MEANDERING THOUGHTS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

I am still pondering on the matter of ‘the public interest’. Listening to Jim Al-Khalili’s program, The Life Scientific, and his interview with Darren Croft who has been researching killer whale matriarchs and the menopause, I noted that the killer whales seem to have quite strong emotions, and in particular with the care and attention put into the nurturing of the young. The strong matriarchal society is very much intent on securing what is in the best interest of the group’s survival. Although it is stated that the female orcas live, in the wild, to an average of 50 years, and the males to about 30 years, there are records to indicate that they can live up to 80-100 years.

 

It is stated that “Their communication is apparently though pulsed calls and whistles, which form a unique dialect for a family. They express their identity through their cultural habits, and their prey choices are central to this, and so it shapes their language. Their language is learned and inherited, and they can hear their mother in the womb and consequently are learning their family’s language before they’re born.

 

The Southern Resident whales’ language is so sophisticated that it contains three distinct dialects, one for each of the pods, with vocalisations that are. Unique to each pod. Some of the calls are common across all three pods, facilitating communication across the community, which allows them to socialise, bond, and mate with other pod members, and most likely for many other cultural and social traditions that we are not even aware of.”

 

In addition “Orcas have large brains for their body size, and the region used for emotional intelligence is particularly well developed. Southern Region Killer Whales are a tightly bonded, close-knit community, who share a common language, traditions and culture. It’s not surprising that their brains have evolved to process social and emotional experience. On occasion, we may get glimpses of this, such as during times of celebrations of birth and reunion, or mourning at the passing of a whale. Various ‘ceremonies’ have been witnessed and documented and assumed to be the sharing of the loss of a cherished family member.”

 

We have also all seen documentaries, usually narrated by Sir David Attenborough, depicting the organised hunting procedures at work among killer whales when in search of prey. (Note: Celia is of the view that Orcas are bad mothers as they feed their youmg males extra food to make them bigger and they keep doing this nurturing well beyond any necessity to do so - worse than jewish mothers)

 

Nothing in these observations differs much from similar observations of human beings; however, the level of sophistication amongst humans surely should be on a higher level from killer whales.  Our languages are more complex and precise, our ability and facility to learn more evolved, as is our ability to explore and examine emotions and relationships.

 

It may have taken several million years, but we now have nation states, a concept of democracy comprising legal systems, political systems, educational systems and economic systems that, if allowed to flourish in peace, taking into account what we have learned about caring for the planet, will be of great benefit to all living creatures.  So, just what is the problem?

 

If whale pods can come to a modus vivendi in the Pacific Ocean, then surely human beings should be able to manage; yet, the spectre of nationalism, ludicrous outmoded notions of old territorial claims and control still seem to hold sway. It is not only conservative politicians who still cling to these obstructive views. The idea of “fighting for one’s country” as a patriotic duty in a world that supposedly values peace above all, where leaders and politicians decry violence in all its forms, should surely be replaced by “fighting for the planet in the public interest”.

 

The progression towards unity of purpose was established with the creation of The League of Nations, followed by the formation of the United Nations and the Security Council. Imperfect though that may be, it does have some significance in trying to bring nations together. The European Union, and its Economic Union, was brought about to prevent any further conflicts on the European continent. Anyone visiting Strasbourg, the European Parliament and the European Court of Human Rights, cannot help but be moved by their presence and what they represent. The exhibition on display depicting the history and the necessity for its existence is overwhelming.

 

What is tragic, is that the United Kingdom, in its darkest hour, having held up a light and shouting “Enough!”, having brought about a unity of purpose, has completely forgotten and abandoned what it set in motion those eighty five years ago. Somehow it clings to the memory, celebrates the honoured dead every year, yet has completely overlooked what they died for. This repetition is a state of atrophy rather than a vision forward. Cherishing the past, swooning to Nimrod, singing Jerusalem and Rule Britannia is living in denial. It is Ground Hog Day. Elgar wrote the piece to get out of a fit of depression. It is about awakening. It is about getting it together and moving on. It is about getting on with the business of making good in the public interest.

 

Having begun the first draft of the Human Right Act with Magna Carta in 1215 and refined it over the years to enable two revolutions (1776 and 1789) to incorporate it into their manifestos and constitutions, the UK now seeks to abandon it altogether. Having come so far one has to ask “What is wrong with you people?”. Now is the time to get back to and promote unity of purpose. Don’t tell me things are going to get worse before they get better, tell me “This is how we start making things better”, and if you want better stuff, we have to make do and pay for it.

