Yet more hard times ahead

LATEST Prime Minister Rishi Sunak fired a grim warning in his first speech outside Number 10 Downing Street, stating that the country was in a "profound economic crisis", and there would be “difficult decisions to come".

Mr Sunak - the first ever Asian to hold the highest office in United Kingdom politics - replaced the deposed Liz Truss yesterday after she lasted only 50 days in the role, a record shortest tenure for a PM.

The markets appear to consider Mr Sunak, who previously worked in finance and was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Boris Johnson, to be a safer and more cautious pair of hands than his predecessor Ms Truss.

For, when it became clear on Monday that Mr Sunak was likely to be unopposed, trading in government bonds quickly rallied with the implied interest rate on these bonds dropping sharply.

That is a far cry from the reaction by the markets to plans laid out by Ms Truss and then-Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng in their mini-budget on 23 September.

At first, Ms Truss tried to ride out the storm by defending her strategy - and, when that failed, by sacking Mr Kwarteng on 14 October.

That same day, Ms Truss subsequently gave an extremely unconvincing appearance at a press conference - and she was reportedly little better at presenting her vision in a meeting with her backbench MPs, known as the 1922 Committee.

Jeremy Hunt came in as replacement Chancellor and promptly pulled apart the economic plans launched by Ms Truss and Mr Kwarteng.

Meanwhile, Ms Truss - under severe pressure from all sides of the House of Commons at Prime Minister's Questions - declared herself to be "a fighter not a quitter" and committed her government to protecting the Triple Lock on pensions.

The problem with this was that, only a few days earlier, Mr Hunt had not ruled out a review of the Triple Lock policy - and it became evident that Ms Truss was not going to be able to extricate herself fully from her economic ideas.

Just after 1.30pm at 20 October, the 56th Prime Minister bowed to the inevitable.

Humiliatingly, the end of Ms Truss's tenure will be remember for her failure to outlast an iceberg lettuce which had been placed by the Daily Star on a bench alongside a photograph of her. 

The newspaper responded to the resignation with the headline, "Lettuce rejoice", and bookmakers offered odds of 500/1 that the lettuce would become the next PM.

Instead, it was Mr Sunak, and he now appears to have calmed the storm in the financial sector. 

At the same time, though, the Richmond (Yorks) MP has caused an immediate stir in Westminster by conducting a major reshuffle to remove many of the figures involved in the brief Truss administration. 

Mr Hunt remains as the current Chancellor, while James Cleverly - a single person argument against nominative determinism - has retained his position as Foreign Secretary. 

However, Steve Barclay, a non-entity of a former Brexit Secretary, becomes the fourth Health Secretary since July - and Gillian Keegan has been named as the fifth Education Secretary of 2022. 

Most extraordinarily, though, the reshuffle produced the return of Suella Braverman as Home Secretary who replaced Grant Shapps less than a week after she had been forced to resign from the same job.

Only just over a week ago, in a major breach of the ministerial code, Ms Braverman admitted she had been sent an official document from her personal email to a fellow MP.

But Ms Braverman did not leave Ms Truss's Cabinet quietly, penning a scathing resignation letter in which she raised concerns about "the direction of [the] government" and said "key pledges promised to voters" had been broken.

In his speech, Mr Sunak pledged to bring “integrity and accountability” to office of Prime Minister - but, with this appointment, that does not seem to have lasted for long.

Remember too that the new Prime Minister defended Mr Johnson throughout the Partygate scandal - and was even himself given a fixed penalty notice by the Metropolitan Police. 

Fortunately for Mr Sunak, the Conservative Party is currently in such mess that his fine had no bearing at all on him being installed at the head of the UK government. 

Indeed, in the end, it was remarkably straightforward.

On Monday afternoon, Penny Mordaunt withdrew her candidacy despite her supporters earlier that day stating she was closing in on the backing of 100 MPs, as required by the rules to make it to the members' ballot. 

