Hard fought freedom proven a farce

SENIOR British Politicians have condemned Egyptian authorities over today's sentencing of three Al Jazeera journalists.

Prime Minister David Cameron said that he "was completely appalled" by the seven year sentences for two of the men, with a third given ten years, for effectively reporting in the situation within Egypt.

Foreign Secretary William Hague has reportedly summoned the Egyptian Ambassador to discuss the disturbing development in the country's slide back to an authoritarian state.

The three men, who continue to protest their innocence, include Australian Peter Greste, Al Jazeera's Kenya-based correspondent, Baher Mohamed and Canadian-Egyptian national Mohamed Fahmy, Cairo bureau chief of Al Jazeera English. They were accused of aiding the former political party the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been categorised as a terrorist organisation by Egypt's current leadership, and reporting false news.

A further six Journalists, two of whom are British, were convicted in abstentia. Mr Hague has called upon the Egyptian authorities, along with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, to review the sentences. 

Attempting to cover the news of their imprisoned colleagues journalists from Al Jazeera were forced to rely on information from other broadcasters after being banned from operating in the country.

In a statement following the ruling, Al Jazeera English's managing director Al Anstey said the sentence "defies logic, sense, and any semblance of justice".

“Today three colleagues and friends were sentenced, and will continue behind bars for doing a brilliant job of being great journalists.  “Guilty” of covering stories with great skill and integrity.  ”Guilty” of defending people’s right to know what is going on in their world.   

“Peter, Mohamed, and Baher and six of our other colleagues were sentenced despite the fact that not a shred of evidence was found to support the extraordinary and false charges against them.

"There is only one sensible outcome now.  For the verdict to be overturned, and justice to be recognised by Egypt.  We must keep our voice loud to call for an end to their detention.  Alongside us is a worldwide solidarity, a global call for their release, and a demand for basic freedoms to be respected."

Human rights group Amnesty International have classified the three imprisoned journalists as "prisoners of conscience" and condemned the ruling, based on trumped up charges and no evidence, as an attempt to silence what is left of freedom of speech in Egypt.

 "This is a devastating verdict for the men and their families, and a dark day for media freedom in Egypt, when journalists are being locked up and branded criminals or ‘terrorists’ simply for doing their job,” said Philip Luther, Director of the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International. 

“The only reason these three men are in jail is because the Egyptian authorities don’t like what they have to say. They are prisoners of conscience and must be immediately and unconditionally released. In Egypt today anyone who dares to challenge the state’s narrative is considered a legitimate target.”

A shadow hangs heavily over the hopes which so many had following the Arab Spring and the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. While Mr Hague appeals to the Egyptian government to respect press freedoms there will be many who see this as a direct assault on liberty. Today's guilty verdicts will be seen as further evidence of President Sisi's hardline attitude to anything which may threaten his authoritarian power, and lead to renewed calls for genuine freedom and democracy in the country.

Press freedom prevails over secret trials

SECRET trials have been ruled out by the British court of appeals following action by media groups.

Prosecutors had originally pushed for the trial of Erol Incedal and Mounir Rarmoul-Bouhadjar to be closed to the media and public, claiming it was a matter of national security. 

According to reports by the British Broadcasting Corporation Mr Incedal is charged with preparing for acts of terrorism, contrary to the Terrorism Act 2006 and a further allegation of collecting information useful to terrorism. Mr Rarmoul-Bouhadjar has been accused of possession of false identities and collecting information useful to terrorism.

In a statement following the verdict judges from the Court of Appeal said: "Open justice is both a fundamental principle of the common law and a means of ensuring public confidence in our legal system; exceptions are rare and must be justified on the facts.

"Any such exceptions must be necessary and proportionate. No more than the minimum departure from open justice will be countenanced."

The prosecution has previously stated that if reporting was allowed on the trail then it may be forced to abandon the case.

Ahead of the hearing Anthony Hudson, representing the media groups, was reported as saying: 

"We submit that the orders made mark such a significant departure from the principle of open justice that they are inconsistent with the rule of law and democratic accountability," adding. "This case is a test of the court's commitment to that constitutional principle in the admittedly difficult and sensitive cases where the state seeks to have trials involving terrorism heard in secret and relies in support of that on grounds of national security."

Despite striking down arguments that the entire trial should be held in secret strict rules have been laid down for what can and cannot be reported.

