Leveson

[Guest BlueBrett]

With a majority of parliament (Labour, Lib Dems and around 70 Tories) suggesting that they will fully endorse Leveson if, as expected, he recommends statutory regulation of the press in his report on Thursday, I am interested to know whether a similar proportion of FT share the view that this is the best way forward.

I was going to include a poll but when I came to write the questions I found the various available options and the justifications for them are too nuanced to fit neatly in that format unless I reduced it to simply 'State reg: Yes or No', so instead I leave you to express and categorise your opinions however you see fit.

[breadandcheese]

I have never agreed with state regulation of the press and still don't despite everything that has happened.

As far as I can tell, all the phone hacking is in breach of the law, so there is no issue with press regulation, but enforcement of the law. The questions should be posed toward the original investigation and why it did not uncover anything.. Arrests should be made with regards phone hacking but this does not mean regulation of the press.

It is never in the interests of society for the press to be regulated by parliament.

[Carl the Llama]

I have never agreed with state regulation of the press and still don't despite everything that has happened.

As far as I can tell, all the phone hacking is in breach of the law, so there is no issue with press regulation, but enforcement of the law. The questions should be posed toward the original investigation and why it did not uncover anything.. Arrests should be made with regards phone hacking but this does not mean regulation of the press.

It is never in the interests of society for the press to be regulated by parliament.

You're missing the point that self regulation did eff all in terms of preventing this behaviour in the first place.

I don't know what the best option is, but w/r to self regulation I have this to say: Leve it ahhht son.

[Zingari]

I suspect that those that want to restrict the press have given them enough rope to hang themselves . They take a case like Milly Dowler and pretend this type of stuff is all they want to curtail.

The laws are already in place to stop phone hacking , police officers taking bribes from the media etc The problem has been enforcement .

[breadandcheese]

You're missing the point that self regulation did eff all in terms of preventing this behaviour in the first place.

I don't know what the best option is, but w/r to self regulation I have this to say: Leve it ahhht son.

You just wanted to say Leve it ahhhhhht son, didn't you?

To counter your point, we have the law of the land. Phone hacking is already against the law. What is Leveson going to say? Phone hacking should be made doubly-illegal?

Regulation can never stop law-breaking behaviour (see all manner of regulated markets and activities as examples to show it doesn't stop law breaking). It is enforcement of the law that needs to be looked at and the failings as to why the Met did not make arrests after their first investigation into phone hacking allegations. Interestingly, it was the press in the end that exposed phone-hacking.

On another note, I would like to see Piers Morgan tried for perjury, after his performance in the enquiry but suspect nothing will happen.

[Carl the Llama]

You just wanted to say Leve it ahhhhhht son, didn't you?

Maybe.

[leicsmac]

Tough one.

On the one side I strongly resent the idea of media freedom of speech being curtailed like it is in so many countries. A free Press acts as a bulwark against people who feel they can do anything they want.

On the other side, those selfsame individuals seem to have a big say in pushing their political agenda using the Press, as the leading media moguls are in bed with them (due to money, obviously). And a powerful media (as I've said on here before) is able to influence elections despite those who run them and make the editorial decisions having never stood in an election themselves.

Better enforcement is one possible answer, but who would do the enforcing? How can it be guaranteed that they are independent?

[Guest BlueBrett]

Obviously the press, particularly the tabloid press, has problems and will never properly fulfil its ‘fourth estate’ function in the way that we would like whilst under the ownership and influence of a couple of billionaires, but I am dead against trying to solve this problem with State regulation. As people have pointed out, the issue is more about enforcement than the law itself. The pro stat reg lobby case seems to rest largely on their claim that the industry can’t be trusted to regulate itself and therefore ‘statutory underpinning’ is required. As far as I can see, all this would do is to transfer the object requiring our ‘trust’ from the press to the state (and surely the state has shown itself to be at least as undeserving of it as the newspapers over the last few years). In effect, Hugh Grant et al. seem to be advocating a move from a self-regulating press to a self-regulating state and I know which of those I feel the most uncomfortable with.

