HCJ Lecture #1

So far I've found it very hard to follow the HCJ module, but I get the impression that I am not alone in this. Most of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy wooshes over my head. It's almost as if I can't keep up with the ideas that he's throwing at me. Luckily, a video that Chris has linked us to hopes to shed more light on it:

As far as the amount I've read is concerned, that's currently on the 160 pages mark, but in truth it feels like I'll have to read this 280 page segment five or six times to start to grasp the routes of the modules. I may not blog specifically about that until I feel comfortable enough with it. Socrates died believing he would live on in a richer life, that's what I can safely say.

The lecture helped... 

Here are some of the notes that I took (expanded on as far as I understand it) that I feel are important, so if anyone else feels bamboozled I hope this can help:

Migration - Ancient civilisation started with migration, the Greeks and Persians come from what we now know as the Middle East, but the Greeks migrated West (ancient Greece) and the Persians are those who migrated South-West (Persia). [I think]

Europeans are all Greek - As a statement this may seem a bit outlandish, however, all European civilisation and culture started with the Ancient Greeks. Obviously, migrating west from the Middle East would bring you to what we call Europe and that's exactly what the Greeks did. They set up their civilisation there, thus creating the groundwork for ours.

Greece was the source of culture whereas Rome was the source of Politics and Power - Rome had the powerful, all-conquering army. Power and strength was the heart and soul of the empire, similar to the Spartans in many respects. Greece, on the other hand, valued philosophy and literacy. They realised that words could be weapons before anyone else had. Their love for drama was also clear, and their level of understanding of Science was first-rate - they believed that objects were made out of Atoms (although it was suggested by __________ [sad face, forgotten] that these atoms were made of the elements; earth, wind, water and fire). Their names seem to escape me, but another Philosopher speculated that the sun was a blazing stone in the sky, which wasn't a bad guess for someone with no telescope.

Judeo-Christianity - This was the first sign of belief in just one god, a human. This suggests that everyone is equal, something that has definitely survived the test of time.

The age of the universe - Cosmology fell way short of the mark in predicting this as it guesstimated at 6,000 years, based only on Ancestry. Buddhism came loser, a guess of 12 epocs. An epoc is defined as the amount of time a it would take a monk to climb a mountain, rub the hardest granite with the finest silk until it reached sea level. He would rub it for just one day a year. This may seem whimsical but it's a close estimation as that would take a very long time.

Christianity - Adopted by the Western world in 800 AD, this saw the start of the Dark Ages where the Greek genius was lost. More on that when I know more!

Logic - The one part of ancient Greece (Aristotle, to be precise) that was adopted by the Catholic Church. It is preserved to this day. Proposition is seen as the starting point to logic: "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, so he is mortal."

Italy - Some Greek knowledge did leak into the West from Arab states through trade as they still applied some of the Greek discoveries.

Printing Presses - These were created in the 19th Century to print Bibles. Einstein says this is the biggest human revolution since writing. He wasn't wrong.

Kenneth Clark - Good point here, Clark demonstrates how civilisations can go backwards by looking at architecture: the Greeks could build self-supporting dome structures but this knowledge was lost in the Dark Ages. St. Paul's Cathedral has a 'fake dome' as it is supported by a spire. The reason why all Christian churches have spires is because they simply did not know how to make a true dome. He also points out that landmarks such as the Vatican, St. Paul's and the Arc de Triumph are all examples of 'Neo-Classicism' and are based on Greek architecture.

My New Calling...

Every Wednesday and Thursday, four hours of my precious young life are taken away and I'm kidnapped by a supermarket, a supermarket with an agenda: to educate their staff! That's right everyone, I'm getting a qualification in Retail!

It was around 8pm on a warm, autumnal evening. I was expecting my break. I'd worked over half my shift and I was getting a little bit dehydrated. Suddenly, my moment of triumph came - the close sign was carefully put on the end of my till in what felt like slow-motion. An epic moment in my time of need. Only, I was wrong to assume that this would be my salvation. I was told to head over to the public cafe (OF ALL PLACES, what's wrong with the staff room?) and was met by a middle-aged woman who was just a little bit over enthusiastic about everything. Her digital pen was the best thing since the filing cabinet in her office, her drive from Basingstoke to Southampton was "thunderous" and the news she was about to tell me would seemingly complete my life. It didn't.

She explained to me that ALL of the kids in school were doing a qualification in retail and that the only way to be "down with them" would be by doing one myself. She asked me for my GCSE results, I can barely remember them, it's been four gruelling years since the rosy days of school finished for me. Instead I offered her my seven A Levels. She was not interested. She wanted my GCSE's and she was going to get them regardless. I reassured her that to even be able to do the A Levels I chose I would need at least 5 A-C's. Nope, not good enough. In the end she settled for just Maths and English, but still not my English A Level. Just the lower qualification, to which she later said would not be relevant next year anyway.

By this point my brain had switched off (probably down to both boredom and the dehydration in equal measures) as she rambled on and on and on about the two different qualifications that I could achieve and how "hard" I would have to work to get them. The one thing that I made VERY clear was that I have too much on my plate already and that I was not prepared to do more work at home for something I don't even want. Ignoring this, she tried to throw me into an apprenticeship in retail, despite the fact that I told her that I was studying for an intensive degree in Journalism. I asked her to explain to me how I could apply retail to this entirely different subject. Her reply? "You can write about shops." Brilliant. Now I need a sodding qualification to even consider writing about... Shops. That's it I'm afraid, I just can't blog about getting a pint of milk any more. It's. Far. Too. Complica... Complic... Complicated.

As riveting as it may be if you're planning to slave your life away in a shop, this qualification simply is not for me. At the risk of sounding snobby, I hope my life has far better things in store for me than that. In fact, if I could hang up my apron tomorrow I almost certainly would, and I suppose a lot of my colleagues would too, but that's not the case, so instead I was enrolled on the new NVQ equivalent of this course as it's apparently "compulsory." Still, I'm not even going to put ten minutes into the crappy handbook I was given, I'd much rather invest my time in selling dolphin snow-globes. I can't see how a qualification in Retail is going to improve my quest to become a Superhero Journalist. It simply isn't worth my time.

Hours later, at half past eight, the woman stopped going on and let me go for my break. Head buzzing, I headed towards the back of the shop to the staff room. One thing you will notice whilst walking through the less-than-luxurious yet exclusive Staff Area, is that the walls are covered with slogans promoting teamwork. It's a little bit like The Office where you have a chubby little man who finds them hilarious. He's wrong, of course. What's so funny about a picture of a mountain with the words 'work together' randomly slammed underneath it? Not once have I heard David Attenborough describe how two mountains team up to help a hill reach it's full potential. Nor have I seen two rivers communicate with one another, not even about fish. This, more than anything else, exhibits what is wrong with working in a shop. They gee you up to attempt the impossible.

Take earning a promotion, for example. As a checkout operator the next step for me would be checkout supervisor, where after a shift at work you are expected to volunteer your own time to finish cleaning the department, unpaid. Glamorous. If this barrier doesn't break you, the next one definitely could: the position of checkout manager. Your job would be to organise the shifts of the entire department, dealing with holidays, illnesses, tramps and anything else that stood in the way of a factory-esque work rate. If that floats your boat you could suck up a tad and maybe, just maybe, become a duty manager. I'm not going to pretend to understand what they do, nor what the store manager does, but I'm sure it doesn't involve the helpful mountains and talking rivers that their posters suggest. None of this is for me.

A qualification in Retail is about as useful to me as a sari. I'm never going to use one or even need one. So what is the point of me throwing my time away when I could be sat here reading more Bertrand Russell, instead of whittling my time away moaning on this blog.

Bricks Bricks Bricks - Journalist Law Lecture #1

Wow, it's a week of first's, which is just a tincy-wincy bit obvious as this is my FIRST week of uni-ma-versity. Before I delve into any details about my lecture, I want to discuss what my life as a commuter is like. There's probably one word that sums it up more than anything: tiring. Here's an example from today:

I went to sleep around 3am for a number of reasons, namely that I was updating this thing until 2, then I just couldn't sleep. I finally drifted off and after what felt like seconds my alarm was screeching at me from my phone. I want you to imagine how peaceful and calm the sea sounds as it's lapping onto a stunning, glowing, golden beach. Then I want you to understand that my alarm sounds NOTHING like that. In fact, it sounds exactly like a danger alarm in a nuclear reactor. 40 minutes later I'm up, showered and ready to hop in my car (as a first car I felt it deserved a name, so he's called Lionel). The route I take to university is a back road that takes you through teeny Romsey and then some even smaller villages. It's lovely, picturesque and... Lethal. Half way down the road there was a police diversion, ambulances with more sirens wailing and some very distraught people. I eventually got to the park and ride, again just missing the bus. Eventually another one turned up, by this point it was 9:30. When I got to uni I had 15 minutes to grab a bite to eat and find my lecture room.

If you were to ask me what one major thing I learned today, my answer would be simple. Today I learnt that people eat bricks. Human beings, humanoids, intelligent apes, whatever you call us, we eat bricks. House bricks, to be precise. It would be ludicrous to suggest that anyone would eat breeze blocks, I mean, have you seen how unappetising they look? All grey, brittle and clay-like. Give me regular bricks any day; they're a wonderfully rich reddy-orange and they only come in single portions. This obviously shows that they have potential to be served in Michelin Star restaurant, so why not beat them to it and make your own delicious dishes? My one complaint? They're a bit dusty. So, Marjorie Dawes, I've decided that I do not want to eat any more dust.

