AFTER my story was butchered by the Daily Telegraph in-paper and rewritten on-line, I thought I would publish what I actually wrote.
AN historic picture commissioned to mark the inheritance of five castles by a prototype feminist has been reunited for the first time in its new home.
Lady Anne Clifford defied her father, husband and the first King of England and Scotland for decades to inherit an estate of five great castles across the North of England.
Known as The Great Picture, a remarkable triptych or three-sectioned format typically reserved for religious works, it was commissioned by Lady Anne in 1646 to mark her final succession to the inheritance that she had always felt was rightfully hers.
The redoubtable and determined Lady Anne, countess of Pembroke, Dorset and Montgomery (1590-1676), spent much of her life in a long and complex legal battle to obtain the rights of her inheritance.
Anne Clifford was born at Skipton Castle, the daughter of George Clifford, 3rd earl of Cumberland and his wife Margaret. Her father was an extravagant courtier and naval admiral who had risen to fame within Queen Elizabeth's court as a skilled jouster.
Anne's two brothers died young, leaving her as the only surviving child of the family. She was educated by her mother and by her tutor Samuel Daniel, developing a love of literature, history, the classics and religious works.
When Anne was 15, her father died. She was upset to find that she did not inherit her father's vast estates - the Clifford family lands were extensive and included the great castles of Skipton, Brougham, Brough, Pendragon and Appleby.
George had left these lands and titles to his brother Francis Clifford, leaving Anne £15,000 in compensation, in direct breach of an entail which stated that the Clifford estates should descend lineally to the eldest heir, whether male or female, dating back to the time of King Edward II.
The earl of Cumberland had not recognised the strength and determination of his daughter. From that moment, Anne's mission in life was to regain what she viewed as her rightful inheritance.
Her mother Margaret, as her guardian, initiated claims on Anne's behalf to both the Clifford's baronial titles and the estates, but the earl marshal's court refused the claims in 1606. Margaret's archival researches demolished Earl Francis's case for all the estates in the court of wards in 1607, the judges deciding that the Skipton properties were rightfully Anne's. Her uncle, however, refused to yield up the estates.
In 1609 Anne married Richard Sackville, third earl of Dorset (1589-1624). Her husband took charge of her lawsuits and in 1615 the court of common pleas decided that he and Anne could chose between two different halves of the estates, but could not have all of them. Anne refused to comply - she wanted all of the estates.
Defying the pleas of her husband, and even pleas from King James, she continued to fight and against their wishes, in 1616 she travelled north to see 'her' estates and visit her mother at Brougham Castle, the only person left who supported Anne's claims.
Margaret died a month later. With her death, Anne lost the only person who was prepared to help her fight for her inheritance. She later erected a monument at Brougham, today known as the Countess Pillar, in memory of her mother.
After her mother's death in May 1616 Anne was isolated, but she refused to yield her claim on the estates despite unpleasantness from her husband and incessant pressure from James I's courtiers.
Despite ill health, she refused to accept a settlement of the dispute in February 1617 whereby all the estates were given to Earl Francis and his male heirs, and £17,000 was given in compensation to Anne. Her husband quickly pocketed the money and Anne was left with nothing.
Only in 1643, after the struggle of a lifetime, did Anne regain the Clifford family's lands after the death of her cousin.
After the Civil War, in 1649, when she was 60 years old, Anne moved back to the north. She spent the next 26 years of her life restoring the mostly ruinous family castles to their former glory (Skipton, Pendragon, Appleby, Brough and Brougham Castles). She also built some almshouses for poor widows in Appleby and restored several churches in the area. Anne died in 1676 at Brougham Castle, in the room where her father had been born.
The Lakeland Arts Trust acquired The Great Picture in 1981 to keep it in the North West where Lady Anne had ruled over her estates, and the triptych hung in her castle at Appleby until the late 1990s.
