For those who have the same warped sense of humour this Letter can also be had in French.
(Complaints can be addressed to the Blog Council, your nearest newspaper, radio or TV station and when you leave this blog remember to pull the chain)
*Terms & Conditions Apply, if you can find them.
In your column in the Sunday Times you told us that the media
is kept on a tight
Africa by the Press Ombudsman Johan Retief who is the main adjudicator for the Press Council.
Well I’m sorry to have to tell you that’s not true.For a start he only considers complaints,
so if a newspaper misbehaves the Ombudsman does nothing unless he gets one.
The other disturbing aspect is this. In
my experience complaints get put
into two categories – those from the
somebodies and those from nobodies.
If you are a somebody
such as a member of the government, a prominent
businessman or a member of the legal profession he is far more likely to find
in your favour against an offending newspaper than if you are a nobody like me.
What happened when I complained that the business section of your paper
(Business Times) that you write for continued to use a freelance after he had
been exposed as a crook under a Noseweek magazine headline High on the Hogg:How Jim Jones ripped off his website employers and then spun
JIM JONES FORMER BUSINESS DAY EDITOR
Worse still he spun the story in your
Business Times to make his former employer Moneyweb look bad (See Press Council’s Brand of Justice – Parts I
answer is nothing. My complaint was
dismissed by Retief.
What happened when I complained that the SundayTimes continued to publish clearly dubious get-rich-quick
advertisements? Alright I know that the Press Ombudsman conveniently doesn’t
deal with advertising complains ,
but in this case your paper’s internal ombudsman
had given an editorial undertaking that something
would be done about these.
I was vindicated completely when people responsible for some of the ads were subsequently exposed by Carte
Blanche, the TV investigative channel for defrauding investors out of millions.
The answer again
is nothing. My complaint was
dismissed by Retief.
And when I tried to appeal against his
rulings former Judge Ralph Zulman, head of the Council’s Appeals panel, decided
my cases did not merit further consideration.
You mentioned a perfect example of how
a somebody gets treated. In winding
up the estate of Barry Tannenbaum, who perpetrated the country’s biggest Ponzi
scheme, the lawyers and liquidators took more than half of the R100-million
collected as their fees and costs. As you know the lawyer for the liquidators complained about the general tone of the Business
Times report headedLawyers gorge on Ponzi cash.
The Ombudsman dismissed most of the complaint but decided that the use of the wordgorgehad been inappropriate. His absurd
explanation, which you reported was that even though the trustees may have been ‘gorging’,it was not for the paper to state this
as a factwhen the phrase ‘drained money’ should have sufficed.
Talk about splitting hairs. It appears
that he felt he had to give the lawyer something.
In the column he used to write for
Business Times Steve Mulholland
accused one of the somebodies the
Deputy Director of the Department of Public Enterprise of wrong doing without
giving the proof. After the Director complained to the Ombudsman your paper was ordered to
I’m not criticising this decision, but
what I am saying is that basically this complaint
was no different from my ones which
were dismissed. In all the cases what your paper did was obviously wrong.
In your puff for the Ombudsman you
wrote If apublication errs even in one tiny respect the
Ombudsman forces it to publish a prominent
this is not true as my complaints
alone show and I’m sure there are many other examples.
what I’ve seen apologies are seldom
if ever given the same prominence in
papers as the original story.That in itself is immoral. Publications usually do
their best to place them where as few people as possible will see them.
main part of the Sunday Times had the correction below tucked away on Page 4
whereas the So Many Questions column
that it appeared in took up about a quarter of a page on Page 21 the previous
week. As this is a regular feature my feeling is that this correction should
have been in the column.
I know this was not something the Ombudsman ordered, but it illustrates
how corrections are often handled.
Your high handed assumption that it’s a common refrainfrom halfwits and crooks that the press is
unaccountable and sensationalist, a third force bent on abusing its
self-appointed position as the fourth estate,suggests that it’s perfect.
Well I’m not a crook so there’s only one
other category I and anybody else like me who has a beef about the way the
press behaves can fit into, in your opinion.
