Showing posts with label free press. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free press. Show all posts

Tuesday, 4 May 2021

The Guardian Of Truth? by Les May

YESTERDAY, 2 May, the Filipino journalist Maria Ressa was presented with the World Press Freedom Prize by UNESCO in recognition of her fight for free speech in the Philippines where she has been the target of online attacks and judicial processes in which the law and law enforcement have been turned against journalists, human rights activists, and ordinary citizens under President Rodrigo Duterte.
In her acceptance speech she said "Equally dangerous and insidious (is the) virus of lies unleashed in our information ecosystem, infecting real people, who become impervious to facts… It changes the way they look at the world. They become angrier, more isolated. They distrust everything. In this environment, the dictator wins, crumbling our democracies from within."
This is an apocalyptic scenario of our political future: a world where as she puts it ‘power and money rule’. But it’s not just in the political sphere that people are susceptible to becoming impervious to facts as they navigate the information ecosystem. For some people the problem is ‘big tech’, platforms like Facebook, Twitter and the rest of social media, and the answer is for governments to regulate it. This view ignores the experience in the Philippines that it is the government that is using the law to determine what is acceptable as ‘facts’.
Nor is it just with social media that the problems reside. Mainstream outlets have exploited the knowledge that most people do not check what is fact and what is opinion. Pointing out that just because someone says something is true does not make it so, is unwelcome news both to some people in the media and to many readers and viewers. Facts become just what someone wants to believe and woe betide anyone who disagrees. I don’t take at face value what Meghan Markle had to say in her televised interview. I don’t matter, but Piers Morgan paid the price for his dissent.
The Guardian, once a byword for rectitude and fairness, has no qualms about printing a story about the actor Noel Clarke knowing that the likely outcome will be that he will never be able to clear his name and will probably never be able to work as an actor again. I have no idea about whether whether the allegations made are true or false, and importantly, nor does the person who wrote it or the editor who chose to include it in the paper. The editor could, and in my view should, have declined to publish any allegations which had not been reported to the police by the complainants.
By last Saturday The Independent, another supposedly quality paper, was running a story by Victoria Richards which began ‘I have never met Noel Clarke, but I have met men who have behaved in the way Clarke is accused of behaving’. Again, if what she says in this piece is true, why did she not report it to the police? Why should I believe her just because she says it?
A few days ago the Victims Commissioner said ‘Far too few rape cases are resulting in a charge and hundreds of complainants annually are being denied justice.’ But where is the justice for anyone, accuser or accused, in the Noel Clarke story? Where in the response of ITV and Sky is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? The question ceases to be whether the accused will get a fair trial, it becomes whether s/he will get a trial at all.
Maria Ressa spoke of a ‘virus of lies’; so how do we vaccinate ourselves against it? The first thing is to recognise that it is not just a problem of ‘Big Tech’. Supposedly more respectable, media outlets try to shape our perception of events by what they decide is a story and how they slant it.
The second thing is to recognise that it is a problem we have to solve for ourselves and our families, rather than relying on a government imposed solution, which itself may become dangerous to free thought and expression. As Maria Ressa put it "fight and win your individual battle for integrity". Don’t buy your teenage daughter an expensive smartphone and then complain when something bad happens to her.
Scepticism about the truth of what you see, what you read and what you are told if you venture into what Ressa calls the ‘information ecosystem’ has to be the order of the day. There is a lot of space between distrusting everything and watching the dictators win because you no longer know what is true and what is false, and filtering out (some of) the lies and manipulation by questioning everything.
We can ask: Who is saying this? How reliable have they been in the past? Is there any way of independently verifying their account? Who gains from this version of events? Are they trying to pass off assertions as facts? These things require some effort on our part. If we are not prepared to make it there is one thing we can all do; don’t pass on stories unless you are certain they are true. Better still; don’t gossip!
************************************************************

Tuesday, 2 February 2021

John Humphrys on Freedom of Expression

FREEDOM of speech, especially freedom of the press is in danger the world over.Two major Western Democracies, USA and the UK are trying to curb the press. Not my own opinion but also recently retired broadcaster, John Humphrys, who wrote this headline in his newspaper column this week: "Don't silence us hacks, Boris....muzzle your 'evil genius'"
He quotes Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the American Declaration of Independence: "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press. Were it left to me Ito decide between government without newspapers and newspapers without government, I would not hesitate to choose the latter".
UK police just arrested two journalists in one week
The UK government likes to brag about how we live in a democratic nation that “supports human rights, democracy and good governance around the world”. But its support for democracy doesn’t seem to stretch to upholding the rights of journalists.
In the past week, two journalists were arrested trying to go about their jobs, reporting on protests in different parts of the country. Meanwhile, the UK continues to score badly in rankings for World Press Freedom. At 35th in the world, it lags behind much of Europe. And in September 2020, The Council of Europe issued a Level 2 “media freedom alert” after the government blacklisted journalists from Declassified UK.
Taken together, this paints a grim picture of press freedom in the UK. And it’s one that should worry us all.
Threatened with a Covid fine & then arrested
Denise Laura Baker was arrested on Saturday 30 January as she attempted to cover the police evicting anti-HS2 activists from their protest tower in Euston.
Baker is an accredited photo and video journalist who has been making a long-term documentary about the resistance to HS2’s high speed railway line. Police and National Eviction Team bailiffs began to evict activists on Wednesday 27 January, and Baker had been there daily documenting it.
She told The Canary that there were lots of police on the Saturday of her arrest. In Baker’s opinion, the police were trying to remove anyone that could witness and document the actions of police and bailiffs. Baker said:I was approached by a female officer who told me to leave the area. I informed her that I was working legitimately and showed her my NUJ press card. She told me that it was not a recognised card and that it did not prove I was working. I informed her that I had been there since Wednesday with no issues. She called over colleagues who said they were going to issue me with a Covid fine. When asked for my details I refused and explained that in accepting the fine I would legitimise their accusation of me being unlawfully in the area and give them free rein to keep moving me on. I then walked away from them and continued working.
They followed me, insisting that they were issuing a fine and if I didn’t give my details they would arrest me, which is eventually what they did. They then cuffed me, put me in the police car and took me to Kentish Town station.
Baker continued:
'It is my belief that they simply wanted me out of the way so there were less witnesses to their work on that day.'
Journalists are classed as key workers in the coronavirus pandemic and Baker should, legally, have been allowed to carry on doing her job.
The second arrest of the week
But Baker wasn’t the first journalist finding herself in police cells last week. Freelance photographer Andy Aitchison was arrested on Thursday 28 January. The police came to his house more than six hours after he photographed a protest at Kent’s Napier Barracks, where hundreds of asylum seekers are currently being imprisoned. The police seized Aitchison’s mobile phone, as well as the memory card from his camera, and arrested him under suspicion of causing criminal damage.
Commenting on Aitchison’s arrest, Baker told The Canary:
Mine is the second recent incident where a reporter has been arrested while working. It’s extremely concerning that if a photographer or journalist appears to be on good terms with the activists, they are at risk of being targeted. These actions set a dangerous precedent. Aitchison’s case is particularly concerning given the seizure of his phone and memory card. Journalists not only do not have to reveal their sources, but they are also obligated to protect them. As the NUJ states:
The NUJ ethical code of conduct stipulates that a journalist must protect the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her or his work.
Normally if the police want to view a journalist’s footage for evidential purposes, they have to do it through the courts. In 2012, media organisations won a High Court battle against the police who wanted their footage of the eviction of Dale Farm. On winning the case, head of newsgathering at the BBC stated:
Journalists must maintain their independence, must not be seen as evidence gatherers and must not have their safety compromised
NOT ISOLATED INCIDENTS
Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents.
In 2019, The Canary reported how the Metropolitan Police arrested freelance journalist Guy Smallman while covering an environmental protest. And in September 2019, journalists from The Canary were obstructed and assaulted while covering protests against the London arms fair.
At the end of 2020, the National Union of Journalists reminded the police to respect journalists’ roles as key workers after “hostility towards reporters and photographers” who were covering anti-lockdown protests.
The Canary contacted the Metropolitan Police for comment on Baker’s case. But it had not responded to the specific case at the time of publication and instead referred us to the guidance from National Police Chief’s Council.
UK press freedom is a “cause for concern”
Reporters Without Borders releases an annual World Press Freedom Index. It highlights that while the UK “champions” media freedom, the reality is different for reporters on the ground. The organisation argues that:
Despite the UK co-hosting a Global Conference for Media Freedom and assuming the role of co-chair of the new Media Freedom Coalition, the UK’s domestic press freedom record remained cause for concern throughout 2019.
And it pointed out that:
During the general election campaign, the Conservative Party threatened to review the BBC’s licence fee and Channel 4’s public service broadcasting licence if the party returned to government.
Reporters Without Borders has also highlighted how the current government has done its best to shut down the dissenting voices of what it calls “campaigning” media. In particular, it argues that government bodies have used:
heavy-handed responses to reporting on stories related to the Covid-19 pandemic.
It continues:
We are alarmed by the UK government’s dismissal of serious public interest reporting as ‘false’ and coming from ‘campaigning newspapers’. These Trumpian tactics are only serving to fuel hostility and public distrust in media. While high-profile cases like that of Julian Assange fill newspaper headlines, many lesser-known journalists, whose work is absolutely vital in holding the government and corporations like HS2 to account, are also facing persecution. We should all be horrified at these attacks on press freedom.
*************************************************

