82 replies to this topic

[Trojan]

Just re-read what I wrote....Applying the law is not proposed as a counter argument, but as something that should be done (and should have been done) anyway. I do think that a little time should be taken for some sort of Lab/Con consensus to be developed so that any solution survives any change in government. I'd also look for safeguards to ensure genuine press freedom/public interest defence. In my view also, any regulation will bear heavily on those who would not offend anyway, so discouraging possible investigative journalism. In addition, those determined to lie, cheat , threaten will still find ways.

Also , on here,lawyers come in for a certain amount of criticism but suddenly, one of them , Leveson, is the hero of the moment.

No government is bound by the actions of its predecessor.
Murdoch got away with murder for years because Thatcher/Blair/Cameron were in hock to him. That's what's got to stop. Newspaper editors/proprietors thinking it's they who run the country. "Freedom of the press" sounds good, but after what they've done with that freedom I think a few small restrictions are called for. People like Paul Dacre thinking they can stalk people 24/7 whose views they disagree with in order to try and get some dirt on them and discredit them has to stop. Dacre is known to be a bully in journalistic circles. Whatever you say about Grant and Coogan, the same certainly doesn't apply to J K Rowling's children!

Edited by Trojan, 01 December 2012 - 05:12 PM.

[JohnM]

J K Rowling

Looks like her generous contributions to your party have been wasted. It seems that the more intelligent members of Miliband's entourage have pointed out the flaws in his unequivocal support for the Leveson proposals. That is not to say that some sort of legislative framework isn't sorely needed. if there is one, it is to be hopedthat it is more effective thsn Gordon Browns light -touch but failed FSA. Anywsy , since that paragon of all that is ethical, theGuardian, owned by the tax avoiding Guardian Media, is against statutory regulation, there must be real issues.

It may also be that some see a Leveson-like solution as a way of limiting the expression of certain views held by certain people. It is to avoif such a situation that it is important that time istaken to arrive at a solution acceptable to Miliband, Clegg and cCameron yet gives protection and redress to yhe innocent.

[Trojan]

Looks like her generous contributions to your party have been wasted. It seems that the more intelligent members of Miliband's entourage have pointed out the flaws in his unequivocal support for the Leveson proposals. That is not to say that some sort of legislative framework isn't sorely needed. if there is one, it is to be hopedthat it is more effective thsn Gordon Browns light -touch but failed FSA. Anywsy , since that paragon of all that is ethical, theGuardian, owned by the tax avoiding Guardian Media, is against statutory regulation, there must be real issues.

It may also be that some see a Leveson-like solution as a way of limiting the expression of certain views held by certain people. It is to avoif such a situation that it is important that time istaken to arrive at a solution acceptable to Miliband, Clegg and cCameron yet gives protection and redress to yhe innocent.

Can't you leave party politics out of it? Journalists going through kids school satchels is bordering on Jimmy Savile territory. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong regardless of party and going through kids' satchels is wrong. For me the rest of it was wrong too, but surely even you can see this was wrong or are your blue tinted spectacles too strong John?

[JohnM]

and now the admirable Chami Chakribati is against it.

[WearyRhino]

and now the admirable Chami Chakribati is against it.

No she isn't, but you don't have the respect to spell her name correctly.

[gingerjon]

It may also be that some see a Leveson-like solution as a way of limiting the expression of certain views held by certain people.

In all seriousness what 'views' would a Leveson-like solution surpress?

[JohnM]

Potentially, those that the operators of a legislative framework might like to suppress. That is why it is wise to take some time to determine on an all-parties basis what the best solution might be. Ideally, something is needed that stops the excesses of the press yet does not stifle investigative reporting and provides effective redress for innocent victims who ar einnocent themselves of any self-serving media manipulation.

As I said before, whatever id decided, it had better be better at its job than the FSA!!


Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty and one of the six advisers to Lord Justice Leveson, continued to argue this weekend that the monitor of the regulator should not be Ofcom or any state-linked body but instead judges. She wrote at the weekend: "The prime minister is right to be concerned about any government-appointed body 'supervising' the independent regulator. That would bring about the danger of political control by the back door. It is unnecessary and must be resisted." She suggested judges instead might supervise the regulator.

Maybe that's a job for...Lord Leveson. No, that can't be what he has in mind, can it?

Edited by JohnM, 02 December 2012 - 03:20 PM.

[Trojan]

If a PM set up an enquiry into finance, medicine, the law, politics, defence, in fact anything and proceeded to ignore or try to bury that enquiry's report he get crucified by the press. Because this enquiry is into the press they are supporting the spineless git. Even the Mirror! I wonder why? Could it be because they want to carry on exactly as they have done before with no interference in their dubious practices? Surely Milliband and Clegg can muster enough votes in the Commons to bring Dave to heel?

[JohnM]

The Guardian is against it too. and the Independent...and Private Eye, too. Private Eye editor Ian Hislop today rejected calls for statutory regulation of the press, saying laws were already in place to tackle abuses such as phone hacking.

[RidingPie]

The Guardian is against it too. and the Independent...and Private Eye, too. Private Eye editor Ian Hislop today rejected calls for statutory regulation of the press, saying laws were already in place to tackle abuses such as phone hacking.

Turkeys in voting against Christmas shocker. I'm sure all industries would rather not have a statutory regulator.

Now here's an interesting question. Which is more important, that the press don't want it, or that most of the public do?

As I said the other day I think it's going to end up yet another last chance saloon.

[Padge]

The Guardian is against it too. and the Independent...and Private Eye, too. Private Eye editor Ian Hislop today rejected calls for statutory regulation of the press, saying laws were already in place to tackle abuses such as phone hacking.

i heard Hislop defending Cameron's stance, he sounded less than convincing. Although he said that laws were in place to deal with these things, the decision makers on whether or not to prosecute are political appointees, So if you go for self regulation and rely on the current laws politicos will still block criminal proceedings against the transgressors.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Leveson is also against statutory regulation of the press? So everyone agrees the press should be free and only subject to 'normal' laws.

Leveson does think that the independent press regulator should have a statutory basis that rules by law that it is independent.

Liberty and the good judge disagree on who would decide whether the body has abided by that law to be independent or not.

[JohnM]

My money is on Leveson being asked to head up whatever replaces the PCC

[JohnM]

Now here's an interesting question. Which is more important, that the press don't want it, or that most of the public do?

with respect, m'lud, that is the wrong question. The right question is," when have the public ever got what they wanted."

[RidingPie]

with respect, m'lud, that is the wrong question. The right question is," when have the public ever got what they wanted."

Tell you what I'll answer that if you answer my first point.

[JohnM]

Shami Chakrabarti, who was an advisor to Leveson and a supporter of implementing his recommendations, clarifies her position, and much else also, here:

http://www.liberty-h...ethics-of-t.php

and here:

http://www.guardian....leveson-backing


re, your question: Which is more important, that the press don't want it, or that most of the public do? Should there not be another question first? Doses the public know what Leveson is proposing?

It really is worth reading, as it covers so many misinterpretations of Leveson's report. For example, Leveson does not recommend compulsory statutory regulation of the press and Liberty believes that he is right not to do so.

She was interviewed about this on R5L this morning, too. Very illuminating.

[RidingPie]

Shami Chakrabarti, who was an advisor to Leveson and a supporter of implementing his recommendations, clarifies her position, and much else also, here:

http://www.liberty-h...ethics-of-t.php

and here:

http://www.guardian....leveson-backing


re, your question: Which is more important, that the press don't want it, or that most of the public do? Should there not be another question first? Doses the public know what Leveson is proposing?

It really is worth reading, as it covers so many misinterpretations of Leveson's report. For example, Leveson does not recommend compulsory statutory regulation of the press and Liberty believes that he is right not to do so.

She was interviewed about this on R5L this morning, too. Very illuminating.

In fairness the point I was trying to get a response on was the point the NO industry wants a statute backed regulator (which I think is a fair point)

I'm glad you're finally spelling Shami's name right.

And in answer to your question, the public often get what they want, they just don't necessarily understand what they are asking for.

Still a law guaranteeing freedom of the press would not be a bad thing in this country. But then I believe that neither is the legislation Leveson is suggestion (of which that is a part)

[Wolford6]

How about this for an idea?


I have professional qualifications, which allow me to assume certain legal responsibilities. If I break the law in a serious way, the awarding body could, either of its own volition or at the request of the court, remove or suspend my certificates-to-practice.
At the very least, individual journalists should have a similar certificate-to-practice system. There should be an additional penalty-totting-up system for the editors and chief reporters in direct control of journalists.

[JohnM]

as long as there is also the power to remove Huge Rant's licence to appear in the media.

[RidingPie]

as long as there is also the power to remove Huge Rant's licence to appear in the media.

Please... start a yougov petition I'll sign it right away!