According the ruling journalists will be allowed to cover the swearing in of the jury and reading the charges, part of the judge's introductory remarks and a portion of the prosecution opening speech. If the defendants are found guilty then coverage of the verdicts and sentencing will be permitted.

The news has been welcomed by the press and human rights groups which had condemned the original decision as against the principles of British justice.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair's, wife Cherie Blair, an internationally renowned human rights lawyer, has given her view on the subject during an interview with a legal publication. 

"Secret courts can occasionally be justified. It is all about proportionality and where you draw the line. And who draws the line," explained Mrs Blair.

Previous attempts to hold secret trials in the UK have brought widespread condemnation from charities and the public. During one attempt in 2012 Amnesty International released a strongly worded statement criticising the government's plans.

"These proposals are dangerous and should be dropped," said Tara Lyle, Policy Adviser at Amnesty International UK.

“They will allow the government to throw a cloak of secrecy over wrongdoing, including matters as serious as the alleged involvement by UK officials in rendition, secret detention, enforced disappearances and torture."

World Press Freedom

Last Saturday (May 3rd 2014) World Press Freedom Day, defined by the United Nations as “celebrate the fundamental principles of press freedom; assess the state of press freedom throughout the world; defend the media from attacks on their independence; pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the line of duty.” (http://www.un.org/en/events/pressfreedomday).

It has seemed from following the news over the last year that freedom of the press has become an ever diminishing commodity. This has perhaps been shown in stark reality by the United Kingdom dropping four places in the Press Freedom Index to 33^rd out of 180 countries (http://www.un.org/en/events/pressfreedomday).

It is all too easy for proponents of press freedom to condemn countries such as Egypt, where three Aljazeera journalists have just had their appeal rejected for a second time today. The fight for press freedom can be lost in the battle against countries and governments. For the average man in the street it is only the figures which count, if that. Sixteen journalists killed this year alone, a further 168 imprisoned.

The fight for press freedom is not a battleground against countries though. Nor is it a crusade against governments. Press Freedom is something which lies in our hearts and our minds. The greatest threat to Press Freedom is through our own media.

We live in a world where the news which is published is the news which will sell. Media is a business after all, there is no profit in running stories which will not entice readers. It is readers which pay the bills at the end of the day.

In recent weeks more than 200 Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped, little is known about their fate. This story and countless others have been buried at best, ignored at worst. They make readers feel uncomfortable over their breakfasts. It is far easier to run front pages of the faces of evil, of those we know and can feel superior to. I speak of course of Max Clifford and his ilk.

It is this process of censorship through economics which is killing press freedom. It is a slow decline as we seek the news which will sell the papers as opposed to the news which matters which is the greatest threat.

Freedom of the press must mean the freedom to be the voice which tells those who do not know the thinks which they should know. Instead it has become a timid whisper, fearful of disturbing advertisers and consumers.

Where once journalists where inviolable lest the wrath of the press reign down upon those who had harmed them, a romantic but not entirely forgotten ideal, now they are treated as targets and hostages. The world has changed but not so much that this has happened without the input of the media itself.

The presses self-censorship and scandal has weakened it. It is now looking only to survive through funding, where once people trusted the media now they look on it with scorn. This is the heart of our loss of freedom, our failure to stand for the lost ideals of journalism and freedom.

 

Auntie’s in trouble from big brother

While it may be perfectly possible that the whole British Broadcasting Corporation Newsnight fiasco may have escaped the attention of the majority of the press outside of the United Kingdom I somehow doubt that it has gone entirely unnoticed. This is partly because as a former British journalist I am steadfastly resolute in my belief that the world hangs on every word which we print and broadcast.

Okay Newsnight messed up, in quite spectacular style; it is not the first news programme to get its facts wrong though. It probably doesn’t even rank as on the top 100. For one thing Newsnight did not actually reveal Lord McAlpine’s name, which seems to be what the majority of the online commentators are accusing it of doing. If anything Newsnight’s greatest flaw, and by extension that of now former Director General George Entwistle, was to underestimate the power of social media and the internet. What was once the purview, more or less, of the investigative journalist is now in the remit of a 10-year-old with a computer.

