|
JK Rowling speaks outquote:Some victims of press abuse felt that Lord Leveson did not go far enough; I disagree. As an oft-banned writer, a devoted reader of Private Eye for a quarter of a century and as somebody who venerated the late great Paul Foot, I could not support anything that hampers the press’s ability to hold power to account. Lord Leveson’s recommendations seemed reasonable and proportionate to me, their aim simply to curtail abuses of the press’s own power.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 13:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:26 |
|
|
The Mail's exposee on Hacked Off's "secret dossier" tells you more about the Mail than it does the document they have
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 13:14
|
|
|
Quelle suprisequote:BREAKING: Cameron and Clegg are to discuss a possible last minute Leveson deal this afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
Christ, more like
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
Yeah I happened to read their article on it yesterday (I assume that pics from the MoS). The headline was along the lines of "Pressure Group Threatened to Blackmail Miliband"--because a group representing victims of phonehacking having a stock letter prepared saying "We're disappointed in the results" is at all equivalent to blackmail. It was really hard to believe anyone would read it and come out thinking less of Hacked Off and not the Mail. Stunk of desperation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Looks like the right wing press is really starting to panic now. Setting up their own regulator to ignore if things dont go their way
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Sex Vicar posted:Looks like the right wing press is really starting to panic now. Setting up their own regulator to ignore if things dont go their way This is a threat? If you're creating statutory legislation for a press regulator, why wouldn't you include a mandatory participation clause, including either fines or revocation of credentials if a media organization refuses to join? Doesn't that defeat the purpose to not have that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
BM got a bigger version of that image?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:BM got a bigger version of that image? Here we go 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
AegisP posted:This is a threat? If you're creating statutory legislation for a press regulator, why wouldn't you include a mandatory participation clause, including either fines or revocation of credentials if a media organization refuses to join? Doesn't that defeat the purpose to not have that? Wouldn't conspiracy charges "technically" apply if they set up an independent regulator that allows them to ignore the law? I mean that's pretty much what they did last time but this time they're opting out of official channels so it would be easier to prove next time it happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
I dont know much about UK politics but why dont they just take the top two or three rules that are used by Ireland. No head lines that arent in the article if you make a "mistake" you have to give equal space for the correction etc. Honestly it would be a loving slap on the wrist compared to the amount of blatant corruption of public officials, and general criminal conduct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Not a Photoshop
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
We can only hope not to return to those dark days of Hitler's Europe before D-Day in 1949. Britain must not join the tyrants that believe in controlling the press......... shoe problems pg 9 I was looking forward to the headlines for today to see if someone would top the 'quasi-masonic cabal who knows best' and they did. Hopefully, tomorrow's will be even better if the vote for statutory regulation goes through. edit: From the Independent quote:The Prime Minister made a personal appeal to his deputy, Nick Clegg, to break off the temporary alliance he has formed with Ed Miliband. The Liberal Democrat and Labour leaders want a regulator underpinned by statute. But Labour sources claimed tonight that his appeal had failed and the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition, boosted by some backbench Conservatives, should have the numbers to defeat the Prime Minister. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
Aren't the DUP running a whip on their party as well? Ian Paisley Jr was pretty peeved about Cameron trying to dodge the issue in one of the debates last year and it seemed he was targeted along with his father from the way he was speaking. That's another 22 or so the Tories would have to fight against as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
max4me posted:I dont know much about UK politics but why dont they just take the top two or three rules that are used by Ireland. No head lines that arent in the article if you make a "mistake" you have to give equal space for the correction etc. AFAIK these rules are already in the PCC, the problem being that newspapers just ignore the code and there's no way to enforce it. Simply having a code which newspapers had to actually obey or face serious fines would go a long way to fixing some of the UK press' biggest problems. Though I don't think it'd solve anything in relation to hacking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Not a Photoshop You know what's horrible? The British press, after all the evil poo poo they've done, is still more restrained than the Australian press in the face of regulation. Our communications minister, Stephen Conroy, has proposed to tighten the leash on newspapers ever so slightly. Nothing dramatic, only to bring them in line with the same standards under which radio and television operate. So, how did the newspapers respond?  And then took it even further:  And when called out on their bullshit, they issued this "apology": The Daily Telegraph posted:Yesterday we ran this picture of Federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy depicted as Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. And in case you are somehow unable to guess who owns it - yep, it's Newscorp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 03:55
|
|
|
Wait a minute I thought another problem is libel laws in the UK a paper can compare someone to iron man joe and then apologize like that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
max4me posted:Wait a minute I thought another problem is libel laws in the UK a paper can compare someone to iron man joe and then apologize like that? That's not a UK paper, that's an Australian one. However, I was under the impression the libel laws in the UK were actually accommodating to the victims of libel and less so the libelers. That, however, is a highly generalized take on a field I know hardly anything about in a country I have spent less than a month in collectively over my lifetime. Concisely, I may be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
What time is this Commons vote? I'd like to watch the fireworks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 10:10
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:That's not a UK paper, that's an Australian one. However, I was under the impression the libel laws in the UK were actually accommodating to the victims of libel and less so the libelers. That, however, is a highly generalized take on a field I know hardly anything about in a country I have spent less than a month in collectively over my lifetime. Concisely, I may be wrong. Yeah, the UK's acquired itself a reputation for 'libel tourism'. Some of our judges - Justice Eady chief among them - are clowns when it comes to things like 'common sense' and just plain stupid at others (see Simon Singh vs. British Chiropractic Association). Also, the BBC are reporting that a deal's been reached that would result in "no statutory underpinning". I'm really hoping that's just Maria Miller being optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 10:14
