Leveson

[ithuriel]

Seconded,

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

The same peeps who will cry rivers when going down that road goes too far.

[Jon the Hat]

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.

I dont think you will find a quote from Cameron saying no changes are needed, but the state should ot be legislating regulation of the press. Especially not off the back of a report which thinks that off the record briefings should be banned. Seriously, who does that help exactly? The end of whistleblowing in the corridors of power? Shocking decision, and complete impractical nonsense.

Fortunately there is not a cats in hell's chance of any legislation under Cameron. The press will sort themselves out and sign up to a new independent body. In the meantime, if any of you actually buy newspapers which print this shite, you should take some personal responsibility and stop buying it.

[Trav Le Bleu]

I find it incredible so many people seem to want more state intervention into their lives.

The same peeps who will cry rivers when going down that road goes too far.

The same people who buy these newspapers in the first place and who are just as culpable.

[Captain...]

From what I've read I see no problem with his proposals, the main parts being to make it easier to claim against newspapers that have printed kids and defamed someone. The other bits I like is that there will be set guidelines on where and how big apologies must be over mistakes. Many times a lie was printed on the front page and apologies printed in the middle a few days later.

Maybe I an missing something, but the regulatory body will an independent and is not designed to stop the press printing things, but to hold them more accountable to what they print.

[Steven]

Shami Chakrabarti, is siding with the Prime Minister and against the judge over the degree of statutory involvement needed for new independent regulation

[breadandcheese]

From what I've read I see no problem with his proposals, the main parts being to make it easier to claim against newspapers that have printed kids and defamed someone. The other bits I like is that there will be set guidelines on where and how big apologies must be over mistakes. Many times a lie was printed on the front page and apologies printed in the middle a few days later.

Maybe I an missing something, but the regulatory body will an independent and is not designed to stop the press printing things, but to hold them more accountable to what they print.

I don't think anybody disagrees about a better need for redress to those ordinary people who cannot afford expensive court cases against the newspapers, but this does not need statute and legislation against the newspapers.

[breadandcheese]

What is more dangerous? A free press or a press underpinned by political statute?

http://www.telegraph...nses-story.html

When a reporter approached Mrs Miller’s office last Thursday, her special adviser, Joanna Hindley, pointed out that the Editor of The Telegraph was involved in meetings with the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary over implementing the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson.

“Maria has obviously been having quite a lot of editors’ meetings around Leveson at the moment. So I am just going to kind of flag up that connection for you to think about,†said Miss Hindley.

[FoxyPV]

I'm torn on this as everything that the papers did wrong is already illegal so there seems little point in having another law for exactly the same thing, yet on the other hand self regulation clearly had little effect on their behaviour.

[breadandcheese]

Key-David-Cameron-aide-Craig-Oliver-threatens-Telegraph-over-Leveson.html

Wow, another special adviser attempts to suppress the same story of MP expenses with a veiled threat about press regulation.

If ever there was a reason as to why we shouldn't have a specific press law. Trusting politicians with press freedom is clearly a bad idea.