Tuesday, 8 December 2020

An academic version of McCarthyism?

by Brian Bamford
A CAMBRIDGE philosophy professor has branded as 'woke' the constraints on freedom of speech in higher education an academic version of McCarthyism.
Dr Arif Ahmed has spoken out as his university is being balloted today to approve a policy requiring students, staff and visitors to be 'respectful' of different views and opinions.
Last Saturday in the Financial Times, Camillia Cavendish wrote a piece entitled 'Mandating "respect" for other people's opinions hurts free speech' in which she said: 'The university's governing body, the Regent House, is voting... on a new code of conduct which demands that staff, students and visitors be "respectful" of different opinions [and that this] harmless-soundng clause is meant to support free speech.' Ms Cavendish claims: '"Respect" is a soft-edged word that means different things to different people', and it 'can easily morph into a prohibition against giving offence.' Arif Ahmed who is leading the academic rebellion against the 'Respect' code said: 'There's no limit to how far this can go'! adding: 'Did the Charlie Hebro catoons respect Islam?' or 'Was [18th-century Scottish philosopher]David Hulme a respecter of religion?' He concluded: 'Who decides? A word like "respect" is worse than useless.' And the result would end with people sliding 'all the way from civility to a kind of deference which would refrain from attacking Islam, Christianity or Judaism.' Ms. Cavendish argues: 'The Cambrige row shows how hard it is for institutions to keep their footing in this new world of outrage. Twenty years ago, English universities felt little responsibility towards students beyond the lecture hall. Today, they are beset by activism for censorship from the political left and right.'
As a fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Mr Ahmed is leading the Campaign for Cambridge Freedom, which wants to amend the policy to require differences of opinion to be 'tolerated' rather than 'respected'.
'A lot of people feel as if they're living in an atmosphere where there are witch-hunts going on, a sort of academic version of Salem in the 17th century or the McCarthyite era,' he told The Times.
Arguing that the notion of 'respect' is 'dangerously vague and open-ended', he urged his fellow academics to back his amendment requiring 'tolerance' as they vote to approve the new policy.
'The more long-term danger is that this language will be weaponised so that we will be subject to discipline if we try to invite someone who's disrespectful or if we ourselves speak in a disrespectful way,' he said.
'If a view is idiotic we should be quite free to say a view is idiotic. If a religious or political or other position is a tissue of bigotry and superstition, then we should be free to say those things without fear that somebody would find it disrespectful.'
Cambridge Professor, Ross Anderson told Ms. Cavendish: 'If the respect agenda becomes entrenched in disiplinary and grievance proceedures, and arguements which used used to be sorted out by people saying "grow up and stop being silly" fall to intervention by HR busybodies, that will mean the end of academic academic tenure as we know it".'
Ms. Cavendish says though such claims may be 'exaggerated' the Cabridge 'fudge' is dangerous, and she asks 'Do we really want to risk returning to a world where enquiring minds huddle together in secret, debating bann4ed works and wondering if they dare say what they believe?'
Let's see what happens in the Cambridge vote later today.
*******************************

Sunday, 27 September 2020

Our 'Kakistocracy' plumbs new depths!

