Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Falling standards in public life - Bill Ratcliffe (16th Mar 2010 - 19:11:55) There seems to be a remarkable and persistant detriation in the behaviour and standards of the people involved in public services and public life. At the top of the tree Lords, MPs, BBC Senior Managers, QUANGO heads and others seem to embroiled in constant scandles about their expenses, inflated salaries, nepotism and other undesiarable behaviours that would not be out of place in the Mafia. They take our money with impunity, put up taxes, put up fees, there is nothing the public can do! The disregard for the ethos of public service in exchange for personal greed has not only effected local MPs but seems to have worked its way down to County, District and even to our Parish Council level. Inflated salaries for non-jobs, huge expenses claims and shady deals have left the public shell-shocked and disenchanted by those who seek to rule and lead at all levels in the political hierarchy. No wonder voting figures are so low. The best learning to come out of all this disappointment is a reinforcement of the freedom of the press to hold politicians, councillors and public employees to account. It seems a free press is the only challenge to the power of the state (and local authorities) and it must be supported and strengthened, because our eyes have been opened to the lengths that those in power will go to to protect their privileges while picking our pockets.

Re: Falling standards in public life - Paul Robinson (17th Mar 2010 - 06:58:06) Whilst I agree with much of what Bill has said here I fear that trusting in the power of the press to investigate and expose ineptitude and corruption in all levels of government is a folorn hope. Whilst I commend the Daily Telegraph in its campaign to expose the MP's (and Lords) expenses fiddles I fear that we do not have a free press. When newspapers are called to account for incorrect reporting and defamation they go before the Press Standards Committee a voluntary self regulating body made up of editors and executives from other newspapers and their adjudications are sadly all too predictable. In a recent case when a reporter from The Daily Mail was investigated the Press Standards Committee found no case to answer. The Chairman at the time was, you guessed it, the Editor of the Daily Mail. Do not underestimate the power of the press barons, they are all powerful with ownership of many newspapers, television and radio look at Murdoch, Burlusconi and, yes even the Tyndal Group When reporting the proceedings of our own Parish Council was found to be 'economic with the facts' and our local paper was pressed for an explanation a parishioner was allegedly threatened with court proceedings. If we are unhappy with the way things are handled at local and national level then we must get involved like Dr Judge. By not voting in an election we absolve ourselves from any responsibilty and forfeit the right to criticize authority. Paul Robinson

Re: Falling standards in public life - bill mouland (17th Mar 2010 - 09:39:03) Sorry to rain on your parade, Paul, but your slant on the Press Complaints Commission is entirely wrong. For a start, it is called the Press Complaints Commission and not the Press Standards Committee. Neither is it made up of editors and executives from other newspapers. The chairman, in fact, is Baroness Buscombe not the Editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre. Mr Dacre is not even a member of the commission which decides complaints although he is chairman of the Editors' Code of Practice Committee. He will certainly have had nothing to do with a complaint against one of his own reporters, by which I guess you mean the Fabuliss affair. The Commission's ruling on that matter, exonerating the Mail and the Herald was posted, briefly, on this site but then mysteriously disappeared. If you don't believe the more general point about the PCC, the simple solution is to look up its website. www.pcc.org.uk which is very comprehensive. I include an extract from the site if you can't be bothered... 'There are seventeen members of the Press Complaints Commission. A majority of them have no connection with the press - ensuring that the PCC is independent of the newspaper industry. There are three classes of members: the Chairman, Public Members (or lay) and Press (or industry) Members. The independent Chairman is appointed by the newspaper and magazine publishing industry. The Chairman must not be engaged in or, otherwise than by his office as Chairman, connected with or interested in the business of publishing newspapers, periodicals or magazines. The current Chairman is Baroness Buscombe. The Public Members and Press Members are appointed by an independent Appointments Commission. None of the Public Members can be engaged in or, otherwise than by their membership of the Commission, connected with or interested in the business of publishing newspapers, periodicals or magazines. Each of the Press Members must be a person experienced at senior editorial level in the press. The Commission takes the final decision about all complaints handled by the PCC, in particular those referred to it for adjudication. Commission members also function as Directors of the PCC, so have ultimate responsibility for the management of the Commission.'

Re: Falling standards in public life - barbara (17th Mar 2010 - 11:51:29) Thank you for a long reply Bill, however, I do believe that Paul is right when he thinks the press has a separate agenda. When you telephoned me, after I posted on this site that you could be Reg, I was left under the impression you would sue me in court for my posting on the website. Not a pleasant impression of you. When ordinary people are too scared to tell the truth in public or write on a website because of the threat of legal action the bullies have won. Journalists have the advantage that they protect their sources, so they sometimes use that as an excuse not to admit that their story is just gossip, and that they have not taken the time to get a balanced story. The fabuliss story is a good example, it gave a picture of Liphook to the rest of the country from two "members of the public" who did not have the courage to give their names.

