The News of the World hacking scandal

Scotland Yard have announced that they will reopen the investigation into the News of the World telephone hacking scandal. The Metropolitan Police were forced into the decision after evidence was passed to them by the NotW owners, News International (a subsidiary of Murdoch's News Corp), following the sacking of assistant news editor, Ian Edmondson last week. Edmondson was sacked after communications were uncovered in his emails between him and Glenn Mulcaire, the private detective jailed for the original phone hacking allegations.

The sacking represents a change of course for News International, who, since the imprisonment of former Royal Editor, Clive Goodman, have relied on the 'rogue reporter' defence. In other other words, Goodman acted alone and Mulcaire's activities were unknown to other senior staff despite being on a pretty hefty £105,000 a year contract. In the 2007 court hearing, Mr Justice Gross, the judge who sentenced Mulcaire concluded that from the evidence before him, he was satisfied that Mulcaire had dealt with "others at News International."According to the Independent, both Mulcaire and Goodman were paid money by the NotW after their convictions and neither has subsequently spoken out.

The coverage has already forced Andy Coulson, the editor of the NotW at the time to resign from the paper and on 21st January from his post as David Cameron's communications director. In December, the Crown Prosecution Service abandoned an investigation into allegations that Mr Coulson was personally involved in phone hacking as editor of the News of the World. But the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, announced this month that the CPS was conducting "a comprehensive assessment of the material in the possession of the Met... following developments in the civil courts". Ian Edmondson was described by ex-Times editor, Andew Neil, as being very close Coulson. Mr Coulson continues to deny any knowledge of the phone hacking.

Those 'developments' are the 20 alleged hacking victims, including comedian Steve Coogan and former deputy prime minister John Prescott – bringing proceedings in the High Court. News International have already reached a £700,000 settlement with Professional Footballers Association boss, Gordon Taylor and £1 million with publicist Max Clifford. Mulcaire, alone, confirmed that he tapped 91 people and the latest evidence has revealed that tapping continued into 2010, with actress Sienna Miller and her step-mother taking action.

On the whole it is a pretty seedy story. Privacy has been violated and at the moment it appears it was all to feed our hunger for gossip. I understand that what gave the game away was a report that said Prince William had pulled a tendon. The headlines may  may have been inconsequential but the story refuses to die. On Tuesday, Jeremy Hunt, I said Hunt, the Culture Secretary said that he was postponing his decision over referring Murdoch's News Corp takeover of BSkyB to the Competition Commission, despite the Ofcom advising that it would be harmful to the plurality of media in the UK. Murdoch, is in town and won't be enjoying having this bad publicity. Murdoch already owns four British newspapers, which have been engaged in a battle to undermine Ofcom's recommendation. There is a lot at stake. How far up the News International ladder can this story go? In an interview with the BBC, Andrew Neil said that, given his experience and knowledge of the culture of News International, the suggestion that no senior execs knew what was going on was, "incredible"

The settlements to Taylor and Clifford were very large and the parties have agreed not to disclose the evidence that forced News International's hand. On Monday the Guardian asked:

"who at News International (or indeed at parent company News Corporation) agreed to make settlement payments to Gordon Taylor and Max Clifford to end phone-hacking cases? More to the point, when they did so, what legal advice did they receive? After all, it would be an incurious board member who agreed to write out a six-figure settlement cheque, but who did not ask why. Was the person authorising the payment told that there were references to the potential involvement of other News of the World reporters in alleged phone hacking? Or is there another reason why six-figure settlements are appropriate?"

Whilst Murdoch battles to extend his empire, the Metropolitan Police are struggling to maintain some credibility, thanks to their inadequate investigation of the original allegations. How often have you heard senior politicians say that the police can't be trusted to carry out a proper inquiry? Lord Prescott has called for a judicial review. The original investigation was carried out by counter-terrorism officers under the command of acting deputy commissioner John Yates. However, the Met announced that the new investigation would be handled by deputy assistant commissioner Sue Akers from the specialist crime directorate. The counter-terrorist officers are now "too busy".

