Archive for Articulation

Comparing schools

I share the concern raised about the risks of cyber-bullying following the publication of school banding by the Welsh Government (“School banding raises fears over cyber-bullying”, January 23).

As an advocate of New Labour, before leaving the Labour Party when Ed Miliband said it was over, I am strongly in favour of parents being allowed to choose which school their child goes to. The rank and file of Old and Welsh Labour say this won’t work because every parent will want their child go to the best school – well that is the point!

A market in education, such as by removing the unfair catchment areas that partition this market and create geographical ghettos, would mean the best schools would stay open and expand, and the worst ones would close.

In such a market you would need a way for the parents to choose the best school. Government-sanctioned league tables or school banding does not help – parents need to be able to create their own league tables.

Even the “least able” people can go on to websites like GoCompare or MoneySupermarket and select what is important to them about their home or car insurance policy and what is not. If we as citizens can prioritise insurance why not other things? It is not grades that make a school a best school. It is factors such as whether they have special support for your child’s disability, whether they have after-school clubs or extended hours, and whether the school has strong pupil-satisfaction.

So if the Welsh Government is happy to have de facto league tables – why don’t they give parents the choice to have their children educated outside their area so they are not subject to the stigma that they can do little about without “upping sticks”?

Great idea for internet safety

I WAS pleased to read the article in the South Wales Echo about the launch of a scheme to raise awareness of young people in internet safety issues (“New child safety DVDs and website”, December 12).

As a prize-winning author on trolling, the practice of posting messages on the internet to provoke or entertain, I know initiatives such as School Beat are important to raise awareness.

As those who attend my Trolling Academy (www.trollingacademy.org) know, online safety is something that is multi-faceted and needs to be explored from various angles.

The School Beat programme which involves schools is important.

At the Centre for Research into Online Communities and E-Learning Systems in Swansea, I am researching new computer systems that could make discipline in schools easier.

This would involve each student in a class having a laptop and accessing a tailored computer program which monitors them and assigns rewards if they act within the class’s behaviour contract.

I envisage a time in the future where, far from child poverty being tackled by giving parents handouts, that young people will receive vouchers to spend themselves if they show they can be disciplined in the classroom.

I know this works because it is what happened at the specialist private school I attended, and discipline was achieved without resorting to violence, which in SEN pupils like I was would only make things worse.

Is Nick Robinson biased against Labour?

In an almost thuggish way, Tom Watson said that Nick Robinson didn’t report the phone hacking scandal enough because he was ‘favouring the Conservatives’ to put it more delicately.

I know how he feels. It annoyed me that Ed Miliband was getting the headlines on the hacking scandal over true experts like myself who have published research on ‘data misuse’ laws. I made the BBC clear of this dissatisfaction when they basically ignored my expertise.

But let us look at the news articles since 1995 on claims of bias against Nick Robinson as evidence.

March 1995 – Claims of bias were made against Nick Robinson by Labour when he sent a memo, as they saw it, trying to cover up the preferential treatment where the BBC Panorama programme, which Robinson was deputy editor of, interviewed John Major as Prime Minister, but did not offer the same prominence to the other leaders.

August 1995 – The London Evening Standard publishes a story, titled, ‘Labour sees red over new BBC reporter’, which highlights the fact that since March 1995 the party felt that Nick Robinson’s presentation of facts on Panorama were biased in favour of the Tories.

March 2003 – In the Times Nick Robinson, who is currently the ITV political editor, notes in an article there might be a problem with Labour’s perception of him. Highlighting the times that Peter Mandelson would be complaining to the Director General of the BBC about his apparent bias.

May 2003 – For the first time on record ‘anti-Tory bias’ and ‘Nick Robinson’ come together. This time in it is in The Times, with him commenting on the pressure being on Greg Dyke at the BBC and not himself, as Robinson is still working for ITV.

This all builds up to a shock confession:

October 2003 – The Independent runs an article, ‘I do not regret my Tory past, Nick Robinson, ITV’s News’s Political Editor’ which shows that Robinson was once significantly involved with the Conservative movement. The article says he has received claims of bias from both sides, which I might expect having spoken with the editor of my local paper who received the same, but unless the Conservatives have a different word for ‘bias’ I see little evidence of this in my brief search!

I will not look further into the articles, as I became politically active around 2002 in the Labour Party, even speaking to Nick on the Radio 5 Live about how a speech by Tony Blair hit a cord with me, just before he went to ITV I think – On Radio 5 Live he and Brian Hayes were my favourite presenters of that era. On his move to ITV I did start to think he was biased against the Labour Government, but then I would expect no different, as the ITV News programmes that he was reporting for have always seemed to me to be the Tabloid Newspaper of Evening TV, changing the tone of the programme to try to capture the public mood regardless of accuracy.

