The Disappearance of Sally Bercow

No, this isn't a story in a tabloid; no it's not the Mail attacking one of its favourite targets: it's the Independent, which is a newspaper that I, like many others, generally greatly respects:

How do you read that headline?  It seems to me that a court has made a specific order, possibly directed at Sally Bercow, and it has been established that she breached it.  The "AGAIN" is there just to emphasise what a truly stupid woman she is: she just never learns.  

Read the piece and you'll discover this was the latest "example of her Twitterrhoea" - yes, they are actually saying that liquid excrement comes out of her mouth on Twitter.  Perhaps it's just me, but the description of her as "fiercely independent" of her husband, "defiant" and a "complicated woman" is quite telling as to what the author actually thinks her role should be in the marriage.

The story relates to two things: let's deal with them both.

1) Breaching a Section 39 Order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933

This section states that the Court "may direct that no newspaper report of the proceedings shall reveal the name, address or school, or include any particulars calculated to lead to the identification, of any child or young person concerned in the proceedings..."

The case we are talking about was widely reported in the press in September and October.  There was an absolute media frenzy, with pictures, video footage and the girl's identity produced all over the place.  The BBC reported last week that her teacher had appeared in court. 

What this legal provision does is to try to protect the girl from future reports and stories that affect her getting her life back together.   This is absolutely correct: the press used its power to help her be identified and eventually returned to the UK, and now it must butt out of her life.  That's why the BBC story talks only of a "teenage girl".

It is of course an absurdity to pretend that if you wanted to, you could not find out the girl's name by a a quick search.  There are of course literally hundreds of news articles that can be searched for from before the s39 Order that quickly reveal her name.  Newspapers are not required to remove old stories: she must simply be protected going forward from the date of the Order.  Once a tap is opened and water has poured out, you cannot put it back in the pipe.  The aim here, again, is to stop unjustified future media intrusion.

There is some suggestion that in this case the specific court order went further than prohibiting new newspaper reports, and stated that the girl should not be named "by any media" [postscript, see below].  If so, Sally's tweet would presumably have been covered.  How she, you or I was supposed to have knowledge of this is beyond me.  Ignorance is of course no defence, but even as a lawyer looking at the statute itself, I cannot see any culpability.  I would have to dig round case law to see how the provision has been interpreted or extended, and see this actual Court Order itself, in order for me to establish it.  

Moreover, Sally did not name the girl: she simply gave her first name.  It is not an uncommon name.  If someone had been in a coma for 3 months, awoke, and read Sally's tweet they could not identify that particular child from that tweet.

If this Court Order does say what the press is now reporting, arguably just providing a link in a tweet to a national news story from September or October is enough for you or I to breach it.  How far does it go?  As my pal "@StiffPigeon" pointed out, if you leave out an old copy of the Daily Telegraph in a dentist's waiting room, could you have named the girl by the failure to clear the paper away, and face a £5000 fine?  

I'm pretty sure the law would not be applied so idiotically, but no matter: Sally has already been charged (and found guilty) by the media.  This is despite the fact there is no suggestion she is actually being pursued by the Police for her tweet that mentioned only the girl's first name in the context of an honest question.

2) Defamation Action Linking Lord McAlpine to a Paedophile Scandal

If reports are correct, Sally Bercow has received a letter before action because of a tweet that said “Why is Lord McAlpine trending *innocent face*”.  It may have to be for a court to decide whether that is defamatory or not.  All I can note is that she did not accuse Lord McAlpine of anything in that tweet.  She was commenting on the fact his name was already trending because of the entirely inappropriate gossip and libel that was already circulating about him on Twitter.

I read *innocent face* as being ironic; other people may take it at face value - in which case there is no culpability and it's simply a question of fact and a statement that she does not know the answer.  I personally think the tweet was foolish, and that the views she tweeted that Lord McAlpine's lawyers are "bullies" and "ambulance chasers" should have been kept private.  If it does come to a defamation finding against her, these statements may adversely affect the level of damages awarded.

