A Measure Of Sanity

How gratifying to see that Jack Straw and Elizabeth Butler-Sloss appear to agree with me about the need for Jon Venables's anonymity to be preserved. I wouldn't put it past Straw to be more heavily motivated by concerns about Jon Venables' health and safety than by his right to a fair trial, but Baroness Butler-Sloss probably knows more about this sort of stuff than any other British person breathing, I would guess. That her opinion can still be heard in the House of Lords is one of the best reasons I can think of for it not to be vandalised even more than it already has been.

Rare kudos also to Baroness 'Lady Gaga' Warnock, Mary Riddell, Sir Ken Macdonald and Raymond Tallis for speaking the self-evident truth. Thanks, folks. It was a long weekend.

How disappointing to see that Shami Chakrabarti CBE, youthful and often vocal professional civil libertarian, doesn't yet seem to have seen fit to comment upon the need for a vulnerable prisoner to receive a fair trial. Then again, speaking up for the rights of a child-murderer might court unpopularity. If she doesn't recognise just how deeply unpopular the idea that some British people should actually have civil liberties is in some quarters of the British population, she shouldn't be in the civil liberties business. I have previously stated my opinion that professional civil libertarians aren't really interested in protecting the liberties that you actually have, only those they think you should have. One of these days, I hope to see evidence that will help change it.

How disappointing to see that Keith Rupert Murdoch still does not seem to have been arrested - yesterday's coverage in the 'Scottish Sun' made reference not only to the nature of the allegations against Venables, but also to the apparent character and severity of the evidence. If that is not contempt, nothing is. That's the full two years under s. 15 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 right in front of you. If what they published yesterday is true - and it may not be - then Murdoch and his assorted gangs of bought-and-paid-for monkeys have pushed the journalistic envelope well beyond investigation deep into the territory of subversion. They do not believe themselves to be the reporters of the law - they believe themselves to be the law. There used to be a term for such behaviour - lese-majeste.

It is my opinion that Newskorp's pattern of behaviour means that it should not be considered to be a limited liability company, but a crime gang. There, I've said it. I feel better now.

Lest any member of the British press think I've been too hard on them over the last couple of days, then I would only like to say that your hypocrisy is astonishing. Whose identity - not 'privacy' or 'safety' - has the greater degree of protection under British law; Jon Venables's or Prince Harry's? Jon Venables, of course. Prince Harry isn't the subject of a lifetime anonymity order.

Yet when Prince Harry went to serve in Afghanistan, you all shut up of your own accord, stuffed rags in your mouths and did not publish a word of what you knew. Prince Harry is a brave young man, for sure, but in the capacity in which he was there he should have been subject to the same levels of reporting access as every other soldier in the army. If that can't be maintained, perhaps he shouldn't be in the army, if only because he has to serve under a different set of operational rules to everyone else. The fearless British press knew he was there, and said nothing. This wasn't 1936, when the King was causing public scandal with an unsuitable mistress. This was 2008, when deference is supposed to be dead. Does the threat of having Royal access withdrawn still carry some weight with the press? And if they are so respectful of the Queen's family, and acknowledge that what they do could put them at risk, then why have they sought to undermine a court order issued in her name, putting the person it protects at risk? And if they so respect the Queen and all she stands for, why haven't they respected the right of one of her subjects to have a fair trial in her name under her laws in her courts?