On Bureaucrasy - Weber.

Bureaucrasy is definable as social rule conducted from a desk through paperwork (or an electronic equivalent). However, it is not the same as democratic or aristocratic powers, as it is but a tool used by such aforementioned powers to rule the populace.

Bureaucrasy is sold as giving power to the prolatariat as it requires a large quantity of civil servants to fuel it's progress. Weber opposes this view, attacking these pretentions found in the Prussian bureaucrasy, stating that it was corrupted by aristocratic influence. This holds many parralels with the disollusion held by many today, with regards to the upper and upper-middle class dominance of high office within todays governments. This is easily identified when considering the attention given when a lower class individual attains a position of high office.

In the past, many attempts to retain this aristocratic power are apparent, with the Church in the middle ages being a prime example, enforcing celibacy upon its 'labourers' so as not to be challenged by patrimony of families.

From this, Weber acknowledges that reliable, and often blind submission to the official rules is an integral part of a bureaucrasy.

Modern bureaucrasy supplies the equipment required by its servants, maintaining control. Due to this, the bureaucrat does not own their job or their equipment, helping to maintain the singular power which the bureaucrasy serves.

Weber states that there are three types of legitimate authority:

Charismatic: A 'gifted' leader who is followed by those who are personally devoted to them.

Traditional: A leader who is followed, as everyone has always obeyed the person in the leader's position and no one thinks  to oppose their authority.

Rational: otherwise known as the 'rule of law'; it exists within communities in which there is a moral attititude of respect for the law. Or where the law appears to have been institued in a way that is considered legitimate.

Weber believed that bureaucrasy is within the framework of Rational authority, stating that it is the most efficient method of maintaining the rule of law.

Weber maintains that bureaucrasy is very efficient and that due to this, there is no system that can compte against it. However, due to the profit/goal orientated nature of bureaucratic rule the populace become wage slaves, who are forced to work boring and unfulfilling jobs. This is enforced by the legitimate fear that, if one was to take time to indulge in what would make them happy, then a more efficient and work-orientated person would claim their job, as their equipment and job are owned by the state.

The Innocence Project: CCRC decisions, was this decision correct?

Did the CCRC make the right decision in refusing Mr. Warner the right to appeal?

Mr. Warner was accused of murdering Mr. and Mrs. Pool on the night between the 21^st and 22^nd July 1989. The elderly couple were found dead in the upstairs of the property, with both bodies having received multiple stab wounds. Forensic evidence showed that Mr. Warner had forcibly entered or left the property through a downstairs dining room window, and there were fingerprints found around the draw in which the murder weapon was taken from. The police were alerted by a neighbour, Mr. Bell, who said that he heard a thud and a voice that sounded like a gasp.

Mr warner's appeal to the CCRC was based upon the new evidence, that there was no forensic evidence to show that Mr. Warner had been upstairs. Another defence proposed was that there was no blood found on Warner's clothes, or in the plumbing of his caravan. Along with these pieces of evidence, the defence suggested that there was a consistency between the murders of Mr. and Mrs. Pool's and the crimes perpetrated by the serial rapist known as 'the Vampire', who was at large at the time. A statement from a taxi driver stating that he picked up a bloodied man at around 11.20.

The CCRC decided to launch a section 19 inquiry, the enquiry found that the lack of forensic evidence to show that he went upstairs could be overturned should they allow the appeal on the basis that the scientist that analysed the DNA evidence said that Mr Warner's jumper showed evidence of being in contact with items recovered from upstairs, as well as an incomplete match with the other DNA evidence found upstairs that was not belonging to either of the Pools, to a degree where it was a 1 in 680 chance that the DNA could be someone unrelated to Mr. Warner. In light of this, it was believed that the central tenet of Mr. Warner's application for appeal was undermined.

The accusation included in the appeal, that the forensic evidence was perhaps contaminated, thus making the original trial 'unsafe', was dismissed by Dr. Hutchinson, who believed that there was no evidence to show that the blue pullover belonging to Mr. Warner could've been contaminated during the trial. This left Mr. Warner's appeal no grounds with which to challenge the integrity of the initial trial.

In light of this, the CCRC made the correct decision in refusing Mr. Warner the right to appeal, as his defence, no longer had a reason to claim the trial unsafe, which is required to overturn the verdict.

journalism now.. but before 'now' because it would be better for it to be proof read...

The Daily Telegraph.

