Over at my favourite publisher’s blog is a discussion about Night Jack’s imminent “outing” at the hands of The Times newspaper. Apparently the author of Night Jack (a favourite blog of mine, alas now deleted) had been fighting The Times after the paper discovered his “real” identity.
It raises all sorts of interesting issues. Normally I would defend any organisation’s freedom to impose restrictions on the activities of its employees. For example, if my employers told me that they thought that my spare-time activities were incompatible with my employment I would grudgingly accept that they had the power to make such a pronouncement. I have entered into a contract, I respect the right of my employers to end it at any time. However, the “market” would soon find its own balance. Any business would be mad to tell its employees that they weren’t allowed to do their own thing in their spare time. As long as we don’t damage the business then why should it care what we do? They know that if they tried to impose on my outside-the-office-lifestyle to any extent they would soon be looking for a new gopher.
But what if you work for a state monopoly? What if you can’t just up-sticks and find an employer more suited to your personal beliefs? What if that state organisation is getting things wrong but keeping them private and away from public scrutiny? Do taxpayers and voters not have their own right to know what is going on within these institutions? Should publicly-funded services be hiding the truth from their customers?
And anyway, why would a police service even try to stop its officers from telling it how it is? If an organisation is so dysfunctional that its employees feel the need to speak out, then surely it is the organisation that should be taking a look at itself rather than clamping down on the whistleblower. Public institutions should be transparent and accountable by default. There should be no need for anonymous bloggers in an organisation that encourages suggestions and debate from within itself. As long as the bloggers do not compromise a case or make unfounded allegations, then what is the problem?
In Night Jack’s instance it is not his employer who has taken the trouble to track him down but a national newspaper. We do not, yet, know what his employer’s view on the matter is. I sincerely hope that they are relaxed about it. From my reading of his blog, Night Jack comes across as exactly the kind of sharp-minded detective we need. As far as I know he has not compromised any cases by blogging, he has not said anything illegal, he cannot have damaged his employer’s reputation because he does not name it. Why should he be punished professionally?
But at the same time, why should anyone writes a public and controversial blog expect the law to protect his anonymity? If someone decided to post my “real” name in the comments or elsewhere I would have no expectation of being able to stop them. Lots of people know who I am in “real life”. I have not told anyone who I do not trust. I have to protect my own privacy because I do not expect the law to. There is no universal human right to spout anonymously on the internet.
My own personal opinion is that The Times should have acted a lot more responsibly with the information it discovered about Night Jack. The legal judgement is probably about right, but the newspaper should be a bit more concerned about the consequences of publishing. They might very well end a good man’s career. And at the same time public bodies should be less worried about insiders putting their personal views across. The truth is a powerful thing. Britain is not a Soviet dictatorship. We should be upfront, as a society, about the fact that not everything can be perfect the whole time. We should harness people’s knowledge and intelligence to put right what once went wrong. Public authorities should be, in other words, comfortable in their own skin.
Good luck, Night Jack. I hope it works out for you in the end.
“The truth is a powerful thing. Britain is not a Soviet dictatorship. “
Yet…
Wow, well said on all counts BE.( I knew I could come here to see what ‘that’ was all about on Hogdays blog)
I specifically exclude DC Night Jack from criticism, yet a number of police officers and PCSO’s have systematically abused their position on police and other blogs. Comments from certain individuals have brought police into disrepute and sorely vexed members of the public. It can surprise nobody that private enquiries preceded current official investigations to identify these cowardly and harmful individuals.
However, I enjoin your good wishes to Night Jack.
Just how much traffic does The Times get from the blogosphere and how much would it suffer if this traffic was withheld?
[...] to JuliaM who has this to say and also pointed out comments by, Iain Dale, Obo, Old Holborn, Blue Eyes and Backroom Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)One in 94 million!Blogging [...]
[...] a blogger is a member of the police that automatically makes there real identity a matter of public interest. The story in the Times though seems to be without merit. I’ve no idea if this is part of a [...]
The real journalists these days are often not to be found in the traditional media. The people who outed NightJack are not proper journalists, they are establishment stooges and informers.
Nightjack fella, if you’re reading this – I live in the Lancashire area. I’ll have a beer with you any time. Keep your chin up.
Sorry to hear this, it was a great blog.
The newspapers are in the business of selling newspapers. Nothing more. Journalists are just sensationalist salesmen whose job it is to sell advertising space. If they can. The haughty Heffers and Hitchens of this world are just ageing hacks, but at least Hitchens admits it. The Giles Corens of this world are just precious prats.
Outing a blogger might seem tremendous fun as bloggers aren’t constrained as journalists are. Journalists are incredibly jealous. Their contempt seeps through their rhetoric and, forced to host blogs they would rather avoid, their reluctance drips from each dismissal of every challenge. They’re not used to this. They have done their time, gone through the ranks and WHAT?! Some upstart thinks he can do their job? It really pisses them off when he can.
Night Jack got up the noses of the Times. RESPECT!
Got him
http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/06/patrick-foster-of-times.html
I’ve never heard of the Night Jack blog. What was it about? A Police blog I am guessing?
Civil Serf was a friend of a friend and they got closed a couple of years ago. Unpleasant experience to go through, personally and professionally.
