This is Part Seven of, Complaints about, Criticism of, and Suggestions to, the PCC.
In three different letters to me from PCC officials they each referred, in some way, to me rejecting an offer of an apology. At no stage did I reject such an offer, when, finally the Editor offered an apology he used the exact words that I had suggested, these words were couched in as mild a way as I could think of, they were as given in his second email of 18 October 2007 and were, I quote,"We are sorry for any worry this error may have caused the author". The only part of the offer I rejected was the part that offered to publish The Ice Canyon, part of my comment on that part of the offer was that it was ludicrous, at another stage I might have said it was perverse. Any fair minded person who had all of the facts at their disposal would, I am sure, agree with me.
Such an offer was certainly not "In the spirit of the Code". Some of the PCC's secretariat must have been aware of the facts, I wonder if the Commission Members were when they judged my case?
The following lines are from letters sent to me by the PCC office and administration staff handling my complaint, some of them have been mentioned previously.
A "I must now consider this correspondence closed"
B " I have now examined the file of your complaint. The Commission will not be revisiting it further"
C " ----- I should tell you that this letter will mark the end of the correspondence from the PCC ----- "
D "It is not for me to answer questions about the details of your correspondence with the Secretariat"
How does one reconcile these statements with the PCC's aim of Fair?
In one letter a senior PCC official referred to the "protracted correspondence", to the best of my knowledge no mention of the length of the correspondence was made to the Editor. It should be firmly borne in mind that it took the Editor some 54 days to, sort of, acknowledge the inaccuracy, and about 72 days to offer any form of regret, these periods being totally at variance with the time allowed in the Code.
One part of the Code reads "It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit". In my opinion the Editor's stance was defensive in his first letter to me and this attitude persisted for 70 odd days until he used the word sorry.
Also in my opinion "in the full spirit" just has to include the moral aspects of a case. The review was sarcastic, and had a certain tenor to it which the inaccuracy fully supported. The Editor sang the praises of the man who wrote the review, quote, "I have no reason to doubt the integrity of his report". This in spite of the major inaccuracy.
Returning again to the "amalgamated" email, I think that displayed lack of the total rigour that should be expected from a body charged with the self regulation of an industry. From the various letters to me about that matter I am forced to accept the feeling that this lack of rigour was condoned by members of the secretariat whose opinion was sought. It is interesting to quote from the Code " ----- sets the benchmark for those ethical standards ----- " I venture to suggest that amalgamating two important emails into one, without notifying the person who had to read it, did not meet any ethical standard.
On page three of the PCC booklet "How to Complain" a paragraph ends with " You will be sent copies of all relevant documents" I did not receive copies of all relevant documents until asking for them after the decision had been made on my complaint. At the time I was trying very hard to become acquainted with anything that pertained to my complaint as I just could not, even remotely, understand how the Commission came to their decision. A clear cut inaccuracy had occurred, the Editor was not required by the PCC to do anything about it and, to the best of my knowledge, has done nothing about it. I would like a proponent of self regulation to explain to me why it should be supported. A paper prints a major inaccuracy, it is pointed out to them, they, without delay, admit the error by post to the complainant and in the next edition a correction is printed. What could be simpler than that? Basically that is what the Code wants.
Regarding the decision I assumed, incorrectly, that Commission Members would sit round a table and discuss my complaint. I found out subsequently that my case was considered by Members individually, presumably mainly by post or telephone. I understand that they are presented with a draft resolution prepared by the office. I had occasion to comment on how the decision was presented to me, for example it was not dated or signed. Later I was informed that the office drafted the wording for the decision. The office also decide if sufficient cause is raised to warrant the case being judged again, it is quite clear that the office wields a lot of power. It should have been enough power for them, the office, to have required the Editor to publish a simple correction in the next edition of his paper. That would have saved, say, ninety percent of the subsequent protracted correspondence, would have followed the Code, would have enhanced the standing of the PCC in my eyes and would have been a perfect example of their often repeated claim regarding the effectiveness of the self regulation of the publishing industry. It would certainly have saved me a great amount of time as well as saving me and my close family a great deal of worry. Would any member of the PCC like to point out, to me, the harm that could have been caused by them requiring the Editor to print a simple correction without delay?
This is the action specified in the Code. I cannot think of any great harm to anyone.
Some suggestions for the PCC to consider.
Agree to be bound by the Freedom of Information Act.
Agree to the appointment of an Ombudsman
Supply all parties to a complaint with copies of all documents, and transcripts of any conversations concerning the complaint.
Require any party connected with the complaint to immediately comply with any provision in the Code pointed out to them, clarified if necessary, by the PCC.
Immediately launch a nation wide enquiry as to what members of the public find offensive, or unworthy of publication in the nation's newspapers and magazines. If there is overwhelming evidence that changes are needed then the PCC, without reference to the people who are paying them, should incorporate these changes, government permitting, into the Code.
If there is not one already take steps to have a legally enforceable "Right of Reply" created.
These suggestions, and possibly others, if implemented, should go a long way towards
giving credence to the PCC's assertions regarding the effectiveness of self regulation. They should also go a long way towards making the UK's publishing industry an example, not only for the world, but also as a step forward in establishing what is, in general terms, acceptable behaviour among our population.
This seven part blog on the PCC is now concluded.
Frederick W Gilling Friday 27 November 2009
Friday 27 November 2009
Wednesday 25 November 2009
Complaint ABOUT the Press Complaints Commission
This is Part Six of, Complaints about, Criticism of, and Suggestions to, the PCC.
20/ As explained in the previous blog I was looking at events of 18 October from the perspective of different viewpoints dependent on information supplied at later dates. This is from perspective C which arose from new information supplied to me on 06 February 2008 by the Assistant Director of the PCC. As a consequence of that information I was in the position of being able to put the events of that critical day in the correct chronological order.
Firstly the Complaints Officer appointed to handle my complaint received an email from the Editor "sent Thu 18/10/2007 at 11:41", this email was in fact addressed to another PCC staff member who had written to the Editor while the Complaints Officer was on leave.
The essential part of this email from the Editor read; "I am unwilling to offer anything further to the suggestions I made to [name supplied] in my email dated 02 October 2007 and would welcome you asking the Commission to come to a view on the complaint". I note that those suggestions did not specifically acknowledge the inaccuracy and had no mention of regret.