When Appleby Castle closed to the public, the two side panels were installed at Abbot Hall. The central panel, however, posed difficulties for display: it was too large to fit into the Georgian-proportioned building by conventional means.
Apart from a brief period of display at the Tate Gallery in 2004, it has remained in store ever since.
The left side panel of the triptych depicts Lady Anne Clifford at the age of fifteen, when she was disinherited. Portraits of Lady Anne’s governess, Mrs. Anne Taylor, and her tutor, the poet Samuel Daniel, are placed above the shelves of books, which include titles by Ovid, Chaucer, and Cervantes’ Don Quixote. These elements of the composition highlight Lady Anne’s education and refined upbringing.
The right side panel shows Lady Anne in late middle age, when she finally regained the Clifford estates. Portraits of Lady Anne’s two husbands hang behind her: Richard Sackville, third Earl of
Dorset, who died in 1624, and Philip Herbert, fourth Earl of Pembroke and first Earl of Montgomery, died in 1650.
The central panel depicts Lady Anne’s parents, Margaret Russell and George Clifford, third Earl of Cumberland, with her older brothers who did not survive to adulthood: Francis (1584-1589) and
Robert (1585-1591). On the walls behind the family group hang portraits of Lady Anne’s four aunts.
As Lady Anne was not born until 1590, she does not appear in the central panel, but Lady Margaret’s gesture hints that the daughter who would ultimately become the Clifford heir had already been conceived at the time of the original painting.
The triptych has been attributed to Jan van Belcamp (1610-1653), a Dutch artist active in England who was a specialist in this genre.
In order to reunite the three sections, the central panel, which measures over 2.5 metres (9ft) x 2.5 metres, was yesterday (Tuesday) carefully lifted through an exterior window and installed in the refurbished display area at Abbot Hall Art Gallery in Kendal. A team of ten curators, technicians and joiners were on hand to ease it through the window with inches to spare.
New interpretation of the triptych and information on Lady Anne Clifford will set the stage for this magnificent painting to be enjoyed by the public in its complete state, as it was meant to be seen.
A spokesman for Lakeland Arts Trust said: “The triptych contains a wealth of fascinating symbols and references which provide unique insights into the culture of the seventeenth century. The Trust is delighted that this extraordinary painting will be displayed as a whole at Abbot Hall for the first time in its history.”
The costs are being met by author and historian Mary Burkett, who was director of the Trust when they acquired the picture.
She said: “Lady Anne Clifford was a woman of so many qualities with a huge historical influence on literature, art and archaeology. She set an example in how she looked after her staff and properties. She was a real star.”
Thursday, 16 June 2011
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Cricket through transatlantic eyes
THE news that seasoned criminal George Davis has had his conviction for a bank robber y back in 1974 finally quashed by the High Court as unsafe, 37 years later, reminds me of one of the best pieces of journalism I ever read.
In 1975, at the height of the George Davis is Innocent campaign, I was taking a career break and bumming around Europe when I saw a headline in a newspaper on a stand saying something like “English Media’s obsession with dug field”.
Being obsessed with cricket and journalism I had to buy a copy with the few francs I had left.
The newspaper was the International Herald Tribune, a joint venture by American newspaper publishers to produce a newspaper for its ex-pats and travellers in Europe. It had its own office in Paris and told of World events from an American point of view.
The headline referred to the digging up of Headingley’s wicket in the middle of an Ashes cricket Test between England and Australia, thus ruining the match and the series.
Responsibility was claimed by the Free George Davis campaign, otherwise knows for putting graffiti on bridges throughout London and elsewhere.
Not unnaturally this received blitz-style coverage on all the front pages of the newspapers of the day.
The Tribune article was making the point that with all the events going on in the world, including the Labour party’s corruption nemesis at the end of the Poulson affair, English newspapers were somehow strangely obsessed with a cricket “wicket”.
And here is the best bit: the Tribune piece was aimed at Americans, who play baseball not cricket. In baseball the state of the ground between bowler (or pitcher) and batsman (or hitter) is completely meaningless, as long as the pitcher is on a mound.
