Private thoughts
There’s a great scene in an episode of “The West Wing” where Sam Seaborne, the idealistic young speechwriter, tells a colleague that if the big issues of recent decades were human rights and the role of government, the big issues of the next couple of decades will be privacy.
I think he has a point. Yesterday I wrote about how the government’s Criminal Records Bureau is releasing health records to would-be employers. Last week, the Foreign Secretary William Hague was forced to publicly deny rumours about his sexuality. And today, the Prime Minister’s Head of Communications is again facing questions about whether he knew about phone-tapping journalists working for him when he was editing the News of the World.
People with more time on their hands than I have, and with significantly more erudite ways of putting things are having their say on this today, and if it’s analysis you want I suggest you read them. But I do a fine line in personal angst, and can tell you that the whole thing makes me feel uneasy and angry in equal measure.
How did we come to a place where it is acceptable to behave as journalists have done, tapping phones and making lurid allegations seemingly on the flimsiest of foundations? What is the end game for these journalists? Are they just the grown-up equivalents of sneering playground bullies, motivated by easy money? Or is it something else?
There seems nowhere for anyone in public life to go now which they can consider truly private, even if they have done nothing wrong. And, more worrying still, as this routine invasion of the privacy of public figures becomes accepted, its effects on the lives of ordinary citizens is felt as well. Prying, snooping cameras, and organisations playing fast and loose with personal data for money are commonplace and need tackling now.
I think it’s something that the coalition agree on, and I suspect the public do too. Let’s make some progress on it and make clear where the boundaries are between what is and is not acceptable. At the moment they are too blurred, and there is too little responsibility borne by those who clearly cross them
Rick
Volunteer
Help in election
Report a problem
Join Us
Your views
Register to vote
Postal vote
Email updates
September 6th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
‘It’s extraordinary that the leader of the opposition, who wants to be a prime minister, employs Andy Coulson who, at best, was responsible for a newspaper that was out of control and, at worst, was personally implicated in criminal activity.’
The person who said this is now in the Cabinet – even though he belongs to that bit with only one sixth of the power and authority. The media/press are more responsible for the things that are wrong with our society than most – certainly more so than politicians. Quite clearly they invent things about people to make money. All with a self righteous justification that the public interest demands it. Their approach to too many stories to list is at turns sickening and depressing. Many things need to be done to change this, if indeed it is possible, but an independent PCC would be a start. And quite how even half reasonable behaviour becomes the norm for ‘commentators’ such as Paul Staines aka ‘Guido Fawkes’ I have no idea.
In addition to which is the real concern that the government is responsive to the ‘concerns’ of th eMurdoch empire and other media barons that the BBC is ‘too big’ and ‘biased’ and ‘extravagent’ and we end up with Fox news – that is really bad. Glen Beck. Perish the thought.
September 6th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Indeed… The Coulson issue looks very dodgy to say the least. And once again the (majority of) Lib Dems in the Commons are doing themselves no favours by backing the PM for reasons I can’t comprehend.
As a Sky subscriber (for the football, largely) I suppose I am as guilty of feeding the Murdoch empire as anyone, but I agree with you that his influence is concerning. Although is it any more concerning now then when he was courting New Labour ten years back? I don’t know.
The nightmare scenario is Glen Beck, as you say. But I think Britons are too smart to fall for it… I hope.
September 6th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
The Hague/Coulson issues have evoked two emotions in me… disgust and despair.
Disgust because I find it impossible to believe that an Editor of a national newspaper (apparently) did not, at any time, query the veracity and sources of the information his reporters were submitting. It seems that he just took what they were reporting at face value. That he was so unconcerned about the legalities is worrying enough. But having resigned over the issue, and then be taken on as Communications Director by the Leader of one of our largest political parties, with such a cloud over his head, is astonishing. What on earth was Cameron thinking of?
Cameron to Coulson: “Andy, did you know about all this?”
Coulson to Cameron: “No Dave, not a thing. Honest Guv.”
Cameron to Coulson: “You’re hired!”
Nothing changes until change is forced upon it. That’s why so many people who should (and do) know better, are backing Cameron on this one. Power is everything – don’t rock the boat.
Disgust because William Hague’s marriage, or indeed William Hague’s sexuality, are of no relevance whatsoever, when it comes to holding the post of Foreign Secretary. Apart of course, from those slugs who roam around the gutter, looking for an excuse to try and destroy somebody else’s life.
Despair because none of this is “new”. The gutter press have attacked countless individuals for decades, and politicians have demonstrated their utter contempt for decency for just as long.
There was a time (in my youth, so I do remember!), when the Press maintained a discreet silence on certain issues, until events overtook them, and they had to report the news. That slowly evolved into “publish it anyway, it’s true, and the people have a right to know”. Slowly, the media barons realised that they really could “publish and be damned”.
It’s now about power – pure and simple.
Richard Nixon had power… and thought he could hold on to power by using its’ levers to confound the people.
