London Calling

This week I returned from a week long trip to London. A trip that was planned at the last minute, with no plans upon arrival other than a car service to pick me up and take me to the hotel which was all booked on United Airlines sight. And with that I was off to the races.

**Note** None of my time there did I hear, discuss or care one iota about the Princess of Wales and the endless speculation regarding the photo, if the sightings were real or anything about this situation until I came home and one of the many idiots in the building I live in asked me details about her for reasons I do not know or care. I wish her well but that subject to me is filed under: NONE OF MY BUSINESS *****

The first leg of the trip was to say the least eventful. The woman in the seat in front of me lost her cell phone in a hole in the plane. There was a slight hole in the wall of the interior cabin and that between the plane shell and what I assume was the cargo portion or shell of the plane. The plane had not take off so with that we were delayed and the Flight Attendant informed us that this had happened two weeks prior and they had to remove the seat in which to retrieve it. This time the two Mechanics arrived and went below managed to somehow retrieve it, affix the exterior panel and within an hour or so we were off. With a hole in the plane interior. I landed and checked into my hotel right above Victoria Station, the Covenant. A fabulous location and frankly a fine place to stay as it had all that I needed for the few days I was there

The next day was very unplanned so being that the location was so central, I just walked and found my way to Buckingham Palace and timing what it was I managed to see the changing of the Guards. I informed the Volunteer that we too in America had a similar program only ours is just every four years and to say the least in the words of the former President, I suspect this too will be “wild.” American politics aside it was interesting to observe the way Tourists stood respectfully and acknowledged crowd control by unarmed Officers and that the flow and movement was actually quite seamless. I watched some of it and while I love pomp and circumstance I did wonder what the point and cost of it as Britain’s inflation is high. The rate of exchange for Dollar to Pounds was 1.33 so that I had to add that into the costs of my trip. So for a Medium Latte at Starbucks it was just shy of $6. That said I decided to eat my way through London at the finest Department Stores in the world. There is Harrods food hall that is must, followed by there numerous cafes, I of course chose the PRADA one being that my hat, purse, wallet and cosmetic bag screamed the label. I felt for a moment a little like the ladies of AB FAB, a caricature. But then again I saw plenty others who were by far more so, including the infamous CHAV of Sascha Baron Cohen’s impersonation.

My favorite and perhaps most fun was a Champagne bar in Selfridges on the main floor where I met a fabulous English lass and we pub crawled to of all places Claridge’s, which is a hell of a posh place to stop and sip more Champs. It was a glorious afternoon and one of the many I managed to have despite the rain. Walks to Hyde Park, finding the Tate Museum and the Houses of Parliament where I witnessed another changing of the Horse Guard by total accident and finally spending my last afternoon on Bond street and having more Champagne at the home of all food and tea – Fortnum and Mason. I walked almost everywhere and finding jewels on the way, such as Gail’s Bakery which many locals were amazed that I had discovered this delightful bakery as I went on my morning walkabouts. Which landed me at the Tate that had two major exhibits, one with the art and fashion influence of John Singer Sargeant, the other about Women and Revolt in England from the 60s to the present. I chose the former over the latter and I can say it was as delightful as Gail’s Hot Cross Buns. I believe the Queen is dead but from that exhibit I learned about the Artist through his work, and to say he may too have been a Queen – in a non royal sense. Now I finally understand the “Dandy” reference that was about Men who dressed well and fashionably. We used to call them Metrosexuals. Sure okay. How about a Man who just simply cares about the passions of fashions and how he presents himself; Iconic, and leave it at that. But the exhibit paired the paintings with some of the actual garments worn in the portraits and they were divine. I had a delightful morning that led me to explain to the young attendants that these were the original selfies of the day and when you had money and time you made sure they looked well. We could all use that as an example of patience and good grooming. I on the other hand did not follow my own advice as I only dressed well for one evening at the Royal Opera and it was still very dressed down but upon walking into that infamous hall I was to enthralled to be interested in my fellow Patrons or what anyone was wearing.

That too was spontaneous as I had found my way to the shop I had to go to as it had sustained me during the pandemic – Liberty of London. I have no idea why during the pandemic I bought food, some clothes and the like but as all things are, they just are but a pilgrimage had to made. I had a great time just wandering about and buying nothing more than a book on of all people the designer Yves Saint Laurent. Funny how in England a French ex pat who lived in Morocco and was to me the influencer that I most gravitate to. This being the time of Dior, Chanel and Lagerfeld with numerous films, series, and documentaries, including many Museum exhibits as well on their influence in fashion. Some of it financial as the Houses pay for it and others are due to personal relationships, but this is what draws the eyes. Much like the Singer Sargent one at the Tate it is because much of fashion is about history of the period and how fashion is like all art and pop culture, from it we learn about the larger and more commercial aspects of society. It does seem that while today’s iconic fashion houses came from the same era and still bear their name long after the original Designers/founders have gone. But there seems to be a deep fascination of late with (or maybe always) with Coco Chanel. Watch the New Look on Apple it certainly will change your views on both Dior and Chanel and their time in World War II and the role of fashion in history when it comes that era. Hey we had a similar retrospective regarding Halston so at least we have some comparison although nowhere near as interesting. Or not, depending on one’s level of interest.

