Desperation at the Commons

The last minute decision by the House of Commons authorities to launch a high court challenge against the Information Tribunal order to release MPs expenses has surprised many people. The Times says that, with the information prepared for release, Commons speaker Michael Martin suddenly found a second lawyer who said that the case could be won.

It's about time

I've got a piece on Comment is Free today about the Information Commissioner accusing the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) of deliberate delay on Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. NOMS is part of the Ministry of Justice, which funds the Commissioner, as part of its overall responsibility for FOI.

Gordon breaks a promise

Speaking of things that turn out not to be true, it turns out that Gordon Brown's promise in October that UK troop numbers in Iraq will fall to 2,500 in 'the spring' will not be honoured.

The spin at the time was that this was part of a plan to get all the troops home by the end of this year.

On Monday the Telegraph suggested that military planners were against the cut. Yesterday, the Ministry of Defence indicated that it might not happen. Today, with the Defence Secretary quietly visiting Iraq and the budget dominating the news, the BBC was told that it probably wouldn't happen.

Will the media be more sceptical of such claims next time? As David McKie said (below):

newspapers print these speculative stories, partly because they believe there's a genuine chance it might happen, but partly because if the story proves to be wrong that's unlikely to be remembered for long.

Saving up for the budget

With the budget appearing to many people to be a bit of a yawn, David McKie on Comment is Free suggests that it's because so much of it has been spun in advance.

There may here and there be innocent folk who will say: excuse me, but exactly what is the difference between the new honest, decent, straight dealing, manipulation-free political environment promised by Gordon Brown when he became prime minister, and the now much-regretted spin-driven methods of the discredited Campbell, Mandelson and of course, Blair?

Mckie argues that an element of leaking has always gone on and points out that some of the apparent leaks have turned out not to be true.

Though well aware what politicians and their acolytes are up to, newspapers print these speculative stories, partly because they believe there's a genuine chance it might happen, but partly because if the story proves to be wrong that's unlikely to be remembered for long.

The depths of shallowness

An advert 'featuring lingerie-clad women praying for beautiful hair' has been banned after offending christians. The Guardian helpfully carries the ad on its website. It shows women uttering phrases like:

"May my new curls make her feel choked with jealousy"

The company whose products the ads promoted are unhappy, claiming to have 'a loyal following of women' and that the ads were 'produced by an all-female creative team', as if that makes any difference. I don't think advertisers can claim the same rights as everyone else to offend people in the name free speech. It's a shame that the main aim of adverts these days seems to be to promote a culture of utter shallowness.

Sparing Saudi blushes

The Guardian has another good story today about the MoD, BAE and the Saudis.

I've also done a piece for Comment is Free about the current Information Tribunal case.

Slightly sceptical

The Guardian reports with some scepticism that China is 'claiming' that terrorists tried to crash a jet. It puts the story in the context of a wider crackdown on separatism in the Xinjiang region. Amnesty International pointed to a lack of evidence to back up the claims.

Perhaps all unsubstantiated claims of terrorist activity should be treated as sceptically as this?