The Complaints Officer then composed and sent off the "intervening" email to the Editor. This was timed at 14:50 and I quote from it; "I appreciate that you are not willing to offer anything further on this matter, and will of course put this case before the Commission for its view.
Before I do so however, I wonder whether you might be willing to outline the wording of the correction that you are willing to offer, in order that the complainant, and of course the Commission, are aware of the exact terms of your offer"
I note that the words quoted above infer that the exact terms of the offer on which the Editor was "unwilling to offer anything further" were not known. I also note that the Complaints Officer had told him, "I appreciate that you are not willing to offer anything further on this matter, and ----- "
At 16:53 the Editor emailed his reply to the Complaints Officer's "intervening" email, I quote parts of this letter:
"The wording of the correction I am prepared to offer would be on the lines of ----- "
" ----- incorrectly stated that the longest story ----- "
"We are sorry for any worry this may have caused the author"
This was the first direct admission of the inaccuracy and the first mention of any form of regret.
In general this was a drastic departure from his offer of 02 October and from his statement in his first email that morning. This I venture to think was due to the intervening email from the Complaints Officer.
The Complaints Officer then amalgamated the two letters from the Editor into one, addressed specifically to her, even though the first one had been addressed to another person. I fail completely to see any reason to amalgamate two emails, particularly the two mentioned and even more particularly because the second one was prompted by an intervening email, of which I knew nothing. The three emails were heavily inter related and should have been presented as separate entities.
At some time shortly after receiving the amalgamated email, and before I had been told that it was an amalgamation of two emails, I marked two places on it and wrote on it in red ink "this is one offer and this is another". I would not have known anything about the two letters being amalgamated unless I had queried the plural implied by the use of the word emails and as I composed and typed these last words I had the thought, "and I wonder who else knew about them"? Did the Complaints Officer talk about what she had done or was about to do? And yet another thought "were the Commission Members told that it was an amalgamated letter"? If, that is, it was presented to them, or for that matter if any part of it was quoted by the Complaints Officer in support of a draft resolution to my complaint
Even when writing to me, on 10 December 2007, and telling me that there were two emails from the Editor on 18 October, she did not send me copies of the individual letters, nor indeed mention her intervening letter.
Another point that worried me, and still does, concerns a phone conversation between the Complaints Officer and the Editor, in respect of this I quote from a letter from the Complaints Officer to me dated 22 November 2007; "I have had one conversation with [name given] about this case. It took place on 25 September, and [name given] indicated his intentions to revise his offer to the terms set out in his email of 2 October"
On 24 November I wrote and asked "Am I right in assuming that the conversation was on a telephone and that the call had been initiated by [Editor named]"? This question was answered on 27 November by the Complaints Officer as follows, "You are correct in your assumption that the conversation was by telephone. From my recollection, the conversation was initiated by
Mr[Editor named]".
The last paragraph of this letter to me, from the Complaints Officer, finished with the sentence
"I must now consider this correspondence closed".
The situation had developed that answers to questions that I had asked just raised more questions. The answer to the question about the conversation did just that, and in my mind I feel certain that aspect of establishing the facts about the phone call have not been answered. At that particular point in time I cannot think of a reason for the Editor to phone the Complaints Officer but I can think of a reason for her to phone him, which could well be to do with the PCC's aim of "fast" Later a copy of the Complaints Officer's jotted down notes regarding the phone call was sent to me, they were very brief and not easy to read.
It is a source of amazement to me that several senior members of the PCC secretariat, including the Independent Charter Commissioner, could not fault the way my case had been handled.
The Complaints Officer amalgamated two critical email into one and did not mention it to me, she also cannot recall exactly who initiated a phone call, did not later send me copies of the two emails that she had amalgamated, did not tell me about her "intervening" email and accidentally omitted to send me a copy of it. I have already mentioned what I term grey areas in one letter, I have no reason to withdraw that statement, and will add to it by stating the thought that at least two of her letters were potential minefields to me, this is not to say they were intended to be but that is how I came to view them.
Before closing this part of my blog on the PCC I wish to record my appreciation of the letter, written to me on 06 February 2008, by the Assistant Director in charge of the Complaints Department. He supplied the information and copies of documents that filled in gaps in my knowledge. However I wish to comment on several aspects of his letter, part of which read "I should tell you that this letter will mark the end of the correspondence from the PCC".
Another part, about the accidental omission on the part of the Complaints Officer concerned to send me her intervening email then went on; "I think this may be the root cause of the confusion on this. I therefore enclose that email also. I hope that you accept this as the final word on the matter, and recognise that there was - clearly - nothing suspicious or untoward going on." My comment on this after all, hopefully, of the facts eventually became known to me is that if it was clear that nothing untoward was going on why comment on it?. If amalgamating two critical emails into one and not telling the complainant about it is par for the course among the PCC secretariat then I think that is untoward. It is also untoward, in my opinion, not to let me know on exactly what information the Commission judged my case.
I will comment on the part of the Assistant Director's letter to do with my alledged refusal of an offer of apology in the next part of this blog.
This blog on the PCC will be concluded in Part Seven.
Frederick W Gilling 26 November 2009
20/ As explained in the previous blog I was looking at events of 18 October from the perspective of different viewpoints dependent on information supplied at later dates. This is from perspective C which arose from new information supplied to me on 06 February 2008 by the Assistant Director of the PCC. As a consequence of that information I was in the position of being able to put the events of that critical day in the correct chronological order.
Firstly the Complaints Officer appointed to handle my complaint received an email from the Editor "sent Thu 18/10/2007 at 11:41", this email was in fact addressed to another PCC staff member who had written to the Editor while the Complaints Officer was on leave.
The essential part of this email from the Editor read; "I am unwilling to offer anything further to the suggestions I made to [name supplied] in my email dated 02 October 2007 and would welcome you asking the Commission to come to a view on the complaint". I note that those suggestions did not specifically acknowledge the inaccuracy and had no mention of regret.
The Complaints Officer then composed and sent off the "intervening" email to the Editor. This was timed at 14:50 and I quote from it; "I appreciate that you are not willing to offer anything further on this matter, and will of course put this case before the Commission for its view.
