Look behind you, Mr. Kavanagh!

Isn't that the @GuidoFawkes blog?

This morning's edition of The Sun carries the latest volley in its unremitting personal onslaught against Lord Justice Leveson as well as the ongoing process of negotiation towards a workable system of press regulation.

Trevor Kavanagh's piece follows hot on the heels of one written in a similar vein in the Mail on Sunday this weekend.

Mr. Kavanagh, in a typically hyperbolic and disingenuous tone, begins:

Do these 'close pals' actually exist? Would they really confide in the editor of a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, the man partly responsible (allegedly) for the need for the Leveson Inquiry in the first place?

The article goes on to repeat several instances (thrice denied by Lord Justice Leveson himself) of perceived impropriety and incompetence which have been used by various newspapers recently to disparage Lord Justice Leveson, his report and the credibility of the Inquiry as a whole. 

But I have a warning for Mr. Kavanagh and the other editors and owners of the press who are trying to manipulate politicians, as well as their readers, into accepting the status quo of press regulation:-

A cartoon by Gerald Scarfe

To continue your panto theme: it was owners, editors and journalists who rubbed the lamp and allowed the genie to escape.

No amount of fruitless, Widow Twankey-like huffing and puffing will stuff it back from whence it came! It's out for good.....

Mr. Kavanagh's bovvered...again!

 
The Sun today carries the latest in a series of grenades lobbed by its political columnist Trevor Kavanagh.

Kavanagh begins by explaining the apology given by someone on Twitter who had accused the Sun of falsifying a photo taken at the funeral of Margaret Thatcher. Kavanagh then writes:

It reflects an incessantly watchful Twitter world of grievance-seeking vigilantes eager to take offence. But there are signs that it is now seeping into mainstream British culture, especially those with something to hide.

There then follows a short list of examples Mr. Kavanagh uses to illustrate his point, interspersed with such comments as:

At other times these incidents might be shrugged off as amusing examples of human error. But they point to an increasingly suspicious and judgmental atmosphere (#nb - my emphasis) in which people with no axe to grind are encouraged to take offence on other people’s behalf.

The public? 'Suspicious and judgemental'? Surely not! That's the Sun's and Mr. Kavanagh's job! 
Then:

You might think this information was in the public interest. No, they risk prison for misconduct in a public office in two cases and “perverting the course of justice” in one.
This is the Leveson Effect. It has begun to suffocate the crucial flow of information that distinguishes a free country from a police state.

Which came first, Mr. Kavanagh, the questioning, arrest and sometimes charging of News International journalists for 'perverting the course of justice', 'causing misconduct in a public office' or the incidents you itemise? If the police are ultra-strict now about officers' contacts with journalists, who must bear the blame for that?

Britain set an example to the world by establishing a force which polices by consent. By definition, a wall of secrecy removes that consent.

There now follows a petulant Mr. Kavanagh's railing at the fact that the police no longer tip off his journalists when an arrest is made:

It is now common for suspects — innocent and guilty — to be held in absolute secrecy while their personal lives and careers are in limbo indefinitely.
Dozens of decent journalists who have been left to swing in the wind, uncharged for more than a year, know exactly how this feels.

How frustrating that must be! Trial by tabloid denied an unarrested, presumed innocent suspect! Dreadful....

Chief constables have shut down normal channels and begun reacting with hostility to legitimate inquiries.
The ugly assumption is that journalists with impeccable sources must have obtained information by skulduggery. It is the perfect cop-out.

But completely understandable? 

The Press deserves criticism and has taken it by the bucketload. But this sinister new culture of suspicion benefits those with something to hide — not those with the right to know.

Just as, for many years, the silence of editors, journalists and newspaper owners over the phone-hacking scandal benefitted those with something to hide, Mr. Kavanagh?

Lord Justice Leveson barely concealed his contempt for journalists but naively swallowed Hacked Off’s half-truths and exaggerations and accepted evidence from left-wing mischief-maker Full Fact as gospel.

Lord Justice Leveson showed no contempt for most journalists, just coolness towards those few who had been proven to have lied, cheated and shown contempt towards the Inquiry.

Lord Justice Leveson barely concealed his contempt for journalists but naively swallowed Hacked Off’s half-truths and exaggerations and accepted evidence from left-wing mischief-maker Full Fact as gospel.

His adviser throughout was Sir David Bell, intimately linked with the Media Standards Trust which spawned Hacked Off — and the discredited Bureau of Investigative Journalism which smeared Alistair McAlpine.

These oft-repeated accusatory comments against Full Fact, Media Standards Trust and Hacked Off really are wearing thin indeed and need to be left at the bottom of your ammo box, Mr. Kavanagh!

What a shabby basis for new Press laws, stitched up at 2am in a Hacked Off ambush, which is snuffing out Press freedom and the right of the British public to hold authorities to account.
Even an inventive tabloid hack could not make this one up. (#nb - My emphasis)

Oh, I'm sure any of your 'inventive tabloid hacks' could make this one up, Mr Kavanagh.....

Along similar lines is this article from Melanie Phillips in Mail Online:

The Leveson Lovers and a Compromised Inquiry That's Begun a Chilling Assault on Free Speech - Melanie Phillips - Mail Online

Sun's Seen the Light!

Five years ago, The Sun stood shoulder to shoulder with David Cameron as he hacked away at what The Sun almost always dubs the 'hated Human Rights Act'.

