19 July 2011

Week 28 19.7.2011

Tendring Topics……..on Line


The next instalment!


When I wrote last week that ‘I couldn’t wait’ for the next instalment of the current riveting Decline and Fall (well, not quite that yet!) of the Murdoch Media Empire I had no idea that I wouldn’t have to! Hardly had my blog been posted than we learned that Rupert Murdoch had withdrawn his application for control of the whole of B-Sky-B, because of the strength of the opposition.

I take just a little pride in the fact that – some time before it became fashionable to criticise the News International Empire and its ruler – I had formed a tiny part of that opposition by sending an email to the proper authority. I knew nothing then of the hacking of the mobile phones of the bereaved or the bribery of the Police. I just thought it wrong that a rootless cosmopolitan, who owed Britain no loyalty and whose home was not in this country, should be in control of news media capable of swaying the results of British elections. That surely was reason enough for opposing the takeover.

It was not an empty boast when Murdoch’s Sun announced ‘It was us wot done it’ after a Thatcher election victory. The same could have been said after Tony Blair had betrayed the principles of his predecessors and swung New Labour far enough to the right to gain Rupert Murdoch’s approval. Many tabloid readers, whose interest rarely strays beyond the headlines (except of course in pursuit of the salacious detail of the latest celebrity scandal) actually believe what those big black headlines say and vote as they indicate.

In the heady atmosphere of last week’s denunciations of News International and all its works it is difficult to remember that it wasn’t all that long ago that Lib.Dem. Government Minister Vince Cable was stripped of some of his authority for saying; in what he had thought was a private conversation, that he had ‘declared war on Rupert Murdoch’ (you may recall that in this blog I remarked that it was time someone did!) His successor had proved his suitability by his public declaration of admiration for News International and its boss!

Luckily there are news stories and video clips to remind us of the not-very-distant past. I learned, for instance, that David Cameron and family spent some happy hours with Rebekah Brooks and her millionaire husband last Christmas. Then again, I have watched video clips of both Tony Blair and David Cameron (though not at the same time!) bestowing platonic kisses on the expectant cheek of the auburn-haired beauty who was News International’s Chief Executive at the time but is so no longer.

It is true, of course, that members of the upper classes bestow kisses upon their friends rather more freely than do we common folk. I feel though that the Christmas get-together and those tokens of affection suggest a rather greater degree of mutual regard than Ed Miliband’s appreciation of Rupert Murdoch’s canapés at a recent reception, an indiscretion of which the Labour Leader has been accused by an opponent!

Now Mrs Brooks (who resigned – a little belatedly – from the post of Chief Executive on 15th July) and father and son Rupert and James Murdoch have been invited to the House of Commons next Tuesday 19th July to answer MPs questions and, if they wish, to tell their side of the story. Mrs Brooks accepted the invitation at once. The two Murdochs at first demurred (James would have liked to attend but had a prior engagement!) but after they had had summonses served on them they both agreed to turn up. As I write these words (Thursday 14th July) there are still five days to go. Anything can – and probably will – happen in that time. However, at the moment I am looking forward to hearing what, if anything, they have to say next Tuesday!

Meanwhile questions are being asked in the USA (some by right-wing Republicans, Rupert Murdoch’s natural allies), and the FBI are said to be on the warpath. Both in Rupert Murdoch’s adopted American homeland and in Australia land of his birth, there is concern about the conduct of his newspapers and their staff. Could it be that we really are seeing the beginning of the end of an evil Media Empire?

‘Those who sup with the devil need a long spoon’……


………….is a little piece of folk wisdom that both policemen and politicians would be well-advised to heed. I am writing these words on Monday 18th July and hope to post them as a blog tomorrow. If there is a briber it follows that there must also be someone who accepted a bribe. The spotlight has widened to include the Police. Perhaps it is destined to widen further!

A great deal has happened. Rebekah Brooks has been arrested, interrogated for about twelve hours, and released on bail. Sir Paul Stephenson, head of the London Metropolitan Police Force has resigned. I hope that the timing of Mrs Brooks’ arrest wasn’t prompted by a desire of the Police to limit the questions that she will be prepared to answer when she faces the Parliamentary Committee tomorrow afternoon.

Britain’s most senior Police Officer has told us that he considered that his only possible honourable course of action, after he had taken on a former Deputy Editor of the News of the World as a freelance consultant, was resignation. What, one may well ask, would be the appropriate honourable course of action for a Prime Minister who, despite having been warned, took on a former Editor of that same newspaper as his Head of Communications – and, of course, was on very friendly terms with yet another former Editor of the News of the World who had subsequently been promoted to Chief Executive of the Media Group that owned it?

Would you credit it?


Lord Hanningfield (or Paul White as he was before being ennobled on Mrs Thatcher’s recommendation) is now serving a nine months prison sentence for fraudulently claiming expenses to which he was not entitled, in connection with his membership of the House of Lords.. The Police are currently investigating the expenses that he claimed as Leader of the Essex County Council and it has emerged that concerns were expressed as far back as 2007 about his use of a taxpayer-funded credit card on which he was spending about £5,200 a month for what he claimed – and self-certified! – were legitimate expenses for his work as council leader.

These, according to a report in the local daily Gazette, included entertainment and subsistence expenses, as well as dining, and House of Lords bar bills. ‘First class rail tickets, flights and hotel bills were also put on the card, although some were paid directly by the council!’


The current leader of the county council, Mr Peter Martin, who says that he has never used his own corporate credit card, told the Gazette ‘There were concerns over expenses in 2008 and 2009. Officers had talks with Lord Hanningfield and meetings about receipts. But when the Crown Prosecution Service indicated in July 2009 that it was investigating Lord Hanningfield, we were advised by our legal team and police that we should not take any action which could prejudice the case’.

County councillors and top officials alike must have received that advice with a collective sigh of relief!

Until last week Lord Hanningfield was still receiving his ‘members allowance’ of £11,500, because he has not resigned his membership of the Essex County Council, and is appealing against his conviction,. Under pressure from Bob Russell, Colchester’s outspoken Lib.Dem. MP, this allowance has now been stopped. It had been pointed out to the council that they have power to suspend payment when a councillor is not able to perform his or her duties.

In a leading article the Gazette points out that an office worker at County Hall who had stolen £50 cash would have been swiftly dealt with ‘but no-one, it appears, wanted to tackle the Council Leader…………surely at least one of Essex’s highly paid officials should have mustered the courage to question him’.


Perhaps so – but Lord Hanningfield had an overwhelming personality and was reputed to be something of a bully. It would need absolute certainty of the facts, and more-than-average determination and courage, to tackle the man who could have destroyed the accuser’s whole future career. Chiding even the most senior official for hesitating to confront him would have been a bit like telling the ill-fated Anne Boleyn in 1536 that she really should have been firmer with her husband!

Childbirth – best ‘at home’ or ‘away’

Let’s think about something a little less sordid! The current debate about whether home births, hospital births or midwife-run ‘birthing centre births’ are best, has brought back vivid memories to me.

In the autumn of 1948 when we had been married for just two years, my wife Heather was diagnosed as suffering from pulmonary and laryngeal TB. She spent the next two years in what was then Nayland British Legion Sanatorium, punctuated by six weeks in Papworth Hospital where she underwent major surgery, the removal of eight ribs on the left side to collapse the left lung permanently and give it a chance to heal. It worked – though the operation weakened her and limited her activities for the rest of her life. She was discharged as ‘cured’ in time for Christmas 1950.

We had never intended to be a childless couple but it was to be two more years before our doctor felt that Heather was strong enough to bear a baby. By January of 1953 we knew that one was on the way. It was an anxious time for me (I’m an incurable worrier!) but Heather was supremely confident that all would be well. She was also quite determined that she would breast-feed her baby.

We decided that the baby would best be born in a Maternity Home and began to make arrangements. When Heather recounted her medical history the nurse taking the details said, reassuringly. ‘Well, under your circumstances you certainly won’t be expected to bother with this breast-feeding business. Directly baby is born we’ll get it thoroughly used to a bottle for you’. ‘Really’, said Heather, who could be very determined when she chose to be, ‘in that case I won’t need your services. I’ll be having my baby at home’.


And so she did. Home births were a lot more common in the early 1950s than they became in later years and luckily both the local midwife and our ‘family doctor’ supported Heather’s decision. We were living at the time in a bungalow just off the Norwich Road at Barham, two or three miles to the northwest of Ipswich. Our doctor, Dr Louise Hyder, lived on ‘the other side’ of the town – near where Ipswich Hospital is now situated. I was able to take Heather to see her regularly during her pregnancy and, despite the distance, the doctor managed to be present at the birth. Just as well – because there were complications that were dealt with promptly and efficiently.


A Joyful Heather - and son!
 Heather had a son – whom she did breast-feed. Two and a half years later, when our second child was expected, we didn’t even consider the possibility of a hospital birth. Heather had another fine son, born at home, whom she fed in the same way. I remember that I wrote and sold to Better Health (a health education monthly) a photographically illustrated article entitled Why bother with a bottle, about proceeding from breast to glass or cup, without an intervening feeding bottle!

That was our experience. It was fine for us but, quite obviously, it wouldn’t be right for everybody. I do think though that all women should have the option and not be bullied or made to feel guilty wherever they may prefer to give birth.

Two fine sons


No comments: