How the worldwide population of airworthy Spitfires might be about to be doubled
December 2nd, 2012 by Roger Darlington
A team led by Lincolnshire farmer David Cundall has strong grounds for believing that they are about to unearth dozens of Mark 14 Spitfires that were buried on the edge of a Burmese airport at the end of the Second World War. It’s a remarkable story which you can read here.
I have a lifelong interest in Second World War aviation, sparked initially by my father, who trained as a fighter pilot with the Royal Air Force at the end of the war, and further encouraged by research I conducted for a biography of my wife’s father, who was the RAF’s greatest night intruder ace of the war.
I was intrigued to discover that there was an aircraft called “The Darlington Spitfire” and I researched its history for my essay here.
Posted in History | Comments (0)
Will America remain the overwhelmingly dominant superpower throughout the whole of the 21st century?
December 1st, 2012 by Roger Darlington
American military expert George Friedman is sure that it will and sets out his case in a fascinating book called “The Next 100 Years”.
I am not so convinced as explained in my review of the book here.
Posted in American current affairs, World current affairs | Comments (0)
What does Leveson say about the Internet?
November 30th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
As I explained in this posting, a particular interest of mine around the Leveson Report is the relationship between print media and online media. According to an item in the “Guardian” newspaper today, in the course of 2,000 pages, Leveson only devotes one page to the Internet. But this is not accurate.
In a report of 1,987 pages, there are 13 pages about the Internet – in Volume 1, Part C, Chapter 3, pages 164-175 and in Volume 2, Part F, Chapter 7, pages 736-737. The first section of material describes the operation of web sites, blogs, and social media and concludes with a brief discussion on enforcement. The one page that the media are referring to comes in a ‘Conclusion’ section and simply comments:
“Many editors and commentators have argued that the burgeoning of the internet is likely to render irrelevant much of the work of the Inquiry even assuming that it has not already done so. If, for example, celebrity X’s privacy is violated online, then the metaphorical cat is well out of the bag, and there is no reason why open season should not exist in the printed media. A clear exemplification of that argument is the justification used by The Sun in relation to the Prince Harry photographs, discussed in Chapter 5.
In my view, this argument is flawed for two reasons. Putting to one side publications such as the Mail Online which bind themselves voluntarily to the Editors’ Code of Practice (and which is legitimately proud of the world-wide on line readership that it has built up), the internet does not claim to operate by any particular ethical standards, still less high ones. Some have called it a ‘wild west’ but I would prefer to use the term ‘ethical vacuum’. This is not to say for one moment that everything on the internet is therefore unethical. That would be a gross mischaracterisation of the work of very many bloggers and websites which should rightly and fairly be characterised as valuable and professional. The point I am making is a more modest one, namely that the internet does not claim to operate by express ethical standards, so that bloggers and others may, if they choose, act with impunity.
The press, on the other hand, does claim to operate by and adhere to an ethical code of conduct. Publishers of newspapers will be (or, at least, are far more likely to be) far more heavily resourced than most, if not all, bloggers and websites that report news (as opposed to search engines that direct those on line to different sites). Newspapers, through whichever medium they are delivered, purport to offer a quality product in all senses of that term. Although in the light of the events leading to the setting up of this Inquiry and the evidence I have heard, the public is entitled to be sceptical about the true quality of parts of that product in certain sections of the press, the premise on which newspapers operate remains constant: that the Code will be adhered to, that within the bounds of natural human error printed facts whether in newsprint or online will be accurate, and that individual rights will be respected. In contrast, the internet does not function on this basis at all. People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular assurance or accuracy; it need be no more than one person’s view. There is none of the notional imprimatur or kitemark which comes from being the publisher of a respected broadsheet or, in its different style, an equally respected mass circulation tabloid.