From there I found my way to Covent Garden and with that found the Royal Opera House, wandered in and secured a ticket for the final performance of the Flying Dutchman. It was spectacular and the performances were first rate and a production that was much more stripped down than the one I saw last year at the Met and by far more intimate works in this house. I was glad I went.

But for this trip plans and itinerary was secondary and oddly of all things my wanders made food the primary. And when I looked at my credit card statement upon returning, other than the car travel to and from the airports, it was the largest expenditure and yet none for any large expensive dinner. No it was simply indulging all day on treats and snacks with Champagne stops (there was that money and well spent) at varying Wine Bars that seemed to call my name, my personal favorite name – Prada. Yes that Prada and they have a cafe attached to Harrod’s. And even the quinnessential Afternoon Tea I found myself not at a Tea Shop but at the French baker of Macrons, Laudree. How so not English! But it was a delight to sit on the balcony on this cloudy day and watch below the Street Entertainers and the crowds; a great way to be a part of something while not being a part of anything. And after days of wandering, I often stopped at Marks and Spencer (again another Department store) quick stop food shop for a sammie and fruit plate to eat later in my room. There is something about the idea of sitting on a bed, watching bad British TV that seems decadent over sitting a table alone eating any food. Honestly eating out is boring as hell on your own and my first night in the hotel when I thought I would do so by first stopping at the Bar and having an amazing Cocktail they have, a Bourbon one made with my favorite pour, Buffalo trace. It arrives under as cloche and once removed plume of smoke arises and with that it is magic. With that under my belt I assumed I would wander out and find something better than pub food or perhaps even as good, but that was not to be and the story here is what must be filed under trigger warning.

The adage goes, no matter where you go there you are. And it seems that this phase in my life I have few encounters that fall into the category of fabulous and with that I did when I met the young lady at Selfridges’ on Saint Patrick’s day, who compensated for the encounter I had upon my first true day in London. As I said above I was going to stop in the Hotel Bar and either have a small plate and call in a night or cross over to one of the numerous pubs that aligned the block for a meal. It all changed when I made the “mistake?” of speaking to the lone man at the Bar sitting two seats over. He was surprised and I asked if he was a guest or a resident and with that it was off and running. He had been drinking long before I got there and yet it had not lightened the mood, it only enabled the room to become even darker than the lighting despite the windows that looked over the bustling Victoria Station below. Watching the commuters wander to and from was soon to be an irony as the conversation progressed.

We discussed some politics and he announced or declared to me I was a Republican of which I informed him clearly being a Liberal and Feminist that would be near to next impossible, so I knew he did not either understand our party system or was simply drunk. What unveiled throughout our dialogue that he was so similar to the angry white men of late that define our version of Conservatives I often thought I had never left home. He pronounced himself largely successful and had two adult children who were also the same, he was “rich” as he informed me more than once and was 67 with two children under 10 at home with his current wife as his first had died years ago and he had this new family which clearly was a burden to him.

I get that as I am fast approaching 65 I know I could not handle children under 10 and with that know I would not see them become adults. I also wonder why in an age of choice particularly for men at age 45 he would marry and enable/allow or “permit” a woman to have children he did not want nor need. I also can believe a Woman can think she will be fine, he will change his mind and the desire to have a family can be the primary factor and by choosing to do so with an older husband there is a security there that he will or may die but the financials are already in place. Yes folks all Marriages are bargains to be had, negotiations and compromises made. They are in fact TRANSACTIONS. And this is why I have closed my pussy for business.

Over the next two hours or so, I tried my best to be witty, to change the tone and nature of the conversation, but mostly I just thought that the less said, the less mended and his constant remands for me to stop talking and chattering about nothing secured me in the fact that I would at least get some story out of this encounter but it was not one I suspected in the least. The man confessed he was quite suicidal and planned to do so earlier but the school children the terminal stopped him but that he was going to kill himself that night by throwing himself in front of a moving Subway/Tube car.

As a Stranger in a Strange Land expect strange things but even this was not something I could have possibly thought would happen but here I was and yes confessing one’s sins to a Stranger is perhaps a safety valve we all need, the Catholic Church marketed that to great success for Centuries.

