More socio-political blather

[LordOfTheFiles]

I'm not sure I understand why "the words used were wholly inappropriate". In fact, I definitely don't understand.
The statement says nothing about the words being spoken to a jewish reporter so the inference would appear to be that the Board thinks it is wholly inappropriate to compare anyone to a concentration camp guard for 'just following orders'.
Is that what the Board thinks?

Who cares?? Should we really be spending hours going round in circles and trying to defend somebody's right to compare somebody to a concentration camp guard?! I remember Esther Ranzen (sp?) and her jobsworth award. That was what he was implying, so he couldnhave mate his point in a hundred less sensitive and potentially insulting ways.

[El Salsero Gringo]

...and I'd like to welcome Barry back to the floor. 200 posts in next to no time, now he's back.

There is a set "all comments making jews uncomfortable" and there is a set "all racist remarks against jews". Are they identical?

(Barry, why always a question with a question?)

How about the subset, all comments intended to serve no purpose other than make Jews (in particular) feel uncomfortable. Isn't that racism?

the question that was being asked of KL was 'Did you like the party?' Hardly Panorama, is it?

...was 'doorstepped' after he left, by a reporter who was just hanging around trying to provoke or persuade somebody into giving him something to write about.

Was he doorstopped with an impertinent question to raise his ire and provoke a rebuke, or was it an innocuous question not worthy of Panorama? How about you choose one and stick to it?

Is that what the Board thinks?

I don't speak either for or on behalf of the Board.

[Andy McGregor]

Who agrees with me that a public figure is not obliged to respond positively just because the person pestering them is 'an accredited member of the press'?

[Barry Shnikov]

Who cares?? Should we really be spending hours going round in circles and trying to defend somebody's right to compare somebody to a concentration camp guard?! I remember Esther Ranzen (sp?) and her jobsworth award. That was what he was implying, so he couldnhave mate his point in a hundred less sensitive and potentially insulting ways.

Presumably you've lost interest in the thread. Can't argue with that.

There's a difference between a jobsworth - "sorry mate, we both know this is a waste of time/inconvenient, but if I don't do it, it's more than my jobs worth..." and what KL was alleging, which would be - "I'm doing this reprehensible/bad/terrible thing because I have been told to do it/following orders".

[El Salsero Gringo]

Who agrees with me that a public figure is not obliged to respond positively just because the person pestering them is 'an accredited member of the press'?

I also agree.

But his freedom to respond how he pleases doesn't release him from the obligation to live up to the consequences of whatever he says. We agreed on that earlier in the thread.

Nor can he make any pretence about the remarks having been made in private, or having been duped. (In fact he hasn't said that, but it's no excuse as some people here are offering.)

[LordOfTheFiles]

Presumably you've lost interest in the thread. Can't argue with that.

Big Hand to that man. I can't believe anyone has any interest left in this thread. It wasn't THAT interesting to begin with, and has now degenerated into an unfocused ramble through semantics and answering questions with questions within questions.

Like a poor man's Labyrinth

[Andy McGregor]

Or perhaps if papers didn't bring certain events to the public forum, then nobody would be aware that these events happened. Should we allow individuals to get away with discriminatory comments just so the problem is not highlighted for fear of exacerbating the problem??

Seems a topsy turvy way of looking at things to me

Let's look at another example of disregard for consequences displayed by newspapers. The cartoons of the prophet. Their publication has resulted in many deaths. That the families of the dead have not privately prosecuted the publishers for corporate manslaughter can only mean they are still preparing their cases.

Newspapers regularly stir up hate and prejudice whilst bleating about freedom of speech and the public interest. How was it in the public interest to publish a batch of cartoons when the obvious consequence would be to whip up certain extremist members of the Muslim faith into committing even more atrocities. Those extremists have such a consistent history of murder it was almost certain that the publication of those cartoons would result in murder - but the newpapers still went ahead with their publication. What was the "public interest" in their publication?

To come back to the publication of Mr Livingstone's comments. It seems to me that he is likely to get egged at his next public appearance. That egging will be a criminal offence - and that offence will be as a result of the publication of Mr Livingstone's comments in the media.

