UKIP: The lies of Christopher MONCKTON as at 01-Jun-2011
Updated at 18-Jul-2011
~UKIP's Deputy Leader & Head of Policy Christopher Lord MONCKTON Officially Rapped for HIS Lies!
For more on this dishonourable little mountebank check the Right Sidebar or CLICK HERE!
.
For more on this dishonourable little mountebank check the Right Sidebar or CLICK HERE!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
PDF 90 KB)
UKIP: The lies of Christopher MONCKTON as at 01-Jun-2011
UKIP: The lies of Christopher Monckton
Would you really want this man leading UKIP?
It beggars belief that some UKIPPERS actually think that Christopher Monckton should replace Farage as leader. Quick, send for the white coats before it's too late!
The Irish Independent has picked up on the current UKIP leadership crises:
The UK Independence Party, which wants the country to get out of the EU, is now beset with internal crises of its own.
One of its top European Parliament members, David Campbell Bannerman, has returned to the Conservatives, saying he is 'impressed' by Cameron, a sharp contrast with a year ago when he said that trusting the prime minister on Europe would be "as misguided as trusting Blair on Iraq".
If Nigel Farage is forced out as UKIP's leader, the name in the frame to succeed him is Viscount Christopher Monckton, a right-wing maverick whose aunt, Lady Valerie Goulding, was the founder of the Central Remedial Clinic in Dublin.
It was his grandfather, Walter Monckton, who was the key adviser to King Edward VIII during the abdication crisis of 1936, which came close to destroying the monarchy.
To read the original: LINK
Here a few Monckton facts for you. And don't say we didn't warn you!
He claims to be a science expert. This is despite the fact that his paper-thin educational background lies in the Classics and his single academic credit is a diploma in journalism.
He claims to have found a cure for Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. There is no cure for these illnesses. He also claims to have found a treatment for HIV.
Votagra. As used by Nigel Farage MEP!But what is more worrying is the fact that UKIP is happy to promote his lies on their official website:
2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue. See: LINK
He has been accused of deliberately manipulating scientific data. See: LINK
He has claimed to be a Member of a House of Lords. Here is one example:
In 2006 Monckton sent a letter to U.S. Senators Olympia Snowe and John D. Rockefeller.
Part of the letter read:
Finally, you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by the corporation that is the victim of your lamentable letter, should take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper House of the United States legislature either to withdraw what you have written or resign your sinecures.
To read the original: LINK
Monckton has attempted to get into the House of Lords. He tried in 1999. See: LINK
He also tried in 2007. He failed to receive a single vote. See: LINK
But perhaps he didn’t notice. Or did he just forget?
Monckton is best known for his lectures on climate change. At the start of these talks he is introduced as ‘Lord Monckton’. He even uses the emblem of Parliament, the Crowned Portcullis, on his PowerPoint slides.
Monckton has said:
“I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise.”
A quick call to the House of Lords will confirm that Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a “non-voting” or “honorary” member.
Here are the facts:
Christopher Monckton's father, the 2nd Viscount Monckton, was a Member of the Lords until 1999. The House of Lords Act 1999 ended the automatic link between the holding of a hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords, and the 2nd Lord Monckton ceased to be a member of the House at that point.
Christopher Monckton is the 3rd Viscount Monckton and inherited the title following his father's death in 2006. He has never sat in the House.
It is interesting to note that use of the Crowned Portcullis is protected by legislation. This is what the UK Parliament website says on the matter:
The principal emblem of the House is the Crowned Portcullis. It is a royal badge and its use by the House has been formally authorised by licence granted by Her Majesty the Queen. The designs and symbols of the House should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that their use might wrongly be regarded, or represented, as having the authority of the House.
The House symbol is primarily used to authenticate communications from Members. Further background information can found in The Portcullis.
If you require further information about using the Crowned Portcullis, please contact webmaster@parliament.uk
We sincerely hope that Monckton has not appropriated the symbol of the House for purposes "where there is a risk that their use might wrongly be regarded, or represented, as having the authority of the House".
