The Secret Court and the Media.
The ‘news’ has to be massaged and imbued with emotive content to interest the Media.
That which most of us would consider ‘news’ – citizens jailed without trial or representation; pension funds raided; savings devalued; citizens starved to death; citizens arrested on the basis of anonymous information; politicians defrauding public funds, is not ‘news’ to the Media. They know all about it. They gather in their drinking holes at the end of day and gossip about it. They meet on the golf course on their days off and laugh at the more salacious details. They pass each other in the corridors of power and say ‘Oy, did you hear…’
It is only when they are presented with someone prepared to be photographed, and give them some personal emotive details, that events become ‘newsworthy’ and they consider it their ‘sacred duty’, one which ‘must not be interfered with’, that it becomes fodder to fill the pages between the adverts for walk-in baths and hearing aids. The scandal of MPs expenses was known of for definitely months – witness the number of different papers that were offered the proof and declined on price grounds – and quite probably years, before the Daily Telegraph stumped up the money and fed us the story of duck moats and bath plugs that we are so familiar with. Until then – not a murmur.
The supposed ‘scandal’ of Jimmy Savile, we are now told, was known of years before his death. Were there any anonymous calls to child-line from concerned journalists unable to stand up the story, but worried that children might be at risk? Not a one. Meirion Jones tells us in the Pollard report that he had been concerned for ten years or more about Savile’s activities at Duncroft – had he phoned Barnardos and told them that he was the nephew of the head mistress and had concerns that should be investigated? Do you seriously imagine that Duncroft would not have been investigated on the basis of information from such an apparently ‘informed’ source? Did he care that children were still at risk? Until Savile died and he could have his ‘story’, illustrated by talking heads and emotive ‘facts’ – not a murmur.
So it is with the latest Court of Protection scandal. Wanda Maddocks. Do you imagine that this happened last week, and not one scrap of information had escaped from the ‘secret court’? Not a bit of it. The case had been reported many times. I will repeat that. Many times. Not by the media though.
What has happened this week is that Wanda Maddocks is now out of prison, and her Father has died, so his affairs are no longer under the Court of Protection, and thus the Media are free to publish a picture of her, and one of her Father, and include some emotive headlines. ‘Wanda Maddocks was secretly jailed for trying to save her Father’. Wanda Maddocks was jailed in 2012.
The case was published in Bailii in August 2012. but the media did not consider it was news fit for our ears that a woman had been jailed for contempt of a court order that she should not remove her father from his care home and care for him herself.
The case was published on 39 Essex Street’s web site in August 2012 but the media did not consider it was news fit for our ears then.
The case was published in Mental Health Law On-line in November 2012 but the media did not consider it was news fit for our ears then.
The case was published in Local Government News in November 2012 but the media did not consider it was news fit for our ears then.
The case was published in Brunswick Healthcare Review in November 2012 but the media did not consider it was news fit for our ears then.
It only became ‘news’ when the media were able to take pictures of Wanda Maddocks and name her Father. Not when she was jailed, not when her Father was forcibly taken back to the nursing home, not when she feared he was being starved. That isn’t news.
And not because there was any injunction on publishing the fact that a woman had been jailed for disobeying a court order not to care for her Father – the story was already in the public domain, freely available. You just couldn’t name her – but you could report the facts. Now which do you consider is newsworthy – the woman’s name – or the facts?
‘News’ isn’t important things happening in our society. ‘News’ is salacious details illustrated with photographs that sell newspaper advertising. Remember that when they start crying about how important the main stream media are to democracy. ‘They’ are only important to themselves. ‘Facts’ are what pay wages.
The more I think about it, the more I feel that journalists are just modern day coal miners. A redundant industry trying to force us to continue consuming the product of their inky fingers.
Abused children, jailed daughters, profligate politicians – they are mere pawns to be put on a high shelf until they can be turned into stories to further careers.
