- Did you not notice that Leveson hurt no one in power? That he didn't finish the career of Jeremy Hunt, even though the beggars in the street suspected that he had broken ministerial guidelines? That he did not lay a glove on David Cameron and that his criticism of Rupert Murdoch was so polite it allowed News Corp to retain control of BSkyB? Can you not see an establishment stitching up a winding sheet for our freedoms in front of your very eyes? Or doesn't it bother you as long as it upsets Paul Dacre? - Nick Cohen.
Showing posts with label NUJ Ethics Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NUJ Ethics Council. Show all posts
This article is in response to an article by Irish News Editor Noel Doran that featured on Letters Blogatory.
It was pleasing, if hardly intellectually stimulating, to find Noel Doran at last do something other than use the threat of legal coercion to silence voices he takes umbrage at. However, it has hardly gone unnoticed that he concluded his piece with a call for a robust piece of writing to be suppressed. I will not wait to the end of this current piece to tell him that is not going to happen. The article by Paul Campbell stays in place, and if wasting time suits him, Noel Doran can have a censor lawyer use up a paper mill churning out threatening letters by the tonne.
Tell The Irish News Hands Off The Internet
We have reason to believe that efforts are being made to close The Pensive Quill website down.
We host no illegal content, we are breaching no law in the United States (where the site is hosted), and, as has been well documented, there is absolutely no legitimate reason for such a pursuit. Any effort to close The Pensive Quill website is politically and/or personally motivated, by those seeking to hide their unethical behaviour. These actions are pursued by the Irish News and its reporter and associates.
We are therefore seeking to create mirror sites, and additionally, we invite third parties to mirror our site in its entirety. We invite those third parties, outside of the UK and Ireland, who can offer support, to contact us directly.
Any effort to prevent the disclosure of the Irish News’ willful and ill-advised pursuit of The Pensive Quill in order to cover-up the unethical behaviour of its reporter cannot, and will not, be allowed to succeed.
These legal tactics and letters are issued like confetti in order to police the web and the media behind the scenes; the sad fact is many outlets and individuals are intimidated into silence and comply, which enables the success of censorship. The wider public is not aware of this as the fear of being sued and dragged through court keeps people silent.
We are not going silently into the night over this, and in exposing what the Irish News and its reporter are doing here, we hope that it lifts the lid on the prevalent scare tactics employed and frees up discussion on their use across Ireland north and south.
We also intend by taking a stand against this to demonstrate that refusing to comply with the demands of censors weakens the power of the bully. Much like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, we intend on pulling the curtain back to demonstrate the Wizard has no more power than what is freely given to him. We refuse to give any censor power over us.
We will not be intimidated into silence.
Thank you
THE PENSIVE QUILL
Action Request
Please stand up against the Irish News' attempt to police the internet and suppress freedom of speech. Reproduce these articles across the web:
NUJ Wiki Dump
NUJ Vindicates Boston College Researcher
What Price Justice
The Weird World of an Irish News Journalist
I Have a Right to be Angry
Are you being Gagged?
True to Their Words
Invertebrate Journalism
Reporting to London
Not Censored by the Irish News
2nd NUJ Complaint Filed: As Sure As Day Follows Night
Do-It-Yourself Irish News Critic Kit
Irish News NUJ Chapel Rule 24 Complaint
Anthony McIntyre Response to Irish News NUJ Chapel Complaint on Behalf of Allison Morris
Background
We believe the origins of the first subpoena of the Boston College Belfast Project Oral History Archives were set in motion by Irish News reporter Allison Morris, who conducted an interview with former IRA volunteer Dolours Price. Dolours was heavily medicated and being treated for a variety of ills at the time. Her family objected to the interview and requested it not be published. The Irish News restricted what they published. However, 3 days after the Irish News story ran, a friend and colleague of Morris’ at the Sunday Life tabloid, Ciaran Barnes, ran a front page spread containing everything the Irish News left out.
In Ciaran Barnes’ report, he implied that he had heard Dolours Price’s Boston College tapes. US Attorney Carmen Ortiz's office subsequently submitted both Morris and Barnes’ stories as evidence to justify the first subpoena. Barnes never had access to the Boston College tapes and we believe it was Morris’ interview he based his report on. The PSNI did not seek Morris’ notes or records until after it was pointed out in court documents that they had never approached her or Barnes, 16 months after the original publication of her interview. She and the Irish News told the PSNI they retained no material; the PSNI accepted this and did not pursue the matter further.
Barnes and Morris brought a Code of Conduct complaint against Anthony McIntyre in their union, the National Union of Journalists. The NUJ’s Ethics Council railroaded the complaint against McIntyre and suspended him for 6 months. He appealed this and the NUJ Appeals Tribunal tossed everything out, completely vindicating him.
Neither Morris nor Barnes attended the appeal hearing, suggesting that the objective all along was to discredit him in the middle of the source protection/1st and 4th Amendment battle to protect the confidentiality of the oral history archives against government incursion, adding stress and pressure in an attempt to break him.
Immediately following the Ethics Council verdict being over-turned, Morris attempted to re-try her complaint on a legal blog, and was caught in an astounding lie. The Pensive Quill documented this and other questionable behavior around the Irish News and its reporter Allison Morris. The Irish News’ Editor Noel Doran began to contact The Pensive Quill in an obvious attempt to lay groundwork for a legal case. A solicitor’s letter from Johnsons then arrived demanding that The Pensive Quill remove all its material about Allison Morris.
With thanks to The Expendable Project for the wording used in the clarion call for action - their request for mirror sites was used as a template.
