This week's WINOL Review

First of all I'll start on a positive note.. I was impressed with the show's content. There was a wide range of stories and evidently a lot of effort had been put into getting interviews for various stories. However, not everything was worth praising. For example, I thought the presenter of the show was really hard to understand and often she mispronounced and stumbled over her words by often getting tongue tied. I was under the impression that she felt uncomfortable and awkward which therefore made me feel uncomfortable and awkward watching her.
All of the clips didn't seem to me as though they blended together smoothly and most often came to an abrupt end.
I also found it unprofessional that one reporter was reading her report off of a crumpled piece of paper. This gave me the impression that she was unprepared and didn't know much about her story.
I did however, think that things picked up when it came onto the sports section and clips ran more smoothly and in general wasn't as awkward.

The Clockwork Universe

• Astronomy is the study of the heavens. Its the belief that beyond the heavens, the moon, lies the celestial heavens which are close to God where things are perfect and unchanging. Compared to below the heavens where things are cursed and changing. Therefore far away from God. We should strive to be fixed and constant.
• People believed that all knowledge derived either from the Bible or Aristotle's work.
•  Ptolemy's system fitted with the view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. The moon, sun, planets and a fixed orb of the stars revolved around the Earth in a perfect, unchanging circular motion.
• Aristotelians and scholastics viewed the world in terms of its perfections and purposes. Everything moved to express its qualities and purposes- base things like Earth and Flesh fell to Earth while things like fire that could purge, rose up towards the heavens. This idea inspired Gaileo's theory of the leaning tower.

Francis Bacon 1561-1626
He entered a university system that had essentially been unchanged for hundreds of years. This was a system that was created mainly to train clergy. Bacon was violently against this scholastic/ Aristotelian approach to barren and circular ideas going nowhere. He also condemned the European philosophical movement for the great mistake of mixing religion and natural philosophy or in other words, science. This resulted in confusion and obsession with word play but not action. Marx criticised Bacon for this and said that you shouldn't interpret the word but change it. The purpose of knowledge is to reduce suffering and improve the well-being of humanity.

The new organon is a direct attack against Aristotle. There were four themes:

1. Knowledge is human power- it is the ability to harness power, navigate and grow crops etc.
2. There must be clear separation between science and religion.
3. Method for the acquisition of new knowledge is the introduction from the particular to general theories that are then tested through experiment.
4. Science is dynamic (always correcting itself), cooperatie (must be shared) and cumlative (always adding to it).

Bacon's scientific method protected us from the ideas of the mind (bias ideas in the individual/ society which may hinder true perception.
Overall he was a martyr of science since he died whilst carrying out an experiment involving keeping meat cold.

Locke- on human understanding
Our understanding comes from our experience which is worked on by our powers of reason to produce 'real' knowledge. He was also against the idea of innate knowledge since he believed that our minds are a 'black slate' because he thought that God had given reason to discover knowledge and morality. Innate ideas weren't needed.
Therefore he was guided by private revelation because these should never be imposed by the church or the state.

Heliocentric model ( The sun is the centre of the universe)
In the 16th century the astronomer Copernicus attempts to reform the calendar so that therefore the sun is the centre of the universe.
An astronomer of astonishing dedication was Johannes Kepler who was drawn to Copernicus' unproven Heliocentric hypothesis. He spent decades on data and calculations to prove Heliocentric model and improve Copernicus' theory.

Galileo

• Believed that bodies will move unless a force acts upon them- contrary to Aristotle.
• Kepler influenced the Italian mathematician and Galileo perfected the telescope (Bacon) and therefore realised the true make up of the universe. This was considered a true revelation.
• The distinction between Primary and Secondary qualities prove Aristotle wrong:

Primary Qualities were all quantitative- dimension, shape, mass, the measurable. A world to be understood in mathematical law.

Secondary Qualities ( all Aristotelian) are not real in objects themselves but depended on human perception of them.


''For the first time the human mind was looking at God's works with comprehension.'' (Kelper)

Newton 1642-1727

'Principia' was published in 1687, it was a mathematical demonstration of the Copernican hypothesis proposed by Kelper. This meant that Newton could convince people that the world was ordered and knowable. Therefore this caused the Clockwork Universe.
After Newton, Aristotle's physics were discredited and the rest of Aristotle's system of thought was undermined.
Was it the beginning of the Enlightenment?