There are two sections of the human rights act that share an equal importance in journalistic law, and not one has any waivering right over the other: Section 8 and Section 10. They're very simple in premise; as I discovered in McNae's, Section 8 covers one's right to privacy, whereas Section 10 fits loosely around freedom of expression. Put into practise though and they are both very complex commodities and they can be argued against each other until one person is a rotting skeleton. This is where the rambling about the brick comes in - the person has some sort of fantangled medical condition, and though I do not know the ins and outs of it, I can assume that it makes bricks look like the best thing since, well, sliced bricks. Anyway, if the poor soul decides that they don't want their story published, they can argue against its publication citing Section 8 of the human rights act. However, a journalist may disagree and say that everyone wants to know about brick-eating people and will argue such using Section 10 - the right to publish stories that are in the public interest. A judge must therefore weigh up the two arguments and decide which one is more relevant.

Civil courts tend to deal with the boring guff of the legal system, be it parking tickets, speeding fines or divorces. However, they can provide some of the 'scandalous' stories you'd find in publications such as 'Heat', 'Now' and 'Celebrity Fuck Ups.' In my opinion, even in these rivetting cases, the news about Katie Price marrying and divorcing a donkey on the same day is still no more news-worthy than anyone else being as stupid. To be honest I feel that this part of the media lives off dumb bimbos such as Katie Price and Kerry Katrona. In Bolivia these two would be executed with pencils for being so consistently pathetic. Of course, comment is cheap, so I can say as much of this as I like. It's all true and all my honest opinion, so unless you want Section 10 slammed up your rectum, ladies, I wouldn't try to argue against it.

Criminal courts, on the other hand, are where the all the action takes place. The farmer that went on a chainsaw rampage? He'll go there. Who wouldn't want to sit in on that case? Actually, I can say that I would avoid it and here's why: shorthand is a bugger to master as it is, so I imagine that it can only be worse when you can't understand the accent and dialect of the defendant.

The easiest way to differentiate between the two, whilst using big legal terminology, would be that criminal courts deal with 'inditable' cases that carry a sentence, whereas civil courts deal with 'non-iditable' cases such as small fines and libel claims.

What I do find humorous is that the retired, Tory, turnip-nosed do-gooders who you find volunteering in magistrates courts up and across the length and breadth of the UK, must see cases that involve mass-murderers before they reach the Crown courts. This will be a situation where a referral is all that is needed, but I'm sure that won't stop them quaking in their plastic shoes and cheap trouser suits. They probably put double-sided tape on their wigs to keep them on as the cold-blooded pig farmer stares at them with his cold, unforgiving eyes that contain the scorched souls of the people and pigs who met their ends at the teeth of his chainsaw.

Winchester hosts the court that is second only to the Old Bailey in terms of importance in this country. If the Bailey is full, cases will take place here. This is where shit gets real; the judges wear gowns and wigs, and the barristers battle it out for supremecy. It's like Helms Deep all over the gain, except with uglier trolls.

There are two standards within the industry: the standards of truth and the standards of proof. In basic terms, the standards of truth suggest that a journalist should always be sceptical and not believe the first thing they here. In contrast, the standards of proof are much more complicated. In civil courts there has to be a 'balance of the probability.' This is to stop Mr. Thug N. Idiot storming in with his knuckles dragging along the floor and declaring that his 16 year old wife and mother of three has probably been putting herself about with the boys in the year above her. There has to be some form of evidence to support the probability of this happening. For example, if she stinks of a cheap aftershave one of the 'boys' uses then there is a higher probability that she did it.

In criminal cases a conviction can only be made if it is seen as 'beyond reasonable doubt.' There are three key things that the police look to whilst making a conviction and they must have at least one of them in support: confession, forensic evidence and eye witnesses. As far as confessions are concerned, the police must still be wary as if they over-do their questioning the defendant may make a false confession. This happened to a 15 year old boy who, for some unknown reason, confessed to raping and killing an 80 year old women. He didn't do it. The true murderer and rapist (I'm allowed to say this because the man was convicted) was found years later.

So, I'm still tired, still yawning and wishing I was still in bed, but at least I can now find myself a brick to replenish my energy. Tasty.

Okay, FIRST OFFICIAL LECTURE

HI EVERYBODY. Right, that's the pleasantries out of the way now, so we can embark on the 'nitty gritty' - namely that I had my very first lecture!

Well, it wasn't exactly brain-engaging but what can you really expect? After all, it's only the first official day of term. The lecture served as a brief introduction to Key Concepts, a Media Studies ran course that seems to question everything about the media from who wears what and why, to who's sleeping with the head of the advertising agency to get the best deal for their 'respected' publication.