As I am now a Professional, it is this revelation in October 2003 that strikes me the most salient, even above all the past claims of bias. It is unethical for any professional to take up any form of employment where there can be a ‘perception of bias’, whether they are a former government minister taking up a position in a publicly funded body in the same area afterwards, or a sports official who is refereeing a match where a first-line relative is of the same nationality as one of the competitors.

So, in essence, however much I like him, as someone who famously got insulted for holding an apparently undesirable physical characteristic, by George W Bush of all people, I think he should seriously consider his position.

Even if he is perfectly capable of, on most days, creating a perception of impartiality in line with BBC guidance, is it worth the constant claims of bias against him, and this the questioning of his professionalism, to be in an environment where he can be easily perceived to be biased?

Concluding the issue on the assumption of ‘good faith’ on the part of Robinson, I would say that the reason this perceived bias is so persistent is that Nick is likely to draw on the same social networks that took him into the Conservative Party in the first place, so therefore he is more likely to represent a ‘Tory perspective’ than a Labour one.

So I’d like the BBC and other media outlets to take steps to ensure that it is not the same people from the Old Boys’ Networks that get represented in the media, but many others who have expertise but might not normally make it into public life. If they were to do this then the perceptions of bias, whether ‘left-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘all-White’, or whatever, would start to disappear.

 

 

 

 

 

The Ethics of Lying

Is it ethical to lie? I get very uncomfortable if I think I have lied or been dishonest, even when I did not realise that I was being so at the time, if you understand what I mean.

I’m going to look at common situations prone to lying and look at the ethics of the situation.

Does my bum look big in this?

If a woman can get her partner to clothes shop with her it is stereotypical she asks, ‘Does my bum look big in this?’. If their partner answers ‘yes’ they have scorned, or if they answer ‘no’ and she thinks ‘yes’ they have scorned.

So is honesty the best policy? If she does actually look big it in, then to not say so could lead to her to experience harmful comments from others if she actually accepts her partner’s word. So which is the bigger hurt, the immediate telling of the truth, or the long-term consequences of withholding the truth?

The Boogie Man

Parents will often use specific characters to attempt to control their children’s behavior. For example, near Easter they may say that the Easter Bunny won’t bring their chocolate eggs if they don’t comply. They’ll say some mythical creature will come and get them near Halloween. They may even claim that they are on first person terms with Santa Clause, who won’t bring their child presents if they don’t comply.

Whether this lying is ethical might depend on the interests of the child. If they say it to the child so they get ‘out of their hair’ while they are watching TV for instance, then it might be unethical. If they use it to keep the child out of danger such as avoiding them harming themselves or others then it might be considered ethical.

But would overuse of these techniques amount to the parent offering ‘improper disincentives’ when it may be more appropriate they develop more truthful strategies?

The Public Interest

Sometimes the politicians withhold or misrepresent the best truth for their own gain. They might at other times do so because it is in the public interest, such as the times in World War II that Churchill did not intervene to prevent a bombing strike as it would have let the Germans know their code had been cracked. I would argue that the politicians who lie about or misrepresent their personal or their party’s true opinion in order to get elected or gain some other advantage should face severe penalties.

Is it time to call time on the London-based BBC?

If ever there was a time Wales needed its own public service broadcaster it is now. While the BBC News Channel was talking about mining in Libya we wanted to know about what was happening in Gleision colliery. BBC Radio Wales cut off the live comments of Shadow Secretary of State for Wales to play a pre-recorded message from a journalist. After a brief token gesture they went on to talk about banking in London! The BBC are no better today than the media and Parliament were in Keir Hardie’s day when in 1894 the birth of the future Edward VIII was put in the headlines above the tragic deaths of 251 miners in Pontypridd.

It was not until nearly 8pm that say that David Cameron made a comment, being too busy patting him and Nicholas Sarkozy on the back in Libya. If it were not for Sky News knowing their profits depended on covering the only story people in Wales cared about that some people were lucky to get up-to-date information and expert not journalistic commentary.

What should have happened is there should be Sky News’s wall-to-wall coverage on a dedicated Welsh terrestrial channel which would have interrupted its programming. A program, perhaps called, ‘Nos Newyddion’ should have been debating with political leaders whether we should open up more greenfield sites to open cast mining or whether closing the mines in the 1980s was right – My grandfather who served in the mines for 5 decades agreed with the latter, knowing many people who fell victim to deep pit mining’s clutches.

As sad is it will be, maybe the Davy lamp, like the one I inherited from my grandfather Ted, should be a thing of the past, as the deaths from underground mining may be a price too high to preserve the many greenfield sites which bury black gold beneath their pastures. Co-operative open cast mining of these is the only option – We should shove the grass and save lives.