Law lecture on Confidentiality

The three major areas of concern involving confidentiality are:

• State Secrets which mainly affect certain types of investigative journalism and reporting communities which have links to the armed force that is also known as the Official Secrets Act.
• Commercial Secrets which involve solid news reporting, investigative reporting and specialist reporting covering topics such as Health. This is classified as a type of Common Law.
• Privacy involves mainly tabloid and celebrity journalism. In section 8 of the Human Rights Act it states that it is illegal to reveal someone's private life with the public unless consent is given. A good example of this is the Ryan Giggs case where he was accused of having an affair with his brother's wife. Since this allegation wasn't libel he decided to sue based on the fact that his privacy rights were violated.

Therefore the Official Secrets Act was introduced in order to stop spying on certain types of Public Information such as Military information.

People have the right to keep secrets as long as it doesn't go against the Public's best interest. Also a right to pass on these secrets to others with the expectation that they won't pass them on to others.

Confidentiality partly depends on the type of secret information at stake and also partly on the expectation of the person imparting the information that it will be kept secret.
A person is in breach of confidence if the pass on information which:

1) Has the necessary quality of confidence Eg. is important and is not already known, not just 'tittle-tattle'.

2) Was provided in 'circumstances imposing an obligation' Eg. when a reasonable person would think it would be kept secret, such as a Doctor or a Boss etc.

3) There was no permission to pass on the information.

4) Detriment- Likely to be caused to the person who gave in the information. They must show how they'll be hurt Eg. loss of sales and therefore money.

Ordinary Secret Information (both personal, private and commercial) must have:

• Quality of Confidence
• Circumstances
• no permission to reveal
• and cause actual detriment.

Princess Caroline's case was the creation of Defacto Privacy Law. This was started after the paparazzi interrupted a private meal in a restaurant. Princess Caroline had deliberately at at the back of the restaurant in order to prevent drawing attention to themselves, however, the paparazzi still managed to invade their privacy and get their shot. The princess then went to court to report this intrusion which caused the legislation to be passed that stated you can now only justify the publication of pictures of people only if they are engaged in a clear public duty, such as accepting an award. Therefore, there are new dangers for taking 'Wallpaper' type images of identifiable people without permission.

HCJ Seminar paper on Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke

·         1)  Machiavelli was concerned mainly with Political Philosophy inspired by his scientific and empirical knowledge. This means that he used his knowledge which he derived from his experience of affairs. 

·         The public often criticised him for his frank acknowledgement of evil doing in the world. Machiavelli was very honest about political dishonesty and felt that it was important to tell others of this dishonesty.

·         Machiavelli was a Florentine which meant that while he was in his twenties Savonarola dominated Florence: ‘’all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones failed.’’  After Savonarola’s execution Machiavelli was given a post in the government in 1498 and worked on very important diplomatic missions until the Medici gained power and arrested him in 1512 for having always opposed them but was later acquitted where he lived in retirement in the country where he became an author.  During his retirement he wrote ‘The Prince’ which had the key theme ‘Man is the measure of all things’ this comments on history and contemporary events of how principalities were held and lost. The principalities were a sovereign state ruled by a Monarch.

·         Few rulers were legitimate during this time; even religious figures such as the pope were corrupt.  '' This lead Machiavelli to give advice to future rulers:

• Always support the weaker side in conflict as this then means that the more powerful side is destroyed.
• Centralised regimes are difficult to conquer but easy to hold.
• ''Armed prophets succeed, unarmed ones always fail.''
• Importance is that all of this is observed evidence empirical evidence.

·         Caesar Borgia who was the son of Alexander VI was a man of high praise but he had a few problems:

1)      The death of his brother meant that he became the sole beneficiary of his father’s dynastic ambition.

2)      To conquer by force of arms territories which after his father’s death should belong to him and not the Papal  States

3)      To manipulate the College of Cardinals so that the next Pope should be his friend.

·         Machiavelli was intimately acquainted with his evil deeds and stated that a new Prince should derive precepts (orders).

·         Another novel which Machiavelli wrote was ‘Discourses’ which was written in order to please the Medici.  In regard to the Sovereign State relating to the Church ‘The Prince’ is defended by religious customs who keep their Princes (leaders) in power despite their actions, good or bad: ‘They are upheld by higher causes which the human mind cannot attain to.’’