In the previous contest, Ms Mordaunt had attracted as many as 105 MPs' votes - but, this time during a much shorter campaign, she gained far less traction.

Earlier, on Sunday night, former Prime Minister Mr Johnson pulled out of the running despite claiming to have enough support to be considered by the membership. 

The second Conservative leadership contest since July therefore concluded without an opponent to Mr Sunak. 

Still, the 42-year-old does not exactly have much of a mandate in the country at large, securing his position solely on the strength of the confirmed backing of 197 MPs. 

However, Mr Sunak has resisted calls so far from all of the opposition parties to call a General Election. 

This is perhaps unsurprising given the Tories' current standing in the polls which have shown them to be trailing Labour by huge margins. 

Mr Sunak will hope that, by framing himself as a safe pair of hands with the economy, he can make at least a dent in the type of leads not enjoyed by Labour since the early days of Tony Blair.

Undoubtedly mind, current polling showing Labour on more than 50% is a reflection of the temporary withdrawal of support by traditional Conservative voters in the Truss administration - and not necessarily a sudden massive swathe of excitement at the prospect of a government led by Sir Keir Starmer.

In fact, it should be noted that no single party has gained an actual majority (i.e. more than 50%) of the votes cast at a General Election since the Conservatives in 1931. 

Nevertheless, Labour is in its strongest position in years politically - and, with Mr Sunak warning of difficult days ahead economically, an already exhausted UK public is unlikely to take too well to further tax rises and spending cuts. 

Certainly, the narrative now is different to when austerity measures were brought in by David Cameron's coalition government. 

Back then, austerity was successfully framed as a necessary evil to reduce the deficit and bring down government debt - and, even then, the government increased the Personal Tax Allowance from £6,475 in 2010/11 to £10,600 in 2015/16. 

By contrast, with inflation rampant, Mr Sunak is unable to produce a similar boon - and, as such, this next period should remain a favourable time for Labour, politically at least. 

Economically, though, there is already some concern on the Opposition benches. 

Labour - if it wins the next election - is unlikely to find anything other than a difficult situation bequeathed to them, and therefore will find it difficult to do anything too radical. 

Now, Ms Truss's plans were the reckless wet dreams of Brexiteer libertarians living in a unreal world of only sunlit uplands - but, in their own way, the proposals were pretty radical. 

Nevertheless, a plan of cutting taxes and increasing spending at a time of uncomfortably high inflation was always going to bring only one reaction from the financial sector.

Yet, at the same time, is not something of a concern that it was effectively the markets which determined the fate of a Prime Minister? 

After all, it must be queried if, even with a significant electoral mandate from the public, the mere suggestion by a Labour government of a modest attempt of income redistribution and a bit of spending would cause the same sort of financial turmoil. 

Living in a society in which any type of government can only operate within an extremely narrow orthodoxy would demonstrate a clear schism between the concepts of capitalism and democracy. 

And, with tough times ahead on the back of a decade of tough times, perhaps this social contract has already been broken.

THE SUNAK CABINET	Elected	Constituency	Department
Rishi Sunak	2015	Richmond (Yorks)	Prime Minister
Jeremy Hunt	2005	South West Surrey	Chancellor of the Exchequer
James Cleverly	2015	Braintree	Foreign Office
Suella Braverman	2015	Fareham	Home Office
Steve Barclay	2010	North East Cambridgeshire	Health
Gillian Keegan	2017	Chichester	Education
Ben Wallace	2005	Wyre and Preston North	Defence
Mel Stride	2010	Central Devon	Work and Pensions
Dominic Raab	2010	Esher and Walton	Justice | Deputy Prime Minister
Michael Gove	2005	Surrey Heath	Levelling Up, Housing, Communities
Kemi Badenoch	2017	Saffron Walden	International Trade
Grant Shapps	2005	Welwyn Hatfield	Business, Energy, Industrial Strategy
Therese Coffey	2010	Suffolk Coastal	Environment, Food, Rural Affairs
Mark Harper	2005	Forest of Dean	Transport
Chris Heaton-Harris	2010	Daventry	Northern Ireland
Alister Jack	2017	Dumfries and Galloway	Scotland
David TC Davies	2005	Monmouth	Wales
Michelle Donelan	2015	Chippenham	Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
Lord Nicholas True	-	-	Leader of the House of Lords
Penny Mordaunt	2010	Portsmouth North	Leader of the House of Commons
Oliver Dowden	2015	Hertsmere	Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
Nadhim Zahawi	2010	Stratford-on-Avon	Party Chairman