Before I do so however, I wonder whether you might be willing to outline the wording of the correction that you are willing to offer, in order that the complainant, and of course the Commission, are aware of the exact terms of your offer"
I note that the words quoted above infer that the exact terms of the offer on which the Editor was "unwilling to offer anything further" were not known. I also note that the Complaints Officer had told him, "I appreciate that you are not willing to offer anything further on this matter, and ----- "
At 16:53 the Editor emailed his reply to the Complaints Officer's "intervening" email, I quote parts of this letter:
"The wording of the correction I am prepared to offer would be on the lines of ----- "
" ----- incorrectly stated that the longest story ----- "
"We are sorry for any worry this may have caused the author"
This was the first direct admission of the inaccuracy and the first mention of any form of regret.
In general this was a drastic departure from his offer of 02 October and from his statement in his first email that morning. This I venture to think was due to the intervening email from the Complaints Officer.
The Complaints Officer then amalgamated the two letters from the Editor into one, addressed specifically to her, even though the first one had been addressed to another person. I fail completely to see any reason to amalgamate two emails, particularly the two mentioned and even more particularly because the second one was prompted by an intervening email, of which I knew nothing. The three emails were heavily inter related and should have been presented as separate entities.
At some time shortly after receiving the amalgamated email, and before I had been told that it was an amalgamation of two emails, I marked two places on it and wrote on it in red ink "this is one offer and this is another". I would not have known anything about the two letters being amalgamated unless I had queried the plural implied by the use of the word emails and as I composed and typed these last words I had the thought, "and I wonder who else knew about them"? Did the Complaints Officer talk about what she had done or was about to do? And yet another thought "were the Commission Members told that it was an amalgamated letter"? If, that is, it was presented to them, or for that matter if any part of it was quoted by the Complaints Officer in support of a draft resolution to my complaint
Even when writing to me, on 10 December 2007, and telling me that there were two emails from the Editor on 18 October, she did not send me copies of the individual letters, nor indeed mention her intervening letter.
Another point that worried me, and still does, concerns a phone conversation between the Complaints Officer and the Editor, in respect of this I quote from a letter from the Complaints Officer to me dated 22 November 2007; "I have had one conversation with [name given] about this case. It took place on 25 September, and [name given] indicated his intentions to revise his offer to the terms set out in his email of 2 October"
On 24 November I wrote and asked "Am I right in assuming that the conversation was on a telephone and that the call had been initiated by [Editor named]"? This question was answered on 27 November by the Complaints Officer as follows, "You are correct in your assumption that the conversation was by telephone. From my recollection, the conversation was initiated by
Mr[Editor named]".
The last paragraph of this letter to me, from the Complaints Officer, finished with the sentence
"I must now consider this correspondence closed".
The situation had developed that answers to questions that I had asked just raised more questions. The answer to the question about the conversation did just that, and in my mind I feel certain that aspect of establishing the facts about the phone call have not been answered. At that particular point in time I cannot think of a reason for the Editor to phone the Complaints Officer but I can think of a reason for her to phone him, which could well be to do with the PCC's aim of "fast" Later a copy of the Complaints Officer's jotted down notes regarding the phone call was sent to me, they were very brief and not easy to read.
It is a source of amazement to me that several senior members of the PCC secretariat, including the Independent Charter Commissioner, could not fault the way my case had been handled.
The Complaints Officer amalgamated two critical email into one and did not mention it to me, she also cannot recall exactly who initiated a phone call, did not later send me copies of the two emails that she had amalgamated, did not tell me about her "intervening" email and accidentally omitted to send me a copy of it. I have already mentioned what I term grey areas in one letter, I have no reason to withdraw that statement, and will add to it by stating the thought that at least two of her letters were potential minefields to me, this is not to say they were intended to be but that is how I came to view them.
Before closing this part of my blog on the PCC I wish to record my appreciation of the letter, written to me on 06 February 2008, by the Assistant Director in charge of the Complaints Department. He supplied the information and copies of documents that filled in gaps in my knowledge. However I wish to comment on several aspects of his letter, part of which read "I should tell you that this letter will mark the end of the correspondence from the PCC".
Another part, about the accidental omission on the part of the Complaints Officer concerned to send me her intervening email then went on; "I think this may be the root cause of the confusion on this. I therefore enclose that email also. I hope that you accept this as the final word on the matter, and recognise that there was - clearly - nothing suspicious or untoward going on." My comment on this after all, hopefully, of the facts eventually became known to me is that if it was clear that nothing untoward was going on why comment on it?. If amalgamating two critical emails into one and not telling the complainant about it is par for the course among the PCC secretariat then I think that is untoward. It is also untoward, in my opinion, not to let me know on exactly what information the Commission judged my case.
I will comment on the part of the Assistant Director's letter to do with my alledged refusal of an offer of apology in the next part of this blog.
This blog on the PCC will be concluded in Part Seven.
Frederick W Gilling 26 November 2009
Monday 23 November 2009
Complaint ABOUT the Press Complaints Commission
This is Part Five of, Complaints about, Criticism of, and Suggestions to,the PCC.
17/ I have stated that I considered the 18 October 2007 to be a critical day in regard to my complaint to the PCC, I will now attempt to justify that belief. With the benefit, again of hindsight, I feel that the events of that day need to be considered from three perspectives, these are:
A/ My feelings and actions prompted by the Complaints Officer's letter to me of that date, 18 October, and a copy of an email, also of that date, from the Editor.
B/ My feelings and actions prompted by the new information that the purported letter, from the Editor, was an amalgamation, by the Complaints Officer, of two emails from the Editor on 18 October. This information was contained in a letter from the Complaints Officer to me on 10 December 2007.
C/ My feelings and thoughts prompted by more new information that, between the two emails from the Editor on 18 October, the Complaints Officer had sent him him an email asking him for an outline of the correction that he was prepared to offer. This information was in a letter to me, dated 06 February 2008, from the Assistant Director of the PCC. This letter also contained copies of the two emails that that Editor had sent to the PCC on 18 October and informed me that the Complaints Officer had accidentally omitted to send a copy of the intervening email to me in her letter of 22 November 2007. A copy of that email was also enclosed.
18/ Dealing with perspective A above.
On 20 October I wrote to the Complaints Officer and replied to her letter of 18 October. This letter to her obviously reflects my feelings from perspective A, I suggested a few minor alterations of the correction regarding the inaccuracy and stated that I was prepared to write a letter of up to 280 words for the paper's Letters page.
I rejected the offer to publish The Ice Canyon and gave my reasons for this. I did not reject any offer of apology. In fact the Editor had more or less used the exact words that I had previously suggested. The words I had used were very low key as, at that time, I was pandering to the Editor's apparent reluctance to admit the inaccuracy or express any regret for it.