 

Pulling down the curtains to make new clothes will expose us to the elements, and to comments from people now able to look in through the windows; but, we’ll be well dressed and worth looking at. After all isn’t that in the public interest.

IN THE PUBIC INTEREST

Just how much do we need to know? Looking back at past political campaigns, before the advent of mass multi-media communications and, what is now known as, investigative reporting, I question whether the current trend in total exposure is necessary, or indeed desirable.  

 

What seemed to matter in the past was the candidates record of past public service and reputation of integrity. Their ability to articulate their political concerns and demonstrating qualities of leadership by putting their theories into practice, was what mattered most. Their personal experience, in education and employment, towards developing those qualities was of interest to the public. A stable family life was to be expected and perhaps, puritanically, their social comportment was at times cause for concern. ‘Bad’ behaviour could derail any hope of election to public office.  

 

All that has changed. Candidates are now scrutinised to the n^th degree. We seem to have become so used to lives being exposed ad nauseum by television and film dramas as well as hours of ‘reality’ television, that it seems perfectly reasonable to intrude as much as possible into the lives of others who put themselves anywhere near the public eye. There appears to be no limit to this intrusion; however, what might be of interest to the public, or some of the public, is not necessarily in the ‘public interest’. Which is why I ask again how much do we need to know?

 

There are many in the public eye who would argue that at some level there must be an expectation of privacy. It is suggested that, just as one might urge the punter to gamble responsibly, journalists should intrude responsibly. Enquiries do not necessarily have to be aggressive or combative, but should be to the point, bearing in mind what is actually in the public interest.

 

There is, whether one likes it or not, a public interest test which has been decided in a United Kingdom Court of Appeal judgement from 22^nd November 2023 in The Department for Business and Trade v The Information Commissioner & Anor before Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Andrews and Lord Justice Lewis. It comes about as a result of a question around the proper interpretation of section 2(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The justices came up with a Public Interest Test:

 

(I have copied here quite of bit of the judgment which relates to requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act, because some of the definitions can apply, in my view, to the general dissemination of information in all its aspects.)(It should also be noted that there is an appeal pending before the Supreme Court of the UK)

 

“The public interest here means the public good, it is not:

• what is of interest to the public; or
• the private interests of the requester (unless those private interests reflect what is the general public good, eg holding public authorities to account).
  

 

Public interest arguments for maintaining the exemption must relate specifically to that exemption. For example, where the exemption is about prejudice to a particular interest there is an inherent public interest in avoiding that prejudice. However, there is not necessarily an inherent public interest where the exemption protects a particular class of information. There will always be a general public interest in transparency. There may also be a public interest in transparency about the issue the information relates to. You should consider any public interests that would be served by disclosing the information. If there is a plausible suspicion of wrongdoing, this may create a public interest in disclosure. And even where this is not the case, there is a public interest in releasing information to provide a full picture. Arguments based on the requester’s identity or motives are generally irrelevant. Arguments that the information may be misunderstood if it were released usually carry little weight. The fact that other methods of scrutiny are available does not weaken the public interest in disclosure. Where other means of scrutiny have been used, apart from FOIA, this may however weaken the public interest in disclosure. There is a public interest in promoting transparency about the UK government and public authorities, although requesters do not have to be UK nationals or residents. There is a public interest in promoting transparency about the UK government and public authorities, although requesters do not have to be UK nationals or residents. You must consider the relative weight of the arguments for and against disclosure. This can be affected by: the likelihood and severity of any prejudice, the age of the information, how far the requested information will help public understanding, and whether similar information is already in the public domain. Where a qualified exemption applies and you do not wish to confirm nor deny that you hold the requested information, the decision to give a “neither confirm nor deny” response is itself subject to the public interest test. You must consider the balance of public interest in all the circumstances of the request.

 

To carry out the public interest test, it is necessary to understand what “the public interest” means in the context of FOIA.

 

The public interest can cover a wide range of values and principles relating to the public good, or what is in the best interests of society. Public interest can take many forms. For example, there is a public interest in:

* transparency and accountability, to promote public understanding and to safeguard democratic processes

* good decision-making by public bodies,

* upholding standards of integrity

* ensuring justice and fair treatment for all,

* securing the best use of public resources, and

* ensuring fair commercial competition in a mixed economy.