What I do not think she did, on any level, was engage in the malicious gossip and blatant defamation that many people on Twitter did.  She was foolish: we are all foolish at times in our life and she has admitted that herself.  She was, however, substantially less foolish than other people around this time on Twitter.

Bullying and Sexism

I like Sally Bercow's tweets.  I do not always agree with them, but that applies to most people on Twitter.  The whole point of the medium is for us to share views and discuss things.  

What I have repeatedly seen in reporting of her is a poring over anything she tweets, unfair extremely personal criticism, and a narrative that frankly suggests she is a woman who should shut her mouth and know her place.  She, like Louise Mensch, is an attractive, eloquent and woman who is not afraid to voice an opinion.  There seems to be a level of sexism and bullying applied to them both which is unfair and wrong.  This applies both to the way the press treats them and to a level of personal abuse applied to them both.

Sally Bercow's "latest gaffe" is not idiotic to me. It is not stupid, it is not spiteful, and it is something anyone could do.   It is far from clear to me that she has actually breached a Court Order and it does not justify the Independent saying liquid shit comes out of her mouth or establishing in the Court of Media that she has done so.  On the libel front, it is up to her lawyers and possibly a court to determine if she defamed Lord McAlpine with her "innocent face" tweet.  Her case is far less clear cut (morally and legally) than thousands of others.  She, however, is an easy target to go after.  

I'm sure her lawyers' advice is prudent at the moment, but it is sad to have seen her tweet last night: 

"Looking at tweets but (sadly) can't reply (#lawyerswhippedmyass #asdidMrB). So text/email/DM me if you're a mate. Hope 2 b back soon. xx."

 

I hope she, and other women tweeters who are routinely bullied because they are high-profile, is not hounded off Twitter and that this a temporary thing.  There is also some suggestion that it could be the action of a hacker that has led to the deletion.  She has 28 days to reactivate her account - I hope for her, for general freedom of speech, and for the presence of someone I regard as a kind, interesting and refreshingly honest person on my feed, that she does return.  

You don't have to agree with my personal view of Sally, but I'd hope you see the point as it relates to others.

Postscript: I've been sent a link to this interesting High Court case by lawyer @ljanstis that was published yesterday.  

In it Tugendhat J sets out that "The scope of s.39 was extended by the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, s.57(4) so that that section (and others) now "apply in relation to sound and television broadcasts as they apply in relation to newspapers". But there has been no extension of s.39 to apply to any other form of report, such as one made in the social media or the internet."  The judge goes on to cast doubt on whether a S39 order could or should extend to such media and refuses to make an order on the basis of S39 in this case.

This in turns makes we wonder about the accuracy of the Sky News article that the specific S39 order did in fact encompass "all media".  This, along with my concern about Sally having not actually having given the girl's full name, adds to the fact that press reporting of this issue was even more unfair.

Everything is fine

Maybe there was a reason for me to be here, at this time, this year.
I am happier this time... That is all that matters :)

Updates on Stirling, Loch Awe and Oban soon... lol.. maybe

Photography love

I am so in love with these photographs! In love and impressed.. Gives me a calming effect
Just a few favourites below:

Newsnight and Twitter Smears

It was announced earlier that the BBC is to pay Lord McAlpine £185,000 because of the Newsnight programme that carried an interview in which a victim of child abuse said one of his abusers was "a leading Tory politician of the Thatcher era”.

Newsnight did not name the politician, so you may be wondering why it is they have agreed to pay out such a substantial sum.  Read this post, which deals with that point better than I can - but as far as I can tell, essentially, they are liable because of the fact Lord McAlpine had falsely and widely been named on Twitter involved before the programme was aired.

I'm a huge fan of the BBC in general.  I think they do a superb job.  However, a responsible editor would have pulled the story with the knowledge that names were being circulated on Twitter.  That said, it's also easy to see this as "damned if you do, damned if you don't".  If they had pulled the programme there would have been screams of protest of cover-up and backing down.