The second reason largely flows from the first. There is a qualitative difference between photographs being available online and being displayed, or blazoned, on the front page of a newspaper such as The Sun. The fact of publication in a mass circulation newspaper multiplies and magnifies the intrusion, not simply because more people will be viewing the images, but also because more people will be talking about them. Thus, the fact of publication inflates the apparent newsworthiness of the photographs by placing them more firmly within the public domain and at the top of the news agenda. As Professor Baroness Onora O’Neill made clear, it is important:
“to recognise the extent to which exposure to media content is unchosen – particularly by children, those in institutional settings, and those in public places. Regulation should have regard to the realities of media penetration rather than assuming that it always reflects consumer choices.”Ultimately, this is most decidedly not a debate about free speech. A newspaper’s right to publish what it chooses within the general law (whether or not it complies with the Editors’ Code) is not in question, although within a more robust regulatory framework the consequences of a breach of the Code, publication having occurred, might well be such as to have a deterrent effect. To turn this into a debate about free speech both misses the point and is in danger of creating the sort of moral relativism which has already been remarked on. This is, or at least should be, a debate about freedom with responsibility, and about an ethical press not doing something which it is technically quite able to do but decides not to do. This freedom (and where the editors choose to draw the line whether rightly or otherwise) was neatly encapsulated by the decisions taken in relation to Prince Harry and the Duchess of Cambridge.”
I think that these comments seriously underestimate the use and impact of the Net and draw an unsustainable distinction between content offline and online. So far as I can see, the Leveson Report makes no recommendations in relation to Internet content but, if there is legislation arising from Leveson (as I hope), thought will have to be given to a more consistent regime for offline and online news.
As Emily Bell puts it in this piece:
“Lord Justice Leveson more than once referred to the internet as “the elephant in the room”. Leveson is in fact more like the tea hut in the elephant sanctuary by that measure. The scope of the work puts him in self-imposed isolation from what is happening in the wider world of information. The relevance of the Leveson report in protecting privacy and curtailing the excesses of press behaviour has to be questionable from the outset, as its remit is both narrow and historic.”
Posted in British current affairs, Internet | Comments (0)
A new picture of baby Catrin
November 28th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
It’s three weeks since I posted a photograph of my granddaughter Catrin and I know how much visitors to this blog enjoy seeing evidence of her progress, so here’s a picture taken today:
As I try to do once a week, I collected her from nursery at the end of the afternoon. We then spent some time on the nearby South Bank of central London having something to eat and drink and exploring the German Christmas market. Once again, we went on the merry-go-round which she absolutely loves.
It was bitterly cold. Catrin already had her balaclava with the animal ears but she persuaded me to buy her a set of ear muffs with little lion heads on them. She is wearing both in the picture. Cheeky monkey.
Catrin’s language skills are amazing and she is such a chatty little soul. She is also becoming very assertive: she doesn’t want to use the high chair, she doesn’t want to use a bib, she doesn’t want to sleep in a cot. She thinks she’s grown up ….
Posted in My life & thoughts | Comments (5)
The things that I’m learning about water
November 28th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
It is now eight months since I was appointed the independent Chair of the Customer Challenge Group at South East Water which supplies drinking water to 2.1 million customers in Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire. I’m paid to do a day a week, but obviously the actual workload varies from week to week.
This week, I spent a day chairing the fourth meeting of the Group. Also I attended a conference on the lessons from the drought in Kent and, later this week, I shall be attending an Ofwat workshop on sustainability. I am constantly learning new things.
On the one hand, I have discovered that 95% of a pint of beer consists of water and five pints of water are needed to produce one pint of beer.
On the other hand, I have come to appreciate that around one quarter of the typical £200 or so a year water bill is influenced significantly by something as esoteric as the cost of capital.
Posted in Consumer matters, Environment, My life & thoughts | Comments (0)
Waiting for Leveson – my note to the Hacked Off campaign
November 26th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
This short note suggests that the Leveson Report might need to be seen in the wider context of the Government’s Communications Review which is being led by the Department for Culture, Media & Sport.
In May 2011, the then Secretary of State Jeremy Hunt issued an open letter which launched the DCMS Communications Review which is intended to lead to a new Communications Act in 2015. In the intervening year and a half, progress has been painfully slow, the promised Green Paper never materialised, and Hunt himself has now moved on.