The Lords and the Palace are extremely unhappy that Monckton has been misusing the portcullis symbol without the permission of the Queen.
A spokesman said: "Lord Monckton is not and never has been a member of the House of Lords. The clerk of the parliaments has written to Lord Monckton, confirming that he has no association with the House and advising him to stop branding himself as such."
Official logo of the House of Lords (left) and that used by Christopher Monckton (right). Naughty!
She said that Monckton's claim that the 1999 act was a general law was "misleading".
"The 1999 act does not remove letters patent, it just ends the right to be a member of the House by virtue of the hereditary peerage. The Act is pretty clear and uses the term 'membership' not the 'right to sit/vote',".
"The emblem is property of the Queen, and Parliament has a Royal Licence granted for its use. Any misuse of the emblem by either members or non-members breaches this licence, and if a person refuses to stop using it the matter is drawn to the attention of the Lord Chamberlain, who is an Officer of the Royal Household. The Lord Chamberlain has been contacted regarding Lord Monckton's use of the emblem, and it will fall to him to follow up on any misuse of the emblem."
The spokesman added: "If, following the correspondence, Lord Monckton continues to claim to be a member of the House then the House authorities would need to consider and assess what options are available to them."
Buckingham Palace has confirmed that it is "aware of this matter", but said it "can not disclose any details on private correspondence between Buckingham Palace and an individual". See: LINK
In 2007, Monckton, or someone using Monckton's personal IP address, claimed on his Wikipedia page that he had won a libel judgment against the Guardian’s George Monbiot. He lied. When challenged, Monckton dodged the issue. See: LINK
Monckton also makes ridiculous claims on other topics, such as that a ban of DDT was singlehandedly responsible for all malaria deaths in the last few decades, or that the best way to have solved the AIDS crisis was to imprison all AIDS sufferers until they died.
Monckton says that he is the author of a 1200-word article for the Daily Telegraph on the reasons in international law why the Falkland Islands are British. It was supposedly read out on the BBC World Service's Argentinian broadcasts every 20 minutes during the Falklands War.
But the BBC World Service deny this. They don't have an Argentinian service, and have never made specifically Argentinian broadcasts.
Monckton has said that he has won the Nobel Prize.
In an open letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), he claimed to have been named a Nobel Peace Laureate for correcting the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel in 2007
Monckton also claimed on the website of his organisation, the Science and Public Policy Institute, that he “earned the status of Nobel Peace Laureate (through) his contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.”
The website continued, “his Nobel Prize pin…was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York.”
In 2007 Nobel committee awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".
Monckton claimed to also be a Nobel winner because he had done such good work trying to undermine their effort. Monckton claimed that he deserved the accolade because he was a "reviewer" of the IPCC report.
Monckton said he also deserved a Nobel Prize because he wrote a letter pointing out a decimal point typo in one table of one IPCC report, making him a “contributor to the IPCC”.
The IPCC accepts reviews, unsolicited, and actually invites reviews from people who have varied perspectives, scientific and otherwise. But that doesn’t mean they can claim to be a Nobel Laureate!
The Nobel Committee were less than impressed with Monckton.
Committee secretary Geir Lundestat had never heard of Lord Monckton.
“The claim is ridiculous,” said Lundestat. “He is not a laureate - no way, no way.”
Thousands of people, he said, participated in the program of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 prize with Al Gore.
“But the organisation won the prize. Not even Dr Rajendra Pachauri (the chair of the IPCC) is an individual laureate.”
No individual, no matter what their involvement with the IPCC, can pass themselves off as a Nobel Laureate.
And Monckton’s Nobel Prize pin?
“It certainly wasn’t issued by us,” said Lundestat. “We have no pin.”
Actually, Monckton got a friend to melt down an old science experiment so they could fashion a little Nobel Prize pin. It was later presented to Monckton in a highly unofficial ceremony! See: LINK
When Monckton was cornered by the Sydney Morning Herald, he reportedly said that the claim to have won the Nobel Prize was “a joke, a joke.” See: LINK
The admission was made several hours after he had said on a radio program that he had been awarded the Nobel - a claim that the interviewer did not question.