There are two other big failings of the Newsnight team which also mustn't be forgotten.  A responsible editor would also have put the photograph of the suspect before the victim - that would have led to the central allegation that it was a "leading Tory politician of the Thatcher era" having been cut out of the programme.  They should also have contacted the alleged perpetrator to hear his side of the story.  They did not do so.

On this occasion the BBC failed badly and they have admitted their mistake.  We licence payers will foot the bill.
 
I perceive BBC conduct as negligent, rather than malicious.  In my view, the malicious parties in this instance is every person who gossiped on Twitter with absolutely no personal knowledge of the truth regarding who the person involved was.  This includes those who RTd names.  It is absolutely no defence morally or legally to say that you are repeating an allegation someone else made.  It was an angry, ugly group brandishing their now famous Twitchforks.

At least Newsnight had interviewed the victim and done research, no matter how imperfectly.  What those who hit the RT button did was to name someone with no more basis than "someone else said it was him, so it must be true."

If you think none of this matters - so what he's a millionaire Thatcherite - etc, I wish you had heard the interview with Lord McAlpine on Radio 4 today.  He is a frail 70 year old man who has a weak heart.  He is absolutely innocent of this crime.  The victim has accepted that.  The BBC has accepted that.  It was horrendous to hear him speak, actually with great dignity and a surprising lack of anger considering his life has been torn apart in the last two weeks.  If you think it doesn't matter, just put yourself in his shoes, or imagine it is your grandfather.  It is a very odd, callous, supposedly caring lefty who says "so what" because they object to his politics, no matter how strongly.  How grotesquely inhumane.

Two wrongs do not make a right - they create a bigger wrong.  There is a man out there who was repeatedly abused as a boy and now the entire media show is instead concentrated on another wrong.  This was caused in large part by the users of Twitter who were so desperate to find a guilty party without a court of law or any due process involved.  Do you feel good about that?  I don't. 

It is actually very, very simple and this is something everyone on Twitter is going to have to learn.  Do not spread or repeat serious allegations and smears that can destroy someone's life, without personal knowledge of and/or research into the truth of those statements.  It is just demonstrably wrong to accuse someone of something such serious crimes on the basis of blind gossip.  It goes against the basic assumptions of being innocent until proven guilty, it removes the protections that exist in court regarding evidence, and it prejudices a fair trial.  It is lynch-mob "justice".

Twitter is such a powerful tool, but it can also injure and cause huge harm.  I want the issue concentrated back on the abuse that took place: thanks to Twitter I'm not sure that's ever going to happen.

It's Right to Drive on the Left

Anyone wondered why we intelligent Brits drive on the wrong side of the road?  You may well have been to other parts of the world and seen it's not just us who have this peculiar habit.  I'd like to set out the story here of why we're actually absolutely correct - and naturally the rest of the World (well, much of it) is wrong.

A Scene from Monty Python

Clippity clop. You have to imagine you're on a horse and you're riding down some lane in the Middle Ages. It's pretty much a scene from Monty Python.  You spy a stranger coming the other way. Do you veer to the left hand side to pass him, or do you veer to the right?

The answer is obvious. Given that most people are right-handed, you will choose to head to the left hand side. Then your left flank is protected by trees, bushes or whatever else is by the side of the road, and more importantly, you can protect yourself with your right (sword) hand. The stranger will do the same.

This is how it ever was. It's not just in the Middle Ages: we have some evidence that the Romans drove on the left. There is an ancient stone quarry in Swindon in England that show ruts going into them that are less pronounced on the left hand side. The carts went in empty and came out full of stones. The ruts are far deeper on the right (as you face the entrance): ergo, the traffic moved on the left.

Blame the French: They Messed It Up

What a sensible state of affairs! Now who could we possibly blame for messing this up? Well one story says it was the French and that Napoleon changed first France, then the countries he conquered, to the right. Another says it was the Americans and that is was related to large freight wagons where the driver sat not on a seat, but on a horse. For some reason it made it easier to ride on the right with this arrangement.