While this may have become apparent to a number of people it seems to be something which the more traditional elements of the press still have trouble coming to grips with. The recent debacle with the BBC has proved that the old divide between broadcast and print journalism still has some grounding, despite having a common enemy of sorts in the internet. The BBC’s downfall has been exacerbated by the reaction of the print press and the clear determination to take some of the attention away from the actions being raked over in the Leveson enquiry. This is a fact which has not been lost on the Chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten.
“I think my job is to make sure that we now learn the lessons from the crisis,” he said. “If I don’t do that and don’t restore huge confidence and trust in the BBC then I’m sure people will tell me to take my cards and clear off,” he was reported as saying. “But I will not take my marching orders from Mr Murdoch’s newspapers.”

It isn’t just their colleagues in the press who appear to be trying to make the most out of the situation.

Auntie is under attack from big brother it would seem as politicians wade into the debate. It isn’t the first time that the British government has used a crisis at the Beeb to try and assert an additional element of control over its editorial stance. Combined with the Leveson enquiry into the press and the Saville enquiry, however, it may be that this time they get their wish.

The internet has allowed for a greater spread of information than ever before. Social media has also created a greater awareness of the power of that information and with it if not outright fear than at least a healthy respect for it. It would be a mistake though to allow that fear, or respect for, information to lead to news outlets having its control removed from their power, particularly over one misjudged and disproportionately reported on program.

All the same on the Western front

Well that’s it, all that money, all that time, all those speeches, adverts and debates and what has changed? Pretty much nothing actually. President Barack Obama is safely in the White House, Governor Mitt Romney is stumbling over his words and Donald Trump is making a ranting fool of himself on twitter, all in all pretty much business as usual it would seem in American politics, from my cynical Brit viewpoint anyway.

I like to try and stay objective when it comes to commenting on breaking events, particularly elections. Once they have been decided though it is a different story. Whether liked or not it cannot be argued that whoever is sitting in the Oval Office has a massive influence over the rest of the world. It is for this reason that I for one was relieved that President Obama won a second term. The thought of Mitt Romney being President has actually left me with sleepless nights. I’ll be fair though I am sure that Governor Romney honestly had the best interests, as he could see them, of the country at heart. Then again I also have to wonder if his comment to “earnestly pray for him [President Obama] and for this great nation," was meant in good faith or just as a sly dig, back to that cynical British attitude again.

If anything has convinced me, however, that it is a far better thing to have a Democrat in charge of one of the most powerful countries in the world than a Republican it has to be Donald Trump’s spectacular political analysis on Twitter.

Tweeting: “We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!” was perhaps not the most balanced response of the evening, and possibly treasonous, but it was by no means Trump’s only one: “This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!” Demonstrating perhaps a slight misunderstanding of what the purpose of the whole election thing was all about and how democracy works.

What was perhaps most surprising about the election though was how unsurprising it really was. During the run up to voting day we have seen pundits predicting that first one side then the other would win a close race. We heard how Hurricane Sandy would influence the vote and how Governor Romney’s showing in the first presidential debate would change the outcome in his favour. At the end of the day, however, what appeared to be demonstrated by several polls was that a large proportion of people had already made their minds up about who they were going to vote for back in September.

The biggest question now is whether or not having secured a second term in a decisive victory President Obama will now be able to work with the Republicans in government to ensure that he can implement some of his proposals.

While President Obama may have pledged that “the best is yet to come” he will have a tough job on his hands to prove this. Donald Trump may not be entirely representative of the Republican Party but there will be those who follow his call not to give “anything to Obama unless he terminates Obamacare.” Essentially he is calling on people in power to block proposals and plans to help the country and rectify its ongoing economic strife is President Obama does not reverse legislation which ensures that everyone has access to medical treatments and people wonder why I despair with hardline Republicans.

The final word on the subject for now should, justly, come from President Obama himself. Delivering his victory speech he addressed not only those who voted for him but also those who oppose his views. He demonstrated once more why he is a global leader and provided at least some hope that he understands the differences in America and wants to find a means by which to heal the divide which the bitter battle this election has been has caused:

 "Democracy in a nation of 300 million can be noisy and messy and complicated. We have our own opinions. Each of us has deeply held beliefs. And when we go through tough times or we make big decisions as a country, it necessarily stirs passions, stirs up controversy. That won't change after tonight. And it shouldn't.

"Despite all our differences, most of us share certain hopes for America's future. ... We want our children to live in America that isn't burdened by debt, that isn't weakened by inequality, that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet."