by ANDY WASTLING
Kakistocracy (English pronunciation: /kækɪsˈtɑkɹəsi/) is a system of government which is run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens.Origin of kakistocracy. Greek kakistos worst superlative of Kakos bad.
This unpublished letter ( below ) to the local media in Manchester last Summer, was an attempt to respond to the declining professional standards of our local political class in Rochdale exposed in the Zoom broadcast of a local council meeting in July subsequently covered in Manchester Evening News article : a Councillor called a 'bitch' for voting with Tories in stormy virtual meeting 'after the mic was left on by mistake' , (Nick Statham - Local Democracy Reporter Manchester Evening News , 17 July 20202 ) .
Such juvenile shenanigans from our elected councillors will come as no surprise to those amongst us who have sought to hold the ' three ring circus ' masquerading as local democracy to public account . Having been outed in the local media the link to the previously broadcast zoom meeting mysteriously vanished into the ether leading some local campaigners to suspect the usual Rochdale Council cover up from the councils digital media team (mal) practiced as they are in the devious & dark arts of censorship & obfuscation..
Indeed a follow up Freedom Information Request :
Location of public link to view Zoom Meeting for Rochdale North Township Committee Meeting 16/07/2020 seemed to confirm this when the eventual response indicated that the council does not have a requirement to publish pretty much anything they don't wish to publish :
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/678543/response/1618283/attach/html/6/Legal%20FOI%20Townships.doc.html
This reluctance from our local authorities to respond to reasonable requests from members of the public for information is just the latest example of Local Kakistocracy plumbing new depths .
We live after all in a town that has has ' 36 cameras operated on behalf of the council plus 41 run by Rochdale Boroughwide Housing ' (1) observing the daily activities of local citizens like ourselves . But not a single electronic device filming RMB Councillors Meetings on a permanent basis as they perform their civic duties on behalf of the local electorate. You'd almost think our councillors have something to hide ?
APPENDIX : (1) . https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/big-brother-watching-youall-day-8987905
Dear Editor , Rochdale Observer / Manchester Evening News :
Comedy Gold !
As a local taxpayer I was blessed to hear live the controversial Council Meeting broadcast on Zoom and discussed in your Local Democracy Reporters recent excellent article : ' Councillor called a 'bitch' for voting with Tories in stormy virtual meeting 'after mic left on by mistake' , ( Nick StathamLocal Democracy Reporter Manchester Evening News , 17 July 20202 ) .
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/councillor-called-bitch-after-voting-18613624
I often hear local people deriding the standards of professionalism , common sense ( or lack of ) and the lack of value for money our sixty strong cohort of councillors represent to the public purse in an era of increasing austerity.
However I strongly disagree, and think perhaps that we are all missing a trick ? Could we not hire outour Councillors to the highest bidder as travelling Troubadours an Alternative Comedy Group who can be leased out to the Alternative Comedy Circuit to bring laughter & merriment to the North during such dark times ? The latest production from the sketch writers at No.1 Riverside was sheer brilliance ! Situation comedy at its very apogee I'd have thought !
So far audiences to Council Meetings have been limited to a small but fanatical fan base ( I include myself in this definition ) .However after some considerable reflection I feel it's clearly now time to further widen audience participation. I've been trying to syndicate this latest episode to try and garner an interest from the program commissioners at BBC Comedy who are keen to see the profile of right wing comedians reach a wider & more divergent national audience . I'm sure the vast majority of our Council Meetings have any potential as pilot episodes of a new comedy series of 30 minute duration .Working title : It's Dim Up North !
It seems obvious that we have huge local resources of as yet untapped comedy potential lying dormant - along with many of our councillors. I feel we could generate much needed funds for our struggling local exchequer if we could only divest or sub contract our Councillors undoubted talents as comedians to be shared with the nation.It's obvious to many talent spotters that with such a rich comedy acting pool of sixty or so under-employed councillors that we have almost unlimited potential for numerous combinations of comedy duos , solo performers, and background extras. However the Zoom meeting with most comedy potential has been inexplicably expunged from the public record? Could someone at Rochdale Council explain its disappearance and direct me to a public link so I can take this project forward to ensure Rochdale Council is given the prominence on the UK Comedy Circuit it so richly deserves?
Thank you.
Yours,
Andrew Wastling Drake Street , ROCHDALE

Saturday, 26 September 2020

George Orwell’s FREE SPEECH

Etched in stone outside the BBC’s headquarters in London, George Orwell’s quotation on the sanctity of free speech serves as a daily reminder to the hundreds of journalists who work for the Corporation.
But Left-wing activist and musician Billy Bragg has sparked fury by claiming the famous words – ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’ – make him ‘cringe’ and have nothing to do with liberty.
He says the quotation, which featured in the preface to Orwell’s 1945 novella Animal Farm, is a ‘demand for licence’ and that young people now ‘prioritise accountability over free speech’.
Writing in The Guardian newspaper, Bragg, 62, added that the words, inscribed next to Orwell’s bronze statue outside New Broadcasting House, make him shudder every time he sees them.
Left-wing activist and musician Billy Bragg has sparked fury by claiming the famous words etched in stone outside the BBC’s headquarters in London – ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear’ – make him ‘cringe’
‘It’s a snappy slogan that fits neatly into a tweet, but whenever I walk past this effigy of the English writer that I most admire, it makes me cringe,’ he said.
‘Surely the author of Nineteen Eighty-Four would understand that people don’t want to hear that two plus two equals five?’
When it was erected in 2017, BBC chiefs said the statue of Orwell – who worked for the BBC in the 1940s – and the quotation were a ‘reminder of the value of journalism in holding authority to account’.
But the veteran songwriter, who founded the socialist musicians’ group Red Wedge, said: ‘The quote is not a defence of liberty; it’s a demand for licence, and has become a foundational slogan for those who wilfully misconstrue one for the other.’
He added: ‘Although free speech remains the fundamental bedrock of a free society, for everyone to enjoy the benefits of freedom, liberty needs to be tempered by two further dimensions: equality and accountability.
‘Without equality, those in power will use their freedom of expression to abuse and marginalise others. Without accountability, liberty can mutate into the most dangerous of all freedoms – impunity.’ But leading BBC journalists last night mounted a rigorous defence of the quotation and the importance of freedom of speech.
"
The Today programme presenter Nick Robinson said: ‘Almost every morning when I walk into the BBC at 4am, I stop and pause and read the words on the George Orwell statue.
'They sum up what independent journalism is all about./blockquote>
‘In response to one Twitter storm, I tweeted my own version of his message. “Do not adjust your set. Normal service from the BBC means you will hear people you disagree with who say things you don’t like. That’s our job.”
Today presenter Justin Webb said: ‘We try to tell the truth, including when – as Orwell pointed out – it is unwelcome or uncomfortable to governments or to powerful people, including the old Establishment posh white men like me or the new woke warriors. ‘We should be free to bring discomfort to all. I salute the statue and Orwell’s timeless message.’
Presenter and journalist Andrew Neil added: ‘I think the quote is an excellent quote and I think it sums up what free speech is about. ‘Free speech is the right to say things that other people don’t like. Wasn’t it Voltaire who said even if I disagree with you I will defend to my death your right to say it?’
The MoS revealed last year that Bragg had put his £3 million seaside mansion up for sale. Sprawling over almost three acres, the Dorset property – adorned with decorative columns and sitting at the end of a 200-yard shared drive – was subsequently taken off the market."
A protest singer in the 1980s, whose hits include A New England, Bragg played benefit concerts for striking miners and was an outspoken critic of Margaret Thatcher. A prominent supporter of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, Bragg helped launch the party’s Charter For The Arts.

George Orwell's defence of free speech outside the BBC's HQ makes me cringe, says Billy Bragg

******************************************************

Friday, 11 September 2020

The Wrong Kind Of News by Les May

I HAVE never taken Extinction Rebellion (XR) very seriously and I increasingly see their performances as a bit of street theatre. In part this is because when I hear people say they have 'demands' it tends to make me think they have a much higher sense of their own importance than I am inclined to assign them; in part it is because I think they give the impression that they have simple answers to complex issues.
So far as I understand their latest stunt, blockading access to printing presses, it is because the papers printed on them are unsympathetic to their views and don't print the sort of news regarding the issue of climate change that they would like to see. My response to this is 'Welcome to the real world'. Try getting anyone in the mainstream media to take seriously alternative viewpoints about, for example, raising of the pension age for women, domestic violence, contact with children following family breakdown, rape and sexual assault, etc.
Annoying though this is, not publishing the things the XR people would like to see is neither censorship nor an attack on freedom of speech. No one is saying 'you cannot say that', they are just saying 'don't expect us to print what you do say'. If XR owned the papers how much news would be published expressing scepticism about human activities being the cause of climate change?
Appendix
In 1972 the Club of Rome published a study called The Limits to Growth (LtG) so the issues which XR are now addressing have been known for nearly half a century. Had this been taken seriously at the time we would not now be facing the same level of climate change. The problem XR needs to address is not how to get governments to sign up to their demands; it is how to persuade all the people who elect those governments that we have to consume less materials and energy, and that unlimited economic growth is a fantasy. The rapid shift to buying goods ordered on-line and the insistence of many people that they must have a continental holiday this year in spite of the Covid 19 pandemic, does not suggest to me that there is any great enthusiasm for reducing consumption. Changing that is where the work needs to be done.
**************************