Back in September the Guardian speculated about the Met's close relationship with News International. Tamson Allen, who is representing some of the victims and is calling for judicial review said, "If there was no conspiracy, the police handling so far, has made it look very like one." She argues that the police have consistently limited the release of evidence and through legal 'semantics' have reduced the number of victims. The Today programme suggested that real number could be in the thousands. Most importantly, why did the police only pursue Goodman and Mulcaire, when other people were named in Mulcaire's notebooks? They didn't even interview those named, one of whom was Edmondson.

Where will it end? It's not Watergate yet, but, according to the Independent, both Alastair Campbell and Gordon Brown have asked the Met to investigate whether they were victims.

Will the story lead to Downing Street? ... Again?

Andy Gray, Pepsi and does 'No' mean 'Yes?'

A young 'office' type in a bar is rebuffed by a beautiful woman. She is not interested in him, but at that moment her attention is attracted by a news broadcast on the TV warning of the earth's imminent collision with an asteroid and the "end of life as we know it." By now everyone's attention is on the TV reporter who advises that the collision will occur in less than 10 minutes. The bar is stunned until the silence is broken by the bartender. He leaps across the bar smashing glasses and pushes his way out screaming, "we're goin' to die!" Immediately, the rest of the customers descend into panic and follow the bartender out of the door.

Only the original man and young woman are left behind. Their attention is again drawn to the reporter who is saying, "...reach out to someone, anyone who is near, I don't know exactly how much time we have, but show someone you love them, don't be alone." The woman catches the eye of the man, smiles shyly, lunges, kisses him and they fall to the floor.

We cut to the man walking into an apartment. The 'reporter' from the TV is there alongside the 'bartender', "And?", says the 'reporter', "Thank you guys, I love you." replies the 'office' type. The whole thing was a scam and we can infer that the man got what he wanted from the woman. But this is not, the beginning of a gritty drama, it is a Pepsi ad. The whole thing was a scam to get into the girl's knickers. Is that too crude? Well not as crude as the advert, which seemed like a form of rape.

Rape is a strong term and, of course, sexual lying is at the heart of some of the worlds oldest stories. Waking up to find that the person you think you went to bed with is somebody else, plays a role in Shakespeare, Greek myths, Arthurian legend and even Bible stories. In a 1996 paper, Wendy Doniger from the New School for Social Research, argued that there was an element of 'self-deception' for all of the 'victims' in these stories. They let themselves be deceived or took steps so they could not discover the truth. In other words: they were asking for it. Of course, those stories were written hundreds of years ago. We've moved on since then haven't we?

On a basic level, rape is a type of sexual assault, involving sexual intercourse, against another person without consent. Consent is generally the key point to prove. But what if that consent is given because of deception by one of the parties? In a case that drew worldwide attention last year a man was convicted of raping an Israeli woman despite her giving consent after it was revealed that he was not Jewish but Palestinian. The man was convicted of 'rape by deception' because the woman would never have consented to sex have sex with a Muslim.

In summing up the case the court concluded that:

"The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price, the sanctity of their bodies and souls. When the very basis of trust between human beings drops, especially when the matters at hand are so intimate, sensitive and fateful, the court is required to stand firmly at the side of the victims--actual and potential--to protect their well-being. Otherwise, they will be used, manipulated and misled, while paying only a tolerable and symbolic price." 

In the USA, a number of recent cases have questioned whether deception can challenge the traditional view of rape as simply involving force. In 2008 Raymond Mitchell, was convicted in Tennessee of rape despite having the consent of his three victims. Following other cases where the element of force could not be proved, Massachusetts debated introducing a crime of 'rape by fraud'. Of course, it would be a rather difficult crime to police, would a push-up bra represent misrepresentation. Would women have to stop wearing make-up? 

