But can they really claim it is an 'exclusive' when the Sun reported on Shem's family two weeks ago, on 15 July?
Naomi's story of suffering with transient global amnesia was picked up by the Sun for Friday's front page:
It's an interesting story.
A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence.
In court yesterday the Daily Star apologised to Christopher Jefferies for articles published on December 31 2010 and January 1 2011, in which we reported on his arrest on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates.
The articles suggested that there were strong grounds to believe that Mr Jefferies had killed Ms Yeates and that he had acted in an inappropriate over- sexualised manner with his pupils when he was a teacher. The articles also suggested that he had probably lied to police to obstruct their investigations.
We accepted that all these allegations were untrue and apologised to Mr Jefferies.
Eight newspapers apologised to Mr Christopher Jefferies in the High Court yesterday. Reports of the investigation into the death of Joanna Yeates had wrongly suggested that Mr Jefferies, who was arrested but released without charge, was suspected of killing Ms Yeates, may have had links to a convicted paedophile and an unresolved murder. It was also wrongly alleged that the former school master had acted inappropriately to pupils.
The newspapers, including the Daily Mail, agreed to pay Mr Jefferies substantial damages and legal costs.
* Later the Daily Mirror was fined £50,000 and the Sun ,£18,000 for contempt of court in relation to their reports.
In court yesterday the Daily Express apologised to Christopher Jefferies for articles published in the Daily Express on December 31 2010 in which we reported on his arrest on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates.
The articles suggested that there were strong grounds to believe that Mr Jefferies had killed Ms Yeates and that he had acted in an inappropriate, over-sexualised manner with his pupils when he was a teacher. The articles also suggested that he had probably lied to police to obstruct their investigations. It was further suggested that there were grounds to investigate whether he was responsible for an unsolved murder dating back to 1974.
We accepted that all these allegations were untrue and apologised to Mr Jefferies.
Yesterday the Daily Record and other newspapers apologised in court for the publication of false allegations about the retired school master Christopher Jefferies, who, we had wrongly suggested, was strongly to be suspected of having killed his former tenant Joanna Yeates.
We also wrongly suggested that he had acted inappropriately towards his pupils in the past and invaded his tenants' privacy.
We accepted that these allegations were untrue and that far from being involved in the crime, Mr Jefferies helped the police with their inquiries as best he could.
We have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs.
one of the great myths of our time.
The Sun apologised in court yesterday to ex-schoolmaster Christopher Jefferies for false suggestions he might have killed his former tenant Joanna Yeates, acted inappropriately towards pupils in the past, invaded his tenants' privacy, was associated with a convicted paedophile and might have been involved in an unsolved murder in 1974.
We accepted these allegations were untrue and that Mr Jefferies in fact helped the police with their inquiries as best he could.
We have agreed to pay substantial damages and costs to Mr Jefferies.
Yesterday the Daily Mirror, The Sunday Mirror and other newspapers apologised in court for the publication of false allegations about the retired school master Christopher Jefferies, who, we had wrongly suggested, was strongly to be suspected of having killed his former tenant Joanna Yeates.
The Daily Mirror wrongly suggested that he had invaded his tenants' privacy, was associated with a convicted paedophile and might have had something to do with an unsolved murder dating back to 1974.
The Sunday Mirror wrongly suggested that he had acted inappropriately towards his pupils in the past.
We accepted that these allegations were untrue and that far from being involved in the crime, Mr Jefferies helped the police with their inquiries as best he could.
We have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs.
Yesterday The Scotsman and other newspapers apologised in court for having wrongly suggested that Mr Jefferies was involved in the killing of Joanna Yeates.
We had also wrongly suggested that he had acted in an inappropriate, oversexualised manner with his pupils in the past and that he invaded the privacy of his tenants in his capacity as a landlord of two flats.
We accepted in court that these allegations were untrue and that Mr Jefferies had no involvement in Ms Yeates' killing.
In recognition of the distress caused, we have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs.
increased powers and strength...which no one will admit to in this febrile climate.
very light-touch regulation. It almost regulates itself.