Really though, this is just the half-way point, as in 45 minutes I have to attend my first seminar, which, as a vague guess, I would imagine contains some useful information and is merely little more than an introduction to one of the key themes of the course. Apparently advertising agencies are evil; they're killing Blue Peter's dogs and slaughtering innocent old ladies who try to buy their items. Target audience 'n' all that.

I'm currently sat here in the Learning Cafe on my lonesome, hoping that someone from my course will appear, presumably with a god-like light surrounding them, in my time of need. Hopefully they could offer me some of their student loan because typically, mine did not arrive on time. This would have been a mere hinderence as I'm not exactly spending my money on food and bills, but I need a new pair of glasses (mine fell apart at the park and ride earlier) and there's a very important product (that all the advertisers have drummed into me that I need) hitting the shelves on Friday. Fifa 12. I'm told it's the best football game ever and that it makes the 'beautiful game' at least eleventy thousand times more beautiful. Not that they say that every year, of course. Regardless, I've fallen for it.

Media Law - Introduction

Freedom of Expression

With freedom of expression, both journalists and the public have the right to communicate information and ideas, within reason, of course. As a whole, 'Freedom of Expression' is what makes a democracy exactly that, if the media and the public were stifled and oppressed (such as they were in the Soviet Union) it would become a dictatorship - the country and the media would be in a situation where they would be dictated on what they can or cannot say, with severe consequences if they do not abide.

Using Soviet Russia as an example, their constitution stated that the public and media must not say anything against the Party or it would be treated as an act of treason/Western influence. To help omit any of these issues before they arose, the Soviet government acted on banning anything they considered of a Western source, be it literature, art or music (Stalin famously banned the Saxophone for this reason). However, in a stark comparison, the UK does not have a constitution that limits anyone's rights. This is known as being 'residual', a term used when the constitutional position of the country is that it's citizens and journalists are free to do whatever they please, so long as it is within the law. Until the year 2000, when the European Convention of Human Rights was inhabited by the UK, there was no clear horizon on the extent of people's freedom.

Some would agree that the freedom of expression has been greatly dented within the last few decades, however, they would also say that this is understandable and to acceptable to an extent. The law has a duty to find a balance between the media condemning an individual and giving the individual a chance to defend themselves against such attacks. An example of this would be the ongoing trial of Italian Prime-minister Silvio Berlusconi who is accused of having sexual intercourse with a 17 year old prostitute. The law of defamation is in place in the UK to help find the middle ground.

With no written constitution, freedom of expression in the UK is dependant on two things: jury trial and the law against prior restraint.

Jury Trial   

There are certainly a number of legal cases that have seen journalists face a jury for breach of the law. However, some journalists who have been acquitted against can be considered lucky as they were not found guilty by juries, despite the law being against them. Such an example would be the case of Clive Ponting, a civil servant who leaked government information and thus breached the official secrets law. History suggests that a jury made up of citizens is more likely to acquit a defendant (journalists included) who act in dissent against government policies than a judge would be.

Rule Against Prior Restraint

The rule against prior restraint was developed in UK law to prevent variations of censorship on freedom of expression. An example of this can be found in libel law, where judges are highly likely to reject an application that stops the press from printing stories about certain cases. If the defendant feels that they have been defamed in someway by what has been printed, they are able to attempt to secure compensation through damages.

Injunctions are a much more widely used form of censorship when the press plans to report on stories where a defendant may argue that it would be an invasion of their privacy. These measures are generally temporary and are only in place until the courts decide whether or not the press are allowed to publish stories on the issues. When a 'super injunction' is put in place, it means that the press are gagged on the issue and will not be allowed to report on it, whenever it is. If they do they could face prosecution and heavy legal fees. A very recent example of this would be that of Premiership footballer Ryan Giggs. Giggs felt that claims made by a former Big Brother contestant that he committed adultery with her would damage his public image as a role model for aspiring footballers, and also as a genuine family man. The court ordered that a super injunction would be put in place, however, what Giggs did not anticipate was that the law did not stretch over the boarder to Scotland, where the Scottish Herald printed a picture of the football star on their front page, only with his eyes censored out.

In the case of normal injunctions, the party who intend to argue that the publication should go ahead will be given a chance to air their views. Usually they would state that the issue would be in the public interest.

The Public Interest

In journalism, the public interest is defined by how highly society values the issue. A case for a story to be published can be argued that it is 'in the public interest' if it has a high value in society. There are a number of situations where this can be suggested, namely that a politician could be misleading them, or that a criminal has been moved to the local area. This has caused controversy in the last 20 years in the case of the murder of a toddler, James Bulger. The killers were ten years old at the time and have since been sent to correctional facilities and been given new ID's, causing uproar within the public as they would have no idea if these people are residing in their neighbourhoods. The identity of John Venables was not known until recently, as he was caught reoffending. It is argued that it is in the public interest for people to know the new identities of the murderers. However, the defendants argue that they should be given a new start in life and not be haunted by their past.