ACTION REQUEST: TELL THE IRISH NEWS HANDS OFF THE INTERNET
LC/0070000730
4 September 2013
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Mr Anthony McIntyre
Drogheda
Co. Louth
Dear Sir,
RE: OUR CLIENT – ALLISON MORRIS
We have been instructed by Allison Morris, a leading and highly respected senior staff journalist with the Irish News in respect of false, defamatory, and harassing material which you have published on a website entitled “thepensivequill” which can be located at the following link (“the website”):
http://thepensivequill.am
The website contains grossly offensive material about our client which is fundamentally untrue, highly defamatory and motivated by malice. For example, you falsely state that our client behaved in an unprofessional and dishonest manner during her dealings with Dolours Price and allege that our client has been involved in unethical journalistic practices. You further outrageously infer that our client has links with the illegal dissident Republican group Oglaigh na hEireann. This blatant attempt to undermine our client’s journalistic integrity is even more concerning given that you are aware that such reckless allegations could endanger her personal security.
Furthermore, it is clear that your website is being used by yourself and others as a platform for malicious, defamatory and highly personal attacks on our client. A series of extremely abusive and threatening posts, including, inter alia, those entitled, “What Price Justice”, “The Weird World of an Irish News Journalist” “I Have A Right To Be Angry”, and “Are You Being Gagged?” published on your website constitute a sustained campaign of harassment against our client.
As the author and publisher of these allegations you are liable, along with the Internet Service Provider, for the resulting damage to our client’s reputation. Now that you are on notice of the defamatory and abusive material you are publishing, we require you to:
1. Immediately and permanently delete the defamatory and abusive content from your server, and effect the removal of any reference to our client on the website;
2. Immediately provide your undertaking in writing not to allow the same or similar allegations contained on the website to be cached or otherwise stored in any way.
Our client has no desire to become embroiled in litigation and would prefer if this matter could be resolved amicably. Indeed, our client’s editor, Mr. Noel Doran, has contacted you on several occasions in an effort to resolve this matter without recourse to legal proceedings. Our client is disappointed to note that you have repeatedly refused to engage constructively with Mr. Doran’s attempts to settle this matter.
In these circumstances, pending confirmation of the above, we reserve all of our client’s rights, including the right to issue legal proceedings against you in support of a claim for substantial damages.
We look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.
Yours faithfully,
JOHNSONS
CORRESPONDENCE WITH IRISH NEWS EDITOR NOEL DORAN
"Indeed, our client’s editor, Mr. Noel Doran, has contacted you on several occasions in an effort to resolve this matter without recourse to legal proceedings. Our client is disappointed to note that you have repeatedly refused to engage constructively with Mr. Doran’s attempts to settle this matter."
From: Noel Doran
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 10:06 AM
To: Anthony McIntyre
Subject: website
Anthony,
Having just returned to work after annual leave, I have had an
opportunity to review the personal attacks on Allison Morris and the
other derogatory references to The Irish News and myself which have
been appearing on your website.
I can say with certainty that many of the claims you have published
are either entirely misleading or completely false, and, as you are
aware, no attempt has been made to check any of the background with me.
I am very concerned about these developments at a number of levels
and I believe it is important that we should have a telephone
discussion without delay. I would be obliged if you could provide a
contact number and a time when you would be available.
Noel Doran,
The Irish News.
———
From: Anthony McIntyre
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2013 7:35 PM
To: Noel Doran
Subject: Re: websiteNoel,
If the purpose of you calling is to threaten legal action, or continue with
your previous threat of legal action, I have not the slightest interest in
talking with you. I am, however, happy to offer you a more magnanimous
right of reply than I was afforded in your paper's coverage of my successful
appeal against the baseless accusations of your reporter.
Anthony
———
From: Noel Doran
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:34 PM
To: Anthony McIntyre
Subject: Re: website
Anthony,
The claims in your latest message are as misleading as those on your
website are false. However, if you do not wish to discuss these
matters either before or after publication, my options are limited. I
believe that I have consistently set out to engage with you since we
first spoke some seven years ago. As a considered position, perhaps
you could confirm that you do not have `the slightest interest' in my
point of view ?
Noel Doran.
———
From: Anthony McIntyre
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:34 PM
To: Noel Doran
Subject: Re: website
Noel:
I confirm nothing of the sort. I will indeed be very interested to read your
reply. You continue to state that "many of the claims you have published
are either entirely misleading or completely false" without any further
explanation. As I stated I am more than happy to offer you a magnanimous
right of reply, with as much space you would like, certainly more than I was
afforded in your paper's coverage of my successful appeal against the
baseless accusations of your reporter. Anything you send in shall be carried
in full, and this gives you plenty of space to air your grievances, or
correct the record.
In our last conversation, which took place over a year ago, you immediately
sought to censor me by threatening legal action against me on behalf of your
reporter over The Pensive Quill's coverage of what I believe to be her
unethical behaviour. You did not pause to engage in any exchange of views
then, nor have you sought to debate this matter with me at any time since,
so I have no faith that you are genuinely seeking any resolution now.
If you genuinely would like to speak to me on these issues I am and have
always been available to discuss them, as my attendance at both NUJ hearings
instigated by your reporter's complaint illustrates.
If the purpose of your speaking with me is to attempt further censorship -
contrary to your public pronouncements on the value of free speech - or
again to threaten legal action, you can speak directly to my lawyer.
Anthony
———
From: Noel Doran
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 1:38 PM
To: Anthony McIntyre
Subject: Re: website
Anthony,
You say that I have not explained why a large section of the material
you published was either misleading or false, but that was the whole
point of my attempt to open some form of dialogue with you. This is
also exactly what I also set out to do in my previous telephone call
to you 15 months ago, which concerned the decision by an individual
named Mark McGregor to withdraw a defamatory article from his
personal blog which you had republished on your own website. Allowing
an article to remain online which the author had already accepted
that he could not stand over would have left you in an extremely
vulnerable position, and I believed the best approach was to
informally update you on the sequence of events. It is extraordinary
that you should present my telephone call as a threat when it
actually enabled you to avoid a legal action for which you had no
possible defence. In my email to you of August 21, I said it was
important that we should have a discussion about the latest
derogatory references to Allison Morris, The Irish News and myself
which have appeared on your website and I asked if you would be
available to take a call from me. I did not introduce any
preconditions and I never mentioned the involvement of solicitors -
although I note that you have directed me to an unnamed lawyer in
your message below. My suggestion of an informal telephone
conversation remains on the table, and I would be obliged if you
would provide a definitive response to this proposal.