The Sun has welcomed David Cameron's commitment to "tear up [the] crazy human rights laws".  Mr Cameron's intervention came after public fury at the news that nine Afghan airline hijackers would not be deported.  The news produced the classic Sun front page that tops this post.  Today's Sun declared:

"The whole concept of “human rights” in Britain has become a travesty under which the interests of killers, rapists and paedophiles are placed above those of their victims.  Law abiding citizens must walk in fear while “human rights” give their assailants the freedom of the streets.  Convicted thugs and murderers are set free too soon after derisory sentences.  Yet what is prison for, but to keep those who wish us harm locked away?  It is absurd for judges to shelter Afghan terrorists who hijack an aircraft at gunpoint.  It is scandalous that a dangerous rapist is freed from prison to kill because his human rights had been infringed."

In February 2011, the Human Rights Blog wrote of The Sun's continued, unwavering anti - Human Rights Act stance: 

Much has been made in the prisoner voting debate of the fact that out laws should not be made by, as The Sun puts it, “unelected dictators”. Similarly, the Daily Mail says “the time has come for Britain to tell unelected Strasbourg judges that they have overstepped their authority“, and the Daily Express poses a dilemma between “democratically elected Commons or an unelected and alien tribunal in Strasbourg“.
Just to set the record straight, unlike our own judges, judges  the European Court of Human Rights are elected.
According to Article 22 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

The judges shall be elected by the Parliamentary Assembly with respect to each High Contracting Party by a majority of votes cast from a list of three candidates nominated by the High Contracting

So the United Kingdom nominates its own candidate and has 18 seats on the Parliamentary Assembly which decides who is chosen. All  members of the assembly are MPs from domestic parliaments. So our own MPs vote on which judges to appoint. This is more power than they have to elect domestic judges.
And, again in stark contrast to our own jobs-for-life (well, until retirement) judges, after serving for a period of 9 years European judges cannot be reelected. Our own judge, Sir Nicholas Bratza, is due to be replaced in June 2012. The full procedure for electing judges, which is under review at the moment, can be found here.
It is a shame that none of the newspapers mentioned above spotted this inconvenient truth, and that the public have once again been misled about an important legal issue in order to fit with an editorial position.

On the 26th January this year, an article by Graeme Wilson appeared in the Sun entitled Court of Human Frights, full of vitriol and contemptuous railing at 'Europe's daft judges', describing David Cameron's speech on the European Court of Human Rights:

DAVID Cameron yesterday blasted European judges in Strasbourg for crazy rulings that could leave Britain open to terrorist outrages.

He launched a blistering attack on frightening decisions from the European Court of Human Rights — such as its BAN on Britain deporting hate preacher Abu Qatada.
The PM said it left the Government unable to "fulfil our duty to our law-abiding citizens to protect them".
In a keynote speech to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, Mr Cameron bluntly accused the court of sabotaging the UK's war on terror.
He also unleashed a broadside at rulings on illegal migrants — saying the court acted like an "immigration tribunal" — and prisoners' rights.

Graeme Wilson then goes on to invoke the name of Winston Churchill to further highlight the depths to which the modern ECHR has sunk:

After the horrors of the Second World War, Churchill believed the court — and Europe's convention on human rights — were vital defences against fascism.
For decades, the Strasbourg court lived up to his vision by successfully defending fundamental freedoms. When the Berlin Wall fell, it was a bulwark for human rights in former communist countries.

But in recent years the institution has been accused of losing focus of those original, noble goals. Instead it has become a haven for terrorists, criminals and chancers and is being swamped by a tidal wave of cases.

But the final straw for The Sun, what effectively wedges the whole thing firmly up its disdainful nose, is:

Labour incorporated the European Convention into English law in 1998, with the introduction of the Human Rights Act. This has spawned a booming UK human rights industry, which is largely reliant on barmy cases. 

(A comprehensive list of articles from The Sun on what it considers the utter inadequacy of ECHR and the Human Rights Act can be found HERE) 

That's that, then. The whole Human Rights Act thing's a travesty, not fit for purpose. Useless....... until today, that is.

Today, The Sun, suddenly deprived of five of its journalists and anxious about the fact that informants' details had been revealed to the police ( read Trevor Kavanagh's account of what happened HERE ), has decided that perhaps the Human Rights Act may not be so hateworthy after all!

Under the headline:

Sun staff line up human rights challenge to News Corp inquiry team

The Guardian's Josh Halliday writes:

Sun staff are considering a legal challenge to News Corp's internal inquiry under the Human Rights Act. Photograph: Finbarr O'Reilly/Reuters
Senior journalists at the Sun are preparing to launch a legal challenge to the News Corporation Journalists at the News International red-top have approached the National Union of Journalists with a view to hiring the leading human rights lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson QC, to question the legality of parent company News Corp's management and standards committee. The NUJ has been contacted by more than a dozen journalists from the Sun with concerns about the protection of sources, it is understood.

Read the complete article HERE 

Sun journalists have taken advice from Geoffrey Robertson, who writes in the Times Sun Journalists Must Fight For Their Rights.

Should we expect to see a more conciliatory attitude towards the Human Rights Act issue in the future from The Sun?

After all, if this article very recently posted in the Telegraph is anything to go by, The Sun may have need of a great deal of support for some time to come.....

Update:

Very funny poem, commenting on The Sun's attempts to find support from the Court of Human Rights, from Channel 4's 10 0'Clock Live and Charlie Brooker: