7 ms·

Be careful of the source here. Booker is variously a climate change denier and professional contrarian. He's very smart, but one of those iconoclasts who does g

Be careful of the source here. Booker is variously a climate change denier and professional contrarian. He's very smart, but one of those iconoclasts who does get on a high horse. In this case it's worth knowing that he has been crusading against family and other civil court secrecy and rulings for years. ANd it's a worthy cause, but he's nt the world's most level headed journalist: hes sceptical of very reasonable judgements, like 99% of scientists re climate, for example. In this case, some of his cases (and there are many articles, and they are worth a read) appear to be for good reason, and rthere will be some substance to some of them; but we don't know - which is partly why he rails against them. However, it is clear that he doesn't bring all the facts to our attention (like why the authorities may have had courts rule against unfit, manipulative and dangerous family members). Nonetheless, there is likely significant merit in at least some of his qualms. Dig deeper using other sources, before coming to premature judgements. These stories are designed, DailyFail-style, to tug at your heartstrings. It's also worth knowing that The Daily Telegraph has always been the UK Rightwing broadsheet, but has since its change of ownership in recent years, turned more to Daily Mail-like reporting and sensationalism. IT has also taken a hard turn to the neoliberal Far-Right (think Brexit), and so you should take its stories with as much caution as perhaps the 'Washington Times', and worse than Murdoch's WSJ. It's not yet as bad as Beitbart, as it still advertises to octogenarian Colonels in Tunbridge Wells, but that may change.

anexprogrammer 10y ago
Booker is reporting the attempts by Lord Justice Munby, who should be in a position to know, to correct the selection of miscarriages of justice in the 11 years the Court has existed. It's bordering on systemically broken. The whole way the court was set up was a mess. The 2005 Mental Health Act was shoddy legislation, and created the Court, which was also set up shoddily. Labour almost immediately lost an outrageous ECR case and had to amend the the Act in 07 or 08. I think there might be another going through the ECR. There have been endless complaints about it's operation, with reports going back years, in all political flavours of the media. So I for one welcome what the Telegraph, Christopher Booker and the judge are doing. The Telegraph is not my usual choice of view or politics. All the cases except the most recent have been extensively reported. Were it on climate change or one of the other Torygraph axes being ground, I'd agree with your critique, I don't think it really fits here.
- triplesec 10y ago
  Thanks for these extra data. I hadn't been aware of these details at all. More please, anyone! It seems there is much merit here but we must have caution, because of the unusual arrangement of Booker's metaphorical marbles / spoons. I I have read in Private Eye about some of these stories, but hopefully here we might learn of others, and other journalists interested. Journalists from what used to be Exaro News may have investigated some of these too. In any case source caution is also worthwhile. I welcome that more investigators and actors are interested in this.
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    Oh I don't disagree there, given some of Booker's climate change pieces, starting with extreme suspicion is rarely harmful.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > The 2005 Mental Health Act was shoddy legislation, and created the Court The Mental Capacity Act. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contents There are some problems with the mental health act, but they are different bits of law.
NLips 10y ago
Something to read for background on Booker's flakey reporting: http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the-forced-caesarian-case-a-masterclass-in-flat-earth-news/ http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the... There are a decent number of factual refutions of Booker's claims in several past cases.
chadgeidel 10y ago
"...it still advertises to octogenarian Colonels in Tunbridge Wells." I'm merely curious - can you explain this reference to a US native?
- Patient0 10y ago
  Tunbridge Wells is a well-to-do town in Kent, southeast of London. Octogenarian = > 80 years old. So I think what he means by this phrase is "typical retired conservative voter: wealthy with traditional views".
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- conjectures 10y ago
  "The phrase Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells is a generic name used in the United Kingdom for a person, usually with strongly conservative political views, who writes letters to newspapers in a tone of moral outrage.[1] The term may have originated either with the 1944 BBC radio show Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, or with an editor of the letters page of the Tunbridge Wells Advertiser." - Wikipedia Colnels. How to explain. It's the kind of person who flies a Union Jack from a pole attached to their garden shed. They probably think it's ridiculous political correctness that we don't still celebrate Empire Day.
- inopinatus 10y ago
  The "Tunbridge Wells" line is a contemptuous descriptor for traditionalist ("small-c") conservatives, generally used by people who regard themselves as progressive. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgusted_of_Tunbridge_Wells https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgusted_of_Tunbridge_Wells for a discussion of the phrase's origins. As with all such derogatory epithets, the wielder either doesn't realise how powerfully and instantly doing so undermines their chances of changing hearts & minds, or doesn't care because they only wish to preach to their own choir.
djsumdog 10y ago
Ad hominem. His views of climate change have nothing to do with tragedy of this family court case. Why do you bring it up? If you want to challenge the story, present other sources with the other view point. Don't go after one messenger, and use prior bad or not-bad acts to cast the journalist in a negative light. That's very not helpful. Yes yes, a series of bad journalism can show a pattern and that's how prosecutors go after organized crimes and serial killers. But don't pretend there are bias and unbias journalists. Everyone has a bias. Most of what we see is propaganda and not news.
- quirkafleeg 10y ago
  > But don't pretend there are bias and unbias journalists. I really hate to do this, but this one drives me nuts (and I have no idea how people make the mistake): it's biased and unbiased.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  When it comes to a reporter summarizing a story, there is a lot of trust involved that they aren't distorting the truth. If they have been historically unreasonable, it is not ad hominem to point that out.
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  Not believing in climate change is relevant to thinking about whether someone is likely to be a trustworthy source because not believing in c.c. means we should be skeptical of that person's writing and conclusions. It's equivalent to believing the world is 8000 years old, or evolution doesn't exist, or jesus rode on dinosaurs. It doesn't have anything to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with being educated and drawing reasonable conclusions about the world.
  - powertower 10y ago
    Being a "climate change denier" can mean almost anything today. Such as that you believe that climate is changing not because of CO2 levels but rather due to other atmospheric gases or pollutants, or the sun's emissions, etc. Or maybe you believe that the models being used are politically driven (which is a provable fact BTW). You can still agree that there is a problem, but you just don't agree on the causes 100% or the solutions 100%. So unless you know the specifics of what this person is not agreeing with you on, it is a meaningless and non-relevant label.
mordant 10y ago
Your smug 'we're all good liberals here, and therefore must always distrust the Daily Telegraph and the Washington Times and the WSJ' attitude grates. We're not all good liberals, here. And even though I'm diametrically opposed to their politics, I don't discount stories which appear in the Manchester Guardian, just because they're in the Guardian.
- DanBC 10y ago
  tripplesec isn't saying that we're all liberal[1], but explaining the biases of that author and that newspaper. People need to be aware of biases no matter what their personal politics are. [
  - pc86 10y ago
    I think the argument is that you likely not see a similar comment as #1 if the journalist were on the opposite end of the spectrum.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  I think it's okay to be outright skeptical of some "news" outlets, particularly those who trope in sensationalism and/or have a knack for unresearched, unverified reporting. I don't know enough about the Daily Telegraph, but the Daily Mail is definitely one of those "news" sources that put hyperbole before facts... the Washington Times doesn't have the greatest reputation either. This really isn't a liberal or conservative thing; while it's not a Daily Mail I'm often skeptical about The Guardian as well. Actually I was a little surprised to see the Wall Street Journal in the OP list because I thought they had a pretty decent reputation for quality reporting. The main complaint I've heard about Mr. Murdoch's ownership is more that he tried to add too much general interest stories in an effort to attract non-business readers, not that he's tabloid-ized the Journal. For this article, it was pretty easy to Google a blog of a family lawyer / barrister who added quite a number of counterpoints to one of the cases. (http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/i-am-calm/ http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/i-am-calm/). Whether you agree or not with her counterpoint and what happened within the cases, I personally found the blog article more sober and with more data backing it. You knew you were in trouble even with the headline of the Telegraph article. (Britain's "most secret court"? Citation needed!) The problem I've found with most sensational articles is this sort of pattern: light on facts, heavy on emotion, many weasel words designed to tug your heartstrings that probably aren't justified. They usually aren't worth reading.
alphapapa 10y ago
> 99% of scientists re climate, for example. This is not true. If you care about truth, stop spreading this myth. If you care about science, stop spreading this myth--it is like a termite eating away at the foundation of science itself.

anexprogrammer 10y ago

Booker is reporting the attempts by Lord Justice Munby, who should be in a position to know, to correct the selection of miscarriages of justice in the 11 years the Court has existed. It's bordering on systemically broken. The whole way the court was set up was a mess. The 2005 Mental Health Act was shoddy legislation, and created the Court, which was also set up shoddily. Labour almost immediately lost an outrageous ECR case and had to amend the the Act in 07 or 08. I think there might be another going through the ECR. There have been endless complaints about it's operation, with reports going back years, in all political flavours of the media. So I for one welcome what the Telegraph, Christopher Booker and the judge are doing. The Telegraph is not my usual choice of view or politics. All the cases except the most recent have been extensively reported. Were it on climate change or one of the other Torygraph axes being ground, I'd agree with your critique, I don't think it really fits here.

triplesec 10y ago
Thanks for these extra data. I hadn't been aware of these details at all. More please, anyone! It seems there is much merit here but we must have caution, because of the unusual arrangement of Booker's metaphorical marbles / spoons. I I have read in Private Eye about some of these stories, but hopefully here we might learn of others, and other journalists interested. Journalists from what used to be Exaro News may have investigated some of these too. In any case source caution is also worthwhile. I welcome that more investigators and actors are interested in this.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  Oh I don't disagree there, given some of Booker's climate change pieces, starting with extreme suspicion is rarely harmful.
DanBC 10y ago
> The 2005 Mental Health Act was shoddy legislation, and created the Court The Mental Capacity Act. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contents There are some problems with the mental health act, but they are different bits of law.

NLips 10y ago

Something to read for background on Booker's flakey reporting: http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the-forced-caesarian-case-a-masterclass-in-flat-earth-news/ http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the... There are a decent number of factual refutions of Booker's claims in several past cases.

chadgeidel 10y ago

"...it still advertises to octogenarian Colonels in Tunbridge Wells." I'm merely curious - can you explain this reference to a US native?

Patient0 10y ago
Tunbridge Wells is a well-to-do town in Kent, southeast of London. Octogenarian = > 80 years old. So I think what he means by this phrase is "typical retired conservative voter: wealthy with traditional views".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
conjectures 10y ago
"The phrase Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells is a generic name used in the United Kingdom for a person, usually with strongly conservative political views, who writes letters to newspapers in a tone of moral outrage.[1] The term may have originated either with the 1944 BBC radio show Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, or with an editor of the letters page of the Tunbridge Wells Advertiser." - Wikipedia Colnels. How to explain. It's the kind of person who flies a Union Jack from a pole attached to their garden shed. They probably think it's ridiculous political correctness that we don't still celebrate Empire Day.
inopinatus 10y ago
The "Tunbridge Wells" line is a contemptuous descriptor for traditionalist ("small-c") conservatives, generally used by people who regard themselves as progressive. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgusted_of_Tunbridge_Wells https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgusted_of_Tunbridge_Wells for a discussion of the phrase's origins. As with all such derogatory epithets, the wielder either doesn't realise how powerfully and instantly doing so undermines their chances of changing hearts & minds, or doesn't care because they only wish to preach to their own choir.

djsumdog 10y ago

Ad hominem. His views of climate change have nothing to do with tragedy of this family court case. Why do you bring it up? If you want to challenge the story, present other sources with the other view point. Don't go after one messenger, and use prior bad or not-bad acts to cast the journalist in a negative light. That's very not helpful. Yes yes, a series of bad journalism can show a pattern and that's how prosecutors go after organized crimes and serial killers. But don't pretend there are bias and unbias journalists. Everyone has a bias. Most of what we see is propaganda and not news.

quirkafleeg 10y ago
> But don't pretend there are bias and unbias journalists. I really hate to do this, but this one drives me nuts (and I have no idea how people make the mistake): it's biased and unbiased.
Dylan16807 10y ago
When it comes to a reporter summarizing a story, there is a lot of trust involved that they aren't distorting the truth. If they have been historically unreasonable, it is not ad hominem to point that out.
NotSammyHagar 10y ago
Not believing in climate change is relevant to thinking about whether someone is likely to be a trustworthy source because not believing in c.c. means we should be skeptical of that person's writing and conclusions. It's equivalent to believing the world is 8000 years old, or evolution doesn't exist, or jesus rode on dinosaurs. It doesn't have anything to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with being educated and drawing reasonable conclusions about the world.
- powertower 10y ago
  Being a "climate change denier" can mean almost anything today. Such as that you believe that climate is changing not because of CO2 levels but rather due to other atmospheric gases or pollutants, or the sun's emissions, etc. Or maybe you believe that the models being used are politically driven (which is a provable fact BTW). You can still agree that there is a problem, but you just don't agree on the causes 100% or the solutions 100%. So unless you know the specifics of what this person is not agreeing with you on, it is a meaningless and non-relevant label.

mordant 10y ago

Your smug 'we're all good liberals here, and therefore must always distrust the Daily Telegraph and the Washington Times and the WSJ' attitude grates. We're not all good liberals, here. And even though I'm diametrically opposed to their politics, I don't discount stories which appear in the Manchester Guardian, just because they're in the Guardian.

DanBC 10y ago
tripplesec isn't saying that we're all liberal[1], but explaining the biases of that author and that newspaper. People need to be aware of biases no matter what their personal politics are. [
- pc86 10y ago
  I think the argument is that you likely not see a similar comment as #1 if the journalist were on the opposite end of the spectrum.
soundwave106 10y ago
I think it's okay to be outright skeptical of some "news" outlets, particularly those who trope in sensationalism and/or have a knack for unresearched, unverified reporting. I don't know enough about the Daily Telegraph, but the Daily Mail is definitely one of those "news" sources that put hyperbole before facts... the Washington Times doesn't have the greatest reputation either. This really isn't a liberal or conservative thing; while it's not a Daily Mail I'm often skeptical about The Guardian as well. Actually I was a little surprised to see the Wall Street Journal in the OP list because I thought they had a pretty decent reputation for quality reporting. The main complaint I've heard about Mr. Murdoch's ownership is more that he tried to add too much general interest stories in an effort to attract non-business readers, not that he's tabloid-ized the Journal. For this article, it was pretty easy to Google a blog of a family lawyer / barrister who added quite a number of counterpoints to one of the cases. (http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/i-am-calm/ http://www.pinktape.co.uk/cases/i-am-calm/). Whether you agree or not with her counterpoint and what happened within the cases, I personally found the blog article more sober and with more data backing it. You knew you were in trouble even with the headline of the Telegraph article. (Britain's "most secret court"? Citation needed!) The problem I've found with most sensational articles is this sort of pattern: light on facts, heavy on emotion, many weasel words designed to tug your heartstrings that probably aren't justified. They usually aren't worth reading.

alphapapa 10y ago

> 99% of scientists re climate, for example. This is not true. If you care about truth, stop spreading this myth. If you care about science, stop spreading this myth--it is like a termite eating away at the foundation of science itself.