Re: Falling standards in public life - bill mouland (17th Mar 2010 - 12:54:58) Dear Barbara. I telephoned you after you had accused me of being Reg because it was an outrageous slur to suggest that my character was such that I would hide behind a pseudonym. Besides which, Reg came across as an ill educated moron and I would not have wanted anyone to think I was associated with him - or any of the other obviously bogus people who post on here from time to time. I said that I could sue for defamation of character and you said you had plenty of money. You graciously agreed to withdraw your comments. I'm afraid I cannot fathom the rest of your posting about bullies and people being scared to tell the truth. In this case you had made the wild allegation that I was Reg and the truth was that I wasn't. So it was fair of me to point it out. Thanks.

Re: Falling standards in public life - Dawn Hoskins (18th Mar 2010 - 12:46:51) Bill I seem to remember reading a Guardian article last year, when Max Moseley was in court regarding a privacy action (I think?). He was definitely very cross about the Press Complaints Commission and how it ‘self-regulates’ and I do seem to recall that he was attacking Paul Dacre and The Mail in general accusing them of being corrupt! As you will no doubt be aware, I thought the whole, stalking and photographing thing in the Mail and the Herald regarding the trans-gender debacle was a complete disgrace. I was astounded that anyone who was local to this area would chose to make the area look like a hillbilly backwater full of unaccepting bigots – when the opposite is true. But getting back to the point in hand – the fact that this ‘news’ was dished out by council members is certainly a display of standards in public life plummeting to the bottom of the barrel. All those concerned should hang their heads in shame, especially those responsible for getting it printed in their papers! It would seem you were very quick to get on the phone and threaten Councillor Easton with a law suit for calling you Reg – but you were OK with completely smashing a family to pieces and stalking them with a photographer to get your previous salacious story. And you talk about standards!!!!! That is nearly as good as Cllr Wilson complaining about people complaining! When I read that I nearly spilt my tea. Would just like to make it clear that I am commenting on Bill Mouland having an opinion on 'standards' and not ex-councillor Ratcliffe who I firmly believe is in a position to differentiate between good standards and bad. Dawn

Re: Falling standards in public life - Bill Ratcliffe (18th Mar 2010 - 22:12:56) Yes, I do agree with some of the points made regarding the free press. I do, however, believe that at its best a free press (including broadcasters) is the ONLY effective counter-weight to the overwhelming onslaught of the state and its many tenticles on the lives of the citizen. We seem to have lost the ability of opposition parties, at all levels of politics, to provide effective scrutiny on those in power because they are also emeshed in the corruption and are only waiting 'their turn'. Occasionally one comes upon men and woman of stature and integrity (Barry was such a man) but they are becoming a rare breed, to be replaced by the self serving and inept.

Re: Falling standards in public life - bill mouland (19th Mar 2010 - 09:46:40) Dear Dawn. You appear to have some interesting bedfellows - a sado masochist who likes to be spanked by prostitutes and a group of men who like to dress up as women. Maybe you should have put that in your manifesto and won a landslide victory instead of being spanked yourself. You should be careful about discriminating against minority groups like hillbillies or you will be getting a visit from the Hampshire Constabulary's Hillbilly Awareness Officer. Have an exciting week-end. Parp parp.

Re: Falling standards in public life - Dawn Hoskins (19th Mar 2010 - 15:30:13) What a very strange man you are Mr Mouland. I just commented on buzzards on another thread – in your ‘world’ does that make me best friends with them on a personal level? The point I was addressing to you was that you appear to have double standards. Threatening a councillor with legal action for thinking you were ‘Reg’ on this site would suggest that you do not accept for one minute that the public should air their opinions if they concern you. You jumped on that like a sledgehammer cracking a nut. What would you have done if you did not know the poster – harrang the editor of this site for their identity and phone number?? Yet on the other hand – you are content to see a story written which would rip a family apart and trash a person’s life – and all for the reporter’s monetary gain. Please let me know what your standards are regarding reporting - perhaps I have misjudged you badly and you are not scraping the bottom of the barrel at all. How is Reg by the way?

Re: Falling standards in public life - Paul Robinson (20th Mar 2010 - 10:41:33) My thanks to Bill Mouland for his corrections, as a jounalist he would of course be more intimate with the Press Complaints Commission however I am disappointed that he has not addressed the central thrust of my contribution to this thread i.e. the power of the press. Press Complaints Commission / Press Standards Committee, 'a rose is a rose for a' that'. Whatever you call it, it is still self regulation. As a matter of fact the case I was trying to call to mind was not the pursuit and outing of Fabuliss but a more heinous piece written by one of the Daily Mail's more prominent journalists who attacked a public figure and was, among other things grossly homophobic. This case was brought to the attention of the PCC who found, surprise surprise, no case to answer. Paul Robinson

Re: Falling standards in public life - Helen M (20th Mar 2010 - 20:40:47) i find bill mouland's post completely inappropriate. why do you need to come on here and slag people off on a personal level. i find it really uncomfortable. Whether you agree with Dawn Hoskins or not why make it personal?? Can you not express yourself in a more appropriate manner? As a mother i feel a stong need to tell you to grow up and get on with expressing opinions on here that matter and not petty bickering. I wouldn't let my 5 year old daughter talk about people like that why should a grown man be able to do it?

Re: Falling standards in public life - claire (21st Mar 2010 - 09:33:49) Anyone seen Groundhog Day??

Re: Falling standards in public life - barbara (22nd Mar 2010 - 12:32:38) I am of the opinion that Bill Mouland seems to save his worst verbal vitriol when he is responding to females who post on here. I have not noticed such ferocity when he is replying to the males. Perhaps he feels that women are an easier target. I have also often noticed in other situations, that there are some men who would not dare disagree with or contradict another male, yet feel at liberty to say anything they like to a female expressing her opinions.

Re: Falling standards in public life - Dawn Hoskins (23rd Mar 2010 - 16:57:51) Honestly! What did Geoff Hoon, Stephen Byers and Patricia Hewitt think they were doing? No wonder people opt out of voting - or even being interested in how our country is being run.

Re: Falling standards in public life - Robert Douglas (25th Mar 2010 - 09:49:19) I assume you're being ironic Mrs Hoskins. Why otherwise aren't you up in arms about Hoon, Hewitt and Byers being the victims of our venal and corrupt media whose only aim is to entrap innocent and fun-loving people so as to sell more product to their prurient consumers? Or do you have a different set of rules for different sets of people depending on whether you like them or not? PS sorry for being a man. Used to be a time when only women weren't allowed opinions. Suppose we had it coming.

Re: Falling standards in public life - Dawn Hoskins (25th Mar 2010 - 13:01:53) No irony involved Robert, Disgraceful behaviour - end of. Not sure why that was tricky?

Re: Falling standards in public life - H (29th May 2012 - 11:53:40) I thought I would post this up to the top again as it seems relevant to the previous post about all the other " cornerstones of society"

Re: Falling standards in public life - Beth (30th May 2012 - 19:00:10) I'm horrified re reading this thread. I remember it being contentious at the time, but I am staggered at the vitriolic words of Mr Mouland. I am now horrified that he is an elected officer of this village. On that subject, whilst we're on the standards of public life, I also find it abhorrent that a serving Liphook Councillor has been caught taking photographs outside the house of a female single parent constituent. There is no doubt on the veracity of this story, and the police have full records One of the reasons that I arranged Pride of Liphook is that I am so astounded by the generosity of spirit and the strong community that we have here, and I thought that it deserved celebrating. I stand by this. I love Liphook (not ashamed to say it) I'm really proud to live here, but I'm appauled and ashamed at the words of Mr Mouland and the repellant behaviour of this other Councillor. I don't see any way that we should tolerate these standards in public life. These two individuals should be ashamed of their public behaviour and the way that they have chosen to conduct themselves.

Re: Falling standards in public life - Jean (31st May 2012 - 12:33:04) Beth Was there any reason in your posting for naming Bill Mouland and not the other councillor who was illicitly taking photographs of a single parent constituent? I would be most interested to know who the councillor is and I am sure others would as well.

Re: Falling standards in public life - Beth (31st May 2012 - 16:46:46) Hi Jean The reason that I identified Bill Mouland is that he had already identified himself with his vitriol earlier in the thread. The public naming of this other Councillor may cause further distress to the victim, however, I'm sure that he reads this site, and should look to his own morals and step down as this kind of person shouldn't be allowed anywhere near public office. For the records EHDC have been made aware of the situation. Beth

Re: Falling standards in public life - Jean (1st Jun 2012 - 09:07:57) Beth While I would be the last person to want to cause any more distress to the victim, if I was the victim I would welcome the councillor who perpetrated this wholly unacceptable invasion of my privacy to be publicly "named and shamed", even more so as he holds a public office.. Everyday victims of all sorts of crimes have to read and see the names of the people who carried out the crimes in the media and in print. How else are people brought to justice and made to be accountable for their crimes - in the worst case scenario, they just get away scot free. That is not what anyone wants especially the victim. Over the centuries more harm has been allowed to happen by the "turning of the blind eye" or pretending something is not happening or has happened. All this achieves is more suffering, more bullying, more cruelty etc etc. I know that to stand up and be counted takes courage and guts, but it has to be done if there is to be any real change in our society. Evil triumphs over good when good men do nothing.