The Hunt open letter posed 13 questions.
Two were relevant to the regulation of the press, although at the time perhaps not intended to apply to this subject which was then dormant:
Q3. Is regulatory convergence across different platforms desirable and, if so, what are the potential issues to implementation?
Q13. Where has self- and co-regulation worked successfully and what can be learnt from specific approaches? Where specific approaches haven’t worked, how can the framework of content regulation be made sufficiently coherent and not create barriers to growth, but at the same time protect citizens and enable consumer confidence?
In December 2011, the Department finally published the 168 submissions to the review including my own on the regulation of convergence.
A Green Paper was drafted and cleared within Whitehall but never published.The plan now is as stated by DCMS: “We will publish a White Paper in early 2013, with a Bill introduced by the last session of this Parliament, subject to the legislative programme.”
The relationship between the Communications Review and the Leveson Inquiry concerns both timing and content.
On timing, the Government will have to consider whether either or both require legislation and, if so, the timing of such legislation. It is likely that both will require some legislative provisions. This will then raise the question of whether Parliamentary time can be found for two Bills or whether the necessary legislative provisions will be rolled into one Bill. If there is only one Bill, the proposed timetable of the Comms Review – a Bill by the last session – might well be too slow to meet the political pressure for implementation of the new regime recommended by Leveson. This would suggest an earlier Bill with the Comms Review being foreshortened.
On content, the Government will have to consider whether the Leveson recommendations for a tougher regime for the press have implicated for web sites and social media which are in any event converging with broadcasting. Some newspapers now have more visits online to their web site than readers of the print version of the paper. It is only a matter of time before some newspapers become online only. Meanwhile we have the evolution of social media and citizen journalism which begs the question of how we balance free speech and privacy online. Social media can breach citizens’ privacy or libel an individual just as easily as newspapers or television.
One approach might be to attempt to have a common set of principles that would apply to all content independent of the format or delivery platform – print, radio, television, Internet – under one overarching piece of legislation and one overarching regulator. There might then be sector-specific mechanisms or institutions to give effect to these principles for different parts of the media ecology. In this way, newspapers would not be singled out for special controls but press regulation would have institutional arrangements that reflected the nature of press ownership and consumption.
Posted in British current affairs | Comments (1)
“Inside, I’m screaming” – or another view of the Chinese ‘miracle’
November 25th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
There is quite a lot on my web site about China because I have visited the country three times and read several books about the subject. In many ways, the economic developments of the last three decades have been amazing and hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens have been lifted out of poverty.
But more educated Chinese are starting to appreciate that the political restrictions on citizens are suffocating them and in time the tensions between economic liberalism and political repression will become explosive. This is clear from a set of e-mails that I have received this weekend from a 25 year old Chinese man who recently graduated but faces the cronyism that dominates so much of Chinese life. He writes:
‘As you mentioned in your three-week trip to China blog,corrupion is everywhere in China,most of the rich people grab their fortune through bribing the government officers,especially in thereal estate and coal-mining industry.Actually almost every business,if you want to make it big,you have to involve in the government system deeply.The most powerful real estate tycoon or thediamond business tycoon,you name it,all have deep government background,sometimes even the Prime Minister is involved.In China,there is no truth,power is truth,for instance,if you are agovernment officer,not only yourself but your family members and other relatives benefit from it,not only financial benefit but also fame,if you have enough money,you can do whatever you want.
There is no basic human right,people do not have a chance to choose their own leader.Almost all of the monopoly companies is owned by the authoritarian government,like ChinaMobile company,and other petroleum companies,so they can put a lid on the people’s voice.
This is the real China through her citizens’ eyes,not as beautiful as foreigners like you witness,because foreigners only can see the scenery in China in a short period of time,but that’s not thesoul of the country.In fact most of its citizens are living in fire without even knowing it,because lack of kowledge,illiteracy,do not even know the 26 english letters.The media is strictlycontrolled by the government-the Chinese Communist Party,all the information his people can receive is filtered and controlled by the government,including the Internet,anynegative information about the Chinese government or the Chinese Communist Party reported by the US media is blocked by the Chinese government. In China,you even have no ways loggingin Facebook webpage.