I find the politics of this issue fascinating and extremely surprising. I just can’t believe that such a large proportion of the commons seems to be in favour of restricting the autonomy of the press. I know this is being touted in the media as a really difficult and potentially damaging issue for the PM given that a significant number of his own MPs are on the ‘wrong’ side of the argument, but I can’t help feeling that in fact this debate presents him with an incredible opportunity. If (and obviously it’s a big if) he has the courage of his convictions and continues to argue in opposition to the majority of the commons against infringing upon press freedoms, I can see him winning A LOT of public support. Clearly this rests on me being correct in my assumption that the vast majority of the public will be very suspicious of anything that could be interpreted as the State overreaching itself and interfering in press reporting but I really can’t see the ‘general public’ taking any other view (then again Rosemary Shrager is the bookies favourite to win I’m a celebrity which proves nothing if not that my thoughts can be miles apart from those of the public at large).

[Webbo]

I have never agreed with state regulation of the press and still don't despite everything that has happened.

As far as I can tell, all the phone hacking is in breach of the law, so there is no issue with press regulation, but enforcement of the law. The questions should be posed toward the original investigation and why it did not uncover anything.. Arrests should be made with regards phone hacking but this does not mean regulation of the press.

It is never in the interests of society for the press to be regulated by parliament.

I suspect that those that want to restrict the press have given them enough rope to hang themselves . They take a case like Milly Dowler and pretend this type of stuff is all they want to curtail.

The laws are already in place to stop phone hacking , police officers taking bribes from the media etc The problem has been enforcement .

Spot on.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Been following this pretty much since it's started. There are hundreds of really good articles about it all spread over the web, but here are a few from the last few days. The first two are the ones that I recommend you read if you cannot be arsed with all four.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/24/christopher-jefferies-leveson-press-inquiry

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9699004/The-press-should-hug-the-Leveson-report-ina-grim-embrace-of-welcome.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/26/leveson-no-10-statutory-press-regulation

http://www.thelawyer.com/what-should-levesons-report-propose/1015719.article

I'm sure I've said this before but I think this is one of the biggest news events of modern times, but it probably doesn't seem like it to most folks because it's barely been mentioned in a big chunk of the popular media

[accessory]

I have never agreed with state regulation of the press and still don't despite everything that has happened.

As far as I can tell, all the phone hacking is in breach of the law, so there is no issue with press regulation, but enforcement of the law. The questions should be posed toward the original investigation and why it did not uncover anything.. Arrests should be made with regards phone hacking but this does not mean regulation of the press.

It is never in the interests of society for the press to be regulated by parliament.

Why not? The broadcasters are - a fact which the tabloids conveniently choose to ignore.

It's not just about phone-hacking, but about stalking of celebrities and their familes, sabotaging criminal trials (as two tabloids did last year) and general gangster-like behaviour which should have no place in a modern, 21st-century state.

[ithuriel]

This reminds me of that old saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Guest MattP]

Wow, do some folk actually want Parliament to control the Press? Seriously guys wtf.

What's been said earlier is right, what happened here was already illegal, the enforcement was the problem.

That said I'd make an exception for the BBC, forced to pay for it and have continually behaved in an absolutely disgraceful manner over a number of years. Hang the BBC.

[ozleicester]

Print is dead anyway

[breadandcheese]

Why not? The broadcasters are - a fact which the tabloids conveniently choose to ignore.

It's not just about phone-hacking, but about stalking of celebrities and their familes, sabotaging criminal trials (as two tabloids did last year) and general gangster-like behaviour which should have no place in a modern, 21st-century state.

This commentary by Dominic Lawson sums it up much better than I can articulate. The gist of the argument is that there is no immunity to prosecution for a journalist in the UK. All the behaviour you describe above is covered by law (I believe the issue of stalking of celebrities is now covered by European Human Rights Law which has created a privacy law of sorts).

http://www.independe...or-8352806.html

Also, the behaviour you mention above could equally be applied to the internet and social media, where we've seen injunctions being broken, criminal trials being sabotaged, libel of Lord McAlpine, general gangster behaviour? Would you like to see the internet being regulated in the same way?

[accessory]

Sorry, i don't remember internet users hacking the phone of a murdered child and causing distress to her family.

Or internet users smearing the McCanns, Robert Murat or Christopher Jeffries before a mass audience

Or internet users stalking a princess and hounding her and her companion to their deaths.

Or internet users publishing lies to wreck an individual's career (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20524505.html )

Self-regulation has too often meant no regulation. That has to change.