Whatever the reason, there was a steady drift from traffic moving from the left to the right during the 19th century. Much of continental Europe converted during this time, but it was by no means universal. I've seen photographs of Budapest from 1910 where all the traffic was on the "correct" side. I've visited the spot where Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo: his car was travelling on the left when it took its fateful wrong turn.

When the Austria-Hungary Empire broke up at the end of the the First World War, many of the former territories considered it as modernising step to switch their traffic to the right. However, check out the Captain's car in the Sound of Music. It is a pre-1938 model, which was designed to be driven on the left. It therefore has its steering wheel on the right hand side. Only in 1938 was the whole of Austria finally forced to drive on the right after the German Anschluss.

If you go to Prague you will see vintage cars that offer tours of the city. If you want to know which ones are original, and which ones are modern day copies, look where the steering wheel is. The original pre-1938 ones have the wheel on the "British" side, just like the ones below. The Germans forced Czechoslovakia onto the right, just as did Denmark (1940) and Norway (1940).



By the end of World War Two, we therefore have the whole of Europe on the left, with the exception of countries that were never occupied. Sweden and Iceland changed over in the 1960s: in Sweden the traffic switched on 3 September 1967 which was designated as "H-Day". It was a massive endeavour: every road sign, traffic light and road junction had to be changed. Speed limits were temporarily lowered to a snail's pace to prevent accidents. The poor Elks were terribly confused.

This just leaves Britain, Ireland (and former British colonies Cyprus and Malta) on the left within Europe. We stand proud! The Channel Islands, the only part of Britain occupied by the Germans during WW2 and forced to drive on the right, were actually the only place to switch it back to the left the moment the troops had left. We can be terribly stubborn.

The Rest of the World

How about the rest of the world then? Broadly (there are exceptions), anywhere that Britain was the former colonial or dominant power drives on the left. This means Hong Kong, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India (that tiny country of a billion people), Bermuda, much of the Carribean etc. Even in Canada, where US influence is strong and there is a long land border, four provinces remained on the left until the 20s and Newfoundland was on the left until 1947.

Where France or Spain was the colonial power, they drive on the right. This means much of Africa, South America and some of Asia. Some countries were never under colonial influence: Japan remains on the left.

Sensible Samao and My Dirty Secret

So there we have it. It is not random as to which side of the road you drive on. There is a good historic reason for driving on the left. We can also blame either France or US for this new-fangled driving on the right nonsense, and we Brits can rest assured that it's not just we who drive on the left, as is often thought. In fact 164 countries and territories in the World drive on the right and 76 countries and territories on the left. This equates to 66.1% on the right and 33.9% on the left. One terribly sensible country, Samao, bucked the trend by switching from right to left as recently as 2009. They did so to take advantage of cheap second hand cars from Australia and New Zealand, but never mind, it was a good move anyway.

Where do I prefer to drive? You might have noticed that this piece is a little tongue in cheek.  Despite living in Britain and being well-used to driving all round the world on either the left or right, I have a guilty secret. I never find it hard adjusting to driving on the right. It comes naturally to me. I do have more of a problem remembering when I get back to Dover and have to be on the left again. But shh, don't tell anyone, will you?




This piece by me was originally posted on the ACIS Tours Website

Blood test

Free - in Scotland because I am a student :)

Medicine with prescription is free of charge too! This encourages me to visit the GP more than going straight to a pharmacist, eventhough I might just be having a minor ailment.

Insomnia

MY sleeping pattern is such a blunder right now. I can say I only recall one day in Glasgow where I slept like a baby for 8 hours at a decent time too! Other than that day, I sometimes sleep at 12am, 3am, 4am... and wake up by 8am regardless of how late I slept...... Then sometimes during the day I get sleepy.. but there are plenty of things to do so I hardly nap, I do my stuff and then its midnight again......

This means that I am having insufficient sleep till I am tempted to get some drowsy cough mixture to make me sleep.

Maybe its jet lag syndrome??? I mean, when its 12am in Glasgow, it is 7am in Malaysia...... I am so awake at 12am!

Some people might think I am still in Malaysia........