Noel Doran.
———
From: Anthony McIntyre
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 3:20 PM
To: Noel Doran
Subject: Re: website
Noel,
if is concerns you that much then please check your schedule and make
arrangements to meet in Drogheda at your earliest convenience.
Anthony
———
From: Noel Doran
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:12 PM
To: Anthony McIntyre
Subject: Re: website
Anthony,
This is my fourth message to you in the space of a week, all making
the same simple request that we should have a telephone conversation
about what are plainly serious and urgent matters involving your
website. There is no more a necessity for me to travel to Drogheda
than there is for you to come to Belfast, and I do not understand why
you have been unable to either accept or reject my suggestion. I
would be grateful for a straightforward and final response indicating
if or when you may be available to take my call.
Noel Doran.
———
From: Anthony McIntyre
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 7:21 PM
To: Noel Doran
Subject: Re: website
Noel,
You have my numbers. Nothing stopped you from calling me while your reporter
was making baseless accusations against me to the NUJ and nothing is
stopping you now. That you have not called me at any point along the way is
not my doing. I certainly have not stopped you from picking up the phone.
I am and have always been available. Unlike your reporter I made the effort
to attend both NUJ hearings even at great cost to myself and my family in
order to facilitate dialogue on the issue; clearly I am willing to listen to
anyone, anywhere, at any time. I have no football matches to attend that I
am aware of on the horizon.
I welcome any genuine point of view but yet another vexatious threat on
behalf of your unethical and truth-challenged reporter, in a futile attempt
to censor me, is a waste of everyone's time.
I also will reiterate you have the option of a full right of reply, with
plenty of space to air your grievances, or correct the record as you see it.
You will certainly have much more space than your paper afforded me in the
tiniest corner of page 10. Anything you send in shall be carried in full.
However, you have my numbers so I fail to understand why you need my
permission to call me. I am also available for you to meet with in Drogheda,
at any time depending on your schedule. Surely if the matters are as plainly
serious and urgent as you describe you would have already called or made
arrangements to see me by now, instead of buggering around with this
inexplicable pretence of needing some sort of permission to ring.
You can also Skype me:
Anthony
———
From: Noel Doran
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:02 AM
To: Anthony McIntyre
Subject: Re: website
Anthony,
I do not have your telephone number. It is more than a year since I
last spoke to you, and, other than an email address automatically
stored in our system, I had no reason to retain your contact details.
Asking for your number, in order to arrange a straightforward
telephone conversation at a mutually convenient time, is a simple act
of courtesy. I do not understand why you are instead raising football
matches and NUJ hearings in which I had no involvement. What I need
to do is have a telephone discussion with you about serious and
urgent matters relating to your website. We have reached a stage,
after five messages on my part over the last week, where a definitive
and immediate response to my proposal is essential. If you feel
unable to provide a telephone number and a time when you are
available, I will draw my own conclusions.
Noel Doran.
———
From: Anthony McIntyre
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:17 PM
To: Noel Doran
Subject: Re: website
Noel,
and Bimpe doesn't have it either I suppose.
Football matches sometimes prove the worth of a person's character and
reliability.
If you want you can call me this afternoon. I will be at 353 XX XXXX
between 1 and 3pm. I will listen to what you want to say. That is the one
guarantee you have.
Any attempt to censor or the vaguest hint at a legal threat just put the
phone down before I do
Anthony
———
From: Noel Doran
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 5:02 PM
To: Anthony McIntyre
Subject: Re: website
Anthony,
As I indicated during our telephone conversation on Wednesday, it is
essential that the issues arising from the material on your website
in relation to Allison Morris, The Irish News and myself are
addressed immediately. I do not intend to go through again all the
aspects which are either misleading, false or dangerous, but the
article you published under the name of Paul Campbell sums up my
overall concerns.
Although you spoke of a commitment to the ethics of journalism, you
readily agreed that the by-line of Paul Campbell was invented and no
contact had been made with those who were the subject of the
allegations in the article in advance of publication. As a result,
your website has carried a completely misleading account of the
dealings between our paper and Dolours Price which falsely stated
that separate threats to the life of Allison Morris were `seemingly
made up,' `baseless' and `laughable'.
I can state with certainty that serious threats have been made
against Allison Morris by both loyalist and republican sources. Over
a number of years, and again more recently, I personally dealt with
the police and other groups in relation to these matters. I know the
gravity of the cases which were investigated and I am appalled that
your website should put forward such reckless and totally untrue claims.
Similar points could be made about most of the other articles
referring to The Irish News on your website, and the only
appropriate course of action for you is to withdraw all the material
in question at once.
I noted your views on the National Union of Journalists, The Sunday
Life and the website of Ted Folkman, but it should be obvious that
none of these could be remotely considered to be under my
jurisdiction. I would be prepared to consider further dialogue about
your opinions on the content of The Irish News, but only after you
have confirmed the removal of all the unacceptable material you have
published about our paper. The false claims on your website have
already been reflected on outlets linked to loyalist extremists,
adding further to my deep sense of alarm for our staff. I look
forward to hearing from you without delay.
Noel Doran.
———
From: Anthony McIntyre
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 18:22 PM
To: Noel Doran
Subject: Re: website
Noel,
We listened to you for over an hour on Wednesday and have studied your
email. We have endeavoured to find substance in your discourse that would
give us grounds to reconsider our position. In neither your phone contact
nor email have you persuasively demonstrated that it is essential that we
bow to your demands.
