A pincer movement of sheer lunacy - Part I

In the curry house yesterday I was asked whether I had been out in the sun, apparently my forehead was bright red and deeply blistered. The reason is not exposure to sunlight, it is relentless frustration with the stupidity of current political debate that has caused the vigorous and repeated application of palm to head. At the moment our Parliament seems to be dominated by two topics - the activities of the press and the government's desire to make electricity prohibitively expensive. Both subjects seem to have a magical power over MPs such that they spout complete and total nonsense without any comprehension of the lack of common sense behind their analyses. I'll deal with the press today.

The basis of Parliamentary hysteria seems to be the "revelation" that a tabloid newspaper published information gleaned from illegal phone taps and computer hacks. Well, well, what a surprise, who'd have thought any such thing has occurred in this country? Everyone, that's who. Another, secondary, "revelation" is that journalists paid money in return for information the law requires to be kept confidential. Well, well, what a surprise, who'd have thought such a thing has occured in this country? Everyone, that's who.

There is only one sensible reaction to these "revelations". It is to get the police to investigate the matter and charge anyone against whom there is sufficient evidence. The activities complained of are already illegal under our law so there is no need for any more laws. The one and only thing that should be done is to enforce existing law.

Instead a Court of Appeal Judge is going to be kept out of court for a year or more so that he can conduct an inquiry which will be called a whitewash if he says current laws are fine and a witch hunt if he says new laws should be passed.

In Parliament we have witnessed the unedifying spectacle of buckets of sanctimonious hogwash being sprayed around by hundreds of MPs, each trying to out-outrage the previous speaker with the level of their ignorant and hypocritical humbug.

Everyone with a brain larger than a pea knows newspapers act in underhand and, sometimes, unlawful ways to get attention-grabbing information they can plaster across their front pages. They all do it. Locals, nationals, broadsheets, tabloids - they all do it.

How do you think the Yokel Local Chronicle learned about the intention of Big Supermarket PLC to buy farmer Giles's front field for a new shop? It's obvious, someone working for the company leaked the news, probably in return for a fee or favour. In that instance the person working for the supermarket company broke the terms of his contract of employment and risked summary dismissal. He had to balance the benefit he gained against the risk of losing his job. The newspaper knew he was breaching his contract but also knew there was no realistic chance of being sued, so it published anyway in order to have a good headline, a reputation for having it's finger on the local pulse and the chance of greater circulation in future and higher advertising revenues. The only question that would trouble the editor is whether the information was true.

Paying for information obtained in other unlawful ways is different only in degree from paying for leaked confidential information about the intentions of a supermarket chain. The degree might be higher or lower, but the substance is the same each time. That some information results from activities that amount to criminal offences and other "feeds" involve a breach of contract but not a crime is a distinction without a difference in this field. We have laws against this sort of activity. Those laws provide a penalty for anyone proved to have breached them. There is one reason and one reason only why those laws were broken - the people breaking them considered the benefit of the breach to outweigh the risk of being caught and/or the penalty for being caught and pursued to judgment. Making the activity doubly unlawful will not change this because it is a matter of human nature rather than of law.

Increasing the penalty can make a big difference to how people behave but it brings up a wholly different matter that makes serious penalties impossible. How does phone tapping or hacking emails compare to burglary, or stabbing someone or holding-up a bank with a shotgun? Obviously infringements of privacy are not in the same league, so what maximum penalty can be justified without the law becoming absurd? There is no certain answer to that question although the general answer is that the maximum penalty, and the penalty actually imposed in any particular case, is unlikely ever to be so severe that it would deter those offered a chunky financial inducement.

Members of Parliament can huff and puff all they want about how morally reprehensible it is to tap the phones of the families of deceased soldiers and victims of crime. I doubt that there are many in the country who have not huffed and puffed in disgust. Nothing MPs say and no amount of hot air they expel can change anything. Newspapers will still use whatever means they can get away with to obtain the information they think their readers want to read, because more readers means more advertisers and that is where the money is.