Sunday, 6 September 2020

Press Baron's news outlets blocked

Boris Johnson condemns Extinction Rebellion protesters
YESTERDAY it was reported that Boris Johnson had condemned the Extinction Rebellion protesters for trying to silence free speech after they blocked access to three printing presses owned by Rupert Murdoch. The blockade affected the distribution of several national newspapers – including The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Times and The Telegraph – which arrived late on newsstands on Saturday. Mr Johnson labelled the protests ‘unacceptable’ and pointed out that a free press was ‘vital’ for holding his Government to account for its actions on climate change. He tweeted: ‘A free press is vital in holding the government and other powerful institutions to account on issues critical for the future of our country, including the fight against climate change. It is completely unacceptable to seek to limit the public’s access to news in this way.’
More than 100 protesters – who accused the papers of failing to report on climate change – used vehicles and bamboo structures to block roads outside three press sites in Hertfordshire, Merseyside and North Lanarkshire. Police said 72 people have now been arrested. Home Secretary Priti Patel accused the protesters of carrying out an ‘attack on democracy’. She wrote: ‘This morning people across the country will be prevented from reading their newspaper because of the actions of Extinction Rebellion. This attack on our free press, society and democracy is completely unacceptable.’
Yet do we have a free press?
In his book 'THE PREVENTION of LITERATURE' [Polemic, No.2 January 1946] George Orwell wrote: 'In our age, the idea of intellectual liberty is under attack from two directions. On the one side are its theoretical enemies, the apologists of totalitarianism, and on the other its immediate, practical enemies, monopoly and bureacracy. Any wrter or journalist who wants to retain his integrity finds himself thwarted by the general drift of society rather than active persecution. The sort of things that are working against him are the concentration of the press in the hands of a few rich men, the grip of monopoly on radio anf the films, the unwillingness of the public to spend money on books, making it necessary for nearly for nearly every writer to earn part of his living by hack work, the encroachment of official bodies like the M.O.I. [Ministry of Information] and the British Council, which help the writer to keep alive but also waste his time and dictate his opinions...'
Orwell was writing in a time of war, but can the typical journalist today claim to be free and independent of the press barons like Murdock etc?
Boris Johnson has condemned Extinction Rebellion protesters for trying to silence free speech after they blocked access to three printing presses owned by Rupert Murdoch. The blockade affected the distribution of several national newspapers – including The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Times and The Telegraph – which arrived late on newsstands on Saturday. Mr Johnson labelled the protests ‘unacceptable’ and pointed out that a free press was ‘vital’ for holding his Government to account for its actions on climate change. He tweeted: ‘A free press is vital in holding the government and other powerful institutions to account on issues critical for the future of our country, including the fight against climate change. ‘It is completely unacceptable to seek to limit the public’s access to news in this way.’ More than 100 protesters – who accused the papers of failing to report on climate change – used vehicles and bamboo structures to block roads outside three press sites in Hertfordshire, Merseyside and North Lanarkshire. Police said 72 people have now been arrested. Home Secretary Priti Patel accused the protesters of carrying out an ‘attack on democracy’. She wrote: ‘This morning people across the country will be prevented from reading their newspaper because of the actions of Extinction Rebellion. This attack on our free press, society and democracy is completely unacceptable.’
Shadow International Trade Secretary Emily Thornberry told Times Radio she was concerned for older readers who may have missed out on their daily dose of news. She said: ‘I don’t really know what it is that is expected to be achieved and I know that for many older listeners it’s very much part of their daily life, getting their paper delivered in the morning and I just think it’s wrong.’ A free press is vital in holding the government and other powerful institutions to account on issues critical for the future of our country, including the fight against climate change. It is completely unacceptable to seek to limit the public’s access to news in this way.— Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) September 5, 2020 This morning people across the country will be prevented from reading their newspaper because of the actions of Extinction Rebellion.This attack on our free press, society and democracy is completely unacceptable. https://t.co/3DfasjD6sS— Priti Patel (@pritipatel) September 5, 2020 The Sun accused the protesters of carrying out an ‘attack on all the free press’. Today’s Sun carried an opinion piece by Sir David Attenborough calling on Brits to do more to tackle climate change. The piece was commended by Carrie Symonds, Mr Johnson’s fiancé, who said the protest was an own goal. She wrote: ‘I care about climate change and biodiversity a massive amount but preventing a free press to spread this message further is just wrong. Not to mention all those small businesses that rely on being able to sell newspapers.’
Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/09/05/boris-johnson-blasts-extinction-rebellion-for-unacceptable-protest-against-newspapers-13227269/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/
While owned by News Corp, the presses also print other titles such as the Evening Standard. Extinction Rebellion co-founder Gail Bradbrook wrote an opinion piece for the Standard the day of the protests, leading some to accuse the organisation of hypocrisy. The co-founder of XR actually wrote a column for the standard yesterday before hurrying over to blockade their printing presses https://t.co/SsiqohUYUN— Martha Gill (@Martha_Gill) September 5, 2020 A good day to #buyanewspaper A free press matters to all of us who value a free society. They mustn’t be silenced by an intolerant minority. pic.twitter.com/r3r3ksGkbN— Robert Jenrick (@RobertJenrick) September 5, 2020 Extinction Rebellion defended the blockade by accusing the papers of not paying enough attention to climate change. A spokesman said: ‘We are in an emergency of unprecedented scale and the papers we have targeted are not reflecting the scale and urgency of what is happening to our planet. ‘To any small businesses disrupted by the action this morning we say, “We’re sorry. We hope that our actions seem commensurate with the severity of the crisis we face and that this day of disruption successfully raises the alarm about the greater disruption that is coming”.’

Saturday, 22 August 2020

'If Liberty Means Anything!'

EDITORIAL STATEMENT: A STATUE of George Orwell stands outside Broadcasting House, the headquarters of the BBC, in London. The wall behind the statue is inscribed with Orwell's words 'If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear'. Although the statue was not unveiled until 7 November 2017, the Northern Voices blog, and before that the magazine of the same name, was established to be a concrete manifestation of that same sentiment. We do not have an alignment with any political party and have a scepticism about the activities of many politicians. It will be apparent to readers that our contributors have left of centre allegiances. This covers a spectrum of libertarians, trades unionists and democratic socialists. We believe that everyone has the right to have a different viewpoint from ourselves and from others, irrespective of who they are, and no one should be prevented from expressing that viewpoint, even if we or others disagree with it. This does not place upon us any obligation to publish material which is abusive, unsubstantiated or merely an assertion. However often an assertion is repeated, it does not make it true. In commenting on the views of others we avoid overused terms like, racist, sexist, homo-phobic, trans-phobic, islamo-phobic, anti-semitic, fascist, nazi etc, and object to their use in contexts where they are little more than abuse intended to intimidate others into remaining silent and so stifle debate on contentious issues. If anyone reading this blog objects to what one of our contributors has to say then we encourage them to write a comment. Unless they can provide some evidence more substantial than their own opinion about the nature of the content, it is unlikely that it will be taken down or altered.

