Voll Blau Posted 5 January 2017 Share Posted 5 January 2017 The government are currently running a consultation of the proposed Section 40 legislation, which could see newspapers which haven't signed up to the state-backed Max Moseley funded regulator Impress forced to pay both sides' legal fees regardless of whether they successfully defend libel claims. It's a really dire bit of law which could in effect put an end to investigative journalism, especially in already cash-strapped local newspapers. Quote Gary Lineker has got into an twitter row with opponents of press regulation. The former Leicester and England striker and Match of the Day presenter took to the internet to support the controversial S40 proposal that the Government is currently consulting on. Under the proposals national and local newspapers and publishers who successfully defend court actions could still be compelled to pay the costs of the complainant. Read more: 'Responsible local press is pillar of our democracy' says MP as members vote on press regulation The costs order would apply to newspapers which do not sign up to a new state-backed press regulator. The Leicester legend criticised a Sun editorial on the proposed legislation and soon found himself tangling with journalists and media lawyers who warned him that the measure could bankrupt local newspapers who would still have to pay the costs of challenges to their stories even if they are true. Gary insisted papers would be safe "if they don't fabricate stories" but was accused of ignorance by campaigners who said challenges would be mounted by complainants who knew stories were correct and accurate but had nothing to lose because they knew their legal costs would be covered. He was told such challenges could see smaller papers closed. The former England captain said "Blame the Sun and Mail" and said many smaller papers were owned by larger publishing companies that owned nation newspapers. http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/gary-lineker-tangles-on-with-opponents-of-press-regulation/story-30033061-detail/story.html#ByMAvL6wSiT3Kf3D.99 Expecting a fair bit of "irony this is coming from The Sun/Mail, they deserve it blah blah" type responses (as sadly Lineker has decided to do), which I can understand. But if you look beyond tabloid whining this really is an affront to our democracy. Hopefully it's never brought in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 5 January 2017 Share Posted 5 January 2017 It's unfair to bring this in as blanket legislation certainly when smaller publications could go under as a result. Couldn't it be abused as well? If a newspaper is repeatedly taken to court and they have to pay out regardless then that'll be the end of even bigger newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 5 January 2017 Share Posted 5 January 2017 Why on earth would Gary Lineker want to curtail the freedom of the press? Agree with everything in the original post, the idea that the rich and famous would be able to stop us getting information about them because a Newspaper would have to fund their legal fees even if the story is true is something that shouldn't be proposed let alone put through as legislation, when The Daily Mail, Private Eye, Metro, Guardian and The Sun are all fighting for the same thing, I think it's safe to assume they are onto something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voll Blau Posted 5 January 2017 Author Share Posted 5 January 2017 8 minutes ago, Wookie said: It's unfair to bring this in as blanket legislation certainly when smaller publications could go under as a result. Couldn't it be abused as well? If a newspaper is repeatedly taken to court and they have to pay out regardless then that'll be the end of even bigger newspapers. Yep, could in theory lead to really ridiculous vexatious claims like footballers taking a paper to court because, for example, they didn't like the rating they were given for the latest match. They wouldn't win the case, but the paper would lose a few bob regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMX11 Posted 5 January 2017 Share Posted 5 January 2017 Big government trying to erode liberties, never! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 5 January 2017 Share Posted 5 January 2017 Yeah, I'm with Gary on most matters but in this he's got it wrong. The freedom of the press to be irritating, manipulative cvnts goes hand in hand with the freedom for them to uncover genuine corruption at high levels. That's not something that should be even remotely threatened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobHawk Posted 5 January 2017 Share Posted 5 January 2017 lets be honest, the freedom of the press isn't the issue, lack of ethics within the press is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuchsntf Posted 5 January 2017 Share Posted 5 January 2017 Wrong !! Gary... Yes there are dickheads in the press, but they get find out. We need that embarrasing, uncomfortable part of the press... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voll Blau Posted 5 January 2017 Author Share Posted 5 January 2017 6 minutes ago, RobHawk said: lets be honest, the freedom of the press isn't the issue, lack of ethics within the press is! Again, you're talking about a few bad eggs in the national tabloids being allowed to tar the ethics of an entire profession. Worth noting as well that out of 34 journalists arrested as part of the inquiry into alleged payments to public officials, only two were ever convicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 5 January 2017 Share Posted 5 January 2017 Wonder which side of this discussion Keith Vaz is on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 5 January 2017 Share Posted 5 January 2017 7 minutes ago, MPH said: Wonder which side of this discussion Keith Vaz is on.... I don't think many in parliament will pass the opportunity to pass through laws like this, under these rules the Daily Telegraph probably wouldn't have been able to print numerous stories about the expenses they were stealing off of us, it could have pretty much bankrupted them being taken to court by 400 odd MP's and they might not have taken the risk. That's why decent people need to take a stand against it and make sure they aren't conned by the useful idiots who'll support this just because they hate Rupert Murdoch (who ironically, is probably the only bloke whose newspapers would still have the funding to be able to still print what they wanted) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobHawk Posted 5 January 2017 Share Posted 5 January 2017 3 hours ago, Voll Blau said: Again, you're talking about a few bad eggs in the national tabloids being allowed to tar the ethics of an entire profession. Worth noting as well that out of 34 journalists arrested as part of the inquiry into alleged payments to public officials, only two were ever convicted. Yeah your right, i'll change my mind to say, The problem with the press is the appauling standards they now set themselves. Most are now more interested in a juicy scoop into a celebs personal life than creating an actual thought provoking, well researched piece and unbiased piece of journalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voll Blau Posted 5 January 2017 Author Share Posted 5 January 2017 8 minutes ago, RobHawk said: Yeah your right, i'll change my mind to say, The problem with the press is the appauling standards they now set themselves. Most are now more interested in a juicy scoop into a celebs personal life than creating an actual thought provoking, well researched piece and unbiased piece of journalism No, they're not. Again, you're talking about some staff at two or three national papers and press agencies that provide that sort of tat. Sadly, the standards at papers like that are set by their readers. If people didn't want that shite, they wouldn't read it. If they don't, they go elsewhere for their news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobHawk Posted 5 January 2017 Share Posted 5 January 2017 Just now, Voll Blau said: No, they're not. Again, you're talking about some staff at two or three national papers and press agencies that provide that sort of tat. Sadly, the standards at papers like that are set by their readers. If people didn't want that shite, they wouldn't read it. If they don't, they go elsewhere for their news. The vast majority of journalism in this country is complete and utter shite! There is some good stuff out there, but the shit you have to dig through to find it is unreal! Even in established 'intellictual' papers (not the red tops) the majority of articles printed are awful journalism. Journalists used to question things and do the research to get people thinking about different ways things could be acheived. Now its mainly just a copy and paste of the press release with a few edits to ensure it looks original! This is even more so at a regional level and is why many local newspapers are dying or already dead! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voll Blau Posted 5 January 2017 Author Share Posted 5 January 2017 4 minutes ago, RobHawk said: The vast majority of journalism in this country is complete and utter shite! There is some good stuff out there, but the shit you have to dig through to find it is unreal! Even in established 'intellictual' papers (not the red tops) the majority of articles printed are awful journalism. Journalists used to question things and do the research to get people thinking about different ways things could be acheived. Now its mainly just a copy and paste of the press release with a few edits to ensure it looks original! This is even more so at a regional level and is why many local newspapers are dying or already dead! Can't argue with that last part, but underinvestment and mismanagement from above is to blame for that - not the journalists themselves. There is still plenty of good work being undertaken by reporters under more pressure than ever on shit pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 5 January 2017 Share Posted 5 January 2017 @Voll Blau All Journos Are Bastards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 5 January 2017 Share Posted 5 January 2017 4 hours ago, Wookie said: @Voll Blau All Journos Are Bastards Except the nice ones... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 5 January 2017 Share Posted 5 January 2017 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-seeks-views-on-press-regulation-issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 7 January 2017 Share Posted 7 January 2017 The Times leader is on this today if anyone wants a read.... The government will soon have to decide if it is right to coerce newspapers into accepting the oversight of a state-backed regulator that they do not trust and that does not trust them. The answer is clear. It is wrong. Coercing a free press is, in the first place, a contradiction in terms. The conversation that Britain is having with itself about press regulation is being followed elsewhere in the free world with dismay because the very concept of newspapers being answerable to anyone other than their readers is rightly alien. Moreover, the regulator the government has in mind, Impress, is self-appointed, partisan and in no position to wield authority over an industry that it manifestly disdains. Impress is, finally, unnecessary, since the press already regulates itself with more regard for accuracy, privacy and the public interest than ever before. Free speech includes the freedom to offend and we are well aware that special pleading can be offensive. Yet we make no apology for fighting for our independence as fiercely as we fight in our journalism to expose wrongdoing and hold the powerful to account. Next Tuesday