pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,648
It's legislation for an independent body. Obviously something would oversee that initially but not necessarily ofcom.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Leveson Report
- Thread starter poidy
- Start date
It's legislation for an independent body. Obviously something would oversee that initially but not necessarily ofcom.
Hatterlovesbrighton
something clever
Err no its not. I think you need to read the report. Leveson specifically says that the body should be voluntary, have no statutory powers itself and be organised and run by the industry.
He then goes on to say that a body (he thinks ofcom) but it could be another body should be given the power to decide if the body is fit for purpose both at its inception and then regularly from then on. If so they could alter court rules so if a paper was sued that hadn't joined the new body they could be penalised higher than one that had. Leveson says that you need statutory recognition of this new body in order to change the rules of court
The Large One
Who's Next?
You sound like an apologist for the press barons, and are very much in favour of the status quo.
No-one is talking about restricting the press, and it's only paranoia from the top echelons which is insisting it is.
Leveson recommended indepdent regulation underpinned by legislation. In other words, an opportunity for the press to get its house in order, and once having done so, using its own universally (i.e. beyond the black-and-white, and into the spirit of Leveson's recommendations) approved framework as the basis for law. In short, Leveson doesn't trust the press to self-regulate.
Without the law, the regulator could fine a newspaper, and they just turn around and say '... get stuffed...'
He is trying to create a framework which, among other things, allow universal access to a complaints procedure - something which one MP clearly doesn't want, insisting that that's what the courts are there for. (The previous 14 months evidently passed her by).
The Large One
Who's Next?
No, he doesn't.
• An independent regulatory body for the press should be established.
• It should take an active role in promoting high standards, including having the power to investigate serious breaches and sanction newspapers.
• The new body should be backed by legislation designed to assess whether it is doing its job properly.
• The legislation would enshrine, for the first time, a legal duty on the government to protect the freedom of the press.
• An arbitration system should be created through which people who say they have been victims of the press can seek redress without having to go through the courts.
• Newspapers that refuse to join the new body could face direct regulation by media watchdog Ofcom.
• The body should be independent of current journalists, the government and commercial concerns, and not include any serving editors, government members or MPs.
• The body should consider encouraging the press to be as transparent as possible in relation to sources for its stories, if the information is in the public domain.
• A whistle-blowing hotline should be established for journalists who feel under pressure to do unethical things.
BUTTERBALL
East Stand Brighton Boyz
f*** off Church you sanctimonious tart - and you too Grant
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,914
thats definatly something that should be looked at. one thing that "protects" the press is the perception of the cost of bringing libel cases, if theres a statutory system, say funded by the press (so they have interest in keeping costs down) that could make them think twice about alot of stories. what i also notice as a common theme through many of the victims cases is that they are a breach of privacy - so is a privacy law the real answer? this would address problems outside of big office press too, covering the internet which is apparently untouched by Leveson (with good reason).
see, im not fussed about the status quo and no apologist for the press (pretty sure i deride the media most the time). i look at it from the practicalities and consequences of legislation. this talk of legislation underpinning or supporting or backing a regulator ... it all boils down to the state setting some rules and appointing someone to oversee the enforcment. its weasely, you cannot avoid the hand of the state once you create laws. its what they do. (and if they dont, they stay at arms length, we'll complain they didnt do enough when something goes wrong)
or otherway to look at it, we all agree something must be done about the press (and wider media shirely), but lets not make the wrong decision we'll be regretting in years and decades to come. Cameron has royally f***ed it by saying "no" rather than "we need to see how we might frame some legislation" so that its a bit open ended for now, he's now drawn stupid political lines on the matter.
Last edited:
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
Self regulation doesn't work, it's akin to letting the home team provide the linesmen, there is no confidence or trust in them.
poidy
Well-known member
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,849
- Thread starter
- #29
...Is the most obvious statement ever
I think the analogy the politicians used was "the tabloids marking there own homework" or words to that effect.
Anyway I digress. The tabloids should just sign up to be independently regulated and be done with it. The fact that there kicking there heals when the alternative is OFCOM baffles me.
