About us

My photo
Members & staff of UKIP past & present. Committed to reforming the party by exposing the corruption and dishonesty that lies at its heart, in the hope of making it fit for purpose. Only by removing Nigel Farage and his sycophants on the NEC can we save UKIP from electoral oblivion. SEE: http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a-statement-re-junius.html

Monday, 8 June 2015

Mark Croucher and the curious case of the Chartered Institute of Journalists

George Bernard Shaw is attributed with the quote that, ‘England and America are one nation, but divided by a common language’.
It could be said that the National Union of Journalists (NUJ)  and t (CIOJ) is one union but divided by a common objective. The first has about has about 36,000, members and assets of some £3.3.million.The CIOJ has about 1700, members and assets in excess of £2.5.million. When a minor organisation has such assets which are the result of historic inheritance, the very nature of that organisation should be carefully examined. What control and purpose has the CIOJ?
They have an orphans fund which was established in 1891. I wonder how many orphans the NIOJ have assisted of late?
They also have a Benevolent Fund for distressed journalists. I am sure that they exist in greater numbers than orphans. They also have an anarchistic view towards the law. They want law kept out of journalism, not withstanding that their president-elect has been a frequent litigant himself.  When the courts, however, ruled against him, he ignored their judgements. That has neither ethical merit or consistency. While the CIOJ  claims to be apolitical, Mr Croucher is a political adviser to UKIP. Again, consistency appears to fall at the first fence.
Their latest crusade has been against the Privy Council. The proposal that general journalistic standards should be founded on a Royal Charter, is anathema to them. By some curious process of reasoning, they believe that such a Charter would compromise their own. That is about as valid as arguing that the Charter granted to the Open University, could challenge that of Oxford. Could they cite an example of one Royal charter compromising that of another? Is it surprising that the CIOJ are becoming subject to closer scrutiny as January 1st 2016 approaches.
Should appliances easily bought in the USA, for computer interrogation, be as equally permissible as phone tapping? There may be some evidence that some CIOJ  support such practices.
 Fabius Maximus.

No comments: