Press here to detonate...

What kind of media do we want? They say a nation gets the media it deserves but that cannot be right - Britain is absolutely not that bad! Yes of course we want a free press. But what does that mean?

When I started out as a journalist in 1959 we had a fairly clear idea of what a free press was. Most people knew too that what we had was not exactly as free as we would like. Aristocrats like Beaverbrook, Harmsworth and Northcliffe owned most of it - the rest was in the hands of newer money such as Cecil King or Roy Thomson.

No one kidded themselves that these moguls did not exert influence but for the most part it was in the political field and known about, if not understood. And frankly little has changedin this area. Of course I abhor Murdoch but I wasn't all that keen on Maxwell either and I find it hard to discuss what has happened to the Express. Whatever Harmsworth is today it seems to go on forever - good job since part of my pension emanates from there. 

But over the years things have changed a great deal and power and influence has had a growing and worrying impact. Yet it is not there that the recent scandals have erupted. This time it is simply the extraordinary and illegal lengths to which some media has gone to 'get a story'. It is this bad behaviour that has led to Leveson

So the mendacious and hypocritical fears being expressed by the same popular (there's a laugh!) prints after Leveson and the possibility of some statutory support for the new Press Complaints body is laughable as well as dangerous. For it was not a free press that was either at risk or even in question when these benighted and tricksy hacks and their frankly evil bosses decided to break the law and buy information and tap phones. What was wrong was that it was AGAINST the public interest for these know-nothing sharks to intrude not only into the lives but the griefs of innocent people and to interfere with the due process of the law. 

We can only hope that it is this due process that has restrained Lord Leveson from proclaiming in more detail and stronger terms on the relationship - the propinquity even - between these hacks and certain police officers and others. His honour may be redeemed by events in the next few days. If not, bigger questions about his propinquity may be raised.

Indeed, had the laws which these newspaper broke been properly exercised against them at the time even Leveson may have been as unnecessary as Cameron makes him appear.

But to the core issue. He says rightly that the Press Complaints system is broken - that is not new news; most of us were of that opinion a long time before all this started. So indeed a new one is needed. And the dreadful experiences of the victims of the media wild west of recent years show only too clearly that this body must be independent and capable of investigating complaints. That however is not enough on its own and David Cameron must surely know this in reality. He is surely only in denial or at least under the influence.

For we have been here six times before in recent decades. And every time the press has been given a last chance. So many last chances, so many lost opportunities you might think.

Now is the time for a much more powerful and capable complaints body as Leveson says. And it does not require any interference by politicians now or in the future in what the press is allowed or able to do IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. What is required is simply that this body is a legal body, with power to investigate, power to apply for warrants for searches and the power to act as it finds necessary - under the rule of law. In the extreme it might need to apply to magistrates for a warrant to force a witness to co-operate.

None of this statutory support needs to state in any way what  ever Cameron and the media may say. But it is essential to have a safe haven for victims of press excess to report.

And here is the crisis that we now face, entirely of Cameron's making. He is singing the media tune AGAIN. He has been got at or he looks and sounds very much like a man who has been got at..... 'Don't you worry Dave old chum; come the election and we'll see you right - as long as we don't get any of that nasty statutory stuff to spoil our little game'

I might sound a bit paranoid here but lets face it - he did say BEFORE Leveson he would implement the report. He is now saying he will not, despite his promise to the Dowlers. Little Cleggy doesn't seem to agree, along with many more.

Cameron, we know from all the u-turns, is incompetent and unfit to govern and he has a cabinet packed with people with their own dodgy agendas or simply, as the Widdicombe said of a less unsavoury character, something of the night about them.

The good news is that the victims are campaigning against him and that is political dynamite. I give him a few more months before either he comes to his senses or his cosy little coalition collapses round his silver spoon stuffed neck.

Oh and I wrote this elsewhere. I'll say it again: "Reading what my former colleagues have to say this morning about Leveson I feel the need to apologise to all my friends for the utter mendacity and hypocrisy of all, bar the Guardian and Independent. They make Cameron's pusillanimous and craven speech to the house take second place in the annals of infamy. Sorry for even having been a journalist (euch!)." 

Even Simon Jenkins decided to sully his reputation by arguing, nay pleading, for another chance. Shame on you Simon.

Who is really paying for corporate profits?

All the current and rightful anger over the failure of so many major corporations operating in the UK but not paying tax is not the only cause we have for concern. Too often these companies also sing proudly about their contribution in employment terms while failing to acknowledge the part taxpayers play in making this possible. Our contribution comes in the form of subsidising the earnings of staff.
One example has come up in Norfolk recently where the Norse Group has issued press releases proclaiming its significant contribution to the local economy through its employment of some 5,700 workers. These people earn about £84 million a year. In total of course. My argument is not really with Norse who are no different in this regard but they do have an unusual history.
They were formed as a result of out sourcing by Norfolk County Council. Initially this was of its property activities, which are quite considerable of course. From this beginning Norse has grown to take on more work from Norfolk, then Great Yarmouth, then Norwich City and now councils all over the UK use them generating a gross turnover last year approaching £180 million and gross profits of £40 million.
The payroll equates to about £15,000 average pay per worker. We do not know how many are part-time and this could be critical but we can guess that in common with most companies a significant number will be managerial and the ratio of salary between the least and the best paid will be substantial.
Of course if we knew what the full time equivalent number was it would be easier to calculate true value but these days this is never mentioned. It is why when retailers like Tesco arrive in a town they can trumpet 300 new jobs and the local media and others miss the fact that these are mostly low paid part-time. And the businesses that close after they arrive will mean the loss of at least as many jobs and the support of all the ancilliary business from solicitors to accountants and from plumbers to architects.
But taking the stated figures, at a reasonable guess a fair number of these workers will be in receipt of tax credits, welfare payments, rent or rate support. For at this level of pay - it is about £7.50 a hour so just about what is called a living wage by Boris Johnson - providing for a spouse and two children must be quite a challenge. It certainly does not constitute wealth generation by their employers and could even be costing taxpayers significantly.
The company concerned had a gross turnover nationally of about £180 million, gross profits of about £40 million and paid £5 million in corporation tax. I don't feel confident that this will balance the books for us taxpayers.
Most people will be aware that in London for example very few key workers like those in health, welfare and emergency services, can afford the housing costs of the capital. To be honest I expect the same is true for too many workers here in Norwich. And it is not just housing, although this is alarmingly exorbitant in the UK, but the costs of commuting too.
My issue with all this is not just that some like Starbucks and Vodaphone dodge paying ta=x for their activity in the UK but that this means they really are hurting us taxpayers. For it is the activity of a business that generates cost within the community. Sure, local rates, VAT, fuel duty and the like cover some of the costs but all those sales mean a lot more is happening in the community at large which someone has to pay for.
I would like to see a turnover tax instead of capital gains. A much lower rate would deliver the same amount of cash but corporations would find it a lot harder to dodge the cost of their activity in the country of operation. And they could then hide their profits anywhere they like.
And every company should be forced to express its workforce in Full-Time Equivalent numbers - then we can really see what is happening to the workers.