May 2, 2013 at 16:32
-
The Justice Secretary last night asked one of the country’s most senior
judges to consider steps to increase the transparency of the shadowy Court of
Protection. Set up in 2007 under Labour’s Mental Capacity Act, it gave the
state draconian powers to intervene in the lives of those deemed unfit to look
after their own affairs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318010/Open-secret-courts-demands-Justice-Minister-Chris-Grayling-orders-review-shadowy-Court-Protection.html#ixzz2S9LQN7nK
- May 2, 2013 at 13:52
-
Slight error of fact, but you were not to know this until I told you. The
Daily Mail were running with the story before the family were named. They were
doing it based upon my Early Day Motion. They asked the press office about the
secret jailing and then suddenly a public judgment popped out. It is true that
stories where they have direct contact with the family get more attention as
they interest the readers to a greater extent and it is possible to have some
empathy.
The same anonymous story was in fact turned down by the BBC.
- May 2, 2013 at 16:16
- May 2, 2013 at 11:28
-
Yup – one of the things that annoys me most about the press is this
sanctimonious bollocks about being protectors of democracy, tellers of truth,
revealers of the hidden, ‘just reporting the news not making it’. Newspapers
exist for the benefit of their owners and shareholders – if a story will sell
papers, it becomes news. If it won’t (in the considered opinion of a
journalist, sub-editor, editor and occasionally owner) then it doesn’t become
news. Now the public interest and newspaper’s commercial interests frequently
co-incide – and that’s a good thing – but lets lose the ‘defender of truth,
justice etc etc stuff please.
-
April 29, 2013 at 22:56
-
Anna, the journey of modern times is about those who are well sunk into the
gravy of a train that has no idea where it should go, let alone where it is
actually going. The majority are taken on a ride by those driving it. These
are the politicians, the public servants and the media whose only interest is
to sell their sham ‘wares’ and ‘take us for a ride’ whether we want to take
the route they determine.
Trains can be derailed if they go too fast or off the tracks, taking all on
board with them.It always disgusts me how tittle tattle, gossip and make
believe are the main element of the journey. It takes some integrity not to
board this train.
- April 29, 2013 at 22:44
-
I think the MSM suffer from ‘fashion’ as much as some other sections of
society. Some subjects are ‘fashionable’, and almost anything arising will
make it into print however trivial or factually dodgy, and some subjects are
not ‘fashionable’.
Take, as an example, the coverage of hospital care scandals. The poor care,
and the protests from relatives, have been going on for the best part of a
decade, but until this year all nurses were angels to the majority of the
press. Now that’s changed.
Back in the late 1980s, I used to work in an industry that the majority of
the press did not understand and loved to hate, especially the likes of the
BBC. Any incident within the industry, however trivial, was reported with
almost total disregard of the facts. The public were sometimes given the
impression that large numbers of people were at serious risk of harm to their
health when the truth was that there was no risk to the public, there were no
injuries to the workforce and the environmental harm caused was negligable.
The coverage was frankly scandalously inaccurate at times. Now, you hardly
hear a dicky-bird about that industry – it slowly dawned on the BBC and others
that their coverage was way over the top. The fashion changed.
Sadly, the Court of Protection and it’s injustices are not fashionable at
the moment. When sufficient number cases of injustice have been compiled, it
may become fashionable. Keep on highlighting them, and eventually things will
turn the corner.
- April 29, 2013 at 23:00
-
“Take, as an example, the coverage of hospital care scandals. The poor
care, and the protests from relatives, have been going on for the best part
of a decade, but until this year all nurses were angels to the majority of
the press. Now that’s changed.”
The following article will be of interest:
http://thejusticegap.com/News/appalling-vistas-and-angels-of-death/
Poor care certainly happens, and some nurses are crap, but the
stereotyped portrayal of nurses as layabouts is as wrongheaded as portraying
them as ‘angels’.
-
April 29, 2013 at 20:15
-
This is a situation that I have long been uncomfortable with – what
happened to the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Where is the burden
of proof? One story from one of the “victims” is that: “JS touched my bottom
during a recording of Top of the Pops. I have been traumatised ever since…”
Are we truly expected to believe that (at whatever level you wish to
choose)?
