Freedom of the gutter press (2)

Before the current hackinggate crisis broke, I wrote that the problem of the 'free press' principle is that much of the press operates from the gutter. The full truth of that is now being revealed. But where to go when most of the dust has settled ?

What we are looking for here is not, I think, complex solutions, but some fundamental principles upon which we can anchor any future legislation or regulation. One such principle does come to mind. It is this :

The media shall be free to publish all information 'as long as it has been legally obtained'. This would mean that any information obtained illegally might result in both/either criminal or civil action by definition. This leads to the question, 'what is legal and illegal ?' Just for a start, 'illegal' could mean information obtained on private property (without permission of the subject) or from private communications (letters, e mails, texts, voice mail etc.). This will not eliminate difficulties, of course, but at least they could form a strong legal foundation on which we can work.

The remaining question, I suppose, is what would happen to investigative journalism, much of which may be carried on within the definition of illegality I suggest here we would have to apply the 'in the public interest' test. That will need more complx definitions and subsequent case law. It may, regrettably, mean that the onus of proving 'public interest' would fall on any person accused of obtaining information illegally, rather than the other way round.

NotW affair now out of control

As we write this NotW episode seems to be spinning out of control. The changed nature of the scandal is the fear that is clearly being generated. The police are afraid of the journalists, journalists are afraid of editors, and politicians are afraid of red tops in general. This is no longer a case of ' are we justified in reglating a newspaper in case it is the thin end of the orwellian wedge' ? It now has undertones, as has already been suggested, of the mafia in Italy. There is hope - that the rats will realise the ship may be sinking and turn on each other so we will hear the whole sorry story. But one suspects there will be too much obfuscation and fudging for that. Both the police and the journalists may be constratined in case the blame arrives back at their door - even the door of number 10.
So, if this now transcends the issue of press freedom, how do we proceed ? Appeals to moral regeneration are unlikely to last long as they face the blizzard of the profit motive. Legal action looks draconian and dangerous. With a sigh (because I suspect it will not actually work), a public boycott of the offending newspaper is the best answer, underpinned by the flight of the advertisers. In other words, put them out of business. And, of course, there must be the fullest. most genuine inquiry possible with prosections to follow. Enron here we come. It is a pity the Americans are not doing it. They know how to lock people up !

Time to tax

In all the furore about Greece, the cuts, pensions etc., have we forgotten a key issue ?
This is the question of tax collection. certainly it has always been true that all 'successful' economies have efficient tax collection systems. Britain is among these countries. Greece, on the other hand, is notorious for tax evasion, especially among the wealthy. In Italy it is a national sport, and what price on tax evasion being an Olymic sport in Rio ?

The question we should now ask is - is the Government spending as much time and effort thinking about collecting more tax from those who evade and avoid as it is making cuts in public services and pensions etc ?

Without suggesting what solutions might work, I offer three ideas :

1. We could publish the amount of direct tax all British citizens (wherever they claim to live) and companies have paid (I wouldn't go as far as Norway where full tax returns are available on line). This would flush out the evaders.
2. Introduce more draconian tax laws, perhaps levying income tax on all citizens wherever they live and wherever they have earned their money (if one did this, any direct taxes paid in their country of domicile would be subtracted).
3. Introduce more tax collection 'at source'. It is clearly unequal that most people experience PAYE, wheres high earners are not taxed at source for various reasons.


Let's continue counting to three by identifying three consequences of widespread tax evasion or avoidance among the rich :

1. It is a clear moral issue.
2. It promotes inequality as it is the rich who are most efficient in avoiding tax and the poor who cannot (there are exceptions, notably in the building trade, but this is not on the same scale).
3. It has great economic consequences which are obvious, notably in cutting the budget deficit.

Time to look more closely at this issue, I think.