A theme that ran through contributions in the debate in the House of Commons was a call for regulation not just of how newspapers obtain information but of what they publish. This deserves to result in blistered foreheads across the nation. Do these people really think the interests of the people of this country as a whole are best served by newspapers being constricted in what they are permitted to print and how in buggery do they think such restrictions can be imposed?

Only two restrictions can ever be justified. First, they should not publish things that are untrue. The law covers that already (albeit imperfectly) through the law of libel. Secondly, they should not publish anything that causes them to lose business. This is nothing to do with the law, it is all about the little people voting with their feet. Editorial judgment must be exercised to decide whether a story will be good or bad for circulation. If it will be bad it should not be published, if good it should be published, if it appears good but turns out to be bad the paper can look for a new editor. No other restrictions can have any justification under any circumstances. I hear you cry: what about kiddy porn? Simple, advertisers will disappear overnight, only a few pathetic dribblers will buy the paper, the publisher and numerous editorial staff will face lengthy time behind bars and next week there will be no newspaper.

The very suggestion that there should be any sort of State control over the content of newspapers other than the law of libel is so absurd as to be obscene. Some might suggest it is part of a plot by politicians to protect themselves from criticism, I do not agree. I believe it to be nothing other than an irrational knee-jerk reaction to extremely distasteful newspaper activities that have been exposed recently. The politicians want to be heard expressing disgust so they can have their local paper report they have stood up to be counted. OK, fine, let them say it and get their favourable editorial, then they can return to the real world and acknowledge that what was done was unlawful so no new law is needed and that any attempt to censor the press is bound to fail.

The question they are really addressing is this: should Parliament legislate to prevent publication of the truth? Sadly, they do not seem to be willing or able to understand that this is what they are doing. In any event, how can Parliament legislate to prevent publication of the truth? The key here is "prevent publication". How can Parliament - which can only do anything through the laws it passes - prevent someone doing something? As the law now stands there are penalties for doing naughty things once you have done them, and only then if you are caught and there is sufficient evidence to prove you did them. It is the risk of penalty that is preventative. Short of physical restraint, all the law can do is threaten a penalty in the hope the threat will prevent naughtiness.

So, how do you prevent the truth being told? The simple answer is that you cannot, all you can do is pass laws imposing penalties for telling the truth and therein lies the fundamental flaw in all the guff spouted in Parliament. They can moan about invasions of privacy and the extreme distastefulness of some of those invasions until they are any colour in the face they choose, but they cannot produce a rational argument for the truth being suppressed. If that truth is not to the taste of a newspaper's readership there is a risk to advertising revenue, if it is to their taste the till will ring triumphantly. The little people will vote with their £1 coins. Parliament is an utter irrelevance on this issue. Honourable members should shut up and keep their fingers crossed that their peccadillos remain below the radar.

Let's sort out CCTV

If there is one subject likely to boil the blood of those of a libertarian attitude it is closed circuit television cameras. I seem to remember reading that the UK has more per head of population and more per square mile than any other country in the world. It really doesn't matter much whether that is true because we certainly have a lot. Some argue they are an unwarranted infringement of liberty, others argue they are a necessary tool against crime. I have never considered these two arguments to be necessarily inconsistent.

In order to discuss CCTV cameras sensibly we need to leave all exaggeration and hyperbole out of account. Leave aside 1984 and Big Brother, leave aside the Stasi, leave aside Goebbels and Hitler. Just look at the facts.

If I drive from FatBigot Towers in Islington to anywhere in the centre of London almost all of my journey will be within sight of a CCTV camera. If I walk anywhere in the centre of any of our major cities I am likely to be within sight of a CCTV camera at all times. The government will tell us that this is necessary so that serious crime can be recorded and the perpetrators brought to justice. There is no denying that the availability of recordings of activity on the streets is an immensely useful tool for the police in their difficult task of preventing crime and apprehending those who have committed crimes. Mobile CCTV cameras were used to record perceived trouble spots prior to big football matches as long ago as the 1980s. No one was being spied-on, it was the police doing their job. When they knew there was a risk of football hooligans gathering and making trouble they recorded the scene so that they would have evidence if trouble in fact occurred. All the librarians and flower arrangers attending the pub before a game were not imperilled by being filmed, they were among the likely victims because mass brawls always take down a few gentle, innocent souls and the cameras were there to help protect them.

