Beware to walk on quicksand - Journos

For the rest of my life,i will live to curse those that drafted one of the many clauses of the European Convention on Human rights.The right to privacy!Whose privacy?Damn,as an aspiring and potentially talented journo,i have now been forced to mind every step i take in pursuit of breaking news for the sake of public interest.In my motherland,cartoonist are being sued for millions of pounds for 'defaming' political demagogues and some are reportedly abducted for 'pervasive' investigative journalism.Now when i crossed the sahara desert and the massive bodies of water to come and refine my trade in England,i found that the protocol is the same.Journos are sued for millions of pounds for taking photographs without consent.Where does the future of investigative journalism lie?

Last week, i was rudely interrupted by a female security officer at the Basingstoke Festival mall.My crime - carrying the Canon SRL Stills' Camera in my hand.The assumption was that i might have been secretly photographing the mall for publication.I tried in vain to explain that i was coming from Jessops,where i had purchased a memory card.The argument,turned nusty as i vehemently refuted her suggestions of putting my camera away.Several security officers were summoned to deal with the defiant Mr Muchoko.As the impasse gained momentum,the crowd gathered in disbelief.Poor me,and poor journos.I never intended to take any photographs and i never took any.Was i a victim of circumstances because i am black?,so i thought.Afterall Victor Anichebe who plays for Everton was recently arrested for loitering around a jewellery dealer shop in Cheshire.The fact of the matter is that it had nothing do to with my skin colour - but the repressive privacy act.The prima facie was the camera in hand.To end the debacle,i was escorted out of the mall under heavy guard despite my innocence.

Another interesting story for journos to mind their every step is the Tesco vs Guardian story last year.I watched a television programme a week ago on BBC - where the press standards committee,Solicitors and legislators debate on current press laws. The Guardian was sued for libel and malicious falsehood.Apparently the guardian's specialist reporters on finance and tax carried an investigation into the offshore property deals by Tesco.They reported that Tesco - one of the largest public companies in Britain and the fourth largest retailer in the world had evaded corporate tax.In essence Tesco had not evaded corporate tax,but their deals were structured to avoid a different tax - the stamp duty land tax.In fact they didn't avoid any form of tax,but the stamp duty route minimises costs.

From the above scenario it's evident that the reporters used a wrong terminology,hence Tesco won the case and an out of court settlement was done.This is just as good as calling someone convicted of stealing,a robber.You will be done for that - mind your language!

On that BBC programme,i also noted that apart from the Reynolds defense,we are now partly covered by a new amendment.An offer of amends,was designed by Parliament as a means of settling defamation cases quickly and with minimum cost.The idea is that the newspaper should admit error and publish a correction and apology,with a judge deciding on damages.If the claimant accepts the offer of amends,it's the end of the case - barring damages.If it's rejected ,the burden of proof switches to the claimant,who must then prove malice and if unsuccessful,has to bear the costs of the entire proceedings.

Before i buzz off,some tabloids have come up with a strategy - Circulate a malicious story,earn millions and then pay very little on out of court settlement.But that's dangerous though.

Being a journalist in England is just as good as sitting on a time bomb waiting to explode.But don't give up we will fight for our rights!