|
I'm watching the Grant channel-4 doc now, and reading this: they all use the same phrase 'crossing the rubicon', almost as if there all talking to each other and putting forward a united front to the rest of us... odd that
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Leveson has bowled a slow full toss at Cameron, and he and the Tories have contrived to trip over their own bat and knock the bails off. Leveson's report is very much at the easy going end of what he could have suggested, yet Cameron is floundering and basically refusing to implement it. Ridiculous and maddening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
Pasco posted:Leveson has bowled a slow full toss at Cameron, and he and the Tories have contrived to trip over their own bat and knock the bails off. You mean par for the course for that lot surely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
What'd Clegg say?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
Munin posted:You mean par for the course for that lot surely. Yes, in the sense that everything they do is ridiculous and maddening  Plavski posted:What'd Clegg say? The political equivalent of white noise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
I'm just hypnotised by Grant's precisely disheveled tie. Renfield posted:I'm watching the Grant channel-4 doc now, and reading this: "there is a rubicon and when you cross it....that's a dangerous road to go down" That's one heck of a mixed metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
So to summarize: Cameron is saying "We'll give you another chance to do it without statutory regulation". So yeah, see you all back here in another, what, 10 years?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Less, with the internet becoming increasingly viable print media refusing to look for new readers and/or branding them as morons they are probably going to try even more shocking things to keep themselves relevent. I give it 5 years if this new stuff isn't implemented till we are all back here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
Plavski posted:What'd Clegg say? quote:blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah newspapers blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Leveson blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah statutory blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Liberal Democrats blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
 e: here's the blurb http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/deputy-prime-minister-s-statement-house-commons-response-lord-justice-leveson-s-inquiry-culture Basically he's backing Leveson's recommendations by the looks of things, but it's not really a huge surprise. What would be a surprise is if it ended up meaning anything baka kaba fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
It's  -worthy seeing some Lib Dems on Twitter praising Cameron as the valiant defender of press freedom, and those most likely to support Clegg at that.Anyone got any parts of the Report to share? I recommend the entirety of F.6., it's a brilliant read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
TinTower posted:It's Piers Morgan is described as utterly unpersuasive at one point, which is legalese for 'he's a liar'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
Great snark from the Grauniad on Parliamentary debateSimon Hoggart posted:Thank heavens that Sir Peter Tapsell rose next. There used to be a "royal edition" of the Times, printed on superior paper and delivered to Buckingham Palace. Sir Peter is a royal edition in himself. No one would dream of regulating him. "Some owners of the national press," he thundered, "have been bad men!" He paused. "And sometimes foreigners!" This was a mistake because a few of the chavvier MPs began to laugh, mockingly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
So has all this been for nothing then? 2 -odd years of drama and earth-shattering revelations and the final call is "Yeah. No."? How the gently caress can this be allowed to continue?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
Hoggart is always taking the piss out of Tapsell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
PiCroft posted:So has all this been for nothing then? 2 -odd years of drama and earth-shattering revelations and the final call is "Yeah. No."? How the gently caress can this be allowed to continue? Now that this distraction is over the Mail can get back to writing about what they really love.  Edit- also this 'story'. 
marktheando fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
'Swimwear-clad girls' 'DAILY MAIL REPORTER'
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
PiCroft posted:So has all this been for nothing then? 2 -odd years of drama and earth-shattering revelations and the final call is "Yeah. No."? How the gently caress can this be allowed to continue? But the press has been directed to regulate themselves! Mind you they don't have to, but if they don't, there could be unpleasantness. The walls are crumbling, don't you see? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Now that this distraction is over the Mail can get back to writing about what they really love. Apparently the Daily Mail feel the best response is to just troll the gently caress out of readers!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:Apparently the Daily Mail feel the best response is to just troll the gently caress out of readers! The first one is really a return to form, honestly. Not for nothing are they called the Dail Heil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
PiCroft posted:So has all this been for nothing then? 2 -odd years of drama and earth-shattering revelations and the final call is "Yeah. No."? How the gently caress can this be allowed to continue? There's a lot of drama still to occur. One of the things that we're forgetting in getting annoyed with Cameron over his non committal to statutory regulation is that he's said that Self-Regulation isn't possible any more and rejected Lord Black's proposals for a reformed PCC (There are a lot of whingy editorials about that in the papers today). What Cameron is doing is he's trying to have his cake and eat it. He wants independent regulation to please the public, make it look like he's doing "something" and keep criticism and the dealings with the Murdoch's and Brooks out of the spotlight but he doesn't want to bring in the statutory element needed since he doesn't want to lose the support of the media either. It's going to drag on a bit while Cameron tries to find this centre ground he likes while both sides fight it out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 06:18
|
|
|
