APPENDIX 100
Memorandum submitted by Mr Richard Comaish
(Orpington CLP, Bromley Mind, Assisi Foundation)
PRIVACY AND MEDIA INTRUSION
Some weeks ago I wrote to the PCC because I
felt that the Mail on Sunday had misrepresented schizophrenics
in an article as violent people, which is not borne out by medical
statistics. This is a common, recurrent problem for schizophrenics
with the media, but I still thought I should complain about it,
as the relevant organisations seem to have failed in this regard.
The reply I got was a polite but transparent
attempt to dodge the issue, using the fact that the article was
about an individual, and that (criminal) individual had not, himself,
complained, as some sort of bureaucratic justification for not
dealing with my complaint, totally flying in the face of natural
justice and cocking a snook not only at me but at all diagnosed
schizophrenics and all complainants. Shortly afterwards I saw
another such article, regarding a different but similar case,
in the Mirror, but I have lost all patience with and confidence
in the procedure.
I have used self-regulating complaints bodies
before (police, nursing, mental health) and was not in the least
surprised by the cynicism with which my complaint was rejected.
Self-regulating professional complaints procedures seem designed
to rebuff complaints and do not work, ensuring the employment
of law firms for the serious complainant able to afford it. What
concerns me particularly about the press is that this leaves it
with free rein to compromise democratically-elected government
and inhibit the behaviour and candidness of individuals. As an
active member of a political party I feel that the press, under
its current regulation, is an excessive and unfair burden undermining
my confidence and enthusiasm in politics, and no doubt that of
other sensitive and vulnerable people.
One further point about the PCC's procedure
is that it seems to ask complainants to "jump through hoops"—a
simple e-mail is never enough: paper back-up and copies of the
offending newspaper are demanded prior to the complaints' rebuttal.
This seems demeaning, unnecessary, unhelpful/ useless for those
with learning difficulties and generally user-hostile.
I heard of the work of your inquiry in a recent
article in The Sun in a local cafe. The article portrayed
the work of your Committee as a waste of time and a foregone conclusion
as you would, it alleged, inevitably decide in favour of the status
quo, the PCC as it now stands, without any further interference—what
the journalist was paid to describe as "freedom". I
feel that you are as unlikely to complain about said article as
to win in any such action, it representing a thrown gauntlet from
the media empire which really runs this country (among others).
5 March 2003
|
