Rebekah Brookes and the curious tale of the lap top in the bin

I realise that matters concerning Ms Brookes et al with regard to how and why a computer and other materials turned up in a street bin together with other issues around concealment of evidence are now sub judice and I will try very hard to remain on the right side of the law but I find it quite intolerable that Ms Brookes, through her PA, legal advisor or whoever, has, in addition to making it clear she is innocent of any charges that might be put to her but that she disputes the process by which the charging decision was made and the fact that this can be published / broadcast when any other comment on these proceedings is banned is simply unacceptable.

Why would anyone in the position of being charged fire volleys via the media at the decision making process? The decision to charge anyone follows the ‘full code test’ – an evidential test: is there sufficient reliable evidence to provide a realistic opportunity of a conviction, and a public interest test: is it in the public interest that these matters are tested in court.

Of course, I cannot comment on the former as I am not party to that evidence but on the latter it would be easy to comment BUT we are denied that opportunity. However, the person charged may make any statement they wish and put it out there in the public domain.

If I were in the position of being charged with an offence the only reason I can think of to do any more that insist I am innocent and that I ‘look forward to my day in court’ would be to leave some measure of influence on the forthcoming trial. When the day comes for this to be tried at the Crown Court, in a high profile case such as this the media will, before any evidence is heard (where it can be properly reported) have the lame witterings of the defendant to titivate up their coverage.

I do not want to go to a system where the evidence can be raked over in the press before a trial and I entirely agree with the sub judice rules simply because I do not trust the press to be honest and reliable of their reporting. We do not and have not had trial by media and despite what some people might want we must resist this happening.

No, when matters come to court they should be delivered fresh to the jury without either side having sought to taint proceedings.

Speeding – it’s all BBC2′s fault

The Cockermouth Rural Safety Group has monitored the speeds of vehicles in and around the town for four months and they have found over 60,000 drivers exceeding the speed limit with one fool being clocked at 89MPH in a 30 zone.

One can only wonder at what is happening within this motorist’s 3 brain cells but one thing you can’t deny is the affect irresponsible media plays.

It seems to be some sort of cult, but watching Clarkson et al on BBC 2 on a Sunday Night together with then seemingly endless repeats on Dave, must rub off on those who cannot think for themselves. Clarkson and his self important cronies wallow in speed at every opportunity and fail to understand the impact of 3/4 a tonne of metal. Richard Hammond has an excuse of sorts – he has brain damage following his high speed crash but the other two are just plain ignorant.

Now, don’t get me wrong, and not for the first time, I will admit that I do, occasionally, exceed the speed limit. Give me a quiet straight road and I have been known to put my foot down but not past schools or kids playing. I don’t mind traffic calming measures unlike Clarkson and pals who claim they ‘damage the car’ – yes they do when you try to fly over them like a carrier aircraft taking off up a ramp!

The answer to the issue of speeding in and around Cockermouth is simple – prosecution. Once they idiots realise that 3 points on their licence is going to cost them considerably more than the £60 fine when they come to renew their car insurance, perhaps (and it is a big perhaps) they will slow down.

Regrettably, thanks to the Coalition Governments austerity measures (how come they only apply to the poor and the middle income families… I don’t see many rich people being austere?) we don’t have enough police officers to mount more than a token response to these horrendous figures so the final outcome will be a dead child.

Perhaps Jeremy Clarkson will come to the funeral?

Footballers … what do they know about football?

I don’t watch Match of the Day these days. I simply cannot stand listening to the overpaid sofa surfers who talk rubbish. I mean, c’mon, how much is Hanson paid?

And I had to smile to myself this morning with the news that Edwin an de Sar and Ronald Koeman were upset at the way Cheslea played when gaining a one goal advantage in their semi-final Champions League tie with Barcelona.  Apparently van de war said, “for the sake of the game and for football in ­general, I hope Barcelona win in the Nou Camp” while Koeman chipped in with, “I watched Chelsea defend for 90 minutes and I was appalled they did not try to make something more of the game. I have no admiration for Chelsea’s approach. And, let’s face it, this tie could have been all over by now. ­Barcelona could easily have won in London.”

Well, my dear Mr Koeman, you hit the nail on the head with your last bit because Barcelona DIDN’T win in London. They didn’t win because Chelsea succeeded in stifling Barcelona so that their rare opportunities were missed due to luck and rank poor finishing. If Chelsea had let them play this tie would had been all over by half time at Stamford Bridge.

If football has to be the ‘beautiful game’ and if sides were equal in terms of talent and money then only the best will ever win. Might as well just get rid of every other team apart from Barcelona, Manchester United, one of AC Milan or Juventus and, of course, Carlisle United. Because all those other, lesser teams, when they try and take on the great and the good at playing football will lose. We would never again see a giant killing FA Cup tie or wonder at how QPR managed to string together four home wins on the belt end. How have talentless Bournemouth managed to escape relegation?