Viewers complained to the Advertising Standards Agency that the advert condoned rape, sexual assault or deception as a means of obtaining sex. Given the current debate going on in courts around the world this seems a fair criticism. The fact that it isn't technically rape doesn't make it any less distasteful. Pepsi said the theme of men attempting to gain the attention of attractive women was universal in storytelling and frequently featured in broadcast content. It's a revealing comment.

'Gain the attention'? He did that in the first moments of the ad but she didn't seem interested. The scam is quite clearly designed to gain more than just attention. However, the Pepsi response seems to imply that, like the 'victims' of those old tales, the woman from then on allows herself to be deceived. She could leave after she rebuffs his first advance, she could leave with everyone else in the bar but instead she stays, listens to the TV and then becomes the protagonist of the ensuing sexual activity. Her little smile before she lunges is the clue. What Pepsi are telling us, is that she wanted him all along some. 'No' means 'yes'.

Now I'm not a feminist theorist or particularly politically correct. In fact, if the subject is raised, there is a very good chance that, as long as I'm not 'on air' (a remote possibility) and with consideration to how well I knew my audience, I would make some disparaging comment about female referees. Most of the men I know I think would agree; but it would be for social rather than intellectual reasons. Breaking taboos can be a powerful form of male bonding. It is certainly part of the football ritual and of, course, expresses itself in a variety of ways, some of which are even less palatable.

So what has this got to do with Pepsi? I first noticed the advert over Christmas and I only ever saw it on Sky Sports. My initial thought, like many who complained, was that it was condoning a form of rape. However, many complainants believed the ad was sexist, demeaned women and portrayed men as sexual predators. The ASA investigated all the complaints but ruled that no further action should be taken, arguing that the ad presented a “fantastical” scenario and was unlikely to cause widespread offence. Compared to Andy Gray it has hardly become a cause celebre. It received only 49 complaints.

Pepsi said they "did not believe that it contained concepts which offended against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards or offended public feeling". Rape, sexual assault and sexism? I found it much more offensive than Andy Gray's comments. He and his colleagues are a handful of idiots or football fans if you like, but Pepsi is a huge corporation. Their advert was developed and refined to capture a particular audience. On one hand, the ad is suggesting that what women really want is to have sex with a stranger on the floor of public bar, and, on the other, it is saying that it is ok for men to 'con' women into bed. The fact is that Pepsi were targeting Sky Sports viewers with this advert. This is how one of the world's major corporations see British sports fans. Are they wrong?

Now, while my Mrs is cooking the tea, putting the kids to bed and doing the washing: are there any women out there who can explain the LBW law to me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CDH7IaNG6E

God help us?

Does David Cameron know something we don't? Historical evidence says only a fool would cut public spending in a recession, so the government cut spending. Healthcare systems around the world dominated by the private sector are less, not more, efficient, so they decide to break up the NHS and bring in the private sector. There are hardly any jobs, youth unemployment is a massive problem so why not make it prohibitively expensive to go to university. I have heard of thinking outside the box but we are, it appears, being led by a government that is not tied by any of the philosophical structures of logic or enlightenment thinking.

I must admit, I was confused. After all, these Tory chaps are very well educated. Their parents did not send them to the local comp. No, they wanted them further away than that, so the little Tories were taken from home to be educated. Safely far from home and completely unable to interfere with their parents' busy social lives and careers, all responsibility for their upbringing fell upon the staff of the cleverly spun, public school. You could say that the private sector became mum and dad. Does that explain the strong attachment?

However, by the 1980s times were changing and even absent parents were uncomfortable with the idea of staff  lavishing their children with love and tenderness. Anyway, it was a very expensive extra. Instead the boys were left to learn the importance of relationship building themselves. It was a vital lesson, otherwise they would get beaten up everyday. I'm sure they learnt quickly and it was whilst at school they were able to make friends with whom they would go to Oxford and then work with in forming the government. With such a warm, caring and broad experience of life, it seems utterly baffling that they would pursue such a reckless, uncaring and divisive series of reforms. It's as if these privileged millionaires don't really know what it is like to be out in the real world. Or may be they just need a hug?