·         Within his novel he begins to list different types of men in a sort of hierarchy based on their morality. For instance the best he said were the founders of religion and the founders of monarchies or republics and then literary men.  Destroyers of religions, republics, kingdoms and enemies of virtue are considered bad. Machiavelli believed that religion should have the most prominent place in the State since he thought that religion was the ‘social cement’ of the state.  When I speak of virtue it is crucial to understand that Machiavelli means virtue here in the context that it means to have pride, principle and aggression. To be ruling and controlling.

·         The Perfect character for being a leader, according to Machiavelli is clever and unscrupulous (having moral principles) He states that a ruler will perish, however, if he is always kind, must be cunning as a fox and fierce as a lion.

·         Princes should keep faith when it pays to do so but not otherwise. Alexander VI always deceived men and therefore always succeeded in his deceptions. This indicates that although it isn’t necessary for a leader to have all mentioned qualities but it is important that the leader must ‘appear’ to have them all. Most importantly they should be religious.

·         He never based any political argument on Christian grounds. Northern writers such as Locke argue as to what happened in the Garden of Eden, they believe that there is proof that certain power is legitimate.

·         Three certain Political goods are national independence, security and well ordered constitution. To achieve a political end power is necessary: ‘Right will prevail.’ Power often depends upon opinion and therefore upon propaganda. The advantage in propaganda is that it seems more virtuous than your opponent and that is therefore to be more virtuous. Sometimes victory goes to the side with more of what the public considers to be virtue. For example power such as injunctions control propaganda which equals virtue.  Machiavelli took the men of the city to be corrupt and is guaranteed to be dishonest and have self-love.  It is proven by Machiavelli that Politicians will behave better when they depend upon a virtuous population than when they depend upon one which is indifferent to moral considerations.

·         Overall his political thinking is shallow however the evolutionary view of society is no longer applicable and must be replaced by a more mechanistic( theories that explain phenomena in physical or deterministic terms) view.

2) Hobbes’ Leviathan

·         Hobbes was an empiricist (the view that experience of the sense is the only source of knowledge) Like Locke and Hume and also an admirer of mathematical method and its applications inspired by Galileo.

·         Continental philosophy derived much of its conception of nature of human knowledge from maths and is known independently from experience.

·         His theory of the State deserves to be carefully considered because it is the most modern of any of the previous theories.

·         Hobbes brought up his uncle and acquired a good knowledge of Classical Civilisation such as ‘The Medea’ by Euripides which he translated into Latin iambics at the age of 14 and attended Oxford the next year where he was taught scholastic logic and a philosophy of Aristotle.

·         Hobbes believed that there must be an all powerful leader in charge of a State to keep order within the State. He constructed the idea of a 'Leviathan' who was a Biblical monster of unstoppable power. Hobbes used this idea of a Leviathan in order to expresses his idea that order can only be restored on the current state of constant war: ''Every man against every man'' is to have a powerful leader like Leviathan. Hobbes then expanded this idea by introducing a contract or covenant which states that all citizens must give up their power to him so that he can become all powerful. However, it was also stated that if the leader failed to protect his State then he must be replaced.

·         The opinions expressed in the Leviathan are Royalist. This means that he supported a particular monarch as head of state for a particular kingdom.

·         In 1628 he drew up a ‘petition of Right’ by the Government which he published to show the evils of democracy.  The leviathan pleased no one due to rationalism that uses reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief or conduct.  It offended most of the refugees and its bitter attacks on the Catholic Church offended the French government and so Hobbes was forced to flee to London. Here he made an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the power of a superior. Hobbes abstained from political activity for the time being.

·         Life he said was nothing but a motion of the limbs and automata (study of abstract machines) is artificial. The commonwealth which he calls the Leviathan is a creation of Art. The sovereignty (power, dominion and authority over an area) is also an artificial soul. The covenants by which leviathan is first created take the place of God’s fiat( to command something to be done without material) when he said ‘Let us make man’

·         The succession of our thoughts is not arbitrary which means to be based on random choice, but governed by laws. Hobbes was a Nominalist which is a philosophy which adopted the doctrine of Dominalism, a doctrine holding that abstract concepts have no independent existence but exist only as names.