So to explain the fuss, the article had to go into detail about why the digging up of the wicket mattered, explaining that in cricket the ball usually bounced, what this meant to the trajectory, and so forth.
The story was in that page one anchor slot many serious newspapers use for the off-beat, whimsical tale. But the explanation had to go on for so long the article had to be turned inside.
It was priceless and I often wished I had kept the article as an example of good journalism. Nothing was assumed as known by readers. Everything was explained.
It also provided the ultimate proof that not only are England and America two countries divided by use of the same language, they are also two countries divided by their shared loved of Sport.
Cricket th
In 1975, at the height of the George Davis is Innocent campaign, I was taking a career break and bumming around Europe when I saw a headline in a newspaper on a stand saying something like “English Media’s obsession with dug field”.
Being obsessed with cricket and journalism I had to buy a copy with the few francs I had left.
The newspaper was the International Herald Tribune, a joint venture by American newspaper publishers to produce a newspaper for its ex-pats and travellers in Europe. It had its own office in Paris and told of World events from an American point of view.
The headline referred to the digging up of Headingley’s wicket in the middle of an Ashes cricket Test between England and Australia, thus ruining the match and the series.
Responsibility was claimed by the Free George Davis campaign, otherwise knows for putting graffiti on bridges throughout London and elsewhere.
Not unnaturally this received blitz-style coverage on all the front pages of the newspapers of the day.
The Tribune article was making the point that with all the events going on in the world, including the Labour party’s corruption nemesis at the end of the Poulson affair, English newspapers were somehow strangely obsessed with a cricket “wicket”.
And here is the best bit: the Tribune piece was aimed at Americans, who play baseball not cricket. In baseball the state of the ground between bowler (or pitcher) and batsman (or hitter) is completely meaningless, as long as the pitcher is on a mound.
So to explain the fuss, the article had to go into detail about why the digging up of the wicket mattered, explaining that in cricket the ball usually bounced, what this meant to the trajectory, and so forth.
The story was in that page one anchor slot many serious newspapers use for the off-beat, whimsical tale. But the explanation had to go on for so long the article had to be turned inside.
It was priceless and I often wished I had kept the article as an example of good journalism. Nothing was assumed as known by readers. Everything was explained.
It also provided the ultimate proof that not only are England and America two countries divided by use of the same language, they are also two countries divided by their shared loved of Sport.
Cricket th
Cheryl pet had nay chance
(Sorry this was due to be posted in May but Blogspot’s problems intervened)
No one should be surprised by the decision to drop Cheryl Cole as judge on the US version of The X Factor.
The Geordie songbird may have been taken to the hearts of the fans of the British version of the programme, but reports suggest that not only is she not glamorous enough for Fox TV, she is also unintelligible to American audiences.
If the Americans needed sub-titles for the film The Full Monty, which they did even though that featured the relatively mild accent of South Yorkshire, then they would have had no chance with the Tyneside version of English.
By a strange co-incidence the news broke almost exactly a year after the tragic killing spree in the Whitehaven district of West Cumbria by crazed gunman Derrick Bird.
I was employed by the National Broadcasting Corporation to mind and support their TV crew when they came up to the port on the day after the deaths.
They charged me with finding eye-witnesses willing to be interviewed.
Imagine how pleased I was when I found a taxi driver who not only knew Bird well, but also saw some of the shootings, and was willing to be interviewed on camera.
I rushed back to the reporter and crew, dragged them to the rank where he was sitting in his cab and cameras rolled as he gave a blow by blow account.
After about five minutes the Americans called wrap and wandered off. I proudly asked if they were pleased only to be told that no, the interview was useless.
“Why?” I asked in disbelief. “Because no one in America would have understood a word he said,” I was told, “and we don’t do sub-titles on news reports.”
If the West Cumbrian burr was beyond our transatlantic cousins, then Cheryl would have nay chance.