I really don't understand why Cameron is so against legislation. As someone has already mentioned there needs to be laws in place otherwise the regulating body will serve no purpose (effectively just becoming another Press Complaints Commission)
I really don't think Cameron expected Leveson's calls for legislation in his recommendations. This is something the tabloids will dispute to the bitter end and I believe the PM is also trying to keep them sweet whilst protecting his own interests. Why else would he dispute it? As I've already mentioned, legislation is not there to take freedom of speech away from the tabloids. It only serves to prevent the scandals which led to the enquiry in the first place.
The PM called on Lord Justice Leveson to head this enquiry at the cost to the tax payer of approx 6million pounds. To then ignore the most important element of the findings is in my opinion nothing short of scandalous
Tony Towner's Fridge
Well-known member
Leveson Report and Press Freedom
Does the issue of this report now mean I can let my pet Rottweiller 'Maybanks' loose in the front garden, free to attack the paper boy again?
Can't see any recommendations for or against this restrictive practice during my brief look at Levvies tome.
TNBA
TTF
Does the issue of this report now mean I can let my pet Rottweiller 'Maybanks' loose in the front garden, free to attack the paper boy again?
Can't see any recommendations for or against this restrictive practice during my brief look at Levvies tome.
TNBA
TTF
Hatterlovesbrighton
something clever
True, but leveson did say that the new body should be set up and paid for by the industry. The point I was making was that this is going to be a self-regulator (though one vastly different to the pcc) not a regulator with statutory powers.
Hatterlovesbrighton
something clever
Because he doesn't believe that legislation is always the answer. The problem about laws is that once you have them they are very difficult to change unless you have overwhelming consensus. E.g dangerous dogs act
If these new laws have problems, and he's going to set out a draft bill that sets them out, but it is still passed you could well be stuck with it for a long time.
Firstly, I'm not sure there are many examples of people making decisions just to be contrary to CDM. Even prior to the publication, I believe Milliband had said they would follow the Leveson recommendations, as did Cameron, albeit with the caveat that they mustn't be 'bonkers'. Well they are far from bonkers and CDM has already changed his stance.
As for your earlier query as to whether the regulator would check every story. You know that is far from what is being proposed and isn't much different from current system. If a paper has a story on dodgy ground they will run it passed their lawyers and then make a decision whether to print. My understanding is that the press will draw up the guidelines which they will then have to adhere to. There will be occassions when they overstep the mark and, as with the current situation, the injured party can complain. What should happen in future is that any independent regulator will have the backing of legislation to enforce a suitable punishment (yet to be determined) which is what doesn't happen now, ie, slaughter someone on the frontpage incorrectly but when found to be wrong put an apology on page 25 amongst a load of classifieds!!!!
There was some female reporter on the radio 5 yesterday, and I believe the mantra was repeated on question time, that the regulator should be the public and their purchasing power. That is just the route to the lowest common denominator and we know from the banking sector that you can't trust organisations when they have a free reign.
Tricky Dicky
New member
Nice to see the sun readers joining in the debate.
Are you sure that is the reason and not the fact he doesn't want to be rememberred as the PM who had legislation relating to press on his watch!!!! Not much has been said of the fact that of all recent PMs/politicians, he seems to be the one that has 'got into bed' more with one particular jouno than anyone else. Whether that relationship is still affecting his decision making and how that is likely to affect the next campaign come 2015.
"So Lord Justice Leveson recommends an independent self regulating body underpinned by legislation"
So how much have the taxpayers coughed up so he can state the bleeding obvious, now happening at the BBC, handing out huge sum of public money to lawyers - that needs an enquiry itself.
So how much have the taxpayers coughed up so he can state the bleeding obvious, now happening at the BBC, handing out huge sum of public money to lawyers - that needs an enquiry itself.
Hatterlovesbrighton
something clever
Do you mean Brooks? His next door neighhhhhhhhbour.
I'd say that Blair/Campbell sought out to control the media (to pretty good effect if truth be told) than Cameron has been able to.
The Large One
Who's Next?
I do indeed. Not sure how Blair and Campbell 'controlled' the media but they certainly are culpable of courting the press although no one seems to have taken it as far as CMD. His judgement is certainly called into question when he had stood by the likes of Brooks and Coulson, both of whom are now facing criminal charges!