I suppose we are now leading to the ultimate sanction of a front-page apology. Again, I think that would be the court taking away the editor’s right to edit and the thin end of all kinds of undesirable wedges. It is perhaps a technical point, but a newspaper’s front page needs to sell itself. A newspaper has to be viable. If it does not sell itself, no one will read the correction inside. Finally—this is slightly contradictory—in truly heinous offences, a front page can and should be considered by the editor. There are quite a few precedents for that but I should not want the court to have the right to insist on it.
Yes, I suppose “honest” is slightly better, although I prefer “free opinion” for the life of me. As long as it does not inflame a situation, is not racist and does not defame someone, the freer it is the better. Certainly, thinking about some of the things that Mr Littlejohn writes in my paper, I do not know whether they are honest but they certainly get people talking.
Our article of May 7 2011 “8st kick-boxing WPC scares off thugs” included a photograph said to be that of Richard Chadwick who was convicted of an attack on six people in Leeds, including bursting into one home and threatening to kill the occupant’s baby. The photograph was actually of Mark O’Brien who has no connection to this offence whatsoever.
"Christopher Jefferies is the latest victim of the regular witch hunts and character assassination conducted by the worst elements of the British tabloid media.
"Many of the stories published in these newspapers are designed to 'monster' the individual, in flagrant disregard for his reputation, privacy and rights to a fair trial.
"These newspapers have now apologised to him and paid substantial damages but they do so knowing that once the conditional fee agreement rules are changed next year victims of tabloid witch hunts will no longer have the same access to justice."
"We warned the media by letter, immediately following Mr Jefferies' arrest, in the strongest possible terms to desist from publishing stories which were damaging or defamatory.
"We were dismayed that our warnings went unheeded and are pleased that the newspapers, in settling Mr Jefferies' claims, have acknowledged the extent of the damage to his reputation."
On the front page of the Daily Mirror, in the context of what were described as the “Jo files” the headline alleged that “Jo suspect is peeping Tom”. It was asserted on the front page in large print:
“Arrest landlord spied on flat couple”, followed immediately below by:
“Friend in jail for paedophile crimes”, followed immediately below by:
“Cops now probe 36 –years old murder.”
In short, while positively asserting that Mr Jefferies was a voyeur, without directly asserting that he was involved in paedophile crimes or a long unresolved murder, the impression conveyed to an objective reader was that he was somehow linked with not one but two awful, additional crimes.
The front page banner headline asks “Was killer waiting in Jo’s flat?”. The story on the front page begins:
“Joanna Yeates’s killer may have been waiting for her inside her basement flat as she returned home. Detectives yesterday sent towels and bedding for DNA tests after finding no signs of a break-in”.
We observe that if entry was not forced, then whoever went into the flat had access to it. The only person with
On the lower half of the front page of The Sun the headline reads “Obsessed by death” and it is alleged that Mr Jefferies “scared kids” by a macabre fascination. He wanted to show death to his pupils and was obsessed with it...
More significant, was the headline across pages 4 and 5 “Murdered Jo: suspect “followed me” says woman”. And this was followed by a lengthy article under the headline “What do you think I am…a pervert?” describing the “landlord’s outburst at blonde”. This was an “exclusive” story about a “former acquaintance” of Mr Jefferies who felt that she was being followed by him. The thrust of the story was that Mr Jefferies liked blondes – and Miss Yeates, too, was blonde - and she felt as though she was being followed by someone described as “quite a dominant personality”, a “control freak” who made her feel “very uncomfortable”.
The main focus of the written submissions by the defendants was that the articles did not create substantial risk of serious prejudice to any trial of Mr Jefferies which might take place in the future, probably some 9 months or so after publication.
The material in the two publications of the Daily Mirror is extreme...In our judgment the two publications in the Daily Mirror created substantial risks to the course of justice. They constituted contempt under the strict liability rule.
is not as grave as that of two series of articles contained in the Mirror, the vilification of Mr Jefferies created a very serious risk that the preparation of his defence would be damaged. At the time when this edition of the Sun was published it created substantial risks to the course of justice. It therefore constituted a contempt under the strict liability rule.
the traditional rights and freedoms of the peoples of Europe have been systematically swept away with a ruthless efficiency that would have been the envy of Napoleon and Hitler.
I defy anyone to produce one single act or law of the EU and the European Court that has actually benefited Britain.
Just occasionally the EU gets it right and one subject on which it is consistently sound is food standards.
For years British food suppliers have hidden behind elaborate secrecy laws, enabling them to get away with pretty much any old rubbish...
Now the EU says that bacon producers will have to rename their product "bacon with added water" if it contains more than five per cent of water. Fair enough...
All this injecting of meat products with numerous chemicals and water couldn't possibly have happened in the good old days when our meat actually tasted of something.
It's nasty British factory farming methods that are responsible, among which pork and bacon are the worst. Long live EU food standards.
In our article "Ender's Murder" published on 9 July 2011 we stated that Brian Atkinson, murderer of Eastenders' extra Kevlin Eurie, had got Eurie's girlfriend pregnant.
In fact it was the sister of one of Eurie's friends that was pregnant by Atkinson. We apologise for this mistake.
(Every British national newspaper put this atrocity on the front page on Saturday except the Mail and the Express. What stories did they consider more important? The Mail went with '150 human hybrids grown in UK labs', while the Express led on 'Cleared: Man who killed burglar'. They also included a story on their front pages about the exhibiting of the Duchess of Cambridge's wedding dress at Buckingham Palace.)Norway's pain
Carnage in a city centre. A massacre at an island youth rally.
Terrorism brought slaughter yesterday to the friendly and civilised streets of one of Europe's most peaceful nations.
The Sun and its readers grieve today with the people of Norway, stunned by the assault on their capital Oslo and the island of Utoya.
How well we remember, from London's 7/7, the shock and misery when an ordinary summer's day turns into a nightmare of smoke, flames and bodies in the street.
Just as on 9/11 in New York and in Madrid in 2004, horror came when everyone least expected it.
The gentle nation best known for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize suffered its most violent attack since World War Two.
But neither al-Qaeda nor any other extremist group has exclusive rights to murder and mayhem.
The picture emerging in Norway last night was of one blond-haired, blue-eyed man being behind the Oslo bombing AND the island camp massacre.
Acts of terror can be an easy resort for any loner who believes their own personal grievance against the state is justification for indiscriminate violence.
Take Timothy McVeigh, a US Army veteran whose warped world view was all the reason he needed to kill 168 innocent people in the Oklahoma bombing in 1995.
Or Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, who waged a 17-year mail bombing campaign that left three dead and many more injured because he didn't like modern American life.
Whatever the "reason" behind the terrible attack on Norway, whoever is responsible shares one thing in common with all terrorists.
Their evil is matched only by their cowardice.
Today, sympathies lie with Norway, our loyal friend and trading partner across the North Sea for centuries.
We share their pain. We salute their courage.
Stand strong with Norway
Carnage in a city centre. A massacre at an island youth rally.
Terrorism, the scourge of the West, brought slaughter yesterday to the friendly and civilised streets of one of Europe's most peaceful nations.
The Sun and its readers grieve today with the people of Norway, stunned by the assault on their capital Oslo and the island of Utoya.
How well we remember, from London's 7/7, the shock and misery when an ordinary summer's day turns into a nightmare of smoke, flames and bodies in the street.
Just as on 9/11 in New York and in Madrid in 2004, horror came when everyone least expected it.
Why Norway? The answer is simple.
Because it is brave. It is a loyal member of NATO and plays its part in Afghanistan and Libya.
It has courageously stood up to Muslim fanatics trying to stir up hatred in Norway, where Islam is the second largest religion.
Recently it refused a grant to an Islamic leader demanding that those who did not observe Ramadan should be decapitated.
By daring to oppose terrorism, Norway has become a victim of it.
Attack
The gentle nation best known for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize suffered its most violent attack since World War Two.