Then, it all fell into place. The appointment of Dr Hans-Christian  Raabe to sit on the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), was the final piece of the jigsaw. Dr Raabe, a GP, is a member of the Maranatha Community and is medical co-ordinator for the Council for Health and Wholeness (CHW). He also stood for the European Parliament in 2009 for the Christian People's Alliance. The Maranatha Community is a cross denominational movement of Christians,

'We hold fast to the central truths of the Christian faith and strongly affirm the Lordship of Christ and his radical gospel. We are called to bear witness to the truth. Crime, violence, vandalism, corruption, drug abuse, family and marriage collapse, pornography, promiscuity, fear and intolerance are all causing serious fissures in communities across Europe and the West. 

What are the chances that they would disapprove of all of my hobbies? Maranatha means "Our lord has come!" and the Community aims to heal the divisions within Christianity. It appears that they aim to do this by by attacking other religions and minorities within society. I find that there is nothing like hating other people and creating an atmosphere of fear to forge strong bonds. Briefing documents for MPs written on behalf of the CHW have expressed fierce homophobia and suggest that there is an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable.

  

Raabe's appointment has brought yet more controversy to the ACMD following the resignation of the Chair, Professor David Nutt in 2009. Nutt dared to weigh up the evidence and came up with the wrong answer for the, then, Labour government. Happily, those sort of practices will be a thing of the past. I am very confident that Raabe will not be anything less than subjective. 'Over the past 40 years our culture has embraced post-modernism, which rejects absolute values and standards of truth and promotes the objective of self-gratification.' They're even attacking literary theory and self-gratification. How will I fill my day? A 2005 submission to the government for the CHW, expressed concern that the young were particularly prone to grossly misleading messages - but how else will Churches recruit new members? 

Another group that is campaigning to reassert 'Christian values', is the BNP. Out on the campaign trail and on Question Time, Nick Griffin, has said he represents 'Christian Britain.' "We believe that nations are ordained by God and that they will be there at the end of times, so logically from that all nations have the right to ensure they survive and are not simply swamped by an endless flood from elsewhere." Christian TV has defended its right to provide Griffin with a platform because "The BNP are the only party that would stop abortions in this country. Many Christians abhor abortion." Well, better support the BNP then. Mr Raabe has commented to the Observer, "this is an appointment regarding drug policy and what views I may or may not have on homosexuality are irrelevant." In that case, I look forward to Cameron appointing Griffin to a whole range of government committees that do not deal directly with race.

The appointment got me thinking. Perhaps, David Cameron is better connected than we thought? Why would a Tory appoint someone who opposed his party in an election last year? Why would he think it was such a good idea to appoint a Christian fundamentalist? Obviously, God really is an Englishman, probably an Etonian, and with western civilisation on the brink of collapse, HE, has finally chosen to reveal the true path to financial stability and social coherence. Who'd have ever thought that George Osborne would turn out to be a prophet? Well, the Lord moves in mysterious ways. Was it something written in the stars? Did Cameron have a vision, perhaps he heard voices? Does number ten have a hotline to the Holy Spirit? 

Despite the profound political, social and cultural ramifications that would accompany unarguable proof of the existence of God; at the moment this solution seems more palatable than the alternative; that the Tories are just making it up as they go along and keeping their fingers crossed. So George Michael was right all along, 'You gotta have faith!' Unfortunately, for George, there is a good chance, if the Maranatha and Raabe are correct, Cameron will have to get 'medieval on his ass' - and not in a way that would threaten western civilisation. Think that's funny? Well, they laughed at Joan of Arc, and look where listening to God got her.

We can only hope...