·         ‘Incorporeal Substance’ he reckons is nonsense when it is objected that God is an incorporeal substance  since God is not an object of Philosophy and many philosophers have thought of God as corporeal.

·         Unlike Plato, Hobbes believes that reason is not innate but is developed by industry.

·         All men are naturally equal in a State of Nature, before the Government, every man desires to preserve his own liberty but to acquire dominion over others. Both are dictated by impulse of self- preservation. In a state of nature there is no property, justice or injustice, only war and force which are two cardinal virtues.

·         He believed that all men are naturally equal; therefore they all have a right to self-defence since we cannot trust our senses.  

·         Hobbes considered why men can’t just be like Bees and Ants since Bees live in the same hive and don’t compete since there’s no desire for honour and don’t use reason to criticise the government. The covenant must confer power on one man since the covenant made by citizens is to obey a ruling power which the majority choose.

·         Hobbes prefers a monarchy government; he can tolerate Parliament but not a system where power is shared between King and Parliament.

·         In the state of nature there is no property therefore it is created by the government which controls its creation as it pleases.  A sovereign may be despotic which is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power, much better than anarchy. A monarch will follow his private interest when it conflicts with the public and an assembly. A monarch can hear advice from anybody secretly whereas an assembly can only hear advice from its members publicly. Therefore if assembly is divided the civil war is inevitable.

·         Leviathan raises debate over the best form of the state and the other as to its powers, powers of the state should be absolute. Hobbes obsessed with the fear of anarchy since every community risks anarchy or despotism ( a gov where one person has absolute power)

·         Against Hobbes- always considers the national interest as a whole and assumes that all citizens’ interests are the same.

3)                        Locke

·         Locke was an apostle of the revolution of 1688. His work ‘The essay concerning Human understanding’ made him most famous in 1690.

·         Similar to Hobbes, Locke also went to Oxford where he learnt that he disliked both scholasticism (method of critical thought dominated by teaching academics) and the fanaticism (belief or behaviour which is wildly excessive) of the independents.

·         He was influenced by Descartes and spent his life dedicated to literacy. Should be treated as founder of philosophical liberalism and also the founder of empiricism in theory of knowledge. The first book of the ‘essay’ is focused on arguing against Plato and Descartes that there is no innate ideas or principles. Hobbes believes our ideas come from our experience such as sensation and perception of the operation of the mind.

·         The first treatise of Locke's attacks the concept of the ''Divine Right of the Kings'' with the idea that God had given Adam the right to rule: ''Let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air...'' (Genesis) Locke unlike Hobbes believed that everyone enjoys the State of Nature such as natural freedom and equality but people must also obey Natural Laws and Moral Laws that everyone knows intuitively: ''Interwoven in the constitution of the human mind.'' Locke said that there must be laws in order to prevent mayhem in the State but none of these laws should be too personal, therefore he proposed a concept of government by consent. He insisted that taxes couldn't be levied without the people's (parliament) consent. Citizens could rebel if their government ceased to respect the law. This means that Locke suggested that the right of revolution was one of the natural rights of man. Locke dominated the Political Philosophy of the American Revolution. However, Locke agreed with Hobbes that if your political leaders don't obey the law then it is your right to replace them.

·         He was very fortunate that when he completed his work, it was at the time when his government shared the same political opinions as him in both practise and theory. He therefore made an impression on future politicians and philosophers and his political doctrines remained embedded in American Constitution and were also used in a dispute between the president and the congress.

·         He also had an immense following in France due to Volitaire since the French also believed in an intimate connection between his theory of knowledge and his politics.

·         ‘Revelation must be judged of by reason.’

·         ‘Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ which he envisioned to be property.

·         The state of nature was very important to him; he believed that it consists of divine commandments which are not reinforced by a human legislator. Men prosper from the state of nature by the social contract which instituted civil government.

·         Locke promotes the idea of a state of equality but however says that captives in a just war are slaves by the law of nature since every man has a right to punish attacks on himself or his property. Even by death. Inconsistency as we are encouraged to be virtuous by natural law but then in some circumstances are permitted to kill.

·         Property is very important to him since it’s the reason why the institution of civil government exists.