We do not know if yesterday was the work of al-Qaeda, which has threatened Norway before, or Libyan madman Gaddafi, who has vowed revenge on NATO. Last night one extremist Islamic group had already claimed responsibility.
The lesson for us are clear.
Osama Bin Laden may be dead. But the tentacles of al-Qaeda, and groups linked to it, spread deep into the heart of Western nations.
That is why our security cannot be relaxed, especially with the London Olympics only a year away.
The Government must keep its promise to change the law so our judges can no longer free terror suspects on human rights grounds.
Muslim hate preachers must be arrested, as the law allows. We need the decent Muslim majority to help stop their impressionable young men being recruited as bombers.
We must find every penny our security services need.
We must ask ourselves whether – like Norway – we offer too cushy a life to bogus asylum seekers.
And we must recognise that quitting Afghanistan with the job only half-finished will put Britain in peril.
But neither al-Qaeda nor any other extremist group has exclusive rights to murder and mayhem.
The picture emerging in Norway last night was of one blond-haired, blue-eyed man being behind the Oslo bombing AND the island camp massacre.
Acts of terror can be an easy resort for any loner who believes their own personal grievance against the state is justification for indiscriminate violence.
Take Timothy McVeigh, a US Army veteran whose warped world view was all the reason he needed to kill 168 innocent people in the Oklahoma bombing in 1995.
Or Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, who waged a 17-year mail bombing campaign that left three dead and many more injured because he didn't like modern American life.
Whatever the "reason" behind the terrible attack on Norway, whoever is responsible shares one thing in common with all terrorists.
Their evil is matched only by their cowardice.
Today, sympathies lie with Norway, our loyal friend and trading partner across the North Sea for centuries.
We share their pain. We salute their courage.
Attributed to Daily Mail Reporter, the article went to explain what a few people had written on various websites. It doesn't exactly justify 'up in arms'.
The comic's Belgian creator, Georges Prosper Remi, known as Hergé, named Haddock while at dinner with his wife. "What is that?" he asked, when seeing haddock on the menu. "A sad English fish," she replied.
The comic’s Belgian creator, Georges Prosper Remi, known as Herge, named Haddock while at dinner with his wife.
‘What is that?’ he asked, when seeing haddock on the menu.
‘A sad English fish,’ she replied.
The trailer features the moment when the drunken Captain Haddock starts a fire in a rowboat. "What are you doing?" Tintin asks. "I lit a wee fire," he replies. "In a boat?" Tintin screams.
One viewer referred caustically to Serkis's Scottish accent as "somewhere between Christopher Lambert's in Highlander and Robin Williams's in Mrs Doubtfire" - Scottish accents voiced by a Frenchman and an American comedian.
The trailer features the moment when the drunken Captain Haddock starts a fire in a rowboat. Tintin asks: ‘What are you doing?’, to which Haddock replies: ‘I lit a wee fire’. ‘In a boat?’ Tintin screams.
One viewer referred to Serkis’ Scottish accent as ‘somewhere between Christopher Lambert’s in Highlander and Robin Williams’s in Mrs Doubtfire’ - Scottish accents voiced by a Frenchman and an American comedian.
There was a real 20th-century ship’s master bearing the surname - Captain Herbert Haddock was skipper of the famous White Star Line’s passenger vessel Olympic, and had also been temporarily at the helm of its sister ship, Titanic, before it was officially handed over to White Star for her doomed 1912 maiden voyage with passengers.
There was, however a real 20th-century ship's master bearing this unlikely but appropriate surname: Captain (Herbert) Haddock had been the skipper of the famous White Star Line's passenger vessel Olympic. He had also been temporarily at the helm of Olympic's even more famous sister ship, Titanic, before Titanic was officially handed over to White Star for her doomed 1912 maiden voyage with passengers.
Captain Haddock was introduced to the Tintin books in The Crab with the Golden Claws.
Haddock was first introduced as the rum-loving captain of the Karaboudjan, a merchant vessel used, without Haddock’s knowledge, by his first mate Allan Thompson for smuggling drugs inside crab tins.