On Wednesday I had a brief drink with some fellow bloggists before taking a leisurely stroll in the autumnal air. When I arrived at the pub there was a little Smart Car outside with a CCTV camera attached to the roof. It was aimed at the door of the pub and, no doubt, recorded my sinfulness as I stood outside in the drizzle and took a ciggy or two. I was not surprised to see it there. The prospect of some people gathering at that pub at that time had been mooted for weeks and the police were in no position to know whether the gathering would be just for a pint and a stroll or would have a more sinister aspect. Nor did they know whether it would be just 25-30 people, as it was, or 400. When they hear of a potential gathering they would be failing in their duty if they did not take reasonable steps to keep an eye on events.

Using CCTV technology to keep an eye on events so that trouble can be nipped in the bud when it appears to be starting or to provide evidence if trouble really does kick-off seems to me to be at the heart of the work the police have to do in central London. Was my liberty infringed simply because I was filmed while I had a ciggy outside a pub? Absolutely not. My liberty can only be infringed if (without good reason) I am prevented from or impeded in doing something lawful. Arguably it could also be infringed if something I do is rendered unlawful by an unjust law, but that raises issues I will address another time.

So, what's the problem? The problem is not in being filmed while you are in a public place. The problem lies in how and for what purposes that recording is used. I'll move away from last Wednesday and describe an experience I had with a CCTV camera earlier in the year. I was taking a therapeutic curry one evening and, forever sinful, stepped outside for a ciggy. Two people were already smoking on the pavement and I noticed that the CCTV camera at the end of the road (about 30 yards away) was pointed directly at the three of us. It is a permanent camera but is not fixed, it is operated from a control room and can be moved through 360 degrees. It was installed expressly to record traffic movements at an accident hotspot. Yet it was pointed at three wicked smokers taking a quick puff before returning to their Vindaloos. We did not pose a threat to nearby parked cars because there weren't any. We did not show any overt sign of being trouble makers, all three of us were as old as the curry house and dressed neatly. Yet someone in a control room thought it appropriate to record us to the exclusion of everything else within the camera's range. I found it rather creepy. Had it been panning the area and caught me occasionally there would have been nothing even remotely sinister, but it remained aimed in one direction. My concern was that it was hoping to find someone discarding a cigarette end in the street so that a fixed penalty notice could be served by post a few days later. As it was, we all put the charred remnants from our filthy habit back in the packet. I felt very uncomfortable.

In that instance it was not being filmed that worried me, it was the thought of how the recording might be used. A camera installed to keep an eye on traffic appeared to have turned into a general observation tower from which all those threatening to escape from the strictest letter of obscure by-laws could be shot.

Perhaps the problem lies in many of the cameras being under the control of local councils. They are always strapped for cash because they have street football coordinators, work-life balance advisers, holistic therapists and climate change counsellors to pay. £50 here and £50 there, it all adds up, they have a clear incentive to use every means open to them to raise money by imposing fines for petty infringements. Yet it results in people seeing the cameras as a threat, as something requiring them to always look over their shoulder for fear that taking a handkerchief out of their pocket might have dislodged a receipt from Mr Patel's Mini Mart. Picking up the receipt is no defence, once it's been dropped and recorded the penalty is incurred.

It has nothing to do with policing crime and everything to do with maximising revenue, the worst consequence is that people walk around in a state of apprehension that they might be doing something wrong without knowing it and receive an expensive brown envelope a few days later. That is where the infringement of liberty comes in. If liberty means anything it means being able to walk around in your home country without having to look over your shoulder all the time for fear of a fixed penalty notice.

