Question to which the Answer is still No...

Anthony, we’ve never seen anything like this. In the days since Caroline Flack’s tragic death, more than three quarters of a million people have signed a petition calling for a new law to stop the British press bullying and harassing people.

Will you add your name before we hand it in to the Minister next week? 


The cornucopia of simple answers doing the rounds has made me wonder if it wasn't all a confluence of highly unusual circumstances.

An ordinary person in Ms Flack's position may well have managed to conceal the whole incident from her employers till after the trial ...thereby staying in employment.

Even if her employers had been very understanding of her predicament it clearly wouldn't have been possible for her to leave the country to film in such circumstances ... so she was left alone at home with no income and nothing but social media to ponder...?

In the meantime we have all been invoked to "Be Kind" and who can complain about being asked to be kind...? Except for Miss Havesham...

Oh well I guess soon then we will have "Caroline's Law".  I remember when people used to have ships, buildings and streets named after them.  These days it seems to be laws ... Your life went wrong?  We need a new law in your name then... Perhaps a good thing but surely there are other ways to regulate the world than just changing the law?  Or invoking people to be kind?  Responses/solutions which while not mutually exclusive ...would seen to be at opposite ends of the spectrum...?

Keir Starmer lets the CPS take the Flack

Online petition site 38 degrees awakes me from my slumbers to inform me

“Anthony, it’s a really sad thing to hear. This weekend Caroline Flack, the popular television host, died by suicide. [1] We’ll never truly know all the reasons why. But what we do know is that in the months before her death she was hounded and bullied by the British press. [2]”

Following link [2] in the footnotes which simulate an encyclopaedia entry [that this email was not]

I found it linked to an article citing serious empirical evidence to support this assertion.  Such as a tweet by Phillip Schofield.  While we may indeed never know why ...perhaps wait for the inquest?  But then that would like shutting your mouth before the trial.  Except the trial is already over and the media are guilty.  And possibly the CPS as well...

“Already over half a million people have signed a petition demanding better rules for how the press is allowed to behave. Will you add your name now?”

…continues the email.  A question to which the answer is no particularly when the law it proposes is as vaguely worded and downright sinister as:

“To consider a law that would make it a criminal offence, not dissimilar to Corporate Manslaughter, for the British Media to knowingly and relentlessly bully a person, whether they be in the public eye or not, up to the point that they take their own life.”

Within hours of Ms Flack’s death my timeline was full of comments about people rewriting their timelines and tweet.  However, I saw no evidence of this.  Before she died I had no knowledge of who she was.  I was vaguely aware of the existence of the program Love Island in the same way that I was vaguely aware of the sewer that runs down the end of my garden but as with the sewer at the bottom of my garden I try to live my life in ignorance of its existence and manage this most of the time.

But apparently “the media” were engaged in a dastardly plot to bully Ms Flack to death and we need a law to regulate this despite the fact that the there being no single organising mind behind this bullying there isn’t a single person/people who could be charged with this new Corporate Manslaughter offence.

Actually the coverage I could find in the mainstream media was largely restrained possibly because of sub judice legislation which puts reporting restrictions on cases that are due to go to court.  But maybe I missed something as none of this is ever on my radar…

However the above petition/email was quickly beaten in the impracticality and emotive hyperbole stakes by a different petition email organised by change.org organised by actress Stephanie Davis (who I believe has also had run-ins with the media but you'll forgive me if I don't catalogue them) who informs me that:

"There should be new and stricter laws around safeguarding celebrities and people in the public eye. These laws should be put in place to prevent the newspapers, magazines, all forms of media and paparazzi from:

1 Releasing information that there is no evidence for and is therefore false

2 Printing source quotes from anyone or an unreliable source

3 Invading privacy and sharing private information that is detrimental to the celebrity, their mental health and those around them

4 Paparazzi taking and printing images without permission

5 Releasing an individuals private medical or health related information or their sexual orientation

6 Releasing articles about leaked explicit photos, videos and revenge porn

7 Stricter legal boundaries regarding unwanted trespassing nearby the property where the individual resides, or is visiting"

Taking those in order.