No one should be surprised by the decision to drop Cheryl Cole as judge on the US version of The X Factor.
The Geordie songbird may have been taken to the hearts of the fans of the British version of the programme, but reports suggest that not only is she not glamorous enough for Fox TV, she is also unintelligible to American audiences.
If the Americans needed sub-titles for the film The Full Monty, which they did even though that featured the relatively mild accent of South Yorkshire, then they would have had no chance with the Tyneside version of English.
By a strange co-incidence the news broke almost exactly a year after the tragic killing spree in the Whitehaven district of West Cumbria by crazed gunman Derrick Bird.
I was employed by the National Broadcasting Corporation to mind and support their TV crew when they came up to the port on the day after the deaths.
They charged me with finding eye-witnesses willing to be interviewed.
Imagine how pleased I was when I found a taxi driver who not only knew Bird well, but also saw some of the shootings, and was willing to be interviewed on camera.
I rushed back to the reporter and crew, dragged them to the rank where he was sitting in his cab and cameras rolled as he gave a blow by blow account.
After about five minutes the Americans called wrap and wandered off. I proudly asked if they were pleased only to be told that no, the interview was useless.
“Why?” I asked in disbelief. “Because no one in America would have understood a word he said,” I was told, “and we don’t do sub-titles on news reports.”
If the West Cumbrian burr was beyond our transatlantic cousins, then Cheryl would have nay chance.
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Where's the attribution?
I WAS beginning to think I was the only person troubled by the unquestioning reportage of the assumed assassination of Osama Bin Laden and four of his supporters, wives or bodyguards.
Thank goodness for the Independent, for whom at least two correspondents were willing to doubt the version of events being put out by US President Barack Obama and his acolytes.
The cry of American journalism used to be “attribution, attribution, attribution.” Reporters were taught to take care that they made it clear when they were communicating someone else’s version of events, unless they had witnessed them directly.
Sometimes this was taken to ridiculous extremes, as in “President Kennedy was shot dead in Dallas today, according to police” when the event had been seen by millions on television.
But at least that mind-set would have prevented the outrageous gullibility of the media in the wake of the Bin Laden incident. Here are some of the statements made by the media in Britain, particularly the BBC, with the required attribution in italics.
Osama Bin Laden was shot dead today, according to US President Barack Obama. None of the news agencies witnessed the shootings, nor can they be sure the dead man is Bin Laden.
There was a fire fight when Bin Laden refused to surrender, according to American sources. Again no impartial members of the media saw what happened and shouldn’t have reported the official line as fact. He could have been shot in the head, or in the back, or both.
Bin Laden’s body was buried at sea to prevent his grave becoming a shrine, alleged the White House. Even if the dead man was Bin Laden, how do we know he was buried at sea, and even if he was, how do we know the motive was to prevent his grave becoming a shrine? We don’t. Bin Laden, or his double’s body, could be laying on a slab in an American laboratory for all the media knows.
Even the supposed DNA testing of the deceased was just too glibly accepted as evidence by the media.
Geoffrey Robertson QC in The Independent points out that Justice, the word used by Obama to describe the death, used to mean arrest, trial and sentence after due process. Yet no other correspondent I saw, with one notable exception, questioned the wisdom of the President’s use of words. Robertson also argued cogently why it would have been wiser to capture Bin Laden alive and put him before a tribunal.
The other exception was The Independent’s peerless correspondent Robert Fisk who, in a brilliant personalised news report, bemoaned the triumphal references to resounding victories. He also pointed out that if the dead man from Abbottabad turn out not to have been Bin Laden, Obama will lose the next US election.
His shame will be no greater than that of the media who so slavishly reported events they couldn’t possibly verify as facts.
These events unfolded just days after similar unquestioning coverage of the bombing of a so-called command centre in Tripoli, that turned out to be a mansion in which President Gaddafi’s youngest son and grand-children were killed.