It seems the majority of MPs (at least those not on the Telegraph/Murdoch payrolls) recognise this.

How ironic that many of the pro-Murdoch posters on this thread are usually the ones who regularly feature elsewhere on here complaining how politicians show no respect for public opinion. A recent poll showed that nearly 80% of the public support the creation of an independent (ie non-state) regulator (http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2012/11/28/poll-public-want-statutory-legislation-to-regulate-press).

If the government wishes to ignore this mood, it does so at its peril. Cameron will eventually be forced into adopting the recommendations, just as he was forced into setting up this inquiry in the first place.

[breadandcheese]

Sorry, i don't remember internet users hacking the phone of a murdered child and causing distress to her family.

Or internet users smearing the McCanns, Robert Murat or Christopher Jeffries before a mass audience

Or internet users stalking a princess and hounding her and her companion to their deaths.

Or internet users publishing lies to wreck an individual's career (...)

Self-regulation has too often meant no regulation. That has to change.

It seems the majority of MPs (at least those not on the Telegraph/Murdoch payrolls) recognise this.

How ironic that many of the pro-Murdoch posters on this thread are usually the ones who regularly feature elsewhere on here complaining how politicians show no respect for public opinion. A recent poll showed that nearly 80% of the public support the creation of an independent (ie non-state) regulator (http://www.politics....-regulate-press).

If the government wishes to ignore this mood, it does so at its peril. Cameron will eventually be forced into adopting the recommendations, just as he was forced into setting up this inquiry in the first place.

Do you not remember Lord McAlpine being smeared on the internet? Or injunctions being broken on twitter?

Interestingly, when mentioning stalking a princess, it was the foreign media that printed topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge, not the UK media who declined. UK regulation would not have stopped this. Even more interestingly, the naked photos of Prince Harry were taken by individuals, not the press.

I do fear that a blinding hate for Murdoch is clouding your judgement. This is not an anti-murdoch issue. The commentary I linked to above was from the Independent newspaper, hardly a right-wing supporter of Rupert.

I'll quote the best bit from the article for those who can't be bothered to read the whole thing.

The correct response to that sort of objection was put by the character Milne, who one suspects spoke for the playwright’s own view: “Junk journalism is the evidence of a society that has got one thing right, that there should be nobody with the power to dictate where responsible journalism begins.†That does seem right, though junk journalism can at times make some of us at the posher end of the trade feel embarrassed or even tainted by association.

Five years ago, on these pages, I wrote an article of despair at the way some papers in this country had treated Kate McCann, whose child Madeleine had been abducted while on a holiday in Portugal, and who at least one British newspaper had all but declared guilty of murder. I described it as “a tsunami of prejudice masquerading as detectionâ€; the Daily Express, in particular, had treated the McCanns with disgusting cruelty. One should not lose sight of the fact, however, that a year later the McCanns were awarded £550,000 in libel damages; and the Express titles were forced to accompany that payout with front-page apologies to the parents they had so grievously wronged.

Similarly, Christopher Jefferies – who was subjected to character assassination by tabloid after he had been erroneously arrested on suspicion of murdering 25-year-old Joanna Yates three years ago – has received considerable financial compensation for the defamatory attacks he suffered. This doesn’t make the papers’ behaviour any more acceptable; but it does show there is already a regulatory framework governing newspapers.

It is known as the law: and the same law – in this case criminal rather than merely civil – is now bringing prosecutions against newspaper executives in connection with the illegal interception of communications, or, in the vernacular, phone hacking. Indeed, no fewer than 185 police officers are involved in this case, making it, by one account, “the biggest investigation in British criminal historyâ€.

In fact, it is the man who put Brian Leveson’s name forward for his unenviable task, the Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge, who has best made the argument against new laws specifically to govern the press. In the 13th Annual Justice Lecture, the most senior member of the judiciary declared a year ago: “An independent press will, from time to time, behave appallingly or employ individuals who in order to pursue a story will commit criminal offences. No editors, I think, have ever advocated that they are entitled to some special journalistic privilege if they do so, immunising them or their employees from criminal prosecution. So that is not the issue... We do not say that the General Medical Council and self-regulation have failed when, as sometimes happens, a doctor sexually molests one or more of his patients, or like Dr Shipman murders them.â€

[Jon the Hat]

Knee-jerk reaction to this is no better than knee jerk reaction to a terrorist attack. Anything which takes away our freedoms is a bad thing, and cumulatively they change our society. We are essentially asking the "victims" of the freedom of the press (MPs, Celebs) whether the press should be free to report what they are up to. Really? Shocking idea. If anything the fact that all this phone hacking has come out and people are being held to account shows we dont need regulation.

