A Liddle word on Health & Safety at work
I think it’s reasonably well-established that Rod Liddle is not TCF’s favourite person.
So it is interesting to see some early attempts to challenge his prospective editorship of the Independent.
But a Facebook group is a Facebook group; while I wish it well I’m not sure the prospective owner will be quaking in his boots just yet at the prospect of a consumer boycott.
More effective, I would contend, would be for the National Union of Journalists to state publicly that they will back any action their journalists decide to take to protect themselves and their working environment from the editorship of a vile racist, misogynist prone to violence against women, climate change denial nutjob, who doesn’t even have the saving grace of being any good at journalism.
Improving, and where need be defending ,working conditions is what unions were set up for.
Given Liddle’s known track record, his editorship would potentially breach Health & Safety legislation under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, which require employers to assess and manage the risk of stress-related ill-health arising from work activities, and under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, to take measures to control that risk.’
If Rod Liddle is a serious candidate for the Indy editorship, and not just a way to put the cat among the pigeons and mollify readers whenever the ‘real’ candidate comes forward, I’d say this represents a pretty decisive change in direction for the Independent – and that’s worrying.
The Facebook group is unlikely to stop things if that change in editorial line is what the board is aiming at. If they do want a switch to an upmarket Express, then the regulars deserting won’t be so much of a problem…if they can fill the spaces through recruiting readers from the other side of the aisle.
Controversy is their friend there, I suppose.
What the blazes is wrong with the Indy giving that reactionary rat-bag consideration for editorship. Seems like they would be happy that the paper goes along a right-wing trajectory with that reactionary at the helm.