Robert Maxwell… ditto.
They both came to a sticky end… but not before a great many people had suffered at their hands, whilst the “Establishment” looked the other way.
Rupert Murdoch has the power to get politicians jumping through hoops! So no change there then. You ask whether we should have been as concerned with his courting Labour ten years ago as we are now.
Yes, we should. It stinks.
What’s the answer? Probably nothing less than revolution – although I would not advocate it.
September 6th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
I’ve now discovered (my thanks to Wikipedia for this gem), that Andy Coulson supports Tottenham Hotspur!
Nice bloke, Andy!! I’ve always liked him really – a model citizen in every sense of the word.
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
September 7th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
In the comments (at 9.29am) yahyah posted this:
A somewhat dispiriting report from the Guardian.
‘Would you please ask Lib Dem HQ whether Clegg thinks that having a Murdochite inside No 1O is the real threat to our civil
liberties not speed cameras and CCTV? Clegg is getting an easy ride over this and usually he is rent a gob for perceived civil liberty abuses.
I thought it was a fair point and I sent an email to Lib Dem HQ. No reply. I tried another Lib Dem press adviser. No reply. But I finally found another Lib Dem aide at large in the press gallery. So what did he have to say about Nick Clegg’s views on the Andy Coulson affair. “I don’t really want to get into this,” he replied.’
But should he ‘get into it’ ?
September 7th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Who is yahyah? Last I heard he was playing midfield for City…
Nick Clegg’s in a difficult position, partly of his own making, but partly not. I’m not sure he personally should get involved, but I wish the party generally, and its backbench MPs in particular, were saying more about this (more in any way, not just anti-Coulson necessarily, just to remind the world that they exist).
In my view, the problem Nick Clegg has is that as a member of the Cabinet he is bound by collective responsibility and can’t just speak out on matters like this. It’s his decision to remain there and so he has to take the criticism that things like this will merit. He’s part of a government which has to take decisions collectively even if some members disagree with those decisions. The same for spending cuts as for this.
But it’s not entirely his fault. I think, in an environment not so virulently anti-Clegg (comments like “usually he is rent-a-gob for perceived civil liberty abuses” are a case in point. Total rubbish and completely ignorant of Nick’s work as a champion for civil liberties for years), and in a culture not looking for any perceived crack in the coalition, he might find it easier to speak out in some way.
Can you imagine if he did speak out though? The papers would have a field day. Any plaudits he received for standing up to this would be lost in a sea of rubbish about the coalition disintegrating.
So I don’t really think he should get into it, because it’s a bit more complicated than a normal man saying what he thinks, sadly. That too is somewhat dispiriting.
And let’s not forget that whilst there are certainly questions to be answered, Coulson says he’s not guilty and hasn’t been proved guilty. Labour politicians saying government staff are baddies doesn’t necessarily make them so. Maybe Clegg knows something we don’t, and that’s why he’s being quiet. I have no idea.
September 7th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
You are right I think – except that the issue, in my view, is not Andy Coulson. It is that very possibly thousands of people have, in old speak, had their phone tapped by a private organisation for financial gain through increased circulation. It currently focuses on the NotW but it is not unrealsitic to suspect that other papers have done the same.
This, or anything approaching it, is a massive breach of privacy and as yahyah (whoever that is) implied much worse than anything connected with CCTV cameras or speed cameras. Or at least I would think so. There would be no contest if I was asked whether I preferred speed cameras to negotiate (or CCTV in town) when I drove or having agents acting on behalf of journalists eavesdrop my private communications. We know members of the Royal family were listened to clandestinely and it is hard to believe that it was not done to others as well.
To prosecute successfully in a court of law the burden of proof is high and understandably difficult to achieve. However, circumstantial evidence is about in plenty. We should make sure the stable doors are opened and the Lib Dems have to help do this even if it proves inconvenient for their current partners in government and their media allies.
Collective responsibility applies to Cabinet decisions – does it really apply in this case ?
September 7th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
I think the convention of collective responsibility which applies to cabinet decisions now needs extending to virtually everything the cabinet does, mainly because the media seize on any difference of opinion (even if perfectly valid) as some kind of massive coalition-ending schism.
But anyway, I agree with your main point. Phone tapping is completely unacceptable. People have already been prosecuted for it, and if there is evidence to prosecute then of course there should be further prosecutions. CCTV cameras and speed cameras are also important though. No offence, but you’re unlikely to have your phone tapped by journalists, because you aren’t a public figure (I think!). They’re both important, it’s just that one makes front page news and annoys politicians, and the other affects millions of ordinary people.
I think everyone involved should act with honesty and integrity, make sure that justice is done, and make sure that only people who behave responsibly have good government jobs. Sadly you and I don’t know what the truth is. We have the Labour-supporting press saying it’s terrible, and the Murdoch press saying nothing. If this story tells us anything, it’s that we can’t believe what we read in the papers. So God knows what the truth is. Maybe Yahyah knows…!