Sources of Law

          Custom:

In the middle ages royal judges were appointed to oversee 'law and custom of the realm'. In other words, these are nation-wide laws, as opposed to local laws which are only applied within that area.

          Precedent:

In short, a precedent is where the decision of a court is over-ruled by one of more supremacy. A case may begin in a local court in front of a small committee, but the ruling may be appealed at a higher court. The ruling made by the higher court then over-rules that of the smaller one, and so on and so forth, until a decision is made. Metaphorically speaking, an example of this would be when a child asks their older sibling if they are allowed to do something, if the sibling says no, the child will then cry to their mother who may say yes or could agree with the sibling.

Magistrates Court -> Crown Court -> (may bypass) High Court -> (may bypass) Court of Appeal -> Supreme Court

Tribunals -> (may bypass) County Court -> (may bypass) High Court -> (may bypass) Court of Appeal -> Supreme Court

          Equity

The term 'equity' means fairness and impartiality. In law, this term encompasses these alongside doctrines and procedures that have developed over the centuries with common law. These allow the judge's the movement to make rulings which they believe are just within individual circumstances. The 'maxims of equity' express such values. For example, if someone comes to court having violated the rights of others, their chances of getting obligations that the victims owe them are reduced. 'He who comes into equity must do so with clean hands.'

          Statutes and Statutory Instruments

Statutes are acts of parliament that are drafted in and approved by politicians in the House of Commons and House of Lords. They are mingling with common law and becoming part of it. These are acts of primary legislations. Secondary legislations are known as statutory instruments which are passed by the departmental Minster in great detail, who will then work at setting out this law in regulations or rules. They are also used to phase legislation in gradually.

          European Regulations and Directives

As the UK is part of the European Union, the EU laws are part of UK law. The European Court of Law in Luxembourg clarifies how the law should be interpreted by member states and their courts. For example, the court can rule that EU law has been infringed by a member state, maybe to gain advantages in trade and commerce. The court can penalise states for the infringement.

The European Convention on Human Rights
After the fall of Berlin and World War II had come to a climatic end Western European nations signed a treaty to create 'The Council of Europe'. This was an immediate response to the genocide caused by the Nazi's and other totalitarian regimes. The council was set up to promote individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law. If such a council existed in the African nations, regimes such as Colonel Gadaffi's may have crumpled much sooner; instead it was up to the people of Libya to rise up and tear down the tyrant, city by city, town by town, village by village.

The European Convention on Human Rights was created by the Council of Europe to preserve the right to life, freedom of expression and freedom from torture. The UK was one of the 47 signatory nations to adopt this act. History shows that it was successful, as the government of Soviet Russia stopped pillaging and torturing their own people, although it can be argued that such acts were still performed by the KGB, though no official order had been made.

Based in Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights was created as a result. This is where individuals can hold cases against their signatory nation and argue that they have failed to protect their human rights against public authority. Public authority can include national governments, local government bodies and other state agencies. If, for example, an individual felt that someone had violated their human rights and their governing body refuses to acknowledge this, the person may take the case to the ECtHR, so long as they have appealed extensively against the rulings in their nation's court system. The ECtHR can make the defending nation pay compensation if they are found guilty. The Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers must check if the nation as obeyed the judgement.
          The Human Rights Act 1998
Coming into force on October 2nd 2000, the Human Rights Act has greatly increased the influence of the ECtHR within the UK courts, now allowing individuals to take cases that would usually be seen in Strasbourg to any court in the UK. Strasbourg can still be an option if they feel that the ruling passed is wrong or unfair.

The act states:
          1) A UK court determining a question in connection with a Convention right must take account of decisions made by the ECtHR.
          2) New legislation must be in accordance and compatible with the Convention rights, and any old laws must be stretched to fit them as well as possible. A bit like a hat that doesn't fit.
          3) A government minister may be called in if the UK deems legislation 'incompatible.' This is because the UK courts have no power to remove legislation that does not match up to the convention. If the minister feels similarly to the court, they can introduce amending legislation.
          4) UK authorities MUST NOT act in a way that is incompatible with the Convention rights.

As a journalist, the most important part of the Convention for me is Article 10: "Everyone must have the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority." Any restriction on this act MUST be justified: "They must be necessary  in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others." Any restrictions must be "prescribed by the law." In other words, this means they should have a legal basis to be imposed.

