addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrosseditemptyheartexportfacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

GlobalNet21: Recreating Our Futures Message Board General Discussion › Politicians, Police, Media and Social Justice

Politicians, Police, Media and Social Justice

Yoga B.
user 11354113
London, GB
Post #: 5
Politicians, Police, Media and Social Justice

Here we are again; riots in Brixton, Toxteth, Broadwater Farm and nationwide ! The social unrest of the 1980’s, particularly during the years of governance by The Conservative Party, have been violent, bloody and left lifelong scars. But has ‘British Society’ learnt any lessons from its violent past?

The perceived notions of British Democracy and British Justice are in tatters, yet again. With ENDEMIC corruption amongst its politicians, police forces (particularly The Metropolitan Police in London ) and The Media, and all three institutions ‘covering up’ for each other, is it any wonder that we have a scarred and bloodied society keen on bloodletting and bloodshed ?

Lord Scarman and Lord Macpherson, among numerous others, did their best (via lengthy and well researched reports) to wake up a society and its institutions still ENTRENCHED in THEIR Colonial and violent pasts and their absolute, indestructible and imbecilic belief that ‘they know best’.

While the looters and thieves on our streets in the past few days have been condemned as ‘mindless feral rats’, the ‘suited and booted’ thieves and looters in our banks, media, government, police forces and HM approved establishments continue, entirely ‘legally’, to receive massive bonuses, substantial pay rises and disproportionately huge salaries. After all, they are continuing that age old Imperialist ‘tradition’ of looting, pillaging and exploitation! How many innocent lives have been blighted by the presence of The Imperialist savages ? The legacy of The Imperialist 'thieves', thieves of 'human spirit' as well as 'everything' else, will last for generations to come.

So much was STOLEN from so many by so few- we must NEVER forget.

Whilst their tax burden is reduced from 50 to 45 percent, the displaced, the disenfranchised, the dispossessed, the discriminated against and the disillusioned continue to lose their jobs, to work on low pay or are unable to find work for lengthy (lasting years) periods.

Hopelessness sometimes leads to lawlessness. When you have nothing to lose, you have nothing to fear.

Is it any wonder that we have social unrest on this scale when almost all boardrooms in this country are composed entirely, and unfairly, of white, middle class men, most having secured their jobs through the ‘Old Boy Network’, and when ‘who you know’ is far more valid than ‘what you know’ ?

The terms British Democracy, British Justice and British Meritocracy are oxymorons. Any attempt to make favourable comparisons between The British ‘system’ and other systems around the World are frankly ludicrous as NO other system around the World holds itself up as a model democracy.

'Divide and rule' has been and will ALWAYS be THEIR 'motto', and it continues to serve Them VERY well indeed.

When ‘The Establishment’ in Britain is so very anxious to restore ‘law and order’ in The Middle East, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere in order for it to continue to plunder and profit for the benefit of it and its ‘chosen few’ ( i.e. USA and Israel), yet ignores completely, and conveniently, the duplicity and hypocrisy of such actions, is it any wonder that violence has finally erupted in its own ‘back yard’ ?The supporters of The (proven) murdering English Monarchy cannot surely now sit in 'judgement' over the alleged 'murdering' (Robert) Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

‘As you sow,so you shall reap.’- The Old Testament

Professor Gus John encapsulated the simple truth, ‘You can criminalise these youngsters all you like, but unless you tackle the underlying causes, in detail and over time, we will be back here in 5, 10, 15, 20 years time, over and over again, just as we were here before.’ It is so simple, address the CAUSES of the diseases so that we do not have to deal with the symptoms. Such ‘clarity’ of thought appears to elude our policymakers.

‘Every action has an equal but opposite reaction.’- Isaac Newton’s third Law Of Motion.

The Establishment of this country is truly amoral. It has available billions of pounds (1billion= 1000 million) to engage in wholly unjustifiable wars, for The Royal Family (parasitic paramecia), for City bonuses, for The Olympics and other ‘events’ that ‘showcase’ Britain, yet at the same time pleads poverty and stresses the need for stringency when social justice needs to be addressed.

The irrefutable truth is that Margaret Thatcher, with her unique rhetoric and policies, moulded this society into an ever increasing selfish, self serving, insular and blinkered one, whose sole purpose is the acquisition of material wealth at ANY cost. ‘Thatcherism’ was THE founding building block of the material greed of today. She was unquestionably the PIONEER of the ‘evil greed’ in our society today.

Thus, only those with material wealth,that wealth of most having been acquired through corrupt means, have been deemed to have credibility and respect. In the process, human values, human decency, ideologies, moral values, human endeavours (other than for the acquisition of money), justice, peace, fairness and level playing fields have ALL been sacrificed at the altar of ‘I’m alright Jack’.

If you look a little more closely, you will find that the ‘real’ violent thugs, who are utterly ruthless,repugnant and efficient predators are NOT the ones running around on our streets, but instead go by various pseudonyms: The Royal Family, Central and Local Government, HMRC, HM Home Office, HM Police Service, HM Prisons, The Media, The Banks, et al.

Never before in ‘modern day democracy’ have dissenting voices been more marginalised and ‘crushed’ than they are in Britain today. While The Establishment , The Media and their sycophantic ‘brigades’ from the leafy ‘Shires’ bleat in their affected accents and in unison,‘How dare they?’, we must ALL accept that society exists for the benefit of each and EVERY member and not simply for the chosen ‘few’, often middle class, affluent and Anglo Saxon.

It has been said that, ‘people get the government they deserve’; the events of the recent past are ample evidence of that! Britain is not a sceptred isle, but rather, a septic one.

