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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Have you actually read any of what the report says and recommends, because it doesn't sound like you have!
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
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.
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.
No one is talking about taking a strong arm approach at all, totally light touch.
Legislation makes it legally binding and failure to comply with the code of conduct the regulator comes up with will mean reprisals.
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?