19/ Dealing with perspective B above.
On 10 December 2007, long after the Commission's decision had been made, the Complaints Officer, in response to a question I had asked, wrote to me and informed me that the Editor had sent two emails and that she had amalgamated them for convenience. She did not send me copies of the emails but briefly described what was in them.
Naturally I looked at what I had thought to be a letter from the Editor on18 October again, as well as looking at her covering letter of that date. As there was no indication in that letter that she had amalgamated two emails from the Editor into one I was puzzled as to why the purported email looked as it did, that is to say there was nothing on it to indicate that it was not what it seemed to be. The more I thought about the amalgamated email the more I thought that it could be regarded as a forgery. I have recently looked at some information that sought to explain the use of the word forgery, one of the words used was deceit. The Complaints
Officer had stated that the amalgamation was for convenience, she reproduced some of the amalgamated email in her covering letter for ease of reference. In a subsequent written comment on this to a senior member of the PCC I asked what could be easier than pressing a few keys and letting a machine print copies.
The amalgamated email certainly deceived me into thinking that it was a genuine email but, at the time, I did note that it links two different offers on two different days into one, it also contains the first direct admission of the inaccuracy and the first indication whatsoever of any regret. The Complaints Officer had stated that the amalgamation was for convenience, this reason, one must accept, but accepting it does not rule out the possibility that it can also deceive.
As I have previously mentioned I would like to know exactly what the Complaints Officer put to Commission Members as a draft resolution to my complaint. If the amalgamated email had been presented to them then it could well have deceived them, particularly if they thought all of the offers had been made on 02 October.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Six.
Frederick W Gilling 24 November 2009
17/ I have stated that I considered the 18 October 2007 to be a critical day in regard to my complaint to the PCC, I will now attempt to justify that belief. With the benefit, again of hindsight, I feel that the events of that day need to be considered from three perspectives, these are:
A/ My feelings and actions prompted by the Complaints Officer's letter to me of that date, 18 October, and a copy of an email, also of that date, from the Editor.
B/ My feelings and actions prompted by the new information that the purported letter, from the Editor, was an amalgamation, by the Complaints Officer, of two emails from the Editor on 18 October. This information was contained in a letter from the Complaints Officer to me on 10 December 2007.
C/ My feelings and thoughts prompted by more new information that, between the two emails from the Editor on 18 October, the Complaints Officer had sent him him an email asking him for an outline of the correction that he was prepared to offer. This information was in a letter to me, dated 06 February 2008, from the Assistant Director of the PCC. This letter also contained copies of the two emails that that Editor had sent to the PCC on 18 October and informed me that the Complaints Officer had accidentally omitted to send a copy of the intervening email to me in her letter of 22 November 2007. A copy of that email was also enclosed.
18/ Dealing with perspective A above.
On 20 October I wrote to the Complaints Officer and replied to her letter of 18 October. This letter to her obviously reflects my feelings from perspective A, I suggested a few minor alterations of the correction regarding the inaccuracy and stated that I was prepared to write a letter of up to 280 words for the paper's Letters page.
I rejected the offer to publish The Ice Canyon and gave my reasons for this. I did not reject any offer of apology. In fact the Editor had more or less used the exact words that I had previously suggested. The words I had used were very low key as, at that time, I was pandering to the Editor's apparent reluctance to admit the inaccuracy or express any regret for it.
19/ Dealing with perspective B above.
On 10 December 2007, long after the Commission's decision had been made, the Complaints Officer, in response to a question I had asked, wrote to me and informed me that the Editor had sent two emails and that she had amalgamated them for convenience. She did not send me copies of the emails but briefly described what was in them.
Naturally I looked at what I had thought to be a letter from the Editor on18 October again, as well as looking at her covering letter of that date. As there was no indication in that letter that she had amalgamated two emails from the Editor into one I was puzzled as to why the purported email looked as it did, that is to say there was nothing on it to indicate that it was not what it seemed to be. The more I thought about the amalgamated email the more I thought that it could be regarded as a forgery. I have recently looked at some information that sought to explain the use of the word forgery, one of the words used was deceit. The Complaints
Officer had stated that the amalgamation was for convenience, she reproduced some of the amalgamated email in her covering letter for ease of reference. In a subsequent written comment on this to a senior member of the PCC I asked what could be easier than pressing a few keys and letting a machine print copies.
The amalgamated email certainly deceived me into thinking that it was a genuine email but, at the time, I did note that it links two different offers on two different days into one, it also contains the first direct admission of the inaccuracy and the first indication whatsoever of any regret. The Complaints Officer had stated that the amalgamation was for convenience, this reason, one must accept, but accepting it does not rule out the possibility that it can also deceive.
As I have previously mentioned I would like to know exactly what the Complaints Officer put to Commission Members as a draft resolution to my complaint. If the amalgamated email had been presented to them then it could well have deceived them, particularly if they thought all of the offers had been made on 02 October.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Six.
Frederick W Gilling 24 November 2009
Sunday 22 November 2009
Complaint ABOUT thr Press Complaints Commission.
This is Part Four of, Complaints about, Criticism of, and Suggestions to, the PCC.
13/ The next letter from the Complaints Officer to me was dated 02 October 2007, enclosed with her letter was a copy of a letter from the Editor. I have read that letter from the Complaints Officer many times, she reproduced much of the Editor's letter, one can pick large holes in her letter and I came to regard it as virtually an ultimatum to me, "Accept the Editor's offer or it will go to the Commission". I quote the first two lines of the penultimate paragraph of her letter;
"Should you not be willing to accept the newspaper's offer, I think the next step would be to put this matter to the Commission for its view". Kindly note I was not given the opportunity to comment on the Editor's new offer or on her letter.
The Editor's offers was different to his first offers, there was no direct admission in regard to the inaccuracy and no suggestion of an apology. Part of the Editor's offer could, I think, be considered to be approaching perverse. I replied with regard to the Editor's new offers.
14/ The next letter to me from the PCC, dated 09 October 2007, was from a different Complaints Officer, as the one dealing with my complaint was on annual leave. The letter listed her view as to the points raised in my letter and stated that she was happy to ask the newspaper for its response to the issues I had raised.
