There are many obituaries of a much-loved actor to be found around the Web, but my first reaction to the news that he had died of complications resulting from heart surgery was that he needn't have gone so soon. The strain on his heart, and other afflictions through his life, must have resulted from his obesity which in turn was caused by an unnecessary medical procedure.
As Timothy Noah recounts:
his obesity came about as a result of an ill-considered radiation treatment when he was 8 years old—for being too skinny, of all things
And there is an IT connection.
Friday, 29 March 2013
Thursday, 28 March 2013
Basil d'Oliveira
I've just finished reading Peter Oborne's powerful biography of the great South African-born cricketer who went on to represent England. The climax of the book is the furore over d'Oliveira's selection for the MCC 1968/9 tour of South Africa, but it is particularly good on d'Oliveira's early life and career. The author rather loses interest in his subject after the latter's retirement from playing and I don't think Oborne gives enough space to those South African test players, like Dr Aaron (Ali) Bacher, who worked to undermine the separatist ethos of their homeland. However, these are minor quibbles, especially as the d'Oliveira affair is increasingly seen as a turning-point in the history of South Africa.
Oborne is scrupulous in quoting at length the evidence linking the white supremacist president of South Africa to the official South African Cricket Association and the collusion between the latter and key administrators in the MCC. The citations are almost too frequent, but clearly he felt it essential that there should be no doubt about the history of the cancelled tour as he tells it. Briefly, d'Oliveira had seemed to cement his place in the party with a score of 158 in the Oval test match against Australia. There was widespread dismay in Britain and jubilation in South African government circles when he was omitted. However, a vacancy arose when Tom Cartwright failed a fitness test and was replaced by d'Oliveira. South Africa declared that a MCC party including "a certain gentleman of colour" was unacceptable and MCC called the tour off.
Cartwright, who became an influential bowling coach for Glamorgan and Welsh schools and lived in Caewern, Neath until his death in 2010, never spoke about the deterioration of his shoulder injury which caused him to pull out of the tour, allowing d'Oliveira to take his place. John Arlott (who had eased the way for d'Oliveira into Lancashire club cricket, which gave him his start over here) once recounted the sympathy that county professionals in general had for the anti-apartheid movement, unlike the dinosaurs at Lord's, and one assumes that Cartwright's heart was not in a tour which excluded d'Oliveira.
Oborne's thoroughness extends to the statistics of d'Oliveira's career, both in England and in South Africa. His performances on native soil are remarkable. The figures underline the impression that we did not see him at the peak of his abilities and that apartheid held him back. More interesting, and significant for the person that he was to become, is Oborne's description of d'Oliveira's upbringing and his youthful surroundings.
Twenty-five pages cover the post-1968 career of Basil d'Oliveira and of that Oborne concentrates on the trips home, culminating in the rapprochement with post-apartheid South Africa. The final chapter ends with the new president inviting d'Oliveira to lunch.
The two old men talked over many things. At the end Mandela rose from his chair and hugged D'Oliveira. 'Thanks for coming, Basil,' he said. 'You must go home now. You've done your bit. Tell your family to look after you. They must look after you now.'
The news from South Africa today about Mandela's health lends poignancy to that closing paragraph. D'Oliveira himself died in 2011.
Oborne is scrupulous in quoting at length the evidence linking the white supremacist president of South Africa to the official South African Cricket Association and the collusion between the latter and key administrators in the MCC. The citations are almost too frequent, but clearly he felt it essential that there should be no doubt about the history of the cancelled tour as he tells it. Briefly, d'Oliveira had seemed to cement his place in the party with a score of 158 in the Oval test match against Australia. There was widespread dismay in Britain and jubilation in South African government circles when he was omitted. However, a vacancy arose when Tom Cartwright failed a fitness test and was replaced by d'Oliveira. South Africa declared that a MCC party including "a certain gentleman of colour" was unacceptable and MCC called the tour off.
