Phone hacking and our fickle tabloid friends

So now you know who your friends really are – and it is certainly not those at the British tabloid press.

They do not provide public service, though they might like to think they do. They do not act in the interests of the people, though they might say they do. They are there to make money by selling copies. They sell copies by digging out stories. They get stories by leaving their morals at the office door when they arrive for work.

The phone hacking activities revealed to have taken place at the News of the World were beyond contempt. Each revelation was worse than the one which preceded it. The newspaper, and around 200 careers associated with it, laid in ruins as owner Rupert Murdoch brutally closed down the beleaguered publication following a string of destructive headlines as the newspaper suddenly became the big story.

Phone hacking was always a scandal, even when the victims were ‘just’ politicians and celebrities. To learn that the phone of a dead Milly Dowler had also been hacked, as well as the phones of dead servicemen, is sickening. To cap it all off, we learn that the police were paid by News of the World journalists for information. As George Monbiot pointed out, when the dust settles, the police collusion will be equally as big a story as the hacked phones.

Make no mistake, the News of the World became more than a newspaper. It became a criminal network. Until the muddy waters clear, nobody knows who knew what, who is guilty, who is innocent, who will be charged, and who will be released. However, a law qualification is not required to realise the crimes listed above are serious enough to ensure someone is going to jail – and that someone will probably have more than just a few ex-colleagues for company.

The most depressing aspect of all this is the News of the World actually turned out to be the enemy of those it tried so hard to be a friend of. It was this newspaper that led aggressive naming and shaming campaigns of child molesters, often leading to its more uneducated readers to mistakenly attack the wrong targets. All the while, it campaigned on behalf of victims’ families.

I have no doubt the News of the World anti-predator campaigns had the best of intentions. But behind the scenes its investigators were violating the same families of those violated by the likes of Levi Bellfield and Ian Huntley. The newspaper, far from being the victims’ mate, added to the misery already heaped upon those families. It was the newspaper which promised so much, but could only deliver a pack of sordid lies.

Out of this darkness however may come light. The model of cosy relations between our party political leaders and the key people in the print media is now discredited. And while the allegations against the News of the World are strong and clearly with foundation when considering the defensive stance of its management, few people believe the News of the World was alone in unscrupulous practices. When considered as a whole, the days of a free press are over – and the loss of that freedom may not be a bad thing.

No longer should publications with such large circulations be allowed to tell people how to vote. This would bring it in line with broadcast media, where a plurality of views must be represented. This is the only way to cut the strong bond between politician and press. Headlines such as The Sun’s 1992 “lights out" if Kinnock wins must never happen again. A balanced democracy needs a balanced media with balanced levels of freedom as opposed to total freedom. Gone are the days when people can write whatever they like.

We must also take our share of the blame for legitimising the misdeeds of the press. We laughed, smirked and sneered when the complicated private life of a certain Ryan Giggs was released on websites, then in the House of Commons, then in the press – drip-by-drip. Will we ever know how all the incriminating evidence was collected? Given the events of the past week, it is not unreasonable to assume more than just a sprinkle of skullduggery.

Then there was the parliamentary expenses scandal. We applauded the ‘outstanding journalism’ which exposed Members of Parliament. We chose to overlook how the data came into the hands of journalists, because it was inconvenient to our collective sense of outrage at the time.

It is easy to full into the trap of thinking those who bring us the exclusives are our friends. They are not. They make money. They set the political agenda. They get Tories elected with the minimum of fuss. Now it is time for change.

Thatcher's Children Turn on their Teachers

It is a sick government, in terms of depravity rather than wellbeing, that uses the nation's children as pawns in a political game with the not-particularly militant teaching unions. The suggestion that parents could help keep schools open while teachers strike, a perverse idea by Education Secretary, Michael Gove, is perhaps the most dispiriting of all the divisive ideas coming from this government.

He is proof there is a bit of Thatcher in all of today's Conservative party. Is this a surprise? Not at all. Many of today's Tory parliamentarians were fresh-faced recruits during the days of Thatcher and soon after. Thatcherism drips across the Conservative party, perhaps more so than during her own time in power.

I grew up in the 1980s when teaching strikes happened occasionally. We would be given work to do at home. We loved it because it gave us a day off school. And however much inconvenience this may cause parents, they should be sticking with the teachers, not being encouraged to campaign against them.

'Big Society' was David Cameron's big idea for public participation in social affairs. It is something he talks about because it sounds nice, but parents and children being politicised in a struggle between teachers and government is not my idea of the 'Big Society' in action.

It makes me glad I am not a child in today's nasty society (which sounds more realistic than this 'Big Society' nonsense). I would not want to be the one beaten up on the playground by other children, blamed for keeping the school open by classmates who hoped they would be getting an unscheduled holiday. I would not want to be the one who the teachers give less assistance to in the classroom because their parents undermined their industrial action. Some militant teachers may be temped by this, mark my words.

The truth is, despite my use of the word 'militant' above, teachers are generally not that militant at all. They are not known for striking. The ATL (Association of Teachers and Lecturers) is a union definitely not renowned for striking, so you can be sure if they have downed tools, then they are not happy.

If last minute talks could avert a strike this Thursday, even at this late stage, nobody would be more happier than the teachers themselves. After all, they go into teaching because of a wish to help and develop young people. It certainly is not for the money, or the abuse they have to take from those they try to do their best for.

The lack of militancy from the teachers makes the fighting talk by Gove all the more exasperating. I would say roll on the next cabinet reshuffle, but the pool of Thatcher's children is hardly likely to produce anyone more sympathetic to society's educators.