David Camerons judgement

The issue of whether David Cameron is fit to continue as Prime Minister comes down to one important question. Does he display the quality of judgement to do the job. I ask myself this question. Forget the phone hacking and the dodgy payments to police. Forget all of the other issues. Just consider what his previous job was. He was the editor of the News of The World. Does David Cameron ever read this paper. If I was Prime Minister, what particular feature of the News of The World would I want to bring to the office of Prime Minister? Salacious stories? A reputation for being in the gutter? When I need to put out a press release detailing why we need to build  a railway through Oxfordshire or why we want to change the way students university places are funded, do I want someone who shows sensitivity. It is no surprise to me that the country is up in arms, given the tone of coverage.

Add to the the fact the bloke lost his job in circumstances which weren't exactly appealing, it doesn't exactly spell "great decision" does it. Presumably there are plenty of people in the field with unblemished CV's, who have  a track record of doing a good job. This is the job of the person who presents my face to the public.

A simple look a the NOTW during Coulsons reign would have told Cameron all he needed to know.

In Praise of Rupert Murdoch

My Dad was a big fan of Rupert Murdoch ( I won't mention my mothers views on the subject, that's another matter!). There were several reasons for this. Both were brash Australians. From my fathers experiences in the RAF in World War II he had a deep mistrust and dislike of the British ruling classes and establishment. He saw a kindred spirit in Murdoch. Not prepared to bend over and take it from "his betters". When my mother (a Guardian reader) used to criticise the Sun, my Dad would gloatingly point out that if you went into any cafe in London, you wouldn't see anyone reading the Guardian. My father well understood why a squaddie in a far off land would enjoy looking at the Sun rather than a more high brow paper. He always claimed that the best journalists in the world were employed by the Murdoch media. My father found it hilarious when Murdoch bought the Times as he felt this was the ultimate two fingers up at the British Establishment.

I'm sure that if he'd survived until 1989 when Sky was launched he'd have approved. He'd have loved the Cricket coverage. Sky TV has revolutionised the coverage of football. It has brought many sports to air that never got a look in previously. It is also fair to say that Sky News is arguably the best British News channel. So when we criticise Murdoch, what don't we like? The fact he has a successful formula for mass media papers? The fact that he had the vision to launch the worlds best satellite broadcasting service? The fact he sitcks two fingers up at those who he doesn't have respect for?

Is he too powerful? Probably. If the rumours about destroying emails are true, then him or someone in his organisation must be held to account (ie Time in clink for perverting justicve), but that doesn't detract from the fact that the main reason people here hate him is because he's so successful and so good at what he does? I suspect that my father was right in his analysis of Murdoch -  the British Establishment don't like him because they are a bunch of snobs.

As for the rest of the country? I'd bet a weeks wages that the sales of the Sun haven't suffered and the final edition of the News of The World sells more copies than last weeks.

I don't particlarly like tabloids (especially right wing ones) and I think the stuff the NOTW got up to was repulsive. I might read the sun over a bacon sarnie in a cafe, that's about it. Why am I writing this? Because I am sick of the hypocricy of all those people on the radio who have spent the last day slagging of all things News International, whilst bending over backwards for them for the last god knows how many years? Murdoch isn't a problem, he's just a symptom. Is anyone shocked that Newspapers pay PC plod for Tip offs? How do you think the Paparazzi always manage to turn up when someone is getting nicked? I've heard a few horror stories from victims of such behaviour over the years from friends in the music business. It is the way of the world. A friend of mine was blown up by the IRA at Victoria. She was hounded by the press for her story and it wasn't just Murdoch press. I doubt I'd write a blog if I thought the press did their job properly on a local level (although to be fair, they've done a good job on Metpro recently).

Locally there has recently been an industrial dispute at the Barnet Press. The cause? The owner was running the paper into the ground and the journalists felt they couldn't serve people properly. Murdoch, Maxwell, The Barclay Brothers, Richard Desmond, The Rothermere's. These are the people who largely control the written media and to some extent set the agenda. I don't think that any are necessarily better or worse than each other, they are just perhaps a bit more or less successful than each other. It is all rather depressing really isn't it.

News of the World - RIP

I was astounded to hear that the News of The World will close after this weeks edition. I can only surmise that there are even more shocking revelations coming out. I won't miss the revolting rag

**** John Prescott

John Prescott has the hump because News International may have hacked his mobile phone.

Big ****ing deal. Lets remind ourself what John Prescott did from 1997-2007. He was deputy Prime Minister. Did he get the hump about the RIPA legislation? This supposedly anti terrorism law has been used to catch people letting their dogs foul the footpath. It is a tool of intimidation for many Councils. Did Prescott get thehump about it when he was in power?

Did he get the hump about the complicty of MI5 operatives in torture of British citizens by foreign governments?

Did he get the hump about dodgy intelligence dossiers being used to justify invasions of foreign sovereign country's in the House of Commons?

Did he get the hump over the fact that the government, through GCHQ can read any Internet communication they like, can listen to any phone call and intercept any email?

Did he get the hump when people who he knew had done nothing, were held for years in Guantanamo Bay by the US authorities, purely as a fig leaf for the failed President George Bush.

Sure I accept that the world is a better place withour Saddam Hussein, I accept that sometimes our civil liberties will have to take second place to National security issues, but the British Government has gone way beyond what is reasonable in achieving it's aims. Prescott may not like the fact that the News of The World made him look like a plonker on many occasion, but surely the justification he used time and time again for all of his lousy decisions holds true. If he wasn't up to anything dodgy he had nothing to fear from the surveillance.

I despise the standards and ethics of the News International group, but John Prescott was Tony Blairs figleaf. Without his active participation, keeping Old Labour onside and in check, maybe we'd have got the Government we thought we'd voted for in 1997. I don't have a big problem with Tony Blair. He was following his instincts. John Prescott wasn't. he took the Kings shilling and forgot his principles. If he doesn't like the feeling that his texts were read and his private conversations were listened to, he's in good company with everyone else who's suffered as a result of these practices. I'm sorry, but sometimes it's nice to see people get a taste of their own medicine, however harsh that may sound.