It seems that Guy Jenkin and Andy Hamilton were on to something. The acclaimed writers of ‘Drop The Dead Donkey’ (and many others) created intrepid news reporter Damian Day who was so keen to get to the news first that he sometimes created it. Brazilian Politician and TV host Wallace Souza is accused of doing just that but for real.
Souza’s ratings hit programme ‘Canal Livre’ gained a reputation over its 20 year run for being on the scene first but suspicions were aroused when they seemed to be there before the police. The kernel of the doubt seems to have been around for over a year since one of Souza’s bodyguards was accused of nine murders and he confessed that at least one had been aired on ‘Canal Livre’ – ordered by his boss. The case against Souza is based on the accusation that he had links with organised crime – i.e. the very groups that his programme is intended to uncover.
To cap the story, once accused Souza himself went on the run and no doubt became a prime time draw subject in his own right. He has now given himself up and is subject to arrest now that his immunity as a member of the state legislature has been removed.
From an outsider’s perspective this dual role of politician and TV presenter is both odd and maybe at the root of such a bizarre situation. According to The Guardian, Souza (an ex Policeman himself) was in his third term and enjoying the highest voting rates in recent elections so his outspoken commitment to clean the streets had an obviously effective populist ring but maybe the TV connection was a step too far. Policing is policing, politics is politics and entertainment is entertainment. When they mix it can be a bit too ‘L.A. Confidential’ (indeed Souza claims that he was able to get to the crime scene first because of information supplied by informants within the police)
Lest this sound just a slightly amusing oddity, it should be remembered that Souza is accused of ordering at least five murders. He is one of 20 arrested – including his son – on suspicion of involvement with organised crime that fuelled this curious story.
’
Friday, 23 October 2009
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Awkward Cases
There are plenty of stories every day that raise an eyebrow, a shrug and a tired ‘the world’s gone barmy’. Sometimes however they linger rather longer and disturb rather more. Two recent UK cases exemplify this.
To most if us, Yvonne Hossack looks like a heroine. Working tirelessly and for free she represents vulnerable people living in care homes threatened with closure by local authorities. This puts her on a collision course and her own tenacity and self belief equips her well for the impact. This determination is based on her view that data proves that elderly people displaced from their residential homes to new ones face potentially fatal consequences – she claims that death rates double to 37% within a year. This then is no ‘soft’ issue of discomfort. Of course no one is suggesting that the local authorities aren’t concerned about this and don’t carefully consider it when making decisions; it’s just that they have their budgetary pressures and could do without intervention especially when it’s of the humanitarian and (in her own words) ‘bloody minded’ kind. This explains three authorities’ decision to complain about her to the Law Society on the basis that her efforts had wasted money and time – in effect tying up resources on ‘hopeless causes’. The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal dismissed these complaints and the resulting press coverage - no doubt aided by the fact that Home Secretary Alan Johnson was one who spoke for her - has no doubt strengthened her support for the inevitable next battle.
In parallel came the story of Carol Hill, a school dinner lady sacked for bringing to the attention of parents the fact that their child had been bullied. Hill had seen an incident at school, broken it up and casually later asked the victim’s parents if the child was OK only to find that the parents knew little of it. Many people would see the school as the errant party – it seems an odd policy to advise parents only of a santised version of the truth that omitted the main details. The logic here though is that Hill apparently broke a duty of confidentiality – presumably to the bullies. The school and Local Education Authority appear to have been oddly silent in the fallout from this – there have been no denials of the facts and the only justification seems to have been a mantra that says Hill should have ‘followed proper procedures.’ This seems to miss two obvious points – a) the School’s own proper procedures seemed to be to hush things up, and b) she was merely showing concern in a daily conversation – she was hardly rushing to the press. Once again though the beurocrats actions bought the press rushing to them.
This is bizarre stuff. When what look to most of us like heroes can be treated as villains, it seems that ‘society’ (that’s us) must accept the rule of beurocrats focused on ridding themselves of embarrassing truths.
To most if us, Yvonne Hossack looks like a heroine. Working tirelessly and for free she represents vulnerable people living in care homes threatened with closure by local authorities. This puts her on a collision course and her own tenacity and self belief equips her well for the impact. This determination is based on her view that data proves that elderly people displaced from their residential homes to new ones face potentially fatal consequences – she claims that death rates double to 37% within a year. This then is no ‘soft’ issue of discomfort. Of course no one is suggesting that the local authorities aren’t concerned about this and don’t carefully consider it when making decisions; it’s just that they have their budgetary pressures and could do without intervention especially when it’s of the humanitarian and (in her own words) ‘bloody minded’ kind. This explains three authorities’ decision to complain about her to the Law Society on the basis that her efforts had wasted money and time – in effect tying up resources on ‘hopeless causes’. The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal dismissed these complaints and the resulting press coverage - no doubt aided by the fact that Home Secretary Alan Johnson was one who spoke for her - has no doubt strengthened her support for the inevitable next battle.
In parallel came the story of Carol Hill, a school dinner lady sacked for bringing to the attention of parents the fact that their child had been bullied. Hill had seen an incident at school, broken it up and casually later asked the victim’s parents if the child was OK only to find that the parents knew little of it. Many people would see the school as the errant party – it seems an odd policy to advise parents only of a santised version of the truth that omitted the main details. The logic here though is that Hill apparently broke a duty of confidentiality – presumably to the bullies. The school and Local Education Authority appear to have been oddly silent in the fallout from this – there have been no denials of the facts and the only justification seems to have been a mantra that says Hill should have ‘followed proper procedures.’ This seems to miss two obvious points – a) the School’s own proper procedures seemed to be to hush things up, and b) she was merely showing concern in a daily conversation – she was hardly rushing to the press. Once again though the beurocrats actions bought the press rushing to them.
This is bizarre stuff. When what look to most of us like heroes can be treated as villains, it seems that ‘society’ (that’s us) must accept the rule of beurocrats focused on ridding themselves of embarrassing truths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)