HUNT & LEVESON: A question of bias.

A Slogger writes:

As a constituent of Hunt, I made a submission to the Leveson Inquiry in August 2011 offering details of his deceit and failure to investigate fraudulent claims of viewing figures by SKY TV. I considered this information to be highly relevant, given that Hunt was scheduled to give evidence to the Inquiry relating to his quasi-judicial role in determining the suitability of News International to acquire 100% of BSkyB. Other than standard emailed acknowledgments, despite several reminders of my desire to be called and my repetition of the importance of investigating my claims, I heard nothing from the Inquiry. I was not called to give testimony and my submission was not “read in” to the report. Conversely, Hunt’s evidence appears to have been accepted without question and he was largely exonerated in the Inquiry’s report, other than a mild slap on the wrist for failing to control his special adviser – a failure that was in breach of the Ministerial Code. A choice was made by the Inquiry to ignore my comments, yet Hunt was praised in Lord Leveson’s report for his objectivity. Is that indicative of an unbiased Inquiry? I am not a hacked celebrity, a journalist or politician, merely a member of the public who had been betrayed by his MP, who held the privileged position of being responsible for the media. Surely, in such an important Inquiry, all interested parties should have had a voice and have had an equal right to be heard?The Inquiry team sent me an email stating “The Inquiry has received submissions from a range of individual and groups from the general public since the start of oral hearings on 14 November 2011, but has only been able to hear oral evidence from a small number of the public due to the process of timetabling of oral evidence sessions.” Why? Are members of the public deemed to be less important or less credible than minor ‘celebrities’? Was it more important to speed the hearing process through than to investigate all submissions? From data published on the Inquiry website, 862 submissions of evidence were received, of which more than 50% (441) were from ‘members of the public’. Only a “small number” of these members of the public was called. Amazingly, the Inquiry’s General Enquiries Team has not counted the actual numbers and relies on “anecdotal” data “from one of the solicitors handling the evidence” to justify this statement. Is this scornful attitude not a slight on Joe Public?

I’d say it is my friend, but others might differ. Still, it’s a level playing field and we’re all in this together – so not to worry, eh?

22 thoughts on “HUNT & LEVESON: A question of bias.

  1. It is never surprising the enquiries tend to get the results which are required rather than providing real oversight and honest outcomes. Tis appears to be why politicians seem to think they are the answer to every item on every agenda when proper oversight has obviously failed or even when apparantly blatent wrongdoing is perceived by the public. They set the agenda, the timeframe and the remit, alongside selecting the overseer and by all the evidence, the outcome. Wy are they going to let the ‘plebs’ have any input when they will not tell them what they want to hear……….. They spend enough taxpayers money only getting the messages they want…….. why would anyone consider an enquiry to be any less obtuse ?

    Agreed however that it might be nice if we had a small voice just occassionally :)

  2. Sincere sympathy to your Slogger, but I am racking my brains to think of the last government Inquiry which I am reasonably sure was set up to find the truth. No luck so far, and I am back at 1980 and still going back in time.

  3. Government sponsored inquiries have little validity. They are primarily exercises in can kicking to escape any immediate furore, spreading blame around so that no one person (if they are of importance) can be held responsible, opening a door for more government, more regulation and more ‘jobs for the boys’ and generally exonerating the Establishment in line with a preferred outcome. Occasionally an Inquiry goes off the rails and defies the Establishment line, whereupon its report is immediately ignored, often in favour of another Inquiry.

    What can you expect?

  4. I’m one of young Jeremy’s constituents as well. What really worries me is that that nice chap Neil Hamilton might get parachuted into this general area on behalf of UKIP. Which would, IMHO, leave me effectively disenfranchised.

  5. Enquiries are designed to make the public think something is being done when in fact nothing is. Smoke and mirrors.

  6. If ever there were proof that UKIP are a comedy act, then having the Hamiltons in your team along with Winston McKenzie (with his history) as a candidate at the last by-elections is surely ample.

  7. I thought the voice and representation of ‘Joe Public’ was the very raison de etre of Rebekah Brooks?

  8. The establishment doesn’t care about the public only when it makes ! nuisance if itself and attempts to fight back. that’s when they send in their henchmen to out them in order. witness today on johnny void blog about protestors outside courts if justice trying to declare mentally ill ppl forced into non paid workfare illegal. up shows dead on cue commenteer cling himself getajobyouslongingtinhatbellends doing the typical put down of protestors .later we discover that he works for workfare provider and tells us he tries to help disabled ppl find work but gives game away by stating that those who post on that blog are against any method that forces ppl into workfare. so that’s how you help sick ppl by forcing them to work for zilch. he just went on how all posters were shiftless . I don’t think this is the usual troll fodder. the void became a bit high profile when it exposed the useless universal job match website.

  9. Come to think of it Jw what with the virus prob you had then tom being blocked by 3 mobile now strange ppl showing up on the void it makes you wonder if establishment is trying to silence dissent

  10. +100, I don’t live in the U.K. anymore but if I did I would have supported UKIP. Until I discovered those disgraceful troughers the Hamiltons are now going to irrevocably taint it’s esprit with typical mainstrean political sleaze by using the disenfranchised ex tory base as just more suckers to plunder.

  11. The truth it must be said is hard ta find
    Justice it was e`er deaf and blind
    But fear not friends for ne`er let it be said
    That Sloggers lie wi` ease upon their bed
    What though on hamely fare we dine,
    Gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine;
    A #unts a #unt for a` that

    A little poem for our Scots readers as they approach the highlight of their year :-)

  12. Hmmm, a ‘playing field’ is stretching it a bit. More like a golf course – some of us have been trying to get out of a bunker for about 30 years… my sand wedge is worn to a frazzle.

  13. I realised I’d wasted my time with a ‘public consultation’ about a local issue to which I thought I was well qualified to contribute. They are an afterthought, a procedural exercise to give the impression that Joe Pleb is actually involved. The deal is done long before.

  14. I am struggling to understand what is a ‘fraudulent’ TV audience claim. Either the audience is reported by BARB and cannot reasonably be argued with; or in the case of the small channels for which it is not worth paying for BARB membership, it is not reported. Any small-channel audience assertion should be disregarded. All the channels Sky Media sells airtime for are in BARB..

  15. I quoted the BARB figures to Hunt when I first drew his attention to this deception about SKY viewing figures in 2009. He has never disputed my statistics – merely refused to take any action. He wrote “I do not believe there is a conspiracy and I will not be pursuing this particular matter any further.” Since Hunt became a government minister – initially with particular responsibility for media and sport – I have repeated my request, but he has flatly refused to take any action. That is hugely dishonest and demonstrates complicity in a cover-up, calling into question his impartiality and suitability to arbitrate on the Newscorp bid for 100% of BSkyB – a matter that the Leveson Inquiry should have shown a willingness to explore.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s