The ‘milestone’ of televising courtrooms is not a public benefit

If restoration of trust is wanted in the criminal justice system, they can start with actually punishing criminals according to the nature of their crime.

This week ‘history was made’ (to quote the press) as television cameras were allowed to film a judge give their verdict and impose sentencing in a criminal trial at the Old Bailey. It is very interesting that these milestones are always reported with that phrase, as opposed to ‘centuries of tradition were destroyed’ or ‘a historic overturning of precedent’. But the truth is such a move is not a positive step of making history, but a symbol of the overreach of media into political life and decision-making and one that has very much overturned all kinds of precedent.

The clear problem with this was shown in the media’s clear excitement that they were able to show this event, and, as one TV news channel reported, they had been seeking permission for this from Westminster for over a decade. And worse still, the exact same rationale was being stressed by both media and government for this decision: that it would ‘increase transparency’ and ‘boost confidence’ in our justice system.

Quite frankly, if restoration of trust is wanted in the criminal justice system, they can start with actually punishing criminals according to the nature of their crime. The fact is, a criminal justice system focused on ‘rehabilitation’, that is ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ will never gain public respect. A criminal justice system that blames societal factors for people’s crimes and not the individual’s free choice to commit such acts can never seriously gain anyone’s confidence.

But, the more important point here is not the rationale being used, but the fact that the media and political interests aligned so closely on this issue. The relationship between media and politics certainly does not serve conservative interests and never really has.

It is interesting, for example, how the hypocrisy and lies of the Prime Minister have been (rightly!) treated with mass coverage and analysis, while the lying from the Leader of the Opposition has gone almost uncommented on other than from those with a keen interest in the topic. And by this, I mean the Labour leader’s attitude to economics. He clearly and unequivocally stated to his members in the Labour Party’s own leadership race that he would nationalise many key industries. Now he doesn’t seem to be so sure.

Quite frankly, this is the result of a media that has a Blairite mindset dominating the way it operates. It is a mindset that that never particularly cared about economics but loves the idea of social revolution. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition has changed his economic policy is of no interest to them, as long as he remains a social radical, which undoubtedly he is.

And in this instance of the cameras being rolled out into the courtroom, we see one of the worst facets of Blairite dominance: a desire to wreck our constitution and impose revolution on it. It is a gross desire to ‘democratise’ our constitution, though this is in fact a cover enabling the enactment and embedding of the radical control Blairites have gained over our constitution.

This week’s move is not ‘history being made’, but another milestone for the reign of Blairism in political life, and as usual we are all the worse for it.