outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Wakeymedia and Jason Bermas should have read the 'comments'; it appears the Express got it wrong about the CCTV:
DAILY EXPRESS MADE UP THE BIT ABOUT CCTV
06.08.09, 8:37pm
Despite the article being wildy wrong, the Daily Express have not corrected it yet.
Here, I will link to the offical response from the Government:
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/news/content.cfm?landing=family_intervention_pr ojects&type=1
"Responding to stories claiming that irresponsible families will be monitored by CCTV cameras in their own homes, a DCSF spokesperson said:
Families will not be monitored by CCTV in their own homes. Through Family Intervention Projects (FIPs) we are supporting and challenging the small number of families involved in persistent anti-social behaviour. FIP workers spend time observing families in their own homes, helping them to recognise that their anti-social behaviour is unacceptable. They focus on the causes of their behaviour, and challenge them to make changes so they can turn their lives around. A very small number of families who need further intensive support are placed in residential units with project workers living with them – this does not involve CCTV.
This is part of the Government’s approach to preventing and tackling anti-social behaviour and youth crime. In the last year alone, FIPs have challenged and supported over 2300 families to turn their behaviour around. Twelve months on from the Youth Crime Action Plan, Ed Balls and Alan Johnson have written to all local authorities in England asking them to expand and accelerate FIPs. Councils and police have reported that FIPs are an excellent way of preventing and tackling crime and anti-social behaviour."
• Posted by: memebake • Report Comment
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Taking on Operation Paperclip (1987) author Tom Bower.
The Dick Dastardly of Fleet Street.
And Wrecker.
| Roy Greenslade wrote: | Desmond lost, as he should have done, but the trial was a travesty
I am delighted that Richard Desmond lost his libel action against Tom Bower. After all, I gave evidence on Bower's behalf. So I am parti pris.
I have also been a persistent critic of Desmond's since he first acquired Express Newspapers in 2000. Be that as it may, I sincerely believe that the evidence I gave, and what I'm writing here, is based on facts, not opinion.
Daily Express owner Richard Desmond - Journalist Tom Bower author of The Paperclip Conspiracy, 1987
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/jul/23/richard-desmond -express-newspapers
As I stated in court, Desmond has the worst reputation of any national newspaper publisher in 60 years. It is true that Robert Maxwell, the Mirror group owner, was exposed as a villainous fraudster after his death.
In life, his reputation, though hardly lilywhite, was largely as a buffoon and a bully. He did not found his fortune on selling magazines such as Asian Babes.
Nor was his bullying anything like as bad as Desmond's, which has been on a different scale. His stewardship of the Daily and Sunday Express has been disastrous for those titles.
Before we come to the details, let's look at the travesty of the trial itself, because it has to be said that Bower succeeded in his defence against all the odds.
Firstly, and most importantly, too much hugely significant evidence about Desmond's conduct was ruled as inadmissable prior to the hearing before a jury.
Secondly, and also significantly, once the case had got under way, the judge, Mr Justice Eady, suffered the indignity of having two of his rulings reversed by the court of appeal.
These were not minor and arcane legal technicalities. The appeal judges were unusually blunt, stating that Eady was so wrong that if his decisions had been allowed to stand they might well have led to a miscarriage of justice.
I just wish those judges had also been asked to consider why Eady should have prevented jurors from knowing just why Desmond is widely regarded as a rogue publisher and extremely poor employer.
For example, the jury could not hear about Desmond's extraordinary behaviour towards Telegraph Media Group executives in April 2004, when he launched into a Nazi tirade.
At a meeting to discuss the companies joint ownership of a print works, he called TMG's then chief executive, Jeremy Deedes, a "miserable little piece of *" and said Germans were "all Nazis". But Deedes was prohibited from telling of that incident in court.
Similarly, jurors were prevented from hearing the testimony of the former Daily Express night editor, Ted Young, who claimed he was punched by Desmond during an altercation about a story Desmond said should have been published.
That incident, in September 2004, led to Young being paid a six-figure sum in August 2005 on the eve of an industrial tribunal hearing.
The jury were unable to hear about the fact that Desmond's company was expelled from the Newspaper Publishers Association in 2007 for failing to pay its fees. It means that his group has failed to fund the Press Complaints Commission. Desmond is the first proprietor in the NPA's history to snub the body.
The jury were never told about the contempt in which Desmond is held by other proprietors and editors. For example, in 2006 Paul Dacre, the editor-in-chief of the Mail titles, described Desmond as "a man who doesn't respect journalism, doesn't like journalism... I thought it was a very sad day for Fleet Street when a pornographer was allowed to buy a once-great national newspaper."
Nor did they hear what Dacre said of him in 2002 in an interview with the British Journalism Review: "Richard Desmond is an appalling man. He is bad for British journalism. He's bad for public life and he's bad for civilised standards."
My witness statement was curtailed by Eady so that all I was allowed to say in court was that Desmond was a man with a bad reputation.
Under cross-examination, during which I was falsely accused of having been fired by the Daily Star in 1981, I asked for permission to tell the jury exactly why Desmond was held in such low regard.
But Eady, under pressure from Bower's counsel to do just that, refused to allow me to answer.
All of this would have been germane to the jury making up its mind. But, in truth, if the incidents I've mentioned were allowed to have been aired, it is possible that Desmond would not have pursued his action.
Some important incidents did emerge in open court, such as David Hellier's evidence of editorial interference by Desmond.
And the departure of the former Sunday Express editor, Michael Pilgrim, after he claimed that Desmond had demanded that certain articles be published or not published, also got an airing.
But the jury should have heard much more. At its heart, this was a libel trial about a couple of paragraphs in Bower's book - about Conrad Black - that had had no visible effect on Desmond's businesses.
It ill behoves newspaper proprietors to use the law of libel. They are supposed to champion press freedom. They are supposed to be committed to reforming libel law to prevent marginal instances of libel leading to expensive litigation in the high court.
But it simply confirms my view that Desmond is a rogue proprietor.
|
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/ |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