Sunday, 19 January 2020

Media Freedom in Oldham & Beyond

From journalism's Oven-Ready Corporate Cooks
to a kind of 'Cook Your Own Local Media' 
by Brian Bamford

YESTERDAY Chris Rea, the President of the Manchester Branch of the National Union of Journalists, addressed a packed Focus Day:  'Creating Our Own Media' [sponsored by The WORD] aimed at promoting a move towards grassroots media by encouraging and energising the emergence of a free and independent journalism based in the community.

Chris said that control the national press in this country was in the hands of three companies:  News UK; the Rothermere group and Trinity Mirror.  He added that the local press is owned by only about ten companies. 

This media corporatism, he argued required the 'development of of our own institutions'

The problem of the decline of liberal culture

In his essay 'The Prevention of Literature' [Tribune 4th, January 1946], George Orwell wrote:

'In the future it is possible that a new kind of literature will arises, but no such thing is at present is imaginable.  It seems much likelier that if the liberal culture that we have lived in since the Renaissance actually comes to an end, the literary art will perish with it.'

Is the liberal culture we once took for granted coming to an end with the shift from reading printed hard copy media?

In some of the workshops at yesterday's Focus Day, some of the participants were concerned about print journalism's rapid decline.  A workshop discussed the technicalities of production of an alternative media in both print and on-line journalism.  The problems of distribution, circulation, finance and advertising was considered.  The content, the lack of a coherent 'House Style', and the layout of The Word newspaper were examined critically.  

The Word newspaper, it was admitted, had not always had a clear 'House Style':  Slabs of column-justified print smothered in some cases a full A3 size page from side to side and in some cases from top to bottom without the relief of a picture.  It was claimed that what was needed was short snappy articles, sometimes with quirky story-lines and photos was what was needed.

It was pointed out that these problems were not unique to the present time, and that George Orwell had discussed the issues of straight forward language in the presentation of ideas.  That fanciful writing often resulted in confusing the meaning of what we are saying, even from ourselves.

One lass from Romania argued for a free press and suggested that 'identity politics' in her view was an underlying threat in this country to the liberties her people had struggled to get in Romania when it was ruled by a regime of Romanian leader Nicolae Ceaușescu.

Orwell himself had predicted in 1946 [The Prevention of Literature] that:
'Newspapers will presumably continue until television techniques reaches a higher level, but apart from newspapers it is doubtful even now whether the great mass of people in industrialised countries feel the need for any kind of literature.'

He added:  'Probably novels and stories will be completely superseded by film and radio productions.  Or perhaps some kind of low-grade sensational fiction will survive, produced by a sort of conveyor belt process that reduces human initiative to a minimum.'

The Shape of Modern Media 

Well, newspapers are not surviving very well even in the main stream.  Any idea of truth being presented fearlessly in the press often seems to be an illusion.  Yet, even when Orwell was around he was then able to write:  'Radio features are commonly written by tired hacks to whom the subject and manner of treatment are dictated beforehand: even so, what they write is merely a kind of raw material to be chopped into shape by producers and censors.'

So need the participants at the Oldham's Focus Day worry about this historic development down hill?  It may explain why in 1979, when the conduct of Cyril Smith abusing lads at Cambridge House was first exposed, it was the alternative newspaper RAP [Rochdale's Alternative Paper] that then ran the story and not the mainstream press.  Indeed, the national press and local papers backed off when threatened by possible court action.  Nationally, at that time only Private Eye published the RAP revelations about Cyril Smith, and in consequence the man who became the Rochdale MP went on to serve for 20-years until 1992; only to be denounced in 2012 on this NV Blog discredited.

What we have now got is as Orwell argued, is a kind of self censorship rooted in 'stupidity' and 'economic self interest' or as he puts it more precisely: 

'The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. …  The British press is extremely centralized, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics.  But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio.' 

If anything with the coming of corporate media this situation has deteriorated since the time Orwell was writing in 1946.


*****************************

Wednesday, 19 December 2018

DEMOCRACY & the PRESS in ROCHDALE

by Clive Jones
DEMOCRACY in Rochdale is dying !


The Council has a voice the local press the Rochdale residents have little or no voice.  You can write in to the Council with your concerns and it may or may not get a result.


A democracy is a dynamic environment where public concerns should circulate freely.  This means that information must flow freely to the public and the best vehicle for this is the press.


However, press freedom is being eroded by the power of certain authorities both central and local including intimidation etc.


If the press has a one sided voice it is not democratic and we are not in a democracy.

*********

Thursday, 7 April 2016

Objectivity, the BBC & the British Media

The Broken BBC: From Public Service to Corporate Power



Extract:

Whatever the logic or feasibility of that model, it is fair to say that BBC News24 in no way achieves any ideal of a discursive space free from market motives. Instead it repeats and mirrors existing institutional power dynamics. Formally, the channel is a twin of Rupert Murdoch�s Sky News. Its editorial values are so identical that viewers get exactly the same hierarchy of news stories, at the same time of day, and predominantly from the same ideological viewpoint. The channels even screen their weather reports simultaneously, and each have �newspaper preview� segments, also broadcast at the same time. Like Sky, the BBC is happy to define itself in relation to the right-wing press but almost never allows comparison with the diversity of other national public sector-based global news broadcasters�France 24, or Russia Today (RT), for example�to throw the validity of the �new� BBC project into question. The BBC�s �newspaper preview� also almost exclusively features guest commentators from the oligarchic print media, rather than representatives of civil society, thereby ensuring further ideological conformity and continuity. This hegemonic homogenization with the right-wing press is even more dubious given, as Goldsmith�s College professor James Curran has pointed out, �according to the 2010 Eurobarometer survey, the British public was the least disposed to trust its press, out of a total of 27 European countries.�4 A more recent poll by YouGov ranked the British press as the most �right-wing� and �biased� in Europe.5

What, then, are the broader characteristics of the new BBC, and how representative is it? In its ideological assumptions and structural representations, News24 is resolutely pro-business and pro-market. A definitive study led by Mike Berry of Cardiff University notes that �on BBC News at Six, business representatives outnumbered trade union spokespersons by more than five to one (11 vs 2) in 2007 and by 19 to one in 2012. On the issues of immigration and the EU in 2012, out of 806 source appearances, not one was allocated to a representative of organized labor.� When covering the 2008�2009 banking crisis, �opinion was almost completely dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices. Civil society voices or commentators who questioned the benefits of having such a large finance sector were almost completely absent from coverage.�6

The corporation�s journalists pursue this pro-business, free-market ideology to the point of blatant hypocrisy and even self-destruction. In February 2014, a BBC journalist cross-examined then-Labour leader Ed Miliband about the lack of privatization plans in the Party�s public-sector proposals. This is a common theme in BBC news interviews. In the previous week, Hard Talk presenter Stephen Sucker berated the Indian finance minister for subsidizing the country�s farmers. Though editorially critical of other, less well-paid workers receiving public sector incomes, the issue of BBC funding and its own journalists� ample salaries, similarly supported by taxes and public spending, seems to present no quandary to its reporters.

Obviously, none of this accords with the ideal of a public sphere separate and free from vested interests. Nor is this ideological positioning some accident compensated for by the diversity of representation in other parts of the network. The larger consequence of the invention of News24 is that, again, diversity of provision has been throttled by the imposition of a post-Fordist, core-and-periphery management structure. The BBC�s other channels either take their bulletin newsfeed from the main news channel, or have their output homogenized around the editorial dictates and demands of the core control location.


Full article:
http://monthlyreview.org/2016/04/01/the-broken-bbc/

Sunday, 31 January 2016

Mrs Wrigley’s Coffee Tavern in Oldham




by Chris Draper
NEVER mind Leningrad, Havana or Peking, the revolution might have started in Mrs Wrigley’s Coffee Tavern, Oldham. Every Monday night, at 7pm, Victorian socialists and anarchists gathered at Mrs Wrigley’s, in the Old Market Place, to foment social revolution.  Anarchist, John Oldman, of 57, Lansdowne Road, Chadderton, was the group’s leading light and his story, like that of most other activists outside London has never before been told.
John announced his intention of forming the group by speaking out and leafleting in Oldham’s Market Square on Sunday 14th June, 1885.  The following evening, Oldman, supported by comrade Bourne of Cheetham, founded Oldham’s 'Socialist League (SL)' group, although John didn’t need much encouragement as his activism stretched back a long way. 

Born in Norfolk in 1842, following in his father’s footsteps he worked on the land and was employed for a while on the Earl of Leicester’s Holkham Hall Estate.  Incensed by the injustice and inequality of rural life he later claimed to have, 'been an anarchist from boyhood and rejoiced to think that all his life he had been a notorious poacher'.  In 1870, Oldman upset the vicar and squirearchy when he publicly campaigned for Tittleshall Parish Reading Rooms to provide more than its narrow range of Tory newspapers.  He was rewarded with notice to quit from his landlord, the Earl of Leicester. 

When Joseph Arch, in 1872, started the 'National Agricultural Labourers’ Union (NALU)' Oldman rushed to assist and was immediately engaged as a union organiser although the press preferred to describe him as a 'a professional agitator', no doubt realising this was no 'old-school', time-serving compromiser.  The Ipswich Journal, spotted the revolutionary implications:
'If Mr John Oldman of Norwich tramps the county with his peculiar logic and teaches the labourers that the classes above them are their natural enemies, we must expect a strange and unpleasant change.'

Following a NALU recruitment meeting at Hollesley in August 1872, a report in the Journal showed Oldman’s politics went far beyond adding a few pence to labourers’ wages.  He insisted, 'it was the struggle of labour with capital…the labourers had been stuffed too much with Christian tracts…the law was not equal…the Earl of Leicester put on his wagons The Right Honourable The Earl of Leicester but it should be DISHONOURABLE for he had in one part of the county enclosed a piece of common land.'
On a more personal note, 'Mr Oldman related an anecdote of his father, 72 years of age being refused relief by the Board of the Guardians of the Poor.'   John’s impoverished father died the following year. 

The Ipswich Journal described John as, 'an active-looking man, 30 years of age, about middle height and of spare wiry build, he looks as if tramping the country would be of little or no trouble to him. He was respectably dressed in a long summer overcoat of dark material with light summer billy-cock hat…Mr Oldman has a great command of language and a stentorian voice.' 

Oldman went down well with the labourers but upset the landholders and a few days after the Hollesley meeting a letter was published in the Journal from a George Ling urging his fellow farmers to organise themselves, 'for the purpose of stamping out the Union Epidemic as they would the Cattle Plague and treat all Unionists as infected persons.'  Subsequent public meetings turned nasty. Despite Oldman’s appeals for calm the police were called to restore order at Braintree Corn Exchange in October 1872.  In November, a speaker was set upon and attacked at a meeting in Coggeshall but labourers continued to join the union which claimed 70,000 members within the year.

In May 1873, despite rumours that farmers had recruited London thugs to rough-up the crowd and the Volunteers had been instructed to ride them down, Peterloo-style, a meeting of over 2,000 agricultural labourers on Market Hill, Sudbury passed without serious incident.  Addressed by NLA President Joseph Arch and John Oldman, there was a minor sensation when a union representative revealed injuries he’d received the previous day after falling
mid-speech from a cart from which farmers had maliciously removed the linch-pin from a wheel.

Tramping the country as a labour organiser and journalist John Oldman sometimes described himself as a 'commercial traveller'.  In truth he combined any activity he could to finance his political mission, at one stage pawning his watch to raise a pound to keep body and soul together. Fortunately his partner, Rebecca Culling/ Oldman was a widow with money and employment of her own so the pair could afford to raise a family.  Whilst John continued agitating around the country his family moved north, first to Cheshire, in 1874, before settling in Chadderton, near Oldham, a couple of years later.

After John started the Oldham Socialist League, besides indoor meetings at Mrs Wrigley’s the group also organised outdoor events at the Curzon Ground and in July 1885 at the Old Market Place where William Morris was the advertised speaker.  After the police repeatedly cleared waiting crowds from the advertised venue, Oldman led Morris to Tommy Fields (the later market place) where a most successful meeting was held. As the SL newspaper Commonweal  reported:
 'Oldman  wound up proposing a resolution condemning the authorities for their interference with the right of public meeting.'
 But, just as his rural masters had earlier responded to Oldman’s activism with eviction, now the urban authorities prosecuted him for having the impudence to organise public meetings and imposed fines and costs of £1 16s 9d. 

An article in the local paper in September 1885 shows he wasn’t intimidated, 'The Oldham Watch Committee having prohibited public meetings on the old Market Place, various sections of the community are resenting the decision. John Oldman, who, being a Socialist, declines to use the word Sir, Mr or Esquire, has informed the mayor that he will invite the public to meet in thousands and he asked that the police be kept away'!

Besides local activism over the next few years Oldman also contributed articles to Henry Seymour’s 'ANARCHIST' journal which in 1887 observed:
'Our brave and indefatigable comrade Oldman of Oldham is spreading the light of liberty in the north.  He has recently engaged in several debates upon anarchism with large and intellectual audiences in Manchester and contributes weekly to the Oldham Chronicle in exposition of anarchist philosophy.'

In 1890 John and his partner Rebecca combined a nostalgic family visit to their old Norfolk stamping ground with an extended propaganda tour.  In December Yarmouth SL recorded:
'Comrade John Oldman and his wife have been with us for several weeks doing splendid propaganda for the advancement of Revolutionary Socialism and our local comrades have been considerably enlightened in revolutionary ideas.' 
Commonweal detailed their activities, including:                       
'October 24th comrade John Oldman, Apostle of Anarchy, from Manchester, delivered a stirring address in the morning on Priory plain on The Voting Swindle…in the afternoon on the Fish Wharf comrade Oldman lectured on The Wage Swindle …on November 2nd on Hall Quay comrade Oldman lectured on The Morality of Force.” On Saturday 8th November both Oldmans addressed several Norwich meetings commemorating the judicial murder of five Chicago anarchists. The following day they repeated this in Great Yarmouth, where on 23rd November “a discussion on Anarchy was opened by John Oldman who gave a good explanation.'

Despite the gradual disintegration of the SL, the Oldmans kept the faith.  On May Day 1892 John Oldman spoke alongside a host of eminent comrades to a crowd of over a thousand assembled around the Reformer’s Tree in London’s Hyde Park.  As The Times reported, 'Behind the speakers were two large banners, one containing the words, "Anarchist Communism and Revolution and Anarchy", and the other, "If the people when oppressed are silent such is stupidity, the forerunner of the downfall of public liberty".  Immediately following  Louise Michel’s proclamation, 'Vive la Comune', John Oldman (inaccurately reported as “Oldham”) said 'what was wanted was revolution pure and simple (Cheers). The eight hour demonstration that day was simply boy’s play and babyism. They should strike at the root of that pernicious system of capitalism (Hear, hear).'

