Serious and organised crime suffered a ground-breaking blow as reported on 3rd July in some newspapers. It arose as a result of French officials hacking into Encrochat, a communications platform which was an encrypted phone network used by criminals in the UK, the rest of Europe and in other countries. It is reported to have had 60,000 global users.
It enabled leaders of organised crime (drug dealing, money laundering, firearms distribution, organised killings and other illegal activity) to send secret messages and conduct private phone calls, undetected, through specially customised iPhones. Authorities having hacked the platform, criminals’ exchanges were monitored providing direct self-incriminating evidence. As a result, it was reported, nearly 800 criminals in the UK have been arrested, many being senior leaders of organised crime. Apparently £54million in cash and 2 tons of drugs have been seized. Representatives of the National Crime Agency described the hacking as the law enforcement equivalent of breaking the Enigma Code, and that the crackdown operation had hit at the heart of the most dangerous organised criminals on the streets of the UK. Cressida Dick, the Met Police Commissioner, described it as “the most significant activity, certainly in my career, we have ever carried out against serious and organised crime across London.” This is big news.
Apart from the cracking of Encrochat, and the breadth of the operation in the UK and elsewhere, two things seem remarkable. First, that over the weeks of maintaining surveillance and given the involvement of international anti-crime agencies and police forces throughout the UK, the fact of the hacking was not leaked: and so as a result apparently it was only last month that the provider of the Encrochat service warned users that the platform was compromised. Second, while reports featured on the inner pages of certain newspapers on 3 July, this brilliant operation received relatively little publicity, almost passing mentions it seemed on BBC and other TV news, and nothing serious in the Sunday press. Is there not some imbalance in assessing newsworthiness when a success such as this does not make front page news?
THIS IS NOT IMPORTANT – STANLEY JOHNSON AND NIGEL FARAGE GET TOP BILLING
It seems that more airtime has been allocated by the BBC and Sky to the activities of Stanley Johnson, father of Boris Johnson, and Nigel Farage, than to the Encrochat story.
The activity of Stanley Johnson, made out to be seriously heinous, is his visit to his house in Greece for the purpose of preparing it for occupation, making it Covid-19 (CV) secure. Greece is now a destination considered more CV safe than many, including the UK. The big concern of investigative journalism was whether Stanley Johnson had broken CV legal restrictions – it appeared not. But the news journalists pontificated – had he broken the spirit, which gets conjured up as if it exists when required to accuse somebody? Greece’s rules did ban people entering Greece from the UK, but he went via Sofia, and from there was allowed into Greece. Greek authorities seemed unconcerned.
But the BBC showed filming of him and broadcast an interview from outside his house in Greece. Not surprisingly Downing Street had no comment to make and referred reporters to Stanley Johnson. Senior BBC and Sky political news journalists seemed rather over-excited and enervated by this story, and the Observer saw it as a source of embarrassment for the UK Government. Is it not a pity that some media outlets seem to find Stanley Johnson’s trip to Greece so much more newsworthy than smashing organised crime on an unprecedented scale?
And, then, apparent outrage, on 4th July “Independence Day”, Nigel Farage was filmed at opening time seated having a pint. It is unclear why anyone should be interested in what Nigel Farage does during lockdown or on that Saturday. He is not a member of UKGOV or connected with it or any other party seriously representing citizens in Parliament. Of course, he is probably still pro Brexit but that has now happened. However, Ed Davey, the acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, thought this behaviour so outrageous that he wrote to Kent police to “shop” Nigel Farage: and so, the BBC and others took up the story. Nigel Farage had been in the United States some days before his pint. Chris Mason, the senior BBC political journalist, was, it seemed, very excited and had studied carefully the precise time he had arrived back in the UK: because, having come back, he needed to be in quarantine for 14 days. The big question was whether 4 July, the day of the pint, was 14 days from that arrival back. Nobody seemed sure. Also, Nigel Farage had been tested negative for CV. Nigel Farage commented “Ed Davey needs to get a life”. Not much had been heard for a while from the Liberal Democrats, but then has there been much going on? It is unknown whether Kent Police are still investigating the incident!
SLAVE AUCTION IN OXFORD 1987 – CRASS JOURNALISM?
“Gove and Johnson took part in “slave auction” at Oxford” is the headline in a truly shameful piece of journalism in The Observer of 5 July.
Two journalists contrived an article implying racism by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove when at Oxford University in 1987. They quoted a story in The Cherwell, the Oxford student magazine, about an auction, raising money for the homeless charity Shelter, in which there was “an opportunity to buy your favourite (Oxford) Union person for the evening”, and which raised £100. Boris Johnson and Michael Gove both participated, Boris it appears was sold. They are accused of trivialising slavery, the journalists trying to add weight to the accusation by obtaining a quote from Shelter regretting receiving money from such an auction as if agreeing it was racist.
It seems the only likely racists are those who imply that use of the word “slave” imports a reference to black people, the journalists linking the charity auction of over 30 years ago to Black Lives Matter protests. The word “slave”, unless linked with colour, implies no racism at all, least of all against black people. The word comes from the word Slav or Slavic-that is white Eastern European people – because the Slavs were regularly conquered and enslaved, for example by Muslims in the Ninth Century. Is it not sad that journalists, driven by a motivation simply to slur politicians they dislike, write such crass material that is clearly misleading, and which consequently diminishes the value of what may be proper journalism in their paper?
DAILY GOVERNMENT BRIEFINGS – TRANSPARENCY OR A ROD FOR MINISTERIAL BACKS?
During the CV lockdown, UKGOV conducted daily televised briefings on the CV pandemic, updating the level of CV infection and other statistics, and took questions. It was useful at times, but it became rather routine. It did mean that Ministers, other than the Prime Minister, spoke about a variety of issues to the public, as did medical and other experts. And there were standard party lines and some questions avoided. But the public were involved.
Last week, UKGOV announced that, from October, rather than just private press briefings, there will be regular, even daily as currently proposed, televised briefings from 10 Downing Street: a bit like the White House daily briefings in the U.S. Perhaps Boris Johnson and others see a benefit in regularly addressing the public, maybe perceiving UKGOV will be less in the hands of selective and subjective reporting by journalists who have their own motivation and agendas. From a public perspective, hearing directly from Ministers about the issues of the day, what their policies are, and how they are being progressed or not, would be beneficial, increasing transparency, awareness, political interest and direct accountability – a chance for the public to hear why a particular policy is behind schedule, or promised money is not being spent, or houses not built.
But the idea could fall flat and become institutionalized. The CV briefings proved that certain Ministers are a bit dull, with little ability to hold the attention of and inspire an audience, not surprisingly, as that is a rare skill. There was often a tendency to fall back on repetitive set piece statements and answers, and the all too common politician’s sidestepping was not illuminating. Daily briefings could become so routine, uninformative, and demonstrate the opposite of transparency giving an impression of obfuscation. Trust of politicians needs restoration, and this would be an opportunity for that, but the opposite result is a risk. Unless the spokesperson is vibrant, human, authentic, willing to meet issues head on and engage, not avoid, that risk increases. Rishi Sunak is currently respected for his performances under lights, but not many are. So, that is an opportunity. It is also an opportunity for each Government Department to be publicly accountable and, perhaps, that spotlight might enliven those charged with doing to actually do.
Maybe a weekly or twice weekly slot would be enough. Does the UK generate enough interesting Government material each day to make daily briefing worthwhile? Special briefings could be added when necessary to a weekly format. If UKGOV proceeds with this proposal (and it would be unsurprising if it is shelved or significantly adapted), it demands serious attention at the highest and most thoughtful level, if it is to benefit UKGOV and society as a whole. Certainly, improved and reliable and honest open communication will be welcome.