As you mentioned in your three-week trip to China blog, there is no free or private media institution like American NBC, or CNN, or CBS.So the governmenthas done a good job in controlling all of his people from every aspects of life,from education to information.
In fact,if you are an ordinary chinese(I mean don’t have a rich family and a government officer background), if you don’t speak english well,so you can’t manage to study abroad,you’re gonnarot in China forever,because no matter how hard you try,you are not gonna make it.China is full of sweatshops which people work the longest time but earn the least money.I had beenworking in a manufacturing workshop for 1 year since I graduated from college. As college graduate, our salary is 23$ per day, but any foreign employee’s salary is 400-800$ per day, that’s pathetic, hopeless. Immigration is the only way,the only way responsible for yourself, for your children,and for your children’s children.”
My new Chinese correspondent concludes:
“It’s my pleasure to be your friend. I am living in a quiet world, but inside, I’m screaming, nobody cares. Now at least I have a friend to talk to, it’s you.Thank you.”
Posted in World current affairs | Comments (0)
The rise and rise of Stella Creasy
November 25th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
On an earlier version of this blog, I tipped Barack Obama as a possible future US President while he was still fighting for a Senate seat in Illinois. so I hope that readers of this blog were watching when, almost two years ago, I did a posting suggesting that Stella Creasy, then a newly-elected MP for Walthamstow, was a possible future leader of the British Labour Party.
This week’s “Observer” newspaper devotes an entire page to a profile of the Labour politician. It is great to see a parliamentarian who is intelligent, thoughtful and fluent and has conviction. Even better that she is a woman and a member of the party I support. Go, Stella, go.
Posted in British current affairs | Comments (0)
Looking out for Leveson – and the struggle to achieve an effective system of press regulation
November 24th, 2012 by Roger Darlington
This week, I visited the offices of Hacked Off, the campaign for a free and accountable press, and, on Thursday, the Leveson inquiry will report when the judge will make recommendations on the future of press regulation in the UK.
Meanwhile I’ve been looking at the book “Everybody’s Hacked Off” by Brian Cathcart and I support fully the principles which he identifies as eseential to a future system of regulation of the press:
- independence from editors and proprietors
- independence from other interests including government
- the ability to provide redress
- the ability to investigate when things go wrong
- the ability to impose sanctions
- the ability to compel membership
- regular submission to external inspection
Like the Hacked Off campaign, I believe that the new system of press regulation should have statutory underpinning. It works for broadcasting in Britain and for the press in Denmark. It can work here.
I also believe Leveson’s proposals will need to embrace content on the Internet.
Posted in British current affairs | Comments (0)
16 segments of European states that threaten to break away – or have already effectively done so
November 23rd, 2012 by Roger Darlington
Some people thought that the European Union project would dampen down pressures for bits of European nation states to seek secession. The idea was that we would have a ‘Europe of the regions’ with citizens less concerned about which country they beloged to. It hasn’t happened like that.
In EU nations both large and small, there are many cases of sections of the country wanting not simply more autonomy but actual independence. The break-up of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union has added to the multiplicity of territories seeking nation state status.
The “Guardian” newspaper today has an interactive map identifying no less than 16 places that want to be countries in their own right – see here.
I have mixed feelings about such developments. On the one hand, as a democrat I favour self-determination if citizens feel oppressed. On the other hand, as an internationalist I oppose sectarianism and fear that separatism often heightens rather than resolves differences of ethnicity or language.
I am reminded of a conversation I once had with someone in Tel Aviv when we discussed whether Iraq would or should fragment into three new states. The conversation led me to write a short essay for my web site in which I addressed the questions: How do we define a nation state? Who decides whether a territory is to constitute a state? How do we deal with those who do not identify with the state?
You can read my essay here.
Posted in World current affairs | Comments (0)