After that the trail goes cold.  Rebecca Oldman passed away in Oldham in 1904, John followed five years later and memory of their lives almost died with them.  Can you help?  Northern Voices is keen to discover more about Oldham’s first anarchists and the lives of similarly inspiring political pioneers.  We’re currently researching the lives of scores more neglected Northern anarchists and we’d love to hear from anyone who shares our enthusiasm. 

For Peace, Love and Anarchism
Christopher Draper

Friday, 12 June 2015

Critiques of Free Speech & PEN


ON the 2nd, May this year in Dallas, two Islamists tried to do a critique of Pamela Geller's 'Muhammad Art Exhibit & Contest' with assault rifles.  Dominic Green argues in the June issue of Standpoint magazine that 'The depiction of Muhammad is a test case for the practice of Western freedoms'.  If a guard had not suspended the art critic attackers' 'freedom of assembly' with a Glock pistol there would probably have been a massacre.  

Days later PEN held its annual dinner in New York at which the PEN board conferred its annual  'Freedom of Expression Courage Award' on Charlie Hebdo.  Six of the dinner's table hosts Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Rachel Kushner, Frances Prose, Teju Cole and Taiya Selasi, resigned, and Salman Rushdie twitted '6 pussies' only later to amend it to 'Six Authors in Search of a bit of Character.' 

In an essay in January 1946 entitled 'The Prevention of Literature' George Orwell wrote about a meeting of PEN commemorating the tercentenary of Milton's Areopagitica  - a pamphlet in defence of freedom of the press:

'There were four speakers on the platform.  One of them delivered a speech which did deal with the freedom of the press, but only in relation to India; another said, hesitantly, and in very general terms, that liberty was a good thing; a third delivered an attack on laws relating to obscenity in literature.  A fourth devoted most of his speech to a defence of the Russian purges.  Of the speeches from the body of the hall, some reverted to the question of obscenity and the laws that deal with it,  others were simply eulogies of Soviet Russia.  Moral liberty – the liberty to discuss sex questions frankly in print – seemed to be generally approved, but political liberty was not mentioned.' 

Then with eyes and ears like a shit-house rat Orwell then discerns:

'Out of this concourse of several hundred people, perhaps half of whom were directly connected with the writing trade, there was not a single one who could point out that freedom of the press, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to criticize and oppose....  In its net effect the meeting was a demonstration in favour of censorship.' 

When the Salmon Rushdie affair first broke out in the late 1980s, I argued that writers ought to be prepared to take risks in the same way miners and building workers did everyday in their working lives.   Following the recent PEN resignations Salmon Rushdie said:

'If PEN as a free speech organisation cannot defend and celebrate people who have been murdered for drawing pictures, then frankly the organisation is not worth the name.  What I would say to Peter, Michael, the others is, I hope nobody ever comes after them.' 

In 1946 when Orwell wrote, it was not the fashion on the left to attack the Soviet Union, perhaps with the exception of the anarchists and some trotskyist groups; today even the anarchists are likely to embrace a sickly sophistry when challenged by the quandary of the freedom of the press.  With the Stalinists, the British trade unions and the main-stream left, free speech has often been a difficult concept for them to embrace wholeheartedly as Orwell discerned. 

In a posting on the 'anarchist' libcom website earlier this year someone wrote:  'By the magazine's (Charlie Hebdo) own admission, the point was to offend and provoke anger.' 

The writer disapproves of this because '... by and large, here you're actually getting a reaction from a maligned and marginalised minority community, who already suffer violence and prejudice.' 

I suppose the National Front supporters who were banned by the Church elders from participating in the election hustings at St.Chads Church in Rochdale earlier this year, could equally claim that they too were 'a maligned and marginalised community'.   Though I doubt that libcom would want to defend them. 

Coincidentally, as I write these words an editor on our Northern Voices' Blog is currently facing a 'Rule 27, Panel Investigation' by a Unite union panel, based on a report that appeared in March about a meeting of the Local Authority Regional Sector Committee entitled 'Unite Committee Bins Motion on Blacklisting'.  As George Orwell realised the English Left, and I would say the trade unions, may call for transparency and openness when referring to others, but they often lack a robust ability for self-criticism and self-examination.       

In 1946, George Orwell complained:  'Fifteen years ago, when one defended the freedom of the intellect, one had to defend it against Conservatives, against Catholics, and to some extent – for they were not of great importance in England, against Fascists.  Today one has to defend it against Communists and “fellow-travellers”.' 

Now, not only do we have to fend off the Fascists; the Communists (if they still exist); tin-pot anarchists on libcom; and trade union bosses who are covering-up for those who colluded with companies who blacklist, but we also have to challenge trade union committees that are run like petty fiefdoms, and Labour Councillors who produce pious proposals to cover-up for Labour Councils that do business with, and give public contracts to blacklist companies. 

Naturally, none of this can be as challenging as having to confront the assault rifle analysts in downtown Dallas, but it does make for an interesting life.

Sunday, 1 February 2015

Bedroom tax campaigner lambasts Tameside local press for bias!

 
The above photo shows an action in the campaign against the Jobseeker's Allowance outside Burnley Jobcentre in the 1990s:  in the foreground on the left is Steve (Starlord) Fisher. 
 
WE are publishing below a letter that was sent last week to both the Tameside Advertiser and the Tameside Reporter and Chronicle newspapers, from local environmental activist, Steve (Starlord) Fisher (pictured above).  The issue of a free press in Tameside is something that we have previously reported on in Northern Voices. In September 2012, in an exclusive, we revealed that the Tameside Reporter had been bought by New Charter Housing Ltd, a housing company that also owns Tameside Radio and has close links to the Labour council in Tameside. In 2008, we also reported in Northern Voices magazine, claims made by  Private Eye magazine (1220) that  Tameside Council was meeting with local newspaper editors to 'suppress sensationalist reporting'.  We have no misgivings about publishing Mr Fisher's epistle in full because we share many of his concerns about press censorship.  This concern was also noted by one of our readers who predicted at the time of the takeover that we would see, the 'banning of dissenting voices' and lashings of corporate agenda.  Should anyone therefore be surprised that local newspaper sales are plummeting. 

'Many readers of your "redoubtable" newspaper are no doubt reading under the illusion that it reports fairly and faithfully on current affairs in Tameside.  Well I can assure you that's not the case at all.  They can't honestly say they didn't know, that they can't report on everything, that it's neutral in its reportage.  Far from it, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply untrue.  How do I know this you might ask?  Well I'll tell you.
 
'I and many of my friends in 'Tameside Against the Cuts' have been protesting unstintingly every Thursday afternoon for the last 6 months outside Ashton Jobcentre against 'work-for-dole' and illegal & unlawful Benefit Sanctions and many other social injustices.
 
'The local press have been told many times by phone and email.  We've invited them but they're just not interested & to date no article has been published about our important voluntary "Community Contribution".  That is the level of biased reportage in Tameside.
 
'Our "Community Contribution" counts for nothing, jarring no doubt with New Charter's social engineering agenda. They do not approve of our activities.  We do not even meet with their new conditionality criteria for getting a New Charter tenancy.  They simply don't recognise our way of "giving something back", failing to recognise the positive work that we do in the community.  But who put them in charge? No one! They just own and control the bulk of Tameside Social Housing, the Tameside Reporter, and Tameside Radio in their empire building 'Quest' for power and influence.
 
'Astonishingly, I recently read 3 articles about a new related campaign launched outside Hyde Town Hall by Emma Mohareb-Leyla in January:  I've been told she was also published in the Manchester Evening News.  It's great that she's been able to highlight some of the issues we've been campaigning about for the last 2 years!  So why have we been ignored?  We are treated like lepers!  Why has it taken somebody else to get this published? How does one get an audience with the press-barons of Tameside?
 
'On the 25th September 2013 one of my 3 letters about the Bedroom Tax was published in the Reporter. Every reference to New Charter was excised! New Charter then had the gall to publish their riposte the following week! Where's the editorial independence when a social landlord like New Charter have a vested interest in the Bedroom Tax?
 
'My last published letter was about KFC in Hyde, but that too was severely edited culling most of the really interesting stuff. My next 4 letters in a row went unpublished. It's really hard to get a letter published in the local press let alone articles reporting what's actually happening in Tameside.
 
'For the last 2 years Tameside Against the Cuts have protested all over Ashton: on Ashton Town Hall steps and Market ground & outside Ashton Magistrates court against TMBC's unfair Council Tax and their use of Marstons bailiffs; outside New Charter Housing & Ashton Pioneer Homes against the Bedroom Tax (tenants have been evicted); & outside parasitic Work Programme Provider organisations paid thousands of pounds by the Government to force the unemployed to work for their dole and undermine wages!  They are treated worse than many convicted criminals.  To date we've targeted only StandGuide, but i2i, Work Solutions, and Avanta, are also in our sights lest they think they've been forgotten!  We are well aware of a number of slave-labour stores in Tameside and would like to target them too!
 
'We've very effectively concentrated our efforts on Ashton Jobcentre where many of the poor and the vulnerable can be found.  These innocents have been unfairly targeted by the Tories ideological agenda and made to pay for the gambling excesses & extravagances of the greedy and materialistic rich and powerful.
 
'Ashton Jobcentre was chosen by this poxy proxy Government to pilot their draconian Universal Credit which gambles with the lives of the poor, making them destitute & homeless, driven to foodbanks and even to suicide.  Worse still this avowedly Tameside Labour Council are collaborators. These turncoats capitulated and rolled-over to have their belly's tickled. They feebly argue that they had to be in it in order to 'shape it'! Yet after 2 years they refuse to say how they've 'shaped-it' with apparently nothing to show for their treacherous behaviour.
 
'The name Universal Credit tells you all you need to know. For one it ain't universal! Secondly 'credit' is a proxy for debt.  We live in a consumer 'credit' society, for which read "debt" society, in which we subsist, bound in servitude to the rich. The vast majority are indebted to and enslaved by the rich.
 
'What is needed is far more revolutionary, the introduction of a Universal Unconditional Guaranteed Basic Income Scheme for ALL to ensure a basic or minimum level of existence for all as a right whether in work or not which is in harmony with the principle of Maslow's 'Hierarchy of Needs'. That would indeed be truly universal unlike Universal Credit which is not!  This Government have the vision of a bat out of hell knowing only the price of everything but the value of nothing.
 
'A Basic Income would really empower the poor who could then truly choose when and where to work, and to do 'Good Work'. Those who want to have more than the bare necessities of life can work for them to satisfy their desires, but no longer can they force people to labour for them.
 
'This is the politics of fairness, not the politics of envy. I have no desire to be rich, nor do I desire to be poor.  I desire the freedom to serve as I see fit to fulfill my soul purpose on earth.  Those infected with the disease of greed can still work and be rich if they so wish. They could also seek psychotherapeutic help.  They could perhaps even take-up Buddhism.' 

Monday, 12 January 2015

Daily Mail says 'WE COULD BE NEXT...'!

LAST Friday the British Daily Mail proclaimed 'WE COULD BE NEXT TARGET' in a headline one-inch-high! 

Mercy me!  Can it be that the Mail's editor Paul Dacre, has finally got himself put on the list of heroes in the cause of the free press?

Would any self-respecting Islamic fundamentalist really target Paul Dacre?

Free Press Solidarity: Blasphemous Cartoons

by Glenn Greenwald
WITH  all due respect to the great cartoonist Ann Telnaes, it is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo “were equal opportunity offenders.” Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever) do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews. Parody, free speech and secular atheism are the pretexts; anti-Muslim messaging is the primary goal and the outcome. And this messaging – this special affection for offencive anti-Islam speech – just so happens to coincide with, to feed, the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture.  blasphemy
To see how true that is, consider the fact that Charlie Hebdo – the “equal opportunity” offenders and defenders of all types of offencive speech -fired one of their writers in 2009 for writing a sentence some said was anti-Semitic (the writer was then charged with a hate crime offence, and won a judgement against the magazine for unfair termination). Does that sound like “equal opportunity” offending?
Nor is it the case that threatening violence in response to offencive ideas is the exclusive province of extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam. Terrence McNally’s 1998 play “Corpus Christi,” depicting Jesus as gay, wasrepeatedly cancelled by theatres due to bomb threats. Larry Flynt was paralysed by an evangelical white supremacist who objected to Hustler‘s pornographic depiction of inter-racial couples. The Dixie Chicks were deluged with death threats and needed massive security after they publicly criticised George Bush for the Iraq War, which finally forced them to apologise out of fear. Violence spurred by Jewish and Christian fanaticism is legion, from abortion doctors being murdered to gay bars being bombed to a 45-year-old brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza due in part to the religious belief (common in both the U.S. and Israel) that God decreed they shall own all the land. And that’s all independent of the systematic state violence in the west sustained, at least in part, by religious sectarianism.
The New York Times‘ David Brooks today claims that anti-Christian bias is so widespread in America – which has never elected a non-Christian president – that “the University of Illinois fired a professor who taught the Roman Catholic view on homosexuality.” He forgot to mention that the very same university just terminated its tenure contract with Professor Steven Salaita over tweets he posted during the Israeli attack on Gaza that the university judged to be excessively vituperative of Jewish leaders, and that the journalist Chris Hedges was just dis-invited to speak at the University of Pennsylvania for the Thought Crime of drawing similarities between Israel and ISIS.
That is a real taboo – a repressed idea – as powerful and absolute as any in the United States, so much so that Brooks won’t even acknowledge its existence. It’s certainly more of a taboo in the U.S. than criticising Muslims and Islam, criticism which is so frequently heard in mainstream circles including the U.S. Congress – that one barely notices it any more.
This underscores the key point: there are all sorts of ways ideas and viewpoints are suppressed in the west. When those demanding publication of these anti-Islam cartoons start demanding the affirmative publication ofthose ideas as well, I’ll believe the sincerity of their very selective application of free speech principles. One can defend free speech without having to publish, let alone embrace, the offencive ideas being targeted. But if that’s not the case, let’s have equal application of this new principle.
Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images; additional research was provided by Andrew Fishman
Full article here :