|
|
|
PiCroft posted:What time is this Commons vote? I'd like to watch the fireworks. Never! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21825823 Somebody caved and it sounds like we won't be getting proper regulation after all. Everybody wins! Except of course the people, but who cares about them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 10:20
|
|
|
God drat. Jellyfish have more spine than these cowards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 10:35
|
|
|
The papers set up the 'independent' watchdog and they're not obliged to join it anyway? In what way is this not just a complete waste of time?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 10:55
|
|
|
Lisa o'Carroll is tweeting details of the new hackgate probes revealed in court this morning, including details of two new hacking investigationsquote:Court hears that Met code for new investigation into NoW is Operation Pinetree. Inv into MGN is Op Golding [edit] Lucy Manning too quote:In court The Sun apologies to Siobhain McDonagh MP for accessing her mobile phone after it was stolen. Shes accepted a settlement from them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
Has there been any news on the low cost libel that Leveson wanted?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
notaspy posted:Has there been any news on the low cost libel that Leveson wanted? There was something about the bill being hijacked by a peer and then the story becomes too complicated for me to understand. Help, someone?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 12:26
|
|
|
Here's details of who got what in today's deal, and what they wanted http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2013/mar/18/press-regulation-deal-what-parties-won?CMP=twt_gu
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
Is there any chance that Putnam will withdraw his amendment to the Defamation Bill now? It's really threatening to sink the whole bill
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 13:21
|
|
|
What's the naming convention for these operations? Is it alphabetic?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
ufarn posted:What's the naming convention for these operations? Is it alphabetic? Just a big list of random words - the name is deliberately not representative of anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
So, wait, what happened? There's now an agreeement. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/18/press-regulation-newspapers-furious-deal quote:A shellshocked newspaper industry was struggling to come to terms with a sudden all-party agreement to create a powerful new press regulator designed to prevent a repeat of the phone-hacking scandal. It looks voluntary except if you don't join you are exceptionally liable?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 10:39
|
|
|
Noxville posted:The papers set up the 'independent' watchdog and they're not obliged to join it anyway? In what way is this not just a complete waste of time? If I remember rightly when the idea was first announced it was pretty much  amongst the papers anyway. That was back at the assend of last year. I'm probably reading it wrong but basically papers get smacked with hefty fines if not part of the new group, and if they are, they get lesser fines, and have to print apologies/retractions which they tend to do anyway?  Also I doubt Churchill had bringing false hope to parents of a murdered girl by picking up her messages in mind when he said that back then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 11:12
|
|
|
I for one am enjoying the delicious tears of the slimy shits as they go squealing to the European Human Rights which they've been so desperate to get repealed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 11:23
|
|
|
During the General Strike Churchill wanted to take over the BBC and make it into a propaganda organisation. So you can see why a Murdoch paper would like his views on the media. http://www.bbc.co.uk/historyofthebbc/resources/bbcandgov/general_strike.shtml
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 11:26
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:So, wait, what happened? There's now an agreeement. So wait, what? Everyone signed up for this? Somehow I like to think that right now, David cameron's slumped over his desk with a particularly nasty knife wound in his back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
It looks something like that. Furious backdoor deal to prevent people throwing things at each other in public?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
limited posted:If I remember rightly when the idea was first announced it was pretty much It looks the independent regulator will have significantly more teeth to deal with matters such as corrections, apologies and retractions and can "direct" the papers on it to make sure corrections are given the same prominence as the original story instead of being able to bury them on page 2. It's one of the things the papers who won't sign up seem to be significantly upset about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
I look forward to the first equal prominence correction they have to make under the new system. All the papers were terrible at this, burying retractions on page 7 or wherever. If a new regulator actually has the power to say "No, not good enough" it'll be fun to watch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
If they do decide to just ignore the new body, what happens? I'm guessing they would keep on getting fined, but there will come a point that something drastic would need to happen, like sending the bailiffs in, blocking deliveries or arresting senior members of staff. Which would be bad day for that government.
notaspy fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:26 |
|
|
The right wing didn't used to be quite so precious about press censorship. Such as the period between 1916 and 1918, when the Government of Lloyd George (the great "icon of 20th century Liberalism") along with his imaginative and wholly dubious "spy catcher general" Basil Thompson of the Met went to extraordinary lengths to intimidate, harass and oppress the nascent Socialist press such as the Workers Dreadnought, Socialistand Tribunal, going so far as to hound the Tribunal from one press (which would be raided, the machines dismantled or destroyed by the police) to another (where they would do the same), until eventually the production process - although much reduced in scale - was successfully moved underground and away from the prying eyes of Thompson's Met Police thugs. Of course, pro Government newspapers such as Lord Northcliffe's Daily Mail, The Times and The Telegraph were less interfered with, so long as they toed the line and printed the huge volume of pro-war propaganda fed to them by Charles Masterman and his cabal of "patriotic" writers. As terrible and shameful as this period of overt propagandising and muzzling of any voice of opposition may have been, it was soon equalled and possibly exceeded by the conduct of the next wartime government under the direction of that great champion of freedom Winston "“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter” Churchill. Curiously, the great tradition of British Press Freedom didn't seem to be such a big deal back then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 17:11
|
|