Captain Haddock was introduced in The Crab with the Golden Claws....
Haddock was first introduced as the rum-loving captain of the Karaboudjan, a merchant vessel used—without Haddock's knowledge—by his first mate Allan Thompson for smuggling drugs inside crab tins.
But his most noble act is in Tintin in Tibet, in which he stoically volunteers to sacrifice his life to save Tintin.
Although when introduced Haddock has command of a freighter, in later volumes he is clearly retired.
The Captain’s coarse humanity and sarcasm act as a counterpoint to Tintin’s often implausible heroism; he is always quick with a dry comment whenever the boy reporter gets too idealistic.
his most noble act being in the pivotal Tintin in Tibet, in which he stoically volunteers to sacrifice his life to save Tintin. Although when introduced Haddock has command of a freighter, in later volumes he is clearly retired.
The Captain's coarse humanity and sarcasm act as a counterpoint to Tintin's often implausible heroism; he is always quick with a dry comment whenever the boy reporter gets too idealistic.
By the time of their last completed and published adventure, Tintin and the Picaros, Haddock had become such an important figure that he dominates much of the first half of the story.
He is especially notable in The Red Sea Sharks, where his skilful captaining of the ship he and Tintin seize from Rastapopoulos allows them to survive until they are rescued.
By the time of their last completed and published adventure, Tintin and the Picaros, Haddock had become such an important figure that he dominates much of the first half of the story. He is especially notable in The Red Sea Sharks, where his skilful captaining of the ship he and Tintin seize from Rastapopoulos allows them to survive until they are rescued.
In addition to his many insults, the most famous of Haddock’s expressions include permutations of two phrases: ‘Billions of bilious blue blistering barnacles!’ and ‘Ten thousand thundering typhoons!’
In addition to his many insults, the most famous of Haddock's expressions relate to any of a number of permutations of two phrases: "Billions of bilious blue blistering barnacles!" ("Mille millions de mille milliards de mille sabords!") and "Ten thousand thundering typhoons!" ("Tonnerre de Brest!").
Glasman has previously accused New Labour of lying about the extent of immigration. Now he goes further, arguing – in terms more radical than the Conservative front bench would dare use – that Britain should renegotiate the rules on European workers and freeze inward migration for EU and non-EU citizens, except where employers or universities make a case for a specific, skilled individual.
"We've got to reinterrogate our relationship with the EU on the movement of labour. The EU has gone from being a sort of pig farm subsidised bloc... to the free movement of labour and capital. It's legalistic, it's administrative, and it's no good. So I think we've got to renegotiate with the EU.
His call is to restrict immigration to necessary entrants such as highly skilled leaders, especially in vocational skills. "We might, for example, bring in German masters, as we did in the 15th and 16th centuries to renew guilds."
But exemptions should be made on a case-by-case basis? "Yes. We should absolutely do that... Britain is not an outpost of the UN. We have to put the people in this country first." Even if that means stopping immigration completely for a period? "Yes. I would add that we should be more generous and friendly in receiving those [few] who are needed. To be more generous, we have to draw the line."
we should be more generous and friendly in receiving those [few] who are needed.
An insider tells us: “There are rumours Simon has seen the tone of other talent shows over in the US which are all about being sweet and nice and maybe he thinks he needs to soften up his harsh approach for the launch of The X Factor.
“We heard his advisors said he needs to be more ‘cuddly and approachable’ – this might be the sign of the new era of Simon Cowell.”
One American fan said: “I thought: ‘Did his mum knit him this and he feels obliged to wear it? Or did Simon get dressed in the dark today?’ He looked like The Pink Panther. It was all very odd.”
One friend explained: "Simon is not exactly known for being a snappy dresser but wearing a pink Aran sweater is pretty out there.
"We all assumed he must have got his laundry mixed up when we saw him.
"Let's be honest, if he was put in charge of a washing machine that's exactly what would happen."
Simon Cowell has faced his ultimate nightmare... playing the good guy in an X Factor spoof.
