nunoncastors

I feel that anonymous blogging is important as it allows us, the public, an insight into just how fucked up and bureaucratic our many hallowed institutions are. Granted, these points of view are explicitly individual, but there are so many out there that it isn’t too arduous to piece together the bigger picture for yourself. Sadly this picture is all too often one of incompetence, time-wasting, farce and frustration on behalf of those who would like to do their job but are prevented from doing so by abject nonsense and red-tape, but there you go, that’s life.

A fine example of one of these types of blog was NightJack, written by a policeman who managed to be both insightful and interesting – I know, who’d have thought it? – and often confirmed what you’ve always suspected about police life. Now, for reasons unknown, The Times newspaper decided to take this rather useful blog and fuck it right up the arse and out of existence. Quite why they’d do this, I’m not sure, I can only assume that it’s because they’re a bunch of pricks these days rather than journalists with a grasp on what might be important or useful. The fact that they’ve printed a rejoinder from the poor sod is neither here nor there; fail cannot be undone, it is always and forever.

What interests me though, are the following observations from a Mr Justice Eady in relation to The Times’ desire to jump up and down on something interesting and worthwhile. Amusingly, I’ve nicked this excerpt from their website.

In the first case dealing with the privacy of internet bloggers, the judge ruled that Mr Horton had no “reasonable expectation” to anonymity because “blogging is essentially a public rather than a private activity”.

The judge also said that even if the blogger could have claimed he had a right to anonymity, the judge would have ruled against him on public interest grounds.

The police officer, the judge said, had argued that he should not be exposed because it could put him at risk of disciplinary action for breaching regulations. But Mr Justice Eady criticised that argument as “unattractive to say the least”.

He added: “I do not accept that it is part of the court’s function to protect police officers who are, or think they may be, acting in breach of police discipline regulations from coming to the attention of their superiors.”

He added: “It would seem to be quite legitimate for the public to be told who it was who was choosing to make, in some instances quite serious criticisms of police activities and, if it be the case, that frequent infringements of police discipline regulations were taking place.”

The important bit it as the end, where he talks about the public being told who was responsible for frequent infringements of police discipline regulations, and his statement of intent earlier on about the disclosure being made in any case on the grounds of it being in the public interest

See, what I’d like you to do, if possible, is to contrast that with this article here, whereby it was decided that the public didn’t need to know which Judges were guilty of misconduct for being – let’s see, asleep in rape trials, guilty of drink-driving, sex pesting, you get the idea, yes?

The grounds for this argument being that it would undermine their authority to be known as liars, cheats, thieves, law breakers and people of dubious morals when standing in judgement over those accused of being liars, cheats … yes? But what I’d really like to know is why, given their role, their right to privacy somehow exceeds this one copper’s right to anonymity, and indeed the anonymity of every other blogger, especially when knowing who he is serves no purpose whatsoever, and knowing if your judge is of questionable integrity does. Because, and let us make no mistake here, Judges are not meant to be devious conniving and bastards, they’re meant to be above that sort of thing.

So, to surmise: The Times has achieved something utterly pointless and the judiciary, it would seem, are hypocrites intent on protecting their own reputations irrespective of the complete lack of integrity involved. It’s as times like that these that I feel truly proud to be British…

As an aside, I do wonder just how much more of this sort of nonsense the British public are willing to take before something very ugly happens. I’m still laughing over the fact that the Inquiry into the Iraq war is going to be held in secret. I mean, why even bother if the public, the people who actually want to know if they’ve been royally fucked over, don’t get to know what the findings are?

Edit: Had a bit of a tidy now I’m not quite so rage filled.

Update: Turns out The Times hasn’t done itself any favours. Roffles all ’round methinks.