|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21848746 I'm Ian Hislop, and I shouldn't be regulated whahaha wha.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
JoylessJester posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21848746
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Plavski posted:The whole "this thing was put together at 2.30am after much argument" thing sort of stands up though. If we're gonna do it, do it right first time. All sides disagreed, they discussed it for a long time and arrived at something (late at night) they could all agree with. Somehow, not rushing to a decision and getting agreement are bad things?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
Seems the Hackgate supergrass(es) have been given immunity from prosecution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
To be clear, what, specifically, will this new regulatory body cover? I was under the impression that phone-hacking and the like was already illegal, so in what ways does this help?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
It seems to me that if newspapers sign up to this they skip the regular legal route and go straight to arbitration that basically says "Ok we looked at this and you hosed up, pay these guys a tiny fraction of what they'd get from a drawn out lawsuit and print an apology with equal coverage to the original fuckup." Those that didn't sign up to it are going to be officially/unofficially treated as suspicious when someone takes them to court and will face corporate sized penalties when they get caught loving up again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
Hislop does have a point in that the papers should be answerable to the courts if they don't follow the rules. I've got a drat sight more faith in the judiciary than a supposedly independent watchdog.JoylessJester posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21848746 Following that link ended up with me listening to some prick moan about how he lost his £1.8 million lottery win because he 'couldn't live on' £365 interest a day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
JoylessJester posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21848746 I think Hislop more than anyone has the right to be concerned; he's not known as the most sued man in Britain for nothing. That said, the Eye haven't actually had a libel writ against them in ages. And Private Eye actually got some praise from Leveson. It's a shame that his objections on practicality (the Eye's legal defence fund is kept up by donations) is being drowned about about the powerful media barons whining that they aren't allowed to break the law any more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
TinTower posted:I think Hislop more than anyone has the right to be concerned; he's not known as the most sued man in Britain for nothing. That said, the Eye haven't actually had a libel writ against them in ages. And Private Eye actually got some praise from Leveson. It's a shame that his objections on practicality (the Eye's legal defence fund is kept up by donations) is being drowned about about the powerful media barons whining that they aren't allowed to break the law any more. If every paper was like The Eye I would oppose this law, but they are not. The Eye wins it's cases because they do proper journalism, backed by sources; so the plaintiff doesn't have a leg to stand on and usually takes The Eye to court either out of vanity or an attempt to bully them. Both are bad ideas. To my mind most of this could have been boiled down to the low cost arbitration service and then leaving the current law to do it job. That and ownership.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 13:11
|
|
|
HauntedRobot posted: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. Retractions get posted on the front page/cover in 24-pt bolded letters in a single simple English sentences, like "We were wrong about x" or "Immigrants not baby-eating mongrels". 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Retractions get posted on the front page/cover in 24-pt bolded letters in a single simple English sentences, like "We were wrong about x" or "Immigrants not baby-eating mongrels". I like the idea of the apology taking up the same space as the original story. So 5 pages of making GBS threads all over Chris Jefferies? Well that's 5 pages retracting all that poo poo. Not going to happen but I can dream....
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
Ian Hislop's position on this has always been "we don't need anything new; all we need is for the existing laws to actually be properly enforced; and by the way, why was nobody enforcing those laws, isn't that the real problem?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drpegpSdmks Which is a point of view that I do have a lot of sympathy for. From 1:00.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Ian Hislop's position on this has always been "we don't need anything new; all we need is for the existing laws to actually be properly enforced; and by the way, why was nobody enforcing those laws, isn't that the real problem?" He's right, of course, but the inquiry was not just looking at the press doing illegal stuff, but also immoral stuff and ownership, and people forget that. Why should we have a press that is allowed to print demonstrably inaccurate material that third parties cannot make a complaint about, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
notaspy posted:If every paper was like The Eye I would oppose this law, but they are not. The Eye wins it's cases because they do proper journalism, backed by sources; so the plaintiff doesn't have a leg to stand on and usually takes The Eye to court either out of vanity or an attempt to bully them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
They do, and they print frequent corrections and letters from complainants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Like the time they profusely apologised for printing around 10-odd years of stuff backing up Andrew Wakefield's MMR-autism link claims and oh wait.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:Like the time they profusely apologised for printing around 10-odd years of stuff backing up Andrew Wakefield's MMR-autism link claims and oh wait. I remember this apology, it was basically "sure our reporting was contrary to all the scientific evidence and was probably causing children to catch avoidable diseases, but we were trying to speak our for worried mothers, so we're still the good guys really", they put the apology in the back pages while in the front of the issue they were slamming Wakefield as if they'd never agreed with him. Private eye does not deserve the light touch they get, they should be scrutinised just as heavily as everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
Down goes the deputy editor of the Sun. And by "down" I mean "charged with bribery".
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Down goes the deputy editor of the Sun. And by "down" I mean "charged with bribery". Not just bribery but 'conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office' which is worse as far as the eyes of the law. Hes defiantly going to jail for a few years if found guilty as that offence always leads to jail and can lead to a life sentence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
ukle posted:Not just bribery but 'conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office' which is worse as far as the eyes of the law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Do you feel like expanding on that? I'm interested. Surmising the CPS page on the subject, it appears to generally refer to the idea that the perpetrator would have not only known about the crime, but deliberately let the crime continue with full knowledge of its happening. There's a bunch of other qualifiers which dictate the severity of the punishment, and reading through the list it seems as though many of them would probably apply to the deputy editor in question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
It probably means not only bribing the officer(s) but also encouraging them to get more stories and telling them who to dig up dirt on with police resources. Or something like that. Let's wait and see, shall we? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
The short version is that bribing a police officer to (for example) neglect their duties or break the law carries much harsher penalties than just bribing them to tip you off to already-public information or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
This might be a bit tangental but the Leveson report included a section on how the media is perpetually disparaging and demeaning trans* individuals. This includes articles such as this wonderful little shitshow by Littlejohn on a primary school teacher, Lucy Meadows. http://web.archive.org/web/20121221195332/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2251347/Nathan-Uptons-wrong-body--hes-wrong-job.html It got pulled down this week. Did Littlejohn have a change of conscience about being an enormous shitstain? Ah, of course not. Lucy Meadows killed herself after three months of vicious hate mail and death threats. http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/2013/03/trans-woman-commits-suicide-after-being-bullied-by-the-daily-mail/ Christ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Hey BM, nice profile in the Guardian. I expect you'll soon be able to do this sort of stuff for a living.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 11:34
|
|
|
One of my favourite responses
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 11:42
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:One of my favourite responses
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 11:49
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:One of my favourite responses Hey, congratulations. That's a really great article. And they explained your avatar, which is nice, because I was wondering where it was from. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
You know that Guardian "Three Little Pigs" advert where the guy is in his dressing gown on the phone next to a laptop and cuttings saying "Was it an inside job?" I think that's you, BM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 12:51
|
|
|
Congrats, BM! Thanks for these awesome threads. I don't live in the UK but this one has been really interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
More awesome Tweets To his 117,000 followers. I'm also having CNN coming to my house with a camera crew next week. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Mar 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:More awesome Tweets
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
Plavski posted:'Bout drat time you started getting the proper journalistic recognition you deserve. Roll on the jobs offers... Well the media requests are flooding in, I've already got two BBC World Service interviews, one CNN news crew coming to my house, and two requests from German channels to do interviews. I've been asked to do East Midlands Today as well, but I think I've got too many national and international interviews lined up to fit it in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Well the media requests are flooding in, I've already got two BBC World Service interviews, one CNN news crew coming to my house, and two requests from German channels to do interviews. I've been asked to do East Midlands Today as well, but I think I've got too many national and international interviews lined up to fit it in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Did you imagine all this when you started blogging about this BM? Because this is like, loving awesome and you deserve mad props for your efforts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, that's awesome. Was this a slow buildup, or has something new happened in the last few weeks we aren't aware of?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
So far everything is to do with Syria, have they asked you anything about your Leveson work? Or are they avoid that as you're not on 'their' side?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
ACanofPepsi posted:Holy poo poo, that's awesome. Was this a slow buildup, or has something new happened in the last few weeks we aren't aware of? It's really been since the Croatian arms story when I got a lot of journalists contacting me. The Guardian asked to an interview, and I thought I would take advantage of that. Now I've got several radio and TV interviews lined up for next week, apart from CNN, including the BBC Worldservice (twice), Deutsche Welle, and a Dutch TV channel. PiCroft posted:Did you imagine all this when you started blogging about this BM? Because this is like, loving awesome and you deserve mad props for your efforts. The whole reason I called it Brown Moses Blog is because I though hardly anyone would read it, and I didn't need to waste time on the name. How wrong I was. notaspy posted:So far everything is to do with Syria, have they asked you anything about your Leveson work? Or are they avoid that as you're not on 'their' side? I think they just are more interested in the Syria stuff, especially with the Croatian arms work I did recently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
It's a drat shame, because while I must ultimately admit that Syria is more important as men and women are losing their lives there every day, the blatancy and depth of the corruption at News Corp has truly been gobsmacking to watch unfold. And unfortunately, people seem all too eager to utterly ignore it. At least, stateside. Every single time I've thought every thing had been uncovered, there would be a slew new arrests, or hacking claims, or bribery, and god, it just goes on with no end. Although, I am somewhat confused. Just last week Microsoft was being investigated for bribery of foreign officials by US forces. How has News Corp escaped that? It's now been beyond well established that they bribed foreign officials, and drat near kept the entire police force of the UK on the payroll. When does the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act kick in?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:It's a drat shame, because while I must ultimately admit that Syria is more important as men and women are losing their lives there every day, the blatancy and depth of the corruption at News Corp has truly been gobsmacking to watch unfold. And unfortunately, people seem all too eager to utterly ignore it. At least, stateside. Every single time I've thought every thing had been uncovered, there would be a slew new arrests, or hacking claims, or bribery, and god, it just goes on with no end. As I understand it the FBI (who lead these cases) like to lay low and keep quite while they build their case.... then BAM! They hit you straight in the nuts. With other cases still going through the courts I bet they are waiting for all the poo poo to come out before proceeding to make their case ultra rock solid and have a wider scope. Right now it's low level dudes, but the end of 2015 it might go all the way to the top.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 17:40
|
|