There is unlikely to be any independent analysis of those cold-blooded killings now they have been overtaken by the Bin Laden story, but both cases show how our view of these momentous times are being manipulated with the complicity of a lazy and unprofessional media.
Thank goodness for the Independent, for whom at least two correspondents were willing to doubt the version of events being put out by US President Barack Obama and his acolytes.
The cry of American journalism used to be “attribution, attribution, attribution.” Reporters were taught to take care that they made it clear when they were communicating someone else’s version of events, unless they had witnessed them directly.
Sometimes this was taken to ridiculous extremes, as in “President Kennedy was shot dead in Dallas today, according to police” when the event had been seen by millions on television.
But at least that mind-set would have prevented the outrageous gullibility of the media in the wake of the Bin Laden incident. Here are some of the statements made by the media in Britain, particularly the BBC, with the required attribution in italics.
Osama Bin Laden was shot dead today, according to US President Barack Obama. None of the news agencies witnessed the shootings, nor can they be sure the dead man is Bin Laden.
There was a fire fight when Bin Laden refused to surrender, according to American sources. Again no impartial members of the media saw what happened and shouldn’t have reported the official line as fact. He could have been shot in the head, or in the back, or both.
Bin Laden’s body was buried at sea to prevent his grave becoming a shrine, alleged the White House. Even if the dead man was Bin Laden, how do we know he was buried at sea, and even if he was, how do we know the motive was to prevent his grave becoming a shrine? We don’t. Bin Laden, or his double’s body, could be laying on a slab in an American laboratory for all the media knows.
Even the supposed DNA testing of the deceased was just too glibly accepted as evidence by the media.
Geoffrey Robertson QC in The Independent points out that Justice, the word used by Obama to describe the death, used to mean arrest, trial and sentence after due process. Yet no other correspondent I saw, with one notable exception, questioned the wisdom of the President’s use of words. Robertson also argued cogently why it would have been wiser to capture Bin Laden alive and put him before a tribunal.
The other exception was The Independent’s peerless correspondent Robert Fisk who, in a brilliant personalised news report, bemoaned the triumphal references to resounding victories. He also pointed out that if the dead man from Abbottabad turn out not to have been Bin Laden, Obama will lose the next US election.
His shame will be no greater than that of the media who so slavishly reported events they couldn’t possibly verify as facts.
These events unfolded just days after similar unquestioning coverage of the bombing of a so-called command centre in Tripoli, that turned out to be a mansion in which President Gaddafi’s youngest son and grand-children were killed.
There is unlikely to be any independent analysis of those cold-blooded killings now they have been overtaken by the Bin Laden story, but both cases show how our view of these momentous times are being manipulated with the complicity of a lazy and unprofessional media.
Saturday, 2 April 2011
Gone but not missed
I AM strangely elated by the news that the owner of the Daily Sport and Sunday Sport newspapers has said that it is to enter administration after failing to pay off its debts.
I have lots of reasons to hate the publications. They were obscene and an anathema to real journalism, in that truth and accuracy played no part in decisions to publish.
Their attempts at humour, like Lancaster bomber found on the Moon or Elvis Presley is alive and well and living wherever, were mainly just stupid.
Most seriously they fuelled the calls for regulation on the Press.
When the media was trying to fend off active political campaigns to have them censored by politicians and their appointees, The Daily Star sent a reporter under cover into a hospital to photograph and interview the ‘Allo ‘Allo actor Gorden Kaye who had a terrible head injury from a freak road accident.
This was portrayed as proof of need for regulation, when no legitimate newspaper or broadcast medium would have dreamed of such an intrusion.
The trouble was that the Daily Sport wanted it both ways. They wanted to join the club of the media but didn’t want to obey any of its rules.
Sport Media Group (SMG), which in 2009 was saved from going out of business by former owner David Sullivan, has ceased trading with immediate effect.
The announcement came after the group warned it had experienced "an insufficient recovery" in trading since the adverse weather in December last year. This was as truthful as their stories.
