Do you believe what you read in the press?
Does an emotive photograph overwhelm dry facts, or the need to look for them?
If you want an insight into media manipulation, take a look at this stunning analysis of the Qana photographs that were published after many people were killed, apparently by an Israeli airstrike on July 30th.
Not all was as it seemed. The Western media appear to have connived in a stage managed Hezbollah event calculated to squeeze the maximum shock and emotional punch from tragedy. By going along with the charade, a big question mark must be raised over what really happened at Qana in the first place, and Hezbollah's part in it.
EU Referendum blog's initial take on the Qana photos resulted in a denial by the press agencies, but that denial failed to detail an alternative interpretation, or provide any further evidence. Now Richard North has fully exposed the agencies' shameful secret.
What credibility - or integrity - the mainstream media now?
August 05, 2006
February 09, 2006
Menezes Investigation Flawed From The Start
A shocking revelation about the investigation into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes on the London tube at Stockwell last July comes at the end of this BBC report about how the Menezes family are being kept informed.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission chairman, Nick Hardwick, says that although the IPCC has had full access to those in agencies outside the police, the IPCC does not have power to refer those who do not work for the police to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Since I am not aware of any police criminal investigation into the shooting, it looks as if those outside the police who might have had criminal liability may never be considered for prosecution: not only will the IPCC refrain from putting together the pieces it has with respect to them, but it may not even have bothered to collect the pieces in the first place, and who else will have done so instead?
It suggests the IPCC is inadequate to deal with cases where the police are not the only party to a possible crime.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission chairman, Nick Hardwick, says that although the IPCC has had full access to those in agencies outside the police, the IPCC does not have power to refer those who do not work for the police to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Since I am not aware of any police criminal investigation into the shooting, it looks as if those outside the police who might have had criminal liability may never be considered for prosecution: not only will the IPCC refrain from putting together the pieces it has with respect to them, but it may not even have bothered to collect the pieces in the first place, and who else will have done so instead?
It suggests the IPCC is inadequate to deal with cases where the police are not the only party to a possible crime.
February 02, 2006
The Hard Case of PC Mark Milton
It is wrong that PC Mark Milton is to have his acquittal by District Judge Bruce Morgan last May set aside and be retried.
I can understand how people could be unhappy that a policeman is acquitted after driving at 159 mph along a motorway, and perhaps even more so given that he drove at 91 mph in a 30 mph zone.
The High Court has set aside the aquittal because it considers the District Judge failed to take into account the possibility of danger to other road users who, had they been there, might have been endangered had they pulled into PC Milton's path. This is said to be a failure of the judge "in law".
If it was a failure of law rather than fact, it is one that is very close to a finding of fact, because implicit in the finding is the suggestion that had the judge taken such a hypothetical into account it would likely have been enough to have changed the judge's finding that PC Milton's driving was not in fact dangerous. From the reports it seems the High Court were very worried about PC Milton's driving - in other words the finding as a matter of fact that his driving was not dangerous.
It would be surprising to me if the judge had not taken the possibility into account and dismissed it, even if it did not form part of the reasons explicitly given by the judge to the High Court. Was it not, for example, even alluded to by the prosecution during the case?
The other aspect of the hypothetical is of course what PC Milton's reaction would have been had another driver appeared, when events would have shown how safe his driving was. We can never know, although perhaps that is just as well.
The High Court is really saying, in contradiction to the finding on the facts of the judge, that speed is itself ipso facto dangerous, irrespective of the absence of any evidence, other than the speed itself, that any danger was ever actually caused to anyone.
Why though should PC Milton be put through this? He was tried and judged and found not guilty. In the absence of any evidence of corruption of the court process that should be that. How many bites at the cherry should the prosecution get? The opportunity to revisit inconvenient or embarrassing acquittals is just the tool any vindictive, over-bearing, authoritarian, or otherwise illiberal state will wish to have.
If people think the police are out of control, then the answer is to regain control and accountability of the senior officers.
If people think the district judge made a perverse decision on the facts, then be thankful for judicial independence.
If people think PC Milton's judge really did make a mistake in law, then let there be a process for declaring what the law really is: there is no need to revisit PC Milton's acquittal in the process.
If people think the law itself is wrong, let Parliament change it.
I can understand how people could be unhappy that a policeman is acquitted after driving at 159 mph along a motorway, and perhaps even more so given that he drove at 91 mph in a 30 mph zone.
The High Court has set aside the aquittal because it considers the District Judge failed to take into account the possibility of danger to other road users who, had they been there, might have been endangered had they pulled into PC Milton's path. This is said to be a failure of the judge "in law".
If it was a failure of law rather than fact, it is one that is very close to a finding of fact, because implicit in the finding is the suggestion that had the judge taken such a hypothetical into account it would likely have been enough to have changed the judge's finding that PC Milton's driving was not in fact dangerous. From the reports it seems the High Court were very worried about PC Milton's driving - in other words the finding as a matter of fact that his driving was not dangerous.
It would be surprising to me if the judge had not taken the possibility into account and dismissed it, even if it did not form part of the reasons explicitly given by the judge to the High Court. Was it not, for example, even alluded to by the prosecution during the case?
The other aspect of the hypothetical is of course what PC Milton's reaction would have been had another driver appeared, when events would have shown how safe his driving was. We can never know, although perhaps that is just as well.
The High Court is really saying, in contradiction to the finding on the facts of the judge, that speed is itself ipso facto dangerous, irrespective of the absence of any evidence, other than the speed itself, that any danger was ever actually caused to anyone.
Why though should PC Milton be put through this? He was tried and judged and found not guilty. In the absence of any evidence of corruption of the court process that should be that. How many bites at the cherry should the prosecution get? The opportunity to revisit inconvenient or embarrassing acquittals is just the tool any vindictive, over-bearing, authoritarian, or otherwise illiberal state will wish to have.
If people think the police are out of control, then the answer is to regain control and accountability of the senior officers.
If people think the district judge made a perverse decision on the facts, then be thankful for judicial independence.
If people think PC Milton's judge really did make a mistake in law, then let there be a process for declaring what the law really is: there is no need to revisit PC Milton's acquittal in the process.
If people think the law itself is wrong, let Parliament change it.
January 11, 2006
Iqbal Sacranie Provokes Police State
Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, is not my favourite man. He is not a liberal and in seeking to make laws against religious hatred a crime, he does not represent a liberal cause. He does not want Islam to suffer criticism or be the subject of debate. Our free speech will suffer if he succeeds.
Yet he has my sympathy as he faces a police investigation into remarks he made on the BBC's Radio 4 PM programme on 3rd January, when he said homosexuality is harmful.
I doubt the police will find there is a crime to prosecute, even as they try to piece one together under the Public Order Act. That crime is one the government intends to bring on later as it looks at a clutch of 'hate crimes'. Meanwhile the government presses the police to investigate all complaints of crime 'aggravated' by 'hate'.
Were there a law banning comments critical of homosexuality it would be very sad indeed for Britain, and a severe blow against freedom and free speech here. But there is no law, and it is outrageous that police are leaning on people and 'investigating' them. They should be telling the complainants where to go.
Yet he has my sympathy as he faces a police investigation into remarks he made on the BBC's Radio 4 PM programme on 3rd January, when he said homosexuality is harmful.
I doubt the police will find there is a crime to prosecute, even as they try to piece one together under the Public Order Act. That crime is one the government intends to bring on later as it looks at a clutch of 'hate crimes'. Meanwhile the government presses the police to investigate all complaints of crime 'aggravated' by 'hate'.
Were there a law banning comments critical of homosexuality it would be very sad indeed for Britain, and a severe blow against freedom and free speech here. But there is no law, and it is outrageous that police are leaning on people and 'investigating' them. They should be telling the complainants where to go.
December 15, 2005
Teacher Convicted of Kissing
Samantha Grixti, a teacher, has been sentenced to 180 hours of forced labour (aka community service) after being convicted of kissing a 16 year old pupil.
As I have said before, it may be unprofessional to have relationships with pupils, but it is not a matter for the law. At 16 people are over the age of consent, and free to embark on sexual relationships with anyone else over 16. It is perverse to make it a criminal offence for others to have relationships with them.
All the more so when the state is happy to support widespread promiscuity among the under 16s, offering confidential contraceptive and abortion services, often in defiance of parental wishes, and seeks to encourage unconventional relationships, for example through 'gay marriage'.
As I have said before, it may be unprofessional to have relationships with pupils, but it is not a matter for the law. At 16 people are over the age of consent, and free to embark on sexual relationships with anyone else over 16. It is perverse to make it a criminal offence for others to have relationships with them.
All the more so when the state is happy to support widespread promiscuity among the under 16s, offering confidential contraceptive and abortion services, often in defiance of parental wishes, and seeks to encourage unconventional relationships, for example through 'gay marriage'.
November 09, 2005
Why Protect Red Squirrels?
The Telegraph reports that grey squirrels are to be 'excluded' from red squirrel areas in England on pain of death.
There is an evolutionary struggle going on and the red squirrels appear to be losing out to the greys, which was introduced (by man, of course) from America.
Why should we intervene in this struggle? There is no malice between squirrels. There are no 'good' or 'bad' squirrels, there are just little creatures struggling (as we all do) to survive.
If the greys are spreading at the expense of the reds, it is because in evolutionary terms, they are the fittest to survive - the fittest for the environment in which they live.
For man to take sides is ridiculous.
In fact it is worse than ridiculous. It is not clear that more red squirrels will have suffered short lives then would have been the case without the grey, because there are always factors at work limiting a species' population size.
But if we have in some sense caused red squirrels to suffer by introducing the grey, it simply compounds our failing to cull greys. Unless we exterminate the greys entirely there will never be an end to the slaughter. So to assuage our collective guilt over the change in squirrel populations we embark on an endless campaign to inflict suffering on grey squirrels.
