Spectator columnist Rod Liddle has become the first blogger to be censured by the Press Complain

Spectator columnist Rod Liddle has become the first blogger to be censured by the Press Complain

Spectator columnist Rod Liddle has become the first blogger to be censured by the Press Complaints Commission.



If you can read this, and understand it, what do you make of the title subject?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8594097.stm

Was the PCC right, or has Rod Liddle got a right to say what he likes. Or is there an inbetween?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/5601833/benefits-of-a-multicultural-britain.thtml

Of course he has the right. The trouble is that nowadays we are constantly being hit with laws for everything, rules, restrictions. When you consider former days say before WW2 when there would be public meetings you could wander into and listen to some challenging stuff life has changed. Then there would be strident arguments for and against Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, whatever. Nowadays it takes "someone" to0 complain and the thought police are in action.

In the item concerned he made a controversial statement which as it happens is based on factual stuff. Most street crime in London is from that particular part of the community. In so many areas they now make up the majority so somewhat naturally they will make up the offending majority. A few years back a senior police officer in a highly mixed area of London was disciplined for admitting that the majority of crimes in his station area were of the non-white community even thought the non-whites were a minority in that case. We live in what is meant to be a democracy but it less so. We have more spy cameras per head than any other civilised nation if we make an intellectual criticism of any group, race, religion or whatever immediately springing into action is the thought police mindset and you get an "ism" stuck to you.

One of the things we have to put up with is that in a free society we have to live with different opinions. Maybe even get annoyed or even insulted and the number of damn petty laws we get is threatening this. This is getting worse and the point of that press complaint only shows that we have lost the freedoms we formerly had. It is an ever increasing control and there is less freedom now than in those far off days of real confrontial matters of yesteryear.

It will get worse.

Liddle is correct and the IPCC is wrong. The blog is his personal opinion rather that a journalistic article. Does the IPCC intend to censure every blogger or only those whose daytime occupation is that of journalist? When I was a good deal younger we used to commonly use the term, "It's a free country". It's use, like it's accuracy is dwindling.

Liddle is correct and the IPCC is wrong. The blog is his personal opinion rather that a journalistic article. Does the IPCC intend to censure every blogger or only those whose daytime occupation is that of journalist? When I was a good deal younger we used to commonly use the term, "It's a free country". It's use, like it's accuracy is dwindling.

i agree

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Then there would be strident arguments for and against Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, whatever. Nowadays it takes "someone" to0 complain and the thought police are in action.

Wrong. Debate is still encouraged and happens everywhere. Debate is healthy, but you must be able to substantiate your points.

PCC director Stephen Abell said the Spectator had provided some evidence to back up Mr Liddle's assertion.

But he added "it had not been able to demonstrate that the 'overwhelming majority' of crime in all the stated categories had been carried out by members of the African-Caribbean community".
[...]
"There is plenty of room for robust opinions, views and commentary, but statements of fact must still be substantiated if and when they are disputed," he said.

"And if substantiation isn't possible, there should be proper correction by the newspaper or magazine in question."

I could say that the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in the West were made by Protestant Glaswegians - would you have a problem with me saying that? Do you think that my opinion on that is sacrosanct and that no criticism is allowed?

Cut a dataset any way you like, you'll eventually find a slice that matches what you want to prove. The majority of crime is carried out by blacks? What kind of crime? Violent crime? Petty crime? Business fraud? What proportion of crime is carried out by rich people, regardless of skin tone? Women?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

I could say that the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in the West were made by Protestant Glaswegians - would you have a problem with me saying that? Do you think that my opinion on that is sacrosanct and that no criticism is allowed?

Of course in this case before any censure we might have had the statistics made public but when the then Met Police boss Sir David McNee did so, showing statistics that would today support Liddle's claim, he was castigated for instigating racism.