Cartwright, who became an influential bowling coach for Glamorgan and Welsh schools and lived in Caewern, Neath until his death in 2010, never spoke about the deterioration of his shoulder injury which caused him to pull out of the tour, allowing d'Oliveira to take his place. John Arlott (who had eased the way for d'Oliveira into Lancashire club cricket, which gave him his start over here) once recounted the sympathy that county professionals in general had for the anti-apartheid movement, unlike the dinosaurs at Lord's, and one assumes that Cartwright's heart was not in a tour which excluded d'Oliveira.
Oborne's thoroughness extends to the statistics of d'Oliveira's career, both in England and in South Africa. His performances on native soil are remarkable. The figures underline the impression that we did not see him at the peak of his abilities and that apartheid held him back. More interesting, and significant for the person that he was to become, is Oborne's description of d'Oliveira's upbringing and his youthful surroundings.
Twenty-five pages cover the post-1968 career of Basil d'Oliveira and of that Oborne concentrates on the trips home, culminating in the rapprochement with post-apartheid South Africa. The final chapter ends with the new president inviting d'Oliveira to lunch.
The two old men talked over many things. At the end Mandela rose from his chair and hugged D'Oliveira. 'Thanks for coming, Basil,' he said. 'You must go home now. You've done your bit. Tell your family to look after you. They must look after you now.'
The news from South Africa today about Mandela's health lends poignancy to that closing paragraph. D'Oliveira himself died in 2011.
Wednesday, 27 March 2013
Sunday, 24 March 2013
Immigration again
No apologies for returning to this subject, because there has been a long and thoughtful post about Nick Clegg's speech on the Liberator blog.
Here is the 2007 motion moved by Nick that Simon Titley refers to:
Conference believes that:
i) Migration is a worldwide phenomenon that has always been part of human history, and immigration to Britain has been of enormous benefit to the economy and to society.
ii) The benefits of a liberal immigration policy can only be secured if the effort is made to plan for the impact and consequences of that policy.
iii) A practical liberal approach to immigration should therefore focus on:
a) Creating a system that works: efficient, fair and effective.
b) Planning for the effects of managed inward migration.
c) Promoting integration as well as immigration.
iv) Asylum policy is based on UK obligations under international conventions, and should be considered separately from policy on immigration.
Conference notes:
A) The dramatic increase in global migration over the last 20 years, with 191 million people now living in a country other than the one in which they were born.
B) That 7.5% of the British population were born abroad, and that net immigration has been rising since the mid-1990s to reach 185,000 in 2005, the equivalent of 500 more people a day.
C) That over 600,000 workers from the European Union accession states have travelled to the UK for work, and many have stayed.
D) That 5.5 million British nationals live overseas permanently, equivalent to 9.2 per cent of the UK’s population.
E) That 32.3 million overseas visitors came to Britain in the year to April 2007, twice as many as 20 years ago, and that there are around 300,000 international students at UK institutions who contribute around £3.6bn to the economy.
F) The population of illegal workers is growing across the EU, creating a new underclass of people who lack any employment rights, citizen rights, or access to public or mainstream private services including healthcare and banking – the Home Office estimates there are between 310,000 and 570,000 irregular migrants in the UK.
G) The establishment of the Border and Immigration Agency, and the signing by the UK of the Council of Europe convention on human trafficking after Liberal Democrat pressure.
Conference calls for:
1. A National Border Force, bringing together the present border control functions of HM Revenue & Customs, the Immigration & Nationality Directorate and police guarding ports and airports.
2. The reintroduction of exit checks at all ports.
3. The Government to work closely with the European Union on immigration, especially in tackling people-trafficking and immigration crime, and shared asylum policy.
4. The Foreign Office to prioritise the improvement of visa services at UK consulates around the world, introduce a full complaints procedure and review the restrictions on rights of appeal for visa nationals.
5. The development of an earned route to citizenship, beginning with a two-year work permit, for irregular migrants who have been in the UK for 10 years, subject to:
a) A public interest test.
b) A long-term commitment to the UK.
c) A clean criminal record.
d) The payment of a charge, waived for those who have completed a set number of hours of service in the community or volunteering.
e) An English language and civics test, or proof that the applicant is undergoing a course of education in these subjects.
6. A full review of social housing allocations policies to establish best practice, so that those who have waited a long time for a home or home transfer are treated fairly, and a major programme of building social housing to tackle housing shortages for all those in need.
7. Increased fees to businesses for work permits, charged as a percentage of starting salary for those receiving the permit, with additional revenue used to fund skills training for the domestic workforce in shortage areas.
8. Extension of language lessons especially for asylum seekers, refugees and recent migrants, with out-reach programmes in some communities to identify those who would benefit.
9. Reform of the Life in the UK test to empower new arrivals to engage fully in society at every level, with a less detailed version of the test for those applying for long-term visas, and for Indefinite Leave to Remain, and ‘welcome packs’ with information about life, and culture, in the UK, for all long-stay arrivals.
10. Twinning arrangements between schools with different ethnic or social mixes of pupils, so children can mix across ethnic and religious boundaries in some classes.
11. Full ratification of the Council of Europe convention on people trafficking.
12. Transfer of responsibility for migration statistics to the Office for National Statistics, which will itself be reformed under current legislation to make it more independent of government.
Only a part of this has been implemented, either in the last few years of Labour or under the coalition. We have the UK Border Agency, but it is under-staffed and seems to lack the expertise necessary to cope with a wide range of nationals. The result is that people determined to exploit the UK get away with it and genuine cases are caused grief. We still do not have exit checks, or the other reforms listed in the motion which would mitigate what must already be the toughest and most arbitrary immigration laws in western Europe.
Here is the 2007 motion moved by Nick that Simon Titley refers to:
Conference believes that:
i) Migration is a worldwide phenomenon that has always been part of human history, and immigration to Britain has been of enormous benefit to the economy and to society.
ii) The benefits of a liberal immigration policy can only be secured if the effort is made to plan for the impact and consequences of that policy.
iii) A practical liberal approach to immigration should therefore focus on:
a) Creating a system that works: efficient, fair and effective.
b) Planning for the effects of managed inward migration.
c) Promoting integration as well as immigration.
iv) Asylum policy is based on UK obligations under international conventions, and should be considered separately from policy on immigration.
Conference notes:
A) The dramatic increase in global migration over the last 20 years, with 191 million people now living in a country other than the one in which they were born.
B) That 7.5% of the British population were born abroad, and that net immigration has been rising since the mid-1990s to reach 185,000 in 2005, the equivalent of 500 more people a day.
C) That over 600,000 workers from the European Union accession states have travelled to the UK for work, and many have stayed.
D) That 5.5 million British nationals live overseas permanently, equivalent to 9.2 per cent of the UK’s population.
E) That 32.3 million overseas visitors came to Britain in the year to April 2007, twice as many as 20 years ago, and that there are around 300,000 international students at UK institutions who contribute around £3.6bn to the economy.
F) The population of illegal workers is growing across the EU, creating a new underclass of people who lack any employment rights, citizen rights, or access to public or mainstream private services including healthcare and banking – the Home Office estimates there are between 310,000 and 570,000 irregular migrants in the UK.
G) The establishment of the Border and Immigration Agency, and the signing by the UK of the Council of Europe convention on human trafficking after Liberal Democrat pressure.
Conference calls for:
1. A National Border Force, bringing together the present border control functions of HM Revenue & Customs, the Immigration & Nationality Directorate and police guarding ports and airports.
2. The reintroduction of exit checks at all ports.
3. The Government to work closely with the European Union on immigration, especially in tackling people-trafficking and immigration crime, and shared asylum policy.