"Forward, that's where we need to go. Now, we will disagree, sometimes fiercely about how to get there. As it has for more than two centuries, progress will come in fits and starts, it's not always a straight line, it's not always a smooth path... That common bond is where we must begin."

A passion for politics?

If ever there was an ideal demonstration of the amount of influence the United States of America has over the rest of the world it is undoubtedly the impact which the run up to its election has. The fact that there are more elections going on than just the Presidential one, more candidates that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, seems to have been missed out of the global enthusiasm.

When America does something it tends to be on a huge scale. Everything is a show, everything is turned into a show. When they are electing their President why would anyone assume that it would be any different?

With the two key candidates racking up something in the region of £2billion dollars, or as Mitt Romney may describe it “pocket money”, it is understandable that they would generate a reasonable amount of interest.

As a Brit the way American elections play out is something which at once amazes me and then amuses me, it is just so different from our own relatively grey and dull affairs. The concept of attack ads for instance is just something which wouldn’t really work in the United Kingdom. It may be that we are just so cynical that we always look at the worst of our politicians but they just wouldn’t have the same impact in this country.

Whereas in America politicians are seen as larger than life symbols of a nation in this country they are seen as somewhat grey and uninspiring for the most part. When American politicians take to the airwaves they are filled with passion. They spout memorable and carefully crafted quotes; they espouse rhetoric worthy of a blockbuster script. When politicians in the UK try something similar it is “I’m a Celebrity...get me out of here” and they get suspended from the party. It just isn’t the same really.

From our perspective across the pond it does seem that Americans vote with a passion which we Brits just cannot seem to muster. If our politicians spent $2 billion on campaigning they would be roundly demonised. Once there may have been a loyalty to the party, a passion for politics, a sense of duty in Britain, once people felt that voting was important. Nowadays, however, it seems at times as though no-one cares anymore, and that includes the politicians we vote for.

In America it can seem to us poor out of touch Brits that any form of election is an opportunity for a pageant. In Britain we are rapidly approaching electing Police and Crime Commissioners and no-one seems to know who the candidates are, let alone what a Police and Crime Commissioner actually does.  There just doesn’t seem to be the passion for politics in Britain that there is in America, perhaps that is why we follow our cousins in America so closely, they get to have the excitement we miss out on and then some.

What price the news?

There is an aspect of the news which is frequently reported but less frequently commented upon, those people who are prepared to sell their stories.

It is an unavoidable fact of the business that people wanting to get their stories into the papers is the bread and butter of a lot of publications. How many times have people sold stories about alleged affairs and indiscretions which they may, or may not as the facts can attest, have been involved in to boost their profile and make a few quick bucks into the bargain.

Take for example Dean Barry who decided to recount his horror of finding out that he was mass murderer Fred West’s love child in a Sunday red top. Whereas it would seem clear to most people that if we found out we were related to a renowned and hated psychopath we would keep it quiet he decided that it was sensible to tell the world. I cannot comment on whether he received money to tell his story, but based on past experiences it would not be beyond the realms of possibility that he was.

When everything has a price then everyone has a price and that creates a problem for a truly free and honest and press. When people start to think that it is acceptable to share their family’s dirtiest secrets to make some money, with no thought as to the long term consequences for everyone they have ever met, then you have to start wondering what they will say, and how truthful they will be with it.

When stories rely on people’s greed then those stories automatically become tainted and so does the very institution which allowed them to exploit a situation for that end.

I am not so naive as to think that the press will never pay for information but that is very different from paying for the whole story. Taking a look at the front page which showed Mr Barry expressing his horror at finding out who his biological father was all it really demonstrated was that he cared so little about it that he was prepared to tell the world without hesitation.

Sometimes in order for the real news to come out reluctant informants must be encouraged by a variety of means to tell their stories.  Journalism is about revealing those stories which are in the public interest. Sometimes those stories are justified and sometimes not. When people only judge whether or not they should tell those stories by how much they can make from publishing them then objectivity, responsibility, integrity and honesty are all put in jeopardy.

The freedom of the press is crucial to the smooth running of a free state. It is essential because it keeps people honest. When that honesty is brought into question because people may or may not have said something as a means to make a bit of extra cash before Christmas then the whole premise collapses.