My Twitter mate @MrsTrevithick spotted something in late submissions to the Leveson Inquiry Tom Watson has picked up onquote:Very late submission from the Metropolitan Police to the Leveson inquiry suggests John Yates has yet more serious questions to answer
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
So the two major changes suggested by Leveson seem to be in regards to regulation and data protection. From by reading I understand that the changes are: Regulation: The PCC+ will basically be the PCC but it will be more independent (less editors on the board, etc ) and will (hopefully, if Cameron doesn't poo poo himself) have another independent agency like the OFC making sure that it doesn't get corrupt and self-interested. Data protection: The exemption for journalists won't be basically a carte blance exemption to override an individuals right to privacy where journalists can completely excuse themselves from privacy concerns based on the fact that they are journalists, but will have to cover themselves under more specific exemptions that are pretty much already catered for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:So the two major changes suggested by Leveson seem to be in regards to regulation and data protection. From by reading I understand that the changes are: Thankfully, this isn't completely true. A lot of the focus and debate has been on the 'big ticket' items like whether there should be statutory underpinning, who should draw up the guidelines, etc. But everyone (important) has agreed to the 'Leveson principles', and the stuff he's set out is quite different from the PCC. Off the top of my head: 3rd party complaints allowed (makes it less easy to bash gays, muslims, etc. as a group), power to fine and censure (the PCC were literally toothless) and specific investigative powers. It is not just the 'PCC2' that Lord Black and the papers wanted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
From the Telegraphquote:Rupert Murdoch to split News Corp early to limit fallout from hacking scandal
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:From the Telegraph Murdoch's daughters were baptized in the river Jordan?  Is that just because he's crazy-rich, or is he crazy-religious, too?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
A lovely article:quote:Please stop saying “This excellent industry is being punished for the sins of the few.” My brief experience of your relatively small profession is that most people have worked in most environments with most people. I could link any two of you in two steps, through either a publication or a colleague. You may not all have engaged in questionable conduct, but to suggest you did not know what was going on is risible. Read the whole thing, Aussie bloggers are heartily wishing the same were true here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
In case you were wondering which side Borris was on he stepped up with this delightful articlebozzer posted:You know I don’t want to be more at odds than usual with public opinion; but I have just read the Leveson Report – all four volumes of horror – and my first reaction is that the British press is really rather magnificent. Every paper, virtually without exception, can claim to be running at least one good and original campaign against some abuse, and some of them run several at once. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9718041/It-is-the-web-not-the-press-that-must-be-brought-under-control.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 13:23
|
|
|
I love Boris' stance of "why didn't Leveson disregard his remit and talk about the internet? That's the real crime here!" I didn't see anyone from twitter, or twitter defenders or accusers on the Leveson list. I didn't see Mark Zuckerberg talking about the importance of facebook in the arab spring and regretting the twat who posted that poo poo about that dead girl recently. Instead we got people talking about the newspapers and Leveson compiled a report about newspapers. I mean come on Boris, you're not that desperate to save your own paper are you? And yes, I know you're reading this as you appear to think internet commentary is sainted and hallowed territory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 13:30
|
|
|
Is it even possible to read the entire thing in 4 days? If so, as a Londoner, why the gently caress wasn't he doing his job a mayor?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 13:43
|
|
|
This is probably a stupid question, but why aren't Ofcom already in charge of the press? Why not just make them have control over press complaints?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
A sinking ship?quote:Tom Mockridge resigns because uncomfortable with role
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 13:56
|
|
|
Isn't he just throwing a pissy tantrum that he hasn't been picked to head the entire newspaper division when News Corp splits in two?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:A sinking ship? Not really. As was mentioned earlier he thought he had the top job in the newspaper division in the bag. The resignation is probably primarily due to being passed over for promotion rather than anything else. That said it should make it easier for him to spill the beans should he want to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/marksweney/status/275590797963952129quote:News Corporation to shut The Daily iPad app from 15 December. "Bold experiment" but not profitable, says Murdoch
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
Chris Bryant is claiming some explosive stuff about the Saddam pants story in Parliament at the momentquote:Bryant claims (parliamentary privilege) that news int destroyed a laptop that could prove it illegally paid a US army officer for Saddam pic
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
I've also made it to the final round of the Golden Twits, do make sure you all vote for me, otherwise Peter Mannion, DIMBLEBOT, or Ermintrude off the Magic Roundabout might beat me, and we can't have that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I've also made it to the final round of the Golden Twits, do make sure you all vote for me, otherwise Peter Mannion, DIMBLEBOT, or Ermintrude off the Magic Roundabout might beat me, and we can't have that. Is the voting limited to UK folks or can any slob from the planet join in? I wondered what happened to the Saddam in his tighty whities scandal. I think parliament is being very stingy not sharing with everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Highspeeddub posted:Is the voting limited to UK folks or can any slob from the planet join in? Pretty sure anyone can. If you want to learn ALOT more about Saddam and his pants check out my recent tweets and retweets here, and there's a Daily Beast article coming up soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 22:20
|
|