He constantly reminded me of that and informed me that we would never see each other again, we had never even exchanged names only where I was “from” and what I did for a living, both of which were deigned with numerous insults on how I spoke/my accent (which when I corrected him that I was actually NOT from New York but Seattle Washington that threw him a loop) and my profession for teaching young people to be Thugs and Gangsters. It was fascinating to watch the anger spew in my direction and dodging those as he was a drunk angry white man and these misdirections were easily tossed aside. But I stayed because of the suicide declaration and I again needed to figure out how to discard that with the least amount of damage – to me. He I cared little about and frankly would have loved to push him in front of a moving tube, but as my Mother said, “Don’t go to jail doing the world a favor.” Or should I say “favour”

But as he proceeded to insult, demean me and of course his wife little was said about the children other than how they might grieve and I offered suggestions other than throwing himself in front of a speeding vehicle and in turn involving all those other strangers as well into his self loathing. He was insistent that it was to be done, the discussion of insurance and how they do not pay on suicides made me realize that the Dutch Courage of massive quantities of liquor is one thing, another if one wants it seen as an accident. So now he has not only instigated me into this but allowed me to be a collaborator for potential insurance fraud. I sat with my drink he offered I assume as payment for services rendered and I ordered a Spring Roll and sat and finished it as he realized that I was done talking, and had said that literally when it arrived. I had enough frankly of it all, food, booze, his company and the miasma of pain he had vomited upon me.

I got up went to where the Bartender’s were standing by the till, inspected my bill, made him pay for my drinks as that was the least of it, I covered my own food and said that he was a problem and perhaps they needed to stop serving him. I left and spoke to the Front Desk about the man and his issues but I was vague and not insistent just passing on the info. And then I walked up and down the staircase to the floor of my room and back to the Lobby, I realized that despite this not America and the fact that if one did call for a “Wellness Check” the Bobby’s do not carry guns so this would not end in the normal way it does here but I did want to absolve myself of any of this – not guilt but responsibility. I took the Agent to the bar door and pointed him the lone soul sitting there, insisted he call Police or a Cab to get him home and away from the Station and the potential for his suicide to be reduced. He is truly mentally ill, very drunk and no one should be liable or responsible for his acts. Not the Hotel, not the Tube Driver or Passengers and especially ME. NONE of us deserve that and with that I left. The next day I stopped in on my way up to pick up wine to take to my room, as I sure as Hell was not planning on sitting there again should he return and want a repeat or whatever… I was told the Police came and he was escorted home. That ends that and with that the story now falls to the one he can make or not with those whom he wished to abandon. They need the right to choose and make that decisions for themselves. His Children, his Wife and the Adult Children can in turn be responsible. I would not wish that on anyone but again that is the choices we make and once you are an Adult you have that right to make choices, to make decisions and be they right, wrong, good, bad or somewhere in between they are yours to make. They are not those for others to do or to assume responsibility. I frequently say, “Are you an Adult?” when someone levels off a complaint that seems relatively easy to correct and solve. Hate your job? Find another one? Hate your wife? Divorce her. We have become children and we now are in search of the perpetual Big Mommy or Daddy who will resolve it all. It explains Social Media just like the Portraits in the Tate, the first selfies. We are all indulgent it seems.

Ah London. Despite it all you are just like us. Good, Bad or somewhere in between.

Jolly Ole England

Once again I awoke to the “beeb” and a story of another innocent wrongfully convicted of a crime. This story thankfully on lead to his through the media but after yesterday’s story about the media’s role in the faux drug ring in Trindad, Colorado I wrote about in “The World Turns” you see how this is played out anywhere.

This story has been made into a movie by the director of Notting Hill, who was a former pupil and written by the acclaimed screen writer of such films as The Queen.

His story parallels many many stories in America. The Police decide they have the “suspect” regardless of actual investigation and evidence and the media then in turn glums onto whatever extraneous factors they can.. his hair is weird, he lives alone, he could be gay. Pick whatever utter nonsense and that is a good enough reason.

If you are trying to understand why color is the first reason then you must have vision problems. It is the easiest then if that doesn’t work out, location, location, location. You were there. For women its what you are wearing, were you drinking…

In America to be fully vindicated you must be a white male with a professional career and education to be utterly exonerated of any wrong doing despite possessing the smoking gun. Funny that in the predominant amount of school shootings that seems to be the major characteristic yet I see no narrow brush there sweeping a wide picture. So then we add such strange factors as mental illness and the current one is Autism. Utter nonsense to anyone who has been associated with Autism but hey if the shoe fits and the disease is easy to pronounce and spell in the media then have at it.

The media wields a powerful double edged sword. What they can do and have done is amazing on both ends of the spectrum and the echo chamber of social media assists in the campaign to destroy or elevate. It just depends.

Mr. Jefferies won a libel case against the press but the people in Colorado had no opportunity. Mr. Jeffries was fortunate that his story is now a movie and as a result has access to better hair stylist which he has now taken advantage enough. While in some circles that is worthy of arrest it might be a bit extreme.

When you have no one. You are alone and vilified regardless. We suspect anyone who does not fit the “norm” and we like to ensure that conformity is a much safer way to live. Who determines what and whom we should conform is not clear but I suspect it is that of our founding fathers.. white males, slave owners, musket carriers with bad teeth and elite education and little diversity. Just like founding fathers from whom they “escaped” in Jolly Ole England.


The ordeal of Christopher Jefferies

By Brian Cathcart
Financial Times Magazine 
October 8, 2011

He was Joanna Yeates’s landlord, not her killer. Yet when he fell briefly under suspicion, some newspapers reached their own ‘verdict’ and vilified him.

Mr. Jefferies, light and spry, he turns up to be interviewed wearing a striped Abercrombie & Fitch shirt, black trousers and youthful, winkle-pickerish boots. Christopher Jefferies wears his hair shorter now than in those days around New Year when he attracted national attention, and it is tinted brown. He doesn’t look 65.

The voice is a real schoolteacher’s voice, though it might equally belong to a High Court judge. More ringing than booming, it would carry not only to the back of a classroom or a court, but to the back of a large hall. He speaks slowly and clearly, also like a judge, but without pedantry – his sentences, when written down, don’t always parse. The accent is 1970s BBC, although there is something grander than that about the way he says “becawse”.

For a man whose treatment by much of the national press was described as “vilification” by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge; as “monstering” by his solicitors and as “character assassination” by another significant observer, Jefferies proves remarkably dispassionate about his story. Sometimes as he talks, and even occasionally jokes, you might think these were the experiences of someone he hardly knew. But in his way he manages to communicate perfectly clearly the dreadfulness of what happened to him.

Jefferies, a retired English teacher aged 65, was the landlord and neighbour of Joanna Yeates, the Bristol landscape architect aged 25 who disappeared on December 17 last year and whose body was discovered on Christmas Day. She was lying in the snow at the edge of a quarry three miles from her home, and she had been strangled.

On December 30, a little after 7am, Jefferies heard a knock at the door of his flat and a voice saying: “It’s the police, Mr Jefferies. We need your help.” He let them in, and was immediately arrested on suspicion of murder.

He was questioned for three days and then released on police bail, an indication that he remained under suspicion. Three weeks later a Dutchman, Vincent Tabak, was arrested and charged with the murder, but it was not until March 4 that Jefferies’ bail was lifted and police confirmed he was not a suspect. Tabak later admitted killing Yeates but denied murder, and he is currently on trial.

Christopher Jefferies, therefore, is clearly innocent of murder. Since he is currently suing Avon and Somerset police for false imprisonment, breach of his human rights and trespass, the grounds for his arrest can’t be discussed here. But the press reporting about him can.

The eight worst-offending newspapers have, as we shall see, admitted in court that all of the serious allegations against him that they printed were untrue, but what happened to Jefferies was so remarkable and so shocking that, in his view, it should not just be forgotten. For that reason, unusually, he is prepared to discuss his own “monstering” in some detail.

The early-morning arrest that December day was, he says, “a bolt from the blue”. When he heard the knock and checked the time, his first thought was that it was a neighbour who had been unwell and was having some kind of emergency. “I had no suspicion whatsoever that I might even be considered a suspect, since as far as I was concerned there wasn’t a shred of evidence to that effect.”

He might have been less surprised if, like most of the rest of us, he had an understanding of criminal investigations that was coloured by television drama – he had been the subject of some media attention the previous day. But Jefferies doesn’t own a television, preferring radio. Nor does he routinely read a newspaper. “I buy a paper if there’s something I particularly want to read.”

One of the quirks of his case is that the press reporting about him was published almost entirely during the three days he was in police custody, when he was not shown a single newspaper and when his solicitor, Bambos Tsiattalou, spared him any account of what the world was reading.

“I remained oblivious of the extraordinary media interest even the day after I was released,” Jefferies recalls. He could not return to his flat so he stayed with friends who also hesitated to discuss the press coverage. It was only when he “blithely proposed”, as he puts it, to head off into Bristol to buy some clothes and washing things that matters came to a head. This prospect “so alarmed the solicitor that he rang to say that if my friends couldn’t persuade me not to do that, he would himself come down from London in order to persuade me that this was a very bad idea”.

Only then did Christopher Jefferies begin to grasp what had happened.

Several of the newspapers on the Thursday morning, their stories written before his arrest but reaching their readers after it, painted him in an unmistakably sinister light. The Daily Mail, for example, had a front-page photo beside the headline: “Could this man hold the key to Joanna’s murder?” Since, as her landlord, Jefferies naturally had a set of keys to the basement flat she shared with her boyfriend, Greg Reardon, the hint was a heavy one.

It was not until the Friday that the press let rip.