Who are we to say one little animal is worth more than another little animal, especially when the difference between them is that one is red and the other is grey?
There is an evolutionary struggle going on and the red squirrels appear to be losing out to the greys, which was introduced (by man, of course) from America.
Why should we intervene in this struggle? There is no malice between squirrels. There are no 'good' or 'bad' squirrels, there are just little creatures struggling (as we all do) to survive.
If the greys are spreading at the expense of the reds, it is because in evolutionary terms, they are the fittest to survive - the fittest for the environment in which they live.
For man to take sides is ridiculous.
In fact it is worse than ridiculous. It is not clear that more red squirrels will have suffered short lives then would have been the case without the grey, because there are always factors at work limiting a species' population size.
But if we have in some sense caused red squirrels to suffer by introducing the grey, it simply compounds our failing to cull greys. Unless we exterminate the greys entirely there will never be an end to the slaughter. So to assuage our collective guilt over the change in squirrel populations we embark on an endless campaign to inflict suffering on grey squirrels.
Who are we to say one little animal is worth more than another little animal, especially when the difference between them is that one is red and the other is grey?
October 21, 2005
Another Teacher Pupil Love Case
Shelley White, a 24 year old geography teacher, has been convicted of 'abuse of trust' by having sexual activity with a child, a 15 year old boy. The 'sexual activity' was kissing (or 'snogging' as the Telegraph puts it).
It may not be desirable conduct in a teacher, but it is not something that warrants a conviction. The difference in age was not so great, and the acts were consensual, and in any case fell well short of intercourse.
A matter of school discipline perhaps, but not the criminal law.
The jury probably thought so too, because it was a 10 - 2 majority conviction. In the old days that would have meant an acquittal, and should have done so yesterday.
Instead, another life ruined.
It may not be desirable conduct in a teacher, but it is not something that warrants a conviction. The difference in age was not so great, and the acts were consensual, and in any case fell well short of intercourse.
A matter of school discipline perhaps, but not the criminal law.
The jury probably thought so too, because it was a 10 - 2 majority conviction. In the old days that would have meant an acquittal, and should have done so yesterday.
Instead, another life ruined.
Government Planned Population Explosion
Official forecasts from the ONS suggest the UK's population will grow from 60 million now to 67 million in 2031. Much of the increase will be in south east England.
The growth results from greatly increased immigration - net migration into the UK last year was 223,000, against 50,000 a year in 1997. The new forecasts are greater than Migrationwatch has put out, when it has been called 'alarmist'.
So will those who have been encouraging this massive wave of immigration free up the planning system so people can live decently and affordably in southern England? Or will the government inspired rabbit hutches continue to proliferate, for those that can afford them, and we come to live in ever closer proximity to each other as more spacious houses are demolished to accommodate increasingly cramped ones, and traditional gardens disappear?
Oh, and by the way, when did the English ever ask for so many new neighbours?
The growth results from greatly increased immigration - net migration into the UK last year was 223,000, against 50,000 a year in 1997. The new forecasts are greater than Migrationwatch has put out, when it has been called 'alarmist'.
So will those who have been encouraging this massive wave of immigration free up the planning system so people can live decently and affordably in southern England? Or will the government inspired rabbit hutches continue to proliferate, for those that can afford them, and we come to live in ever closer proximity to each other as more spacious houses are demolished to accommodate increasingly cramped ones, and traditional gardens disappear?
Oh, and by the way, when did the English ever ask for so many new neighbours?
October 14, 2005
Has it ever been alive, European Democracy?
The EU cannot undo its lack of democracy by setting up national debates with students, young people, politicians, trades unions, academics and business groups as reported by the Telegraph. The problem is there is no EU demos - people's political activity, awareness, and allegiance is at the level of individual nation states. Democracy exists only within the nation state, not the EU, its antithesis.
Margot Wallstrom, the European Commission's vice-president for communication asks, "Has it ever been alive, European democracy?"
She should know when she says, "This [the EU] has been a project for a small elite, a political elite ..."
If the EU were a democracy there would not be a series of European Commission inspired 'debates' with a few groups, but elections where the electorate were regularly offered the power of decision at EU level. Yet not only are there no such elections, and the EU is ruled by an unaccountable, unelected, self-perpetuating elite, but EU political supremacy is not even wanted: in Britain at least, people want their nation state to continue and do not want to be subject to foreign control.
Parliament, wake up!
Margot Wallstrom, the European Commission's vice-president for communication asks, "Has it ever been alive, European democracy?"
She should know when she says, "This [the EU] has been a project for a small elite, a political elite ..."
If the EU were a democracy there would not be a series of European Commission inspired 'debates' with a few groups, but elections where the electorate were regularly offered the power of decision at EU level. Yet not only are there no such elections, and the EU is ruled by an unaccountable, unelected, self-perpetuating elite, but EU political supremacy is not even wanted: in Britain at least, people want their nation state to continue and do not want to be subject to foreign control.
Parliament, wake up!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