1 I fear it would be impractical to prevent people talking bollocks or enforce a law which meant everything stated had to be true and provable as it would lead to the imprisonment of most religious leaders

2 Does she really want to imprison people for quoting other people?

3 And what is privacy? It is hardly private that the late Ms Flack’s relationship was so physically abusive that ambulances and police were called to her flat.  So abusive indeed that her man ended up in hospital.  He says he doesn’t support the prosecution but then the law was changed recently so that the police can prosecute the victims of intimate partner violence without their support because of the recognised dangers of Stockholm Syndrome etc…

4 I fear programs like Panorama would suffer without the Freedom of Panorama

5 Isn’t that already illegal?

6 Okay she may have a point there but how is it related to Ms Flack?

7 I’d dearly love trespassing to be a criminal offence again but the fact is if the police locked up everyone who was a civil trespasser the prisons would all be full.  I do feel sometimes however when I walk past Buckingham Palace and read the signs that say “This is a protected site under Section 128 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.  Trespass on this site is a criminal offence” that it’s one law for them and another for us – because demonstrably it is.

Ms Davis continues…

“This will ensure that celebrity’s mental health and human rights are being respect appropriately, safely and with a duty of care. It will also help their family & friend’s mental health as they are affected also as unwanted negative attention is then attracted towards them and invades their privacy too. This will better prevent self harm, suicide, substance abuse, and poor mental health. Let’s stand together and once and for all make a change.”

But the media is not automatically responsible for the self harm, suicide, substance abuse, and poor mental health of the famous – and why should it be assumed to be without evidence …of which I see not very much.

Ms Davis accompanies her petition with a video which is high on emotion and low on coherent thought.  But then she is an actress who knew the deceased not a politician.  By accident I switched on Channel 4 and they were interviewing the candidates for the Labour leadership election which, like the sewer at the bottom of my garden, I am vaguely aware of but occasionally notice more distinctly when it smells bad.

An interesting moment occurred when an audience member asked an open question about the late Ms Flack and the media and Christian Guru Murthy asked Kier Starmer – the former head of the Crown Prosecution Service - whether the Crown Prosecution Service was right to prosecute Ms Flack...

Now I think pretty much the answer to this question should probably be yes since it was undeniable that someone had been so badly injured in a domestic incident that they had to go to hospital but I may be wrong so I was interested to hear what Kier had to say.  He said that he had not been head of the CPS for 10 years and so it was wrong for him to comment because he hadn’t seen the file and that it was wrong for people who hadn’t done a job for 10 years to tell people doing it now what they thought of how they were doing it.  Well, the Labour party hasn’t been in power for 10 years … does this mean that they have no opinions on how the Conservatives are running the government?  Of course not – they have nothing but opinions.  Here is a man who had the ultimate personal insight into how the institution worked and what could he tell us?  Nothing.  He didn’t even have to give a yes or no answer – he could have at least given us an insight into how such decisions are taken.  But what did he offer us?  Zilch.  He and the others just gave us platitudes about social media site owners not taking responsibility for their content and avoided pointing the finger at any individuals or institutions in the mainstream media.  So what did we learn?  Nothing.

It’s all the fault of the plebs of social media.  Obviously… funny that these people who changed the law to allow the CPS to prosecute people for intimate partner violence without the support of the bullied partner for their own protection can’t even stand up for the CPS when it might need their support.  Not even when you used to be the head of it?

Postscript
 

Since this page continues to be of public interest.... Well, now we have had the inquest....

It seems Ms Flack did admit to whacking her man but Detective Inspector Bateman (a woman if that's relevant) decided to press for a prosecution rather than a caution claiming that her admission of violence was not actually an admission of guilt.  Although the Coroner accused the police of "splitting hairs" . This went up to CPS lawyers who approved the prosecution.  Ms Flack's mother blamed DI Bateman.  DI Bateman said she treated Flack no differently to anyone else. The Coroner insinuated there seemed to be a link between Ms Flack's increasing profile and increasing mental instability but it was all a bit vague 

... Etc... 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53679454

Coughs and sneezes spread diseases

Catch corona viruses
In your handkerchiefs

Physician promote thyself...

