Time To Put Up And Shut Up

As yet more student protests over the tuition fee rises take place, is it now time to stop protesting and accept that the coalition government will not change its mind? Messrs Clegg and Cable have been reassuring students that this is the right way to go and it is hard not to agree with them.

Firstly, hats off to the Liberal Democrats who have proved how far one can go with an appealing election strategy. In fact their entire election manifesto seemed to read like a school council manifesto. It took me back to a time just over ten years ago when I started secondary school as a bright-eyed, enthusiastic young pupil. Presented with the opportunity to run for class president and thus secure election to the school council, I jumped at the chance. My aims were plain and simple. The opposition however, chose to make lavish promises like a longer breaktime among other things. Naturally they were elected, consigning my fledgeling political career to the history books.

Quite simply, this macrocosm can be applied to the bigger microcosm of modern Britain. Students were duped into thinking that by signing a pledge drawn up by the NUS, the Lib Dems were going to make students their niche voting strategy. Did anyone not stop and think for a second that this was not a legally binding document? Clearly not and this says to me that elections are now more about the electorate than the politicians themselves.

Perhaps students should look at this in a different way. If fewer people can afford to go to university then surely that drags up the value of a degree. Maybe universities themselves will now do away with so-called "mickey mouse" degrees and pump that reserve funding into other courses or improving research facilities. From a student's point of view, instead of protesting that it will be too expensive to go to a third-rate university to study, why not explore options abroad? Why not study in places like the USA or somewhere in Europe and gain a little life experience.

The Prime Minister's catchphrase when the cuts were announced was "we're all in this together" and some departments will have to sacrifice their funding. Higher education is vital to this country's continuing development but you could put your house on the general public taking to the streets in protest had the NHS been faced with such cuts. Unfortunately it is students who have to suffer this time around. Deal with it.

For an insider view on what went on in London at the first planned protest, here is WINOL news' stunning documentary:




(Picture: Jason Curtis)

Media Law: Freedom of Information

The Freedom of Information Act, passed by Tony Blair's government has been described as one of the greatest levellers between journalists and the government in recent times. The act covers 130,000 public bodies. Mainly government QUANGOS but any organisation that is funded by public money is bound by the act.

The impact it has had on both journalism and government in the UK has been massive. Tony Blair, in an interview with Andrew Marr described it as one of the aspects he regrets the most about his time in office. Directly or indirectly, it had some affect on the shift towards 'sofa government', a style very much associated with the latter years of the Blair government.

It's purpose was to allow the public a more transparent view of what went on government. Any person can request any information. As long as it is submitted in writing, the organisation must respond 'promptly' with the accepted time limit falling within 20 days. However, if there is an indication that the information may be deemed to be in the public interest, the authority may delay providing the requested information for a further 40 days, up to a total of 60 days.



There are, as one would expect, certain exceptions to the rule. Absolute exemption covers areas such as issues of national security such as state secrets or court records. Interestingly, The Church of England is also covered in this bracket. Qualified exemption concerns issues from ministerial communications to commercial confidentiality. However, unlike absolute exemption, qualified exemption is voided if the balance of public interest favours disclosure of the information.

Of the approximated 100,000 FOI requests submitted per year, only an estimated 12% are from journalists. There are some who believe that journalists make requests as members of the public and do not disclose their profession. Journalists or otherwise, the cost of these requests amounts to around £34 million. As a result, many journalists have cottoned on to the power the act gives them, with some carving out an entire career from picking stories from the information gleaned from a request. Many see the current epoch under the coalition government as a high water-mark for FOI requests.

Money Burns A Hole In My Pocket. Thank God It's Not The Euro..

The accouncement this week that the Irish government had rejected it was in talks with the EU over the possibility of a 'Greek-style' bailout has highlighted the problems of the current economic climate.

It is rather worrying that the EU President Herman Van Rompuy has admitted that if the Euro fails then so will the EU. When the major nations of Europe ditched their respective currencies just under a decade ago, it was hailed as a new dawn for the continent. However, I remember even back then hearing my father, uncle and great uncle discussing the merits of a unified currency and how, in their opinion Europe would lose its financial clout as a result. How right they have been proved.

Many financial commentators predicted the move away from Europe and east to the developing economic powerhouses of China, Korea and Japan and with the decline of the Euro it appears that the smaller economies like Ireland and Portugal will be hit hardest. The Irish insist they don't need a bailout: their plan to make £13bn of savings by 2014 appears to have smoothed over the cracks. There is a danger though that the European Central Bank could withdraw their financial support and leave Ireland in the financial wilderness.

