a little. We must cool down with the feral accusations. I can understand why feelings are running high though. I used to think, and still do to some extent, that Brits are extremely paranoid and irrational when it comes to the issue of paedophilia.

The Sun mixes up coverage of right-wing politics, international affairs and celebrity gossip with regular titillation stories from the courts about paedophile activity. If the stories look peculiarly out of place outside of the context of a local newspaper, it is because they are. In some ways, the newspaper's obsession with the issue is borderline creepy.

It has been known for innocent people to be attacked in the street because they happen to resemble a paedophile mugshot published in the tabloid press. This is not on.

I do believe though that Britain has a bigger paedophile problem than I originally thought. In some ways, the Internet has flushed them to the surface in much the same way as rain brings out slugs. Without being rumbled by an eagle-eyed computer repair engineer, Gary Glitter would still be enjoying regular paedophile holidays to the Far East, unchecked.

Shouting out the names of presumed paedophiles on Twitter is not the answer. We need to apply pressure to get these high-profile child abuse cases re-opened and re-examined, so the offenders can be brought to justice.

It is not just ordinary citizens, many of whom are worried parents and people with good hearts, who need to cool down though. A little understanding needs to be shown by those who are trying to control what is published on the Internet.

Let us not forget the public was wound up by this story by the very classes now trying to stamp down on Twitter activity – those in the media. The wind-up process started earlier in the day of the Newsnight report into the child abuse scandal, when someone connected to the report tweeted to tell people it was likely to be screened and involved an old Tory.

The idea may not have been to cause feverish speculation, but it had that effect.

When the news report went out and (quelle surprise) nobody was named, that raised anger levels further. Bearing in mind Anglo-Saxon attitudes towards paedophila, this outcome should not have surprised anyone, apart from maybe the most moronic of TV executives.

So whereas the Twitter community needs to calm down a little now, so must also those who are the most condemning of us.

The BBC's long journey to restore trust and its purpose

Regular readers of this website will be long aware of how critical and disillusioned I am with the BBC's efforts as a public service broadcaster. I am critical of the BBC because I love it, but it is a hard beast to love at the moment. The way it handled the report into the North Wales Care Home scandal, and the testimony given by Steven Messham - a former abuse victim, and clearly someone who is a vulnerable man - was disgraceful.

The BBC is in the wrong whichever way you look at it, and I can see at least two ways of looking at it.

Firstly, assuming the truth that Messham wrongly identified Lord McAlpine as one of his abusers (and we have to learn to question everything now), then the original report into the North Wales Care Abuse on Newsnight was an appalling misjudgement.

Secondly, and conversely, if the sceptre of legal action has bullied Messham into submission, leading to the BBC to cowardly shelve their story and prepare a hasty apology, then the behaviour of those at the BBC is appalling in that sense as well.

Either way, the BBC is in the wrong. Either way, Messham has been treated badly.

The crisis has led to questions about the BBC's purpose, and the future of public service broadcasting in this country. Well, it beats having to indulge in the uncomfortable question of how we are going to get to the bottom of the problem of child abuse when the mere suggestion of legal action sends researchers and investigators on the run.

One problem in particular is trying to unravel the following question: How can we on the left be taken seriously when we cannot even get our story straight as to what the BBC actually is?

On one hand, we are fighting its corner on the grounds it is a treasured institution and provides a public service, or at least it is meant to be when it is not either (a) wrongly making indirect paedophile allegations, (b) backtracking from legitimate allegations when the kitchen gets hot, or (c) both. We justify our position on the basis that the Tories would love to dismantle the BBC. On the other hand, we complain that it has become a Tory mouthpiece, that is complicit in the protection of establishment figures, perhaps like the one mentioned above.

We bemoan that fact that Andrew Marr is like Jeremy Paxman when confronted with a Labour MP, but becomes Phillip Schofield when confronted with a Tory (at least before Phillip Schofield decided that his This Morning sofa would no longer be a cosy seat for politicians).


The truth is we are trying to save an institution that is presently not on our side. Has it ever been really? Have we been admiring of an institution that has been contemptuous of us all along? This is the broadcaster that provides employment for Chris Patten, Andrew Neil, Jeremy Clarkson and a plethora of other people whose views are far removed from the left's ideal.

Amazingly, the funding mechanism that props up the BBC, and which many leftists are trying to preserve, is its very problem. Implicit in any relationship between BBC and government is where the broadcaster would be left if the licence fee was abolished - something the present Tory government has exploited fully. This makes it a state broadcaster, not a public service broadcaster. And it was a state broadcaster, as opposed to a public service broadcaster, that I witnessed as the BBC provided its interminable apology during Friday's Newsnight, as Messham's testimony was safely returned to the bottle it came out of.