Re: Falling standards in public life - Eneida (1st Jun 2012 - 11:59:09) Beth, I think that posting on this site about an unpleasant incident involving a 'male Parish Councillor' and then not naming the person in question, has now put ALL the male Councillors under suspicion...which seems quite unfair IMO.

Re: Falling standards in public life - Beth (6th Jun 2012 - 11:25:41) Hi Eneida I do take your comments on board, and to a large extent agree with you. I know many of our Councillors well and would hate to feel that they are being punished for someone elses ill judgement. The victim herself has 3 children, two of whom are going through exams, and she doesn't want to be made public at this time as her family are already under enough stress with this. I would hope that the Councillor involved has the good grace to step down immediately and not stand for re-election.

Re: Falling standards in public life - jean (7th Jun 2012 - 19:02:31) Beth, Eneida's posting made very good sense when she pointed out that by not naming the "sitting" male councillor in your posting and yet referring to his "repellant" behavious casts a cloud of suspicion over all our present male councillors. It would have been better if you had not mentioned the behaviour of this councillor in the first place if you felt that you could not name him. Of course the victim and her family are the innocent party and must be proteced, but so must our present councillors. You are not being asked to name the victim, but name the councillor and put an end to all this secrecy and unpleasantness. As I said in my previous posting "name and shame". I am sure the victim in this case would welcome that even more so if her name is not mentioned. If you think by placing your posting you are appealing to this man's conscience and hoping he will resign then I think you are being rather naive. People who behave as he has done have no integrity, conscience or sensitivity and they certainly do not appear to have any compassion for other people.

Re: Falling standards in public life - Steve Miller (7th Jun 2012 - 21:38:04) In any event what about the longstanding British concept that someone accused of wrongdoing should be assumed innocent until his or her guilt has been proven? Perhaps some of the earlier posters on this thread consider that this shouldn't apply to Liphook and Bramshott councillors!

Re: Falling standards in public life - Jean (14th Jun 2012 - 19:40:15) Steve, I do not understand your posting referring to the longstanding British concept when applied to the suspicion looming over our councillors and now highlighted as a result of Beth's posting. I understand the concept that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty, but in what way does that apply to our present councillors? They are not actually being condemned because we do not know the name of the councillor who took the photos of the single parent. It is appalling that someone elected to represent the best interests of Liphook & Bramshott's electors should be actually sitting on the council. However he is and the unwillingness of Beth to reveal the name has unfortunately cast a slur on the other councillors and has created an atmosphere of suspicion not condemnation. I feel that the concept of innocence until proven guilty is far more applicable to the suspended Clerk because many people have already condemned him and it has not actually been proved that he is guilty of anything to date in spite of the concerted efforts of Cllrs Jerrard and Croucher. That really is against all that democracy in this country stands for.

Re: Falling standards in public life - Steve Miller (14th Jun 2012 - 21:07:20) Jean The post on 30th May included the following: "On that subject, whilst we're on the standards of public life, I also find it abhorrent that a serving Liphook Councillor has been caught taking photographs outside the house of a female single parent constituent. There is no doubt on the veracity of this story, and the police have full records". I have no idea of the truth or otherwise of this matter but it appears to me that some of the subsequent posts to this thread have taken this as a fact with rather sinister implications rather than an unproven accusation. My previous comment was merely intended to suggest that even councillors are entitled to present a defence to such accusations before being judged guilty and condemned on this public forum. For the record I agree that the same principle should apply the the Clerk which is another issue that I know nothing about other than what has been written on these pages. Due process should be followed and if it takes a long time to achieve resolution then so be it.

Re: Falling standards in public life - jean (17th Jun 2012 - 16:58:28) Steve You state in your third paragraph that "even councillors are entitled to present a defence to such accusations before being judged guilty and condemned on this public forum" The point is this councillor does not seem to have presented a defence. There is one way of settling this alleged accusation against the councillor who allegedly took photos of the female single parent constituent and that is for him to come forward and present a defence. I am sure this is what Cllr Jerrard would advise to his fellow councillor. After all Cllr Jerrard's mantra is “If it’s not true why don’t they sue” see his web site Justice and Anti-Corruption Party. In this way the cloud of suspicion currently hanging over the other sitting male councillors will be dispelled. Simple. In the case of the Clerk, he has and is continuing to present a defence, but he is still condemned on this forum and in the eyes of many Bramshott & Liphook electors because of the “witch hunt” now taking place. If the dismissal of the Clerk does not now happen it will not be for the want of trying, let alone the cost to the ratepaying electorate. As has been stated in other postings it has taken the councillors involved in the investigation nearly 9 months to date and it is still apparently ongoing.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home