Pete's Blog Attacked

[L. Bird]

Here's an excellent comment on this from Pete's blog:

>The Press Complaints Commission (pcc.org.uk) has this to say:

"It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but 
in the full spirit. It should not be interpreted so narrowly as to 
compromise its commitment to respect the rights of the individual..."

This is a very weak story, the headline I suspect reflects the reaction of 
those concerned after being questioned by the Mail reporter. There is 
nothing 'public interest' about it, so I would think that complaints about 
this article failing to respect Pete's right of freedom of speech (ie 
literary expression) would have some grounds.

A snail mailed letter to the editor, asking for response, complaining about 
this story and detailing specific points of concern would necessiate a 
specific reply to you. Mention the PCC and your intention to take this issue 
up with them if you do not receive a satisfactory response. The PCC suggests 
you allow a week. Even if it goes nowhere i guess the editor has better to 
do than answer dozens of letters about this, and maybe the next time they 
will think harder before running a no news story!

I am an ex childcare worker: the majority of those in my care were abused. 
There was nothing wrong in what was written, especially as it was fiction. 
Of course a decent journalist would have written of the other occasions 
where Pete has written lyrics concerning children & sex. Maybe 'Tommy' 
should be banned too...