A stormy time for the news

The impact of Hurricane Sandy has thrown up more than just chaos in America. While houses are being ripped up, Wall Street shut down, power outages and lives lost something far more important seems to have gripped the minds of a rather substantial amount of news agencies and bloggers, the cause of the storm.

While it may come as a surprise to many people it would appear that Hurricane Sandy is not, as may have been foolishly  thought, a natural meteorological event. Instead it is in fact anything from the wrath of a vengeful god, a callous campaign stunt from President Obama or alien intervention.

For the most part we are all aware of the rants which some conspiracy theorists come out and have become inculcated against. As such it is reasonably safe to assume that the views of Pastor John McTernan, who argued that the storm was a punishment from a divine being for America allowing homosexual marriage, or that the storm itself was foretold by little green men from a galaxy far far away (and not as suspected at Disney studios) would be dismissed as ever so much rot.

When the conspiracy ideas start to form in relation to President Obama or the American elections the sheer weight of people jumping on the bandwagon has to make people start to wonder about the sanity of those people allowed to report on the news.

Articles accusing Obama of orchestrating the storm via a genuine scientific experiment the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP) caught the attention of people shortly before certain rather right wing republican news organisations started to accuse the President’s administration of using the storm to hide bad news, cover up employment figures, postpone the election or in one case create some form of dictatorship.

When the religious and political right start to use a natural event to help them spout ideas of a vengeful god, intolerance and bigotry, hatred and just plain stupidity, then the news and those who write and broadcast it must step back and question where it has all gone wrong.

Hurricane Sandy is obviously a huge story. As with any big story the challenge is finding a new angle, something to capture people’s attention and beat out the competition. When news agencies resort to publicising the rants of the mentally ill and delusional though they degrade the integrity of journalism and diminish the true impact of the hurricane on the lives of innocent people. Conspiracy theories can be fun to read but at the end of the day they are not news and must never be treated as though they are or else the real news will be lost in the maelstrom.

 

The eternal question, how could it happen?

As shocking stories go the continually evolving news about Jimmy Saville has to beat most. I find myself drawn to having to comment on the case, particularly as it is escalating beyond anything anyone could ever have imagined.

Normally I would try and step aside from any article which deals with anything other than cold hard facts. It is one thing to espouse my opinions but at least when I am writing about my usual fair I know that people will normally have the sense to ensure that the facts are correct. When dealing with a topic such as Jimmy Saville, however, it will always be hard to establish what all the facts are though. His death has robbed people of a final reckoning. Too many questions left unanswered, too many lives wrecked and no conclusive ending to the whole debacle.

With what is coming to the fore at the moment it would appear from the media that Saville was one of, if not the, most prolific sex offenders to have ever lived. Unfortunately we will never know the true extent of what he did. We will have no trial, other than that by public opinion and media, to get the facts out in the open.

United Kingdom Justice Secretary Chris Grayling warned of the risks of such a trial by media when saying on the British Sunday morning current affairs programme the Andrew Marr Show that while what had happened was "horrendous" it was important not to "rush into a judge-led inquiry," arguing it would take "much longer to get to the truth".

It is perhaps for this reason that those who can still face the music are being hunted so diligently by the authorities. When police sources announced that "officers working on Operation Yewtree have arrested a man in his 60s in connection with the investigation...The individual falls under the strand of the investigation we have termed 'Savile and others',” it wasn’t much of a surprise that it was Paul Gadd, Gary Glitter for those who really care.

Saville escaped justice by shear dint of dying, in his wake he left shattered lives, not just those who suffered at his hands but those who put their faith in him, those who worked for his charities, those who relied upon his good name to help them continue. He duped the world, not just those who were subjected to his depravations. The world now wants blood and they will get it in the shape of those who helped him and even more from those who shared with him. Arresting Gadd/Glitter is just the start but at least it is a start.

One of the argument’s being spouted as to how the affair was covered up for so long has been that they were different times, different ethics, certain things weren’t talked about. That may have been true four decades ago when Saville started but it does not excuse it, nor does it explain how it continued for so long into an era when it wasn’t tolerated anymore. Those in the “others” section should start feeling a bit uneasy as Yewtree continues, the public will start to bay for blood and the courts will start to deliver justice where it can be delivered. So long as these things happen then as hard as it may be the media must deliver only the truth and only the facts.

 

Back to basics, finding the truth

When I started writing this blog the idea was that it would give a different analysis of the top news stories. The principle of good journalism should, must, be to provide people with all of the facts so that they are able to have the tools they need to form their own judgements.

