NOTW to close: 200 innocents pay whilst guilty keep their jobs

So, in a move to deflect growing anger of the News of the Wor;ld phone hacking scandal, 200 innocent journalists are to lose their jobs whilst Rebekah Brooks can keep hers, as the News of the World will publish it's last edition this Sunday. You can read James Murdoch's statement here. The BBC has this.

This is disgusting. What's more it looks like Murdoch will be starting a paper called the Sun on Sunday, possibly as soon as the following week. In fact the domain names for thesundaysun.com and thesundaysun.co.uk have already been registered. In fact there seems to have been a plan to make the Sun a 7 day week operation (See The Guardian here).

What will be interesting to see if there are claims for unfair dismissal.

So, if the editor and staff of the News of the World want to start a new paper put me down for £100 in share capital. If I can spare more I will.

Should there be a public inquiry over phone hacking?

No. That would cost the taxpayer millions.

What taxpayers should do is just boycott the tabloids, and anyone who advertises with them.

It would be much quicker, more effective and very very cheap.

So ... boycott News International and the tabloid press. Job done.

I also have this on the original story, and this on how the News of the World got Milly Dowler's mobile number.

Milly Dowler: Boycott News International!

I have a very very low opinion of journalists, from the fantasist (Robert Fisk) to the great fictional writers (Johann Hari), the faux I hate the privileged, but privately educated immensely privileged and overpaid staff at the Guardian, the venal distasteful tabloid journalists and not forgetting the editors on all media who decide what sells papers and frequently decide what the news is and fit the facts to the story not decide what the story is based on the facts.

I was not prepared to have such a low opinion and low expectations lowered still let alone by the degree and manner of the Milly Dowler phone hacking story (Lest we not forget, reported to us by the over privileged, over paid Champagne socialists at the tax dodging Guardian media group).

Lets get this straight. They hacked a 13 year old girls mobile phone message service. Just how low can you go? They deleted messages when the mailbox was full, possibly interfering with a police investigation, in order to get fresh copy to sell more newspapers. This action caused the family to have hope where there was none, and may well have diverted the police investigation.

This is behaviour more disgusting than even I could have imagined. Not surprisingly none of the tabloids mention this on their front pages, because one suspects they would have done the same, if that is, they did not try.

So I call for a boycott of all News international outlets, especially the newspapers, The Sun, The News of the World and the Times (and the Times on Sunday) and if possible Sky News.

I would also ask people not to buy any tabloid. They have kept silent on the phone hacking story, I suspect because of a guilty conscience.

Are the BBC this technically illiterate?

Note the above picture in a question for GCSE technology on the BBC website. (Click to zoom in)

The part is correctly identified as an inverter although it could also be called a not gate. The text below says:

It's an inverter, which is an electrical device that converts direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC).

Oh dear. It is not that sort of inverter. Did someone technically illiterate at the BBC google it, or did someone setting the syllabus do that and the BBC not notice? Either way it amazes me just how ignorant journalists are.

Update 22:15

The BBC have updated the question to just say this:

CORRECT! It's an inverter.

Oh dear. You thought they could have looked up what sort of inverter that is!

Kevin Keegan not resigned or sacked shocker!

The whole world of journalism was thrown into turmoil last night after it emerged that Kevin Keegan had not been sacked and had not resigned.

Several journalists who had banked on a good lunch by making something out of nothing were completely dumbfounded.

One journalist who did not wish to be made said:

I don't know what's going on! We spend years talking to people, then take one unguarded comment completely out of context, misquote it, make a story and ruin someones life, sells lots of news papers and so on, but this time, it seems not to have worked. I am shocked!

Another older and wiser journalist intervened saying:

Yes, but if we keep this rubbish up long enough, and tell each side lies about each other, you never know what might happen. There are legs on this story yet.

So there we are then. A story journalists have made.... or what?

The BBC has this.

PS sorry for not posting for a while.

Max Mosley wins, but fails to get punitive damages.

Max Mosley has won his High Court case against the News of the World, being awarded £60,000 in damages. Alas he has failed to get punitive or exemplary damages which is a shame.

The reason why I say it is a shame is that large media organisations can make money out of trashing peoples reputations even where they get sued for libel and lose.

Take Robert Murat. His name was resoundingly trashed with no shred of evidence whatsoever. The papers who did that settled out of court for £50,000 each plus costs, presumably similar in number. Does anyone seriously think they did not make much more than that trashing his reputation?

The BBC has this and there is a copy of the judgement here, whilst the BBC has this on Robert Murat.

Max Mosley's Hanky Spanky, and Punitive damages.