15/ The next letter to me from the PCC was dated 18 October 2007, it was from the Complaints Officer originally dealing with my complaint as she had returned from leave.
Her letter stated that she had received a further response from the Editor and had enclosed a copy, she also quoted "for ease of reference" five lines from the editor's letter. In these five lines, among other things were words that, for the first time clearly admitted the inaccuracy
and also included the word sorry. At that time I accepted both the Complaints Officer's letter and the copy of the letter from the Editor at face value, this because there was no indication whatsoever that they should not be accepted at face value. However, even at face value there were "grey" areas in the letter from the Complaints Officer.
16/ Much later, after the Commission Members had come to a decision, I queried the word
"emails" used in a letter by the Complaints Officer. The answer to my query clearly showed that neither the letter written by the Complaints Officer nor the "letter" from the Editor could be taken at face value. When I brought my concern about this to the attention of senior members of the PCC Secretariat I used words similar to "lack of rigour", now I think that the more robust word to describe the "purported" letter from the Editor could well be "Forgery". As a result of this I came to view the correspondence on the 18 October as being critical in regard as to how my complaint was handled and, in all probability, judged. I have asked the PPC to let me know exactly what was placed before the Commission Members, by Complaints Officers, to aid them in coming to a decision in regard to my complaint, this was not complied with, so much for their aim of Fairness.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Five.
Frederick W Gilling 22 November 2009.
13/ The next letter from the Complaints Officer to me was dated 02 October 2007, enclosed with her letter was a copy of a letter from the Editor. I have read that letter from the Complaints Officer many times, she reproduced much of the Editor's letter, one can pick large holes in her letter and I came to regard it as virtually an ultimatum to me, "Accept the Editor's offer or it will go to the Commission". I quote the first two lines of the penultimate paragraph of her letter;
"Should you not be willing to accept the newspaper's offer, I think the next step would be to put this matter to the Commission for its view". Kindly note I was not given the opportunity to comment on the Editor's new offer or on her letter.
The Editor's offers was different to his first offers, there was no direct admission in regard to the inaccuracy and no suggestion of an apology. Part of the Editor's offer could, I think, be considered to be approaching perverse. I replied with regard to the Editor's new offers.
14/ The next letter to me from the PCC, dated 09 October 2007, was from a different Complaints Officer, as the one dealing with my complaint was on annual leave. The letter listed her view as to the points raised in my letter and stated that she was happy to ask the newspaper for its response to the issues I had raised.
15/ The next letter to me from the PCC was dated 18 October 2007, it was from the Complaints Officer originally dealing with my complaint as she had returned from leave.
Her letter stated that she had received a further response from the Editor and had enclosed a copy, she also quoted "for ease of reference" five lines from the editor's letter. In these five lines, among other things were words that, for the first time clearly admitted the inaccuracy
and also included the word sorry. At that time I accepted both the Complaints Officer's letter and the copy of the letter from the Editor at face value, this because there was no indication whatsoever that they should not be accepted at face value. However, even at face value there were "grey" areas in the letter from the Complaints Officer.
16/ Much later, after the Commission Members had come to a decision, I queried the word
"emails" used in a letter by the Complaints Officer. The answer to my query clearly showed that neither the letter written by the Complaints Officer nor the "letter" from the Editor could be taken at face value. When I brought my concern about this to the attention of senior members of the PCC Secretariat I used words similar to "lack of rigour", now I think that the more robust word to describe the "purported" letter from the Editor could well be "Forgery". As a result of this I came to view the correspondence on the 18 October as being critical in regard as to how my complaint was handled and, in all probability, judged. I have asked the PPC to let me know exactly what was placed before the Commission Members, by Complaints Officers, to aid them in coming to a decision in regard to my complaint, this was not complied with, so much for their aim of Fairness.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Five.
Frederick W Gilling 22 November 2009.
Friday 20 November 2009
Complaint ABOUT Press Complaints Commission
This is Part Three of, Complaints about, Criticism of, and Suggestions to, the PCC.
11/ Following the first "standard" letter from the PCC, with the two booklets and an explanation of how my case would be handled, I received a letter dated 13 September 2007 from a member of their staff which told me the writer would be dealing with my complaint, and that a copy of my letter had been sent to the newspaper. I subsequently became aware that the writer's title, as it were, was Complaints Officer, I will therefore refer to such members of the PCC Secretariat as Complaints Officers.
12/ My next letter from the Complaints Officer was written on 20 September 2007. Looking at the letter sometime later, when I had obviously developed a critical "mindset", I had the thought that her letter, which summed up the Editor's reply and the offers in it, would look very good on file. One reason for this is that the Editor had qualified his offers by writing "However, if there is an inaccuracy ------ " In fact some 44 days after being notified of the inaccuracy the Editor had not admitted that there was an inaccuracy. The Complaints Officer had not commented on that proviso in her covering letter. I quote the penultimate paragraph of her letter and then comment on it.
"As you may be aware, one additional benefit of the resolution of a complaint is that we would publish a summary of the case - with a wording to be agreed by you - on our website and in our biannual report. This will, importantly, act as a public record of the concerns you have raised and the action required of the newspaper." Reference was made to this point in subsequent letters. As, in the end, my complaint by their rules presumably, was not resolved and so I was denied any pleasure or satisfaction that may have provided. To the best of my knowledge the PCC did not require any action from the newspaper, this in spite of the fact that on at least one count, possibly two, their Code had been ignored by the Editor. I pointed out this transgression of their Code to the PCC.
12/ Having read the Complaints Officer's covering letter I then read the enclosed copy of the letter from the Editor. The short second and third paragraphs gave the reviewer praise, mentioned his 40 years of experience and stated that the Editor had no reason to doubt the integrity of [name given]'s review. There was no reference to any explanation from the man who wrote the review as to how he came to create the inaccuracy, or for any regret on his part for it. There was, also, no suggestion of any regret in the Editor's reply.
I found part of the fourth paragraph surprising, " ----- in fact readers who do not like [name given]'s reviews may well buy a copy on the basis that if he does not like it, they probably will. Criticism works that way." This was another example of the Editor's totally defensive attitude, there was an inaccuracy why not simply admit it ? Further to that why did the PCC not tell him to admit it?
The last paragraph of the Editor's reply starts "However, if there is an inaccuracy ----- "
The word "if" really annoyed me and the case moved on. Again, with hindsight, IF I had ignored the "IF" in the Editor's letter and taken up his offers at face value my case may have been resolved at that point. However I wrote a long reply to the Editor's letter and the opportunity had passed.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Four.