4. The Foreign Office to prioritise the improvement of visa services at UK consulates around the world, introduce a full complaints procedure and review the restrictions on rights of appeal for visa nationals.
5. The development of an earned route to citizenship, beginning with a two-year work permit, for irregular migrants who have been in the UK for 10 years, subject to:
a) A public interest test.
b) A long-term commitment to the UK.
c) A clean criminal record.
d) The payment of a charge, waived for those who have completed a set number of hours of service in the community or volunteering.
e) An English language and civics test, or proof that the applicant is undergoing a course of education in these subjects.
6. A full review of social housing allocations policies to establish best practice, so that those who have waited a long time for a home or home transfer are treated fairly, and a major programme of building social housing to tackle housing shortages for all those in need.
7. Increased fees to businesses for work permits, charged as a percentage of starting salary for those receiving the permit, with additional revenue used to fund skills training for the domestic workforce in shortage areas.
8. Extension of language lessons especially for asylum seekers, refugees and recent migrants, with out-reach programmes in some communities to identify those who would benefit.
9. Reform of the Life in the UK test to empower new arrivals to engage fully in society at every level, with a less detailed version of the test for those applying for long-term visas, and for Indefinite Leave to Remain, and ‘welcome packs’ with information about life, and culture, in the UK, for all long-stay arrivals.
10. Twinning arrangements between schools with different ethnic or social mixes of pupils, so children can mix across ethnic and religious boundaries in some classes.
11. Full ratification of the Council of Europe convention on people trafficking.
12. Transfer of responsibility for migration statistics to the Office for National Statistics, which will itself be reformed under current legislation to make it more independent of government.
Only a part of this has been implemented, either in the last few years of Labour or under the coalition. We have the UK Border Agency, but it is under-staffed and seems to lack the expertise necessary to cope with a wide range of nationals. The result is that people determined to exploit the UK get away with it and genuine cases are caused grief. We still do not have exit checks, or the other reforms listed in the motion which would mitigate what must already be the toughest and most arbitrary immigration laws in western Europe.
Friday, 22 March 2013
Vaz accuses Clegg of race to the bottom
I was all prepared to polish my off-centre analysis of the budget when I was hit by this news item: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/386032/Immigrant-amnesty-plans-scrapped which obviously takes precedence. It is worrying when the leader of the Liberal Democrats is praised by the Express over immigration. The reaction of Keith Vaz (Labour chair of the home affairs select committee) was to warn against an arms race over immigration. It is seriously worrying when a senior Labour figure implies a racist motive on the part of a senior LibDem.
The proposal for a £1,000 visa deposit can only be a "dog-whistle" appeal to racist voters, because it would be ineffective. It will not deter economic migrants, who will either be able to save that amount over the period for which the visa is valid. Moreover, it will deter genuine visitors, such as relatives on a possibly once-in-a-lifetime attendance at a christening, wedding or funeral.
In Nick's favour, it should be said that this is a coalition policy, not an attempt to make LibDem policy on the hoof. But one wonders why he was made the front man for it. Is it the price paid for bringing forward the rise to £10,000 in the personal allowance?
Caron Lindsay has more.
The proposal for a £1,000 visa deposit can only be a "dog-whistle" appeal to racist voters, because it would be ineffective. It will not deter economic migrants, who will either be able to save that amount over the period for which the visa is valid. Moreover, it will deter genuine visitors, such as relatives on a possibly once-in-a-lifetime attendance at a christening, wedding or funeral.
In Nick's favour, it should be said that this is a coalition policy, not an attempt to make LibDem policy on the hoof. But one wonders why he was made the front man for it. Is it the price paid for bringing forward the rise to £10,000 in the personal allowance?
Caron Lindsay has more.