Irresponsible reporting on suicide

THE NEWS of the suicide of much-loved actor and comedian Robin Williams has unsurprisingly generated a huge response from the media over the past couple of days.

A lot of it has been a genuinely heart-warming remembrance of a hugely talented man who played a big part in my childhood for his roles in Mrs Doubtfire, Jumanji, Aladdin and Flubber.

And there were, of course, many, many others.

Williams' greatest success came in his portrayal of a psychiatrist in Good Will Hunting, for which he won an Oscar in 1997 as Best Supporting Actor.

But, while there is much to eulogise about the fine catalogue of work which he has left behind, it is massively disappointing to see the front pages of several of the tabloids this morning have instead focused heavily on the nature of his death.

Worse still, the biggest culprits have shown scant regard for the well-thought-out general advice provided by the Samaritans on the reporting of this sensitive topic.

"Tortured" is the prominent, one-word headline on the front of the Mirror - while the sub-heads carry speculation that money troubles were the trigger for the suicide.

The Daily Mail has reserved the whole of its front page for Williams - but again concerns itself solely with unconfirmed speculation surrounding his passing.

Meanwhile, the Sun and the Daily Star - as well as, surprisingly, the normally more reserved Metro free-sheet - all use dramatic language and describe in some detail exactly how he took his own life.

Even though it really should not matter how he did it - or why he did it.

Indeed, it simply does not matter. For, while journalists are admittedly usually there to explain how or why events have occurred, in this case and other similar ones, reporting the fact that he did it and that it is newsworthy because of his talent really should be enough.

Moreover, beyond the fact that Williams had depression, trying to guess at a trigger at this stage - even if it is a so-called 'educated' guess - is truly nonsensical, and actually not at all classy.

After all, ultimately only he knows exactly what thought processes he was going through.
 
Thankfully, some of the broadsheet newspapers produced some more thoughtful coverage.

The Guardian still dedicates a significant proportion of its front page to Williams - but simply reflects, in classy pictorial form, on his comedic versatility. A tribute from Russell Brand sits neatly below.

A further tribute is posted in the Times pull-out, the T2, a small mention of which is made in the strap-line at the top of the front page just below the masthead.

Credit where it is due, then, to those sensible editors who have perhaps taken a bit of thought before laying out the front of their newspaper.

Now, if only the tabloids would follow suit and end their rather grisly attempts at one-upmanship, determined by sensationalism and nothing more.

From today's evidence, though, there is fat chance of it happening any time soon - and so I'm off to watch Williams as the unforgettable Euphegenia Doubtfire.

You never know, it might just cheer me up.

RIP Robin McLaurin Williams (1951-2014), aged 63. May you never lose your little spark of madness.

Samaritans

08457909090 

Available 24 hours-a-day, 365 days-a-year to provide confidential emotional support for people who are experiencing feelings of distress, despair or suicidal thoughts.

Defamation 101: Sally Bercow's Twitter folly

JUST seven words and a bit of punctuation was all it took to land Sally Bercow in a lot of trouble on Twitter.

Mrs Bercow, wife of the House of Commons Speaker John, made her post on 4 November last year, querying "Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*".

Lord McAlpine, though he was not named in a Newsnight report two nights earlier, had subsequently been identified on the internet as the Conservative politician from the Margaret Thatcher era, accused of child abuse.

Except that he had never done such a thing and had instead been a victim of mistaken identity - as his accuser admitted after seeing a different photograph.