So why does the website of his organisation, the Science and Public Policy Institute, still state that:
His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA.
To read the original: LINK
And don’t forget the time he said that he had been forced to sell his ancestral home after losing a fortune on a $1 million puzzle.
He later admitted that the story had been invented to boost sales of the puzzle. See: LINK
And this is the man now being touted as UKIP’s next leader! A serial liar and fantasist as a political leader? Whatever next?
2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue. See: LINK
He has been accused of deliberately manipulating scientific data. See: LINK
He has claimed to be a Member of a House of Lords. Here is one example:
In 2006 Monckton sent a letter to U.S. Senators Olympia Snowe and John D. Rockefeller.
Part of the letter read:
Finally, you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by the corporation that is the victim of your lamentable letter, should take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper House of the United States legislature either to withdraw what you have written or resign your sinecures.
To read the original: LINK
Monckton has attempted to get into the House of Lords. He tried in 1999. See: LINK
He also tried in 2007. He failed to receive a single vote. See: LINK
But perhaps he didn’t notice. Or did he just forget?
Monckton is best known for his lectures on climate change. At the start of these talks he is introduced as ‘Lord Monckton’. He even uses the emblem of Parliament, the Crowned Portcullis, on his PowerPoint slides.
Monckton has said:
“I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise.”
A quick call to the House of Lords will confirm that Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a “non-voting” or “honorary” member.
Here are the facts:
Christopher Monckton's father, the 2nd Viscount Monckton, was a Member of the Lords until 1999. The House of Lords Act 1999 ended the automatic link between the holding of a hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords, and the 2nd Lord Monckton ceased to be a member of the House at that point.
Christopher Monckton is the 3rd Viscount Monckton and inherited the title following his father's death in 2006. He has never sat in the House.
It is interesting to note that use of the Crowned Portcullis is protected by legislation. This is what the UK Parliament website says on the matter:
The principal emblem of the House is the Crowned Portcullis. It is a royal badge and its use by the House has been formally authorised by licence granted by Her Majesty the Queen. The designs and symbols of the House should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that their use might wrongly be regarded, or represented, as having the authority of the House.
The House symbol is primarily used to authenticate communications from Members. Further background information can found in The Portcullis.
If you require further information about using the Crowned Portcullis, please contact webmaster@parliament.uk
We sincerely hope that Monckton has not appropriated the symbol of the House for purposes "where there is a risk that their use might wrongly be regarded, or represented, as having the authority of the House".
The Lords and the Palace are extremely unhappy that Monckton has been misusing the portcullis symbol without the permission of the Queen.
A spokesman said: "Lord Monckton is not and never has been a member of the House of Lords. The clerk of the parliaments has written to Lord Monckton, confirming that he has no association with the House and advising him to stop branding himself as such."
Official logo of the House of Lords (left) and that used by Christopher Monckton (right). Naughty!
She said that Monckton's claim that the 1999 act was a general law was "misleading".
"The 1999 act does not remove letters patent, it just ends the right to be a member of the House by virtue of the hereditary peerage. The Act is pretty clear and uses the term 'membership' not the 'right to sit/vote',".
"The emblem is property of the Queen, and Parliament has a Royal Licence granted for its use. Any misuse of the emblem by either members or non-members breaches this licence, and if a person refuses to stop using it the matter is drawn to the attention of the Lord Chamberlain, who is an Officer of the Royal Household. The Lord Chamberlain has been contacted regarding Lord Monckton's use of the emblem, and it will fall to him to follow up on any misuse of the emblem."
The spokesman added: "If, following the correspondence, Lord Monckton continues to claim to be a member of the House then the House authorities would need to consider and assess what options are available to them."
