Why I've been banging on about Romania and helping Romanians

Mention helping people from another Country on twitter, and you'll get nasty comments or even abuse for helping foreign people when Britons supposedly need so much help.

I love my Country and I'm incredibly proud to be British - but if anyone witnessed what I've witnessed and didn't shed a tear, they'd be a monster.

A recent addition to the European Union, Romania is one of two EU Countries to see growth - in the last year, t's reached 2.3%.... a good bit of news you might think... but it's to be expected since it's such a poor country to start with - and one of few yet to adopt the Euro.

In Britain, most people's attitude to Europe is sod them - particularly since we are a net contributor spending £60,000,000 each day just to be a Member. Many ask quite fairly what we get out of the EU>

In Romania, Europe has leverage to make the political powers that be, who operate under a corrupt system of bribes and personal interests to do the right thing. After all, Romanians are a proud and nice people.

On December 9th, Romania will hold a General Election for their Parliament and Prime Minister - but the PM doesn't have to appoint a PM from the party (or actually coalition parties as is normal) that wins - and may not. Indeed, the all powerful President, who's Office is not due to re-election until 2015 also appoints Magistrates - so the Executive has it's grubby hands on the main Institutions.

But it seems certain that the current coalition will turn, thanks mainly to their commitment to retain the 16% flat tax, which since it's introduction has actually seen an increase in revenues of 1% significant in the region) and one that favours very rich business people.

In Bucharest - which is not representative of the rest of the Country, you will see the biggest imaginable gap between rich and poor with BMW's and yes, even Rolls Royce's alongside 20 year old bangers. The average income in Bucharest is around 300 Euros a month - about £260.

And welfare - if we think we have it tight in the UK, the "pension" as it is known for disabled people is set at a flat rate of 73 Euros a month. Think about that. That's under what many people earn in a day here , and a tiny amount of what many earn in half a day in the UK.

So disabled people can't afford their own places. It is expected that they will not work. The country is proud that they have ONE deaf person working as a porter in a hotel and even school teachers who I have spoken to tell children not to expect to work.

Life skills and mobility aren't taught to blind and partially sighted children. The teachers and headteachers say they can't find time in their schedule. Even when you tell them plainly that the most educated person in the world is no use to an employer if they can't dress, cook or leave their house - but the traditional answer from teachers and political leaders is No, no, no, no, no, and sometimes arm, no.

Only through Europe putting pressure on politicians in Romania will things improve - and even then I expect to see only modest improvement in the climate within my lifetime.

And bear in mind that in Bucharest where severely disabled people receive just 73 euros a month, a cake and a coke costs about 3 Euros and a Mcdonalds about 4-6 euros. These are things therefore that simply don't get taken up by the poor majority.

One deaf child recently had his hearing restored by an audiologist who donated a month of his time to the Light Into Europe Charity. He examined a deaf child who had never seen a specialist and found that the reason for his deafness was skin growing around his ear. A simple issue to fix in the UK but an issue that crushed that boys life.

Yesterday morning, I met with the Health Director at the Department of Health in Romania - a Civil Servant, not a politician and was introduced as a visiting guide dog user from the UK. When we explored whether the department of health would help the charity, or at least disabled people, the stock answer was no, no, no, no, no. I asked why not and was told that the government is commissioning a report to build up a picture of disability in Romania - given that we are approaching the very end of a 6 year strategy on disability that has achieved, and set out to achieved exactly nothing. I was told the report is due in March - but dingos kidneys is the same in any language and I told them I thought they were dissembling and trying to brush us off. Fortuitously I don't normally take no for an answer so like General McArther (or the Terminator) I'll be back!

There is so much I could write about the country and the region but I fear it would fall for the most part on deaf ears. The UK's not perfect, but Romania is probably about 80 year behind us.

I don't just want to help, I feel it is my duty!

Truth v Lies: The unfair attacks on MP's like john whittingdale

I am watching the excellent Dispatches Programme on Channel 4 this evening, literally shouting at the TV in anger about what I professionally consider to be an unfair attack on MP's, and an attack that's all too easy to make against people who can't really defend themselves in the eyes of the public.

For clarity, I was very involved in reporting criminal breaches of expense rules throughout the scandal that rocked Westminster and the public's trust in MP's and indeed Government - and so I'm not defending fiddling - but I am defending people who are doing nothing more than what anyone else could lawfully and fairly do.

By all means attack the system - I know I have done in order to test it... but after the expenses scandal, MP's were banned from claiming money for mortgage interest on London properties - in part because people were profiting personally from investment by the taxpayer.