[El Salsero Gringo]

That the families of the dead have not privately prosecuted the publishers for corporate manslaughter can only mean they are still preparing their cases.

You have got to be kidding.

Perhaps Barry, as a lawyer, would like to give us his advice to anyone seeking a prosecution in those circumstances?

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

o come back to the publication of Mr Livingstone's comments. It seems to me that he is likely to get egged at his next public appearance. That egging will be a criminal offence - and that offence will be as a result of the publication of Mr Livingstone's comments in the media.

The egging will be the result of nothing other than the egger's criminal conduct. Stop trying to shift the blame for *everything* on to the press.

[David Bailey]

The key question is, what is the value of the off-the-cuff response? Dragging it back on-topic, the question that was being asked of KL was 'Did you like the party?' Hardly Panorama, is it?

Actually, the exact question which prompted the insult was:

Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?"

Given the context (that this party was celebrating the 20-year anniversary of the first announcement of an openly gay MP in the UK), I think it's legitimate to ask that sort of question - especially given KL's promotion of gay marriages. And in fact, it was a great opportunity for KL to spout on about that particular issue, promoting his agenda in that way - but he decided to be an idiot instead.

The party wasn't exactly private, it was clearly quasi-official in that it was making a political statement about tolerance, and I don't believe KL just popped along to say "Hi" to an old mate. So I stick with my opinion that it's legitimate - or at the very least, defensible - for a reporter to try to get a comment from KL in that situation.

That's only one example. He does the same thing with team selection: "Will X play?" "Team selection will be announced this afternoon at 3pm." "Yes, but will X play?"

Yeah, it's annoying - but if you're interviewing a selector, and the topic is about today's selections, one might ask what other type of questions could he possibly ask? And sometimes you do get some fairly strong hints ("I couldn't pre-empt the announcement, but...").

[Barry Shnikov]

Big Hand to that man. I can't believe anyone has any interest left in this thread. It wasn't THAT interesting to begin with, and has now degenerated into an unfocused ramble through semantics and answering questions with questions within questions.
Like a poor man's Labyrinth

You are still reading the thread because...?

[Barry Shnikov]

Perhaps Barry, as a lawyer, would like to give us his advice to anyone seeking a prosecution in those circumstances?

Ahem. (adjusts tie)

No such offence as corporate manslaughter. Manslaughter in UK still requires a mens rea (NB not the same thing as 'man's bum'), or "guilty mind". Somebody has to have the intent (e.g. murder) the negligence (e.g. manslaughter) or recklessness (e.g. criminal damage) to go along with the criminal act (or actus reus) of the crime.

Some directors/managers etc have been prosecuted, on the basis that they were so intimately involved with the deadly incident that it may be possible to identify that particular person as having the mens rea, but AFAIK not, to this date, successfully.

What the law may be in the countries where publication took place might be, I do not know.

BUT more than that, you would have to say that the proper person(s) to charge in respect of such deaths would be the death-dealing party; that is to say, the publishers cannot be held responsible for crimes which are committed by other persons exercising their freedom of choice.

[Andy McGregor]

Ahem. (adjusts tie)

No such offence as corporate manslaughter. Manslaughter in UK still requires a mens rea (NB not the same thing as 'man's bum'), or "guilty mind". Somebody has to have the intent (e.g. murder) the negligence (e.g. manslaughter) or recklessness (e.g. criminal damage) to go along with the criminal act (or actus reus) of the crime.

Some directors/managers etc have been prosecuted, on the basis that they were so intimately involved with the deadly incident that it may be possible to identify that particular person as having the mens rea, but AFAIK not, to this date, successfully.

What the law may be in the countries where publication took place might be, I do not know.

BUT more than that, you would have to say that the proper person(s) to charge in respect of such deaths would be the death-dealing party; that is to say, the publishers cannot be held responsible for crimes which are committed by other persons exercising their freedom of choice.

So, what you're saying is that a newspaper can whip up criminal groups into a muderous frenzy and not get prosecuted - the world's gone mad.


Are we any nearer 200 yet

[El Salsero Gringo]

So, what you're saying is that a newspaper can whip up criminal groups into a muderous frenzy and not get prosecuted - the world's gone mad.


Are we any nearer 200 yet

"It was the Forum what made me do it, m'Lud. I was whipped - nay, cudgelled - into a murderous frenzy by the inflammatory writings of Andy McGregor..."

[David Bailey]

"It was the Forum what made me do it, m'Lud. I was whipped - nay, cudgelled - into a murderous frenzy by the inflammatory writings of Andy McGregor..."

Works for me.

65 to go...

[El Salsero Gringo]

Works for me.

65 to go...

I'd like to nominate Ken Livingstone to succeed Trevor Philips as chairman of the Comission for Racial Equality.

Does anyone want to second my nomination, before I send it to the Home Secretary?

[Andy McGregor]

I'd like to nominate Ken Livingstone to succeed Trevor Philips as chairman of the Comission for Racial Equality.

Does anyone want to second my nomination, before I send it to the Home Secretary?

Only if you spell it corectly

[stewart38]

Ahem. (adjusts tie)

No such offence as corporate manslaughter. Manslaughter in UK still requires a mens rea (NB not the same thing as 'man's bum'), or "guilty mind". Somebody has to have the intent (e.g. murder) the negligence (e.g. manslaughter) or recklessness (e.g. criminal damage) to go along with the criminal act (or actus reus) of the crime.

Some directors/managers etc have been prosecuted, on the basis that they were so intimately involved with the deadly incident that it may be possible to identify that particular person as having the mens rea, but AFAIK not, to this date, successfully.

What the law may be in the countries where publication took place might be, I do not know.

BUT more than that, you would have to say that the proper person(s) to charge in respect of such deaths would be the death-dealing party; that is to say, the publishers cannot be held responsible for crimes which are committed by other persons exercising their freedom of choice.

Corporate manslaughter is a crime that can be committed by a company in relation to a work-related death.

The offence is intrinsically linked to whether a director or senior manager - a "controlling mind and will" of the company - is guilty of manslaughter.

If the director or manager is found guilty, the company is guilty; if the director or manager is found innocent, the company is innocent.


Is it difficult to prosecute?

Proving corporate manslaughter has been notoriously difficult in the past. There have been a few cases successful but often still just fines not imprisonment of guilty party



There was a interesting book written about it in 1980 , if you read it now you would have thought it was written in 2005 so little has moved on


What AG says technically could happen , causation would be interesting

Cartoon - riot - death of innocent party

Basically if Publisher knew publishing cartoon would leave to deaths there is an angle.

[Barry Shnikov]

Corporate manslaughter is a crime that can be committed by a company in relation to a work-related death.

It can?

Statute or case authority please.

[stewart38]

It can?

Statute or case authority please.

It can?

Statute or case authority please.

In (P & O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd (1991) 93 Cr App R 72) Mr Justice Turner ruled that a company may be properly indicted for manslaughter. That case however, ended in the acquittal of the defendant company because the Crown could not show that a 'controlling mind' had been grossly negligent.

Subsequent convictions of companies for the offence of corporate manslaughter have been infrequent. Three rare examples are: ( R v Kite and OLL Ltd (the “Lyme Bay” case, Winchester Crown Court, 8 December 1994, unreported), R v Jackson Transport (Ossett) Ltd, and R v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd, Central Criminal Court 10 December 1999, unreported).

there are a number of smaller cases, its not on the statute books the draft bill sept 2005 went to me for consulation but like all labour promises its gone down the pecking order

any google search will bring you up to date

[El Salsero Gringo]

In (P & O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd (1991) 93 Cr App R 72) Mr Justice Turner ruled that a company may be properly indicted for manslaughter. That case however, ended in the acquittal of the defendant company because the Crown could not show that a 'controlling mind' had been grossly negligent.

Call me a nitpicker, but I have a sneaky suspicion Stewart didn't type that paragraph all on his own.

any google search will bring you up to date

Over to you Barry...