Buckingham Palace has confirmed that it is "aware of this matter", but said it "can not disclose any details on private correspondence between Buckingham Palace and an individual". See: LINK
In 2007, Monckton, or someone using Monckton's personal IP address, claimed on his Wikipedia page that he had won a libel judgment against the Guardian’s George Monbiot. He lied. When challenged, Monckton dodged the issue. See: LINK
Monckton also makes ridiculous claims on other topics, such as that a ban of DDT was singlehandedly responsible for all malaria deaths in the last few decades, or that the best way to have solved the AIDS crisis was to imprison all AIDS sufferers until they died.
Monckton says that he is the author of a 1200-word article for the Daily Telegraph on the reasons in international law why the Falkland Islands are British. It was supposedly read out on the BBC World Service's Argentinian broadcasts every 20 minutes during the Falklands War.
But the BBC World Service deny this. They don't have an Argentinian service, and have never made specifically Argentinian broadcasts.
Monckton has said that he has won the Nobel Prize.
In an open letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), he claimed to have been named a Nobel Peace Laureate for correcting the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel in 2007
Monckton also claimed on the website of his organisation, the Science and Public Policy Institute, that he “earned the status of Nobel Peace Laureate (through) his contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.”
The website continued, “his Nobel Prize pin…was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York.”
In 2007 Nobel committee awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".
Monckton claimed to also be a Nobel winner because he had done such good work trying to undermine their effort. Monckton claimed that he deserved the accolade because he was a "reviewer" of the IPCC report.
Monckton said he also deserved a Nobel Prize because he wrote a letter pointing out a decimal point typo in one table of one IPCC report, making him a “contributor to the IPCC”.
The IPCC accepts reviews, unsolicited, and actually invites reviews from people who have varied perspectives, scientific and otherwise. But that doesn’t mean they can claim to be a Nobel Laureate!
The Nobel Committee were less than impressed with Monckton.
Committee secretary Geir Lundestat had never heard of Lord Monckton.
“The claim is ridiculous,” said Lundestat. “He is not a laureate - no way, no way.”
Thousands of people, he said, participated in the program of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 prize with Al Gore.
“But the organisation won the prize. Not even Dr Rajendra Pachauri (the chair of the IPCC) is an individual laureate.”
No individual, no matter what their involvement with the IPCC, can pass themselves off as a Nobel Laureate.
And Monckton’s Nobel Prize pin?
“It certainly wasn’t issued by us,” said Lundestat. “We have no pin.”
Actually, Monckton got a friend to melt down an old science experiment so they could fashion a little Nobel Prize pin. It was later presented to Monckton in a highly unofficial ceremony! See: LINK
When Monckton was cornered by the Sydney Morning Herald, he reportedly said that the claim to have won the Nobel Prize was “a joke, a joke.” See: LINK
The admission was made several hours after he had said on a radio program that he had been awarded the Nobel - a claim that the interviewer did not question.
So why does the website of his organisation, the Science and Public Policy Institute, still state that:
His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin, made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York, USA.
To read the original: LINK
And don’t forget the time he said that he had been forced to sell his ancestral home after losing a fortune on a $1 million puzzle.
He later admitted that the story had been invented to boost sales of the puzzle. See: LINK
And this is the man now being touted as UKIP’s next leader! A serial liar and fantasist as a political leader? Whatever next?
A great deal more about the antics, stupidity and compliance with the style of being a 'Crank & Gadfly' with a visit to CLICK HERE and in the >SEARCH< box at the top of the >Right SideBar< enter >monkton< there is very little to be found about him that does not show him to be other than a liability, a fool all be it a clever fool, a self publicist, a clown, dishonest, duplicitous, a plagiarist and a total prat.
This is the buffoon who many consider to be next in line for Coronation as UKIP leader IF Nigel Farage MEP goes (unlikely) - The poor chap is a completely dellusional fruitcake!
See Also: CLICK HERE
& now Christopher Monkton takes on
The Evening Standard & LOSES:
The Hon. Christopher Monckton complained to the Press Complaints Commission on behalf of Consistent Hotel Staff Ltd that the Evening Standard had sought to obtain information through subterfuge in breach of Clause 11 (Misrepresentation) of the Code and by doing so had intruded into the privacy of a number of the company’s employees in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code.
The complaint was rejected.
