Archive for June, 2009
The Times and NightJack again
Off to a folk festival tomorrow and with luck I’ll not get stabbed again, though if I do the police in Leicester are wonderful as is the hospital ( Which should be more than enough for the voyeur and hacker Parick Foster to fearlessly expose another unimportant blogger). When I return I’ll update all of the Times links to use a URL shortener to break google linking. In the meantime a few things relating to the whole sorry NightJack affair that I’d hate to go unnoticed. In shock news Tom HarrisMP agrees with Guido that as the Times dislikes anonymous articles so they should cease thier anonymous leader columns, I’m not sure I’m entirely convinced and mr Finkelstein certianly isn’t utterly different a group effort he says. Which I think is possibly a point though I hope that means that the Times will cease to quote all anonymous “sources close to…”, and it’s also worth noting in case of any future legal need that he’d not object to everyone involved in any times leader being exposed.
“Should someone decide that there was a public interest in knowing the precise details of how an individual leader was drafted (similar to the very obvious public interest in knowing the identity of a police officer publishing case details on the web), then they might wish to launch a journalistic investigation into that leader
And should they then print what they found, I wouldn’t object at all.”
Presumably with photograph and all, and I do hope all those involved with such leaders are equally agreeable to such a deal.
Finally via Old Holborn it would seem that Inspector Leviathan Hobbes would quite like to meet those responsible for NightJacks exposure.
For the record if by any strange chance I ever happen to be in the same hostelry as NightJack Inspector Hobbes, Inspector Gadget, PC Bloggs, < ahref="http://coppersblog.blogspot.com/">PC Copperfield or any of our anonymous public service bloggers who let us glimpse inside the establishment, then I owe you a pint.
Patrick Foster quoting “sources”
As that odious hacker and voyeur Patrick Foster seems to no longer feel that anonymous sources aren’t a good thing. I’m sure that with some encouragement he’ll shortly be clarifying who the sources are in the following stories, purely due to public interest of course:
A source close to the show said…The Metropolitan Police said ….
Those close to the show insist…
Sources close to Goody’s family said…
Articles found from his entry in Journalisted and that’s just back till late march. I got bored after a while so I’m sure there are plenty more worth commenting on to ask him what his sources were.
NightJack update and round up
Following the Times notable victory over decency yesterday they’ve graciously allowed NightJack to respond in an article I can’t help but feel is very reminiscent of a communist show trial where the accused is allowed to publicly confess their sins and misdemeanors. The tactics he describes the Times using are also very reminiscent of those used to expose Girl with a one track mind, so they definitely have form on this one. speaking of having form it would seem that the Mendacious Patrick Foster, that fearless journalist so desperate to move on from the celebrity pages he’s prepared to sacrifice the career of a decent man to do so, also has form for hacking and covertly filming people having sex – which I think clearly tells us his views on peoples privacy. Whilst as many have pointed out no one has a right to privacy and on the internet probably not a lot of expectation of it either, that still doesn’t make the Times actions in any way justifiable. However there is one very slim upside from this as noted by Anna Raccoon there is now some precedent for investigating and publishing identifying material relating to a serving police office as prohibited by the counter terrorism act 2008.
Update
Daniel Finkelstein responds, and another Times journalist expresses mixed feelings.
Round up of other blogs
› Continue reading
Talking of anonymous police
Whilst the value of police bloggers is in mind I’d like to bring your attention to a “recent”* post of Inspector Gadgets. Who in a “fond” farewell to Hazel Blears time in the home office chair, links to a quite interesting report on the value of our plastic police, sod all it seems. It seems that the powers that be would rather that the finding the plastics have little use except for vehicle crime oh and they spend 71% of their time in the Station. Well worth reading all 9 pages.
Meanwhile it seems that other police are using false arrest to collect DNA samples (Hat tip Samiz Data & Old Holborn), you’ll note in this case that the mainstream media are quite happy to quote an anonymous member of the force. Perhaps it’s just the Times that doesn’t like such things, or perhaps it’s OK to be anonymous as long as you speak to the press.