Abolishing the licence fee is a form of commercialisation (not the same as privatisation, as the BBC could still have its own corporate structure) and one which I feel would benefit the broadcaster and the public it is supposed to be serving. The broadcaster could be truly independent and not the publicity wing of the Conservative Party, employed to prevent Lords, MPs and other establishment figures. The public would no longer have to pay a household tax for the privilege of watching television, regardless of whether their home is flat or a castle.

Who knows? With a little self-financing, the broadcaster may be able to restore the many events it lost to Sky, ITV and Channel 4 - cricket, golf, football, horse racing and Formula 1 to name a few. If that does not earn a little goodwill, then nothing would.

Another problem with our argument on the left is we support the BBC, not because we are happy with it, but because it supposedly represents what Rupert Murdoch is not. I have never bought into this "enemy of my enemy is my friend" belief. We cannot accuse Rupert Murdoch and his publications of hypocrisy over their criticisms of the BBC handling of the Savile and McAlpine issues if we are hypocrites ourselves.

After Murdoch's institution was found to be hacking people's phones, we were calling for the splitting Murdoch's press on the grounds that the family of publications had become too big and unmanageable. The BBC seems to be cursed with the same illness - bloated, huge and unmanageable. It allowed Savile to stalk its corridors for years, taking his prey back to dressing rooms to rape them. This is of course unless the BBC has since cowardly decided (after speaking to a lawyer or two) that Savile did none of these things after all and can now rest in peace.

Yet whenever I mention the possibility of splitting the BBC, I get quite a reaction. The idea of splitting the BBC is immediately conflated with dismantling the BBC. This is not what I am suggesting, though in the defence of my critics I have not been able to make this clear.

What I suggest, is that if the notion that running The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun and (then) News of the World is too big a task for the Murdoch family, then BBC's radio, TV, local, commercial and news departments also should be split. Each can have their own management. Each still be nationalised, but funded commercially. Each operating in the public interest. Each still operating under the banner of the BBC.

As I keep saying though, there are aspects of the BBC I do love, but the news operation is now seriously dragging everything else down. Maybe the BBC should stick to what it is good at, and dispense with the current affairs.

I get through my work days thanks to Radio 2 - Britain's top radio station for good reason. Chris Evans has a cheery voice which starts the day well. Simon Mayo (my favourite of all the broadcasters) has a reassuring delivery with a wicked sense of humour, and that's not to mention Ken Bruce, Jeremy Vine and others. Radio 5 does sport extremely well, and allows the broadcasters (such as Alan Green) the creative freedom to be as critical as they wish.

Meanwhile, over on the television, some of the documentaries and research the BBC brings us is amazing. If BBC Four was ever abolished, I would probably fall out with the BBC for good!

So, I am not against the BBC. However I would be lying to say I am happy with it. Many are complaining the BBC is in disarray after a disgraceful process leading to poor Messham's discredited testimony (which has also served to knock back the cause of child protection for at least three decades). However, we are witnessing is the first steps by the BBC to repair itself, as only corporations can.

George Entwistle, who must be the shortest-lived Director General ever, has rightly resigned. In a way, I have a lot of sympathy with him. He was handed an unenviable inbox. His handling of it was appalling though. His appearance in front of MPs in light of the Savile fiasco was weak. The BBC's handling of the Messham evidence was no better.

Many employees within the BBC promptly gave a character reference about what a nice person Entwistle is - and I believe them. Sadly, I have heard it all before. They are the same parting gifts given to a football manager who loses seven of his last eight games in charge and is shown the door. "Nice fella, but we couldn't get results."

I am certainly no apologist for the previous Director General, Mark Thompson, either. I have no doubt though he would have come out fighting. We may never know if he would have sanctioned the Newsnight apology for running the story, but there must be a chance he would have stood firm. Notably, there is the unresolved question: Why is the BBC apologising for Newsnight, despite the name of the alleged abuser being circulated around the Internet, rather than the BBC? I am not certain if anyone at the BBC can answer that one either.

There are many gunning for the BBC at the moment. The newspapers, led by the Murdoch press, would love to see a weakened BBC. They are leading with hypocritical headlines about the chaos. Make no mistake, they have no right to take a moral position. Innocent people suffered when the Murdoch press published photographs of sex offenders, due to the fallibility of human judgement when faced with someone who vaguely resembles one of the Murdoch mugshots. Yet, if the BBC does not reform, people like Murdoch will win. If the BBC does not appoint a strong leader in the wake of Entwistle's resignation, again their enemies will win.

Despite Entwistle's fate, much more needs to be done at the BBC to restore lost trust in the broadcaster. A sacking is not going cure this mess. There is still a lot a lot of goodwill out there towards the BBC, as tweets from my friends on the left reassure me. This goodwill is not infinite though. I sign off with a question with words to the effect of those asked by an excellent user of the oft-maligned twitter website: "How did Savile get away with has paedophilic behaviour for so many years? Look at what has happened over the past seven days, and you will find your answer."