You have failed utterly to show that any of the published material was
‘misleading, false or dangerous.’
We did not ‘readily’ agree that the by-line by Paul Campbell was an
invention. We stated no definitive position on it, opting to allow you to
draw whatever conclusions you wished, right or wrong.
The items in the piece that you say concerned you were already in the public
domain and you have put your position in respect of them into the public
domain also. There was no compelling reason why you needed to be contacted
when your response was a matter of public record. We do not accept that our
‘website has carried a completely misleading account of the dealings between
(your) paper and Dolours Price’. We believe we have the evidence to show
that the challenge to your account of the meeting can be substantiated. This
does not mean that you are falsifying the account, merely that we have a
version of what happened which is totally at odds with your own. Our account
has been put in the public domain elsewhere including via sworn affidavit.
You also engaged in a public exchange with Ed Moloney in respect of the
account in which you presented your side of the argument.
We see no evidence in your perspective that would substantively challenge
the view of Paul Campbell that the threat Allison Morris claimed she faced
as a result of Mark McGregor’s piece in her complaint to the NUJ was
`seemingly made up,' `baseless' and `laughable'. You, when challenged on
Wednesday, could produce nothing to show that there was any threat to
Allison Morris’s life that resulted from anything that appeared on our
website. You refer to your dialogue with the police but at no point have you
been able, when invited, to demonstrate that any matters pertaining to our
site formed part of that dialogue. You seem to have taken refuge behind
general assertions and avoided dealing with the specificities that are
essential if you are to impress upon us a serious concern on your part.
Were Allison Morris under threat that resulted from material on our website
I believe the police would have alerted me. I fail to see why they would
not. I would be open to any suggestion from any quarter that material be
withdrawn if it endangered the life of any person. That would apply as every
bit as much to a member of the PSNI as it would to a journalist. All have
equal right not to be under threat. I have consistently spoken out against
the use of political violence. In your own paper in October 2000 I made the
point that republicans should never again use force in pursuit of their
goals. It is a position that I have never once had cause to resile from.
You ‘state with certainty that serious threats have been made against
Allison Morris by both loyalist and republican sources.’
Again, this is the broad brush with which you hope to sweep aside all
narratives that you find unacceptable. Paul Campbell has constructed such a
narrative. Unlike your generalisations Campbell’s narrative is specifically
linked to claims made by Allison Morris to the NUJ that she was under threat
as a result of material that appeared on our website. Campbell has called
into serious question in a strongly cogent fashion the suggestion that
Allison Morrison is under any threat in the context I have outlined. You
have failed to come up with even a modicum of evidence that Paul Campbell
made ‘reckless and totally untrue claims.’
I am as concerned as anyone else that a person might face threat. I am even
more concerned if the threat was to be result of anything that I have been
responsible for. But it is all too easy to censor the freedom to write on
the basis of an alleged threat for which no evidence has been forthcoming.
Indeed, during Wednesday’s call you reminded me that I had actually written
to you supporting Allison Morris when you office was picketed by republicans
opposed to what she was writing. Because we find ourselves on the opposite
side of the argument from a person does not mean we would ever wish to see
them harmed. Writing you in opposition to picketing is not consistent with
someone who would approve threats.
You want all material in relation to the Irish News withdrawn from the
website. This in my view is simply an attempt by you to censor us and by
extension have questions raised about your paper hushed up. I don’t find
this in any way acceptable and I am deeply disappointed that a paper with a
record of facilitating the freedom to write in an environment that was not
always conducive to it should be making this sort of demand of one of its
critics.
For us to yield to your demand that we remove all the material you find
unacceptable would be to acquiesce in a censor’s charter. It is a power we
will never confer onto you. While we hold to the maxim that we can write
what we like, what we like shall continue to be informed, shaped, and
constrained by wider considerations foremost of which remains the question
of harm that may arise as a result of what is written. We seek to see no one
harmed but it is not our role to protect people from the offence that may
accrue from an opinion they might find ‘unacceptable.’
I genuinely regret that we have been unable to reach a satisfactory
resolution of this matter given the very positive relationship we have had
with your paper over the years. But your demand that we basically shut up
and then talk to you offline once we do is totally unreasonable.
What we shall do again is offer you or any of your staff the unfettered
ability to respond in full to any issues raised on the blog. In addition to
being speedily facilitated you will have unlimited space to make your case
as often and as strongly as you wish. That seems a much healthier way of
addressing a clash of perspectives between rival narratives than the gagging
of one by the other.
In conclusion I ask you to confirm whether you wish to avail of our offer of
right of reply, and if that will finally resolve the matter for the benefit
of all parties.
Anthony
———
From: Noel Doran
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 11:01 AM
To: Anthony McIntyre
Subject: website
Anthony,
I was saddened by the tone of your response. Your
evasiveness after being caught inventing a
by-line for your personal attacks was
particularly telling, and follows your consistent
failure to check a range of false allegations in
advance of publication. You were given every
opportunity to voluntarily withdraw the tainted
material, in the interests of an agreed
resolution, and your refusal has been duly noted.
ACTION REQUEST: TELL THE IRISH NEWS HANDS OFF THE INTERNET
Back in March a person describing themselves as ‘a former director of publicity for Sinn Fein’ filed a report to someone in London. It seems the writer unilaterally took it upon himself to function as the NUJ Ethics Council’s Belfast agent, tasked with filing reports to London. I cannot say for certain that his letter was merely the latest in a line of reports to people in the British capital, although the balance of probability would tend towards the writer having previous form.