Sitting pretty in the UK with the happy sound of pounds sterling jangling in my pocket, is this now the perfect example of why Britain should never join the Euro...

(Picture: http://www.etftrends.com/)

Media Law: Privacy and Confidentiality

As with most aspects of media law, privacy and confidentiality laws are derived from wide-ranging acts and laws. Specifically from Section Eight of the Human Rights Act. This specific section affords any individual the right to a private life.

The only way around privacy laws is with consent, of which there are two types: Explicit and Implicit. Explicit consent comes in the form of a consent form or some type of document that states in black and white that (for example) a photographer can take a picture. Implied consent is a on slightly shakier legal ground but still holds sway. If for example, the European Cup Final is held at Wembley and Prince William is the official who hands over the trophy to the winning team then consent is implicit. The Prince knows that he is at a public event and that there are thousands in the stadium and millions of other people watching world-wide so therefore he cannot claim an invasion of privacy.

Confidentiality is the other face of this double-headed legal coin and is there to protect two specific types of secret. The bigger of the two fish in the frying pan is the protection of state secrets. Under the Official Secrets Act 1911, it is considered an act of treason to give away state secrets to an enemy (Spooks is also educational as well as thoroughly entertaining!). The other side of confidentiality relates to Common Law secrets. This ranges from business or trade/commercial secrets right down to family secrets.

Often in the commercial world, employers put gagging clauses in employees' contracts in order to legally prevent them from giving away secrets or "whistleblowing". Whistleblowers were in fact the reason behind many employers gagging employees. One of the most famous cases is the Graham Pink case. His 'whistleblowing' alerted people to the poor state of an NHS hospital. From a journalists' point of view, whistleblowers are vital in helping to fulfill the role of the 'fourth estate' and many helplines and websites have been set up to help whistleblowers confidentially tell journalists of problems particularly in public organisations like the NHS.

Finally, confidence is breached if: it carries the necessary quality of confidence. An official state secret carries a higher quality of confidence compared to letting people know that your girlfriend is a closet Star Trek fan for example. However, under the right circumstances something as ridiculous as your girlfriend being a closet Star Trek fan could amount to breach of confidence IF she has not given you permission to broach the subject and if it has caused ACTUAL detriment. If she returns to work and is shunned and avoided she can claim that confidence has been breached. Unlike libel laws where an individual can prove that information COULD cause detriment, confidence is only breached when it has actually caused damage to a person's reputation.

Media Law: Copyright

Ever since the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988, intellectual property has been protected from being used without permission. Over twenty years on, there is little material in the public domain that is not protected somehow by copyright.

Everything from books to films and from music to photographs that is original work has a copyright logo slapped on it somewhere. From a journalist's point of view, copyright gives them their license to write without danger of a story being stolen. On the other hand, it means that in order to do certain types of stories, copyright royalties can prove to be a right royal pain in the backside. Any music or footage owned and copyrighted by someone else must be legally bought and paid for, leaving the rightful owners with cartoon-like pound signs over their eyes as they imagine the money rolling in.

The value of a product rises due to its exclusivity. For example, the shots of Jonny Wilkinson's winning drop-goal against Australia in the 2003 Rugby World Cup Final is worth an awful lot of money purely because ITV had the exclusive rights to the tournament therefore affording them exclusive rights to footage of one of the most iconic images in English sport in the early part of the 21st Century.

Sports coverage is in fact one of the main danger areas of copyright, along with material from the internet and sites like YouTube. This is simply a nightmare for journalists: although classed as 'in the public domain' there are still strict copyright laws surrounding these areas making them a legal minefield. Photographs and film archive are also dangerous for journalists.

Despite the doom and gloom surrounding copyright, the issue of 'Fair Dealing' allows journalists to effectively 'lift' material from their rivals. This is only classed as fair dealing if a)the story is in the public interest, b)it is attributed and c)most importantly, it is 'fair'. As long as the main thrust of the story and quotes are accurate then a journalist can get away with fair dealing.

Crucially, this allows the wider reporting of news. Finally, it is acceptable to use footage/audio for criticism or review purposes providing someone talks over the top of it and if a famous celebrity dies, then it is also acceptable to use well-known clips from their career.