The growing power of the Internet in British Politics

[grouchy13]

The last 18 months have been a turbulent one for the British establishment, like some David Peace novel the coming to light of a number of high profile corruption cases (Levison Inq) serious child abuse criminal proceedings (Saville & the welsh care home scandal) and down right white washes and cover ups (Hillsbrough & the Battle of Oregreave) have not just undermined the government but also the police and other authorities.

What we have seen though a number of these cases is the power of the internet to effectively prompt discussion, allegation and even mobilise the government to conduct inquires.

This is demonstrated by the recent furore surrounding the North Wales Care home abuses of the 1970/80's in where large numbers of boys is care homes were subjected to horrific abuse at the hands of a Paedofile ring over a prolonged period. Within the ring were allegedly a large number of high profile local political figures which led to calls from the abused of government and police collusion that prevented those involved being brought to justice. Despite an inquiry in 1996 many of those involved were not named and few faced prosecution.

What has this got to do with the internet and social media you may ask, well the power of twitter and the amount of infomation pertaining to the case on the web has spilled over into the political theatre. Amazingly yesterday the PM David whilst on the normally issue lite this morning came under attack from presenter Phillip Schofield who stated that despite the inquiry keeping the names hidden and preventing them being named in the press the names were readily availible on the net, even going as far to thrust a list into the stunned PM's hand,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20251939

My question is has the internet become to powerful, is it now activley undermining the ability of the judiaciary to operate out of the public eye?

Is social media now undermining Democracy and leading to a more mob fuelled agenda than the more judicious main stream media can provide and outline?

Has the # & tweet become a tool to shape policy? and should politicians be wary of angering this new political sphere?

My own reasoning is that the issue is two fold, whilst I respect the ability of Social media and the internet to bring issue's out in the open and encouring debate on issue's when it come to the judicary or criminal proceedings I believe we should allow the CPS to operate freely to carry out their investigations. We do not need Politicians meddling inaffairs of the judiciary simply because a matter is trending or has moblisation on the web to score quick political points. Politicians who do resemble more than a striking resembalance to the Demagogues of Ancient Athens pandering to the mob than the balanced politicans required to effectively govern in our name in a modern democracy.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The last 18 months have been a turbulent one for the British establishment, like some David Peace novel the coming to light of a number of high profile corruption cases (Levison Inq) serious child abuse criminal proceedings (Saville & the welsh care home scandal) and down right white washes and cover ups (Hillsbrough & the Battle of Oregreave) have not just undermined the government but also the police and other authorities.

What we have seen though a number of these cases is the power of the internet to effectively prompt discussion, allegation and even mobilise the government to conduct inquires.

This is demonstrated by the recent furore surrounding the North Wales Care home abuses of the 1970/80's in where large numbers of boys is care homes were subjected to horrific abuse at the hands of a Paedofile ring over a prolonged period. Within the ring were allegedly a large number of high profile local political figures which led to calls from the abused of government and police collusion that prevented those involved being brought to justice. Despite an inquiry in 1996 many of those involved were not named and few faced prosecution.

What has this got to do with the internet and social media you may ask, well the power of twitter and the amount of infomation pertaining to the case on the web has spilled over into the political theatre. Amazingly yesterday the PM David whilst on the normally issue lite this morning came under attack from presenter Phillip Schofield who stated that despite the inquiry keeping the names hidden and preventing them being named in the press the names were readily availible on the net, even going as far to thrust a list into the stunned PM's hand,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20251939

My question is has the internet become to powerful, is it now activley undermining the ability of the judiaciary to operate out of the public eye?

Is social media now undermining Democracy and leading to a more mob fuelled agenda than the more judicious main stream media can provide and outline?

Has the # & tweet become a tool to shape policy? and should politicians be wary of angering this new political sphere?

My own reasoning is that the issue is two fold, whilst I respect the ability of Social media and the internet to bring issue's out in the open and encouring debate on issue's when it come to the judicary or criminal proceedings I believe we should allow the CPS to operate freely to carry out their investigations. We do not need Politicians meddling inaffairs of the judiciary simply because a matter is trending or has moblisation on the web to score quick political points. Politicians who do resemble more than a striking resembalance to the Demagogues of Ancient Athens pandering to the mob than the balanced politicans required to effectively govern in our name in a modern democracy.

What a load of crap.

Nothing to do with Hillsborough, the Leveson Inquiry or Jimmy Saville has anything to do with the internet. All of them are extremely long-standing issues that came out from individual whistleblowers or very prolonged, very out fashioned investigation.