The failure to check these facts cost BBC Newsnight - and ITV who repeated the allegations - dearly, with Lord McAlpine being easily able to prove in court that the story referred to him.

But the modern world of social media, such as Twitter, added an extra element to the mess.

Indeed, Lord McAlpine was able to identify thousands of Tweets which he considered defamatory, though he later dropped claims against Twitter users with fewer than 500 followers in return for a charitable donation to the BBC's Children in Need.

With 56,000 followers at the time, Mrs Bercow did not qualify for the exception - and instead she decided to fight her corner, claiming there was nothing defamatory in what she had written.

Unfortunately for her, the judge Mr Justice Tugendhat decided she was wrong.

Now, to bring about a suit of defamation - that is, slander or, more commonly, libel if the relevant material is published on a permanent record such as newspapers or indeed Twitter - the claimant must show three things:

• that the statement referred to him or herself - in the case against Mrs Bercow, he had no problem on this point given that he was named;
• that the statement was published to a third party- again, this was easy to prove given that Mrs Bercow was not denying she had made the Tweet;
• and that the statement was actually defamatory - this is the trickier one in the case of Mrs Bercow's Tweet but, again, defamation law is quite clear on what might be considered defamatory. 

Something is defamatory if it tends to:

1. Expose him/her to hatred, ridicule or contempt;
2. Cause him/her to be shunned or avoided;
3. Lower him/her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, generally;
4. or Disparage him/her in their business, trade, office or profession

• Notice, the words 'if it tends to' - this means that the person suing does not actually have to prove that the words actually caused any of the four above things to happen. It is enough that they might have happened as a result of the offending statement.

Mrs Bercow's defence in court was none of the traditional defences against defamation - i.e. justification, fair comment or privilege - but simply that her Tweet was not defamatory.

Of course, in the purest sense, the Speaker's wife is correct that her query - "Why is Lord McAlpine trending?" - is not defamatory, but merely inquisitive.

However, the law of defamation is more complicated than that, and it is her addition of "*innocent face" which has really landed her in trouble.

In ruling on the case, Mr Justice Tugendhat, said that her tweet meant “in its natural and ordinary defamatory meaning that the claimant was a paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care.

He added: "If I were wrong about that, I would find that the tweet bore an innuendo meaning to the same effect.”

Innuendo is best eschewed if a hefty legal bill is to be avoided.

For, if the followers of Mrs Bercow's can read between the lines in her appendage "*innocent face*", then so can libel judges, as the Daily Star found out in the 1980s.

The newspaper, under the headline 'A lordly price to pay, wrote: "There's been much excited chatter as to why dashing poetry-scribbling Minister Lord Gowrie left the Cabinet so suddenly.

"What expensive habits can he not support on an income of £33,000? I'm sure Gowrie himself would snort at suggestions that he was born with a silver spoon round his neck."

Lord Gowrie's lawyers said: "The reference to [his] expensive habits, the suggestion that he was unable to support those habits on his ministerial salary, the use of the word 'snort' and the reference to a 'silver spoon around his neck' all bore the plain implication, to all familiar with the relevant terminology, that [he] was in the habit of taking illegal drugs, in particular cocaine."

Now, for future journalism students, the National Council for the Training of Journalists (NCTJ) can update its course textbook McNae's Essential Law for Journalists with the Bercow case.

Meanwhile, those of us, like me, who are just joining Twitter would do well to learn from Mrs Bercow's expensive folly.

You can follow my worldly observations on my new account, @gallowgate_pete.

If it bleeds, it leads

Drummer Lee Rigby of 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, aged 25. 
May he Rest In Peace.

THE OLD adage "if it bleeds, it leads" was in full evidence in the media coverage of the tragic killing of Royal Fusiliers Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich on Wednesday.

Almost all of the national newspapers carried the horrifying image on their front pages of one of the perpetrators Michael Adebolajo, clutching a meat cleaver in his bloodied hands.