Other aging celebs have been arrested on the word of a “victim” of an
assault decades ago. There can be no objective evidence, only his word against
hers – and who is going to believe a paedophile, eh? On the off-chance that
the case is thrown out (“lack of evidence” being the most obvious reason),
well, there is no smoke without fire. Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink. Another
reputation wrecked. Who will ever invite Stuart Hall or Rolf Harris to their
party again?
I also get very suspicious that this should spark off just as the long-term
grooming rings gain the attention of the MSM.
- April 29, 2013 at 20:14
-
Anna, I hope I don’t need to tell you this (I certainly don’t need to tell
any of your commenters), but you truly are amazing.
I know you find it difficult sometimes, but you’re always determined to
stand up for justice and have a healthy contempt for complete crap.
I bet you don’t take easily to compliments, either. Oops sorry, I just
accidentally slipped in another compliment (ha, see what I did there?).
- April 29, 2013 at 18:53
-
I don’t know if Jimmy Savile is guilty or innocent. Perhaps I am one of
very few women who have NOT accused him of sexual abuse – I didn’t know him. I
feel very uncomfortable that historic allegations are being looked into by the
police. After so many years I believe any prosecutions would be quite unsafe.
I don’t think it’s a matter of us living in a different world 30 or 40 years
ago or more. A crime is a crime at any time but sexual abuse on a minor or
adult, I feel would be difficult if not impossible to prove so many years
later without firm dates. precise locations and a live defendant. I do feel
that the press are over zealous in reporting and want, as Anna rightly says,
names and photo’s to sell the paper. If sexual abuse was know to BBC employees
then rightly it should have been reported immediately, but people only heard
rumours, which in my book is gossip which has now turned into a tirade of
Chinese shouts. So many at the BBC seem to have an angle on it. Every young
woman who saw The Duchess of Cambridge in a spotty Top Shop frock last week in
the papers tried to buy one – is this called ‘on the bandwagon, copying or
wanting to be in the know?’
Perhaps if the popular press had reported the
case of the woman being gaoled for contempt, the uproar from the general
public might have secured her release much sooner, giving her the precious
time she craved with her father. I still believe the story was only reported
so that the press could criticise the Leveson report and to rubbish it. Secret
courts are far removed from protecting the innocent until other wise proved. I
don’t believe that anyone should be named if under arrest and that anyone
arrested and charged for a sex crime should have anonymity and only named if
the case against them is proven. I also think it fundamentally wrong to
advertise for ‘victims’ of sexual crime as the police are now doing along with
Mark Williams Thomas. If someone has been sexually abused and reports the
crime it should stand alone and asking for others to come forward should make
no difference to the final procedure.
-
April 29, 2013 at 21:51
-
@Charlotte
Well said.
I’ve been pondering all these ‘rumours’ and
the fact that ‘everybody knew’ and, you know what – if I’d have been an avid
journalist/reporter/production person/researcher – or any of these people
who shared the same workplaces and studios etc with him – well, I’d have
simply spied a little bit. Hell, according to Peter Spindler he was on the
job or thinking of it 24/7, so I wouldn’t have had to wait
long.
****************************************************************
Welcome
back Anna, we’ve missed
you
*****************************************************************.
- April 29, 2013 at 17:46
-
Came on this site following up the Mail story on the Court of Protection
and fell about laughing when I read Mathew Hopkins post which brilliantly
illustrated Anna’s point. He’s just so delighted with his laborious joke about
the Maddocks case and so completely unconcerned that the MSM coverage which
followed it was as fact free as his own. Well, who really cares about some
dying old bloke and his *eccentric* daughter… ..?
- April 29, 2013 at 19:07
-
@suffolkgirl
You are doing exactly what the press recognise is a commercial reality in
their marketplace. You think the only reason to care is because a family are
hurt. I might care about that a tiny bit but I don’t feign some huge
empathy. I’ve never met them and never will, why should I care about their
“feelings” or try to “feel their pain”. This is nonsensical. There are 60
million people in this country, I cannot possibly care about them all. If I
see a blog with 100 comments I cannot even be bothered to read them all.
