A defence of the common man or an attack on the freedom of the press ? FWIW I think it has nothing to do with Millie Dowler, the McCanns, Hugh Grant, Sienna Miller but everything to do with power and the relationship between politicians and the press. It is payback for the expenses scandal. Dave is saying no we don't need to implement the Leveson recomendations but at the same time he has agreed with the leaders of the other parties to write draft legislation to 'show how impractical it would be'. My guess would be that the report will eventually be implemented, to the benefit of those in power, and Dave will be able to say 'well I didn't want it, it was all Ed Milliband and Nick Cleggs fault'. I wouldn't trust any of them. Yet more powers when all they need to do is to fully implement existing legislation. And when I hear the word 'independent' in relation to public bodies it makes me laugh. Does anyone else care ?
John, you're bang on. We have laws to stop phone hacking and other outrageous behaviour by the media. However, politicians, police, the media and many other establishements are corrupted by their greed for power, money, or whatever and conspire to support each other against the good of the nation. Blair, Brown, Campbell have all sucked up to news international to get their support. We, and the McCAnns et al are just the victims.
Newspapers are subject to the laws about libel, copyright infringement, incitement to violence, official secrets, and reporting restrictions, among other things. Journalists and editors can be prosecuted, made subject to injunctions, and imprisoned for contempt. The media have no exemption from the ordinary laws of the UK, and never have had. Their “outrage” at being subjected to proposed legal restraints is wholly contrived and artificial. Freedom of the press is about journalists not being subject to prior approval of a censor; it is not about them being exempt from responsibility after they have committed offences. Incidentally, if Brian Leveson becomes the next Lord Chief Justice next year, as he might well do, it will be a bit awkward when cases come up flowing from his report recommendations. He would have to recuse himself from dealing with those cases.
So if newspapers are accountable within the current laws then why do we need more 'laws'. ? Would the MPs expenses scandal have been published under the new proposed 'voluntary' agreement. The idea that the press could be subject to censorship prior to printing is abhorent. Let them publish and be damned, or sued, and let criminal activities such as phone hacking be persued under existing laws.
The fact that newspapers are accountable under current laws does not mean that there is no problem. If you recall, the issue is that the press had come to wield excessive power over the police (by corrupting them) and over the politicians (by threatening to turn against them). As a result the press had gained complete impunity from any restraint, even if they behaved appallingly and committed crimes. If you are content with that state of affairs, do nothing. My view is that it needs to be tackled – hence Leveson’s very reasonable proposals. I agree entirely that for the press to be subject to prior censorship would be abhorrent, but no-one is proposing that. Nothing in Leveson would prevent MPs expenses being published anyway. What would be prevented is for example the Desmond papers (Express etc) repudiating and ignoring the Press Complaints Commission, as they have done. My point was that opponents of Leveson are setting up a straw man, by suggesting that the press has not been subject to restraint by the courts before, and that restraint by the courts means loss of press freedom. The fact is everyone is subject to restraint by the courts in a free society – that is what the rule of law means.
Supressing the press in any way at all is another step toward full state control.....I shan't even bother to give an example of where it has happened and is still happening..... ....however, the press breaking the law is a totally different issue. AL
After having read Peter Oborne's excellent book entitled 'The Triumph of the Political Class', which explains the way the institutions of the UK have been taken over by the political class, I am very suspicious of politicians and the way they take every oportunity to increase their own power, often at the expense of others. It is a slow and insidious process that is taking us ever closer and closer to 1984.
As the song goes " The public wants what the public gets" So if the great british public stopped buying the sun/star/mail/heat etc to read about the latest celebrity fashion faux pas then there would never have been the celebrity phone hacking and stalking that still goes on. The Milly Dowler type stuff is so obviously wrong and against the laws that already exist, no new laws are needed. Murder is against the law but still happens. Shall we bring in a new murder law to emphasize the point? Of course not. Lastly, dont let politicians run anything, they always screw it up. Can you imagine if they decided to run a holiday company and you had to pay taxes to set it up and keep it going and then everyone could have access to it for" free" holidays. You could of course choose your own private holiday but would have to pay extra for it. That is what happens with education, health, security etc etc and blimey guvnor, they seem to have gotten away with it! I really disapprove of how they spend my money, and yours! My trouble works for the NHS and the way the state wastes our money there that she tells me about is quite disgusting.
While we're having a rant about gov't wastage, I can't for the life of me figure out why the EU needs so much money. If ever there was an insatiable bureaucracy, that would have to be it. No one has a clue where their money goes or even why they should have any more than the strict minimum necessary to function (in as much as they do). Re Leveson, in a nutshell, what did he recommend? I missed it all through having some early nights (and thus missing the 10 o'clock news (11 here) and subsequent Newsnight.
In a very small nutshell. An 'independent' body to increase the regululation of the press, that the press can 'voluntarily' sign up to, that has the power to fine up to £1 million for being naughty. All meetings between the press and the police must be logged, and few other things. Basically the Establishment gets another layer of control over the flow of 'information' to the proles. Existing laws are being flouted, so we need new 'laws' that will make 'off the record' briefings impossible.
We don't need new laws to control the press. We simply need to enforce the ones we already have. The victims of the phone hacking went to the Police and they did nothing. The trouble was they went to the Met. when the complaints get investigated things get done
Let the police sort it out. Let's face it, they're no more corrupt than the MPs or press, and it might win them back some semblance of authority...
This could be rectified by simply reversing the law and making the media prove innocence once a complaint has been made. This works in Health & Safety law whereby the employer has to demonstrate that they have taken sufficient precautions to protect employees when an incident occurs. The independent press complaints body could be funded (by statute) by the media and would automatically provide the legal fighting fund for plaintiffs in the event of an allegation of press intrusion. In the event of spurious complaints the court could find against the plaintiff and impose all the costs back on them. A virtuous circle with no cost to the public purse......simples!!
Professions like barristers, solicitors, doctors, chartered surveyors, etc are not controlled by the government, rather they each operate their own systems for disciplining their own profession. There is legal underpinning only to the extent that you can’t claim publicly to be a member of a profession without being subject to the disciplines of that profession. It is corruption,d ishonesty, violence and professional incompetence which lead to action, not working against the government. Journalism has a status roughly like selling double-glazing; highly disreputable, dishonest, abusive practices result in no sanctions at all. Leveson is essentially proposing that journalism should be elevated sa as to reach standards equivalent to other professions. The fact that some journalists, editors and newspaper proprietors think this would be an intolerable imposition tells us a lot about why standards have become so abysmally low. Extraordinary that some people on this thread seem to think everything is all right as it is, and no reform is needed. Have they been in a coma for the past two years?
Here, try this: http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/move/62/en.pdf The EU budget is 1% of GDP - that includes parliament, commission, council, regional development, agriculture, in short everything. Member states' national governments have budgets of 40%-50% of GDP. The whole EU civil service is about the same size as that of Luxembourg. Essentially the EU is run on half a shoestring.
wow...proving innocence over guilt seems a trend oeople are quick to adopt right now; recent ex MP peodo scandal anyone? Or even the Savile non-case as he's dead and in no place to defend himslef... what next and where does it stop? Germany 1930's?
The few experiences I have had with 'professional' bodies gives me the impression that they exist to protect their members and not the public. A reasonable definition of a professional is 'just another a**hole trying to pay the mortgage'. I don't think anyone here is defending the press, who clearly have done wrong. The issue is that existing laws have been ignored and lawbreaking gone uninvestigated and unpunished. We don't need new laws, what we need are the existing laws enforced. What comes out from the majority here is a mistrust for authority - why do you think that is ? We are tired of having our freedoms chipped away by a State that believes we are here to serve it's needs and not the other way around. Leveson will make it harder for the press to hold the government o account, and that is a bad thing. I couldn't care less about Hugh Grant or JK Rowling (who donates to the Labour Party) and if Millie Dowler's phone was hacked during a police investigation, or any other time, then we have existing laws to deal with it. Whether the EU budget is 1% of GDP is irrelevant, the EU is taking more and more powers for the unelected commisioners to exercise without democratic accountability, and leading us down a road to a socialist super state which will end in tears.
Well yes, the EU is irrelevant to this thread, which is about other issues. Glidd had written: “... I can't for the life of me figure out why the EU needs so much money ... No one has a clue where their money goes ... ” so I sought to provide some factual information. Misleading assertions about this are widespread, especially in UK media. Since the EU has always been a capitalist institution and was strenuously opposed by socialists in every country, it is hilarious that you refer to it as “socialist”.