I think Barcelona will win in the Camp Nou this week simply because Chelsea aren’t good enough to hold them out for another 90 minutes. Real Madrid who have talent far more advanced than Chelski managed a win last night not through playing expansive football but by putting men behind the ball and then breaking with speed.

I don’t see van de Sar or Koeman bemoaning ‘The Chosen One’s” tactics.

No boys, as nice as the ‘beautiful game’ is and as much as we want to see flowing, attacking football, for us mere mortal fans who watch week in week out we want to see our teams win!

Don’t blame Sky or the BBC – this is Ecclestone’s greed!

As anyone knows, I am a bit of a petrol head. I have always liked the cars and I would have motor racing in my top five favourite sports. I have never quite taken to F1 in the way I have to the likes of Le Mans – now there’s PROPER car racing!

So, I was interested today in the discussion on Radio 5Live asking “should the BBC be covering the Bahrain F1 race?”

Well, the simple answer is yes. Why shouldn’t it. The race is going ahead (at least we think it is) and if it wasn’t there would be absolutely no publicity for the pro democracy campaigners so the F1 race is a win/win all round.

Of course the F1 is a win for Bernie Ecclestone. I was trying, today, to think why I detest this man so much. I really don’t have a problem with someone making money as long as it is honest money. I object to the Victorian mill owner idea of making shed loads of money while keeping your workers – the ones who actually create your wealth – in poverty.

I am fairly sure Ecclestone isn’t the mill owning type but he doesn’t really care about the countries he visits and, to be fair to him – I do try to be balanced! – most F1 supporters would struggle to find Bahrain on a map without the TV Coverage showing them a map.

No, what I object to is that Ecclestone’s millions from this race comes from the despot Sheiks and their very rich entourage. There are some very rich people in the Middle East, rich people who want to keep their privilege at all costs. If that means denying basic human rights and democracy then so be it.

Ecclestone doesn’t give two hoots for what is going on in Bahrain as long as the Bahraini sheiks divert some of their wealth to his bank account.

I once, naively thought, F1 was a sport run by the FIA. It isn’t. It’s the money tree for Ecclestone, his family and assorted hangers on – like the equally despicable FIA President Jean Todt. (Why does Bahrain hold the presidency of the Karting association?) It is a money tree for the teams who lavish squillions on their cars and it is a money pit for the drivers who take risks, undoubtedly, although not quite as many as a few years ago.

Put the blame for this debacle at their door not the door of Sky TV or the BBC – this is not an occasion to shoot the messenger!

This isn’t a sport. If it had been the race simply would NOT have taken place and for me the race does not take place because I will not be watching.

The Right to Privacy…..

Do we really need to know that a 17 year old young person (not an adult in legal sense) has been banned from playing rugby for taking performance enhancing drugs?

Well, I don’t think so. Clearly, however, Express Newspapers, the publishers of the Daily Star on Sunday do.

Why? Because the said kid was the son of a Government Minister.

Does this mean that that Government Minister is in someway compromised? Can she no longer perform the role? Is she not in the same position many mothers (and fathers) of 17 year old kids might find themselves?

I believe we need a full privacy law in the UK. Not to protect those who need to have their shenanigans  put into the public domain or those who court the press when it suits them.

No, we need this to protect people like this 17 year old who has made a mistake and is paying a heavy price for it – a much heavier price than if his mother had been a bus driver and his dad a mechanic!

If someone we pay – Government Minister, Police Officer, Judge, etc. does something that compromises their position then I think the press have the right to publish details so that the public can judge. If someone who uses their position to influence us – sports or media stars who advertise products relying on a clean cut image – does something that brings into question their image, then we have a right to know that the message they give us is tainted.

But a 17 year old kid or someone having an affair, regardless of what uniforms their ‘lover’ might dress up in, or someone who has got sweet FA to do with the public, should be protected.

Likewise, just because a media star doesn’t court publicity or sell their wedding/Christening etc. to ‘Hello’, they don’t deserve to have some pervert with a long lens trying to snatch a photograph of their cellulite and such photographs have no place in ANY newspaper published in this country.

I despise those elements of the press who feel they have a right to expose something that, while they claim ‘public interest’ is nothing of the sort and I despise anyone other than the official investigatory bodies, properly authorised, who delve into our private affairs. I despise a Government who would allow spying on their citizens without good reason or adequate protections and I despise anyone who would support such intrusions.

It is time the ‘freedom of the press’ was redefined by someone OTHER than the press themselves. It is time to define ‘public interest’ and the public can define it, thank you very much, without the help of the now discredited press.

The End of an Institution: Time for the Grand National to cut the numbers

Despite the changes made to the Aintree Grand National course after 2 fatalities in last year’s race, two more died yesterday with According To Pete feeing brought down and breaking a leg and Synchronised, having unseated for the second time his rider, AP McCoy, eventually fell while running on alone and broke a leg.

Let’s be clear I am certainly not one of the ‘Ban Racing’ brigade. I do, infrequently, admittedly, go to the races and flutter a few quid and I do have an account with a bookmaker for those, again, infrequent bets on the bigger races of the calendar and I enjoy the spectacle of watching rider and horse do battle. But is the Grand National actually a fair test of this combination?