What matters is that the LAW is perverse. As to the manner of reporting
it, I can only say that if the real people and names cannot be used then the
newspapers would be reduced to writing articles that are akin to the CPS
Levitt Report every day, and I can assure you that after several pages of
MsA, MsD, MsF and all the rest of the alphabet, you not only don’t care
anymore but you’ve completely lost the plot.
Secret Courts and Secret “Justice” is the problem in the Maddocks case
and those like them, not the journalism.
-
April 30, 2013 at 17:25
-
I can’t say I follow your logic.You don’t have my lovely sympathetic
disposition and are only interested in Truth and Justice yet you say you
couldn’t read an article on the same unless you know the names of these
people you don’t care about? Seems a bit perverse to me. I actually did
read the anonymised version ages ago and can’t see any miscarriage of
justice at all, which could be why Maddocks didn’t appeal.
I feel sorry for the Dad, though.
- April 30, 2013 at 18:00
-
I’m no lawyer, but from my reading [which may be faulty], if the
woman was making herself a nuisance, I couldn’t really see why she
couldn’t have been prosecuted in court for breach of the peace in open
court. I just dislike all these niche laws that nobody can keep track of
except the lawyers.
- April 29, 2013 at 16:12
-
Mistressfully put Anna. Real stories are too often ignored, sidelined and
even buried not because there’s some cabal or conspiracy, but simply because
the owners and editors think they don’t sell papers. So the UK has arrived at
a situation where people can be arrested and even jailed for simply speaking
their minds or standing up for family. People hauled over legal coals on the
basis of unsubstantiated accusations alone. Dead men publicly accused and
reputations torn down on the back of mere denunciations that don’t stand up to
even light scrutiny. Arrests made for ‘crimes’ not committed in other
countries on dodgy European Arrest Warrants, and all you will get from many
mainstream outlets is “Meh.” Others will even act as cheerleaders for the
lynch mob.
If I wasn’t so cynical already it would sicken me.
- April 29, 2013 at 16:43
-
If the police weren’t involved it would all just be tomorrow’s chip-shop
wrapping. Newspapers tell and sell stories, they don’t enforce “the law” and
they don’t have the power to commission Institutional Inquiries at the
tax-payers expense.
- April 29, 2013 at 17:59
-
So I suppose that none of the rubbish legislation on the statute books
has anything to do with the press terrifying that bunch of spineless
nitwits in Westminster into ‘being seen to be doing something’?
Blow me down, old Rupert & Tiger Lily have been fooling themselves,
along with all those living ‘en D’Acres de Nutwood’ all these years.
Whoever would have thought it?
- April 29, 2013 at 19:12
-
Most, if not all the rubbish legislation is because of the law-crazy
previous Administration. They were famous for it.
“Tony Blair’s
government has created more than 3,000 new criminal offences during its
nine-year tenure, one for almost every day it has been in power.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blairs-frenzied-law-making–a-new-offence-for-every-day-spent-in-office-412072.html
I’m not a lawyer so I know about this stuff……..
-
April 29, 2013 at 19:32
-
I know that. I had just arrived here with the intention of pointing
out exactly that to ‘Charlotte’ – see below
She wrote that ‘A crime is a crime at any time’, but that is just
so frighteningly out of touch with what almost any politician will do
now, ie create a criminal offence to enforce their standards and views
on anyone who disagrees. Whether something is right or wrong, or just
practising plain, old fashioned, tolerance of varying views and action
of others in respect of things which do no harm, no longer seem to
matter.
It’s their last resort in power. Labour did lead the charge. The
Left, or extreme Right, always has. Under Labour we had a Criminal
Justice Bill every year, when there had only been 10 in the previous
60 years. The damage they have done by making victimology an artform,
and inculcating the notion in the minds of the stupid, and also,
unfortunately, in those of a lot of the not so stupid too, that
creating morally subjective legislation is somehow some sort of
acceptable practice, is incalculable. And they deserve to be fried
forever for it.
- April
29, 2013 at 15:43
-
There was a time I recall, a few years back where people wanting to secure
certain funds wished to make a sound investment, the Protection people steered
them in the direction of Equitable Life.
- April 29, 2013 at 14:55
-
I liked ‘la woman’s comments so much here’s another one from Guru’s page
…….