[grouchy13]

Thats why I said,

What we have seen though a number of these cases is the power of the internet to effectively prompt discussion, allegation and even mobilise the government to conduct inquires

Saville in particular, once the newsnight story started gaining ground the internet was awash with stories and claims, especially the necrophiliac allegations. They were blown on Vice a week before paul gambaccini made his allegations in the independant. Findings of the levison have also made waves on social media, certain aspects have trended such as the PM's much ridiculed lol gate text's. Events now ripple thorugh social media and these ripples can affect policy decision in government as can be seen by the shadow justice secratary Yvette Cooper jumping on the furore involving the Welsh care home scandal which has been blown wide open by events pertaining to it now be out in the openess of the internet, as demonstrated by Schofield on this morning.

The point I'm trying to make, which you've clearly missed is in large inquiries or cases, the internet is having an increasing effect on how they are conducted. Aspects which should remain private are now public is that something we should allow to continue?

[removeduser_487563287433]

So basically you're saying that the internet is great for breaking stories that later turn out not to be true?

[Menelik_I]

So basically you're saying that the internet is great for breaking stories that later turn out not to be true?

This reminds me of the whole Kony2012 thing.

Besides breaking stories that turns out to be true, the internet also has this power of causing people amplify themselves to the point of believing the most ludicrous things, like conspiracy theories and partisan bias.

Maybe in some years reading blogs will be as boring and normal as reading a paper newspaper.

[grouchy13]

This reminds me of the whole Kony2012 thing.

Besides breaking stories that turns out to be true, the internet also has this power of causing people amplify themselves to the point of believing the most ludicrous things, like conspiracy theories and partisan bias.

Maybe in some years reading blogs will be as boring and normal as reading a paper newspaper.

I think the Kony Campiagn was actually a positive campaign showing that social media can be useful in mobilising wide spread public support, juxtapose that against the anonimity being revealed of say someone involved in a super injunction trial or perhaps someone accused of being a member of a peaedofile ring without being tried in court or under going due process and you can see the breadth of how the internet is now affecting our lives.

It seems more and more these days this anonimity is not respected firstly on the internet and now it's filtering into the main stream media, you have this attempt by Schofield and yes while not directed to the internet you had the none stop 24 hour news running the story of the arrest of the landlord of murder victim Joanna Yates, he was subsequently found innocent of any crime but not before he was subjected to being subjected to torrents of abuse by talking heads on British news channels, like "Well he looks like a perv".

Perhaps we should return to innocent till proven guilty, keeping suspects in crimes and those involved in inquiries names hidden till involvement can be established by due process should be the minimum. Seems to be a passing notion especially when considering the power of the internet on our society these days.

[grouchy13]

no,

The question I'm asking is should the amount of material pertaining to ongoing cases or inquiries internet factual or otherwise be factoring into how they are carried out, should the media remain gagged over identities of persons involved in ongoing investigations or inquiries whilst the infomation is readily avalible on the internet?

Take the example of the super injunction debacle, the press were gagged but those involved were freely named by twitter users and internet sites completly undermining the political porocess.

Is the removal of safeguards placed on the main stream media in regards to infomation involved in afore mentioned cases and trials which is now freely availble on the internet having a detrimental effect on them?

[Vizsla]

The judiciary could solve the problem by doing people on the internet for Contempt Of Court.
A few harsh sentences and everyone else would think twice before prejudicing a criminal case.
The internet is not anonymous. ISPs are required to keep track of everything.
The police can track down anyone they choose to easily enough.

[The Last Varangian]

The judiciary could solve the problem by doing people on the internet for Contempt Of Court.
A few harsh sentences and everyone else would think twice before prejudicing a criminal case.
The internet is not anonymous. ISPs are required to keep track of everything.
The police can track down anyone they choose to easily enough.

Assuming, of course, said people are too stupid to use an adequate VPN and other precautions, which I would likely do if I were planning on doing illegal things.

[Vizsla]

They really are that stupid though.
Lord McAlpine’s lawyers are making a list of people to sue for defamation. Sally Bercow is in the frame for what she said on twitter.

[Kanaric]

it seems i've traveled back to the times of 2000, hello people of the past decade!

[Heinz Guderian]

it seems i've traveled back to the times of 2000, hello people of the past decade!

Hello year 2000! Try to get them to ban box-cutters from commercial flights.

[Denny Crane!]

I thought this was going to be about verydemotivational.

[grouchy13]

You can see with The Lord McAlpine case that social media can facilitate the sidestepping of judicial procedures, people took the rumours from the Internet on face value, attempted to undermine the findings of an inquiry and cast aside a man who has not been found guilty of any crime, nor for that matter charged anominity.

I think it's dangerous and damaging to our legal processes, I hope McAlpines legal team take those who chose to ignore his right to anominity to the cleaners