Frederick W Gilling Friday 20 November 2009
11/ Following the first "standard" letter from the PCC, with the two booklets and an explanation of how my case would be handled, I received a letter dated 13 September 2007 from a member of their staff which told me the writer would be dealing with my complaint, and that a copy of my letter had been sent to the newspaper. I subsequently became aware that the writer's title, as it were, was Complaints Officer, I will therefore refer to such members of the PCC Secretariat as Complaints Officers.
12/ My next letter from the Complaints Officer was written on 20 September 2007. Looking at the letter sometime later, when I had obviously developed a critical "mindset", I had the thought that her letter, which summed up the Editor's reply and the offers in it, would look very good on file. One reason for this is that the Editor had qualified his offers by writing "However, if there is an inaccuracy ------ " In fact some 44 days after being notified of the inaccuracy the Editor had not admitted that there was an inaccuracy. The Complaints Officer had not commented on that proviso in her covering letter. I quote the penultimate paragraph of her letter and then comment on it.
"As you may be aware, one additional benefit of the resolution of a complaint is that we would publish a summary of the case - with a wording to be agreed by you - on our website and in our biannual report. This will, importantly, act as a public record of the concerns you have raised and the action required of the newspaper." Reference was made to this point in subsequent letters. As, in the end, my complaint by their rules presumably, was not resolved and so I was denied any pleasure or satisfaction that may have provided. To the best of my knowledge the PCC did not require any action from the newspaper, this in spite of the fact that on at least one count, possibly two, their Code had been ignored by the Editor. I pointed out this transgression of their Code to the PCC.
12/ Having read the Complaints Officer's covering letter I then read the enclosed copy of the letter from the Editor. The short second and third paragraphs gave the reviewer praise, mentioned his 40 years of experience and stated that the Editor had no reason to doubt the integrity of [name given]'s review. There was no reference to any explanation from the man who wrote the review as to how he came to create the inaccuracy, or for any regret on his part for it. There was, also, no suggestion of any regret in the Editor's reply.
I found part of the fourth paragraph surprising, " ----- in fact readers who do not like [name given]'s reviews may well buy a copy on the basis that if he does not like it, they probably will. Criticism works that way." This was another example of the Editor's totally defensive attitude, there was an inaccuracy why not simply admit it ? Further to that why did the PCC not tell him to admit it?
The last paragraph of the Editor's reply starts "However, if there is an inaccuracy ----- "
The word "if" really annoyed me and the case moved on. Again, with hindsight, IF I had ignored the "IF" in the Editor's letter and taken up his offers at face value my case may have been resolved at that point. However I wrote a long reply to the Editor's letter and the opportunity had passed.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Four.
Frederick W Gilling Friday 20 November 2009
Monday 16 November 2009
Complaint ABOUT Press Complaints Commission.
This Is Part Two of, Complaints about, Criticisms of, and Suggestions to, the PCC.
9/ Initially I was extremely impressed with the organisation of the PCC. They sent me two booklets, these being their "Code of Practice" and "How to Complain". As it happened I had, in modern parlance, ticked all of the right boxes in putting my complaint to them. I note that on the cover of each of these booklets, in the bottom right hand corner, is what may be termed an "icon". Representing their avowed aims are the words "fast free fair". This same "icon" also appears in the bottom right hand corner of their headed paper.
In the course of time, as my complaint was dealt with, I became increasingly cynical about what they considered to be fair and also had cause to assess the aim fast.
Much later I chanced on literature they published in connection with appointing new Commissioners, that literature gave me a great deal of information as to how the PCC functioned.
10/ The PCC's first letter to me, dated 12 September 2007 may well have been their "standard" reply. Re- reading it, with the benefit of hindsight, I will comment on two aspects that, I feel, need mentioning. Firstly, paragraph two reads "Your complaint will now be assessed as to whether it requires investigation under the Code. If this appears to be the case we will ask the editor to deal with your complaint". My comments on this paragraph follow.
Bearing in mind the PCC's aim of fast it should have taken about thirty minutes to assess the
crystal clear evidence that there was a significant inaccuracy and that the Editor needed to obey the Code. The PCC should have "required" him to publish a correction in the next issue of his paper. That could well have ended the matter very quickly in compliance with their aim of fast. A simple apology would not have been out of place.
Secondly, later in the initial letter from the PCC to me the following sentence appears. "As part of a full and fair investigation we must ensure that each party to a complaint is able to see and comment upon what the other has to say". My comment on this is that each party should also "see" what the PCC has written to the other party and what exactly the PCC staff put before the Commissioners as an aid to them coming to a decision. Further "seeing" should include an exact transcript of any phone calls in connection with the complaint, in fact all concerned with the complaint should be able to "see" anything to do with the complaint, that would be fair.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Three.
Frederick W Gilling Tuesday 17 Novemer 2009.
9/ Initially I was extremely impressed with the organisation of the PCC. They sent me two booklets, these being their "Code of Practice" and "How to Complain". As it happened I had, in modern parlance, ticked all of the right boxes in putting my complaint to them. I note that on the cover of each of these booklets, in the bottom right hand corner, is what may be termed an "icon". Representing their avowed aims are the words "fast free fair". This same "icon" also appears in the bottom right hand corner of their headed paper.
In the course of time, as my complaint was dealt with, I became increasingly cynical about what they considered to be fair and also had cause to assess the aim fast.
Much later I chanced on literature they published in connection with appointing new Commissioners, that literature gave me a great deal of information as to how the PCC functioned.
10/ The PCC's first letter to me, dated 12 September 2007 may well have been their "standard" reply. Re- reading it, with the benefit of hindsight, I will comment on two aspects that, I feel, need mentioning. Firstly, paragraph two reads "Your complaint will now be assessed as to whether it requires investigation under the Code. If this appears to be the case we will ask the editor to deal with your complaint". My comments on this paragraph follow.
Bearing in mind the PCC's aim of fast it should have taken about thirty minutes to assess the
crystal clear evidence that there was a significant inaccuracy and that the Editor needed to obey the Code. The PCC should have "required" him to publish a correction in the next issue of his paper. That could well have ended the matter very quickly in compliance with their aim of fast. A simple apology would not have been out of place.