All this aside, it does not excuse the IPCC for meddling in a blog.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

Of course in this case before any censure we might have had the statistics made public but when the then Met Police boss Sir David McNee did so, showing statistics that would today support Liddle's claim, he was castigated for instigating racism.

I don't have a source for this, do you have one? In cases like this, context is everything.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

All this aside, it does not excuse the IPCC for meddling in a blog.

It's the PCC (Press Complaints Commission), not the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission).

Please excuse my, as some might put it, <ahumm> my ex-colonialist ignorance, but didn't the major social & legal innovators of all time --- The British --- have the foresight to create some sort of binding "Bill of Rights" that covers & protects one of the most sacred of all rights --- it's citizens freedom of speech?

....The first of an occasional series – those benefits of a multi-cultural Britain in full. Let me introduce you all to this human filth.

It could be an anomaly, of course. But it isn’t. The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community. Of course, in return, we have rap music, goat curry and a far more vibrant and diverse understanding of cultures which were once alien to us. For which, many thanks......

Hmmm, doesn't seem to make just claim or case that it will incite riot or direct bodily harm on anyone.

It sounds like a personal opinion, whether or not the actual numbers would uphold the claim.

The statements may be considered by some as tasteless, but wouldn't the right -- if it actually exists -- the right to free speech cover something so simplistically benign as this?

Wouldn't the proper avenue of retort be the courts, providing it could be reasonably proven that it has resulted in riot, or bodily harm on person or persons in the first case?

You are so wrong there johnnysaucepn about my comparison with former times. You just need to raise questions these days and immediately a liberal will jump up and add some label or "ism" to you. It is not the same at all. It doesn't take much either in modern so-called debate on topical issues before the knee-jerk gets you put into a neat wee box to shut you up. Those that often try to portray how open they are very often show the intolerant symptoms they accuse others of.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Those that often try to portray how open they are very often show the intolerant symptoms they accuse others of.

Brother, ain't that the bloody freekin' truth! Liberals (Leftists) here do exactly that, day in & day out. They've done it for so long they even think it's the way it's supposed to be, & it's also the only thing they do that they don't associate one bit of guilt to!

They don't even plan a National 'SORRY' Day for it, as they do for everything else these days!

I can't remember a time in my life when the ability to vent and opine was more available. And it works for all sides in an issue. Liddle had his say and is still pontificating. If you think that the opinion is being stifled, try this on for size.

http://www.niggermania.net/forum/



No, it wasn't published via CNN or the NYTimes, but it is out there.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

You just need to raise questions these days and immediately a liberal will jump up and add some label or "ism" to you.

Is it not their right to say that? You get upset if someone labels you racist, why is it acceptable for someone to label you and your community criminals?
"The majority of middle-class Protestant Glaswegians are racist bigots" - will you support me in that statement?

Remember, this commentator was censored, not by the government, or by the courts, but by a commission made up of representatives of all the major papers charged with upholding the quality of journalism. In other words, this is an internal issue.

I have the personal right of free speech to say that my employers are a bunch of numpties - hell, I even have the right to produce really shoddy work - but I shouldn't expect to be free of rebuke when I do it.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

I have the personal right of free speech to say that my employers are a bunch of numpties - hell, I even have the right to produce really shoddy work - but I shouldn't expect to be free of rebuke when I do it.

Maybe we should try Unvarnished here in D&D.
"A new website is betting you're willing to dish about your co-worker's job performance just as you would a Netflix movie or an Amazon purchase. The site, dubbed Unvarnished, came out of private beta testing last week and aims to create an open forum to rate professionals in the workplace — for better or for worse."

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Those that often try to portray how open they are very often show the intolerant symptoms they accuse others of.

Please feel free to show how JSP was being intolerant.

