Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Leveson Report
- Thread starter poidy
- Start date
Tricky Dicky
New member
Cameron is bottling it already - no surprise there. He had said he would take up the Leveson suggestions "provided they're not bonkers" and they don't appear to be, so I don't know where he goes from here.
poidy
Well-known member
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,849
- Thread starter
- #3
Exactly that. Seems to be going back on his word. I don't see what the issue is with legislation. What's the point of having a regulating body without it.
Also why hasn't Leveson made it mandatory for all tabloids? My understanding is they can choose whether they want to be regulated by this independent body or not. If they don't then its Ofcom but even so, they shouldn't be in a position to choose.
For me Cameron is just trying to keep the tabloids happy. It could hold the key to another term at the next general election.
This could drag on for a while yet. God I hate bureaucracy
Also why hasn't Leveson made it mandatory for all tabloids? My understanding is they can choose whether they want to be regulated by this independent body or not. If they don't then its Ofcom but even so, they shouldn't be in a position to choose.
For me Cameron is just trying to keep the tabloids happy. It could hold the key to another term at the next general election.
This could drag on for a while yet. God I hate bureaucracy
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
I think the recommendation was something Portillo was saying would need to be a brave decision, but one Cameron should take. Has he got the balls?
Tricky Dicky
New member
He's screwed either way. He promised to look after "the people" but the media want to keep the status quo and have business as usual, and of course, they have the last word.
The press barons want to fund the regulator AND have the power to both appoint and sack the chairman.
Cameron just wants to keep in with Rupert.
Cameron just wants to keep in with Rupert.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,914
you want to have parliament have the power to determine who can and cant run a paper? or which stories to run? Cash for questions? sorry, you cant print that. sexed up dossiers? sorry, cant print that. MPs expenses...
its would be a very bad idea to have some sort of legally enfoced regulation as it kills the free press, which some wise old chap said was an unsleeping guardian of all our other rights. one needs to step away from party prejudices and why you think one politician may be for or against it and think for yourself if its a good idea or not.
the issues we've seen recently have all been dealt with by the legal system as existing laws where broken. the problem was that they went unnoticed for so long - would a regulator have stopped that? at which point? how would it know, are you going to have every story vetted by the regulator? the problem with law, and the same issue facing a regulated press, is that it only deals with punishment after the fact. the News of the World wasnt dissuded from breaking the law, why would it be dissuaded by a new law or disobeying a regulator?
Despite all the media hype I have yet to find anyone who really cares about the Leveson enquiry or its findings.
The media seem assume it is the topic of conversation throughout the country whereas it couldn't be of less interest to anyone I know.
The media seem assume it is the topic of conversation throughout the country whereas it couldn't be of less interest to anyone I know.
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
If Cameron doesn't like it you know it's not bent.
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
Regulation (OfNews) would totally kill the freedom of the press. The news is already sanitised enough , I don't want to end up reading the Sunday Isvestia.
This is exactly right. Half of the PM programme on Radio 4 this evening and half of the 6pm news that follows given over to Leveson. Yes, it's news, but it's not THAT important. There are hundreds of far more newsworthy news stories that deserve coverage.
poidy
Well-known member
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,849
- Thread starter
- #12
Yes but Leveson has recommended an independent regulator not a state regulator.
An independent regulator would mean NO links or ties to Government. Just as it would also mean an end to the tabloids 'marking there own homework' so to speak
They would still have freedom of speech. They will just have to find more ethical ways in which to obtain front page sensationalism. In other words cease hacking into mobile phones and any other unethical tactics that have been deployed in the past
Also 'free speech' is merely a technicality enabling the tabloids to print damn right lies and make false claims. Independent regulators would in theory put an end to this practice.
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,648
Have you actually read any of what the report says and recommends, because it doesn't sound like you have!
Instead you have the Sunday Rupert
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,914
did i comment on the report? no, just the principles at stake. what i really worry is people saying "Camerons for x therefore im against x..." not stopping to think if its a sensible point. forget about him, theres a far bigger principle at stake here than protecting a (transient) media baron. im not saying he's right either and he's very badly handled this, dismissing his own report too quickly, having previously commited to following it. oh dear. but then you have Liberal Democrats apparently willing to go in the stong arm end. and Miliband looking to take which ever option damages the government the most. it just shows how really the politicians shouldnt be doing anything untill they've properly absorbed the report and considered it all properly.
"regulator backed by legislation" i believe is the recommendation. it very broad what that legislative component could be. it might be enforcing a complaints policy, it could be licencing. im well aware the media abuse "free speech" and hide behind it, but are we really willing to throw the baby out with the bath water? what about all the exposes that might not happen with a restricted press? hacking phones wasnt just unethical, it was illegal and that didnt stop them. so why would a regulator? they risk being sacked, fined closed down, arrested... after the fact. which happened anyway.
Last edited:
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,648
Again you seem to be making points and an argument against something which doesn't exist and hasn't been proposed! Have you read anything of the report or the recommendations? No one is talking about taking a strong arm approach at all, totally light touch.
The legislation would be for an independent body, there would be no state control of the press, in fact it could be argued that the press would be more free.
The legislation would be for an independent body, there would be no state control of the press, in fact it could be argued that the press would be more free.
poidy
Well-known member
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,849
- Thread starter
- #17
This
Legislation makes it legally binding and failure to comply with the code of conduct the regulator comes up with will mean reprisals.
It really does say a great deal about the tabloids that the majority accept an independent regulator but they don't want the legislation that goes with it. What are they so frightened off?
Hatterlovesbrighton
something clever
Actually the legislation wouldn't be for an independent body, it would be for ofcom to decide whether the independent body was doing a good job or not. The trouble is of course that the ofcom board is appointed by the government. Very easy for a government to put a crony on the board and have contro.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,914
let hope so. we'll wait and see.
however this is the contradiction at the heart of the matter. firstly, again existance of law hasn't stop the previous events. secondly just what are those reprisals and sanctions to be? and how much scope will be given for the minister of the future to augment them? the problem with "legislation for a regulator" is that it can be a open ended cheque. there has been a situation with new telecoms regulations where the scope of power is very broad and only restrained by the intent of the minister of the day. its a difficult balance, too narrow law can be full of loopholes, too broad is open to abuse of the authorities and too prescriptive can take too long to complete (and still be open to abuse or full of holes).
or put anotherway, whats the difference between legislation to enforce a regulation and a statute?
its interesting to note last week pundits were expecting the government/parliament to use Leveson to take the media to the cleaners as revenge for expensies. thats been turned on its head, a bigger picture has come to light (does this mean the MPs arent such a bad lot...?)
Last edited:
cornish seagull
cornish seagull
More ?? than answers! but I follow your thought process. Freedom of Speech/press underpins the whole fabric of our society, but some of the vile practice perpetuated by the press is an absolute violation of the most basic human rites! Tapping into a 'dead child's phone and giving those poor, poor parents hope! how vile is that? How can these practices be stopped? is legislation a step to far?