closed

[sarahdse22]

closed

[Marmora Man]

Please explain how "legally backed press regulation" will be independent of politicians given that politicians will have to enact, and will then have the opportunity to modify, any legislation.

I consider the Hacked Off campaign of demanding the entire Leveson Report be implemented without change to be too simplistic. Levenson is merely a well connected member of the legal profession - he is not omnipotent nor incapable of error.

[Huguenot]

That's a given, but the press has also demonstrated itself incapable of self-regulation.

What's the balance?

[StraferJack]

Any time someone says "sign this petition" I recoil

That said, as far as reaction goes this week, this is about the best I've seen

http://bit.ly/SuTD4U

It was 20 of years ago that another Tory govt said the press was in the last chance saloon. If those words are to mean anything...

[????]

The law can police the press, hence prosecution of Coulson et al. Really wary of regulation, really worrying trend, largely wipped up by hysteria and politics. A free press should remain that and it should act under the rules of law. Minority view no doubt.......

[Huguenot]

No no, tiresomely I agree. Gotta find a balance against the PCC though. It's a waste of time.

[DJKillaQueen]

I was under the impression that the offences committed by journalists that led to Leveson were exactly that....criminal offences already covered by exisitng statutes of law. So have never quite understood why we need new reglation because of 'law breaking' by some journalists, or am I missing something?

[????]

nope . politicians needing to be seen to be doing something= I am setting up a public enquiry= millions down the drain= a worrying curb on freedom of press. But don,t worry we're sticking it to Murdoch, sod 300 years of freedom of the press

[StraferJack]

"Hysteria and politics"

"Sod 300 years of freedom of the press"

And idle reader might think these quotes came from two different people

The leveson proposals amount to "sod freedom of the press"??

Really? I haven't read them and I'd be amazed if anyone here had. So what proposals exactly are so problematic?

The whiff of hysteria is in the air alright. But it's coming from those opposed to leveson (for days and weeks before it was published btw. Now what does that say)

[Huguenot]

I think what you're missing DJKQ is that the nature of the press means that it has been able to act with impunity outside of the law - principally because of the power it wields over public opinion.

It means that regardless of demonstrable, persistent and offensive lawbreaking the press has been able to stop both the police and politicians acting against it.

The election of police commissioners make that more, not less likely - since challenging criminal activity by the press may simply result in press campaigns based on fabricated material to destroy the lives of those who challenge it.

What Levenson proposed was a statutory body that would be able to act where politicians and police cannot.

I repeat the question to both Marmora Man and to Quids, what is your proposal to deal with this?

[????]

On the obnoxious to compliant continuum of the press, I tend to fall more on the obnoxious side. The French press is pretty civilised, their leaders have traditionally got away with anything including gross corruption, outrageous patronage and borderline rape, but the bandwagon rolls on, it's all about the moment.

[Marmora Man]

Most of the failures of the press that led to public outrage and the eventual creation of the Leveson Enquiry were, as you and most others acknowledge, criminal under existing law.

Phone Hacking ? illegal

Harassment - illegal

Police bribery ? illegal

Libel ? illegal

You ask me (and Quids) what we propose as an alternative to the imposition of yet more legislation and legal oversight. My answer is that nothing more needs to be done than to encourage the proper authorities to apply current laws more rigorously.

As for such sensitive souls such as Hugh Grant or Charlotte Church and even those with more cause to complain such as the McCann and Dowler families ? the intrusion into their private life, where it does not cross the line into illegality, is a, perhaps, unfortunate but necessary part of maintaining a free press.

Ideally the paper based media will change its game and become a little more caring and careful in McCann / Dowler situations ? under current public pressure and the possibility of state regulation there appears to be a readiness to take action on this and replace the discredited PCC with a better form of self regulation. This I support.

On the other hand, adopting Leveson?s report would make it permissible to interfere with the freedom of the press ?for a legitimate purpose? which is ?necessary in a democratic society?. Leveson has proposed a regulator that while not part of the state would be established and validated by the state and conform to criteria set down by the state. Do you not sense a whiff of state control in those few, apparently innocuous, phrases?

Leveson also appears to see the press and an identical, corrupt and immoral leviathan ? but you and I know there are essential differences between the reporting of the Times, Guardian and Telegraph and that of the Sun, Star and Mirror. I would turn to the first three for, reasonably unbiased (tho? politically coloured) reporting of national and international events ? I would pick up the latter in the barbers as a distraction for 5 minutes.