I don't get upset at all jonnysaucepn. It might make you feel all sunny and content to think that but I come from a gritty place that calls a spade a spade. To slide that into upset is overdoing it. But that is the usual speak. You just need to question something as Liddle has done and immediately the thought police spring into action. He was expressing an opinion without any rancor, belligerence, etc but immediately it is emotion that kicks in and racist is the cry. If he had said the majority of the problem was based on the palefaces no-one would have bothered their backsides. There are two sides to racism. Blacks, browns, whites are all capable of such but somehow this translates into the majority pale population being the inherent bad guys.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Sorry, I don't have a source for this, do you have one? In cases like this, context is everything.

Sorry, it was a number of tears ago after McNee left Strathclyde (might still have been City of Glasgow) Police and took over th Met. It caused quite a stir at the time.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

It's the PCC (Press Complaints Commission), not the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission).

Oops! Thanks for correcting me.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Please excuse my, as some might put it, <ahumm> my ex-colonialist ignorance, but didn't the major social & legal innovators of all time --- The British --- have the foresight to create some sort of binding "Bill of Rights" that covers & protects one of the most sacred of all rights --- it's citizens freedom of speech?

Indeed. Like other parts of it (in both Scottish and English variants) it is being ignored. I believe the same is happening in the USA.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

They don't even plan a National 'SORRY' Day for it, as they do for everything else these days!

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I can't remember a time in my life when the ability to vent and opine was more available. And it works for all sides in an issue. Liddle had his say and is still pontificating. If you think that the opinion is being stifled, try this on for size.

I can. Every year in the UK it seems that we have new rules about what we can say without censure. It is but a time before the site that you linked will become unavailable. I reckon that such an unsavoury site will be unavailable before a similar site, detrimental to honkeys like myself is so treated.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Is it not their right to say that? You get upset if someone labels you racist, why is it acceptable for someone to label you and your community criminals?

I object to labelling people as opposed to arguing against their position. It is lazy, simplistic and too often inaccurate. A sign of the hard of thinking.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

"The majority of middle-class Protestant Glaswegians are racist bigots" - will you support me in that statement?

I would disagree but I believe that anyone has the right to say it as long as they are willing to argue the point. I would also point out my above comments on labeling.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Remember, this commentator was censored, not by the government, or by the courts, but by a commission made up of representatives of all the major papers charged with upholding the quality of journalism. In other words, this is an internal issue.

You miss the point. He was not saying this as a journalist, being paid to write an article. He was speaking his mind in his blog. Nothing to do with the PCC (I got it right this time! ).

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

I have the personal right of free speech to say that my employers are a bunch of numpties - hell, I even have the right to produce really shoddy work - but I shouldn't expect to be free of rebuke when I do it.

See my above comment.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

I can. Every year in the UK it seems that we have new rules about what we can say without censure.

As opposed to the old days, when censure was limited to a good beating or a few days/weeks/months in a cell. There has never been a time, as Jaybro said, when ranting, raving and even hysterical nonsense could be shared across such a wide audience. Just look at some of the tripe posted on this forum by a few select members.

When in the past, exactly, did you even have the capability to rant to the extent you have today? And what exactly is it that you feel you can't say? Give me a few examples.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

You miss the point. He was not saying this as a journalist, being paid to write an article. He was speaking his mind in his blog. Nothing to do with the PCC

So any journalist wishing to have a good racist, homophobic or otherwise hateful rant that is unsubstantiated by fact simply needs to decline any payment for that article. It's a freebie, so there are no consequences, even if it's printed on the front page of the Times under the title of 'Blog'.

It is an interesting case, but as the blog is hosted on the Spectators website, as part of their online publication, it comes under the jurisdiction of the PCC. I don't see what the problem is. We are all responsible for our words and actions, and if we step over the line there are consequences, dished out by the appropriate body. In this case the PCC.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

I object to labelling people as opposed to arguing against their position.

Labelling as a generalisation is often, if not always, wrong. Labelling because someone said something you don't like is wrong. Labelling an individual who has been clearly identified as being covered by the definition of that label...well, perhaps we should simply 'identify' them as racists etc. Of course, you'd then insist they were being labelled and etc etc..

What I find interesting is that in opposing labelling, you are supporting an article which broadly labels an entire community.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Remember, this commentator was censored, not by the government, or by the courts, but by a commission made up of representatives of all the major papers charged with upholding the quality of journalism. In other words, this is an internal issue.

I think the term 'blog' needs to be better defined when it's included as part of an online publication. Whether paid or unpaid (which is really irrelevant) how is a collection of published articles by a journalist 'labelled' as a blog any different from a collection of published articles not labelled as a blog?

I also find the argument over the wording interesting. 'Overwhelming majority' is wrong. 'Majority' seems to be fine, unless I have misunderstood. I know journalists must be responsible when reporting, but what counts as 'overwhelming majority'? 60% 70% 80? If he had just said 'whelming majority, would he have been okay?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

If he had said the majority of the problem was based on the palefaces no-one would have bothered their backsides.

But when the palefaces commit the crime, perhaps it goes unreported? Both to the police and the media. What do you make of that?

You seem very upset by the amount and cost of crime committed by black people. How informed are you regards white collar crime and how much that costs you? How much do you know about the ethnic make up of the 'overwhelming majority' of white collar criminals?

I suspect I already know the answers to both my questions.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

You just need to question something as Liddle has done and immediately the thought police spring into action. He was expressing an opinion without any rancor, belligerence, etc but immediately it is emotion that kicks in and racist is the cry.

All you seem to be able to bring to the discussion is bleating about 'labelling', and yet you completely fail to realise that 'labelling' is exactly what you and Mr. Liddell are doing.

Let me introduce you all to this human filth. [link to specific news article about specific criminals]

It could be an anomaly, of course. But it isn’t. The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community.

He took a specific case and generalised it to a huge community (while simultaneously associating them with his 'human filth' description). If that's not labelling, then I don't know what is.

(Incidentally, the term 'thought police' refers to policing of actions that have not yet been committed, not those that have.)

He made a bullsh*t statement and was called on it. What he did was poor-quality journalism, and that was what he was adjudicated for. You want your right for someone to say unsubstantiated hateful things about ethnic groups? Then you must also accept my right to call them racist, as it is an accurate descriptive word.

The piece under complaint was an entry on Rod Liddle’s regular blog for the Spectator’s website. It said that “the overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community”. The complainant said that was not the case and pointed to statistics produced by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), which showed that in the area covered by the Metropolitan police force, the majority of arrests for notifiable offences were of white people. In categories defined as ‘violence against the person’ and ‘sexual offences’, black people made up 32% of arrests. 58% of arrests for robbery were of black people but that was not an ‘overwhelming majority’. The MoJ statistics did not give specific figures for knife crime or gun crime.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Remember, this commentator was censored, not by the government, or by the courts, but by a commission made up of representatives of all the major papers charged with upholding the quality of journalism. In other words, this is an internal issue.

So, to correct your wording, he was censured, not censored.

The issue was whether a blogger should be held to the same criteria as a journalist, when blogging for a news site. Since many news organisations, especially in Britain it seems, mix in blogs in a way that make them indistinguishable from news articles and op-eds, this is an interesting decision. This format is fooling many, including at the D&D, so I think it was the right decision.

The only point of genuine contention that I can see is whether we grant that a blog counts as journalism, and is thus under the purview of the PCC, or whether it is simply generic free speech.

I would say it is a grey area, however in this case the individual in question is clearly using it as a method for self-publicised journalism. He deserved his censure.

A tangentially-related issue - how do the 'free-speech-at-all-costs' supporters view this? Is it unfair for a political party to dismiss a member based on his personal and sincerely-held views?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/election2010/2926035/Twitter-ranting-Labour-hopeful-Stuart-MacLennan-is-blasted.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/scotland/8610934.stm

Again, speaking your opinions is not a crime, but that doesn't mean it is without repercussions.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Is it unfair for a political party to dismiss a member based on his personal and sincerely-held views?

If someone becomes more of a burden than an asset then it makes perfect sense to do so.

What I didn't really get out of the story is just how long this had been going on? Answered by BBC story you edited in.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

What I didn't really get out of the story is just how long this had been going on? Answered by BBC story you edited in.

Yeah, sorry about that - the Sun version didn't go into detail about what they mean by 'sacked', and I wanted to clarify what had happened to him.

Originally posted by Redem:

I would say it is a grey area, however in this case the individual in question is clearly using it as a method for self-publicised journalism. He deserved his censure.

I can see the point that you are making but I ask, does his "day job" deny his rights to blog? I am assuming that he is not paid to blog. That I do not know and it could put a different colour on the matter, regarding where his job as journo and freedom as blogger diverge.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

I can see the point that you are making but I ask, does his "day job" deny his rights to blog?

No it doesn't. Providing it is a private blog. The 'blog' in question is hosted by the Spectator as part of the Spectator website. It all forms part of their online publication. The attempt to declare it a 'blog' and somehow immune from normal journalistic standards is really exceptionally disingenuous. A collection of articles is a collection of articles, regardless of whether it's labelled a blog or a column or anything else. Did I read somewhere that because it has comments enabled to become a 'conversation' that somehow makes a difference? Lots of online papers and news sites have comments enabled on all their articles.

It really doesn't matter whether he was paid to produce the content for that part of their website or not. Although if anyone does feel it is important, the Spectator does earn income from advertising sold on that page, so the content is not public service material.

"Why I'm complaining to the PCC"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/5889923/why-im-complaining-to-the-pcc.thtml

"PCC adjudication on Rod Liddle's blog-post 'Benefits of a multi-cultural Britain'"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5874173/pcc-adjudication-on-rod-liddles-blogpost-benefits-of-a-multicultural-britain.thtml

Originally posted by Acorn15:

"Why I'm complaining to the PCC"

In which he confirms what I said, and what is obvious, but what he doesn't get.

"...if I had blogged on a website of my own, rather than here, then they would have not got involved. So the upshot is that blogs associated with newspapers will end up not being like blogs at all..."

Although, actually, they can be Mr Liddle. But because your 'blog' is part of a proper publication it comes under the jurisdiction of the PCC. All blogs of all types are open to investigation and/or censure/censor by one authority or another. Yours comes under the PCC. You are expected to adhere to the correct standards of professional journalism as your blog is hosted by and as part of a professional publication.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

"PCC adjudication on Rod Liddle's blog-post 'Benefits of a multi-cultural Britain'"

His claim....

“the overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community”.

The statistsics....

"....In categories defined as ‘violence against the person’ and ‘sexual offences’, black people made up 32% of arrests. 58% of arrests for robbery were of black people but that was not an ‘overwhelming majority’..."

So basically he was wrong. And this doesn't touch on the 'human filth' remark....

Originally posted by garydenness:

"...if I had blogged on a website of my own, rather than here, then they would have not got involved. So the upshot is that blogs associated with newspapers will end up not being like blogs at all..."

Which still begs the question. Was he criticised because his profession is that of a journalist or because his blog appears in the paper?

Originally posted by Acorn15:

Which still begs the question. Was he criticised because his profession is that of a journalist or because his blog appears in the paper?

No it doesn't beg the question. At all. It is quite clear that if he had used his own private blog, such as Wordpress or Blogger, or even Opera, the PCC would not have been involved. Regardless of whether he is a journalist, plumber, truck driver or anything else. The PCC does not cover independently hosted blogs.

The authority of the PCC regards online versions of print publications is quite clear, and explained here: http://www.pcc.org.uk/faqs.html#faq2_13

Originally posted by Acorn15:

Which still begs the question. Was he criticised because his profession is that of a journalist or because his blog appears in the paper?

The PCC is a voluntary regulatory body for the press - not for journalists.