'Our responsibility is no longer to acquire, but to be.' - Rabindranath Tagore
Yoga B.
user 11354113
London, GB
Post #: 24
Here follows The Commentary of The BBC:

Finally the bogeyman has arrived. A regulated press! Government intervention! Stalinism! Precious liberties won through 300 years of courage and eloquence to be forfeited by a panic about phone hacking! Ever since Lord Justice Leveson began his inquiry into what he charmingly calls the "culture, practice and ethics of the press", the public's flesh has been made to creep in this manner about an attempt to ensure that the press behaves in a remotely civilised manner.

Leveson's clever report does call for a new system of regulation backed by the force of law, but most of us who have been involved in investigative journalism in the public interest for many years will find it hard to fault what he says, either about the imperative of reform or the futility of once again accepting on trust promises from the worst of the press, its editors and its owners. The serial misconduct, as Leveson makes clear, has been confined to a relatively small number of miscreants with News International in the lead (and but for the Guardian, the misdeeds would have gone unpunished).

But Leveson's indictment of the reckless crimes of phone hacking, computer intrusion, harassment, spying and bullying is chilling to read, just as it was terrifying to experience for the victims, the humble and celebrated alike. The intrusions into people's lives without any real public interest justification have a long, sordid history and are too numerous for the recidivists to be given just one last chance, guvnor.

There are many weaknesses in the report, on which more in a moment. However, on the central issue – which the prime minister disputed on Thursday – I believe Leveson deserves support. He is right to argue that the new system of self-regulation must be underpinned by statute. This would give credibility to the self-regulators, who would be wholly independent of any government or government department.

Leveson believes such statutory underpinning is "essential". It would enshrine for the first time a legal duty of the government to protect the freedom of the press. It would reassure a public whose faith in the press has been sadly diminished. It would give the ring of authority to the standards promulgated by the successor to the Press Complaints Commission – what we could call a "Press Trust" – and its proposed system of arbitration in disputes. I do have my doubts, however, about whether Ofcom is the right body to watch over all this.

His description of a new system whereby the press would regulate itself is convincing in its detail. He has introduced incentives to encourage all publishers and editors to co-operate, whether in print or on the internet. I like the five ways he strives to create a credible system based on the establishment of a Press Trust. It sounds similar to the BBC Trust (which remains a good model, despite recent accidents at the BBC).

This trust would monitor a genuinely independent and effective self-regulatory system dedicated to promoting high standards and protecting the rights of individuals. It is important, as Leveson recognises, that most of its members should be independent of the press – though it should include a number of people of experience such as a former editor and investigative journalist, and certainly should not include any member of the government or Commons. This should appease the paranoid, but don't count on it.

The new trust would require the industry to provide adequate funding. Since print is in difficulties, I suggest the pockets be tapped of those who make oodles on the net, including Google. A more difficult question is how this body would adjudicate complaints and initiate its own inquiries with equal care for the sensitivities of individuals and complexities of investigative journalism.

The press – who dat? – would have to agree some form of selection process for the trust. The trust, in turn, would be served by a new "code committee" on which experienced press people would have an important role. I believe it should act with the utmost openness.

Leveson is very shrewd in building incentives for all publishers to support the new system, with increased civil penalties for gross intrusions of privacy by those who have decided to stand aside from the arbitration services the trust would provide. New civil procedure rules would permit the court to deprive the recalcitrant publisher of a claim for damages in suits about privacy, defamation and similar media cases even when he had succeeded at trial.

The biggest disappointment in Leveson is how far he skates over the crucial issue of ownership. It matters very much that the law on competition was broken by Margaret Thatcher's participation in 1981 in a secret deal by which Times Newspapers came under News International's control. All Leveson's fine language in his report about the need for future transparency is justified by the vaguest of references to what made it necessary in the first place. It surely matters a great deal that the greatest concentration of the British press was achieved by a backroom deal that gave News International such sway over British public life.

The voluminous report is also unwilling to reconcile all the conflicting testimonies of various witnesses. Was I telling the truth about Thatcher and her deal to give Rupert Murdoch control of Times Newspapers or was I not? Was Gordon Brown telling the truth about the pitiable exploitation of his newborn child, or was Rebekah Brooks?

Leveson, though, is highly critical of Murdoch's attention to what was going on in the News of the World. In his report he writes: "Although Mr Murdoch would no doubt not wish to countenance the deployment of tactics tantamount to blackmail, his more general observations about the doing of favours and back-scratching are extremely revealing as to the culture, practices and ethics of the press more generally, and far more so than simply in the circumstances which he was then discussing."

In the Commons exchange between the prime minister and Labour leader there was both dissent and agreement. The dissent was Ed Miliband's acceptance of the idea of statutory underpinning for the new Press Trust. Perhaps the prime minister was being shrewd in withholding his own endorsement of this idea. His emphasis was, like Miliband's, on the press now moving with all deliberate speed on Leveson's recommendations for setting up the new system of self-regulation. There was an implicit warning here that if they didn't, there was always the possibility that Cameron, Clegg and Miliband would all unite on the disputed issue. The prospect of a hanging, as Dr Johnson said, concentrates the mind wonderfully.
Yoga B.
user 11354113
London, GB
Post #: 34
Please read on:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...­
Yoga B.
user 11354113
London, GB
Post #: 37
Yoga B.
user 11354113
London, GB
Post #: 41
Yoga B.
user 11354113
London, GB
Post #: 60
Powered by mvnForum

Annual Subscription

GBP15.00 a year

This covers: Contributions help us cover administration costs, site costs and development.

Payment is accepted using:

  • PayPal
  • Cash or check - “Members can pay through PayPal. Those who want to pay be cheque should contact the Organiser.

Your organizer will refund you if:

  • Joining fees cover a year of activities of GlobalNet21. If anyone thinks that they should be refunded then they should contact the organiser and discuss that with him.

Our Sponsors

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy