New laws to shackle and fine the Press? We've got PLENTY already

Remind me which country this is about.

I don't want to have to read an article based on the politics of a country whose politics I despise.

::chuckles::

I find it extremely difficult to take seriously anyone using "crossing the Rubicon" as a simile without actually have made that expedition in person ...

That includes you "Amberhawk Training" ... whoever you are.

Nice article but misses the point of Leveson.

This article is not as strong as its author may wish. Claiming that DPA is a statutory regulation of the press is like claiming that the criminalisation of Burglary is a for of press regulation. Neither laws are designed to control or prohibit the right of the press to publish stories that involve information criminally obtained or which contain personal or even sensitive personal information.

The issue of the Leveson inquiry relates to the interpretation of the need to underpin the body that investigates press abuses with a statute. This is a key component of the Leveson report and to my mind politicians and sections of the media are twisting this to present a view that this is a means to allow Parliament to constrain or control the actions of the British free press. The reality is that Leveson is right any body set up to regulate the press must be both independent and have real teeth in dealing with those it regulates (past evidence shows that voluntary regulation not only in the press does not work remember all that voluntary regulation around estate agents?).

What is missing from today's world is the statutory compliance with the rules and regulations of the existing regulatory board (which is made up of newspaper editors), an independent regulatory body (not made up of newspaper editors) and the binding of all the press to the rules of that regulatory body. This does not need to include control of the media just the establishment of a body that does not consist of people who believe that they know (purely on the basis of what will sell a newspaper) what is in the public interest.

Even Nick Davies

Has said he sees no problem with Leveson's idea. At the end of the day, the press have shown 7 times in 70 years that they cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. To the best of my knowledge, no other industry is allowed to "mark its own homework" and the PCC was utterly useless - Desmond walked away from it and there was nothing anyone could do about what he printed in his papers, except an expensive drawn-out private prosecution. Christ, Mrs McCann's diary was published without her consent and the PCC said "Nothing we can do, chief."

Newspapers are allowed to basically do as they please, with little fear of the consequences, because the "regulator" has no power to impose penalties. I'm quite happy with the idea of a halfway house rather than full statutory control, but any regulator must have the power to punish(on radio4, one tabloid editor laughably suggested that the thing editors fear most is being forced to print an apology, as opposed to a gigantic fine or a prison sentence)

There needs to be a system whereby ordinary members of the public with a grievance can make a complaint and the publication in question is mandated to explain its actions before a tribunal, after which the complaint can either be upheld and some sort of settlement reached without the need for a full-blown trial, or else the complaint can be dismissed, in which case you either accept it and move on or you seek the full-trial option. You could even moderate that with a clause that says once you agree to enter arbitration, you cannot then bring a separate prosecution through the courts.

A lot of the tabloid press are keen to tell us that kids these days run riot because there's no discipline "Gone are the days when you could give an errant lout a clip round the ear or a teacher could keep a class in line with the threat of a caning. Typical wishy-washy liberals etc."

Well the Fleet Street Kids have had 7 warnings now and they're running more riot than ever. Time for them to practise what they preach?

As to the idea that press regulation ushers in some kind of dictatorship, the Prime Minister can't even get Abu Whatsisname out of the country or keep his expenses under wraps, so how on Earth is he going to manage to get some kind of Supreme Ruler Enabling Act through parliament?

Paper never refused ink

If you don't like/agree with the press/media don't buy/read/watch it.

The print oligarchs will disappear eventually.

An earlier post picked up on one of the key issues, what is in 'the public interest'.

There is a huge difference between what is 'in the public interest' (broadly speaking information that is of benefit to the public/society) and what 'is interesting to the public'.

This is what the press seem to confuse often. Certainly much of what the press churns out is in the first category (The Telegraph and MPs expenses. The Grauniad and phone hacking) but far far more is in the second category (most if not all of the Red Tops, The Daily Mail and The Express' content) which is used purely to pander to the whims of the reader and encourage circulation.

Can someone show me where the 'public interest' is in Max Mosley's fondness for a bit of role play or for pictures of Kate M's Jubbs?