Perhaps it is just my imagination but am I wrong to sniff the scent of collusion between the actions of the NUJ chapel at the Irish News who tattled to Dear Sarah, and the ‘former director of publicity for Sinn Fein’ who also went a-squealing to her? Both letters were written on the same day; the former publicity director's in the morning followed by the chapel's a few hours later. Both were eager to point out to Sarah how I had said ghastly things about either her or the Ethics Council. And both praised the same council for having taken action against me. Coordination, collaboration, or coincidence?
The ‘former director of publicity for Sinn Fein’ has his own website where he maintains a diary of things he did on a lot of his days. He appears to leave out the days that he is reporting to London. We know he reports because we have caught him — but he never writes about it on his website. A reader would never know that the NUJ’s self-appointed Belfast agent might have a penchant for reporting to London. He doesn’t record that type of thing. On the 29th of March this year, although he was with practiced hand scribbling a report to London, he failed to disclose it to his readers. Anyone taking a look at his website for that date will find no entry in it; he didn’t write, ‘Today I reported to someone in London about Mackers.’
If readers don’t take my word for it, they can view a copy of the letter he hoped would secretly fortify the case against me so as to hobble my appeal. Fortunately, the Ethics Council was in no position to stand over that secrecy so it provided me with a copy of his letter. Even it has not yet signed up to the secret evidence clause of the British courts; but for that I would not be able to share it with the readers. And share it I shall. If anyone thinks they are going to submit secret evidence against me in the hope of producing a Diplock type verdict, and expect me to share the secret, then I am going to disappoint them. So here you go.
 |
| Click Image to Enlarge & Read |
Now, think what we will about the chapel in the Irish News, it can plausibly claim to at least have a dog in the fight. They decided to stick by one of their own. I don’t think it made the right call and feel its behaviour was far from salutary and detrimental to journalism, but c’est la vie. But what was the Belfast agent’s agenda?
In my view, he was hoping that he could erode the credibility of the defence being mounted against the PSNI raid on the Boston College archive. He did so in private because he didn’t want the public to know, otherwise he would have recorded it on his web diary as he does for many of his other activities. I think he does a lot of things in private that he does not want you to know about. He tried shutting Richard O’Rawe up over another sordid action of his, and about which he wanted nothing in the public domain. He failed then as well, just as he has failed here.
Ultimately, in my view we are drawing inexorably closer to the truth about the instigation of the NUJ case against me.
One of the journalists who took the complaint called for the Boston College material to be handed over to British authorities. He too thought he could operate in secret but it was his misfortune to get caught out.
What we can establish is this: two of the people involved in lobbying the NUJ to sanction me, at a time when I was fighting a source protection case backed by the NUJ leadership, were working in clandestine fashion to compromise the vital confidentiality of the archive.
Now as these strands all weave closer together a picture is emerging to suggest that there is something rotten in the state of Danmark. We are on the trail of something sordid. When we find it, as we will because we are good at this sort of thing — 55 Hours and all that — we will share it with you; just as we shared the Belfast agent’s secret report to London with you.
Watch this space.
It is not that the chapel is mute about matters that prick its interest. It has shown Olympian sprinting skills when it comes to racing off to complain about something that has offended the editor. Seemingly it is a chapel that worships at the altar of the management.
Immediately upon my ban from the NUJ by its bombastic Ethics Council a journalist from the paper rang me for my thoughts which didn’t really amount to much other than I would hardly notice the suspension. My reasoning was simple. When a union, steered by a leadership not inoculated against the back seat driving folly of the Ethics Council, buckles to Leveson’s demand for state regulation of the press, I very much subscribe to the view, ‘if the National Union of Journalists won't defend journalism, what's the point of it?’
And so it was in this vein that I told the Irish News that I considered the ban an act of censorship, which the paper both sought and endorsed. I also expressed the view that the ban was comparable to being denied membership of the igloo builders of the Sahara. Perhaps, I reckoned, there were as many building igloos in the desert, as there are people in the Ethics Council protecting journalism from state regulation. The paper did quote me fairly enough. It didn’t carry all I said but media never does, nor can it be expected to. And as it didn’t manipulate what I said out of context I had few grounds for complaint, or none that I was prepared to bring before those upstanding ethical denizens of the Ethics Council.
I did, however, happen to find out later that despite the sweet talk from the Irish News on the phone a member of the paper’s NUJ chapel was, on the day following its reporting of my suspension, tattling to the Ethics Council. It was wrongly alleged that I was making ‘frankly libellous comments about the members of the Ethics Committee’ on this blog. I say Sarah, old girl, the rotter is scurrilous, and frankly my dear he doesn’t give a damn.
Dearie me and my oh my, heaven save us from the profanity of an independent thought. What that had to do with the chapel I am not quite sure. That it was so eager to write ‘Dear Sarah’ letters came as no surprise to me. I wasn’t even disappointed with it. As Nietzsche knew so well, those born to crawl will never fly. The kiss-up kick-down ethic seems to have considerable purchase within that particular chapel of the NUJ. In any event there is nothing that I said about the Ethics Council that I could not stand over. I have said it since its farcical hearing in Belfast and will continue to say it. The Ethics Council is a bastion of journalistic wankerdom. And what?
I neither know nor care if the ‘Dear Sarah’ letter writer’s behaviour was particularly unethical, even if I suspect it had an underhand tone to it. It did strike me that the denunciation was made in the hope of causing me even more trouble than the writer hoped I was already in. If this archer of unsteady hand and dubious aim thought they were going to send an arrow through the heart of my appeal, how disappointed they must have been when the result came through. But that’s journalistic collegiality for you.
 |
| Click Image to Enlarge & Read |
As the reader can see - which the letter writer does not want you to see - is the claim that I was not behaving towards Allison Morris as the paper thought I should. And the point is? I no more have to respect Allison Morris than she has to respect me. Unlike the supine NUJ chapel at the Irish News, I don’t happen to think that is some sort of journalistic crime for which a member of the union should be sanctioned. Then again my views on ethics and those of the people at the Irish News would seem to be radically different and now seem to clash frequently enough. While I have a consistent ‘put up with’ attitude to its views they seem to take a ‘shut up’ response to mine. Not a very rewarding experience trying to shut me up.