The evening bulletin of the ITV news, broadcast at 6.30pm, showed an exclusive video which the attacker had forced a member of the public to film.

And, of course, the rolling news went into an inevitable overdrive. There were the ubiquitous live blogs on the websites of the BBC, the Guardian, the Telegraph and elsewhere.

Meanwhile, BBC political editor Nick Robinson landed himself in hot water by describing the suspect as being "of Muslim descent", whatever that means.

At first, Robinson defended his description as having been taken directly from a quote by a Whitehall source - but, later on his blog, he gave a full apology "for using a phrase that, on reflection, was both liable to be misinterpreted and to cause offence".

ITV was also on the defensive after it had received hundreds of complaints for its broadcast of the aforementioned video - but it defended its decision as "editorially justified".

"We carefully considered showing this footage ahead of broadcast and made the decision to do so on a public interest basis as the material is integral to understanding the horrific incident that took place yesterday," said an ITV News spokesman.

"It was editorially justified to show such footage in the aftermath of such a shocking attack, and we prefaced it on ITV News at 6.30pm and News at Ten with appropriate warnings to make viewers aware in advance of the graphic images about to be shown."

Sky News executives opted not to show it on the grounds of taste and that it could be a potential platform for terrorists, but the BBC did join ITV in showing the clip on its later bulletins.

Now, the issue for the print media with breaking news events is that, by the time they publish the following day, the images are already very much in the public domain.

Even if the broadcasters had chosen to be more cautious and not shown the video, the chilling material could easily be found on Twitter and other social media outlets.

It is therefore not difficult to agree with Media Guardian commentator Roy Greenslade that the newspapers would have "looked completely daft to ignore what was already in the public domain".

After all, to do so would be tantamount to self-censorship, and again I agree with Greenslade when he states that editors "cannot edit in order to ensure they protect us from the feeble-minded".

As for those who suggest all that newspapers or broadcasters are interested in is their sales or ratings - well, there is always the option not to buy the paper and always an off-button on the television remote.

At the same time, though, it is important that newspaper chiefs show some respect for the victim and his family in their editorial decisions.

The Sun, The Daily Star, The Telegraph and The Times all took the curious (and, in my view, incorrect) decision to include Mr Rigby's stricken body on their front page.

In his column, Greenslade again defends the newspapers on the basis that they "needed to convey the brutality of a murder that appeared to have been carried out as an act of terrorism" - but it comes across as a breach of privacy to me.

Indeed, ITV has since sensibly edited the video on its website to obscure Mr Rigby's body.

Nevertheless, it was the Guardian with perhaps the most harrowing front cover. Its editors chose a full-page close-up photo of Adebolajo with his words "You people will never be safe" running alongside.

If that is not the dissemination of irrational fear - so often railed against within that very newspaper - then I do not quite know what is. 

Of course, it is not just the media which has stirred up the reaction to Mr Rigby's death.

While the action can accurately be described as terrorism, the repetition of the phrase over and over again by media commentators and politicians has served little purpose than to stir up more tension.

Similarly, the actions of Home Secretary Theresa May calling an emergency COBRA meeting and Prime Minister David Cameron cutting short his holiday both smack of politicians wanting to be seen as decisive, regardless of the consequences.

Instead, they have arguably made the situation worse and played right into the hands of bone-headed extremists like the English Defence League, which has already sadly caused some damage. 

Would the numbskulls have acted in the same manner if the media and politicians had have reacted differently? Very possibly so. 

But, have the media and politicians treated the matter as sensitively as they could have? Almost certainly not. 

After all, there were some very good news stories related to this horrific incident which almost immediately restored my faith in humankind. 

Witness the bravery of the mother and daughter who tended to Mr Rigby just yards from the knife and meat cleaver-wielding terrorists.

Or, how about giving more coverage to Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, the cub scout leader who confronted the terrorists just seconds after their attack, asking them to hand over their weapons?