Thursday, 21 March 2013
Belated comments on legal legs
Under the proposed Royal Charter (22 page pdf) on press regulation, I and countless other bloggers are "relevant publishers", being:
a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a
newspaper or magazine)
It seems that if I had not joined a regulator approved under the Charter I would be liable to exemplary damages* if I transgressed the regulator's code of conduct. Since the cost of joining could be in excess of £400,000 (an estimate by a Fleet Street editor, based on membership of the current Press Complaints Council), I shall take my chance and remain outside, bearing in mind that I haven't been sued under the current régime and do not intend to defame anybody in the future.
Anyway, for what they're worth, here are my comments on some the views expressed in the Commons emergency debate following the late-night discussions on Leveson last Monday.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con): Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me—and, I think, with most people in the House—that the terrible practice of phone hacking is already a criminal offence, and that no further legislation is needed, not even a tiny bit, to deal with the problem?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Lord Justice Leveson looked at this matter extensively and said that, in addition to taking action when the criminal law had been broken, further reassurance was needed to ensure that innocent people had recourse to justice when they were being intimidated or bullied in an unjustified way.
This is the point. Although it was the hacking of Millie Dowler's mobile phone which probably tipped the scales in favour of a public inquiry, the major benefit of Leveson is that ordinary people who cannot afford to take civil action** and who have been traduced by the press will at last be guaranteed some redress. One thinks of Chris Jefferies or Colin Stagg, both convicted of murder in the eyes of the press, though both were completely innocent, or of Carmen Proetta, whose reputation was trashed by the Murdoch press because her testimony contradicted the Thatcher government's line on an extra-judicial execution in Gibraltar. (One assumes that as the citizen of a British territory, Mrs Proetta would have been covered by the proposed Charter, but perhaps this needs spelling out.) As Sir Roger Gale said later in the debate:
It was when my right hon. Friend Lord Wakeham was chairman of the Press Complaints Commission that I first raised with him my concerns about the manner in which only the super-rich could obtain redress through libel action, while ordinary people nursing ordinary grievances had nowhere to run to, because at that time the PCC was the creature of the press. It was paid for by the press, it was run by the press and it was self-serving. It was a sadness that even the black arts of my right hon. Friend, learnt in the Whips Office over many years, failed to address the machinations of newspaper proprietors and newspaper editors.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD): Is not the prize here the fact that a free press will still be able to expose wrongdoing, but not at the expense of trashing people’s lives?
Simon Hughes: That is a very good summary.
Nothing in the charter nor the amendments agreed to on Monday allow the government to dictate to or to censor the press.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): Some years ago, my profession, the legal profession, went through a similar process, and we now have an overarching body, the Legal Services Board, which recognises independent regulation. There was a worry that that would interfere with the independence of the Bar and solicitors, but the truth is that solicitors and barristers go about their daily work without having to look over their shoulder at a recognising body. In fact, that body is enshrined in statute and has a wider remit that anything I have read about in this royal charter. For those reasons, we can confidently support the agreement that has been reached between all parties in this House and look forward to a time when the victims of wrongdoing will receive a fairer deal.
Indeed. Why should the press be the only profession in Britain not to have a code of conduct underpinned by law?
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): We have to read up to schedule 4 of the charter before it sets out to whom it applies. It states that a “‘relevant publisher’ means a person…who publishes in the United Kingdom…a newspaper or magazine…or…a website containing news-related material”. That is why it is so unrealistic, because websites can be set up anywhere in the world.
This is rather like arguing that because guns and pharmaceuticals can be bought over the Internet, it is not realistic to regulate their sale over the counter in this country. [Mark Steel mode off] In practice, the print media with their associated web sites should benefit from the standing that membership of a chartered regulator will give them. An unregulated blog, whether hosted in the UK or abroad, has as much credibility as the Sunday Sport.
Dr Wollaston: There is a risk that we will abandon the printed press for the online news media, and what will happen then to our particularly vulnerable regional and local press? Who will be there to report from the courts?