·         Locke had the idea that the mind is like a ‘blank slate’ when you are born and we learn what is right and wrong etc. through our experiences and reason which is already in our brains. He was against innate knowledge unlike Plato.

What Makes a Good Journalist?

I believe that a journalist needs to be outspoken and not afraid to take a risk. For example, it is expected of a journalist to be confrontational in order to find out vital facts and information about the story that they’re working on. Therefore, a good journalist should be confident and able to approach people, not necessarily always in a comfortable environment.

Secondly, I believe a good journalist shouldn’t appear to be biased in their reports. For instance, all writing or broadcasts shouldn’t contain any personal opinions, especially in a court report. It is unfair to produce an article which only contains one side of an argument.

A good journalist should also be willing to work extremely hard and be able to cope with working in a pressured environment. Journalists are expected to work under immense pressure of deadlines and therefore must be organised and have a good work ethic.

More lecture notes on Defamation and Qualified Privilege

Just like every start to a Law lecture we discussed this morning's headlines, today's choice was an article featuring in the 'Sun' that quoted Adele for calling herself: ''common as muck'' We all agreed that since Adele is quoted to have said this, therefore the 'Sun' aren't at risk of being sued, even if technically the story they posted is LIBEL . This is because Adele is identified in the article and the story and her picture have both been  published in the newspaper and is therefore also an example of defamation since the fact that Adele is 'common' could cause her to be shunned and discredited in her profession as a singer. However, the article's headline states that Adele has called herself 'common as muck' so therefore she is technically committing defamation against herself. Therefore Malice is transferred since the 'Sun' has quoted Adele as defaming herself.

We then moved on to discuss the two different types of Privilege:

• Statuary Qualified Privilege
• Common Law Qualified Privilege

Qualified Privilege is when it is made up by judges and not a statue and is based on the idea of 'the Common Convenience and welfare of Society.'' which in simpler terms is Public Interest. This Privilege is shown through the story of Toogood vs Spyring in 1834. A man accused his butler of stealing silver so he fired him and wrote him a terrible reference stating that he is  a thief. The butler felt that it was his right to sue his previous employer since there was no justification or proof that the Butler stole the silver. However, the butler lost his case since the Judge believed that if this man is a thief that it is in the Public's best interest that people are warned that the Butler is a 'thief. ' This decision was apparently made for the greater good.

There was a similar story which involved Albert Reynolds vs the Sunday Times. The Sunday Times newspaper got itself into a spot of trouble when they said that the Irish Prime Minister lied to the Irish Government in order to cover up a child abuse scandal within the Catholic Church. The paper believed this to be true whereas Reynolds was outraged and challenged the allegations since he believed them to be untrue and without any witnesses, forensic evidence.
When it came to court the Judge disagreed with Reynolds and said that he believed that it wasn't only the paper's right to publish the allegations but also their duty to publish it since according to the Judge they seemed to be reasonable and very much in the Public Interest.

The only person who has Absolute Privilege is the Queen therefore a journalist must include both sides of a story and make sure it has a fair balance otherwise you lose the Privilege.

Some more Philosophy!

I'm going to start off by sharing some background information!

First of all Socrates was imprisoned for a crime which he did commit. Crito, Socrates' friend tried to persuade him to escape, just like any good friend would. However, Socrates was having none of it and was adamant that he should remain in prison since he committed the crime and therefore there is a contract or a covenant between himself as a citizen and the state. He believed that because he chose to stay in the city he must abide by the law of the city and if the law is broken he must remain in prison keeping to his covenant with the city. Socrates believed that by breaking the law he also was attempting to destroy the city which is a punishable offence.

Socrates' ideas then caused Philosophers such as Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and Machiavelli to preach about their own ideas about the issue of the 'State'.

Hobbes
Hobbes believed that there must be an all powerful leader in charge of a State to keep order within the State. He constructed the idea of a 'Leviathan' who was a Biblical monster of unstoppable power. Hobbes used this idea of a Leviathan in order to expresses his idea that order can only be restored on the current state of constant war: ''Every man against every man'' is to have a powerful leader like Leviathan. Hobbes then expanded this idea by introducing a contract or covenant which states that all citizens must give up their power to him so that he can become all powerful. However, it was also stated that if the leader failed to protect his State then he must be replaced.