So, let's go back to last Wednesday. Am I at risk of adverse consequences flowing from having been filmed outside a pub close to Trafalgar Square? Ah, now, that's the problem. You see, I don't know. The answer should be a resounding "no". I did nothing wrong, I even had a portable ashtray with me to collect my ash so that it would not litter the pavement. But I cannot take comfort from that because I don't know how the recording of my flabby features might be used. Have I been placed on a database of potential troublemakers? Am I to expect a visit from the anti-obesity task force because I displayed more than two chins in a public place? Will a special eye be kept on me next time I venture into the centre of my home city? I simply don't know. And that's the problem. I should know. To be precise, I should know that I have not been given any label or put in any category. They recorded a fat middle-aged man having a lawful smoke outside a pub in which he had a lawful drink before taking a lawful stroll. No alarm bells should be ringing, but I cannot know whether that is indeed the case.

The problem with CCTV cameras is not their presence but how they are used. Those who argue that they are a necessary and appropriate means of combatting crime are absolutely right, but that does not prevent them also being an unwarranted infringement of liberty.

Max Mosley's Magic Member

Let me make one thing clear. What Max Mosley does with his willy is absolutely none of my business. A newspaper thought it was their business and decided to tell its readers what he did with it. This week a High Court Judge ruled that Mr Mosley's willy is not a matter of legitimate public interest. With any luck the ruling will make editors reflect on what is and what is not other people's business

The newspapers have been exposing matters of the trouser for many years but it is only relatively recently that they have done so in respect of people whose private affairs do not impact on their work or their livelihood. Two categories have been considered fair game for a long time, actors and politicians. Even with these people hypocrisy used to be a necessary precondition to their adventures being exposed to general gaze. That made a lot of sense.

An actor whose public profile and, therefore, earning potential involves a squeaky clean family-man image can hardly complain when the lie is made public. The newspapers serve a legitimate public interest in exposing the man's image as bogus, in this there is no difference between reporting his adultery and reporting the use of illegal drugs. Someone who promotes his career by saying "look at me I'm a really good chap" invites attention to his habits so that the paying audience can decide whether their inclination to see his work and put money in his pocket is affected by the truth coming out.

Very much the same analysis applies to the exposure of philandering politicians although there is sometimes a further factor. In addition to claiming "vote for me, I'm a really nice family man" some of the more stupid politicians have been unwise enough to point at an opponent and say "don't vote for him, he's an adulterer". The bases on which someone could be persuaded not to vote for an adulterer are that he is a hypocrite and that engaging in adultery makes him unfit for political office. The first basis is sound both logically and ethically because it gives rise to legitimate concern about the honesty of the candidate. The second basis is one I have never been able to understand.

Some very able politicians have been serial adulterers and some have been chronic alcoholics; what matters is whether those activities have affected their abilities adversely. Similarly some hopeless politicians, promoted way above their ability, have been teetotal and faithful. Nonetheless, there has been thought to be political mileage in suggesting a connection between bedroom habits and fitness for office. The ludicrous John Prescott was a master of this art, scoffing and flapping his blubbery jowls at the likes of David Mellor and Tim Yeo when the Conservatives were last in power. "Unfit for office" was one of his catch phrases and was the hook on which he hung his garbled calls for resignations.

It goes without saying that a moronic hypocrite like Mr Prescott did not consider his own adultery to undermine his fitness for office. In one respect he was correct because he was never fit for office in the first place but, more importantly, his blatant double-standards made him a laughing stock among the very few who did not already consider him as such. To my mind his affair with his diary secretary was relevant only in that it exposed him as a hypocrite. A useful contrast can be made with the late Alan Clark who had the good sense to promote himself as clever rather than nice and whose exposure as a class-one shit caused hardly a ripple.

With any luck the legacy of Max Mosley's Magic Member will be a realisation that adultery is a private matter unless it involves not just hypocrisy but relevant hypocrisy. Adulterous hypocrisy is relevant only where the adulterer promotes his fidelity in the furtherance of his career. Beyond that there is no public interest in any real sense of the term.