One of the complaints is that I published Allison Morris’s ‘confidential’ complaint to the committee (just as I am doing here with the chapel’s ‘confidential’ letter to the same committee). So, what the chapel wanted was secret evidence that the public would not have access to, old style Soviet anonymous denunciation. The concept of secret evidence is enough to send most journalists' noses twitching. Not the UDM type lot who populate the Irish News chapel!
The chapel of course praised the committee for the professional work it did in finding against me. Now, there are many things I am prepared to accuse the Ethics Council of but professionalism does not figure among them.
Not only has the Irish News chapel prostrated itself before the Ethics Council it has also exhibited bovine conformity to what it thinks the editor/bishop wants, leading me to suspect that the virus of co-option has been cause for rejoicing rather than resisting. Just as under a regime of old style corporatism, the chapel has been co-opted into the church of the management. These supposed NUJ colleagues at the paper for reasons yet to be plausibly explained wanted to see me done over at a time when I was immersed in fighting what was one of the biggest source protection cases in recent years — in order to what? Spare the feelings of the person who arguably set the whole thing in motion?
If so, it is a chapel in the wrong church.
The paper was not, nor did it pretend to be, a disinterested party to the affair. It had a dog in the fight. One of its own journalists, Allison Morris, who along with another journalist not employed by the paper, had brought the initial charge of breaching ethics to my door.
The Irish News considered it a victory and proclaimed it as such, leading those who read its coverage – not easily overlooked given the amount of space allocated complete with photo of me – to probably judge me the villain of the piece.
At a time when the industry is under scrutiny, this case is an example of how bloggers and online commentators ... must be willing to abide by the same code of conduct and standards of practice as colleagues in the print media.And that was fair comment at the time I guess, even though the basis for it later came to acquire all the material substance of last year’s snow on a ditch.
The paper also gave cover to Kenny Archer, who was described as the Irish News NUJ rep:
Allison Morris is a valued colleague and a strong motion in support of her and condemning Mr McIntyre's treatment of her was passed unanimously by fellow members of the Irish News NUJ chapel and forwarded to both the Irish and British executives of the NUJ.Strong stuff indeed but in terms of newsworthiness it makes the grade even if it obviously aimed to put a dent in my reputation.
The Irish News would, presumably, claim to be interested in fairness and balance in its coverage of the news. So when the case against me faltered and came off the rails I fully expected the paper’s editor, with whom I have always had an amiable relationship, to present coverage of the findings of the Appeals Tribunal with the same degree of prominence that had been accorded the findings of the Ethics Council.
It would only be restorative justice, ensuring that I would have restored to me any standing I may have lost as a result of the paper's broadcasting of my gratuitous unworthy status. I did not imagine that the editor would be either vindictive or infantile and just ignore it.
Failure to report in equal measure might not be illegal but it sure as hell would smell unethical. And given that the Irish News was beating the ethics Lambeg in my ear, unethical behaviour would surely constitute an impropriety the paper would be loathe to seek the company of.
Indeed, the Irish News had been extremely quick to phone me for a comment in the wake of my suspension, to which I responded positively despite the fact that I had grave misgivings about what I regarded as its own less than wholesome role in matters that led to the issuing of the Boston College subpoena.
But, like the dog that did not bark, this time the phone did not ring.
In my statement announcing my London vindication I made the following appeal.
"While extremely satisfied with the outcome, it is my sincere hope and expectation that those news outlets which announced the flawed Ethics Council verdict against me in March will have the professional courtesy to provide the same level of coverage to this indisputable and unalloyed vindication."So what did I get in the interests of fairness and balance?
This:
Balance? Fairness? Equal coverage?
If ever a paper seemed to frame a contest as one of David and Goliath it was this. The sheer act of marginalising coverage of the Appeals Tribunal hearing to the bottom corner of page 10 displayed a laughable desire to push it off the page altogether.
The Irish News has for some time sought to suppress discussion of an issue which in my view is a matter of public interest. Perhaps that the public would be interested was the very reason for wanting to suppress it.
It seems to me we are dealing with a story that the Irish News does not want heard but which has been amplified by the attempts to silence it.
The Irish News is free to challenge that account and if through remorseless logic and evidence it ruptures the narrative that has been presented in these pages and elsewhere, it is entitled to do so.
But it can never be allowed to impose the dead hand of censorship which seems to be the institutional instinct it has exhibited by the nature of its own reporting or lack of it.
The financial power and influence of the paper might lead it think it can play the pauper and the prince, where it can lay claim to palatial rights for its own narrative and pauperise the narrative of its critics.
Fortunately, the internet is a very pluralistic and democratic society where the writ of the censor more often stumbles than it runs. On the World Wide Web, getting the oil back into the bottle is not so easy once it is out. And there are some in the world of journalism who simply do not want to take their oil.
The Weird World of an Irish News Journalist
Paul Campbell
Irish News journalist Allison Morris is some chancer. While having a brass neck is no bad thing for a journalist, Allison’s professional practices would make even the most unscrupulous tabloid hack blush.
Sunday World journalist Hugh Jordan has been told by police that his life is in danger. The warning came amidst a tirade of online abuse from republican dissidents and others including Fernando Murphy.
The threats follow articles Jordan wrote about the late Martin Meehan senior and the dissident republican paramilitary group Oglaigh na hEireann (ONH). Martin Meehan’s son, Martin og Meehan, took umbrage with both articles.
Martin og Meehan is a prominent member of ONH’s political wing, the Republican Network for Unity (RNU). Fernando Murphy, Allison Morris’s partner, joined a chorus of vicious harassment and intimidation of Jordan on Martin og’s Facebook page.