Permalink Reply
la woman 10-Apr-13 at
So, it seems to me that just because someone makes an accusation and press
prints it, then it somehow becomes true. That’s really weird. And based on
that premise, I could tell a journalist that my next door neighbor was abusing
children and that would make it true, would it? Come on, you lot, try and use
your brains. There’s no PROOF of any of this, just a lot of people with odd
agendas trying to cash in. If you can’t see that, then I have a bridge in
Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.
Great stuff ‘la’ – have you had any offers for the bridge ….!!!!??
- April 29, 2013 at 21:52
-
Rabbitaway,
Re: “So, it seems to me that just because someone makes an accusation and
press prints it, then it somehow becomes true. That’s really weird. And
based on that premise, I could tell a journalist that my next door neighbor
was abusing children and that would make it true, would it? Come on, you
lot, try and use your brains. There’s no PROOF of any of this, just a lot of
people with odd agendas trying to cash in. If you can’t see that, then I
have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.
Great stuff ‘la’ – have you had any offers for the bridge ….!!!!??”
Thats a cracker that one
-
April 29, 2013 at 22:04
-
@Luco – cheers I can’t take credit for the comment – that was ‘la
woman’ whoever she is …..but I guess the cyclists in Brooklyn won’t have
to start setting off any earlier in the mornings to get to their jobs in
Manhattan any time soon ….Big Smiley …..check out the whole link
http://blogs.channel4.com/gurublog/jimmy-savile-cold-aggressive-menacing/2749
- April
30, 2013 at 18:24
-
Not so far. I haven’t tried listing it on eBay, though.
-
April 30, 2013 at 19:33
-
@mewsical – well if you do make sure ‘buyer collects’ ……!!!
- April 29, 2013 at 14:36
-
@Duncan – if you skip past Guru’s nonsense and read the most recent
comments – you’ll find that Jimmy has got some support. It’s amazing that our
comments have not been removed actually. So I’ll re post them here just so
everyone can see !!
at
What about all the charity money? What about all the kids Jimmy made happy?
What about all the entertainment Savile gave us for decades? What about his
larger than life eccentricity that endeared him to the nation? Leave Sir Jim
alone, I doubt any of these allegations is true and I don’t believe them.
Jimmy Savile was just an odd character who dressed flamboyantly and enjoyed
making us laugh. He was harmless and I’m sick of hearing stories that say he
was a creepy weirdo with perverted tastes. It really makes my blood boil to
think all those years Jimmy Savile was a treasure for us are being destroyed
by a pack of wolves tearing his reputation to bits when Sir Jim can’t answer
back because he’s dead. They’re the perverts not Sir Jim.
Permalink Reply
rabbitaway 02-Apr-13 at
Here here Sir – Jimmy Savile cannot defend himself so us good folks have to
have a go. So sad that there’s no one in MSM willing to challenge this
appalling injustice. Another journalist jumping on the ‘I always knew he was a
wrong un’ bandwagon ! Shame on you all ! At least 2 of the initial accusers
have been found to be a little ‘economical’ with the truth ! Don’t fret too
much ‘Johnny’, there are real investigators working on the other side of the
‘story’ !
Permalink Reply
sam 05-Apr-13 at
Savile responded cleverly and intelligently in this clip to a load of
ignorant questions from a bunch of teenagers who obviously believe anything
they read in The Sun and similar tabloids.
The author of this piece should be ashamed for his tacky attempt to cash in
on the Savile controversy and for him to claim Savile was “aggressive” when he
was being asked questions that were quite frankly, bloody rude and
ill-mannered, shows he still has a lot of growing up to do.
-
April 29, 2013 at 14:42
-
Yes, nice work by the plods who’ve spent thousands and thousands of
pounds to come up with bugger all except some man from Somerset who may or
may not have been a driver for the BBC at one point, and a very occasional
driver at that. Chief of Police Peter Spindler has stepped down from the
Yewtree investigation, and I hope all these complete wastes of time and
money are all discontinued. There is no substantial evidence to charge
anyone at all. And that was the case when Jimmy Savile came in voluntarily
in 2007 and was interviewed under caution further to allegations by the
dodgy Duncroftians, after which he was free to go, and no charges were
brought. I’m sure you are all aware that the producer of the first Newsnight
show is the nephew of the former headmistress of Duncroft, with whom he was
having family issues over real estate. Before that, Meirion was a guest a
Duncroft, staying with his aunt at her house on the grounds. There is a LOT
more to all this and I’m sure the police have realized that. The press has
been driving all this, which is disgraceful. If in fact any abuse of minors
occurred, then it should have been handled in private, no names of either
accuser or accused – even though these accusers were adults at the time of
the complaints, they were allegedly minors at the time of the offense,
therefore laws protecting juveniles should prevail. When a well-known site
that caters to people who were raised in care homes issues a public
announcement saying that they are in touch with a JOURNALIST who wants to
investigate abuse claims “a la Jimmy Savile” we know we have reached the
limit. Child abuse is NOT A SUBJECT FOR THE AMUSEMENT OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC.
Fortunately, they thought better of it and removed the announcement. If Mark
Williams-Thomas had the slightest regard for the welfare of anything other
than his own celebrity status and bank account, he would work in private,
behind the scenes, to track these wrong-doers down, and stop prancing about
on Twitter and elsewhere as if he is the be-all and end-all. And don’t get
me started on the caliber of the Duncroft complainants.
Permalink Reply
sam 14-Apr-13 at
suzanne :
do you know these people personally ?
that is the only
way that you could speak on their behalf. Why did not one speak up over the
past 40 years..ring Childline and so on ?
The reason we have police, courts and parliament to construct law is for
a good reason.
When someone is accused a process takes place to discover if he/she is
guilty or innocent.
That has not happened in respect of Jimmy Savile. Not
one claim has been investigated by police.
# your inference that those who question what has happened in respect of
Savile are “enablers” is a cheap insult and frightening : it demands no-one
EVER question an accusation.
You should be ashamed to make such
statements.
END
The first comment was by someone calling him/herself ‘la woman’ …..?????
Sorry I’m not so hot on the copying and pasting …..
- April 29, 2013 at 21:41
-
Rabbitaway,
Re: “and for him to claim Savile was “aggressive” when he was being asked
questions that were quite frankly, bloody rude and ill-mannered, shows he
still has a lot of growing up to do”
Thats what I thought actually, if you ask rude questions don’t expect the
response you get to be all sweetness and light.
Those questioning him seemed a little narrow minded and idealistic I
thought….
-
April 29, 2013 at 13:09
-
I think you will find plenty of people who knew there were rumours about
Savile before he died, and a greater number who claim they knew there were
rumours about Savile before he died. Take Krishnan Guru-Murphy, who wrote this
tripe on his blog last October:
“I was no doubt naive but I am surprised by how many people say now that
they knew all along about his abusive behaviour. Janet Street Porter, who says
she knew about Savile when she was at the BBC, was my boss at the time. She
didn’t produce Open to Question, but she was the executive in charge as head
of youth programmes.
I can only assume she did not know about the Savile allegations at the
precise time that her new young presenter was in a studio filled with
teenagers and Jimmy Savile.
Certainly in the years that followed, I too heard the kind of gossip about
Savile that flew about the BBC. But never from anyone in a position to know,
or who’d actually met anyone in a position to know. And there were so many
rumours about so many people that I never really believed any of it.
Now I fear that when the BBC do get around to investigating what actually
went on at the time, when the police have finished their job, it might well be
worse than we ever imagined.”
http://blogs.channel4.com/gurublog/jimmy-savile-cold-aggressive-menacing/2749
Until such a time as a fair, high quality analysis of the allegations
against Savile is completed (and the Police have not started such an
investigation, let along completed it), nobody is allowed to believe that
Savile is the monster he is presumed to be. All prior investigations regarding
Savile presume his guilt is assured, and reach their conclusions accordingly.
I am angry that nobody in a position to carry out an investigation thought it
was worthwhile to do so. The attitude seems to be that because we know he is
guilty, we don’t need to waste time actually verifying the allegations against
him.
That said, you are entirely correct that if Meirion Jones thought that
Savile was a danger to children, he should have approached the Police, as
should anybody else.
- April
29, 2013 at 11:47
-
I’m not sure if this style of journalism just reflects the notion that
British Law has become subjective rather than objective. Given the way
journalists have been terrorised by the coppers, you can hardly blame them for
falling into line.
Any organisation that thinks of themselves as “The True Vision” makes me
instinctively commit Hate Crime.
Welcome to the official True Vision website.
2013 True Vision, owned
by the Association of Chief Police Officers
http://www.report-it.org.uk/home
- April 29, 2013 at 11:59
-
Except that both the MPs expenses and the apparently knowledge of Savile
date from long before ‘journalists were terrorised by coppers’…..
- April 29, 2013 at 12:14
-
Most, if not all MP’s Expenses were perfectly legally claimed. As I
understand it they all went through the relevant Committees etc. It is
well-reported that only a small “exemplar” group were prosecuted to
satisfy the public lust for righteousness to be seen to prevail. Many
others were simply allowed to “pay back” whatever they were asked to pay
back and nothing more was said. It’s also a truism that in the years
beforehand the MP’s were all ‘given the nod’ by all those controlling the
system created in 2002, to utilise their Expenses as a way to pad out
their salary, whilst the government in place at the time could project a
virtuous appearance of MP’s seeming not to be to be “fat cats”.
Nobody knew about Savile before……… because there was nothing to know…..
Given
the involvement of ACPO in the Exposure show, I would even venture that
they felt they might as well eat the carrot before they got hit with the
stick and had to eat their shorts, like the celebrities are doing at the
moment. http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/is-that-tin-hat.html
- April 29, 2013 at 11:43
-
‘‘News’ isn’t important things happening in our society. ‘News’ is
salacious details illustrated with photographs that sell newspaper
advertising. Remember that when they start crying about how important the main
stream media are to democracy. ‘They’ are only important to themselves.
‘Facts’ are what pay wages.
The more I think about it, the more I feel that journalists are just modern
day coal miners. A redundant industry trying to force us to continue consuming
the product of their inky fingers.’
Which they should be allowed to continue to do, of course, in a completely
untrammelled manner, in the name of Freedom of Speech.
Can’t have it both ways….
- April 29, 2013 at 12:01
- April 29, 2013 at 11:30
-
Well of course in this case the Daily Mail picked up the story of Wanda
Maddocks after it was drawn to their attention by my blog so I am frankly
pleased and flattered by the coverage. My post in question is here – http://thewitchfindergeneral.com/?p=22 and was published in
February.
Of course, the Daily Mail has treated my article in a highbrow way and has
not used my rather fetching picture of a witch in a pointy hat. You see,
interestingly the petty misconduct of which Wanda Maddocks was accused
(threatening a social worker with curses) would have amounted to a breach of
section IV (yes in roman numerals) the Witchcraft Act 1735 had it not been
repealed in 1951. Aside from that all she really did was try to help her
father talk to a lawyer.
So on this occasion I am rather pleased with the Mail although I am finding
the Court of Protection increasingly surreal.
Matthew Hopkins
THE WITCHFINDER GENERAL
- April 29, 2013 at 11:26
-
as if any more was needed
http://ynysmam.blogspot.com/2012/12/i-heard-boys-screams.htm
- April 29, 2013 at 13:40
-
The link doesn’t work.
- April 29, 2013 at 13:50
-
- April 29, 2013 at 14:15
-
The last Link of the blog didnt work either………..
I think this is the story
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/local-news/grandmother-accuses-cartrefi-conwy-damaging-2652066
and one can only assume Darren is trying to indicate that the
reporter in all three cases was the same David Powell………. but exactly
what Darren Laverty is getting at only he can tell us – if he ever comes
back……
- April 29, 2013 at
14:29
-
this might work http://ynysmam.blogspot.co.uk/2012_12_23_archive.html
- April 30, 2013 at 16:27
-
Anyone grasped what the point of this was? It’s still lost on
me.
{ 42 comments }