Dr Wollaston is fortunate if her local paper gives comprehensive court reports these days. Another MP has suggested that the political independence of the local press would be compromised by the proposed Charter, to which I would reply that unless he is in one of those increasingly rare areas which is served by more than one journal, his local paper is already compromised by being owned by a conglomerate which has an overt allegiance to either the Conservative or the Labour Party.
Another view which is often expressed is that newspapers exist to hold government and powerful people to account. Not so; newspapers are commercial entities, vehicles for the sale of news, entertainment and opinion. Even the owners of loss-making newspapers carry on in the hope that they will make money. We are fortunate that there are journalists who see their duty as reporting all the news, including that which others try to suppress, but (sadly) the Great British Press could survive without them.
The Charter, and the clauses which permit the levying of damages, will not cure two of the evils which Leveson exposed, namely the unhealthy relationship between media proprietors, leading politicians and the police, and the reluctance of the authorities to prosecute when newspapers are involved. But they will go a long way to protect ordinary members of the public and there is just a hint that Parliament will look into the question of media ownership.
*An honourable member pointed out in Monday's debate that the concept of exemplary damages does not exist in Scotland, so the government has a problem to solve in respect of publishers north of the Border.
**Legal aid is not available for actions for slander or libel
a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a
newspaper or magazine)
It seems that if I had not joined a regulator approved under the Charter I would be liable to exemplary damages* if I transgressed the regulator's code of conduct. Since the cost of joining could be in excess of £400,000 (an estimate by a Fleet Street editor, based on membership of the current Press Complaints Council), I shall take my chance and remain outside, bearing in mind that I haven't been sued under the current régime and do not intend to defame anybody in the future.
Anyway, for what they're worth, here are my comments on some the views expressed in the Commons emergency debate following the late-night discussions on Leveson last Monday.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con): Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me—and, I think, with most people in the House—that the terrible practice of phone hacking is already a criminal offence, and that no further legislation is needed, not even a tiny bit, to deal with the problem?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Lord Justice Leveson looked at this matter extensively and said that, in addition to taking action when the criminal law had been broken, further reassurance was needed to ensure that innocent people had recourse to justice when they were being intimidated or bullied in an unjustified way.
This is the point. Although it was the hacking of Millie Dowler's mobile phone which probably tipped the scales in favour of a public inquiry, the major benefit of Leveson is that ordinary people who cannot afford to take civil action** and who have been traduced by the press will at last be guaranteed some redress. One thinks of Chris Jefferies or Colin Stagg, both convicted of murder in the eyes of the press, though both were completely innocent, or of Carmen Proetta, whose reputation was trashed by the Murdoch press because her testimony contradicted the Thatcher government's line on an extra-judicial execution in Gibraltar. (One assumes that as the citizen of a British territory, Mrs Proetta would have been covered by the proposed Charter, but perhaps this needs spelling out.) As Sir Roger Gale said later in the debate:
It was when my right hon. Friend Lord Wakeham was chairman of the Press Complaints Commission that I first raised with him my concerns about the manner in which only the super-rich could obtain redress through libel action, while ordinary people nursing ordinary grievances had nowhere to run to, because at that time the PCC was the creature of the press. It was paid for by the press, it was run by the press and it was self-serving. It was a sadness that even the black arts of my right hon. Friend, learnt in the Whips Office over many years, failed to address the machinations of newspaper proprietors and newspaper editors.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD): Is not the prize here the fact that a free press will still be able to expose wrongdoing, but not at the expense of trashing people’s lives?
Simon Hughes: That is a very good summary.
Nothing in the charter nor the amendments agreed to on Monday allow the government to dictate to or to censor the press.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): Some years ago, my profession, the legal profession, went through a similar process, and we now have an overarching body, the Legal Services Board, which recognises independent regulation. There was a worry that that would interfere with the independence of the Bar and solicitors, but the truth is that solicitors and barristers go about their daily work without having to look over their shoulder at a recognising body. In fact, that body is enshrined in statute and has a wider remit that anything I have read about in this royal charter. For those reasons, we can confidently support the agreement that has been reached between all parties in this House and look forward to a time when the victims of wrongdoing will receive a fairer deal.
