The storm over claims of bullying and racism against an Indian actress in Channel 4's recent Celebrity Big Brother programme was not restricted to Britain. A record number of complaints, over 50,000, were made to the TV regulator.
What was particularly surprising was that a public TV organization would actually broadcast a programme which hardly seems to fall into its remit.
Not content with the notoriety which the Big Brother programme has attracted, Channel 4 now plans to broadcast an attack on the Prince of Wales: 'Charles - The Meddling Prince'.
Assessed as "unsubstantiated" and "unfair", the Prince and his advisers have wisely decided on a pre-emptive attack, one which reflects the general crack-down by Clarence House on illegal and unethical media behaviour.
Writing in the London Daily Telegraph on 12 March 2007, Caroline Davies says that a robust rebuttal running to 21 pages, excluding appendices, has been released in advance of the broadcast. This may be followed by other action, including a complaint to the regulator.
Hitherto the practice in Royal circles has been for any response to follow and not precede a media attack. This initiative reflects the new hard-line approach of the Prince’s energetic Private Secretary, Sir Michael Peat, who clearly will not put up with unethical or illegal conduct by the media.
His approach is to be commended. As they say: "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile."
Apparently the Channel 4 programme makes similar allegations to those made by the Mail on Sunday in its unsuccessful attempt to publish more of the Prince’s private journals which had been stolen from the palace.
The programme makes the charge that if the prince continues his alleged "meddling and secret lobbying" of Government ministers, he could plunge Britain into a constitutional crisis.
This of course assumes the Prince does in fact 'meddle' and that his contacts with government ministers are improper, an argument a disgruntled former employee unsuccessfully made in the Mail on Sunday case. This did not persuade the judges in that case that publication of the stolen journals was in the public interest. And as Sir Michael observes, the Prince's role and the way he contributes to national life will change when he becomes King. That should have been obvious to Channel 4.
The rebuttal includes the assertion that the Prince is absolutely certain that he never said McDonald's should be banned in his recent private conversation.
Too often we find some Royal story goes around the world and is widely published, only to find that this is completely untrue. Most recently, this was the case when The Sun published photos of Prince Harry, without explaining they were old and thus in no way compromising a current relationship.
The observation remains as true now as when the former British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin famously enunciated it: the media exercise "power without responsibility — the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages."
Professor David Flint is the national convener of
Australians for Constitutional Democracy. This essay was first
published on the ACM website.
Comment: I think the emotional part is what might scare the establishment only because people can get what they want.
If they want peace, they could vote someone to declare peace.
That is why John Lennon was so dangerous, he knew the truth. Once we want and and ask for things from the heart, the world could be one.
I am not talking about globalization, I am talking about going beyond what divides us.
And it is a known fact airplanes have a serious impact on the environment. So all this war, flying around and bombing each other, is only accepted cause we want to feel secure. That is emotion based too, cause how secure are going to be if we put our planet home at risk?
So we will go on about Camilla's shoes, for the sake of the environment.
At the beginning of Vietnam young people between 18-21 werent even able to vote, but by the end of the war they did have the vote. And of course it was the same thing with women, once women were given the vote, they were considered in public policy. What people feel strongly about does move the powers to be. What has Charles really done for Commonwealth? What has Charles done to help save heritage buildings in the commonwealth? He probably thinks it would be too political.
Of course Charles is assuming people want what Charles wants. Organic food costs a lot more. His offerings from the dutchy are not even claimed to be low fat.
John Lennon wasn't a hypocrite, he oozed his desire for peace and brotherthy love across the land. You dont get that feeling from Charles, so he isn't that dangerous. Lots of people see him as a bit of a fool. No one would have called John Lennon a fool. John Lennon was a protector of principles as we all should be.
Name: Kate
Comment: In some ways I do feel sorry for the POW.. His role of the POW has been a long one and waiting for the "top job" as Diana called it, must be difficult. I would imagine his role of the POW would be considered as Good will ambassador on behalf of the UK ....
Name: jj
Comment: I didn't get to see this programme. Did it actually come up with any concrete evidence of wrong-doing? Or was it all insinuation, hearsay and the like?
As for what happens when he becomes King, well, he may never make it that far for a variety of reasons. The role of King is much more clearly defined than that of PoW. He has very much had to make his own role up as a modern day PoW.
I have no doubt he will do what is necessary if he becomes King in an appropriate manner.
Name: Mrs Coombs
Comment: MM, I agree with you statement:"Is it realistic to believe that a man , who's whole adult life has been spent in refusing advice to modify his behaviour in any way , will suddenly learn to avoid excesses , to hold his tongue , and to stop trying to interfere with the way others live their lives while continuing to live his just as he wants ? And this enormous change in conduct to take place just as soon as he becomes King , at the age of sixty something ...or even older ?"
For Charles and Clarence House to accuse the media of "unethical and unfair behaviour" is rich and inaccurate on its face! Truth be told, Charles and Clarence House has repeatedly condoned and undertaken similar action to discredit those who disagree with him, his policies and his idealogy, oftentimes speaking out of both sides of his mouth! In short, he meddles in every sector that does not concern him, attempting to upset the apple cart of other people's lives when it suits, but has the gall to complain if he is not supported 100% at every turn! Someone should tell him this is the 21st century, not the 17th century, and judging from his past actions, he is lucky to still be considered a member of the RF. Thank God the Media is there (excluding the likes of his flunkies) to force him to tow the line!
Name: exploora
Comment: Well I doubt anyone cares that much, no one has commented. I think though, Charles is pointing out some good points, and possibly historically it will matter that he tried to make a difference. Though I was tempted to get Helen Mirren's other movie, ( I know if I say what the other movie is I ruin the contest) I got the documentary of John Lennon Vs. US instead. It is the same kind of thing. A person speaks out, stands their ground, someone shoots him down, someone else makes a documentary.
Name: Gill Webster
Comment: Well, I watched with interest. I have long thought that the Prince gets involved & vocal on all kinds of areas he would do better leaving to the real experts. As for how his behaviour will change if/when he becomes King - as the well known Dr Phil of TV fame often says "The best predictor of future behaviour - is past behaviour"!! Problem is he'll have even more power to "meddle" then than he does now and I find that disturbing.
Name: Muriel
Comment: If anyone is interested they can go to the POW's site and read all of the letters in question.
Name: Muriel
Comment: I think it is so unfair to complain because he takes an interest in the environment and his other causes. He has done so much good for so many people through his charities and other works. I don't recall him ever trying to get involved in politics, rather he gets involved in social issues that affects everyone. Sometimes I think folks just like to complain, no matter which way he goes. If he did nothing but open buildings, smile and shake hands, they'd call him lazy. He can't win!
Name: M-M
Comment: Is it realistic to believe that a man , who's whole adult life has been spent in refusing advice to modify his behaviour in any way , will suddenly learn to avoid excesses , to hold his tongue , and to stop trying to interfere with the way others live their lives while continuing to live his just as he wants ? And this enormous change in conduct to take place just as soon as he becomes King , at the age of sixty something ...or even older ?
And again he is using the big stick , threatening a complaint about Channel 4 to the Regulator (presumably affecting their licence ) Probably he has already made it .
Those who dish it out (criticism of policies , 'black spider' letters ) can rarely take it themselves
Apparently the Channel 4 programme makes similar allegations to those made by the Mail on Sunday in its unsuccessful attempt to publish more of the Prince’s private journals which had been stolen from the palace.
