COLUMNISTS ARTICLES GALLERY CLUBS & SOCIETIES SERVICES DIRECTORY EVENTS DIARY HOME

A Better Balance

Thu 5 Jan 2012

By Mel Stride

Following the phone hacking scandal the government set up an inquiry to consider press standards. It is led by Lord Leveson an Appeal Court judge who in a previous incarnation led the unsuccessful prosecution of Ken Dodd for alleged tax evasion. Leveson has gone about his current task with the zeal of a man who is this time determined for greater success. He is due to report back next year with his recommendations on the actions government should take regarding the regulation of the British press. His conclusions (whatever they are) will need to be considered most carefully - there will be much at stake – with, no doubt, much of the debate centring around the tension between press freedom and the decency that we should expect when it comes to reporting on the personal lives of those in whom the press show an interest. We can take it for granted that there will be much from Leveson about the disgrace that is phone hacking and the various other illegal activities that have been brought to light but the territory upon which the parameters of change will be most delicately charted will be more loosely defined than matters of legality – what will matter in the end will probably be more about what is generally felt to be acceptable.

Those who have appeared before the inquiry so far include actor Hugh Grant, comic Steve Coogan (who I can never quite detach from Alan Partridge) and Gerry and Kate McCann. Grant reels off a catalogue of misinformation that has been printed about him (some leading to successful damages claims), highly intrusive paparazzi attention and a suspicious break-in at his apartment. Coogan claims that the News of World called him and agreed to restrict the extent of the coverage of his extra-marital affaire provided that he confirmed the truth of some of the less embarrassing details. He claims the paper wrung this confirmation from him only to go back on its word and to print everything regardless. The McCann’s story includes what most would surely accept as a gross invasion of privacy – the printing of the contents of Kate McCann’s diary (apparently leaked by Portuguese police) in the News of the World just the year after the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine. At the inquiry Mrs McCann described the article published in September 2008 under the heading ‘In her own words’ as showing “absolutely no respect for me as a grieving mother”. She continued, “I had written these thoughts, these words at the most desperate time of my life.”

Leveson will be hotly debated in Parliament. I look forward to taking part. I am all for press freedom but rather sickened by the all too prevalent and commercially inspired intrusiveness of some of our national media – a better balance must be struck.

My comments generally relate to national rather than local press who provide a great service to communities – if you have any comments on press reform please contact me [email protected]

Pilgrims

There was a recent parliamentary debate on Pilgrims. Not those who fled for America in the 16th Century. The reference here is to Jane Pilgrim – a health-assistant who worked fulltime for her union whilst effectively employed as a nurse. Legal? Absolutely. But is it right?

I have been a union member. When, as a hobby I worked as a tour guide I joined Amicus. My membership included a generous public liability insurance and I knew the union would help me if one of my tourists took a plunge down the steps of the British Museum. Trade unionism is not, despite some lazy assumptions, an anathema to Conservatives. In fact a third of trade unionists are Conservative voters and within the party there is a clear acceptance that moderate trade unionism can be a powerful force for good.

Most people assume that unions are funded solely by their subscriptions but a Freedom of Information request sent to 1,253 public sector organisations revealed that in 2010 trade unions received £85.8 million from public sector organisations of which £18.3 million was in direct payments (made under the union modernisation fund and union learning fund) and £67.5 million was in paid staff time – i.e. the value of staff paid for by their organisations but allowed to undertake union work. In 2009-10, 2,493 full-time equivalent public sector employees worked for unions at the taxpayers’ expense.

I have no problem with paid union representatives and officials provided that it is the unions and not the public purse that do the paying. A YouGov poll for the TaxPayers Alliance indicates that more than half of us want to see an end to the practice of public sector-funded trade union officials. I would like to know what you think – you can drop me a line at [email protected]