[Guest BlueBrett]

We are essentially asking the "victims" of the freedom of the press (MPs, Celebs) whether the press should be free to report what they are up to. Really? Shocking idea

Agreed.

I really resented the comments on this of several MPs and the PM in the commons at lunch time. There seemed to be consensus that "our main concern in all of this should be the suffering of those who have had bad experiences at the hands of the press". Seemed a ridiculous position for people who are supposed to represent the interests of the entire country to hold. Surely the main concern should be ensuring that any reforms to press regulations in no way infringe on press freedoms or deter investigative journalism whilst simultaneously requiring the press to act responsibly? Very worried that the politicians seem more intent on appeasing individuals than representing the masses.

[Guest MattP]

468 years ago this month, quite apt.

For those who like a bit of light reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areopagitica

[Guest MattP]

Sorry, i don't remember internet users hacking the phone of a murdered child and causing distress to her family.

Or internet users smearing the McCanns, Robert Murat or Christopher Jeffries before a mass audience

Or internet users stalking a princess and hounding her and her companion to their deaths.

Or internet users publishing lies to wreck an individual's career (...)

Self-regulation has too often meant no regulation. That has to change.

It seems the majority of MPs (at least those not on the Telegraph/Murdoch payrolls) recognise this.

How ironic that many of the pro-Murdoch posters on this thread are usually the ones who regularly feature elsewhere on here complaining how politicians show no respect for public opinion. A recent poll showed that nearly 80% of the public support the creation of an independent (ie non-state) regulator (http://www.politics....-regulate-press).

If the government wishes to ignore this mood, it does so at its peril. Cameron will eventually be forced into adopting the recommendations, just as he was forced into setting up this inquiry in the first place.

You nearly managed to get through without saying it, unlucky.

[Jon the Hat]

So Leveson as expected recommends an independent regulator backed by Legislation. Fortunately Cameron seems to have decided rightly that he is not going to be the Prime Minister to legislate press controls. Good man. Stand for your principles.

[leicsmac]

Two of the comments made elsewhere on the Web pretty much say what I think about the matter better than I ever could.

"The British press isn't free. It's a collection of biased cartels owned by powerful old men and dodgy Russian oligarchs who use them to threaten, bribe, intimidate and bully their way to political influence and financial gain. To hear them whine about being held accountable the way every other person and group in this country is as being some sort of affront to democracy is seriously annoying."

and

"The press only supplies demand, if we weren't happy to read trash celebrity gossip and sordid details of others personal lives, perhaps they wouldn't be doing as much of the things that have caused such scandal? We need to stop buying trash, and they will stop printing it."

[accessory]

So Leveson as expected recommends an independent regulator backed by Legislation. Fortunately Cameron seems to have decided rightly that he is not going to be the Prime Minister to legislate press controls. Good man. Stand for your principles.

If Cameron had had his way, there would have been no inquiry in the first place. It was only the prospect of a humiliating defeat in Parliament which forced him into holding one.

He can't even convince his own cabinet, let alone the country, that action isn't needed. As Nick Clegg (!) pointed out this afternoon, Ireland operates a system of regulation way beyond what Leveson has recommended, yet many if not all of our press barons (including Murdoch and Lord Rothermere) are still happy to publish there, with no significant difficulty.

By the way, look at how the tabloids reacted when some MPs argued for self-regulation in regard to their expenses. They argued (and in that case rightly so) that an independent body was needed to restore public confidence.

Exactly the same principle applies here.

Leveson maybe didn't go as far as some might have wished, but at least followed the tide rather than trying to resist it as Cameron is doing.

That tide will grow stronger with the revelations that emerge at the Coulson and Brooks trials.

[Guest MattP]

So Leveson as expected recommends an independent regulator backed by Legislation. Fortunately Cameron seems to have decided rightly that he is not going to be the Prime Minister to legislate press controls. Good man. Stand for your principles.

Seconded,

A small victory for freedom of speech. I find it incredible so many people seem to want more state intervention into their lives.