the government closes an official consultation on whether to enforce section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, and whether to proceed with part two of the Leveson inquiry into the culture, practice and ethics of the press. The former would create the presumption that newspapers that do not join Impress would pay both sides’ costs in any libel action, whoever wins. It would, in effect, force papers to pay to print the truth whenever the truth proved unpalatable to anyone prepared to sue. The latter would require a new public inquiry to reinvestigate crimes and practices that have already been thoroughly investigated by the first Leveson inquiry and concurrent criminal prosecutions. Section 40 turns natural justice on its head. It would be unthinkable in the US under the first amendment to the constitution, and probably illegal under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The same, more importantly, is true of Impress itself, which is financed largely by the former motor-racing tycoon Max Mosley and led by avowed enemies of the tabloid press. The News of the World, the Daily Mirror and other papers that engaged in phone hacking have paid dearly for it, and rightly so. Campaigners such as those of Hacked Off have every right to continue to lobby for stronger protections for private citizens although the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which already regulates most of Britain’s print media, has shown that it takes their privacy extremely seriously. What is not acceptable is for the state to co-opt the staff and agenda of a ginger group and designate them a regulator. For the government to empower Impress by enforcing section 40 would to akin to enlisting Greenpeace to regulate the big six energy companies. Our carbon footprint might shrink, but darkness would soon fall. Critics of the British press argue that it is reaping no more than it has sown. Our response is that the royal charter behind Impress is the thin end of a potentially oppressive wedge. Being bullied into submitting to state-backed regulation is poor recompense for investigative journalism that is costly, risky and undertaken by few others. The Times and its competitors have exposed grooming in Rotherham, doping in cycling and corruption in parliament in an age when social media, ignored by the Leveson process, floods the web with flighty stories and fake news. The government should support the press by standing back, not leaning in. That means scrapping section 40, which was misconceived, and part two of the Leveson inquiry, which is unnecessary and has scant public support. Britain’s press is already well-regulated by Ipso, and even better by its readers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob1742 Posted 11 January 2017 Share Posted 11 January 2017 I have no time for the newspapers, they are the creator of their own downfall. Like a bully being found out, then complaining of being bullied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 11 January 2017 Share Posted 11 January 2017 2 hours ago, Rob1742 said: I have no time for the newspapers, they are the creator of their own downfall. Like a bully being found out, then complaining of being bullied. They really aren't at all, this is so off the mark. A few dodgy people at some runt gutter rag are not responsible for the entire press and should not cause the 95% of others interested in breaking genuine news not be able to do their job. Those people that went to prison for phone hacking did something that was already illegal, you don't need further regulation and a free press is vital to any democratic country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob1742 Posted 11 January 2017 Share Posted 11 January 2017 8 hours ago, MattP said: They really aren't at all, this is so off the mark. A few dodgy people at some runt gutter rag are not responsible for the entire press and should not cause the 95% of others interested in breaking genuine news not be able to do their job. Those people that went to prison for phone hacking did something that was already illegal, you don't need further regulation and a free press is vital to any democratic country. The Sun Hillsborough anyone? They take sides in elections to influence the voters? I could go on and on and on, including choosing who to attack and who to leave alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted 11 January 2017 Share Posted 11 January 2017 On Thu Jan 05 2017 at 11:55, Wookie said: It's unfair to bring this in as blanket legislation certainly when smaller publications could go under as a result. Couldn't it be abused as well? If a newspaper is repeatedly taken to court and they have to pay out regardless then that'll be the end of even bigger newspapers. Good. They all post shit stories taking the attention away from the actual news that needs to be publicised throughout the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 11 January 2017 Share Posted 11 January 2017 3 minutes ago, Ashley said: Good. They all post shit stories taking the attention away from the actual news that needs to be publicised throughout the world. Who's going to publicise them when they've gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 11 January 2017 Share Posted 11 January 2017 14 minutes ago, Rob1742 said: The Sun Hillsborough anyone? They take sides in elections to influence the voters? I could go on and on and on, including choosing who to attack and who to leave alone. And that justifies treating all journalists as guilty, even if they're found innocent? This is isn't about journalistic ethics, it's about preventing anyone from uncovering improper conduct from public officials. Ignoring that it would amount to an abolition of the free press, you're endorsing losing the ability to hold people to account because of a couple of bad eggs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.