And so when the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority changed the rules, MP's were forced to move out of their own homes and claim for (usually) much more expensive rented properties or hotels.

Let's be clear about this - the change is costing you and me MORE money, not less.

Now there is a grey area where people COULD commute in to work. For instance, I can and do commute in - as does my current MP - but his predecessor notably claimed for a second home in Soho.

The premise behind allowing MP's to claim for a second home is based upon the requirement that those representing far flung Constituencies spend much of their time in Westminster. As with any other employment, the premise is that it shouldn't cost YOU to be at work.

Dispatches highlight the example of Helen Grant who lives in a Constituency where it wouldn't be possible to claim a second home allowance - and I\m not particularly defending this case... but this is unusual.

If MP A lives 100 miles away and owns a home another 50 miles further away again, and they let that second home out, they would be entitled to claim rent on the property they NEED for work.

Why is it any different then for an MP who lives 100 miles away, but owns a property they rent out in London to also be entitled to affectively be provided with a property that they clearly need for work?

Can it really be right that MP B is expected to take for instance a £1,200 hit in rental income they would otherwise receive in their private lives so they can do the job they are expected to do?

Unless of course we are saying that individuals should be personally out of pocket to do their job?

Now this isn't about me defending MP's for any reason - but I dislike injustice wherever it exists, and it seems personally and professionally that it is simply unfair, and playing upon public feeling toward MP's to make play out of this.

And then there are cases where MP's have moved out of their mortgaged property to rent another sot they sit within the rules, and either rent out to another MP< or rent out to another MP while renting that other MP's house to get around the rules. It looks bad, but again, if you take a moment to think about it - if it is fair enough for an MP to rent out their old property in order to rent a new one, is it fair, just or event at all important if another MP happens to rent it on the same terms that any other person might?

I am fully expecting to be attacked for apparently defending MP's - but actually that's not what this post seeks to do. Indeed it's intention is to call upon readers to take a step back and say, wow are we possibly witch-hunting here?

Over to you.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

How NOT to get sued: What is defamation & how NOT to commit it

Recent news items once again throw the issue of libel and slander in to the public domain. Broadly speaking, a slander is spoken and libel is published... meaning to say that even if a false statement is spoken on the radio or TV, it is libel because it is "electronically published". Usually, media defamations are "libel" rather than slander.

But readers shouldn't get too wrapped up in the difference between libel and slander. Both are very naughty.

A defamation is any statement or other suggestion about any living person that lowers the reputation of that person in the mind of another.

It really is as simple as that.

It would lower the reputation of Lord Archer to broadcast the fact that he has been to prison but crucially, it is true and therefore doesn't present a problem.

The defences to Libel tend to be either truth, or that a journalist or journalists who took every reasonable step believed with good, usually evidenced reason that what they were saying was true and in the public interest. Even if it turns out any allegation was false, the Reynolds Principal could protect that defamation.

I don't wish to get too deeply in to recent vents and the horrific impact Lord McAlpine by allegations that were made and are absolutely false - but essentially the question is whether reasonable steps were taken. Clearly the BBC have taken the view that they were not - and it's not something I wish to comment on because I do not have all the facts.

What is interesting is the fallback on tweeters, particularly Sally Bercow. Sally is someone I like, and professionally sort of know... and I certainly feel sorry for her if she ends up out of pocket as a result of what she has described as an irresponsible tweet. And so I want readers to know I'm not digging at her, or any other individual.

What is for certain is that the current legal action is sending a painful message to all those who have either ignored or been ignorant of many previous warnings that twitter is not a private place and the law of the land does apply.

If I were Lord McAlpline, I would be furious with all those who tweeted his name out - but on a personal point, this poor man has more than made his point already and I can only hope that the idiots who did not know how stupid they were being will not be plunged in to poverty. Lawyers are calling for tweeters to contact them to settle the case. It's definitely worth doing this and hoping for mercy if it applies to you.

******
It's a shame it's taken such a catastrophic case to educate the Great British Public. I for one have tweeted and blogged about this sort of danger on many occasions... and the dangers of contempting the Court and commenting on active criminal cases. Sadly, I foresee exactly the same sort of education being required for Contempt of Court.

Twitter is a public place.

I don't think journalism has to be the exclusive domain of trained journalists - and there have been many cases over the years where trained journalists have got it wrong... but please remember, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I strongly advise people to do their research - and if you can, get legal training.

Twitter is a public place and we're all in the reach of the law of the land. Take head.