In the days before blogs and social
media the only avenues available to the average person who believed a paper was
abusing its position was to write a letter to the editor, complain to the Ombudsman or in extreme cases take costly legal action.
Letters however could be easily censored or
not even published. And anybody who tried the Ombudsman’s route had to bear in
mind that the Press Council’s slogan is: Effective self-regulation is the best system for promoting high standards in the media.
They would think that wouldn’t they? It’s
like appointing and paying the judge at your own trial. How they have been
allowed to get away with this as long as they have I don’t know.
If that’s not abusing its self-appointed position as thefourth estateI don’t know what is.
Now halfwits like me can take to a blog
to tell the world about the shenanigans in the newspaper business that papers don’t
want anybody to know.
Like the results of my complaints to the Ombudsman that I have already mentioned.
Like Johannesburg’s The Citizen that is
making money out of cock (literally) and bull advertisements that even its own
Editor agrees are not believable (See The
Citizen’s Aladdin’s Cave of Unbelievable adverts).
Like the refusal of the Caxton Group,
the owner of this paper; the Print & Digital Media SA, to which most
newspaper publishers belong and the South African Editor’s Forum to even
acknowledge that this abuse of the press exists, even though I have brought it
to their attention (See Caxton’s Bosses
duck dubious adverting issue; Print and Digital Media’s appalling hypocrisy and
Editors’ questionable ethics).
Like the Advertising Standards
Authority, the adverting equivalent of the Press Council, that refused to take
my complaints about the Citizen’s
ads that are exploiting the poor and unsophisticated with promises such as penus enlargement and instant wealth
(See Ridiculous Adverting Standards
Halfwits like me can even extend their
blog tentacles across the world to tell everyone who is interested what the
dicey members of the fourth estate are up to in Britain.
Like the National Union of Journalists,
that claims to be the largest organisation of its kind in the world with about
38 000 members, that has given up policing its bad eggs. It did take complaints
from the public about its members some years ago until they became so numerous it could
no longer afford to do this (See National
Union of Journalists’ protection racket).
You can understand why it was that in
this environment the 168 year old News of the World that was once the biggest
selling English paper anywhere had to close after its phone hacking scandal
final burst into the open.
No doubt it was brought down by other
halfwits like me.
it comes to halfwits, as Editor of
the Business Times it’s hardly the brightest thing to do to promote fiction as fact in your column in a paper that
is read by millions.
Jon, the Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman who
tells it like it is and not like some
of the papers would have it.
P.S. If only I was a somebody
I would have a prima facie case to submit to the Press Ombudsman about all the
incorrect statements you have given as fact in this column of yours.
Given a bit of power some people just can’t help abusing it. Such a person
is Murray Norton, a former BBC Radio
Jersey presenter, who is standing in the October election for the States of
Jersey, as the parliament in this ChannelIsland is called.
My son Simon Abbott died of a heart attack in Jersey
aged 47 having been relentlessly cyber-bullied in the last two years of his
life. And there is ample evidence to show what stress does to your heart.
Norton led the charge ably assisted by his photographer
friend Ianle Sueur.
crime in the eyes of Norton and his followers was that he unsuccessfully tried
to raise money for the trust he established to help women
suffering from post natal
depression. He did this in memory of his sister Samantha who committed suicide a few months after the birth of her
Norton had the power of the BBC behind
him at the time the cyber-bullying occurred. And after Simon and I complained the Corporation’s highest authority the
BBC Trust took the absurd decision that although its top executives had made
Norton stop what he was doing, he had not been a cyber-bully (See BBC’s FINAL WHITEWASH JOB).
now turns out that Norton’s bullying extends to more than just social media. He
is versatile when it comes to this
most cowardly of activities.
Norton says he has now retired from broadcasting after being a presenter for BBC
Radio Jersey and Channel 103 FM. He claims credit for having been involved in
charity fund raising for more than 30 years.