Dear Purley War Memorial Hospital, I am not a General Practitioner so therefore I do not refer people anywhere and would not have the required knowledge to evaluate their ailments.  Also since the National Health Service is a state run monopoly and I do not have the pecuniary ability to go private I have no idea what alternative facilities are available and no direct experience of them in order to compare their quality. 

Even if I did I would have only a faint idea whether such an institution had cured me or if any improvement in my medical circumstances was actually just down to serendipity.

However, I will now in the future inform my kith and kin that I guess that you probably do do a better job than leeches, homeopathy and alternative medicine in an attempt to stop them self diagnosing and instead encourage them to frequent institutions where healthcare is free at the point of need.  They were probably going to do this anyway but it can't hurt...

Yours sincerely

Anthony

When Doctor Who wasn't a superhero....

Recently – thanks to Ava Alexis purchasing me the DVDs to replace the worn out VHS tapes - I have been pondering the first Doctor Who stories and considering how much better it was before the Doctor became superhero.  Every time I re-watch most things I discover something I didn’t notice before.  Most of the time.  It’s certainly true here…

For instance I remember in the first story the Doctor being a very irascible and cynical and selfish anti-hero but watching it again the story is a bit more subtle than that.  

A bit of plot: The Doctor having abducted Ian and Barbera back to the stone age leaves the “ship” to collect soil samples and is abducted by a caveman who sees him lighting his pipe and thinks he knows the “secret of fire”.  This secret had previously only been known to the leader of the tribe but has died with him.  The Doctor’s companions go to rescue him and are imprisoned in the Cave of Skulls from where they escape.  However, on their way back to the Tardis they discover one of the cavemen who aspires to be the leader of the tribe attacked by a beast and badly injured.

Barbera wants to stop and take him back to the tribe but the Doctor insists they should press on to safety and save their own skins first.  It’s a real moral dilemma.  Ian and Barbera make out the doctor to be callous and inhuman.  To which the Doctor responds…

DOCTOR: You're trying to say that everything you do is reasonable, and everything I do is inhuman. Well, I'm afraid your judgement's at fault, Miss Wright, not mine. Haven't you realised if these two people can follow us, any of these people can follow us? The whole tribe might descend upon us at any moment.

HUR: The tribe is asleep.

There follows a discussion about how many people have followed them and the risks of returning…

BARBARA: The old woman won't give us away. She helped.

DOCTOR: Do you think so? These people have logic and reason, have they? Can't you see their minds change as rapidly as night and day? She's probably telling the whole tribe at this very moment.

The Doctor correctly identifies that the problem with the cave people isn't just their lack of fire but their lack of civilisation.  And as the companions view the cave people so the Doctor views his new companions.  As unreasonable ... they can't be trusted to keep his secret because their minds change as rapidly as night and day....? Reasonable and unreasonable are words that appear in the script again and again… first in the junkyard….

DOCTOR: Young man, is it reasonable to suppose that anybody would be inside a cupboard like that, hmm?

IAN: Would it therefore be unreasonable to ask you to let us have a look inside?

And later back inside the ship…

IAN: Have you taken us back to our own time?

DOCTOR: You know I can't do that. Please be reasonable.

Just as the fire is mysterious to the cavemen – sorry cavepeople - the Tardis is mysterious to Ian and Barbera

DOCTOR: Not quite clear, is it. I can see by your face that you're not certain. You don't understand. And I knew you wouldn't. Never mind.

I’m not saying that the first Doctor Who story is a fantastic piece of literature but it explores ideas and the conceit of the Tardis being uncontrollable allows it to be written out of the scripts so it just serves as a framing device to get our protagonists from planet/timeA to planet/timeB.  Once there they are just as vulnerable as anyone else.  This has been lost.

Also there is no agenda – the Doctor is not saving the world or the universe but exploring it.  For example in the Daleks serial Ian and Barbera don’t want to leave the ship at all and the Doctor uses a series of pretences to get them out exploring.  First claiming he needs soil samples etc (which might be true to an extent) and then claiming falsely that the fluid link is broken so that they have to go into the Dalek city in search of mercury. 