The Daily Telegraph’s demographic is hardly a secret; old, wealthy, Conservatives and usually middle upper class at that. Floating around in the ABC1’s has no doubt shaped the way in which The Daily Telegraph is written, with today’s (17^th Nov) front pages demonstrating the difference between the paper and it’s competitors. Whilst other papers covered the ‘bank crisis’ as ‘Jobless generation’ (The Times) and ‘Migrants grab 12,000 jobs a month’ (Daily Express), The Daily Telegraph looks upon the story from a purely observational standpoint, speaking of ‘growth forecasts’ and other such things, not once mentioning the effects on today’s youth, or the effect of immigration. This is presumably due to the fact that the readership of The Daily Telegraph will not be feeling the pinch of ‘the cuts’, merely observing them from the lofty heights of grandeur and wealth.

Another big story, that has been hit hard by the tabloids today, is the ignorance of Sepp Blatter (the figurehead of FIFA), which brings me to my second point that defines The Daily Telegraph for me: the lack of a sport’s back page. Not only this, the well-hidden 20-page pull out even manages to place football on the 8^th page, after straight Rugby Union (and no mention of Rugby League), another stereotype of the privately educated upper middle classes. Once you have found the football pages, you will not find a league table or a record of results, but a brief summary of the financial and legal troubles found outside of the game. It would be unfair to suggest however that any of the sports covered were done from the perspective of a fan of the game, with not one result (apart from the odd gaze back into the ‘good old days’), or, in fact, any record of anyone actually playing the sports (the exeption being the praise of Federer’s victories at the age of 30 which is a cause of constant reference. But even then, the story is a biography rather than coverage of the sport.). To me it seems obvious that these stories have been chosen for their retrospective viewpoint or for their relevance to business.

The Telegraph tells the news in facts and figures that fit the thinking of hard-nosed businessmen and other such stereotypes of the demographic. This is done by expressing, mostly, the financial and business sides of a story for those who may not understand contemporary references to mass culture or want to read about the way in which people are effected by stories, instead looking at what the facts and figures can tell us, with a business-like efficiency that makes for good journalism but doesn’t offer anything for the less-educated to grasp onto. To summarise, The Daily Telegraph reports stories that are opposite to how their readership likes their rooms: hard and cold.

With regards to Libel.

To begin our foray into the depths of Libel, we must first look at what is required of the claimant in order for them to mount such a malicious attack upon another: (use of the colon perfected in precision english) the claimant must prove that whatever material they have taken offence to is 'defamatory' towards them; as in lowering their reputation: they must then prove, in a Civil court, that the material is understood to be referring to the claimant 'beyond reasonable doubt'; the third and final proof required is that of a third person's involvement, e.g: a readership.

Now we have established that there isn't much to prove in order to take someone to court over Libel, I will take us back to the beginning of the lecture in which I was given this information (although I had read the book, but for storytelling purposes this is easier and more interesting):

-Zoning in-
We begin with Chris Horrie holding, as is quite regular in these situations, The Sun newspaper; Chris is laughing aloud as we disentangle the reason why the cabinet women were being so immorally attacked by Mary Portas (insufferable orange-haired witch from humbly-named television programmes such as 'Mary Queen of Shops' and nothing else of any more prestige than that), Emily Ashton (y'know that famous woman from... The Sun.) and The Sun's Fashion Editor: Toni Jones. The reason is surprisingly simple, even though the article was especially defaming, it is all very legal.

But why? (I hear nobody cry, due to the form of media I am using) The reason is, hauling us back from the tangent of The Sun's witless abuse of politicians, 'mere abuse': the first instance of legal jargon to be spoken of in the lecture, and for good reason: mere abuse is a great defence against Libel claims, as, if the defendant can prove that the insults are matters of opinion and they are the truthful opinion of the defendant (this is under the cover of the 'Fair Comment' defence), then the defendant has the right to print their own opinion.

The lecture then moved onto a more formal note, defining Libel as what it is; a dispute between two parties over reputation, which then required a proper definition of what a person can claim of their reputation, which is: a person has the reputation to which they are entitled [through the opinions of others]: not what said person thinks their reputation is.

This definition, whilst seeming to aid the defendant, is balanced by the fact that defamation only has to TEND (this is how it was written in my notes) to damage reputation, meaning that the claimant must only prove, on the balance of probability, that the person's reputation COULD (once again, how my notes were written) be damaged.

Also, accusing someone of a crime is a definite act of libel, unless they are already proven guilty in a British Court of Law, and even then a summary of the defence must be given in the interests of fairness.

To be Libel; the defamation must be in a permanent form, hence why it is such a threat to journalists. These definitions of the fine points of Libel can be summarised by the convenient addition:

Identification + Publication + Defamation = Libel (handy).

With this handy summary of Libel, I will bid you Adieu.