How many horses ran yesterday without any realistic chance of winning? Yes, there will always be the Foinavon events with Mon Mome defying the 100/1 odds to land the prize in 2009 but too many of the 40 starters for yesterday’s race were there to satisfy the ego of the owner, the trainer or both.

I also accept what the great and good say about racing never being risk free but there is acceptable risk and foolhardy risks.

The test for a horse race, over fences, is to replicate as far as is possible, the challenge of riding across country jumping those obstacles found in the way. Eventing does this very well but without the added pressure of other horses and jockeys around you for most of the time. Most racecourse based steeplechases don’t try to replicate the fences in quite the same way quite simply because of the significantly increased potential for problems because of the other horses.

And therein lies the problem with the Grand National. There are simply too many runners at the start. Once the field shakes itself out, most of the remaining horses have the time and space to negotiate the very difficult fences Aintree presents.

Of course, horses die at other tracks. A look at this year’s casualties who died through falls shows that it has been a bad year. But the record in the Grand National in recent years, where the authorities try to produce the best (i.e.: fastest) ground, is particularly bad.

Since the race number was fixed at 40 in 2000 only once (2005 with 21) has more than half finished. In 2001, admittedly with heavy ground, only 4 managed to finish.

Of course reducing the number of runners to, say, 20, will reduce its appeal for the once a year punter looking for the 100/1 winner or one that appeals because of its name but racing, even for one race of the year, shouldn’t be run for those reasons. The Grand National should be a test of horse and rider over the stiffest fences but with a limited number which allows the horse and rider the room to do it safer.

For me the Cheltenham Gold Cup is the ultimate test for a jumps horse and I really hope the Festival abandons the crazy cross country race that claimed the lives of three horses this year.  I also think the BBC not covering the Grand National after this year will reduce the hype that surrounds it.

No the Grand National has become less a test of horse and rider and more a spectacle where the death and injury to horses has become almost central to that spectacle. For next year they must cut the number of horses significantly and then it will return to the test it should always have been – rider and jockey against the biggest of obstacles

“Renounce European Court, Britain urged” by ex US Ambassador – yes, let’s return to the Wild West!

Former US Ambassador, John Bolton, has urged the UK to renounce the European Court as he suggests it will undermine the US/UK special relationship.

He goes on, clearly pandering to an unintelligent right which I thought was mainly confined to the USA, that Britain is in danger of becoming a ‘county in Europe’ by giving up its sovereignty to European Institutions.

His ramblings make it abundantly clear that while he was occupying the Grovesnor Square residency he had not a clue what was happening around him.

I know there are widely different views on Europe and I stand in that middle of the road camp which believes it is better to be in partnership with our neighbours, but much of what Mr Bolton says is simply not true.

For a start, the UK has not given up its Sovereignty. We are still a nation ruled from Westminster. Not ruled very well at the moment as we seem to be ruled for the benefit of the rich and powerful but ruled nonetheless. What we did and have continued to do is make sovereign decisions about how we deal with the institutions of partnership.

For example, the rulings of the European Court are not binding on the UK. This was affirmed in a speech in 2002 by Lord Woolf, then Lord Chief Justice, who said the domestic courts were required under the Human Rights Act to do no more than “take into account” decisions of the Strasbourg court. Having done so, he said, “the court is not bound to follow the decision”.

Clearly, where an ‘adverse’ view is returned from the European Court and the domestic court accepts it, the domestic court is agreeing that the original decision was wrong in law. That is not the same as being told what to do.

The fine Mr Bolton goes on to suggest that while the current LAWFUL situation in the UK continues then the special relationship with the USA is under threat as “It also calls into question the ability of Europe as a whole to be an effective partner in the war against terrorism.”

And what special relationship would that be Mr Bolton? One where the big bully forces its ‘allies’ to toe the line and engage in wars that are not of our making and are against the majority view of the British people? One where the dollar rules and the cosy relationship between the US Government and the massive global companies it shelters undermines trade and economic ties between other groups?

Mr Bolton, we are not your lapdog. We are not here to answer to your every wish? We are a sovereign state that is actually in far more danger from the Special Relationship you crave that any partnership with our European friends.

We do not wish to be associated with your illegal detention of people in Guantanamo Bay where you keep prisoners at arms length from your own judiciary and where your own Supreme Court has ruled their detention illegal.

We do not wish to be associated with your illegal activities where you secretly transport people around the globe in order for them to be handed to a regime that will extract information from them by torture and I am ashamed at suggestions that the UK helped you in this.

No, Mr Bolton, the vision of a special relationship you see is not one that is shared by most people I know. The one we see where partners work together transparently and openly to make the world a better place is one that is clearly an anathema to you and your right wing friends who wish to perpetuate the world order where the big and powerful rule.

And, furthermore, Mr Bolton, I think most of YOUR citizens agree with me.