 

However, these examples of the public interest do not automatically mean that you should disclose or withhold information. For example, an informed and involved public helps to promote good decision-making by public bodies. But those bodies may also need space and time in which to fully consider their policy options, to enable them to reach an impartial and appropriate decision, away from public interference. Revealing information about wrongdoing may help the course of justice, but investigations into wrongdoing may need confidentiality to be effective. This suggests that in each case, the public interest test involves identifying the appropriate public interests and assessing the extent to which they are served by disclosure or by maintaining an exemption.

 

The public interest is not necessarily the same as what interests the public. The fact that a topic is discussed in the media does not automatically mean that there is a public interest in disclosing the information about it that has been requested.”

 

In short scrutiny to promote public understanding and safeguarding the democratic process, good decision making, upholding standards of integrity, ensuring justice and fair treatment for all and securing the best use of public resources, seems to be what the public interest is truly about. If that is the case, then to what end is gossip and public curiosity about so called celebrity, or someone in the spotlight for their 15 minutes of fame, serving the public.

 

During the course of our elections, and in particular in the United States, we have seen an overflow of emotions, laughter and tears, adulation and condemnation accorded to the various candidates vying for public office. The camera and recorders are out in force in an attempt to provide transparency and accountability, all the while (we hope) promoting public understanding to safeguard democracy. 

 

Are we all witnessing good decision making? Are we seeing higher standards of integrity? Do we believe the candidates are seeking justice and fair treatment for all and are they actually trying to secure the best use of public resources? I would suggest that these are the issues which must lie behind any statements relating to the economy, fair commercial competition, and the general health and welfare of the community. As to immigration, this is a matter which must also be dealt with, with the public interest in mind, and not pandering to the prejudice and xenophobic attitudes of the few. 

 

Surprisingly the British public have reacted strongly against the anti-imigration chaos engendered by those few antisocial nationalists and have come out in some force to counteract the violence. In the United States the problem is smouldering. Mr Trump’s rhetoric about deranged patients from foreign asylums, thieves, drug dealers and murderers, continues his proclivity to incite hatred and division. The facts of his convictions and findings of liability have clearly indicated his continuing separation from any kind of integrity. The fact that a once proud political party has seen fit to promote him as a candidate for the highest public office in the United States is equally evidence of disintegration into an abyss without morality or reason, filled with ignorance, bile and prejudice. 

 

It is clearly in the public interest to continue to expose him. This is not going low, as some would say. The fact that he is a felon, a dissembler, an admitted, as well as judged to be, sexual predator, should be sufficient evidence to remove him from the ballot. These are not invented insult and hyperbole. These are facts, on the record; yet, a large section of the American public seems not to care one way or the other. How any woman can bring herself to support this man, in any way, is beyond comprehension.  I would have thought the feminine vote would be a no brainer, which, on reflection, is probably the case with anyone who will vote for him.  

 

For those that do still have a brain, and who are able to vote on the 5^th November 2024, I urge you to think of what is in the public interest, not only for the United States, but for the rest of the free world as well..

À PROPOS OF NOTHING

As to education, I attended 9 different schools across the United States and France, and two institutions of higher learning in California. I attended a professional college for legal training in the UK and much later a College of Art and a University, also in the UK. I began university education in 1959 and finally, after 50 years of study and extramural activity, obtained a BA degree in 2009 and an MA in 2012 in Performance Writing.

 

In the late 1970s I managed to qualify as a lawyer and over some thirty years I was involved in English Criminal Law. I had dabbled in a number of endeavours prior to that, including sales, accounts clerk, delivery, import, export, exhibitions, manufacture, art and design. The most lucrative, in terms of minimal effort and knowledge, being valet parking. I have had what some might call a very chequered career.

 

One of the highlights, whilst working for American Express Traveller’s Cheques office in the City of London, I was put in charge of automatic replenishment of traveller’s cheques to various Banks in Europe and the Middle East. I once had one million dollars’ worth of cheques sent to the Bank of Bahrain in Qatar instead of the Bank of Qatar in Bahrain. An easy mistake to make, given that it made very little difference in the overall stocks held by Middle Eastern Banks at the time, but one that did not sit well with my superiors and eventually led to it being suggested to me that perhaps I should find employment elsewhere, on top of which I was told I “did not dress city”.  It was the time of ‘I was Lord Kitchener’s Valet’ and my surplus Guardsman’s tunic was not appreciated as respectable office attire. 

My interests are wide and varied. I have travelled quite a bit. I have some knowledge of films from the 30s, 40s and 50’s and have a great many favourites which are widely seen by many as favourites as well, so my views are not at all unique. I have limited knowledge of print making and book binding.  I have limited knowledge of the Scottish enlightenment and a soupçon of the writings of Ferdinand de Saussure, Roland Barthes, Roman Jakobson, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, Jean Baudrillard, Julia Kristeva, Helene Cixous, Judith Butler, Martha Nussbaum and a few others. Richard Rorty and Charles Peirce also feature. Again, my knowledge and interest in these people is far from unique.

 

As to fiction, I rate the usual suspects, above all William Shakespeare, and, in no particular order, Evelyn Waugh, Ernest Hemingway, Raymond Chandler, John le Carré, Graham Greene, Patricia Highsmith, Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers, Jane Austen, Herman Melville, Edgar Allan Poe, Antonia White and a number of others. Music is equally varied and eclectic, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Vivaldi, Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck, Mose Allison, John Coltrane, Chico Hamilton, Beatles, Dylan, James Taylor, Carol King, Jesse Winchester, Emmylou Harris, Stevie Wonder, The Four Aces, The Andrews Sisters, Beach Boys, Paul Simon et al., Ravi Shankar, Nayan Ghosh etc. You get the idea. In brief, classical, jazz, swing, country and East Asia.  

 

For light relief, here is a short clip from Sun Valley Serenade, a 1941 film starring Sonja Henie and John Payne, with Glenn Miller and His Orchestra with Tex Beneke and The Modernaires. The clip contains a great bit featuring Dorothy Dandridge and the Nicholas Brothers. In the light of the current Olympic season, one must mention that Sonja Henie won her first Gold Medal in the Ladies’ Figure Skating at the Winter Olympics in 1928 at St Moritz, aged 15. She went on to win two more Gold Medals, in 1932 at Lake Placid in New York and at Garmisch-Partenkirchen in 1936. Britain’s Cecilia Colledge won the Silver in the 1936 Winter Olympics. Neither Henie nor Payne appear in the clip, and whilst waiting for them to arrive the orchestra goes into a rehearsal of Chattanooga Choo Choo.

In short, I have led a life crowded in incident, yet I consider myself naïf, credulous and uninformed, which is why I tend to rant, am ill-tempered, full of resentment and stubborn notions. I can usually answer about 6 - 7 questions on University Challenge. As I have said, this is far from unique. 

 

So when it comes to my appraisal of the current situation as regards the American Presidential elections, I feel able to express an opinion. I have seen various pundits and conservative politicians on Newsnight shying away from expressing a preference and stating that it is up to the American people to decide and not for them to interfere in another country’s elections. This is spoken as if what they really have to say might be offensive to the American public, as if Newsnight was regularly viewed across the United States. I am quite sure that 99.9% of the American public have not the slightest notion what Newsnight is. Indeed, in 2020, the viewing figures in the UK were about 270,000 which is about 0.4% of the population. So why anyone would hold back on a point of view about Donald Trump or Kamala Harris on Newsnight is rather pointless. Unless, of course, they are delusional in their beliefs and supporters of the likes of Nigel Farage or Liz Truss. Somehow, they must realise, deep down within themselves, that such support is wrong on every rational level. The embarrassment and guilt would be too much to expose, and consequently dodging the question is the better course to follow.

 

How any western European politician can even suggest that a Trump Presidency would in any way benefit the planet is beyond sense. There is no rational thinking, or any thought at all, in proposing such an idea. To even ponder on whether a convicted criminal with chronic psychotic narcissism is fit for office, is itself a criminal act. It makes one an accomplice and as such, equally guilty.

 

At this very moment in time, the world is contemplating an extraordinary explosion of violence to be brought about by the primitive emotions of such men in power (I include Pezeshkian, Netanyahu, Putin, Trump, Kim Jong Un and other would be despots). It is beyond reason to think that any human being would contemplate such destruction, and yet just such a thing has happened before and will continue to happened so long as nationalists and isolationists harken to some deluded notion that they have more rights to live than anyone else.

 

You’ll feel better if you join in the dance with Cab Calloway and the Nicholas Brothers in a clip from the film Stormy Weather from 1943. The Black Pepper Swing: