Newspapers head to the courts

[Suff]

To try and head off the Royal Charter.

I read the headline "Newspapers in last-ditch bid to halt Royal Charter and preserve free speech" and I must admit my first thoughts were very ironic.

Free Speech was supposed to be the freedom to tell the truth. To inform people of matters both locally and in the world. To shine the spotlight of publicity on misdeeds and malpractice.

Yet, we learn, that it is the press themselves who are lying. The press who are breaking the law. The press who are doing all the things they are supposed to expose and for the same reasons as those people the press are supposed to bring to the limelight of the people.

Money.

So, were I a judge, I would have a short piece of advice for the press.

"All you had to do to ensure free speech was to tell the truth and act lawfully to expose the wrongdoings of others".

Then I'd say

Motion denied....

[Aggers]

So, were I a judge, I would have a short piece of advice for the press.

"All you had to do to ensure free speech was to tell the truth and act lawfully to expose the wrongdoings of others".

Then I'd say

Motion denied....

Words of wisdom indeed.

I'll second that.

[Workingman]

I won't.

I do not want the politicians of the day, or their chosen censors, to tell the press what it can or cannot print, about whom and when.

Laws already exist to prevent the excesses we have seen and had they been applied the press would have been kept in check. The difference is that it would have been the police, the Courts and Judges doing the checking, not politicians.

Motion allowed.....

[TheOstrich]

Laws already exist to prevent the excesses we have seen and had they been applied .......

But they weren't. And because they weren't, and because the press considers itself a law unto itself - and to paraphrase Suff, all they had to do to ensure free speech was to tell the truth and act lawfully .... but didn't - then we need to apply draconian regulation of the press, preferably by a parliamentary body but independent if deemed "necessary", with the full backing and application of sanctions. Self-regulation simply doesn't cut it.

No more talk, just get it done.

[Workingman]

Let me see.

We have laws that people break, but the offices of justice do not apply those laws for some reason.

So, the best way to deal with that problem is to introduce more draconian regulations under a scheme which will allow two thirds of politicians to change the rules, without recourse to the House of Lords, if they do not think the earlier versions are working to their benefit.

[Suff]

It appears the judges agree with me.

[Workingman]

Judges are not renowned for their infallibility, in fact, quite the opposite.

[Workingman]

The urgency with which this came about is disturbing - three hours from 'Motion denied' to the Privy Council seal of approval. Now we learn that it will take six to twelve months to set up the panel that will oversea the regulators. The regulators will then have to be appointed....... so, not that urgent then.

In the meantime I would love it if the press totally ignored politics and the utterances of politicians: No reports from conferences, no PMQs, no telling us what Dave or Ed or Nick said when they visited some school or hospital. We could maybe get a headline every now and then of the "MP claims that reducing sugar in jam "is going to be the end of the British breakfast as we know it." type, just to let us know that the government was on top of the really important things.

[cromwell]

The Leveson enquiry was only ever intended to muzzle the press. Whether it suceeds or not we'll have to see.

Now then - when is there going to be a massive enquiry and police action taken (including dawn raids) against a section of society which phone hacked and used dodgy private investigators even more than the press did - namely, the big law firms?

When can we expect that to happen, "Lord" Leveson?

...............................................let's not hold our breath, eh?