The Political Thread

[Stan]

And/or vote.

[El Pops]

All of these problems would be solved very easily and in one generation if everyone was forced to have a five minute interview with me before being allowed to breed.

SBT

I'm taking this to mean you can seduce ANYONE in less than 5 minutes.

[Stan]

Two 2nd place finishes for UKIP so far.

Lib Dems lose their deposit again. You'd need a heart of stone etc.

[Dandontdare]

There would certainly hve been a lot more going on in the fostering case than being members of UKIP. Social workers are bound by confidentiality so when they are "wrecking homes by snatching kids" or "allowing children to be abused by not noticing danger signs" (delete depending upon which direction that week's tabloid attack is coming from), they are unable to correct all the speculation and frothing.

One of my friends is a senior SW often working on high profile cases, and gets really mad when a case she's dealing with gets dragged up by newspapers and politicians becaue they invariably get their facts wrong but she can't correct them.

On another political note I feel very weird today as I think I may be agreeing with David Cameron, and that doesn't sit well. Govt regulation of the press is a very dangerous slippery slope. I certainly don't trust this shower to craft well-thought out legislation with all the proper safeguards.

[Stan]

I think the difference in this case is that social services defended their decision, which is tantamount to admitting the parent's version of events was true. Well see but I think people may be clutching at straws.

[COMMANDO FORCES]

I do find it interesting that the political parties have a go at the public when they don't vote at General Elections, By-elections, Police Chief elections, etc... AND then THEY abstain from the Palestine vote at the UN

[The Legendary Shark]

Good point, CF. I guess it's better for the politicians to say that only 25% bothered to vote rather than 75% abstained.

[Professor James T Bear]

A hypocritical politician?  WELL I NEVER.

[sauchie]

I feel very weird today as I think I may be agreeing with David Cameron, and that doesn't sit well. Govt regulation of the press is a very dangerous slippery slope. I certainly don't trust this shower to craft well-thought out legislation with all the proper safeguards.

Weird feeling, isn't it? To be fair, it isn't government regulation of the press; the newspaper industry are being asked to appoint an independent body which will arbitrate in disputes - but, unlike the current PCC, the results of that process will have the weight of Parliament behind it. To be honest, the exact nature of the proposed body and how its powers would be enforced seem too vague at this point for laymen like me to have much idea of whether it's a minor tweak of the system or the kind of thing we'll end up regretting.

His distaste for this thread is well known, but it seems this is an instance where supermarine Troutfire could have something of interest to say.

[JOE SOAP]

Who regulates the regulators of the regulators?

[Ancient Otter]

If Palestine is recognized as a state by the United Nations, can they pass sanctions on them now?

[The Legendary Shark]

All they're doing is telling us that we're dumb, our laws don't work and we need some official body to look after us. They put before us a problem knowing that we'll cry 'save us!' True to form, 'save us!' we cry (or the media cries it for us on our behalf) and, before you know it, you've got some weird new thing that isn't quite government and isn't quite private but is stuffed with Lords and Knights and tycoons all suckling off the public tit whilst explaining at length the problems and opposition and considerations they must conquer before anything much can happen. Then, when whatever it is they decide should happen happens, it'll happen to be illegal or unworkable or irrelevant and we'll all get pissed off with it and cry 'save us!' and, before you know it...

[sauchie]

If Palestine is recognized as a state by the United Nations, can they pass sanctions on them now?

No. "The resolution elevates their status from "non-member observer entity" to "non-member observer state," the same category as the Vatican, which Palestinians hope will provide new leverage in their dealings with Israel"

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/29/world/meast/palestinian-united-nations/index.html

[Trout]

Recognition as a state is important in international law, as it means the Palestinians now have a right to territorial integrity. That makes it illegal for anyone to violate Palestine's borders, if they can be defined. Of course, international law and "what the USA is prepared to agree to" tend to be the same thing most of the time, but diplomatically and politically this is a massive boost for Palestine. (I have a degree in international law.)

As for Leveson, we in print media are unanimous in that we will accept what the Government decides. Proper regulation is what everyone wants. The only question is the role the Government will play.

Bear this in mind:
Most people in the media do not work in print.
Most people in print media do not work for tabloids, or for News International.
Most people who work for tabloids do not work on stories which raise privacy issues.
Most people - almost everyone - working on such stories never hacked a phone or breached the existing - very stringent - code of practice.
Shouting "Rupert Murdoch" a lot does not tell the whole story or make you seem interesting or intelligent.

Also, compare the proportion of journalists who hacked phones with the proportion of MPs who fiddled their expenses (and, crucially, were caught doing so by a printed newspaper, the only type of media organisation with the resources to research it properly) and you'll understand why the Government cannot be trusted to regulate the media. Sooner or later they will suppress a story that needs to be told.
The Speaker spent large amounts of public money on court action to try to stop the details of MPs' expenses being released publically, and in the end the Daily Telegraph only got hold of them by paying £50,000 for stolen files.

It's not about "Who watches the watchmen?" It's "Who's the bigger bunch of cunts?" In short: careful, now.

- Trout

[The Legendary Shark]

I think Trout's largely correct. Most people who work in journalism are not the whiskey-soaked, sociopathic sharks of urban legend but decent, rounded human beings with all the strengths and flaws that suggests.

I do not think that the media needs close supervision by any kind of outside body except the Public Domain itself. Perhaps the People should come up with a Media Charter we expect journalists to stick to and, if any journalist goes against it or breaks the law then that is what our courts are for. My idea for such a media charter would be quite simple:

1): Check your facts.
2): Check your sources.
3): Double check everything.
4): Are you sure?
5): Publish and accept the consequences.

I would hazard that many journalists have similar working practices anyway, or at least aspire to meet them, because I'm sure that most people, whether they be journalists or not, would be horrified to destroy an innocent reputation through repeating unfounded and incorrect information.

We know that we can't trust governments or the corporate world to have undue influence over the media so the only other option is to trust the individual journalists themselves. It is they who must decide which stories need to be told, not ministers, judges or CEOs.