TV’s Mr Nasty Simon Cowell underwent the dramatic character change in an advert for the US show.
In the clip, he showers praise on hopeless wannabes he would usually boot out of the door.
Wearing an uncharacteristic soft pink jumper he tells one little girl, who sings Tomorrow from Annie: “I love your spirit"...
Seconds later, fans get a reality check. Cowell is seen waking up in bed in his suite in a cold sweat, saying: “Wow. What a horrible nightmare.”
Never mind phone hacking, what about the real issues facing Britain?
In a sane world, politicians would be working round the clock to help rectify these dire problems. But sadly, they are far too busy enjoying a frenzy of vengeful score-settling against the Murdoch press.
Even though the News of the World has been closed, the BSkyB takeover bid withdrawn, and Rupert Murdoch has promised to co-operate with the judicial inquiries, the bloodlust – orchestrated by a vastly subsidised BBC – continues.
The stink of schadenfreude from Britain’s chattering classes is overpowering...
The least [politicians] can do is give their full attention to the all too worrying problems that afflict real people in the real world.
Children's Minister Tim Loughton takes offence at being castigated by Commons Speaker John Bercow for laughing in the chamber when he was supposed to be silent.
So does he come up with a witty riposte? No, he resorts instead to a stream of sneering insults against the diminutive Speaker on Twitter.
Could political debate in the home of Lloyd-George, Churchill, Bevan and Foot sink any lower?
a strange, bumptious little man, an unconvincing piece of work.
Mr Bercow is an ostentatious changeling, a steaming, confected, self-polishing jobbernowl who makes the Chair look and sound foolish.
preening, sycophantic, short-tempered and grotesque
Rancour, partisanship, a figure whose political philosophy dodges round the place like a bouncy ball: yes, folks, the House of cheats and nodding oil derricks just got its perfect Speaker.
There he stood in the big green chair, puffed up like an amphibian that had scoffed too many volauvents.
Little Squeaker Bercow.
An article on September 30, 2010 suggested that Virginia McKenna deliberately omitted from her book previously reported rows with her ex-husband Denholm Elliott in which she had allegedly hurled crockery at him as a supposed consequence of his having cheated on her.
We accept that she omitted such episodes because they never happened.
We also accept that it was Ms McKenna who left Mr Elliott, not the other way round.
We apologise for the upset caused.
not authorised, and not the paper or its political team's opinion.
We also offered a priceless opening to Ed Miliband, a weak leader who seized his chance to turn on a newspaper group that supported his party through most of its 13 years in power.
Politics is about opportunism, and if he can't squeeze capital out of this catastrophe at David Cameron's expense, then he's no politician at all.
What is thoroughly contemptible, though, is the posturing, high-minded and politically prejudiced BBC. This media monster, which blows £2.3BILLION a year in public money, is bound by charter to be impartial and is anything but.
Its gleeful, vengeful and downright spiteful coverage of events over recent days is a disgrace.
Not for nothing is the BBC known as the Blatantly Biased Corporation...
Nothing other than a declaration of war would justify its round-the-clock analysis, interviews and breaking news on every radio, TV and internet outlet.
Many newspapers published in Britain today would have perished but for Wapping - including, perhaps, the high-minded and sanctimonious Guardian. And millions benefit from Rupert Murdoch's audacious creation of Sky TV - now at the heart of his enemies' campaign against him.
He was fought every inch of the way by The Guardian, which somehow sees itself as custodian of the sacred journalistic flame.
It is a small circulation paper whose readers mostly work in the taxpayer-funded public sector. But its Left-wing views are amplified out of all proportion by the BBC who, with breathtaking arrogance, portray themselves as the Voice of Britain.
This column might seem like the work of a Murdoch mouthpiece.
To be expected to fly a flag to which very few people feel any allegiance is outrageous. This ridiculous episode is yet another reason for Britain to get out of the EU.
"If there is a contract between a member state and the commission as a co-investor in a region, there is a requirement to have a small indication for every project under half a million euros (GBP470,000).
"The indication could be a mention on a website or in a leaflet, and for bigger projects we ask that on the billboard during the building works it states that it was co-funded by the EU.
"Once the project is finished, there should be a little plaque, but you don't have to wave a big flag above a project: that's nonsense"...
"That's perfectly standard procedure, and private investors in projects, or organisations such as the UK national lottery, also like some recognition of investments they've made."
The European Commission insists Britain is responsible for managing EU funds and can redirect some or all of the cash from fines to other eligible projects, rather than having to reimburse Brussels.
"We're not fining anyone. The UK authorities oversee the proper spending of taxpayers' money, and if it isn't mentioned that it is co-funded by the EU, a small percentage of the total is re-allocated to other projects in the same area."
"We don't want to be flying the EU flag above any kind of project, but it's normal to have some indication of involvement: these stories are total lunacy."
The extraordinary assault on our crippling obsession with health and safety by the very woman who controls the cursed body in charge of it all couldn’t help but bring pots and kettles to my mind and I’m pretty certain most of yours too.
Chairman of the Health and Safety Executive Judith Hackitt criticised the jobsworth culture that has robbed our young of a normal childhood, made employers’ lives a complex hell of regulation and inspection and allowed councils to field legions of tax-funded snoopers and petty enforcers.
We can only assume the poor lady had banged her head on a low-hanging flower basket or been partially blinded in a vigorous game of conkers on the day she gave this interview. For she runs the ghastly organisation that has closed playgrounds, had trees felled and even managed to stop tennis fans enjoying Andy Murray’s annual ritual not to get to the Wimbledon final – and she has done for three-and-a-half years!
I grew up being transported in a cot in a car, not a special seat that had to have been welded into place... If I needed pills from the doctor the bottle opened with a simple twist. You didn’t need the agility of an Olympic gymnast and strength of a weightlifter to open it. I bought packets of peanuts in the days when they didn’t need “warning: this product may contain nuts” all over them. Most puzzling of all I slept on a mattress that didn’t have the notice “do not attempt to swallow” on it.
Nick Ferrari's column (Healthy dose of humbug, SE, 3 July link to external website) highlights part of the problem with the current debate on health and safety.
The term 'health and safety' has become used so widely and wrongly that it has come to stand for a huge range of things which have no relation to managing risks in the workplace.
HSE doesn't exist to shut playgrounds, or cut trees down. We don't have anything to do with children's car seats, or infuriating pill bottle tops. Mattresses, peanuts and conkers have nothing to do with safety at work, and are entirely outside our remit.
And regarding Murray Mount, Mr Ferrari couldn't be further from the truth - rather than pushing for it to be closed we were campaigning for a bit of common sense and making precisely the opposite point - there were no health and safety grounds on which to close it down.
Few would argue that we need to get the focus on health and safety back on managing serious risks in the workplace where it belongs. We certainly wouldn't.
There is nothing in health and safety legislation which prohibits the continued broadcasting of centre court action to the crowds on the hill during the rain.
Health and safety is concerned with the proportionate management of real risks caused by work, not attempting to eliminate every minor risk from every moment of people's lives.
People have been walking up and down wet grassy slopes for years without catastrophic consequences. If the LTA was concerned about people slipping and suing for their injuries the message should have made clear the decision was 'on insurance grounds'.
Health and safety excuses are becoming as much a feature of the British sporting calendar as the rain. You will understand that while we can do nothing about the weather, we will not let the excuses pass unchallenged.
Despite purporting to represent the highest standards in journalism, the Guardian's reporting was inaccurate, selective and purposely misleading.
It is a fact that one former News of the World journalist - Clive Goodman, the Royal Editor - tapped into telephone voicemails.
So let us be clear. Neither the police, nor our own internal investigations, has found any evidence to support allegations that News of the World journalists have accessed voicemails of any individuals.
Nor instructed private investigators or other third parties to access voicemails of any individual.
...like the rest of the media, we have made mistakes.
When we have done so, we have admitted to them.
Just over an hour later, after much criticism:
Posts
All Comments