Foreign Secretary's tribute to Rex Hunt

Rex Hunt was a good man who played a vital part in managing the Falklands conflict in 1982, and transforming the Islands into what she is today.

I had the pleasure of speaking with Mr Hunt on the 25th anniversary of the Falklands conflict. Although he wasn't keen to go on air, we spent a good hour giving me very helpful background.

Reacting to Mr Hunt's passing on Remembrance Sunday, William Hague said,

conflict.

“After the conflict, he contributed to the transformation of the Islands into a vibrant, modern and successful democracy.

“The warm tribute the Falkland Islands Government has paid him today reflects the genuine respect, gratitude and affection felt for Sir Rex by the people he worked so hard to support. His contribution will not be forgotten."

Ends

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Independent reporting: Why BBC reporters say "the BBC" & not "us" or "we"

Lord Pattern's future, like those of most of the very upper tiers of managers at the BBC is very much under question in the current crises - but I would like to join him in congratulating the BBC for the independent way in which they've been reporting on themselves.... very much in the same way Sky News offered excellent independent coverage surrounding the BskyB bid.

Quite a few tweeters have been asking why BBC reporters and presenters talk about "The BBC" as if it were an entirely different organisation to the one they themselves work for.

The reason for this is based in independence and impartiality. A dictum was sent down quite a few years ago that ALL news programming would report on and speak of the BBC in the third person - and at the same time allowing news output to be entirely independent and impartial in their reporting.

This is a very important part of editorial independence and this mechanism is the one that allowed John Humphries to grill Mr Entwistle, in the public interest - and indeed the Today Programme interview is widely accepted to be the cause of Mr Entwistle's resignation on Saturday.

Such is the high regard I have for this principle that I, as a mere freelance newspaper reviewer (and one time Daily Politics soap box reporter / presenter :) that whenever I appear on BBC News output, I follow the guideline to the letter, even though as a non staffer, I'd probably be forgiven for breaching it.

And on the wider point ass a friendly tweeter raised earlier as to why BBC reporters say "I understand that" when they theorised that the reporters should surely know - I say the reporters on the BBC News Channel for instance, or any other news output will have no greater information than that available to other external news organisations. Of course, there's no accounting as to who knows who in any industry and what one staffer says to another, but this is equally true of a Sky News employee who might be friends with a BBC staffer - and, not wishing to let the light in on the magic, if you personally know someone involved in a scandal and they give you their take on it - you might report that as "we understand that NAME is deeply upset at their treatment". Equally, you might "understand" it from another reliable source.

So a rather wordy run down on why the BBC don't talk of "us" and "we" but it's important to understand and important to the survival of the BBC.

#SAVENEWSNIGHT !

Sticking up for the #BBC and BBC #values

This was the scene outside New Broadcasting House at 9pm this evening when Nicholas Entwistle departed as Director General after just 7 weeks in the job.

An inevitability after Mr Entwistle's less than smooth appearance on the Today programme earlier this morning - but I can't help but agree with former BBC Journalist Ben Bradshaw MP when he told Sky News "it's a tragedy" that this eminently qualified man was stopped from introducing the dynamic reforms he had planned - including possibly splitting the roles of Chief Executive and Editor in Chief; widely considered to be too big of a job for one person.

None of this is to defend the former Director General's actions or inactions. Frankly it's too early to know what they were - and yes it is certainly odd that Mr Entwistle appears to be the only man not to have been aware of the Newsnight investigation that was pre-warned to be planning to out "a senior tory official" "if all goes well". But the facts are not out and the situation seems to have prejudged again - not by the media and not by the BBC.

The following is printed on the back of ALL BBC Passes:

====== BBC VALUES =====

Trust is the foundation of the BBC.
We are independent, impartial and honest.
AUDIENCES are at the heart of everything we do.
We take pride in delivering quality and value for money
Creativity is the life-blood of our oranisation.
We respect eachother and celebrate our diversity so that everyone can give their best.
We are ONE BBC. Great things happen when we work together.
=======================

And it's true. BBC Journalism is the height of ethical practice and accuracy.

BBC Editorial Guidelines require that ALL information is at least double sourced from two reliable sources. Logs and notes are kept of journalistic and editorial practice and accountability is key.

So I urge anyone planning to join a baying crowd, if you're to dam the BBC, it shouldn't for for it's journalism, and it shouldn't be done before the truth is out.

No organisation is perfect - and trust in the BBC has been damaged but to all those reading - no one should ever be anything other than entirely proud to call themselves a BBC journalist - and no reader, viewer or listener should be in any doubt that strict practice and standards are central.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and please, let's definitely #savenewsnight.