Without any foundation whatsoever the journalist was called “an MI5 mouthpiece”, a “vermin bastard”, a “Brit agent”, “scum” and “a piece of shit”. He was ludicrously even accused of being a child abuser.
The vitriol unleashed against Jordan clearly created an environment in which he could be physically attacked. One dissident republican actually wrote, “somebody should target him”.
Jordan, an ardent Celtic fan, had recently attended the Cliftonville-Celtic match at Solitude. The Sunday World journalist took Fernando Murphy’s internet comments as a threat.
Jordan told The Pensive Quill: “Who is this man to decide in which football ground I’ll be made welcome? I was a guest of the Celtic board at Solitude recently. I attended the ground last year when the Celtic youth team played a friendly against Cliftonville – again, I was made welcome.
“For this man to tell me I won’t be welcome at a sporting event smacks of fascism.” The PSNI is investigating the online intimidation.
Fernando Murphy is a youth leader in Ardoyne and describes himself as a coach at Cliftonville Olympic. It is totally inappropriate that an individual who works with young people and in the sporting arena is warning someone that they won’t be welcome at a football ground.
It is also highly questionable that someone in his position should be joining in a chorus of harassment led by supporters of a paramilitary organisation.
Fernando Murphy added his comment AFTER ONH’s political wing, RNU, stated on the same Facebook page that it would support threatening newsagents who sold Sunday World.
This real and imminent threat did not feature in Allison Morris’s speech on journalistic threats at Feile an Phobail. Nor did her partner’s verbal thuggery towards Hugh Jordan get a mention.
Jordan has every reason to take Fernando Murphy’s comments seriously. In 2006, Murphy was convicted of attempted GBH, riotous behaviour, and possessing a claw hammer during rioting in Ardoyne. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.
Intimidation from Ciaran Murphy/Cunningham must be taken seriously. Just like Fernando Murphy he has a conviction. In 2004, he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for collecting information – in the Royal Victoria Hospital on police, prison officers and loyalists – which was likely to be useful to terrorists.
It is highly inappropriate that, as the partner of a journalist, Fernando Murphy is joining supporters of a paramilitary group currently waging an armed campaign, in their frenzy of hatred against another journalist.
Murphy has not even been content at targeting Hugh Jordan online. Another NUJ member, ex-IRA prisoner and writer Anthony McIntyre, has also been in his line of fire.
The Pensive Quill has carried articles critical of Allison Morris’s professional practices. Her partner has rushed to her defence but hardly in a manner becoming to the Irish News’ image of Allison as a serious, senior impartial journalist in Northern Ireland.
Rounding on McIntyre and elevating himself into some sort of super republican judge of all things republican, Murphy wrote in the public comment section of The Pensive Quill: “You met with Owen Patterson to grovel about your case – to the secretary of state of united kingdom – that’s republican?”
Murphy evidently felt that by raising the Boston College tapes case with the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, McIntyre was somehow betraying republicanism.
In yet another tirade of tirade of abuse, Murphy boasted that McIntyre had been “shunned by the republican movement many years ago”, was hiding “behind a computer down South”, and was “grovelling” to the NUJ. He told McIntyre: “Get a life, u sad bastard! I have a number for Teresa Villers if u need a shoulder to cry on because of ur mistakes.”
If this is the level of intelligence of the person that Allison Morris chooses as her life partner, it’s no wonder that some of her stories are so idiotic and off the mark. Her judgement is surely questionable.
Last year, Allison Morris reported an ONH fantasy claim to have carried out a mortar attack on police in West Belfast. The attack was later shown never to have happened.
Allison has never explained exactly why she didn’t adequately verify the ONH claim before rushing to print and to relay it to readers as a factual incident that had definitely occurred.
The Irish News’ journalist hardly covered herself in glory when she interviewed Dolours Price at a time when Price was undergoing psychiatric care at a Dublin hospital. Allison refused the family’s request to end the interview because of Dolours’ medical condition.
The family then spoke to Irish News management. When the newspaper reached an agreement with them – understandably excercising caution in how it treated the story and only printing parts of it – Allison took the tapes/story to her friend and former Andersonstown News colleague, Ciaran Barnes of the Sunday Life, who published an unrestrained account.
As both a journalist and a human being, this was hardly an example of ethical behaviour. Allison’s actions ended up setting in motion the whole Boston College saga which has seriously damaged source protection and oral history.
But the Irish News journalist learned no lesson from it all and has continued in her own inimitable bulldozing style.
After her journalistic practices previously drew criticism on The Pensive Quill, Allison went to the NUJ with a seemingly wholly made up claim that the criticism had placed her life in danger from dissident republicans.
She produced no proof of this whatsoever. Indeed, the claim was so baseless that it was laughable. While Allison was claiming grave threats to her life, anyone taking an even cursory glance at the Irish News could see she was in no danger.
She was interviewing both grassroots and senior dissident republicans and she was on the ground covering dissident republican riots and protests. No-one was refusing to talk to her, let alone threatening her life. Allison’s actions led the NUJ to initially suspend Anthony McIntyre.
Thankfully, the union saw sense in the end. Last week, the NUJ overturned its original decision, McIntyre was re-instated in the union and Allison’s complaint was rejected.
Bristling from defeat, Allison set about digging herself an even bigger hole. She went onto a US blog to explain how she had regretfully not been able to attend the NUJ appeal hearing in London which threw out her complaint “because of work commitments – July is one of my busiest months”.
She also cited financial reasons: “We had to fund the trip ourselves including flights and hotels, as a single parent I couldn’t justify the expense.”
Yet again Allison Morris and the truth were on different sides of the track. Not that her own departures from ethical behaviour have ever stopped the Irish News journalist moralising to others.
At the Amnesty event, she was pontificating on how journalists were more at risk now than during the Troubles. She was also in full holier-than-thou flow on the US blog.
Lecturing others on journalistic ethics, she opined: “Freedom of speech does not mean being able to say what you like about who you like regardless of how untrue, dangerous, defamatory it is. We all have moral and social constraints placed upon us to stop language being used that is dangerous and puts the lives of others at risk.”
But in the column, “Social networks an ideal platform for extremists”, Allison marches on wagging the fingers at others. Referring to loyalist internet posts “full of hatred and intolerance”, she declared: “Now crazies, obsessives and bigots can reach a much larger audience without having to leave their bedroom or remove their tinfoil hats.”
To have the temerity to lecture loyalists and others whom she doesn't like, while her own partner is peddling his warped views on the internet, is remarkable.
For the sake of her own credibility, Allison is best advised to ensure Fernando Murphy stops his thuggish and intimidating behaviour. Because to continue preaching about media ethics as your partner menaces other journalists goes way beyond having a brass neck.
Celtic v Cliftonville in Glasgow, Apparently
“It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one.”
― George Washington
Ted Folkman is a Boston lawyer who blogs at Letters Blogatory. In many ways, his views constitute an adversarial stance with which I have locked horns over the Boston College subpoena case. I think he has called the ethics of the issue wrong although his predictions have more often than not been on the money. Even on an unrelated political issue like Israel we have found ourselves in sharp disagreement. In any event none of our differences have inhibited a nurturing of the respect I have for him, finding him a judicious font of legal opinion. And I am always mindful of the courtesy and decency he afforded my wife while she was in Boston lobbying on behalf of the campaign to stop PSNI incursion.
When I was the target of a wrongful accusation levelled by two Belfast journalists, Allison Morris and Ciaran Barnes, he gave space in Letters Blogatory to the flawed verdict delivered against me by the Ethics Council of the National Union of Journalists. In doing so he was enhancing public understanding. Good for him.
When the verdict was overturned by the NUJ Appeals Tribunal, Ted Folkman, quicker than anybody else, sprang out of the traps to publish that on his blog also, giving it roughly the same amount of coverage as he had the original mistrial. Whatever I might think of Ted Folkman’s views on some things, I most definitely cannot question his fidelity to fairness and balance.
In his piece flagging up my success, he raised questions about the fact that the two Complainants had not turned up at the London appeal hearing. Ciaran Barnes replied that he did not attend because he had chickenpox. This corresponds with what I was told after the hearing by one of those in attendance: that one of the two complainants could not make it due to chickenpox.
Allison Morris also replied to Ted's question, during the course of which she alleged that I was economical with the truth. Hey ho. Criticism is legal and ethical, and even if that is a philosophy she seems to resile from, she has every right to have a go at me. While she, like many others, will find it difficult to believe what flows from her pen, I will hardly complain to the Ethics Council about it or lift the phone to a libel lawyer in a bid to silence her. I will, however, write what I like and call things as I see them.
Unlike the reason offered by Ciaran Barnes for his non attendance at the Appeals Tribunal, I find the reason put forward by Allison Morrison spurious and simply unworthy of belief.
In her comment to Letters Blogatory Morris stated:
Ted, I didn’t attend because of work commitments, I’m a working journalist. July is one of my busiest months. Also financially we had to fund the trip ourselves including flights and hotels, as a single parent I couldn’t justify the expense.
So, there we have it: Allison Morris could not attend the Appeals Tribunal hearing in support of her own complaint because she was working - she is a single parent and could not justify the expense of flights and hotels, and would have had to fund the trip herself.
While I could claim to be an impoverished orphan because both my parents are dead and no longer a source of pocket money, I have no intention of demeaning myself through such an oleaginous attempt to court public sympathy.
Her Twitter account confirms she was indeed otherwise occupied.
 |
| "En route to Glasgow," Allison tweets, the day before the NUJ Appeals Tribunal hearing |
 |
| View tweeted by Allison from her seat at Celtic Park the night before the NUJ hearing in London |
The account on Letters Blogatory of why she was not in London is in flagrant contradiction of Ms Morris’s own contemporaneous tweets, including one made at the very moment I was inside Headland House at the NUJ hearing of my appeal against her complaint.
The meeting started at 10:00am and continued until the early afternoon. At 11:49am Morris tweeted, in response to queries about her activities, ‘I have had my fill of riots for one year and not working on a well earned break.’
 |
| "I have had my fill of riots for one year and not working on a well earned break", tweets Allison Morris the morning after attending a football match in Glasgow, while the NUJ Appeals Tribunal hearing of her complaint takes place in London |
Contrary to what she wrote in her reply to Ted Folkman regarding her inability to attend the NUJ hearing, it appears work commitments did not stand in the way of her attending a Celtic v Cliftonville match in Glasgow. Maybe Morris really meant July was a busy month for Cliftonville supporters. In fact her own tweet from two nights prior to the July 24 hearing, indicated she was not working but taking a break from it. At 8:28pm she tweeted, ‘I’m off and taking a hiatus from all news coverage’.
 |
| "I'm off and taking a hiatus from all news coverage" |
Perhaps she was on the Sports Desk that week reporting on the Celtic-Cliftonville game in Glasgow. She must have been sleeping rough in the streets too given that as a single parent she couldn't justify the expense of a hotel.
So was she lying or just being ethical in a way that she alone understands? If she was lying, when was she doing so ― via her tweets about her holiday to Glasgow, or to Ted Folkman giving him an beal bocht? To her Editor, Noel Doran, or to her work colleagues and her Union? To her sources, or to her readers? Or does she just lie to everyone, whenever and wherever it suits her at any given moment?
 |
| Allison Morris & her partner in their Cliftonville supporter tops, 25 July 2013 |
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