This may seem rosy for journalists, but any journo wanting to argue in court may well be met by Article 8, which is a basis for a lawsuit by an individual to prevent publications about their personal life, and pictures / films that may invade their privacy.
          Weighing Competing Rights
Article 8 and Article 10 share an equal significance. Lord Steyn states that each point of view must be weighed up to see which argument will prevail. Significant justifications or interfering with each right must be taken into account. Each case is different and as such, should be treated individually. This leads to the rights being claimed being extensively compared. Public interest is also taken into account, as is the importance the case has to society as a whole.

In a case involving a child, the child remains anonymous. An example of this is the case of 'Re S' where giving the child anonymity was argued as right under Article 8, on the grounds that the trial was too public and the child needed shielding. Lord Steyn argued against this (along with other media organisations) under Article 10, stating that the public interest in unrestricted coverage of the trial would be too greatly harmed if anonymity was granted.

Proportionality is an important factor. A judge will consider whether the media's invasion of the person's private life will be disproportionate to the level of public interest involved. If the value is deemed low, it would be classed as illegal if the media breached their privacy. However, this can work the other way round as the judge must consider whether the ruling will have a disproportionate effect on the media, which can lead to half-stories being published; stories where the censored sections must not be aired but the rest can.

Diversions of the Law
Criminal law deals with cases that could harm the public, making them an offence against the Sovereign. They are filed as the crown vs the defendant. An example of this would be R v Smith. R stands for Regina (Queen) or Rex (King), V stands for versus and Smith is a random name I inserted.

Civil law engulfs disputes between individuals and organisations in financial matters, or other entitlements such as rights to more breaks at work or medical negligence. Civil law is also used to settle disputes between couples, such as divorces.

These two laws can overlap. If a victim gains compensation, it's very possible that the offender can also be prosecuted for criminal charges. An example of this may be if a person gets injured on a building site - they could gain compensation for their injuries and the construction company may get prosecuted for undue care. Breaches of copyright can also be taken on by both courts.

Something to take note of is that defendants in civil courts are not being prosecuted. Using this language suggests that they have committed a crime. In civil courts, the party taking legal action is known as the 'claimants' and are suing the defendants. If they lose the case they are known as being 'found liable.' The term 'sentence' is only used in criminal court.

The Legal Profession
Lawyers are either solicitors or barristers. Solicitors deal with the client. They can advise them and prepare their case, whilst taking advice from barristers who have specialised into that particular branch of law. Solicitors can represent their defendants in court, although they are typically only allowed in the lower courts. From 1993, solicitors have been able to gain qualifications to compete with barristers to represent defendants in the higher courts. Sometimes a solicitor can 'brief' a barrister to conduct the case. This is where they gain their title 'solicitor' as they 'solicit' the services of a barrister for their client.

Barristers get their title from 'working the bar', a physical barrier between themselves and the judge, although it is no longer found in most courts. Collectively, they are known as 'counsel.' DO NOT call them solicitors, this is wrong.

Legal Posts in Government
Lawyers traditionally hold three senior government positions: Lord Chancellor, Attorney General and the Solicitor General. Until 2005, the Lord Chancellor was head of the judiciary, but the Constitutional Reform Act  changed to reinforce that the judiciary is separate from the government.

Lord Chancellor: Responsible for justice system, political head of Ministry of Justice (NOT magic).
Attorney General / Solicitor General: advise government on legal issues.


Regulation and Self-Regulation of the Media
OFCOM is the regulating body of broadcasting and can fine organisations for breaching regulations. It can close down official or pirate broadcasts. The BBC is regulated by OFCOM and self-regulated by the BBC Trust. OFCOM set out ethical rules for broadcast journalists, but it's their employers who face the music if they breach legislation. A constant example of this would be Top Gear presenter, Jeremy Clarkson, who is constantly offending baby otters and tribes from Ipswich, causing the BBC to apologise for his actions. BBC journalists must stick to the ethical code set out by the BBC Editorial Guidelines, which incorporate various elements from the OFCOM code.

Broadcasting is subject to statutory regulations, as countless times in the past, politicians have regarded it as a harmful medium if it fell into the wrong hands. All sorts of hideous things could be sent to the minds of children among the country, brainwashing them to hang old people on washing lines, whilst spraying them with vinegar-filled Super-Soakers. Or, in there words, inciting violence.

An important use of regulation would be the governing of the airwaves. This stops the radio channels of the emergency services suffering from interference. However, digitalisation is currently making this more irrelevant.

Newspapers and magazines, anti-monopoly legislation aside, are not subject to statutory control on who owns them, or statutory regulation on their journalist's ethics. They can be politically free. They are self-regulated by the Press Complaints Commission, an organisation they set up to deal with complaints on output (print/internet/etc.), or how their information is gathered. This has been major news very recently as Rupert Murdoch's News International owned newspaper 'The News of the World' has been accused of phone-hacking to gain information. The Editor's Code (PCC code) is drawn up not by the organisation, but by editors, to set out a code of ethics. The only part the PCC plays in this is shaming any editor's publication who breaches it.

