Vocal Voices

All the opinion seems to be that Lord L will recommend some sort of external regulation of the press. I know it's a difficult call but in general I hope he doesn't.
Some of the people involved in the Leveson inquiry, whether as members or as witnesses, seem more interested in revenge than anything else. To be fair to them, in their shoes so would I be.
Namely:-
Chris Bryant MP. Outed in the most embarassing way. He had a photo of himself posing in his underpants lifted from a gay dating site with his message about how horny he felt and how much he wanted a shag, splashed all over the NoW.
Max Mosley. Paid to be spanked on the arse by tarts dressed up in military uniform shouting orders at him in a cod german accent. NoW posted a video of this on the net and carried the story in the paper as well.
Steve Coogan. On the receiving end of a few cocaine / slapper stories.
Hugh Grant. Story of him getting caught with a hooker in LA all over the papers, complete with police mug shot.
Then you get Tom Watsom MP. Big mate of Gordon Brown. The Labour party's moral outrage at the Murdoch empire seems to have started the day after Murdoch switched the support of his papers from Labour to the Tories.

Then you have Lord L asking Tony Blair on camera, about his ideas for press regulation.

The Murdoch papers committed crimes; fine, let them be punished for the crimes. But don't let politicians or judges get a toehold in telling papers what they can and can't print, because too many of them have vested interests in what they want printed and what they want kept silent.

It is a tough call. On the one hand anything that stops the tittle-tattle tales of the likes of Mosely, Grant, Jordan.... has to be a good thing, but the other side of that coin is censorship of the type favoured by dictatorships of the far left and right.

There is talk of "Arms length" oversight, but who would be members of such a Quango and what would be the remit?

My worry is that under such scrutiny we would not have got the MP's expenses scandal, Dr Kelly, the Dodgy Dossier files, George Osborne and Madelson sharing the largess of a disreputable millionaire on the same boat, at the same time.....

Press freedom has to be maintained, but it is for the press to clean up its act or be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I have to say, I wouldn't have any faith in any "independent" regulator of the press.
It's become very apparent with all the "independent" inquiries into Iraq etc, that to our rulers "independent" means "one of our mates who we can trust to deliver the right result".

On reflection I am against any government control. There is no such thing as "independent" oversight. Those doing the work have to be appointed, and as such are beholden to those doing the appointing.

We have laws in this country, and when any arm of the media breaks those laws it should be punished to the full extent. If that means a PCC monitoring the output of the press to keep it in check, with regards the law, so be it.

What I do not want is stories having to be approved by some anonymous body before publication.

Hot off the press! (Pardon the pun)

As predicted:-

"Lord Justice Leveson called today for legislation to underpin a "genuinely independent and effective system of self-regulation" for the press".

Independent? As if! There's no such thing any more.

Workingman wrote:It is a tough call. On the one hand anything that stops the tittle-tattle tales of the likes of Mosely, Grant, Jordan.... has to be a good thing, but the other side of that coin is censorship of the type favoured by dictatorships of the far left and right.

There is talk of "Arms length" oversight, but who would be members of such a Quango and what would be the remit?

My worry is that under such scrutiny we would not have got the MP's expenses scandal, Dr Kelly, the Dodgy Dossier files, George Osborne and Madelson sharing the largess of a disreputable millionaire on the same boat, at the same time.....


Press freedom has to be maintained, but it is for the press to clean up its act or be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

There has never been a real punishment Frank/Cromwell... As for Mandy a man who couldn't afford to pay his lowly mortgage and was indebted to Robinson he was damned well promoted to the top job just like the Kinnockio's.. Both millionaires like B'Liar and the rest of the hypocrites.. Lies...intrigue... who manipulate the public and scheme "whatever the cost" to those in high places.. These hearings are a farce, and as Frank says we would not have the fraud and corruption revealed in the press if the press are stifled.. My thought is MP's and indeed Cameron are too scared to rock the boat!!

I think on balance I favour some sort of legislation, simply because the media currently has no conception of what is right or wrong, what is moral or immoral, what is lies or truth, what is balanced reporting or sensationalism. It has behaved like an unstoppable juggernaut and lives have been wrecked. Look at Joanna Yates' landlord, Chris Jeffries for example ...

Libel damages are all very well, but surely we need to have a press that will not libel in the first place. Otherwise the damages are just a form of buying off, and the juggernaut steamrollers on.

Nope, I'm with Milliband on this one - impliment Leveson in full. Free speech should not be abused - if the media cannot control themselves, and I have seen no indication that they will do so, then the whole area must be controlled by law so that abuse never happens

So you want someone, a person who is reliant on their livelihood by doing the bidding of their appointee to approve what is written in the papers or shown on the TV?

That's the solution is it? Who does the appointing, and who appoints the appointers?

There are laws to control how we behave regarding libel, defamation, harassment, data protection and so on. They also apply to the media. Use them to the full, but do not shackle the free press, please.

I have lived and worked in places where the press is, for want of a better word, censored. I do not want that in Britain.

Well, we can look at the theories in the Leveson report; we can also look at some very recent political persons.

Group 1. Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, Alastair Campbell.
Group 2. Gordon Brown, Ed Balls, Charlie Whelan, Damien McBride.

and a couple of choices.

Would either of these groups have been perfectly happy with an independent media regulator, and let the regulator act unhindered?
Or would they have thought "We want our own man in there, doing what we want".

Ladies and gentlemen, I respectfully submit that it would have been the second option.

Workingman wrote:I have lived and worked in places where the press is, for want of a better word, censored. I do not want that in Britain.

I agree, however they must face censure for acts which are not acceptable in a civilised society. That censure must have teeth and give the media pause for thought.

Mrs S has told be categorically that if I enter politics then our marriage ends. Why? Unfettered gutter press.

So if you don't have controls in society, then you get what you deserve. i.e. people who either don't care or don't mind about the gutter press. Instead of people who care and mind how the country is run....