I believe the press plays a useful role in pointing out the failures and failings in many areas of life; recent examples include MP expenses scandals (Telegraph and others), cricket match fixing (NoW), Sergeant Nightingale (Sunday Telegraph), Stephen Lawrence murderers (Daily Mail), Toxic waste in Africa (Guardian), tax dodging (The Times) ? even the Sun and Star play a role in highlighting how base, selfish and idiotic some celebrities are, from football players to TOWIE ?stars?. We would do ourselves a disservice if we created a statutory regime that somehow lessened the likelihood of such stories seeing the light of day.

A muzzled guard dog is an ineffective guard dog. Or as Quids has put so well - an obnoxious and irreverent press is far preferable to a quiescent state licensed press.

ETA: Signing a petition at the request of the campaigning organisation putting the petition forward and without careful thought would be a foolish action.

[DJKillaQueen]

H, I understand your point about acting with impunity but I don't really get how the Police or Policitians were stopped from challenging law breaking by the press. I do though understand your point about the press being able to destroy lives (although many press organisations have been successfully sued for this) and I also understand that Leveson maybe more about tackling these gray areas of behaviour, but agree with Marmora Man, that it was illegal activity that led to Leveson and better enforcement of the law as it stands maybe all that's needed.

[dulwichtoo]

The internet makes all of this redundant - for instance this man in his 80s from Berkshire who was pulled in with the Savild enquiry - not a peep in the press but a quick google will reveal his (well known) name in a trice.How come DLT ,Freddie Starr et al get their names plastered all over trhe place and this gentleman gets the news blackout ?

[Marmora Man]

dulwichtoo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The internet makes all of this redundant - for

> instance this man in his 80s from Berkshire who

> was pulled in with the Savild enquiry - not a peep

> in the press but a quick google will reveal his

> (well known) name in a trice.How come DLT ,Freddie

> Starr et al get their names plastered all over

> trhe place and this gentleman gets the news

> blackout ?

If you're referring to Michael Souter his name did make the press briefly, but as he's hardly high profile - a local rather than national BBC presenter the story didn't last long. Not a cover up, merely a reflection of relative degrees of celebrity / fame.

[Hipe]

I will follow the forum as many times I want and when I want nobody tells me what If I should say Thank you,

Thank you for what you have the title here tell me now is this nice and to watch my ass for 2 years

[dulwichtoo]

No not thinking about Souter more kanagaroo like.

[Marmora Man]

dulwichtoo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No not thinking about Souter more kanagaroo like.

Perhaps there's nothing to report - and a more responsible attitude has prevailed with a reluctance to spread unsubstantiated rumours?

[ratty]

dulwichtoo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No not thinking about Souter more kanagaroo like.

The Kangaroo thing was a joke. Something about 2 little boys in the 70s.

[DaveR]

I don't think you can have regulation of what the press are allowed to report (as opposed to how they go about getting their information) without a significant risk to press freedom overall. I hate the fact that, for example, the relatives of murder victims get doorstepped by hacks, but the answer is more rigorous enforcement of existing harassment laws than direct press regulation.

[LondonMix]

I agree with DaveR. The only concern is that the press have the power to blackmail and coerce in a way that others in violation of criminal law cannot. I suppose the question is how to ensure that there is at least a section of the police who can enforce criminal law against the press without fear of having their lives destroyed. You'd need modern day G-Men! This is the reason Patraeus had to resign-- certain posts require total rectitude as the possibility of blackmail is too dangerous for society as a whole.

[StraferJack]

Anyone speculate why the papers opposed over here have signed up to regulation without complaint in Ireland?

If they object so much why not pull out of a (minimal?) market?

[????]

Yeah but anyone noticed how brilliant the papers in Ireland have been at exposing long term cronyism, abusive clerics etc etc?

[StraferJack]

That's an answer to a question I didn't ask

Legislation in Ireland is recent and hasn't changed the makeup of the papers to my knowledge. Ie beforehand they were breaking corruption stories and now they aren't?

My question was... Well you can read it again in the post above

[????]

The question is irrelevant - The answer is because it's a minimal market less than 10% of the UK's, they couldn't be that arsed. They largely print UK stories over there anyway, especially sports etc , it's just a few more quid for little extra effort and certainly not worth contemplating potential illegal actions for stories that would by and large only be saleable in Ireland. Plus it's hhardly a full fold of UK papers is it? - the sun and maybe one more?

People over here, including a fair few on the left I might add, care about a free press and are less trusting to the state that the irish have traditionally been would be another point worth raising. It's all politics from the shreakers rather than the thinkers. c'est la vie.