the media 

We have witnessed the media use its power with dynamic factual and dignified coverage with qualitative and measured reporting. This is a credit to their profession; moreover, it reflects a genuine balance of reportage alongside the genuine best interests of the public to know about issues. These allow the public to see the shameful conduct and misuse of public money by members of parliament, the vicious death of an innocent member of the public caused by the police at the G20 demonstration – police failure to reveal their police ID numbers on the day, appalling police tactics and conduct, the maintaining of public awareness during the Stephen Lawrence family’s struggle for justice, the murder of Lucie Blackman, the murder of Rhys Jones, and frequent contradictions from central government and its use of statistics that do not convey the real level of violent crime in Britain. This is the media showing power with responsibility for the wider public and to be applauded.

What cannot be applauded is when the media ultimately de-sensitises the public from real-life violent crime and becomes blurred with entertainment. When the media tries to capture every nuance of family-private despair as entertainment-style reporting, as the private tragedy is unfolding, this is exploitation. This does not reflect the unconditional dignity that any member of the media would expect for themselves if they were affected by tragedy. This degrades the media profession, and degrades the vulnerable people affected. It creates an unpleasant and voyeuristic perspective that sensationalises and could also interfere with the process of law if charges are brought, or misused in court trial. This is using power without sufficient responsibility and leaves strength for the argument for Britain to adopt robust privacy laws as used in France.

A commendable, long list of excellent media coverage can be cited and now more is needed about how government treats its growing population of people affected by violent crime. What the people of Britain will benefit from, especially at this time in our country’s social history is to pursue government to be more directly accountable for the provision of crime victims.  A media making documentaries with factual reporting. This will keep the public remain informed and critical about the consequences of Britain’s diminishing welfare health and social care services against a backdrop of increased violent crime. How the government has provided for crime victims should become a major pre-election issue by the media.

Jimmy Mizen, 16 years-old, bled to death when the vessels in his neck were severed as he was hit by a glass dish in the bakery in Lee, London, in May 2008. Jake Fahri, 19 years-old, from Lee, claimed he acted in self defence when a fight broke out. He was sentenced to life in prison to serve at least 14 years.

Outside court, Barry Mizen, father, along with his wife and youngest son, George, said: "I want to thank God for Jimmy, thank God for his life. It was a pleasure and a privilege to have been his parents ... this country stands apart from other countries. This is a country of civility and a country of fair play, fairness, and a country of safety. We are rapidly losing that.

"We have become a country of anger, of selfishness and of fear. It doesn't have to be like this. Let's together try and stop it".

27 March 2009 – after verdict, outside Old Bailey, London


We need our media to champion the repeal of the infamous 1995 Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, controversially rushed through Parliament and used to save money. We need a media to investigate and encourage the public to vote for MPs that do not misuse public money and actively campaign for crime victims. We know that the courage and success of families affected by violent crime has too often been as a result of active media involvement; this is what government responds to and little else. What happens to the vulnerable public in social health care that goes unreported, where is the genuine safeguarding? Justice is not willingly given.

So, in Britain, we need our media to compel government to act decisively in the very best interests of the public. If the maximum criminal compensation award is £500,000, what is the total money misused by members of parliament in the last eleven years? What has been the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) budget for the last year – that has gone directly to crime victims? Is it a good, acceptable use of public money for crime victims to have awards routinely increased at Appeal, pursued by expert lawyers, paid from award?

We need our media to remain free, diligent, to be robust and focus public debate in raising the issues of violence in society and the daily impact and needs of crime victims, and those affected. This would ensure the needs of people receive prominent political attention they deserve. We need our media to produce sustained features that factually raise public debate and knowledge and place fundamental policy and resource issues at the doors of government.