The above information is cited from: McNae's Essential Law for Journalists, D. Banks and M. Hanna (Oxford University Press, New York), Chapter 1

Beep Beep Beep, the Common Sense Alarm is in Overdrive

If there’s one thing that rattles me it’s when people ignore what I call ‘Common Sense Warnings’. Now, this is where something is absurdly stupid and makes every alarm bell in your brain scream in no uncertain terms “do not perform this action.” These alarms can arise for a number of reasons: there is a high danger level, it will humiliate you for the rest of your life, or you could spend eternity married to a goat. Occasionally the result of this is a mixture of these unfortunate happenings and when this does occur who do you blame? Everyone but yourself. Even when it was you who decided to swim in shark infested waters in your favourite seal costume, even when you got the bright idea to mix hang-gliding with target practise (where you were the target), or when it suddenly seemed hilarious to get horrendously drunk only to wake up bent over a wheelie-bin surrounded by horny, Polish tramps. Clearly, all of these were the brainwaves of Tony from down the pub, who strangely enough is always on his third bottle of wine by six o’clock and sat on the same piss-stained stool. With no friends.

Take the example of the Japanese tourist who was having a wonderful family adventure at the Niagara Falls. We all know the stereotype: a camera, shorts that don’t match the rest of their clothing, small glasses and flip-flops, only on this particular day it was raining so she had an umbrella too. The subject was having a glorious time taking in the utterly beautiful surroundings until she wanted a closer look. I’m lucky enough to have experienced the sheer velocity of the Falls and I can vouch that a mixture of it’s powerful, thundering water and the mysterious aura of the mist can draw you closer to the edge of the railings for a glance over, but most people stop at this point because the body slams into Code:Red - Danger Factor. But no, not this tourist. A mere 20 meters down stream from the 51m drop into almost certain death, she decided to climb over the barrier to get a better photo with her Coolpix camera. Within seconds a gust of wind had caught her open umbrella, dragging her into the rushing river that drops 600,000 gallons of water over the Falls a second. The result was more Mary Droppings than Mary Poppins. Needless to say she didn’t float gracefully into the white water rapids below.

Somalian Pirates have been in the news a lot over the past few years and not because they are pleasant individuals who plan parties for the disabled and buy orphanages to transform into PlayZone’s. Generally speaking they are in the headlines because they have ambushed cargo ships and painted the walls with blood. Obviously this is a great advert for Somalian tourism because so many middle class nitwits and retirees sail into pirate territory with the attitude that it would never happen to them, that nobody could possibly want to take their luxury yacht by force and lock two delightfully British people who speak with their wallets in a tiny cell and starve them. It goes without saying that this isn’t the case as delightfully British couple and middle class retired nitwits who speak with their wallets Paul and Rachel Chandler discovered the hard way - by having their luxury yacht taken by force and then by being locked in a tiny cell and starved for over a year. Luckily they lived to tell the tale and were eventually released but I would love to know whose idea it was to sail through such dangerous waters, or even hear a snippet of their conversation: “Oh darling, Somalia sounds tropical! Let’s cruise past there.” If you really want to sail to the Seychelles, go round the long way, it’s much safer. And make sure you have your common sense alarm turned on whilst planning said trip.

The host of the popular NBC show To Catch a Predator, Chris Hansen, lives by the hidden camera so it was only apt that his marriage died by the hidden camera. In the show (in which Hansen anchors) paedophiles are lured to the house of an actor who portrays a young teenager lurking on seedy internet chat-rooms acting as a bait for the sex-starved, moustachioed sex offenders with colonies of ants living under their armpits. They arrive at a decoy house where they are greeted by the ‘child’ (who looks over 20, let alone 14) who welcomes them to their home and offers them a drink. Hansen then appears with his famous line “would you like to take a seat?” By this point the offender must be feeling immortal at the thought of a threesome, until it’s revealed to them that this is in fact an undercover sting operation and the moment they leave the house they will be arrested. 

Similar to the offenders, Hansen has been caught red-handed on hidden cameras cheating on his wife with someone 21 years younger than him. Which, admittedly would be a lot more awful if he wasn’t 51. Regardless of this, Hansen is a man very much in the public eye so with that in mind he should be considering more secluded locations than hotels and restaurants to conduct his affairs in. Add to the mixture that he is the host of a hidden camera show and he should be all the more careful because there’s bound to be someone wanting to turn the tables on him. There are currently unconfirmed reports that he asked his secret date if she would like to take a seat... On his face.

Our final subject for examination is the victim of a Polar Bear attack victim Horatio Chapple, or rather the British Schools Exploring Society (BSES), who organised the trip to the Arctic Circle when it was common knowledge that the white bundles of fluff were starving as Global Warming has left them with less seals to scoff. Chapple’s tent was ripped into by the hungry teddy bear as he was sleeping, leaving him in pieces and four of his school friends injured as they tried to fend off the bear. As tragic as this is, there is nobody to blame but BSES who ignored the widely used safety measure of creating a look out post to spot danger. Coming from a country that is as health and safety conscious as Britain and with a name that announces their Britishness, surely BSES would have had other measures in place in case a look out point could not be established. Surely they would have working rifles and flares. Apparently not. The rifle didn’t work instantly and had to be cocked and fiddled with a few times and the flare gun was useless, not even emitting so much as a spark.

Five public school boys are hardly cage fighter material so they didn’t stand a chance against a billion tonne bear hunting a Big Mac. Granted, Horatio and his fellow students are much more used to bumping into wild Deer grazing on their lavish estates than the monstrous children’s toys with razor sharp teeth, but if anything this shows that no matter where you go for an education, nowhere can teach you how to be bear-proof.

So the moral here is very clear: If something sounds stupid, it probably is and no, you probably shouldn’t do it. However, if you can live with stories about you eating soggy biscuits or weeing on electric fences circling around your current set of friends and your future friends, oh and not to mention your family and their families, then go right ahead. You don’t have to take my advice.

Day Off...

So this is my last Friday off for a while! Better get reading though, so if you see me any time soon and I appear more enlightened, more... 'free', it'll be because I've had my head stuck in Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. 

Also, if I'm suddenly suing you for whatever reason, that will be a result of McNae's Essential Law for Journalists. And no, those aren't hieroglyphics in the letter demanding a large sum of money, that's shorthand, courtesy of Tee-line Fast.

So I'm £52 worse off right now and currently no better for it. Best get reading then, eh?

My First Day...

Kinda sounds like a kid talking about school, but I woke up today with a mixture of excitement and worry; what are my scary class mates going to be like in the flesh? What if they're all maniacs being hunted down by the men in white coats carrying tranquillisers? How will they react to me? And what of my tutors?

Before any of these worries could be resolved (or not) I had the issue of getting to university. This involves getting up at the ungodly time of 7:15, getting washed and dressed and ready to leave the house by 8:30 (at the latest), then hopping in my Fiat Punto and driving down either Romsey Road or the M27, with the obligatory spurts of road rage aimed at people driving too slowly (c'mon, who does 40 in a 60?). I then have to battle it out for a space in the student car park so I hit the button on my dash and aim the rocket launchers at people in my way. That's a lie. I must remember that journalists MUST NOT lie.

Commuting from Southampton every day doesn't really offer the best experience for Freshers such as myself; you're isolated from the day to day life of waking up and fending for yourself and you lose a lot of opportunities to go out and make friends. Luckily a large amount of students from Winchester go out in Southampton, so I can just meet them there, or not, as the case could be if they just plain don't like me.

Fortunately, the latter of the worries was put to rest fairly quickly when Chris said that the course was number 1 in the country for broadcast journalism, number 1 in the South and number 3 in the country for student satisfaction and also voted the best in the country by the British Journalism Training Council. Clearly, my career and my education were going to be in safe hands for the next three years.

As for the students, that worry extinguished within moments. It took a while for it to get through to me (considering the fact I'm commuting) that everyone here was in the same boat. Everyone was a Billy-no-mates. I was having nightmare visions of people knowing each other fairly well already, having had the chance to hit the Union on nights out and mingle with each other, but in reality this was far from the case.

With a quick welcome out of the way we were straight into the issue of timetables. I'm relieved to say that for now at least, my timetable is looking very nice. Not even the daunting issue of two weeks of straight shorthand can dampen my spirits, I just want to topple it and conquer the one hundred words a minute target. So far it just looks like Klingon to me, so hopefully all will become clearer soon!

After a lunch break (in which we had a short questionnaire to complete - what GCSE's do I have again?) we returned to the news room and were instructed on how to set up a blog. This is the result! Wow, doesn't it look FANTABBYTASTIC?! Well, no, not really, but with any luck it will do soon. The photo I chose for my background is one I used as a final print for my A2 Photography coursework, but I've had to lower the quality of the image so it would scrape under the ridiculous 300kb limit for a file size. That's a bit of a bummer. Never mind.

So as I sit here on my bed pondering what I'm missing out on, I'm reminded of what I still have here in damp and drizzly Totton. I'm only a 35 minute drive away from my developing friendships in Winchester and that I'm still in the local vicinity of my 'friends from home', oh and I don't have to pay for my own food or polish or hoover bags or tea towels or cups or drinks or well, anything. Always good to leave things on a positive note.