Social Audit Ltd

P O Box 111 London NW1 8XG

Telephone/Fax 44 (0)20 7586 7771

[email protected]     http://www.socialaudit.org.uk

 

Jon Hibbs, Deputy Director, Media Relations,
Department of Health
Richmond House, Whitehall,
London SW1A 2NS	18 July 2003

Dear Mr Hibbs,

Of course I should have known better than to seek straight answers to the questions I raised in my letter to you of 11 June, but I’m still enough of a journalist to want to try. For the record, I am registered both as a journalist and contributor with Alphagalileo, though I quit the National Union of Journalists years ago, feeling that the incompatibility between honest journalism and press and public relations was far too great.

Because you seek to justify your position by labeling me a campaigner, lobbyist, representative of a charity or special interest group, and whatever else, I have attached to this letter a brief report of a judgment made by the Court of Appeal (in Davies v Eli Lilly & Co and others, 22 January 1987), which explains how I was wrongfully excluded from a legal process (involving the Committee on Safety of Medicines) essentially on the grounds that I was a journalist.

Their Lordships’ unanimous findings will explain in part my determination to press this complaint against Ms Langley and Mr Ryan, unless you are able to propose some better way of resolving it. The judgment states: "He had devoted his life to medical and scientific journalism and had acquired a sufficient knowledge of a wide range of medical and scientific specialties to understand experts and interpret them to the layman … His Lordship doubted whether Mr Medawar was to be regarded as a journalist in any ordinary way. He was a writer on medical and scientific subjects with a specialist interest in the pharmaceutical industry. He might be an unwelcome critic but … " And that is exactly what lies at the heart of this issue now.

I am prepared to wait until the end of next week for your response to my request that you supply, "full details of the rules, requirements and processes involved to secure accreditation" sufficient to prevent my future exclusion from press briefings in which I have a direct and legitimate interest. If you rely on rules and standing orders to distinguish between the likes of me and "bona fide members of the media" and those with "the appropriate media credentials," then it’s up to you to provide details of your specifications. It’s called ‘natural justice,’ and I’m not about to settle for anything less.

You say you think it unfair to identify the individuals concerned and to post details of this complaint on our website. My view is that the need for public accountability far outweighs any personal discomfort. Our website gives other people the opportunity to consider your arguments and mine and to make up their own minds. It also allows people to better understand how and why so-called competent authorities are quite capable of behaviour that suggests anything but.

Yours sincerely,

Charles Medawar

CLICK HERE TO READ ON

	Contents page
	What's New?