Locke's treatise of government
The first treatise of Locke's attacks the concept of the ''Divine Right of the Kings'' with the idea that God had given Adam the right to rule: ''Let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air...'' (Genesis) Locke unlike Hobbes believed that everyone enjoys the State of Nature such as natural freedom and equality but people must also obey Natural Laws and Moral Laws that everyone knows intuitively: ''Interwoven in the constitution of the human mind.'' Locke said that there must be laws in order to prevent mayhem in the State but none of these laws should be too personal, therefore he proposed a concept of government by consent. He insisted that taxes couldn't be levied without the people's (parliament) consent. Citizens could rebel if their government ceased to respect the law. This means that Locke suggested that the right of revolution was one of the natural rights of man. Locke dominated the Political Philosophy of the American Revolution. However, Locke agreed with Hobbes that if your political leaders don't obey the law then it is your right to replace them.

Rousseau
Rousseau stated that there is a conflict between obedience to the state and your freedom. Our freedom is to be guided by our own free will and he demanded Civil Freedom. He believed that if everyone is involved in making the law then the citizens will only be following their own will; which consequently is the general will. By following the law you become free by following yourself since it is the people's right to be part of the Legislature.

Machiavelli
Machiavelli started the beginning of Political Science who wrote the book: ''The Prince'' written for Medici Rulers of Florence which included the key theme: ''Man is the measure of all things.'' This lead Machiavelli to give advice to future rulers:

• Always support the weaker side in conflict as this then means that the more powerful side is destroyed.
• Centralised regimes are difficult to conquer but easy to hold.
• ''Armed prophets succeed, unarmed ones always fail.''
• Importance is that all of this is observed evidence empirical evidence.

Today I learnt all about..Defamation!

Simply Defamation is a dispute between two parties with a bit of reputation thrown in. For example if you damage someone's reputation its like damaging their property since it reflects badly on them and you also damage something personal to them. People have the reputation that they are entitled to, not what you believe yourself to have. For instance your own reputation is derived from what other people think of you due to your behaviour etc. This is why it is so important to not act in a way that can be perceived as negative. Foe example we used Gary Glitter as an example to show that his misconduct of Paedophilia has 'defamed' him and torn his reputation to pieces. When using the word  'defamed' it means to have what people think of you (that is good) taken away from you.

Every regular joe like you and I have no valuable reputation to ruin, its is the celebrities that spend their time suing various newspapers and TV channels for thousands of pounds in order to restore their reputation since they tend to believe that what was either written or spoken about them to be untrue and therefore threatening to their reputation. Katie Price is a celebrity is infamous for suing various tabloids for 'untrue' stories. You just have to type Katie Price and suing into Google and you get a never ending list of cases where she has sued a magazine for their supposed lies and defaming. The most recent story involves Katie threatening Channel 4 with a lawsuit because they broadcasted a show which included comedian Frankie Boyle making a disgusting joke about her son. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/10/katie-price-frankie-boyle-joke)
More generally if you say something about a person which may tend to diminish their reputation then you have indeed defamed them.

Slander is defamation in a spoken form by writing it down it down it therefore becomes Libel
and Libel is a defamatory statement that is published in a permanent form which therefore identifies a particular person. No one can be Libel unless they are identified such as by in photos in a newspaper. This is done so that no confusion can be caused, E.g. no one else who has the same name as the killer can be confused with the killer. Therefore no legal action will be taken.

Publication + Defamation + Identification = Libel

Defamatory can display any four of these:

1) Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
2) Causes them to be shunned or avoided.
3) Discredits them in their trade, business or profession.
4) Generally lowers them in the eyes of right- thinking members of Society.

Libel is the only type of Civil Case that is normally tried with a Jury, it is up to a jury to decide whether the words were actually spoken ( Slander) or published or broadcasted ( Libel) are defamatory or not.

There are Big three Defences:

• Justification that the defamatory statement is true and you can prove it (in front of a Jury) You can win any libel case if you have proof.
• Fair Comment You must make it clear that it is a fact and your honest own opinion. E.g. if you think someone is ugly.
• Privilege This means that you are exempt from the Law, can disobey it. E.g. A soldier shooting someone in war.

Qualified Privilege is exclusively for journalists who are exempt from Law of Libel within certain limitations. You must be Fast, Accurate and Fair. You therefore cannot make spelling mistakes or you lose the privilege and you must include the not guilty plea in your report.