"It is only you versus many people, you are going to lose," said Mrs Loyau-Kennett to the terrorists at the scene - if only the Guardian had used those words on its front page instead.

Ah, tits! Daily Sport goes bust

FAREWELL, then, to the Daily Sport. While it could hardly be described as a bastion of journalism, it was often likely to raise a chuckle.

Today, the sad news arrived that Sport Media Group, owners of the Daily Sport and Sunday Sport, had ceased trading with immediate effect and gone into administration.

And so another corner of British humour - and journalism - dies a quiet death.

It is probably stretching it a little to call it a newspaper but this was the publication that has given us all sorts of outrageous headlines since its launch in 1986.

Perhaps, most memorably, the Sunday Sport reported that a World War II bomber had been found on the Moon.

On the following Sunday, the obvious follow-up was written: "World War II bomber found on Moon vanishes".

Other headlines included "Monkey lands plane", "Woman gives birth to 8lb duck", and "Aliens turned my son into a fish finger".

But, of course, it was more notorious for launching the careers of various models including Linsey Dawn McKenzie and Lauren Pope.

In the pre-internet age, it neatly carved out a niche in the market with its series of "lurid headlines, outrageous stories and topless women".

When the Daily Star announced it had more tits than the Sun, the Sport boasted it had more tits than the Daily Star.

It was right, of course, with topless women strewn well beyond Page Three.

However, in the internet age, where material for a quick hand shandy is no more than a couple of clicks away, the Sport unsurprisingly struggled to stay relevant.

In 2009, Sport Media Group had to be had to be bailed out by former owners David Sullivan and Gold Group International, now proprietors of the Daily Star.

And so, its demise was therefore somewhat inevitable - but, in a quirky British way, it is no less sad for that.

Star-suckers

THE DAILY Star had to apologise yesterday after publishing a story which claimed that Rockstar Games was planning to call their latest release "Grand Theft Auto Rothbury".

The Star also paid "substantial damages" to the games company which has donated the money to charity, a generous act and the total antithesis of the newspaper's grubby attempts at journalism.

My earlier critique of the coverage of the Raoul Moat manhunt focused mainly on the broadcasting arm of the media.

But it forgot about the tendency of the national written press to go one worse in the lack of professionalism stakes - and this story in the Star comfortably accomplishes that.

In the apology, the Star states: "We made no attempt to check the accuracy of the story before publication and did not contact Rockstar Games prior to publishing the story.

"We also did not question why a best selling and critically acclaimed fictional games series would choose to base one of their most popular games on this horrifying real crime event."

The level of care - or lack of it - is absolutely ridiculous from a publication which still purports to be a national newspaper even though it looks more like a comic strip.

It places major questions marks over the extent of the fact-checking in any story in the tabloids, a matter which has already been investigated in the Chris Atkins documentary, Starsuckers.

In Starsuckers, the documentary production team planted a series of made-up stories about celebrities by calling up the 'Got A Story' telephone numbers which can be seen in all the tabloids.

It was a brave project which eventually landed the makers an email from Max Clifford's preferred law firm Carter-Ruck threatening them with an injunction.

But the papers, with plenty of white space to fill, had already lapped up the 'tip-offs' when a simple fact-check on each occasion would have proven the story was a fabrication.

And so, reports emerged of Avril Lavigne falling asleep in a London nightclub, of Amy Winehouse's hair catching fire, of Guy Ritchie receiving a black-eye after drinking too much at a restaurant, and of Girls Aloud's Sarah Harding taking an interest in astronomy.

Of course, while the Starsuckers documentary was a valid expose, it simply reaffirmed much of the justified public cynicism about so-called 'celeb news'.

The problem with the Star's GTA Rothbury story is that it cannot just be cast off as filler on the celeb pages.

The newspaper clearly believed that this was a proper news story - they even went as far as "soliciting critical comments from a grieving family member".

But not as far as actually checking for any truth behind the story.

The banner on the Star's website claims that it is "Simply the Best". In reality, this was simply not good enough.