When they escape the Dalek city they find they have left the fluid link behind and must return for it but they need the aid of the Thals to return there.  The Thals however don’t want to fight and although the Daleks are a threat they can’t yet leave their city so they’re not an immediate threat.  This raises all kinds of moral issues as in fact the Thal attack on the Dalek city is arguably unprovoked.  Well, it is provoked a bit as the Daleks shot some of the Thals that entered the city but … as Ian points out the confiscation of a fluid link does not exactly pass the Caroline test…

IAN: Now listen, you two. What victory are you going to show these people when most of them have been killed? A fluid link? Is this what you're going to hold up to them and say, 'Thank you very much. This is what you fought and died for'?

…arguably the Doctor and his companions need is primarily economic – they want the fluid link not just for survival but so they can return home - whereas the Thals’ need is … Well, survival? But it’s not an immediate need. 

These days however the Doctor controls the Tardis, goes wherever he/she wants, has a sonic screwdriver that’s turned into a magic wand, always seems to have a plan …etc etc… where’s the vulnerability or the mystery in that…?

When Phillip Schofield got Petula Clark to 116 ...

Apparently it is News that Phillip Schofield has come out as gay.  However, I always thought he was and I’ve been racking my brain as to where I got such an idea... And why this is News.  I think it goes back to when he was in the broom cupboard with Gordon the Gopher… 

Yes, I know the out the closet joke has been done to death but…

Phillip was the first CBBC in screen continuity announcer and he performed this task from a broom cupboard.  As I remember there was a lot of dead air to fill… So Phillip came up with games.  One of these games was to promote Downtown as sung by Petula Clark every day on his show for no apparent reason.  

Now I don’t know if Petula is a gay icon but I suspected there had been a wink to the audience going on some years later when an act called "An Audience with Peter" (right) did a routine that involved singing alternative lyrics to Downtown with jokes about homosexual intercourse in.  Is she a gay icon?  Perhaps or perhaps not – these two things could have been entirely unrelated and I could be putting 2 and 2 together to make 5 … but because of this I’ve just assumed (wrongly perhaps except it now seems I was right) for years that Phillip was gay...  Then again it could be that Peter also discovered that record via Phillip’s relentless promotion of it and that Phillip gave Peter the germ of the idea…or not.

Of course it is entirely possible to have a strong interest in female recording artists and showtunes without being gay and so this may just have been stereotyping on my part.  As the broom cupboard segments were live apparently most were not recorded so we will never know quite how Phillip came over in those days (85 – so long ago he was still single) and I only have my memory to fall back on... 

 

But I’m not the only person to remember Phillip’s obsession with Downtown – he would play it every day and ask people to send in photographs of themselves down town...  

On one nostalgia video someone asks Phillip about Downtown and he responds that the choice to endlessly play Downtown was just “random” … Okay, it could have just been a good tune but Phillip’s playing of it got very serious.  He managed to get the record re-released as a single and apparently it got up to 116 in the charts. Maybe it just was a bit of nonsense to see how far you could get a track up the charts by relentless promotion...  That said the joke went a very long way...  He even got to talk to the icon Petula himself so here’s Phillip talking to Petula about her career and how often she goes Downtown…

…not that any of this is of the slightest important but it’s a little trip downtown...

And you may find somebody kind to help and understand you
Someone who is just like you and needs a gentle hand to
Guide them along.
So maybe I'll see you there
We can forget all our troubles, forget all our cares
So go downtown
Things will be great when you're downtown
Don't wait a minute more downtown
Everything is waiting for you

Update 29th May 2023

It seems an affair with a younger man was being covered up.  Apparently this is scandalous because Phil knew the young man as a child in his role as a patron of the theatre school... And they both lied to producers about the relationship.  It is common these days for employers to have rules that employees must declare their relationships if not on the same seniority level... there are accusations of things that I will not repeat here.  In the words of the late Mrs Merton : who knew what attracted Matthew to MILLIONAIRE Phil Schofield....

But perhaps the final word should go to King Solomon....

The words of a gossip are like choice morsels; they go down to a man’s inmost parts (Proverbs 18:8 and 26:22, NIV)