NightJack exposed for the vanity of the Times
Until he stopped writing it I used to very much enjoy NightJacks view of the police, and his guide for decent people is invaluable. Now however thanks to The Times and that champion of free speech Justice Eady, the only way you’ll get to read his words is if you stumble across them in a cache somewhere. Despite having ceased blogging a while back, to go and write a novel, the Times felt that it would be a good thing to let everyone know who he was. This has already resulted in him getting written warning from his force and as his views were honest and not always full of praise for the higher echelons of the force, I suspect it won’t do his career and general work life much good.
Sadly I fear that Justice Eadys ruling was the correct one, though I’m not sure I agree with him that blogging is essentially a public business, and I definitely don’t agree that just because a blogger is a member of the police that automatically makes there real identity a matter of public interest. The story in the Times though seems to be without merit. I’ve no idea if this is part of a retaliation from the main stream media against those nasty upstart bloggers as some suggest. There’s nothing to be done to undo this situation, though if NightJack does ever publish a novel I’ll be buying it, in the meantime as Iain Dale asks will the Times cease to quote unnamed sources “close to…”, we can also as Hopi Sen suggests write to the Times to share our opinion of their actions. I am sadly sure, again as Iain Dale suggests, that this will have an impact on other bloggers and commentators involved in the justice systems and other organs of the state. I would though second the thought that it should also have an impact on who might want to talk to the Times, whilst I’m unlikely to ever have anything of interest to say I do know that in the unlikely event I do I won’t be saying it to the Times and who knows I may yet be at a demo and see something of note.
Oh and if anyone happens to know anything much at all about Patrick Foster of the Times Old Holborn feels it would be quite in the public interest for such things to be shared.
Update: The Independent knew but didn’t tell who NightJack is. (Tip of the tifter to Woman on Raft)
Turn out for the election
Tomorrow is the European election, which is really to all intents and purposes a sham designed to con us into thinking that the EU is in someway democratic as Archbishop Cranmer so eloquently explains. From my local experience it seems that Labour and several other parties standing don’t care much as they’ve not seen fit to send me anything to explain why I should vote for them.
I’m not sure that actually voting tomorrow is that important, but what I am sure is that going to the polling station and putting something on the ballot paper is hugely important. Old Holborn isn’t going to put anything on his paper see in commments, which I think is a mistake if you reject the whole scam write that on the paper. Spoiled papers do get looked at sometimes and a huge turn out of spoilt papers would be significant. Spoiling your paper doesn’t lend your support to the enterprise but does let them know that you’re not disinterested. Read Richard LittleJohns article for an excellent explanation of this, though he suggests writing a specific message.
There are a lot of people out there convinced that if the BNP get a seat or two it’ll surely mean the end of democracy. But given that the elected part of the EU is just so much window dressing I don’t care, and neither I believe do the main parties. Despite all the talk of the impact of the minor and independent parties getting seats I’m not convinced, there will be some articles written and much hand wringing and then things will carry on as normal as no one pays any attention to the EU anyway – at least not in the mainstream media in this country. No what I believe would actually frighten our politicians and media is a high turn out as Anna Raccoon reports turn out is usually pitifully low. Such low turn out tells the politicians that we don’t care and we’re not watching, the idea that we are involved and do care enough to spend 5 minutes scrawling on a bit of paper that I believe would worry them, and far more than any number of minor parties getting seats (which will be written off as backlash and just the electorate being upset – as long as the turn out remains low).
I am still torn as to the best option, is it voting for a party you agree with in the hope of making a difference and thus legitimizing this sham of an election, or spoiling the appear in the hope that enough other people will and that the message of a rejection of the system as it stands gets across. I am however certain that the worst possible thing to do would be to not make any mark on the ballot paper and thus remain uncounted. So tomorrow please find the time to go to your polling station and write something on your ballot paper, I don’t care (and don’t believe it matters) who you vote for, nor even if you just spoil your paper as long as you do something as the idea of an active and involved electorate is what they really don’t like.
Update Rather good post from Old Holborn about just how little difference voting will make, so maybe ballot spoiling is the sane course of action.
UK terror threat status
- Severe 2010/01/25