While journalists can have their own opinions it is a crucial part of the job that they must not allow those opinions to colour a story. The reality of the situation is somewhat different, as reality tends tp be when put up against an ideal. The very best journalism should engage the reader, it should make people want to learn more and read further. Without putting something extra into an article, without putting something of ourselves into it then why should the reader engage with it?

The key is that when we do write with passion we do not allow our judgement to be clouded. The facts must still be reported fairly and accurately, the angles must all be covered, the information must be gained ethically and the article itself must be in the publics’ best interest.

Blogging, and the hypocrisy of my nest statement is far from lost on me, has opened up an arena whereby anyone with an opinion can publish it as news, it has taken away the professionalism of journalism and removed the objectivity. That was why I decided that this blog would provide a different approach. It would be an objective approach to news analysis. In time it may even be a source of unbiased and fair reporting.

After a couple of blogs, however, I have realised that it is something else, it is a place where the top stories of the day can be simplified, explained and treated to an analytical approach which provides the reader with a way in which they can find their own angles to the story. If it achieves anything it should be that it encourages people to look at articles in a different way and conduct their own reading to ensure that they are being given all of the facts.

A perfect example of this today has been the news released by the Office of National Statistics. Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osbourne will be slapping  themselves on the back for being so clever in solving the country’s economic woes. After his “good news” slip up yesterday Mr Cameron must be feeling rather pleased that the good news has eclipsed the slip, something which there was distinct risk that it may not do.

Despite the potential for jubiliation, however, the story must also be tempered by reality. Once again the story has different angles from which it can be approached. Some could say that it is superb news and shows that the coalitions policies are having the desired effect, some could argue that it is inflated due to the Olympics, others that it is unreliable as data from the eurozone is giving the pound a false sense of security. 

Even George Osbourne has signalled a note of warning: "There is still a long way to go, but these figures show we are on the right track. Yesterday's weak data from the eurozone were a reminder that we still face many economic challenges at home and abroad."

The outlook could be many things, the key is looking at all the data, from different sources, and coming up with your own conclusion.

 

The press' whipping boy

If the recent resignation of Conservative Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell has demonstrated anything it is that the power of the press is stronger than it ever was. Unfortunately in this case it was also shown that the power which it wields can easily be subverted to suit the purposes of interest groups and lobbyists.

Andrew Mitchell’s resignation was not forced because of anything he may, or may not have said, to police officers. It was forced through a determined effort by the police federation, the press and MP’s, both opposition and from his own party. At most his comments, if they were said, merited a disciplining by the Prime Minister not resignation.

The whole situation has weakened not just the coalition government but David Cameron’s own position as Prime Minister. By exposing the Prime Minister’s key weakness, bowing to the pressure of the press, he has irredeemably opened himself and his government up to attacks from every interest group, union and protest movement who may disagree with a policy.

What has also not been stated clearly enough during this whole sorry saga in British governance is that the issue has never really been about his use of the word pleb. As insults go it is fairly tame, particularly when Mr Mitchell freely admits and apologises for using the F word in anger at the officers in question. The whole issue is one of class, or the perception thereof. 

Perhaps this is why it has grabbed the attention of the press so much. The poor downtrodden masses being once again walked over by the arrogant elite was always guaranteed to get some coverage.

The sad fact is that the coalition government has continually demonstrated far more newsworthy levels of ineptitude, as has the opposition in the interests of objectivity. Until the papers picked up on the word pleb it wouldn’t have crossed the mind of many for any other reason than being an anachronistic word with little to no relevance anymore.  Reporting the hard facts, however, and attempting to find relevant news stories is far harder, and seemingly therefore less important, than playing on outmoded concepts of class.

George Osborne’s mistimed train ticket fiasco has if anything highlighted just how class orientated the press is becoming in regards to the articles which they are running. The fact that a government minister failed to purchase the correct ticket should if anything demonstrate that he is just like the vast majority of the so called plebs who the papers are sticking up for, rather than being a elitist who feels that he is above the rules of the little people.

We are no longer living in an era where the class which you are born into determines the rest of your life. We live in world where anyone can make anything of themselves which they wish, provided that they are willing to put the work in to do it. The class system in the UK is not about holding people back, it is about giving them a reason to fight and strive to improve their lot in life.