The fact is that the Daily Sport filled a very narrow niche market, for a few years, and was now obsolete. Its place has been taken by the Internet.
That’s where people look for irresponsible, unregulated, frivolous, celebrity-driven news. If they want serious information and responsible reporting they turn to the traditional media.
Daily Sport, which specialises in celebrity news and soft porn stories and images, and was launched in 1991 by Mr Sullivan, had had its day.
I feel sorry for the 130-odd staff it employed, but its demise has been on the cards for some time. At its peak Daily Sport circulation, in 2005, was 189,473, the Saturday edition at 110,785 and the Sunday Sport at 167,473.
SMG withdrew its titles from the official newspaper industry monthly circulation audit after sales plunged and left each title at around a third of peak levels.
The company confirmed on Friday it had ceased trading - meaning its papers will not appear on news-stands - and it is set to appoint an administrator.
The chosen firm will seek to sell or close the operation. If shut down, it will be the first national newspaper to fold since Today in November 1995.
If any newspaper had to close, I am glad it was the Daily Sport.
I have lots of reasons to hate the publications. They were obscene and an anathema to real journalism, in that truth and accuracy played no part in decisions to publish.
Their attempts at humour, like Lancaster bomber found on the Moon or Elvis Presley is alive and well and living wherever, were mainly just stupid.
Most seriously they fuelled the calls for regulation on the Press.
When the media was trying to fend off active political campaigns to have them censored by politicians and their appointees, The Daily Star sent a reporter under cover into a hospital to photograph and interview the ‘Allo ‘Allo actor Gorden Kaye who had a terrible head injury from a freak road accident.
This was portrayed as proof of need for regulation, when no legitimate newspaper or broadcast medium would have dreamed of such an intrusion.
The trouble was that the Daily Sport wanted it both ways. They wanted to join the club of the media but didn’t want to obey any of its rules.
Sport Media Group (SMG), which in 2009 was saved from going out of business by former owner David Sullivan, has ceased trading with immediate effect.
The announcement came after the group warned it had experienced "an insufficient recovery" in trading since the adverse weather in December last year. This was as truthful as their stories.
The fact is that the Daily Sport filled a very narrow niche market, for a few years, and was now obsolete. Its place has been taken by the Internet.
That’s where people look for irresponsible, unregulated, frivolous, celebrity-driven news. If they want serious information and responsible reporting they turn to the traditional media.
Daily Sport, which specialises in celebrity news and soft porn stories and images, and was launched in 1991 by Mr Sullivan, had had its day.
I feel sorry for the 130-odd staff it employed, but its demise has been on the cards for some time. At its peak Daily Sport circulation, in 2005, was 189,473, the Saturday edition at 110,785 and the Sunday Sport at 167,473.
SMG withdrew its titles from the official newspaper industry monthly circulation audit after sales plunged and left each title at around a third of peak levels.
The company confirmed on Friday it had ceased trading - meaning its papers will not appear on news-stands - and it is set to appoint an administrator.
The chosen firm will seek to sell or close the operation. If shut down, it will be the first national newspaper to fold since Today in November 1995.
If any newspaper had to close, I am glad it was the Daily Sport.
Monday, 28 March 2011
Silence on regime change
THE BBC’s reporting of events in Libya, already outrageously slanted, hit new depths of journalism tonight. The other media are nearly as bad.
The military action by America, the UK and France, from bases in Italy, was sanctioned by the United Nations on the understanding that it was to be confined to protecting Libyan citizens from attack and slaughter by the forces of dictator, Colonel Gaddafi.
They were specifically told that they were not to aspire to regime change.
This was very lucidly and eloquently explained by Penrith and Border MP, Rory Stewart, on Question Time last Thursday, when the unconventional Conservative MP warned of mission creep, as the Americans call it.
So what has happened? After bombing forces loyal to Gaddafi as they were said to be about to attack the rebels’ base city of Benghazi, the allies have been laying a trail of destruction across the North East coastline of Libya, clearing the way for the rebels to follow.
This is an obvious and blatant contravention of the UN resolution. It is not protecting Libya’s people from attack. It is giving the rebels clear military support.
That is interference in a civil war. Earlier today the Russians, who were so sceptical about the UN vote they abstained, pointed out this deception.
But what do the British media do? They ignore the Russian comments and blithely continue reporting the allied action without any analysis.
This evening the BBC and national newspaper web-sites were still lauding the “untrained” rebels for defeating Libya’s professional army, as they closed in on Colonel Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte.
Upbeat jingoistic language, like “the rebels have made lightning advances west from their stronghold in Benghazi”, litter the news channels.
But it is obvious that Gaddafi’s loyal troops dare not fight back, otherwise they will be bombed out of existence by the missiles from warships and aeroplanes. Some of the eye-witness reportage, notably in the Independent on Sunday, showed just how brutal and horrific these attacks on Gaddafi’s soldiers had been.
If this is not engineering regime change, I don’t know what is.
This issue ought to be right up there at the top of the BBC’s news agenda, not ignored as it was on the main news bulletins.
The public may support David Cameron’s decision to send troops and machines of war to Libya , but opinion polls would suggest the opposite.
It was not comforting to realise that he was only now starting to make contact with these rebels and find out what sort of people they are and what their aims are.
It is not the media’s job to decide what is right or wrong. But it is their job to highlight inconsistencies between what the Government says is the policy it supports and the reality on the ground. That is why licence fee payers pay for reporters to travel to these foreign trouble spots.
For reporters and camera crews to meekly follow the military line without putting it in political context is a betrayal of their profession.
The military action by America, the UK and France, from bases in Italy, was sanctioned by the United Nations on the understanding that it was to be confined to protecting Libyan citizens from attack and slaughter by the forces of dictator, Colonel Gaddafi.
They were specifically told that they were not to aspire to regime change.
This was very lucidly and eloquently explained by Penrith and Border MP, Rory Stewart, on Question Time last Thursday, when the unconventional Conservative MP warned of mission creep, as the Americans call it.
So what has happened? After bombing forces loyal to Gaddafi as they were said to be about to attack the rebels’ base city of Benghazi, the allies have been laying a trail of destruction across the North East coastline of Libya, clearing the way for the rebels to follow.
This is an obvious and blatant contravention of the UN resolution. It is not protecting Libya’s people from attack. It is giving the rebels clear military support.
That is interference in a civil war. Earlier today the Russians, who were so sceptical about the UN vote they abstained, pointed out this deception.
But what do the British media do? They ignore the Russian comments and blithely continue reporting the allied action without any analysis.
This evening the BBC and national newspaper web-sites were still lauding the “untrained” rebels for defeating Libya’s professional army, as they closed in on Colonel Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte.
Upbeat jingoistic language, like “the rebels have made lightning advances west from their stronghold in Benghazi”, litter the news channels.
But it is obvious that Gaddafi’s loyal troops dare not fight back, otherwise they will be bombed out of existence by the missiles from warships and aeroplanes. Some of the eye-witness reportage, notably in the Independent on Sunday, showed just how brutal and horrific these attacks on Gaddafi’s soldiers had been.
If this is not engineering regime change, I don’t know what is.
This issue ought to be right up there at the top of the BBC’s news agenda, not ignored as it was on the main news bulletins.
The public may support David Cameron’s decision to send troops and machines of war to Libya , but opinion polls would suggest the opposite.
It was not comforting to realise that he was only now starting to make contact with these rebels and find out what sort of people they are and what their aims are.
It is not the media’s job to decide what is right or wrong. But it is their job to highlight inconsistencies between what the Government says is the policy it supports and the reality on the ground. That is why licence fee payers pay for reporters to travel to these foreign trouble spots.
For reporters and camera crews to meekly follow the military line without putting it in political context is a betrayal of their profession.
Friday, 18 March 2011
County name in a pickle
CAN there be a more ridiculous demonstration of the nonsense surrounding the non-county of Cumbria than today’s ruling that Cumberland sausage has been granted Protected Geographical Indication status under European law.
It says that Cumberland sausage has been successful in its bid to be made only in Cumbria.
Why? Cumberland means the traditional county North and West of Orton Scar.
Cumberland doesn’t mean Cumbria, which was an administrative county invented in 1974. It doesn’t include Westmorland, Lancashire North of the Sands or those bits of Yorkshire North Riding, like Sedbergh, that were nicked, to make Cumbria.
The Cumberland Sausage now ranks alongside the likes of Champagne, Parma ham and Greek feta cheese in having Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) status under EU law. Other protected UK food and drink products include Cornish clotted cream and Stilton cheese.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the move would guarantee its heritage and be a major boost for Cumbria's butchers.
To display the PGI mark, the sausage must be produced, processed and prepared in Cumbria and have a meat content of at least 80%. Recipes vary from butcher to butcher, but must include seasoning and be sold in a long coil.
That may be good news for the customer, but it has nothing to do with geographical origin.
If any proof was needed, it comes in the distinctive shape of Peter Gott, of the Cumberland Sausage Association, who said: "This is a great milestone for the county and a well deserved place in England's food history for a truly sensational, diverse food product."
Peter of course is Westmorland through and through, with his farm near Endmoor south of Kendal.
Food minister Jim Paice carried on the confusion when he said: "We're justly proud of British food and I'm delighted to welcome traditional Cumberland sausage as the first of our many fine sausages to win protected status.
"This should be a significant boost to Cumbrian producers, who will now be able to prove that their product is the real thing."
He obviously cannot tell Cumberland from Cumbria, either.
Westmorland Sausages are just as good, if slightly different from, Cumberland Sausages. But today’s ruling makes no mention of them.
Now if someone wants to use a recipe for Cumbrian sausages, then they could be said to come from Cumbria. But Cumberland Sausages can’t come from Westmorland, Lancashire or Yorkshire.
It says that Cumberland sausage has been successful in its bid to be made only in Cumbria.
Why? Cumberland means the traditional county North and West of Orton Scar.
Cumberland doesn’t mean Cumbria, which was an administrative county invented in 1974. It doesn’t include Westmorland, Lancashire North of the Sands or those bits of Yorkshire North Riding, like Sedbergh, that were nicked, to make Cumbria.
The Cumberland Sausage now ranks alongside the likes of Champagne, Parma ham and Greek feta cheese in having Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) status under EU law. Other protected UK food and drink products include Cornish clotted cream and Stilton cheese.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the move would guarantee its heritage and be a major boost for Cumbria's butchers.
To display the PGI mark, the sausage must be produced, processed and prepared in Cumbria and have a meat content of at least 80%. Recipes vary from butcher to butcher, but must include seasoning and be sold in a long coil.
That may be good news for the customer, but it has nothing to do with geographical origin.
If any proof was needed, it comes in the distinctive shape of Peter Gott, of the Cumberland Sausage Association, who said: "This is a great milestone for the county and a well deserved place in England's food history for a truly sensational, diverse food product."
Peter of course is Westmorland through and through, with his farm near Endmoor south of Kendal.
Food minister Jim Paice carried on the confusion when he said: "We're justly proud of British food and I'm delighted to welcome traditional Cumberland sausage as the first of our many fine sausages to win protected status.
"This should be a significant boost to Cumbrian producers, who will now be able to prove that their product is the real thing."
He obviously cannot tell Cumberland from Cumbria, either.
Westmorland Sausages are just as good, if slightly different from, Cumberland Sausages. But today’s ruling makes no mention of them.
Now if someone wants to use a recipe for Cumbrian sausages, then they could be said to come from Cumbria. But Cumberland Sausages can’t come from Westmorland, Lancashire or Yorkshire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