Secondly, later in the initial letter from the PCC to me the following sentence appears. "As part of a full and fair investigation we must ensure that each party to a complaint is able to see and comment upon what the other has to say". My comment on this is that each party should also "see" what the PCC has written to the other party and what exactly the PCC staff put before the Commissioners as an aid to them coming to a decision. Further "seeing" should include an exact transcript of any phone calls in connection with the complaint, in fact all concerned with the complaint should be able to "see" anything to do with the complaint, that would be fair.
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Three.
Frederick W Gilling Tuesday 17 Novemer 2009.
Friday 13 November 2009
Complaint ABOUT the Press Complaints Commission
This is Part One of, Complaints about, Criticism of, and Suggestions to, the PCC.
I have touched on this in a previous blog and will now deal with the matter in more detail.
The main reason for this is that I have a deep, and lasting, feeling of injustice in regard to a decision that the PCC came to. This was in connection with a complaint from me about an inaccuracy in a review of a book of short stories that I had written. Large parts of this blog will be in point form in the interest of brevity.
1/ I had written, and "self published", a book of short stories.
2/ I submitted the book, by hand with a covering letter, to the office of a West Sussex weekly newspaper.
3/ In the issue of 02 August 2007 they published a review of my book. 4/ There was an inaccuracy in the review, in view of the general tenor and sarcastic style of the review which, I think, the inaccuracy fully supported, I considered that it was a major inaccuracy.
5/ On 06 August 2007 I handed a letter to the Editor into the paper's office. This letter gave my feelings about the review, pointed out the inaccuracy and asked him to publish a correction.
6/ On 20 August 2007 I handed another letter to the Editor into the office and, as nothing had been published, I repeated my request for a correction to be published.
7/ On 21 August 2007 I received a letter from the paper, it thanked me for my letter dated August 6, stated, -----The content of your letter is noted ----- and then sang the praises of the man who reviewed the book. I could not make out the signature on the letter but it was qualified by a hand written PP and then, in type, gave the Editor's name and his title Editor.
This reply, dated 20th August 2007 could have been prompted by my letter handed into the office on the same date.
8/ Purely by chance I had seen a reference to the Press Complaints Commission in a free local paper. I wrote to them on Sat. 08 September 2007 and complained about the inaccuracy in the review. I sent them copies of the review and all the letters mentioned above as well as a copy of the book. They had everything that was needed to verify the inaccuracy in the review and to confirm that the newspaper had not corrected the inaccuracy. Let me make that point clear, when the PCC received my complaint the Editor should have known for 27 days that there was an inaccuracy and had not printed a correction. This delay was well over the time stated in the PCC's " Code of Practice", this being ----- must be corrected, promptly -----. As a matter of interest the Editor did not admit to the inaccuracy until 02 October 2007, this was some 57 days after he was first notified of the inaccuracy. I wonder if the PCC had, in any way, drawn the Editor's attention to this delay in admitting the inaccuracy and publishing a correction, as called for in their "Code of Practice".
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Two.
Frederick W Gilling Saturday 14 November 2009
I have touched on this in a previous blog and will now deal with the matter in more detail.
The main reason for this is that I have a deep, and lasting, feeling of injustice in regard to a decision that the PCC came to. This was in connection with a complaint from me about an inaccuracy in a review of a book of short stories that I had written. Large parts of this blog will be in point form in the interest of brevity.
1/ I had written, and "self published", a book of short stories.
2/ I submitted the book, by hand with a covering letter, to the office of a West Sussex weekly newspaper.
3/ In the issue of 02 August 2007 they published a review of my book. 4/ There was an inaccuracy in the review, in view of the general tenor and sarcastic style of the review which, I think, the inaccuracy fully supported, I considered that it was a major inaccuracy.
5/ On 06 August 2007 I handed a letter to the Editor into the paper's office. This letter gave my feelings about the review, pointed out the inaccuracy and asked him to publish a correction.
6/ On 20 August 2007 I handed another letter to the Editor into the office and, as nothing had been published, I repeated my request for a correction to be published.
7/ On 21 August 2007 I received a letter from the paper, it thanked me for my letter dated August 6, stated, -----The content of your letter is noted ----- and then sang the praises of the man who reviewed the book. I could not make out the signature on the letter but it was qualified by a hand written PP and then, in type, gave the Editor's name and his title Editor.
This reply, dated 20th August 2007 could have been prompted by my letter handed into the office on the same date.
8/ Purely by chance I had seen a reference to the Press Complaints Commission in a free local paper. I wrote to them on Sat. 08 September 2007 and complained about the inaccuracy in the review. I sent them copies of the review and all the letters mentioned above as well as a copy of the book. They had everything that was needed to verify the inaccuracy in the review and to confirm that the newspaper had not corrected the inaccuracy. Let me make that point clear, when the PCC received my complaint the Editor should have known for 27 days that there was an inaccuracy and had not printed a correction. This delay was well over the time stated in the PCC's " Code of Practice", this being ----- must be corrected, promptly -----. As a matter of interest the Editor did not admit to the inaccuracy until 02 October 2007, this was some 57 days after he was first notified of the inaccuracy. I wonder if the PCC had, in any way, drawn the Editor's attention to this delay in admitting the inaccuracy and publishing a correction, as called for in their "Code of Practice".
This blog on the PCC will be continued in Part Two.
Frederick W Gilling Saturday 14 November 2009
Tuesday 3 November 2009
The Press and the Establishment. Part Five.
Part Five of The Press and the Establishment.
Having explained my reasons for starting to think about the establishment and a person's titles I will now explain my thinking about "The Press"
When I wrote to the editors of eight national newspapers to complain about the Press Complaints Commission [PCC] I stated that I had a complete belief in the need for Press Freedom, this partially garnered by living in a country where for many years the press was not completely free.
As well as being totally in favour [national security excepted] of a free press I was also totally against the unbridled "power of the press".
I suggested that legislation be passed to make it easier for the public to complain about an article in any newspaper or magazine. The suggestion follows, there is nothing to stop a publication from implementing the suggestion without the need for legislation. The thought has just surfaced that the PCC could require publications to do what I suggest, that would show where their loyalties reside as well as boosting and supporting their self enhancing claim that self regulation of the press really works.
