Vision Obscurer

Resolute sightlessness:--

At the moment and for the past 10 months, ever since the Murdoch tsunami, an enquiry has been going on (started in July 2011) into the affairs on who knew what, when, how, to whom, by whom etc. all to establish a chain of causal links into the whole distasteful corruption of souls in public life behind the cover of nod and winks, between Politian’s, special advisors and the opinion shapers in the media. Although the enquiry is being carried out by judge Leveson and QC Jay the enquiry has no legal powers as in a court of law, i.e. no view to a crime being committed, no wish to apportion blame, no punishment to be inflicted, no perverting the course of justice assault or contempt of court procedure. So is it a near toothless piranha in murky shark infest water open to the only court punishment that might matter, the court of pubic opinion.

The enquiry started life as a two-part inquiry investigating the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal. The first part was to examine the culture, practices and ethics of the media. In particular, Leveson will examine the relationship of the press with the public, police and politicians.  Eventually it will make recommendations on the future of press regulation and governance consistent with maintaining freedom of the press and ensuring the highest ethical and professional standards.  On opening the hearings on 14/11/11, Leveson said: “The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?”

As the enquiry is carried out under Inquiries Act 2005 as Section 2 states: - ‘No determination of liability.’ “The purpose of this section is to make clear that inquiries under this Act have no power to determine civil or criminal liability and must not purport to do so. There is often a strong feeling, particularly following high profile, controversial events, that an inquiry should determine who is to blame for what has occurred. However, inquiries are not courts and their findings cannot and do not have legal effect. The aim of inquiries is to help to restore public confidence in systems or services by investigating the facts and making recommendations to prevent recurrence, not to establish liability or to punish anyone.

However, as subsection (2) is designed to make clear, it is not intended that the inquiry should be hampered in its investigations by a fear that responsibility may be inferred from a determination of a fact”.

It has the power to summon witnesses and this is being done.  A plague of witnesses are now in train; including newspaper reporters, management, proprietors, police officers and politicians of all parties will be giving evidence under oath and in public. As has been apparent thus far, there is an incredible degree of selective dialogue machination shifting the course of the inquiry and opening up a range of investigative avenues which has highlighted some important and damaging behaviour that has been underway in British politics for many years.  

From the above, one can by reasonable extension, surmise that for the enquiry to be called in the first place, primarily as a result of incompetent investigations by police with over-sensitivity to political embarrassments and some rather awkward questions consistently being asked by MP’s Chris Bryant, Tom Watson and aired by the Guardian and Independent  papers; gives no confidence that neither the guardians, guards or political machinery are capable of being trusted as there is not and perhaps never will be a constitutional right to seek unfettered truth from any corporate structure, or people of public / quasi-public organisational structures that have slight of hand confidence to uphold, power to gain and secrets to hide. There are grave risk personally and corporately with the application of legal but miss-application of inunctions super injunctions aimed at any individual or the supposed guardians of public interest – news journalist / papers, that seeks to open for public scrutiny, dubious hidden practices.   

Now the Levenson enquiry appears to be opening a window on the secretive schema of inference, adopted by politics and specific Politian’s from 1970s onwards to garner support for shaping public opinion and gain governmental power with the supporting influence of media. Although the enquiry is concentrating on the role and route of hacking, (Dowler et al) it is by degrees exposing a long held view that there has developed an unhealthy connection between media moguls, journalist and key political members that perverts democratic principles. That this has taken place for so long is only being proved with the use of recoverable electronic communication, email / text, of recent time and unattested so far, shows that there was a move to gift element of public controlled media to the private dominion and the use the 'Quid pro quo' gained form such duplicitous ‘understanding’ at the successful conclusion of business to enhance political (if not personal) power and to strengthen any established dogma to the benefit of the involved parties.

The individuals that are being called to assist the enquiry are being asked to explain the meaning of the content of communication and discussion held that throw light on the mechanism that allowed the hacking to take place and the association that has been made evident between the parties concerned. Not surprising there is a degree of “do not recall” “can’t remember” and “do not recognise” taking place, ways to distance themselves from any of the embracement located within the electronic communications requested and made available to the enquiry.  

There maybe a strong opinion that such understanding between politic and media has been going on for much longer than the period under review but it is the leakiness and lasting image of modern communication that has caught people out. Were previous understandings could be held ‘incognito’ and some recorded on paper which can be kept secure by its ‘immovability’ or destroyed at will; the speed of communication using computer, text / email, and mobile phones has accelerated the inclination for rapid responses that is now normal, with little regard to the long term impact that exposure of the content could have, which an eventual scrutiny would allow.

That there seems to be good evidence that a certain amount of corruption has taken place with the payment for information; services rendered, clear influence of policy or media understandings, as in tacit ‘heads of agreement’ – ‘memorandum of intent’; does not inspire anyone who observes the proceeding with any confidence in the autonomy power interplay of leading Politian’s when it come to making a run for government or indeed when actually in power acting for the best interest of the public. If this is just a small example of what has now been exposed as the machination between politics, police and media that has carried such corrupting influence, what one might ask is taking place if one could examine the links and discussion that are continually being undertaken with industry,  commerce and the range of public funded quangos / service providers? Is democracy or the common wealth being best served by such secretive conventions that have a profound effect on the public health, wealth, and happiness? None of this need matter, could be a view held by the unconcerned, as it is all about maintaining an electorate confidence trick as in; - you can trust us, we are politicians, police, or journalist etc.

And yet despite all the un-savouriness of the unfolding situation it may offer a way to clean up the relationship between the political administration of the state and the links with a free open investigative media in the pursuit of public interest cases; as has happened with the Expenses Scandal and the “Murdock’s Dowler Tsunami” leading up this enquiry.  Those in the public office, or any in the limelight or who seek media attention for self publicity, dislike any form of intrusiveness that they cannot control if it opens aspect of their activities to scrutiny knowing them to be not in their best image interest, including leaving aside anything that is illegal, corrupt or contentious to public opinion.

What is very entertaining and yet at the same time is disturbing in listening to the enquiry, is the submissions by those called to present ‘evidence’, is the deliberate obscuration of reply, the amount of ‘do not recognise’, ‘cannot remember’ and astoundingly the extraordinary self belief some of these people have in their own judgment against what might be argued is advise or contrary interpretation of their actions. It is clear that some of these people simple do not see the need to be testing the factual or truthfulness in their dealings; they have such blind belief in their own correctness to ignore any other view proffered to them that runs counter to their direction of pursuing a goal. One could say that this is the result of the position of power or the arrogance such positions generates or that it demonstrate a leadership direction for the unwilling crews but often these people have no experience of running an organisation composed of existing superior experienced people, no understanding of the internal culture, no reference of probity, are ‘outsiders’ and have no loyalty other than to the person and program they are appointed by and to. They are in effect mavericks set loose in an environment that has been built over a period of time constrained by the need for integrity and accountability in the interest of the public service ethos.  

Not specially relating to the current enquiry but as a parallel to the direction that can be taken as a result of what is being exposed now, entirely linked to the conservatives and Cameron / Osborne’s lack of integrity in the pursuit of power and policies, is the unfolding messianic tendency to overrule all opposition to the cause of a dogma, no matter how divisive, inequitable or damaging to the structures of governance and society in general. In their case and although not unusual is the deliberate adoption of a range of polices being driven through government without any real democratic mandate authority and in the face of strong uncounted opposition: - like the dismantling for the privatisation of the HNS, the unravelling of the state provision of education in favour for profitable returns and the attack on the social safety-net of a good society for the worst off. All this against what could be deemed to be the advice of better knowledge and experience, from a range of  affected and impartial commentators who fail to see the advantage of such resolute dogmatic damaging policies other than to suggest it is an example of the corruptive influence of arrogant power that plays to its own illusion of being right. This illusion of perhaps the infallible rightness of individual’s position is an adopted position that has far reaching un-cohesive implication for the state of the nation. A good relative recent example of such would be the action fostered by Greenspan, Bush, Thatcher, Blair, their acolytes and cohorts like special advisers (SpAds) all of whom are guilty of such similar arrogant self belief, blind to the alternatives that had they sought to listen to any other balanced view, may have helped avoid the increasing censure that closer examination of their diabolical performance must conclude; these people who are also in their defiled ways, are responsible for so much of the damage now being self inflicted on the west, economical, politically, socially and in foreign policy terms. An arrogance and blindness that is also so endemic now that one can see that current holders of public office squirm under the Leveson enquiry lights to hide their same moral malfeasance.

What is also worth noting in this enquiry, is although the main leaders of the saga are being questioned, none of the civil servant located within the various departments that the main participants are located in, are not being asked their views. It is not inconceivable that within the civil service are individuals that will have a much clearer idea of the ‘understanding’ of issues operating within their department at the time of the various suspect communications. That they are not being called or allowed to volunteer can be placed within the line of ‘official secrets’, accountability and confidentiality.  There is of course the fear for their career or job and they will be well aware of the high risk they run should anyone desire to offer clarification on issues of covert intent, communication and departmental understandings...

Those in protected power positions have little to fear of public attitudes, as the dominant figure-heads although in direct eyes of the public they are often protected by the seclusion of the public sector service ethos, which by convention bows to the leading principle as they are the arbiter of truth for public consumption. In dissemination of such truth in the culture that they control, they will have engendered in those subordinates, acquiescence, knowing that any fault or blame is placed according to the severity of public reaction and legality. The only thing a leading political person risks in the face of profession disgrace, is a small amount of reputation which is often overcome by their association with others of like mind and influence to eventually secure a new profitable posting.

The instigation of the RIPA act and additional controls allows a great deal of information to be held and controlled indefinably and at some stage open for ‘snooping’ by the state and any authorised interested party. Although access to public information via FOI is supposed to be open and freely available, increasingly restrictions are being laid over it. That this availability of  FOI has been a small step to open up democracy and examine those that exercise power to scrutiny is beneficial but it is one  that is under threat as the implication of open access becomes a challenge to the implementation of power. For the moment the flow of information has been beneficial to democratic scrutiny however as there is already strong moves to limit open access, particularly by the government and quangos under a commercial confidentiality clause and to secure for its-self a revisit of the secrecy act, any access and use of ‘sensitive’ information that it will deem to be too risky or damaging to certain parties, will be redacted. From this one can see that modern methods of communication will be viewed as dangerous, to be used in an edited form, to preserve intent and from this will flow the continuance of the abuse of power by encryption secrecy.

There is no real mechanism for retribution in the public arena of malpractice unless there is a direct link to corruption or illegality of actions and that generally amounts to a loss of position only (unless in a local authority context i.e. surcharged). Perhaps it is now time to remove the parliamentary privilege protection politian have in public life that allows them to take decisions that they have no democratic mandate for, do not have any proof of evidential benefit for the decision they press on with, like privatising the railways, NHS etc and are ultimately are proved to be unduly costly to the public purse, there aught to be some way of administering punishment.  Inappropriate behaviour, professional transgression or even disastrous activities in public life seem not to be a cause for personal concern. If a corporate body acted as politician are allowed to do, to fabricate a duplicitous reality, waste funds and bring the structure into disrepute, the board and shareholders would most certainly demand corrective action to be taken. 

One thing is abundantly clear from the Leveson enquiry, although there is presumption and belief in the freedom of the press and media in general to investigate were it can action of the public administration, there will be limits placed on the same freedom when attached to individuals, possible ‘private’ individual that do not register in ‘public interests’, do not regularly court as an element of their personnel or professional life the benefits of media attention. It is likely that some guidance may be drawn up to position the different roles of media and political life and how they should interact with each other for the benefit of democratic accountability. However what is already taking place, as has been demonstrated by the police, military and within the civil servants is the redefining of who is ‘authorised’ to relay information to interested parties. Information that may be even outside the request of a FOI and how such information (in qualitative depth & quantity) that is released, is verbally expressed or sent externally via electronic systems. The effect of such Leveson enquiry exposure, will result in much more information not being  held in any form, more will be done on an ‘understanding’ basis so that that any future time all dealings can be repudiated much more easily. There will be less of a paper or electronic trail to be certain who is responsible for misdemeanours.

Although the Leveson enquiry is being held in front of the camera (TV) for the public to view, what is being seen is obscured by the verbal prestidigitation of people about a system of acute moral deficiency driving ideologies modelled in such a simplistic way that overlooks obvious contradictions of their responsibilities that did not fit or accord with the mind model of what they thought is true or right. False mind models that have become integrated into the execution of public life that one could say such political power that there is, is now rotten.

As the Leveson enquiry progresses one can see that it will not be able to draw any conclusions that are not supported by documentation as there is no compulsion that can be applied that will open up for assessment any of the sense, intention, purpose, meaning of content, or any actual contemporaneous substance of discussion held in private that may have or may not have a direct or indirect bearing on matters of public relevance that relates to the hacking scandal. It will have to leave open the extraction of intention of action carried out by the unexcused, for other to interpret

Will lessons be leaned? No, unfortunately it is to be expected that modern society has allowed a consolidated conviction of thinking in classical terms to take place, dominated by might is right; vested in members of a select cadre of people to procreate their fixed expert professional views and never more so than in the power of a cadre of specialised people in economics, politics, academics and commerce in every field. It is why is so difficult to expose defunct ideologies and professional protectionism that prove to be wrong, for the lone raised voice in outrage and incredulity that seek investigation, it often takes an outbreak of a great critical paradigm shift to be heard, this is unlikely to be the one.

© Renot 2012

15121750