HCJ Seminar 1

I wasn't sure what quite to expect from our first seminar but is apparent that listening to your lecturer and frantically making notes isn't going to quite cut it here. During our HCJ seminars we are required to speak up and discuss with each other our various thoughts of Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy'.

The main focus of our discussion this week was to state which philosopher include in Russell's book that you found most interesting and the one which you found most bizarre. I chose Russell's chapter on Plato as the most interesting philosopher because having studied Plato as part of my Philosophy and Ethics A-Level we looked in depth at Plato's ideas. Therefore I have the best understanding of Plato and can also relate to his ideas. The main idea of Plato's thoughts was that we should not be content with what we see but rather strive to discover more such as his idea of a World of Perfect Forms. This I find is still relevant today in the way that the majority of society become too accustomed to the world we live in and don't seem to question why things are the way they are. Instead we reply on scientists to provide us with the answer.

On the other hand I explained that I found Thales' beliefs to be rather extreme and most definitely unrealistic. For instance Thales believed that everything in the world around us is mater of the Elements which consists of water, air, wind and fire. When I read this alone I thought the man was crazy to think that everything is made of fire and water etc. when a desk or a book is clearly not made of the elements. However, after discussing this in class I realised that Thales wasn't literally meaning that all objects are made of fire but rather all things that objects are made of such as paper are made of trees which are linked to the earth. All of the Forms of Matter are subject to continual change. This shows how the elements are constantly transformed into one another, however, without one element ever gaining dominance over the others because of a Natural Balance. This shows that in fact I was the stupid one not Thales to have doubted him.

A snippet more of Law

First of all we were set the task of attending a court opening within the next couple of weeks. I was fortunate enough to receive the chance to visit a Magistrates Court in Bournemouth a couple of years ago on a school trip. The one thing I regret is not enjoying the trip more because rather than taking the time to find the trip interesting, I spent the entire time being paranoid as to whether I would do something wrong which would conclude with me being taking down to the cells. Anyway I shall learn from my mistake and this time will pay attention and share the thrilling experience with you all!

Back to today's lecture, the first thing I learnt (apart from the fact that the Listings Officer is the guy to go to if you want to know when the 'juicy' trail is about to come up) is that the most important principle with a Court is the Presumption of innocence. This means that everyone that appears at a Court for a trial should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. This means that as a member of the Jury or as a Journalist reporting on the crime, you must enter the Court without a Prejudice attitude towards the defendant. This is because it is virtually impossible to have a fair trail if you believe the defendant to be guilty before the trial has even began. Prejudice therefore destroys Journalism. Russell stated that it is best for Journalists to stick to the facts and don't have preconceived ideas. You lose the privileged position which Journalists have if a Journalist is found to have the facts wrong. All Journalists should follow the ''Fast,Accurate and Fair'' guideline.

The standard proof in Criminal Cases is beyond reasonable doubt.

All trials are held in public unless the witnesses will be put at threat or a woman would rather not share the details of a sexual assault in public. Trials being held in public ensures that there is evidence that ''Justice is seen to be done.''  The press is viewed as the 'eyes and ears' of the public therefore everything that is reported is therefore taken as the truth and is therefore unlikely to be doubted. This means that is is essential that Journalists report accurately.

Within a Crown Court the defendant has the right to have an evidence test by a Jury of peers. This is called Evidence based Justice and is included in the Magna Carta. As well as the defendant having the right to a Jury, no mention of any previous convictions should be mentioned unless it is essential to the current conviction. This is because mentioning previous convictions causes a prejudice attitude.

The Judge runs the trial and keeps it in order. The judge's responsibility is to summarise the case to the Jury but cannot however give his own opinion yet otherwise this could be an example of Contempt of Court. The Judge then decides on the convicted's appropriate sentence and what type of punishment is necessary.

This leads me on to talk about Contempt of Court which is a Strict Liability Offence. Anything that prevents the Court from granting Justice is an example of Contempt of Court. The consequence of committing this offence is a possible sentence of 5 years in prison. Contempt of Court is therefore taken extremely seriously in order to prevent justice from being served.

On a final note, all journalists should be extremely wary of what they write as one thing that I most definitely learnt is the ease at which someone can be sued!