On page three of a newspaper or magazine something similar to the following is printed. "If any reader has a complaint about anything published in this paper they may write a letter to us, of no more than sixty words, addresses will not be word counted. If your letter is the only one dealing with a particular matter it will be published on page three over your name. If there is more than one letter complaining about the same matter one of them will be published, over the name of the writer. The total number of similar letters will be stated and the names only of the writers will be published.
One of the things that I find annoying is when an attention grabbing headline, in very large print, appears to be stating a fact, however when the much smaller print is read it is clear that the headline is anything but a fact.
Surely, I think , the time has come to take a long hard look at the potential worry and harm to people,s feelings caused by crude, degrading, obnoxious and insulting articles and cartoons published in papers and magazines. Please do not point out to me that such things have been common for, a hundred, even hundreds of years, that should not make them any more acceptable. With the aid of the IT world the headlines of a national paper can be seen by
many millions of people throughout the world within minutes of them being printed. The small print that clarifies the accuracy of the headline may not even be shown.
My next blog will outline some points and suggestions I wish to make about the Press Complaints Commission.
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 04 November 2009
Having explained my reasons for starting to think about the establishment and a person's titles I will now explain my thinking about "The Press"
When I wrote to the editors of eight national newspapers to complain about the Press Complaints Commission [PCC] I stated that I had a complete belief in the need for Press Freedom, this partially garnered by living in a country where for many years the press was not completely free.
As well as being totally in favour [national security excepted] of a free press I was also totally against the unbridled "power of the press".
I suggested that legislation be passed to make it easier for the public to complain about an article in any newspaper or magazine. The suggestion follows, there is nothing to stop a publication from implementing the suggestion without the need for legislation. The thought has just surfaced that the PCC could require publications to do what I suggest, that would show where their loyalties reside as well as boosting and supporting their self enhancing claim that self regulation of the press really works.
On page three of a newspaper or magazine something similar to the following is printed. "If any reader has a complaint about anything published in this paper they may write a letter to us, of no more than sixty words, addresses will not be word counted. If your letter is the only one dealing with a particular matter it will be published on page three over your name. If there is more than one letter complaining about the same matter one of them will be published, over the name of the writer. The total number of similar letters will be stated and the names only of the writers will be published.
One of the things that I find annoying is when an attention grabbing headline, in very large print, appears to be stating a fact, however when the much smaller print is read it is clear that the headline is anything but a fact.
Surely, I think , the time has come to take a long hard look at the potential worry and harm to people,s feelings caused by crude, degrading, obnoxious and insulting articles and cartoons published in papers and magazines. Please do not point out to me that such things have been common for, a hundred, even hundreds of years, that should not make them any more acceptable. With the aid of the IT world the headlines of a national paper can be seen by
many millions of people throughout the world within minutes of them being printed. The small print that clarifies the accuracy of the headline may not even be shown.
My next blog will outline some points and suggestions I wish to make about the Press Complaints Commission.
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 04 November 2009
Sunday 1 November 2009
The Press and the Establishment. Part Four.
Part Four of The Press and the Establishment.
I feel that the time has come for the whole question of the title before a person's name to be re-appraised. Several broad considerations need to be thought through initially, these will differentiate, for example, between civilian and defence services as well as along religious lines.
I suggest that the initials Dr should continue to be used in advance of a name for medical doctors only. For all other instances they should occur after the holder's name with a suitable and therefore recognised way of indicating what the doctorate relates to. Examples being: Mr, Mrs, Ms A N Other Dr [Eng] or A N Other Dr [Phy] for physics etc etc.
Similarly the prefixes Sir or Dame should be abolished and replaced by A N Other Kt [PS] where the PS indicates that the honour was awarded for Public Service, A N Other Dm [E] for Education, Kt [D] or Dm [D] for Defence, [S] for Sport, etc etc.
Members of the defence/security forces should continue to be referred to by their rank but this only applies while they are still serving members, the use of such ranking falls away on retirement, if their service was outstanding they could be honoured with, for example, Kt [D] or Dm [D] after their name.
The title Lord should be abolished completely and the word should only be used in its religious context in the particular religion to which it applies. Here is a suitable place to consider the pomp, ceremony and associated robes worn by members of the House of Lords. I feel that such a display, in the UK today, is truly ostentatious and archaic and serves to reinforce the position of "The Establishment".
It would be extremely interesting to study and debate what effect "The Establishment" has had on every facet of life in the UK through the centuries. How good has the "them and us" syndrome been for making us what we are? Of course the syndrome could well be "us and them". From whatever stand point it is viewed I feel that if the "us and them" or "them and us" fact and feeling is truly no longer a reality we should be able to reach our true potential as a nation, both in wealth and moral righteousness.
This blog will be continued in part five of "The Press and The Establishment".
Frederick W Gilling Monday 02 November 2009.
I feel that the time has come for the whole question of the title before a person's name to be re-appraised. Several broad considerations need to be thought through initially, these will differentiate, for example, between civilian and defence services as well as along religious lines.
I suggest that the initials Dr should continue to be used in advance of a name for medical doctors only. For all other instances they should occur after the holder's name with a suitable and therefore recognised way of indicating what the doctorate relates to. Examples being: Mr, Mrs, Ms A N Other Dr [Eng] or A N Other Dr [Phy] for physics etc etc.
Similarly the prefixes Sir or Dame should be abolished and replaced by A N Other Kt [PS] where the PS indicates that the honour was awarded for Public Service, A N Other Dm [E] for Education, Kt [D] or Dm [D] for Defence, [S] for Sport, etc etc.
Members of the defence/security forces should continue to be referred to by their rank but this only applies while they are still serving members, the use of such ranking falls away on retirement, if their service was outstanding they could be honoured with, for example, Kt [D] or Dm [D] after their name.
The title Lord should be abolished completely and the word should only be used in its religious context in the particular religion to which it applies. Here is a suitable place to consider the pomp, ceremony and associated robes worn by members of the House of Lords. I feel that such a display, in the UK today, is truly ostentatious and archaic and serves to reinforce the position of "The Establishment".
It would be extremely interesting to study and debate what effect "The Establishment" has had on every facet of life in the UK through the centuries. How good has the "them and us" syndrome been for making us what we are? Of course the syndrome could well be "us and them". From whatever stand point it is viewed I feel that if the "us and them" or "them and us" fact and feeling is truly no longer a reality we should be able to reach our true potential as a nation, both in wealth and moral righteousness.
This blog will be continued in part five of "The Press and The Establishment".
Frederick W Gilling Monday 02 November 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)