Privacy to Royalty equal to leasehold on council estates

My mind is probably not working properly at the moment. With this medication I am on, it reduces the amount of Uric Acid in my body, I am starting to feel very relaxed and couldn’t even get out of bed this morning.

I cannot help reading those stories about Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, her claim to privacy and the relationship to public interest as part of the Royal Family.

If you purchase a home on a council estate, you are still getting billed for the costs of up-keep of the whole block and not just your flat. Similarly if you are a Royal, you are always treated as matter of public interest.

That all this is interwoven with privte individuals makes life complicated for everybody.

The Royal family has ceremonial value and some say brings in a lot of tourists. But does it really protect the human rights of royal family members if they are born into this situation and have no option but to be part of it. Until at least they can opt out, by which time they may not have explored all opportunities open to them.

There is no point to Royalty if it is inherited and not chosen because the individual members of any royal family do not have the same freedoms of choice than the rest of us have.

The concept of Royalty was one of power and ruling but now they simply have become actors and charity advocates and ceremonial performers.

We don’t need Royals to promote mental health or support charities. Any awards could be civic rather than royal. People who get Honours, get them for services to the country and not to the Royal family.



Tainted opinions

Electronic media reports terrorist threat in the US

Electronic media reports terrorist threat in the US. the media can have a very beneficial effect when they report about things that are of public interest

An article to highlight the dilemma of British courts is this excellent one from the BBC website. The argument rages, what is private and what is in the interest of the public to know. Is it interesting for the public to see that a leading politician has an unconventional sex life.

Again I have to bring a Hitler comparison because Hitler’s private life is very conspicuous. Had an affair with his niece, sexual relations, niece’s father of expectant child murdered by Hitler’s bullies and the girl shoots itself, so was the press report here in the UK long after World War II. At the time in Germany, when Hitler was just about to rise to power, the press didn’t give the matter a second thought. Now had the press reported how Hitler, took his niece out of university and had a sexual relationship and how weird his sexual habits were, some suspect urinating turned him on. Had the press been able to exploit this, it would have turned the fortune of German politics considerably but the press was already on the side of the German Nazis and so there would not have been any danger there, that Hitler’s private life would have been exposed.

So it has all to do with whom the press sides and there I see a danger. Because the press can pick and choose whom they wish to ridicule and can destroy the careers of some but not of others, who may be equally concerning.

In my case the press has managed to destroy my public profile since 1975 but without any good reason. I have always been a law abiding citizen, never committed a crime, never even thought of committing a crime, yet the press is happy to overindulge in my case in press made alleged  connections, but that is in my view only to serve their own purpose, which is to attract reader numbers and that in the dangerous political context that it suited Labour friendly publishers to run me down for something I never been involved in.

On the other hand a Respect Tower Hamlets Councillor who was stopped by terror police when he arrived at Heathrow, back from an anti-war conference in Cairo Egypt, no one even thought of heading this as ‘terror Councillor stopped at the airport’. That is because he was valuable to Labour when Labour hoped Rahmen changes over to Labour, which he later did. Yet in my case headlines appeared like “…… losing candidate” (now removed, but has been on publication for 2 years), and “Respect member’s …….. link“. Even Private Eye felt tempted to join in, but they printed an apology. But they most likely felt edged on by the blogs up about it.

I am not in any way wanting to imply that councillor Oliur Rahman has any connection to Al-Qaeda but this is an example to show how the press can lead public opinion in some cases, where it suits a political purpose but does not do so in others.
The press is making public opinion and can steer it in a certain direction and pick and choose on whom they direct their wrath. This includes all publishers like Bloggers.

We need some criteria that oozes fairness because if one can be treated in this way then why not treat others in this way. So one politician is reported as having an affair with a male prostitute, so all politicians, if any, who have affairs with male prostitutes should equally be reported about.

I think that the press freedom has dangerous implications as it is used to allocate power to some lucky people the press chooses not to report about in some weird way. We all have something that could be portrait as questionable and the press freedom is not fair as it is not used equally strong on all of us.

In my case I suspect simple sex discrimination. I am a single woman now, have not got a boyfriend and I am an easy victim, having had care responsibilities, a small child to look after and not much money, its simple exploitation of the weak.

Privacy is easier to prosecute in a civil case than libel and even high court judges allow injunctions in privacy not to disclose private sex life and they never allow an injunction in libel if the defendant pleads fair comment or justification. Why should a libelled person have to proof the libel is wrong and why doesn’t a privacy suite not require the same.

Why indeed does the victim of the press have to bring the proof and not the reporter? The burden of proof is not with the one that makes the unsubstantiated allegation, the burden of proof is with the one written about and the threshold of proofing publication is put very, very high indeed to the point where publishers don’t even have to disclose their publication platforms any longer.

That is very dangerous indeed, whereby publishers can now run away with their unfounded opinions. As I said before I think I have been reported about because I refused sex to certain people in the past and have no inclination to give in to demands now and think that in my case Der Spiegel got away with not even having to declare their methods of publications and there the courts are simply too liberal to the press as the press can make or break a politician today.

There is no set standard in how cases are even heard, where is the relativity of public interest? There are no set standards of what should be interesting for the public and way.

A reporter can report that Mr X has weird sex but not also that Mr Y has weird sex when they are both public figures.

The McBride scandal has fully explained how powerful the press can be and how it can misuse powers to steer public opinion in the court of one party and not another. We now even get to the point where the press demand from the police not to search them because they think of themselves as some kind of holy cows, e.g. complaints being made that police have stopped and searched people with cameras.

Lets face the fact that the press needs to sell papers and first and foremost they want to make money out of publications and it is not their job to disclose scandals because it is in the public interest to do so but because they want to sell papers, hence the equally important issue of reporting about all in the same way doesn’t even come into it. The press stand on a high pedestal at the moment and in my view they cannot even claim to work for the common good as they work merely to make money, they are not charities, they have no set standards to adhere to and simply rip into some but not into others and that is where the point is.

I even go as far as to say that the press in any particular country depends on the government of that country to even function or why do not all papers in Iran report that they want an American style western government? Or put it another way, why doesn’t the New York Times set up office in Iran? Because they are either not allowed to by the government there and/or there is no profit in doing so.

The press is very powerful and shapes the thoughts of readers

Because if the press were so pure as they make out to be Hitler would never even have been in a position to get his propaganda machine going and he relied  on the press to do so. Lets just think where this leads if the press picks and reports only on some and not on others. When I was a candidate for selection in Bethnal Green and Bow for the Labour Party, the press only picked on me to see what they could report on but they did not do so equally for the other 63 and it is hardly plausible that all those never even had a traffic ticket. It is a fact that I have not had any type of conviction or police warning ever in the past and that I think is hard to beat.

Yet the press finds it good to rubbish me, that just says all about the press to me. The press side with political parties and they did so during Hitler times and they still do so now. What is equally or even more disturbing is the fact that I am not even being given legal aid to defend myself against the press smears.

If the press were so neutral and act in the interest of the readers they would not pick on innocent persons like myself who are not given legal aid. The press are just like howling wolves who look for easy victims like myself. If they were so concerned about public opinion and fairness, they would volunteer to apologise to me but they don’t. It’s cheap sensationalism and they report what they can get away with and that’s all there is too it. Tainted opinions in my view. The press is always on the side of the money(wo)men and the sooner the law recognises that, the quicker we get fair justice.

See also my post about Labour Party double standards

Blog Stats

  • 55,121 hits
%d bloggers like this: