We can't defend the News of the World - but we must defend press freedom

This has truly been a momentous week for the country as a whole as it has been forced to examine – possibly for the first time – the inner workings of the national press and its curious relationship with people in power.
The extraordinary events of the last 10 days, which culminated in the shock closure of the biggest-selling English language newspaper in the world, has had a profound effect on the whole country. And of course particularly on all of those of us who work in the media.
To hear that a 168-year-old institution like the News of the World was to close down forever was like hearing that as of tomorrow Manchester United or Heinz baked beans wouldn't exist. Some institutions just seemed too big to not always be with us.
But, then again, no institution could survive the onslaught the News of the World had last week.
Can I stress straight away that there is absolutely no defence for what some members of staff of the NOTW did a few years ago. It seems harsh that many of the very good journalists who worked on the paper until last Saturday lost their jobs because of the sins of their fathers but the public mood was so strong that the paper simply could not survive.
Some national journalists, I believe, got into the mode, a few years ago, of believing that the public wanted certain stories so badly that they didn't mind how they were sourced. These people conned themselves that the readers probably felt the end justified just about any means.
However, what we now know is that the public does have a distinct dividing line in their mind – and the News Of The World truly, and unforgivably, crossed it. It signed its own death warrant as a result.
In saying all that, however, I think it's only right that a word of caution is brought into this whole, dramatic debate.
In the midst of all the understandable anger that has been created over the past couple of weeks, we must be careful that we don't allow vigilantism to grow against the whole concept of journalism – and especially investigative journalism.
By the very nature of their jobs journalists sometimes have to use all their wit and wiles to dig away and uncover important stories, and if we allow the current hysteria to stop them doing so, then we could be on a very dangerous path indeed. One that could threaten the precious and prized notion of a free press.
As a powerful example, a couple of years ago a newspaper paid significant money to receive documents it shouldn't by rights have had, which led to a fundamental change in modern British life. I'm referring here not to a red top like the News of the World but to the paper of the establishment – The Daily Telegraph.
It took the enormous risk of paying for material from a 'mole' that revealed the true abuse of expenses by our elected Members of Parliament.
Was it legitimate for the paper to have the files it had? I can't answer that – but what I can say is the Telegraph did an enormous service to the public as a whole by exposing this story.
And, to be fair to the New of the World, (not a phrase you've seen much this week), its final edition spoke of the 250 people who are currently behind bars because of some of the legitimate exposés it did.
Journalism may never be the same again and although for local papers like us nothing has changed – we have always adhered to the strictest legal and moral codes – we must be vigilant that politicians do not use this as the opportunity many have long craved to reduce the freedom of our press to uncover wrongdoing and wrongdoers.
The News of the World did a terrible thing and has paid the ultimate price.
But it is vital that investigative journalism is not another victim of their reckless, criminal activity.
So let us use this opportunity to have a better, cleaner, more honest press – but not one whose freedom is undermined.
A free press is one of the most visible proofs that we live in a free society. We must fight for it.
Sam Holliday

Give politicians a break - they are NOT monsters

I suspect this column won’t win me many votes but I feel the need today to defend what many people regard as the indefensible.

For today I will put my proverbial tin hat on and try to defend politicians. Again.

I do so despite the fact that I accept we are operating in the most hostile, cynical and negative climate about politicians we have ever had to face. And I am fairly certain that even as a pretty proud cynic myself, this isn’t really very healthy.


I have been dragged to the politician-defending barracks again following the reaction to Gordon Brown’s interview with Piers Morgan on Sunday night.



In many ways it was a rather toe-curling exercise watching the preening Mr Morgan pushing the PM on such frivolities of his beach-based proposal to wife Sarah. However, the gentle nature of the interview process really brought the ‘dour Scot’ out of himself. Without a heavyweight political agenda to defend, Brown opened himself up and revealed hitherto unknown aspects of his private life and his private tragedies.

It was actually a very skilful interview by Piers Morgan who knew exactly what he was doing by taking the PM away from Number 10 and as such we learned a lot more about the man behind the famous door than we may have expected.

I doubt, to be honest, if the show won or lost Labour votes but I did feel I was seeing someone being sincere. And yet if you read or listened to some of the reactions that followed the show you would never have believed it. Some critics claimed it was all fake, questioned Brown’s tears or said it was a cynical election exercise. All of which left me feeling nothing short of despair.





You would have to be a total monster to fake tears talking about your first born dying after 10 days – and Gordon Brown may be many things but a monster he ain’t.

In my opinion we have got to this destructive state of politician-bating because of the current state of our dire economic position and last year’s admittedly depressing MPs’ expenses row. As such people are so angry about the people who govern that they will believe any rubbish spouted about them – however far-fetched and ridiculous.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not about to recommend sainthood for our political ‘masters’ and it is obvious there are a lot of them who prove the bad apple in every bunch theory. But then again I can’t think of a single profession that is whiter than white. And if you think yours is, let me know and I will dig into our archives and show you why you are wrong.

So, with an election coming I just hope we can raise the level of debate a bit. Let’s tone down the childish conspiracy theories and not treat our politicians and would-be politicians like we used to treat lepers in the Middle Ages.

Politicians are human beings complete with the same failings as the rest of us but the majority – and I believe it is the overwhelming majority – are just ordinary people who want to make a difference.

Give ’em a break, hey?

This article appears in the Bath Chronicle on Thursday, February 18.

Sir Alan Sugar tackles the Expenses issue

Sir Alan’s PA: Sir Alan will see you all now.

(Hundreds of sharp-suited, worried-looking people troop into the boardroom and fight for the few available seats).

Sir Alan: Right, this task was very simple. All the teams had to do was fill in their expenses in a way that was fair and was seen to be fair. First, who was the team leader?

Gordon Brown: That would be me, Sir Alan.

Sir Alan: (To everyone else) Was he a good team leader?

Silence

Sir Alan: Interesting... Now according to the figures I’ve seen, this team, as well as claiming all sorts of cash for staying in second homes, even though some of them were in spitting distance of Parliament, have also claimed for things as apparently ‘essential’ to their work as bath robes, loo seats, hanging baskets, pot plants, rug repairs, nappies, oven mitts and a pouffe. This is crazy, who is responsible for this money-no-object mess?

Gordon Brown: Sir Alan, we realise we’ve done wrong and have been doing wrong for a long time and now that the newspaper has exposed us, we’ve suddenly realised we had to do something about it.

Sir Alan: So why didn’t you do anything about it before if you knew it was wrong?

Silence.

Voice from the back: We were only following the rules.

Second Voice from the back: Jah, ve vere only obeying ze orders.

(A small, strange-looking ginger- haired woman starts waving around a cheque saying she will pay it all back. Sir Alan shakes his head and looks at the other team).

Sir Alan: So who was your team leader?

David Cameron: That would be me, Sir Alan – and can I just say how much I admire you?

Sir Alan: Ummm... So was he a good team leader?

(There are a few appreciative mutterings and one voice from the back shouts “well at least he’s better than Iain Duncan Smith”).

Sir Alan: So tell me, then, how come your team claimed for light bulbs, rodent control, horse manure, a chandelier, pipe work at tennis courts, work around a helipad and swimming pool problems?

David Cameron: I know these things look bad but I’m going to take very firm action because I’m a very firm kinda guy.

Sir Alan: Well, I think it sounds like you’re all a disaster. Nick and Margaret, how much profit did the two teams make?

Nick: They both made an enormous amount for themselves – but not much for anyone else.

Sir Alan: I just cannot believe what I’m hearing. People from the team sitting on the left have clearly forgotten their roots and those sitting on the right seem to only represent people with swimming pools and chandeliers. You’re an out-of-touch rabble – you’re all fired.

David Cameron/Gordon Brown: But who will run the country?

Nick Clegg: I will!

Sir Alan: And who are you? I’ve never seen you before in my life but I know your lot were stupid enough not to choose Vince Cable as project leader so so you’re all sacked as well.

(MPs troop out sadly, get into a fleet of waiting taxis and the BBC studios to talk to Adrian Chiles. Cut back to boardroom...).

Margaret: Well, it looks as if there’s nobody left, so who is going to run the country?

Sir Alan: I suppose I could. I’ll be Prime Minister; Nick, you can be Chancellor; and Margaret, you can be Home Secretary. We can always get Joanna Lumley to take over defence.

(There is a knock at the door and in walks the aforementioned strange-looking woman with ginger hair, still holding her cheque. Sir Alan dismisses her. Another MP then files in).

Anonymous, greedy, snout in the trough MP: Can I confirm Sir Alan – can we claim for the taxis?