The professional bodies we belong to and our employers place all sorts of restrictions on us. For the most part I think these are sensible. Genuine whistle blowing should also be encouraged. The problem is the boundary between whistle blowing and working from the inside to effect change can sometimes be difficult to distinguish.
The outing of Nightjack is a shame, especially in the same week that Brown has told us that the Iraq inquiry will have to be in secret so that people can speak freely.
Julia – One mark of a free country is the state not really caring who sees the darker corners, Britain is rapidly becoming one of those places where what people are allowed to see is limited. I don’t like it one bit. We do not want to be the next DDR.
PG – hello!
MTG – I have not seen one police blog which pushes it too far. I don’t know what “position” you think police bloggers are “abusing”, but they certainly never publish names or precise details of cases, nor expose the internal workings of their services to the extent that the information can be used for nefarious purposes. So I am not sure what your problem is. I suspect you simply distrust the police, but that is for a whole other discussion.
Chris – I don’t know, but I certainly will now not be linking to Times articles nor buying the paper again, nor spending money on any of Murdoch’s other services.
Paul – spot on, might do a post on that issue. NJ did once leave a comment here which made me immensely proud. I would be honoured if he still reads this. If you do, NJ, then there is also a beer with your name on it any time you come to sunny London.
Philipa – agreed.
OH – will take a look later.
RE – I thought of your story about Civil Serf when I wrote this post. I agree with your point that most of the controls are there for a reason but that there is balance to be had. My view is that The Times was just being spiteful. Outing Mr NJ is in nobody’s interest apart from those embarrassed by the truth.
Patently – you clearly have a lot to learn about the principles of doublethink.
“What if that state organisation is getting things wrong but keeping them private and away from public scrutiny? Do taxpayers and voters not have their own right to know what is going on within these institutions?”
Of course public institutions such as the police, NHS and civil service should be open to scrutiny so the public can judge them, but Nightjack clearly crossed the line by discussing police investigations and case details on his blog. The fact that he let himself be identified through publishing so many details of his work online was just stupidity more than anything else.
I blogged about this today but reached slightly different conclusions than you….
[...] record [↩]Isn’t that the bit that just makes you want to scream? [↩]I must also doff my cap to the ever-excellent Behind Blue Eyes, whose post on this is similarly spot on. [↩]No link. [↩] In the Event of a Zombie [...]
Hi LFAT. Yes I saw your post and was going to comment that I thought you were wrong. He did not discuss case details. He discussed things he had seen, but that is not the same as saying “Mr X did this, Ms Y did that”. He did not compromise or release anything sensitive. His stuff suddenly becomes more traceable now that his name and force have been published.
I think LFAT raises a good point but accept your judgement, Blue. I only read Nightjack a couple of times but didn’t see any personal details then. Perhaps you both could state your case?
LFaT made a very very good point, though. It is by NightJack’s own words that he is damned. A newspaper could do an expose on who Letters From A Tory is really written by, it would be unlikely to hugely effect LFaT’s real life. It’s only because NightJack chose to write about his work, and in particular about his controversial opinions on his superiors and the people he came across in every day life, that he is in trouble.
Stu – I don’t entirely agree with you there. One doesn’t have to write about work for a blog to be damaging at work. I hope Blue will back me up here.
P you are right. I don’t write about my job, but it *could* still be embarrassing at work if my employers suddenly found out I was a swivel-eyed right-winger. Maybe less so at my place of work than at, say, the BBC or other state institution. There are lots of topics which you just Do Not Discuss at work, but could be perfectly sensible to write about on a blog. Mr NJ was controversial about his work, admittedly, but I still don’t think the cases he talked about were given so much detail as to be detrimental **until** his name and force were published.
Your many inadequately researched topics and crass comments, both here and on Coppersblog, appear to contradict any claim to a full education or the implied keenness to intellectual perception.
At last, I have gone up in the world sufficiently to have incurred the Good Doctor Melvin’s wrath. Gold star for me, and a large “fuck off then” for you.
Oh I don’t mean to say that he’s wrong to have written what he wrote under the belief that the words would remain attributed to a pseudonym. And indeed he took care to ensure individual cases would not be identifiable.
But my point was that this outing wouldn’t be controversial if he hadn’t written controversial things.
Well yes, that rather goes without saying Stu!
The distinction, Stu, is between things that gratuitously embarrass your employer and are not of public interest, and things that your employer may wish to keep secret but ought not to be able to.
I’d say NJ was in the second category. Others may differ, though.
I would agree, patently.
Oh please don’t tell the good doctor to f-off. He’s so amusing.
inadequately researched topics and crass comments
Has he ever blogged before? The poor man is clearly a blog virgin and we must cut him some slack. After all, if he’s a medical doctor, and given the MMR situation, he suffers from a professional arrogance and rod up his ass in addition to promoting inadequately researched topics and delivering crass comments to patients.
Oh OK Philipa you are right, I shouldn’t be so childish as to reply to stupid comments with stupid comments. Sorry Doctor Melvin. You are most welcome on here.
Dear Philipa,
Ouch. As an Environmental Scientist I should resist guessing you to be a spinster lawyer. The recipients of my crass comments are usually Industrial polluters, for whom I would have some sympathy were they ever to suffer our combined predation.
Deserved or otherwise, I forego the alimentary occlusion by yielding to your point re arrogance, for which I apologize to BE and his readers.