The complainant said that a reporter from the newspaper had gained employment with the company by misrepresenting herself and failing to identify herself as a journalist. He said the company accepted that there was a public interest in the question of illegal working, but under the Code subterfuge must not be used unless the information sought could not be obtained by any other means. In the present case, he contended, subterfuge could not be justified on the basis that material could not be obtained in any other way - the company had made it clear to the newspaper that it was happy to answer any questions that the newspaper cared to put to it, and had answered promptly and fully all questions which the newspaper eventually asked.
Further to his complaint under Clause 11 (Misrepresentation) the complainant contended that the actions of the undercover reporter were in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code. This contention was based on the fact that the journalist had shared company accommodation with genuine employees without identifying herself as a journalist – contrary, said the complainant, to the explicit statement in the Code that there is an expectation of privacy in a person’s place of residence – and had spoken to them, wilfully asking them questions that were designed to embarrass and distress them.
The newspaper said that it had received information from several sources that the company was employing and exploiting illegal workers. It considered that the use of subterfuge in order to establish whether the allegations were true was in the public interest as, consequently, was any resulting intrusion into the privacy of company employees.
The company said that it had given the newspaper clear, compelling and independently-verifiable evidence that it did not employ or exploit illegal workers and pointed out that the newspaper had provided no evidence to the contrary. For instance, it said, the newspaper had alleged that the company employed illegal workers and withheld their passports, but in fact the passport of each member of staff was sent to the Home Office on the day of recruitment, preventing illegal working and it was the Home Office that retained the passports pending the determination of the staff members’ applications for business visas. The company added that the newspaper had provided no evidence that its alleged sources existed or that, if they existed, their testimony was reliable. Moreover, it contended, the newspaper’s allegations were so unspecific that the company could not investigate them so as to put anything right that might be wrong.
The company said that the newspaper was under a duty to bear in mind the possibility that the company was innocent and would therefore have been willing to answer any questions the newspaper might have. The newspaper should, therefore, have telephoned the company to ask for information it sought before and not after it resorted to subterfuge. The newspaper could also have obtained the information it sought by a wide variety of other means but it had made no attempt to do so.
Decision:
Not Upheld
Adjudication:
The Commission has previously ruled that newspapers must not undertake ‘fishing expeditions’ - they can employ subterfuge only when they have a public interest justification for doing so and there are no other means of gathering the required information. In this case, the Commission considered that the allegations of impropriety made to the newspaper about the company were sufficiently serious and specific to justify further investigation in the public interest.
In coming to this view the Commission noted the concerns of the complainant that the newspaper had failed to identify its sources and provide proper details of the allegations that had been made about the company. However, it did not consider that simply because the sources were anonymous it could automatically discount their existence – indeed, newspapers have an obligation to protect confidential sources under Clause 15 (Confidential sources) and the Commission could not ignore this.
Moreover, the newspaper had provided what was, in the Commission’s view, sufficient detail of how it had received initial information from two separate sources – a freelance journalist and a former employer of the company – as well as further testimony from an individual whose clients had spoken of the company. Although much of the information was ‘second-hand’ the newspaper had given a clear indication of the nature of the allegations and had referred to specific, though unnamed, persons that their sources had cited. In particular the Commission noted that the newspaper had referred to alleged actual instances of apparent impropriety or illegality. The Commission did not consider that the newspaper’s inability to provide further, potentially compromising, details affected the decision in this case in relation to Clause 11 (Misrepresentation).
Having concluded that the newspaper had sufficient grounds to employ subterfuge in the public interest, the second task for the Commission was to decide whether other means of news-gathering were available to it. Ultimately, it accepted the newspaper’s argument that, given the nature of the allegations, it was appropriate to use subterfuge at the outset, before approaching the company directly. While appreciating that the complainant had said the company was ready to answer promptly any questions which were asked of it, the Commission did not consider it an unreasonable assertion that any company involved in wrongdoing might seek to suppress evidence of that wrongdoing were it to be questioned on its actions in a more traditional fashion.
At this juncture the Commission wished to stress that this adjudication does not deal with the truth or otherwise of allegations in a published article. The Commission’s task in this matter is to decide whether the newspaper has grounds for employing subterfuge within the terms of the Code. In doing so it acknowledged that the company had made the point that the allegations were wholly untrue and could have been checked by other means.
Ultimately the Commission concluded that the newspaper had legitimately sought to test serious allegations that had been made about the company – first by undercover investigation and subsequently by direct means. Previously the Commission has censured newspapers that have published intrusive or insignificant material that has been obtained as a result of subterfuge. In this case it noted that, having investigated this matter in the public interest, the newspaper had decided – at the current time – not to publish anything. Notwithstanding this, the Commission wished to state that this adjudication should not be taken as restricting the right of the newspaper to publish information in the future if it is in the public interest.
In relation to Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code, the Commission emphasised that Clause 3 (i) has generally been taken to refer to published material. In this case, of course, nothing had appeared in the newspaper and the Commission did not consider that an approach to the company’s employees by the newspaper’s reporter – even undercover – constituted an invasion of their privacy in breach of the Code.
Relevant precedents
Munro & Bancroft v Evening Standard, Report 54
Railtrack Plc v The Independent, Report 57
Report: In coming to this view the Commission noted the concerns of the complainant that the newspaper had failed to identify its sources and provide proper details of the allegations that had been made about the company. However, it did not consider that simply because the sources were anonymous it could automatically discount their existence – indeed, newspapers have an obligation to protect confidential sources under Clause 15 (Confidential sources) and the Commission could not ignore this.
Moreover, the newspaper had provided what was, in the Commission’s view, sufficient detail of how it had received initial information from two separate sources – a freelance journalist and a former employer of the company – as well as further testimony from an individual whose clients had spoken of the company. Although much of the information was ‘second-hand’ the newspaper had given a clear indication of the nature of the allegations and had referred to specific, though unnamed, persons that their sources had cited. In particular the Commission noted that the newspaper had referred to alleged actual instances of apparent impropriety or illegality. The Commission did not consider that the newspaper’s inability to provide further, potentially compromising, details affected the decision in this case in relation to Clause 11 (Misrepresentation).
Having concluded that the newspaper had sufficient grounds to employ subterfuge in the public interest, the second task for the Commission was to decide whether other means of news-gathering were available to it. Ultimately, it accepted the newspaper’s argument that, given the nature of the allegations, it was appropriate to use subterfuge at the outset, before approaching the company directly. While appreciating that the complainant had said the company was ready to answer promptly any questions which were asked of it, the Commission did not consider it an unreasonable assertion that any company involved in wrongdoing might seek to suppress evidence of that wrongdoing were it to be questioned on its actions in a more traditional fashion.
At this juncture the Commission wished to stress that this adjudication does not deal with the truth or otherwise of allegations in a published article. The Commission’s task in this matter is to decide whether the newspaper has grounds for employing subterfuge within the terms of the Code. In doing so it acknowledged that the company had made the point that the allegations were wholly untrue and could have been checked by other means.
Ultimately the Commission concluded that the newspaper had legitimately sought to test serious allegations that had been made about the company – first by undercover investigation and subsequently by direct means. Previously the Commission has censured newspapers that have published intrusive or insignificant material that has been obtained as a result of subterfuge. In this case it noted that, having investigated this matter in the public interest, the newspaper had decided – at the current time – not to publish anything. Notwithstanding this, the Commission wished to state that this adjudication should not be taken as restricting the right of the newspaper to publish information in the future if it is in the public interest.
In relation to Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code, the Commission emphasised that Clause 3 (i) has generally been taken to refer to published material. In this case, of course, nothing had appeared in the newspaper and the Commission did not consider that an approach to the company’s employees by the newspaper’s reporter – even undercover – constituted an invasion of their privacy in breach of the Code.
Relevant precedents
Munro & Bancroft v Evening Standard, Report 54
Railtrack Plc v The Independent, Report 57
64
See CLICK HERE
.
Make your vote count vote:
INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
or Write on YOUR ballot Paper