The front page of The Sun showed a small photograph of Joanna Yeates next to a cut-out from a school line-up showing Jefferies 30 years ago, with very blue hair, grinning. The headline was: “The strange Mr Jefferies – Kids’ nickname for ex-teacher suspect”.

Page four took things much further. It was dominated by four words, each accompanied by an explanatory phrase, thus: “WEIRD ‘Strange talk, strange walk’; POSH ‘Loved culture, poetry’; LEWD ‘Made sexual remarks’; CREEPY ‘Loner with blue rinse hair’”. The report began: “Joanna Yeates murder suspect Chris Jefferies was last night branded a creepy oddball by ex-pupils, a teaching colleague and neighbours.” It went on to assert that he had a ferocious temper and threw things in the classroom, and that he invited pupils to his home and habitually made sexual remarks. He was also unkempt and dirty, a loner, domineering and generally believed to be a homosexual.

The evidence for this came largely from unnamed sources, although a former teaching ­colleague, Richard Bland, was quoted using the word “loner” and referring to the blue-tinged hair. Bland also said that Christopher Jefferies was a dedicated and successful teacher, though this was not given prominence.

The Daily Mirror had its own line: “Jo suspect is Peeping Tom”. Beside that were three more lines: “Arrest landlord spied on flat couple”; “Friend in jail for paedophile crimes” and “Cops now probe 36-year-old murder”. On inside pages Jefferies was a Nutty Professor with a bizarre past who was arrogant, rude and a snob, had a ferocious temper and peered through his tenants’ windows. The paper also reported that “his eccentric manner and long-term bachelor status sparked unfounded school gossip that he was gay”.

The other papers had their own variations. The Mail (“The teacher they called Mr Strange”) reported that Jefferies idolised Christina Rossetti, who was described as a mentally ill Romantic poet who “often wrote about death” and “was prone to apocalyptic visions”.

The Daily Star announced: “Jo landlord a creep who freaked out schoolgirls” and “Angry ‘weirdo’ had foul temper”. And the Daily Express quoted an unnamed former pupil saying he constantly made lewd remarks to students.

All allowed generous space for photographs, many serving to reveal the contrast between the youthful, pretty murder victim and the wide-eyed and windswept suspect. The Mirror blew up one picture to show that Jefferies had an A-Z of Bristol in his car, adding the caption: “Evidence … maps were on the back seat”.

It would have been very difficult, seeing this coverage, to avoid the conclusion or at least the strong suspicion that Christopher Jefferies had killed Joanna Yeates. He was, or so it was suggested, volatile, morbid, sexually repressed and unfettered by social norms. Furthermore, he knew his tenants’ movements and had access to Joanna Yeates’s flat.

This hostile evidence was founded almost entirely on unnamed witnesses, with some of the most contentious quotations reproduced in several papers. A careful reader who relied only on quotes from people who were identified by name would probably have seen a very different picture.

A former tenant, Wendy Nicholls; a friend, Oliver Cullen; his former headmaster at Clifton College, Stuart Andrews; a neighbour, Ray Lowman; even the former teacher who spoke of Jefferies as a loner, Richard Bland – they described in various papers, though usually towards the end of articles, a man who was a dedicated teacher, a responsible landlord and an active member of his community. Several expressed amazement at his arrest or downright disbelief at the idea of him killing anyone.

Put these together with some readily available facts and it would have been possible to flip the picture entirely. This man had taught for 34 years in a well-known local independent school, Clifton College, leaving without a blemish on his record. He was involved in Neighbourhood Watch, the Liberal Democrat party and a number of conservation campaigns. He had a large circle of friends, owned a handful of properties and was studying for a degree in French at the University of the West of England. As Lowman put it, he was a pillar of society.

But editors did not give prominence to that interpretation.

After seeing the papers that Friday, the solicitor, Bambos Tsiattalou, wrote to several editors warning them in strong terms to stop publishing defamatory material. And on the same day the Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, publicly reminded editors that the Contempt of Court Act forbids the publication of material relating to an arrested person that was likely to prejudice a future jury against them.

Yet the next day’s coverage was again extremely hostile to Christopher Jefferies.

Saturday’s Sun, for example, led the front page with the headlines: “Obsessed by death” and “Jo suspect ‘scared kids’”. The substance of this “revelation” was that he had shown some students the 1955 Alain Resnais Holocaust documentary Night and Fog and that he had taught students the “Victorian murder novel” The Moonstone.

Inside was an interview with an unnamed blonde woman who alleged that Jefferies had approached her several times in Bristol and that when she rebuffed him he responded with a question used as the headline: “What do you think I am, a pervert?” In a short article alongside, two named former tenants of Jefferies were quoted as saying that he had let himself into their flat, though they did not suggest there was anything sinister about this.

