I read that News International is to give the family of Milly Dowler £3m, of which £1m will go to charities. I wondered how this sum was arrived at. There are a few cases on breach of privacy, but none with such high awards. Even damages for wrongful death or severe disablement do not reach that level. Absolutely nothing could ever compensate for the loss of a child, even coupled with the destructive hacking that occurred, so an award of millions is puzzling. I am concerned that this level of award will colour the entire debate about hacking and investigative journalism that is going on, and give us a distorted picture of the problem, if any. We need a principled approach to invasion of privacy, freedom of information, investigative journalism and the boundaries between them. I note that Baroness O’Neill will shortly be giving the Reuters Memorial Lecture at St Anne’s, Oxford University on just this topic. She will speak about the philosophical principles that might inform policy responses to the News of the World phone hacking saga, and the wider issues it raises about ethics and trust in the media. This is seriously necessary.
So will the Government pay out to all those whose phones it hacked without a warrant?
Will it even tell them they were hacked?
Will anyone be sacked for hacking the wrong phones?
Thought not.
I think your conceptions of Privacy, Social Mobility, and Participatory-Democratisation are deliberately malfeasant and unfit for Purpose:
because had you realised that bloated-greed, individual-selfishness, and legally-protective-armouring thereto, are not Private but very much Public matters;
as are also all other excessive drawings from the Common Purse and destructivisms of the Earth’s Lifesupports in the super-inflated names of “Consumerism”, and “Individual Liberty”;
and had you realised that pay-aggrandising hierachically-pyramidal Workplace-laddering is likewise not superior to the Lifeplace and is at best “Workplace Ladder Ascendency”, not “Social Mobility”;
and had you realised that Participatory Democratisation requires the impartially thorough, verbatimly honest and in this latter, principle 2 Charity for each and every word communicated, not merely for those properly-typed submissions, correctly-written and formatted, using only accepted terminology, submitted through the correct channels, and securely delivered to the proper governmental or individual-peer-or-politician’s address and desk, by the deadline time;
all of which your colleague-in-political-diversion Baroness Murphy has also just missed or avoided (and in which you have supported her);
you would see that straightening out your Governance mind-functioning would result in your actually getting the People’s needs and hows right (verbatimly and charitably) and thereby producing sound and secure legislations;
which in turn will defuse the whole ‘black-market’ of hacking, privileged-lobbying and suchlike individually-capitalistic attempts to “win the law-lottery jackpot”.
Can’t understand a word of this – I won’t delete it but let others make of it what they will.
“Good on yer Baroness”
(as the Aussies say but usually to ‘Sheils’)
“fer stickin’ yer own neck out as well as mine !”
JSDM.
Can’t understand a word of this – I won’t delete it but let others make of it what they will.
It is getting better. There are now sometimes paragraphs to make it easier to read, but when the noble Baroness eventually has a mind which is far in advance of the whole of the human race, not just most of them, she will realize that MilesJSD is being very poetic, but like Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme of Moliere, doing so in prose.
The hyphens are
outer-spatial-musical -notation. You can see that surely!
Reading Miles JSD is like the layman reading Law books. It does not mean a thing!
@Twm
Your comment is in itself a bit picturesque, and clealy intended to be lighthearted; but within the more serious context I think you’ve been a whack too diversionary.
What I am trying to do is communicate to include both the posted ‘narrow’ topic and any interdependent greater topic, especially where it is apparent that such greater issue has not being contructively addressed and the influential relevancy of which is being omitted, not even mentioned.
One needs to communicate in ‘snapshots’ or as it were ‘film-clips’ (in words) as closely conveying the real-life body-&-mind experiential sense of the matter;
rather than to confine the communication to not only limited and limiting, often stiltingly-verbiose, tracts of utterly-correct writing such as your “Law books”.
Whilst writer A has a duty to communicate and to reason with Clarity, Charity, and Self-corrigibility,
the Reader also needs to use the same principles, perhaps first using Charity, by definition meaning impartially appreciating any good intention either overtly or covertly, or even unclearly or confusedly, contained in submission A.
Whilst this principle and skill therein is anathema to Politicians, whose primary weapon is up-front rebuttal totally-negating whatsoever has just been submitted by another participant true or false, needful or wasteful,
it becomes our greater citizenship-duty to both expose such destructive rebuttals, and to paint as realistic a word-picture as we can as to the need or truth we believe to be pertinent and essential to be laid open.
I believe my communications are quite sufficiently fit-for-purpose, clear, and charitable; and that I remain not only self-corrigible but proactive in trying to win-win-win mutually improve my (within ‘Our’) communicatabilities.
The sum was an out of court settlement, not an award nor compensation. One might assume that the amount was deduced by a crack legal team intent on mitigating their own damages. In which case, we should ensure there is no limit.
£3m? The equivalent of a largish house in stockbroker belt? In fact £2m; the size of a commuter’s home in the home counties?
The Dowlers won’t mention the matter again even if they keep the money in the family for 100 years or more. Hopefully bricks and mortar.
I hope they can find an honest estate agent and solicitor.
This is again, right on the button. The deal would have been to silence the family and if that silence is broken he will be able to sue them right back for more than he had to settle.
This is the rich man’s way of staying out of jail. Isn’t there an old saying, you can buy anyone if you have enough to cover them.
Just the same way you can buy government officials. Just look at Blair.
Our family was compensated by the Diamond mines at Kimberley after an 18yr old great uncle was murdered in 1901.
We have been arguing about what to do with the capital ever since, and it is cautiously and carefully still very much in the family.
In fact until somebody looks it up afresh, we even forget what it is that we are arguing about, and why!
I wish the Dowler family as many years of obscurity, ie non public discussion, in that regard!
I appreciated that reply about “picturesque” MilesJSD, and I did think that I understood the ploy of mindless nonsense having a subliminal effect. It has certainly got to the Baroness, who is now moderating post, so perhaps she will get some entirely unwelcome sense from you before long.
this principle and skill therein is anathema to Politicians, whose primary weapon is up-front rebuttal totally-negating whatsoever has just been submitted”
This is indeed so, but there are some politicians who endeavour to make their point
with wit, more usually sarcasm, and even thoroughly good humour. It ain’t easy when you are discussing the minutiae of bills and acts all day long.
Dennis Healey is/was one such specimen, or should I say the noble Lord Dennis Healey, if he ever attends.