Indeed. Why should the press be the only profession in Britain not to have a code of conduct underpinned by law?
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): We have to read up to schedule 4 of the charter before it sets out to whom it applies. It states that a “‘relevant publisher’ means a person…who publishes in the United Kingdom…a newspaper or magazine…or…a website containing news-related material”. That is why it is so unrealistic, because websites can be set up anywhere in the world.
This is rather like arguing that because guns and pharmaceuticals can be bought over the Internet, it is not realistic to regulate their sale over the counter in this country. [Mark Steel mode off] In practice, the print media with their associated web sites should benefit from the standing that membership of a chartered regulator will give them. An unregulated blog, whether hosted in the UK or abroad, has as much credibility as the Sunday Sport.
Dr Wollaston: There is a risk that we will abandon the printed press for the online news media, and what will happen then to our particularly vulnerable regional and local press? Who will be there to report from the courts?
Dr Wollaston is fortunate if her local paper gives comprehensive court reports these days. Another MP has suggested that the political independence of the local press would be compromised by the proposed Charter, to which I would reply that unless he is in one of those increasingly rare areas which is served by more than one journal, his local paper is already compromised by being owned by a conglomerate which has an overt allegiance to either the Conservative or the Labour Party.
Another view which is often expressed is that newspapers exist to hold government and powerful people to account. Not so; newspapers are commercial entities, vehicles for the sale of news, entertainment and opinion. Even the owners of loss-making newspapers carry on in the hope that they will make money. We are fortunate that there are journalists who see their duty as reporting all the news, including that which others try to suppress, but (sadly) the Great British Press could survive without them.
The Charter, and the clauses which permit the levying of damages, will not cure two of the evils which Leveson exposed, namely the unhealthy relationship between media proprietors, leading politicians and the police, and the reluctance of the authorities to prosecute when newspapers are involved. But they will go a long way to protect ordinary members of the public and there is just a hint that Parliament will look into the question of media ownership.
*An honourable member pointed out in Monday's debate that the concept of exemplary damages does not exist in Scotland, so the government has a problem to solve in respect of publishers north of the Border.
**Legal aid is not available for actions for slander or libel
Wednesday, 20 March 2013
ALDC entering the mainstream
After many years, the office of the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors (ALDC, formerly ALC) is moving from Hebden Bridge in Yorkshire. It's an area I associate with non-conformity and imaginative local ventures. Indeed, the community spirit is very strong as that web-site shows.
Now the ALDC HQ is to be in Manchester, a city with a great Liberal tradition. It may not have completely abandoned its roots in community politics by moving to London, but ALDC is now much closer to the new home of the BBC. Expect more frequent telly appearances by Tim Pickstone after May this year.
Now the ALDC HQ is to be in Manchester, a city with a great Liberal tradition. It may not have completely abandoned its roots in community politics by moving to London, but ALDC is now much closer to the new home of the BBC. Expect more frequent telly appearances by Tim Pickstone after May this year.
Monday, 18 March 2013
The Lady Vanishes
This was not a remake of the Hitchcock film, but a return to the source material, as this feature about last night's dramatisation makes clear.The production looked expensive - co-production money must have helped - but what impressed me more was what the writer and director left out. There were no gratuitous sex scenes and, apart from a distant view of what might have been field-grey uniforms, there were no heavy-handed scenes of goose-stepping Nazis or Jewish discrimination, These have been de rigueur in virtually all modern TV plays set in the inter-war period, even when irrelevant to the story. It was also interesting that the heroine, a Paris Hilton of her time, was granted no redeeming features by the script until given a purpose in life by the quest to find the vanishing lady.
Oh, and it was gripping, too.
Oh, and it was gripping, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)