The News of The World likes a bit of sex, doubly so if there is spanking and trebly so if they can call it a sick and deprived Nazi sex orgy. It sells papers after all and the bottom line profit is what it is all about.

They got a lead on a "dirty old man" who liked to pay for kinky sex. Lets face it, on the face of what is admitted it was fairly kinky.

The News of the World contends that this was a sock and depraved act. The Editor claimed he would not have gone to press with the story had it not involved Nazi role play. (Does anyone including him believe that?)

The problem for the News of the World is that all those involved bar their "whistle blower" have said it was not, and the video seems to be inconclusive at best. Then of course their witness E failed to testify due to emotional issues. I have no doubt this was not due to intimidation on Max Mosley's part, so you have to wonder what she was so concerned about?

It is an interesting case. Max is upset according to the BBC, because:

Mr Mosley has told the court previously that the publicity has been "totally devastating" for his wife of 48 years, and he could think of "nothing more undignified or humiliating" for his two sons to experience.

Well that is a fair reason to be upset but you can't help but feeling that he could have avoided upsetting his wife by being faithful.



So what of privacy which is at the heart of the issue? Does Max Mosley have the right to do what he likes in his private life? Well having affairs is not illegal, nor is using prostitutes nor in fact sadomasochism. We may feel that cheating on his wife is wrong, but enjoying kinky sex you would not want to tell your kids about, well, I mean would you want to tell your kids and all their friends?

It seems to me that the News of the World have be in trouble having linked the publication to a Nazi fantasy after all Sir Oswald Mosley was a famous fascist, and would not have published otherwise, thus accepting the fact that Max cheated on his wife as not worthy of publication.

However there is one final interesting bit to this case, that of exemplary and punitive damages which are being asked for. In this BBC article they are described as "unprecedented" which is, of course precisely untrue, but then again what can you expect of journalists?

Punitive damages are available to English courts and perhaps always have been. It is just that lawyers seldom have the balls to ask for them nor do they present evidence that would justify them.

There is a clear precedent in English law as well as the common law of the United States of America. In English law there is the case of Rookes v. Barnard [1964] AC 1129, 1167 in which Lord Devlin said that punitive damages were available where:

1. Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the servants of government.
2. Where the defendant's conduct was 'calculated' to make a profit for himself.
3. Where a statute expressly authorises the same.
   

Clearly the News of the Worlds actions would fall into the second category. There are too many instances where a party can get away with making a profit from committing a wrong because they know they will either get away with it, or that the costs of being called to account will be less than the profit of committing the wrong or more usually a combination of the two.

For that reason and that reason alone, I hope that cheating git Max Mosley wins his case and wins it well.

For a further discussion on gains based damages I recommend James Edelman's book, Gain-Based Damages published by Hart Publishing.

More Ignorance from the MSM!

This time in the Mail on Sunday.

In an article about Gordon Ramsey's restaurant in New York, largely complaining of the smell is this priceless piece of sheer utter incompetent ignorance that litters the mass media:

The racket it makes has been measured at 57 decibels, they say - above the limit for local events such as rock concerts.

To give you an idea 60 decibels is what you get from you average TV, if you are 1M from it, wheres living 10M from a major road gives you 80-90.

A rock concert is some 110-120 decibels. Please note that decibels are logarithmic so 20 decibels is twice as loud as 10, 30 is twice as load as 20, not that you could hear either.

If my neighbors were as loud as that I would be happy. Clearly there is some big error in checking the story. Either the people complaining are making a fuss about nothing or the noise levels are incorrect or incomplete.

Conservative Peer in "BNP" row?

According to the Libdemograph Independent on Sunday Lady Sayeeda Warsi has plunged the Conservative party into some row about race, immigration and the BNP by suggesting that some BNP voters may have some views worth listening too.

God forbid that politicians should pay any attention to the electorate surely?

It is clear that there are problems with the current scale of immigration. Only the die hard ideologues of the liberal free movement brigade or the hard left see it any other way. Anyone with any sort of practical sense knows that the current level of immigration is causing problems.

The rag (for it is no newspaper) also tries to present the restatement of Conservative position on immigration as some sort of "lurch to the right". It isn't, the policy on immigration is unchanged.

They will be accusing us of having a policy of "British jobs for British workers" next, which would be a lurch to the far right. That is however not a policy of either the Conservative party or the BNP.

The conclusion?

Marie Woolf and Brian Brady are either too ignorant, politically biased or more likely both to write anything of use to anyone.

Hat tip to Rod Crosby on politicalbetting.com for the link.