ChatterBank0 min ago
Leveson
Is it gearing up to be a half baked whitewash? Will the press still be 'marking their own homework' (as Leveson put it) without a statutory validation of the independent press complaints authority?
Or is Cameron right to be concerned about crossing that Rubicon?
Or is Cameron right to be concerned about crossing that Rubicon?
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
For those of you that might feel strongly enough to do more than just discuss the issue in the forum, here is a link to the hacked off campaign, which is currently petitioning members of the public in support of the Leveson proposals;
http://hac
http://hac
20:02 Fri 30th Nov 2012
whilst I agree with your assessment of Cameron, what interests though Gromit?
Most complaints have been about phone hacking. That is illegal anyway so even if a new law was in place I fail to see how that would stop the bad apples breaking that too.
I also have a big problem with politicians deciding this. They are the biggest bunch of crooks around, no waonder some of them want the press gagged.
Clegg is only doing this as a last ditch attempt to court popular vote as he is pretty much finished now, and millipede doesn't have a single original thought in his head. He wold argue black is white if it meant taking a contrary position to the Tories.
The whole think is a total waste of money.
I
Most complaints have been about phone hacking. That is illegal anyway so even if a new law was in place I fail to see how that would stop the bad apples breaking that too.
I also have a big problem with politicians deciding this. They are the biggest bunch of crooks around, no waonder some of them want the press gagged.
Clegg is only doing this as a last ditch attempt to court popular vote as he is pretty much finished now, and millipede doesn't have a single original thought in his head. He wold argue black is white if it meant taking a contrary position to the Tories.
The whole think is a total waste of money.
I
The problem is that any legislation on the media can/will be seen is the slippery slope to full blown censorship, itself a stepping stone on the path to Tyranny. At the same time I think the media are getting out of hand but surely present laws are demonstrably sufficient to prosecute so I'm a little confused about what is actually proposed here.
youngmafbog
The PCC was either inept or conducted a whitewash of its own when it investigated phone hacking at the News of the World. It concluded that:
// „No evidence has emerged either from the legal proceedings or the Commission‟s questions to Mr Myler and Mr Hinton of a conspiracy at the newspaper going beyond Messrs Goodman and Mulcaire to subvert the law and the PCC‟s Code of Practice. There is no evidence to challenge Mr Myler‟s assertion that: Goodman had deceived his employer in order to obtain cash to pay Mulcaire; that he had concealed the identity of the source of information on royal stories; and that no-one else at the News of the World knew that Messrs Goodman and Mulcaire were tapping phone messages for stories‟. //
As we now know, that is about as far from the truth as it is possible to get. It could not have been more wrong. That is why it needs replacing with a non self regulatory system.
The PCC is so toothless, weak, has vested interests of the newspapers first, that we effectively have a free for all where anything, including illegality, goes. The Press is out of control and is badly serving the public, who deserve better.
The PCC was either inept or conducted a whitewash of its own when it investigated phone hacking at the News of the World. It concluded that:
// „No evidence has emerged either from the legal proceedings or the Commission‟s questions to Mr Myler and Mr Hinton of a conspiracy at the newspaper going beyond Messrs Goodman and Mulcaire to subvert the law and the PCC‟s Code of Practice. There is no evidence to challenge Mr Myler‟s assertion that: Goodman had deceived his employer in order to obtain cash to pay Mulcaire; that he had concealed the identity of the source of information on royal stories; and that no-one else at the News of the World knew that Messrs Goodman and Mulcaire were tapping phone messages for stories‟. //
As we now know, that is about as far from the truth as it is possible to get. It could not have been more wrong. That is why it needs replacing with a non self regulatory system.
The PCC is so toothless, weak, has vested interests of the newspapers first, that we effectively have a free for all where anything, including illegality, goes. The Press is out of control and is badly serving the public, who deserve better.
Since finding out about Cameron's cosy little chats with Murdoch and his horse riding trips with Rebecca Brookes I find it rather difficult to see him as impartial in this.
He has enjoyed the support of most of the press and I'd expect in turn they would expect his support at least as far as it is legal.
Levisson clearly spotted the line of argument the press was going to use to try to worm out of this one and said very clearly that this is in no way state control.
The fact is the press don't think they should be subject to the sort of penalties that would actually hurt them.
I mean we all want to be self-regulated don't we ? - After all who needs the Police when everybody can be trusted?
We can trust the Press can't we?
He has enjoyed the support of most of the press and I'd expect in turn they would expect his support at least as far as it is legal.
Levisson clearly spotted the line of argument the press was going to use to try to worm out of this one and said very clearly that this is in no way state control.
The fact is the press don't think they should be subject to the sort of penalties that would actually hurt them.
I mean we all want to be self-regulated don't we ? - After all who needs the Police when everybody can be trusted?
We can trust the Press can't we?
The PCC or any other self regulatory body is only looking after the newspapers, their editors and owners.
What is needed is a body to look after us, the public, who may find themselves the victim of the press. Who do we call when our bank accounts, hospital records have been illegally accessed. Not the PCC (or similar) who have badly let us down this past decade.
There is a difference between Freedom of the Press and a free for all for the press. It is not as if the present system is not broke and doesn't need fixing. It very broken.
LOL (lots of love), as Mr Mr Cameron might right,
Gromit
What is needed is a body to look after us, the public, who may find themselves the victim of the press. Who do we call when our bank accounts, hospital records have been illegally accessed. Not the PCC (or similar) who have badly let us down this past decade.
There is a difference between Freedom of the Press and a free for all for the press. It is not as if the present system is not broke and doesn't need fixing. It very broken.
LOL (lots of love), as Mr Mr Cameron might right,
Gromit
This nonsense about shackling the press, or muzzling the press, or publication by parliamentary decision is a strawman. Thats not what Levesons finding were about.
Given the excesses that the press have regularly indulged in over the years, in search of the silly, sensational or just salacious, it is obvious that allowing them to carry on regulating themselves cannot be the answer.
I want a regulator independent of press and parliament, to whom those seeking redress or the right of reply from the press can identify and turn to. A low cost alternative to the courts. A regulator given teeth to impose fines or force papers to publish prominent apologies or retractions when necessary - and that takes a legal framework to give the regulator some statutory bite.
Perhaps then we might get reporters who have more concern for their victims, willing to perform more objective and thorough research, and editors making ethical decisions, knowing there is a regulator that can impose significant penalties if the story is poor.
Chris Jeffries, for instance- has won some court cases and damages from the papers who defamed him, but has never received an apology from any of them....
Given the excesses that the press have regularly indulged in over the years, in search of the silly, sensational or just salacious, it is obvious that allowing them to carry on regulating themselves cannot be the answer.
I want a regulator independent of press and parliament, to whom those seeking redress or the right of reply from the press can identify and turn to. A low cost alternative to the courts. A regulator given teeth to impose fines or force papers to publish prominent apologies or retractions when necessary - and that takes a legal framework to give the regulator some statutory bite.
Perhaps then we might get reporters who have more concern for their victims, willing to perform more objective and thorough research, and editors making ethical decisions, knowing there is a regulator that can impose significant penalties if the story is poor.
Chris Jeffries, for instance- has won some court cases and damages from the papers who defamed him, but has never received an apology from any of them....
For those of you that might feel strongly enough to do more than just discuss the issue in the forum, here is a link to the hacked off campaign, which is currently petitioning members of the public in support of the Leveson proposals;
http://hackinginquiry.org/
http://hackinginquiry.org/
1 to 15 of 15