The Mirror, meanwhile, asked: “Was killer waiting in Jo’s flat?” and kept its focus on landlord and key-holder Jefferies, who was, again, a nutty professor, a show-off, dirty and eccentric. The Mail had a tale about him leaving his dying mother’s bedside while the Daily Star recycled the Rossetti angle and declared that Jefferies had been known to pupils as “Wizard”.

That Saturday evening, however, after three days and two nights in custody, Jefferies was released, and at about the same time Joanna Yeates’s partner, Greg Reardon, issued a statement. A personal tribute to the murdered woman, it also included the following forthright passage:

“Jo’s life was cut short tragically but the finger-pointing and character assassination by social and news media of as yet innocent men has been shameful. It has made me lose a lot of faith in the morality of the British press and those that spend their time fixed to the internet in this modern age.

“I hope in the future they will show a more sensitive and impartial view to those involved in such heartbreaking events and especially in the lead-up to potentially high-profile court cases.”

The Sunday Mirror rendered this for its readers as: “And he attacked internet ghouls who have posted hurtful and lurid speculation about the death of Joanna… He said he had lost faith in ‘those that spend their time fixed to the internet in this modern age’, adding ‘I hope in the future they will show a more sensitive and impartial view… ’” The Mail on Sunday and the Sunday Express reported the statement but left out the comments about character assassination by the press altogether.

With these events the steam went out of the Jefferies story, although there was still just enough left to justify the Sunday Mirror pointing out that he had taught pupils Oscar Wilde’s “The Ballad of Reading Gaol”, which it described as “the story of a man hanged for cutting his wife’s throat”, while the Mail on Sunday noted that he had shown them the Deborah Kerr film The Innocents, a spooky tale by 1961 standards, though today rated suitable for 12-year-olds. By Monday there was little interest in the retired teacher.

. . .

Christopher Jefferies, remarkably, has never read most of the reporting from that New Year weekend, and has seen hardly any of it in its original, dramatic published form.

“I made the conscious decision – because many people said look, you don’t want to look at these – I made the conscious decision not to scour the press but simply to leave all that to the lawyers, and I would look in detail at anything they wanted me to look at and I would answer their questions about what had been stated in the press.”

But if he did not have to live through it, the same was not true of his friends and family. In many ways, he says, it was worse for them.

“I knew exactly what was happening at the police station; they didn’t. I was entirely unaware of media speculation; they were very much aware of media speculation.”

He had spent Christmas with relatives in Derbyshire and had planned to visit an aunt in Cheshire for New Year. “She was obviously one of the first people that I telephoned after I was released and she was … extremely relieved to hear me. She said she felt as if the experience of those three days had aged her a hundred years. Those were the words that she used.”

When he talks about the long-term effects he has felt himself, he does not distinguish between the arrest and the press coverage. Instead, he links them: “The whole process of being arrested and taken into custody is really designed – as far as its effect on me is concerned – to strip you of your own identity, because your clothes are taken away, your possessions are taken away, you are given other clothes, you are held incommunicado to a very large degree.

“And then all these extraordinary falsehoods are woven around this now almost personality-less identity. So it’s very unsettling. You know who you are and yet you have none of the trappings of that person, and here is this quite foreign, alternative personality which people are trying to foist upon you.”

“My identity had been violated. I don’t think it would be too strong a word to say that it was a kind of rape that had taken place”

The result, Jefferies says, still in his clear, even tone, is a sense of violation.

“My identity had been violated. My privacy had been intruded upon. My whole life … I don’t think it would be too strong a word to say that it was a kind of rape that had taken place.”

To be clear, when he talks of rape he is not speaking about the coverage alone, but about the entire experience, including his time on police bail. But the “extraordinary falsehoods”, the foisting on him of that alternative personality – the personality of someone who is weird, lewd and creepy – those parts of it are the work of the press.

Jefferies does not rant and rail; on the evidence of this interview he does not readily express emotions. But he agrees that he feels angry.

. . .

That anger ultimately led him to sue eight newspapers: The Sun, the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror, the Daily Record, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Daily Star and The Scotsman. On July 29 this year, lawyers representing the owners of all of those papers appeared at the High Court in London, where Christopher Jefferies’ solicitor, this time the media specialist Louis Charalambous, acted as master of ceremonies.

It was a remarkable occasion (though not an unprecedented one, since something similar happened in the case of the much-libelled Robert Murat, briefly a suspect in the Madeleine McCann case). It began with Charalambous explaining the background of the death of Joanna Yeates, the arrest of his client and his release, and the reporting over the New Year weekend. Then he told the court:

“Many of the articles published by the defendants suggested that there were strong grounds to suspect that Mr Jefferies had killed Joanna Yeates and several of them went on to allege that he had acted in an inappropriate, over-sexualised manner with his pupils in the past and that he invaded the privacy of his tenants in his capacity as a landlord of two flats in the building where he lives.

“Some of the articles suggested to readers that he was an associate of a convicted paedophile and that there were grounds to investigate whether he was responsible for an unsolved murder dating back to 1974.

“The defendants are here by their solicitor today to acknowledge that the allegations which were published about Mr Jefferies are entirely untrue.
Joanna Yeates

Joanna Yeates: photographs of the pretty, young victim contrasted sharply with shots of a ‘wild-eyed, windswept’ Jefferies

“In particular, the defendants accept that Mr Jefferies had nothing to do with Joanna Yeates’s death, that he helped the police as much as he could following her death, and that there is no basis for suggesting he had ever acted inappropriately with any pupil during his long and distinguished career as a teacher.

“The defendants all wish to apologise to Mr Jefferies for the seriously defamatory articles which their newspapers published.”

(This ritual was gone through three times in court, because the Daily Express and the Daily Star on one hand and The Scotsman on the other had not published all the libels identified above, and so did not apologise for all of them.)

All of the papers paid damages. Neither Jefferies nor Charalambous has disclosed the total sum, though one legal source put it in the region of £500,000 ($772,000). If that were evenly divided between eight papers, it would be £62,500 each.

The legal ramifications did not end there, for on the same day the Lord Chief Justice and two other judges gave judgment in a rare prosecution for breach of the Contempt of Court Act brought by the Attorney-General against the Daily Mirror and The Sun. Both newspapers were found guilty, on the grounds that their reporting about Jefferies was so damaging to his character and went so far towards suggesting his guilt of the murder of Joanna Yeates that it would have undermined his chances of mounting a proper defence had his case come to court.

The judges explained: “Reluctant witnesses would have been even more reluctant to come forward, and witnesses who might have been prepared to come forward may very well have assumed that anything helpful or supportive they might have said about Mr Jefferies could not be right.” The Mirror was fined £50,000, The Sun £18,000.

. . .

As all of the graver allegations against him have been acknowledged in court by the newspapers to be untrue, Jefferies has no further need to comment on them, but in keeping with his detached approach to the rest of his story he proves open to discussing them, at least in general terms.

On the suggestion that he was an intrusive landlord he professes bafflement. “The only comments that have ever been made directly to me by former tenants have been to say how much they have enjoyed living in the flats… Indeed one or two tenants have offered to buy the flats because they have liked living there so much.”

As for showing disturbing films to pupils, he ran the school film society for years and could not count the number of screenings, of all kinds. Night and Fog and The Innocents are both good and important works of cinema. He has never taught either Rossetti or “The Ballad of Reading Gaol”, but he has taught The Moonstone, which is not really a murder story and is hardly controversial.

The hair? He confesses, a little guardedly, to having in the past used a shampoo which gave his hair a slight bluish tint, though he strongly denies that it was ever as blue as it appeared in some photographs published in the press.

Other suggestions about him he puts down to fabrications and mistakes. “People could have said things to journalists thinking they were talking about me but in fact were talking about somebody else who they confused with me.”

To an oblique question referring to the speculation about his sexuality he offers a brisk and emphatic response: “All I can say is that there was and there is absolutely no evidence for anybody to speculate in any direction on my sexuality.” Of the many references to him as a “bachelor” he remarks: “This is one of those examples of journalistic lazy thinking and the way in which people are encouraged to think in clichés.”
“Mistake seems so inadequate to sum up what happened – the crassness, the irresponsibility, the lack of judgment”

– Christopher Jefferies

We may not have heard the last of Christopher Jefferies. He has been approached for comments on his experiences by the inquiry under Lord Justice Leveson which is examining the state of the press after the phone-hacking scandal, and he may yet be called as a witness.

He gives an indication of what he might say, and it is not surprising. He is no fan of the Press Complaints Commission, which he condemns as “woefully inadequate”, and he is not convinced that the press itself has learned much from what happened over New Year in Bristol.

He says he heard one editor, interviewed on radio after the libel case, refer to a “mistake”. “Yes,” he says, “it was a mistake. But that word seemed to me to be so inadequate to sum up the enormity of what happened – the crassness, the irresponsibility, the lack of judgment. Really if all that could be said was, ‘Oh yes we made a mistake,’ certainly standards need to be rather different.”

Free Labour! Not the Party the Work.

That is how they spell labor  “across the pond”  and the below article shows that the obsession with free work is not confined to our shores at all.  The UK Guardian/Observer discusses the farce that is “internships” or as I call it the exploitation of young people desperate for work if they can get it.  Of course its not paid but the promise of hopefully, maybe, possibly turning into some type of paid job is the idea. And that is all it is an idea.

I wrote about the problem in the U.S. particularly with the fashion industry and its use of these type of indentured servitude gigs that are paid by the proximity of glamor as a substitute for pay, only to find out that the work is not so glamorous.  Well the Devil wears Prada don’t you know?  I think running to get a double mocha latte from Starbucks is better suited to Nike’s than Manolo Blahnik’s.

But what is more telling is that this again shows regardless of what side of the pond one lives the rich find ways to exploit, use and discriminate against those less so all under the guise of the Unicorn Myth apparently not just America – that you too can be rich if you just pull those boostraps up hard enough. Well let me assure leather worn down from heavy pulling breaks. 

Revealed: class divide at the heart of unpaid internships

Survey shows how employers are able to exploit graduates’ desperation to find work

After seven unpaid internships, Libby Page, 20, came to a rather dispiriting conclusion. “Enough is enough. I want to be a fashion journalist, but I can’t afford to work for free.”

It wasn’t an easy decision. Libby, whose family live in Dorset, had specifically chosen her London college so that she would have access to the internships, albeit unpaid, that she regarded as so vital for her career prospects.

She’d stacked up the loans to make London living possible. “I try not to think about it,” she admits. But looking around the national newspapers and magazines that were her final placements, Libby, a student at the London College of Fashion, realised that she didn’t stand a chance. “The others there had the money, lived in London and enjoyed the right connections. I just thought to myself: I can’t compete with these people.”
 
It is a sentiment shared by thousands of young men and women across the country.

Last year a row over unpaid internships, some placements lasting up to a year, and many exploitative, prompted promises of a crackdown from the political classes.

a poll commissioned by the National Union of Students, carried out by YouGov, reveals how far there is to go. One in five 18- to 24-year-olds (20%) has undertaken an internship, compared with just 2% of people who were of the same age 30 to 40 years ago.

Two out of five (43%) aged between 18 and 24 believe unpaid internships act or have acted as a major barrier to getting a job. Yet nearly three-quarters (73%) in that age bracket say that internships are a vital first step for a career in the media, two-thirds (63%) believe the same is true in politics, while the same proportion say that it is the same in fashion and finance (64%). Internships are a great way for people to start a career, according to three out of five of those young people.

Dupsy Abiola, a former barrister, who won £100,000 from Peter Jones on the BBC’s Dragons’ Den in October to run Intern Avenue, a firm placing young people in paid placements, says that when there are so many graduates and so few jobs the internship should now be regarded as an “entry-level position”.

But why, many ask, even in these straitened times, should they give their labour for free? Why does the national minimum wage not apply to the young trying to break into good careers? Why should fashion, media, finance and politics be reserved for the middle-class teenagers and 20-somethings who can afford not to earn a wage?

The survey of 2,794 people shows that, while one in 10 people in the ABC1 social grades – the upper to lower middle classes – have undertaken an unpaid internship, just 3% of those in the C2DE grade – skilled manual workers, shopworkers and the unemployed – have done the same. It is discriminatory and unfair, the NUS says, and according to the Low Pay Commission it is illegal.

Under employment law, people who work set hours, do set tasks and contribute value to an organisation are “workers” and are entitled to the minimum wage of £6.19 for those over 21 and £4.98 for 18- to 20-year-olds.

And yet it goes on. Tony Blair’s office faced the recent embarrassment of being revealed as a user of unpaid interns for three months at a time. He has since said that it won’t happen again.

Unpaid work lasting as long as six months has been advertised on the Commons website, Working for an MP. A Treasury minister, David Gauke, in charge of the HMRC responsible for prosecuting people who don’t pay a day’s wage for a day’s labour, placed an advert for a voluntary intern for a minimum of six months earlier this year.

Hazel Blears, the former Labour secretary of state for communities and local government, says she wants this changed. This week, she will introduce a bill to parliament that seeks to prohibit the advertising of long-term unpaid internships. It has received cross-party support, with sponsors of the bill including former foreign secretary David Miliband, the Liberal Democrat MPs Julian Huppert and Mike Crockart, and the Tory MP Eric Ollerenshaw.
 
Blears says the deputy prime minister is on-side.

“We have a system where unpaid internships are unlawful but it is lawful to advertise them. A few weeks ago, I went to see Nick Clegg and he was quite supportive. He thought it was a nonsense as well. We are trying to change behaviour here,” she said.

For good measure, tomorrow the TUC and the NUS launch their latest salvo calling for fair treatment of interns. The event at TUC headquarters in central London will begin a year of campaign activity for fairer and better internships. They say employers have sought to take advantage of graduates’ desperation to find work in the economic downturn and so see interns as a useful source of free labour. Others, they add, may be unaware that non-payment of interns is a breach of the law and of national minimum wage rules.

A new “Rights for Interns” smartphone application will be launched, so that if the employers don’t know their rights, at least the interns do.

Libby, who is now in her final year at fashion college, is fully behind the push. “For people like me, the idea of coming out of higher education and then being asked to work for free is absolutely terrifying,” she said. “But it also makes me angry.”