On his blog Stuart Syvret, a former Minister of Health, who was forced out of
office for trying to expose corruption by the powerful feudal Establishment
that controls the Island, had this to say
Murray is a tireless charity fundraiser even to the extent of taking part in
the cyber-bullying campaign of a less successful charity fund raiser in the hope
that the unfortunate Simon Abbott would put the donated goods he received into Murray’s far more capable
CYBER-BULLIES KILL SIMON ABBOTT).
understand that Murray took an active part in the campaign even to the extent
of tricking the ill Mr Abbott out of hiding so that Murray’s photographer friend
Ian Le Sueur could take an illicit picture of him.
Murray has ever
expressed contrition for his part in this I have yet to see it.
Murray was joined in his
efforts by some of the usual
suspects including the voluptuous and colourful Maureen Morgan, who is afortune teller and dildo saleswoman
SU-MO WITCH MORGAN GETS THE BOOT).
the flaky Morgan, Murray is surely a shoe in
with the dopey electorate of middle Jersey.
With Murray the
Establishment’s future will be in safe hands and the ill-informed will continue
to enjoy the government they deserve.
I always thought Norton was part of the
Establishment. That explained why he was protected by the BBC and why the
Police refused to take any action against him when Simon complained about being cyber-bullied (See JERSEY’S TWO FACED COPS).
It also told me why the Establishment’s
newspaper the Jersey Evening Post
failed to report a line about the cyber-bullying libel case Simon brought in
Jersey’s Royal Court against Norton, Le Sueur, Morgan and several others (See JERSEY EVENING POST – THE ONE EYED PAPER).
Norton owns two restaurants on the Island,
Murray’s and Mash. And it was his fascist, Jackboot treatment of his staff
that was recently exposed in the blog of Nick
Le Cornu, a member of the Island’s parliament.
As a lawyer Le Cornu represented some of Norton’s
bullied staff at the local Employment Tribunal. They were what Le Cornu
described as disgruntled
of poor employment practices and an arbitrary hire and fire culture.
Apparently Norton had complained that the locals were work-shyand that was evidently why
he employed immigrants fromRumania.
locals and saying they don’t have the work ethic to work hard, is a way of
disguising the fact that employers want a workforce that does not complain about poor treatment, low wages and long and often anti social hours, Le Cornu claimed.
Here are examples of what it is like
to work for a serial bully.
Eduard Brailescu, a chef, was
summarily dismissed in September 2013 after not turning up for a morning shift
at Murray’s. He
had contacted the manager the previous evening saying that his landlord required
him to vacate his room and the new
accommodation he had found fell
through, obliging him to search again urgently.
His shift was
easily covered between the head chef and another one.
However this was not good enough for
our serial bully. When Norton, who was on holiday in France,
heard what had happened he instructed his manager to immediately fire the Romanian
and employ another chef who had worked there before.
To rub it in our power hungry serial bully
refused to pay Eduard his month’s wages to the date of his dismissal.
The Tribunal only awarded Eduard his
unpaid wages and holiday pay, but significantly Le Cornu added, At the time of
writing thisremains unpaid.
Another case involved a Romanian kitchen porter working at Mash who over
slept and missed his morning shift when his mobile alarm failed to go off
because the battery was flat. He charged it and rang to apologise only to be
told to come in the next morning. He
was then sacked and received no wages for hours worked or in lieu of notice.
This was settled out of court.
waitress employed on a full time permanent contract at Murray’s also got the bully’s Nazi treatment
when she refused to sign a new short term contract that would have terminated
at the end of the season. She was given notice and dismissed on the same day as
her proposed temporary contract would have ended.
But as other people have proved in Jersey if you are part of the Establishmentyou can virtually get away with
Hopefully when it comes
to the election the locals will remember that Norton doesn’t think much of them
as a work force and that they will cast their votes accordingly.
P.S. Morgan recently stood
unsuccessfully for the Jersey parliament, but
with the backing of the Establishment the serial bully will unfortunately
probably have better luck. But that’s the ‘Jersey Way’ as they say in this
cyber-bullying capital of the world where a brave few are battling to get a
semblance of justice from the