Leveson - the outcome

[bunchamunchycrunchycarrots]

previous thread & another one

So, the report will finally be made public tomorrow - wonder what the outcome will be? Will Cameron actually go with the recommendations or not?

To Bunchamuncy

I went to school with HG back in the '70, he was a great bloke then and I very much doubt if he has changed that much. He really was an extremely intelligent lad and very popular with peers.

He went onto Oxford and I went onto Coventry Poly...

What's wrong with Gerry McCann? Unless you believe all the shite the Express poured on the poor man and his wife - shite that cost the Express £500k because it was clearly made-up rubbish. Cruel beyond belief. The poor man has lost his daughter, his character has been unfairly traduced, I really don't think anyone has the right to have a pop at him. (And I'm a journalist - thankfully not the sort who writes that appalling stuff.)

I don't like the man. He makes me very uncomfortable. This is still a free country where people are free to give their opinions. I don't like either of the mccanns. My sympathies lie with their poor daughter.

I think edam makes good points on this thread.

The printed press is slowly dying. This could well be its kiss of death.

The internet is unregulated. It makes Leveson seem totally irrelevant.

Hugh Grant, rightly or wrongly, really irritates me on this whole thing. I can't bear to see his smug face in the news. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to indulge his and other celebrities' whinings on this. Celebrities depend on the press and publicity: it's their lifeblood. I'm sure Grant has always been perfectly happy to use the media to promote his latest film.

Basically, I have very little sympathy for celebrities like Grant who earn millions, aided by the media.

I do have sympathy for the McCann family (though they used the media too), Chris Jeffries and the Dowlers.

But there are stringent defamation laws in this land which already hold the press accountable.

The McCanns weren't hacked {they said they didn't have phones} so assuming their complaint is re the publication of Kate's diaries by The Sun why don't the sun tell them who gave them the diaries and then they can sue them?

Most people can't afford the lawyers fees to take on the press and that is why there needs to be statuory law which is cost -effective for ordinary folk to go to.
How can people say , there is no need for legislation with 70 years of enquiry and no restraint by press - they are driven by money and public interest is secondary.

Liked leveson's final comments: "We need to guard the Guadrians" A bit of a pun because the Guardian is largely respectable who I think brought us this scandal and there may be a few others but they all need to follow guidelines and they clearly feel they are above the law or they would not have bribed or phone-hacked.
I'm not sure what will police them but a law if someone is brave enough should be there - even just to support innocent public with a small claims court ability to criticise the press. We want freedom but not too much power - press have more power than anybody at mo.

amic, you'd think phone hacking was illegal, but it wasn't actually made illegal until sometime in the early 2000s. The CPS bizarrely decided, when challenged on this, that it was only illegal if you could prove the person for whom the voicemail was intended had not listened to the message first. Madness and clearly an attempt to shut down criticism.

zamantha, did Leveson say 'We need to guard the guardians' or 'Who will guard the guardians?' The second is the usual phrase, from the Latin Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' and has often been used in discussions about the press - who holds to account those who hold others to account?

Noddy if I remember correctly, the McCaans think it was the Portugese police who copied her diary then sold it to The Sun.

Haha complex! I hadn't realised it was you!

I have sympathy for people like HG. Yes he's made money from films, but that doesn't mean he has sold his soul to the press for ever more.

He is entitled to privacy, like any other human being.

I'm sure you are right and it relates to a latin phrase.

haven't read whole thread - but are we really talking about individuals as the press hone in on or are we talking about principles?

Who cares if so and so likes HG or the Mc's? The issue of improper behaviour by power brokers is the issue.

with noddy on this.

i think this is an inquest that was always going to end one way

disapproving language

no action

because whoever regulates the press needs regulating

i found John Majors testimony interesting

i don't know what i'd do to stop that though.

Camrun finds himself in a tricky place, doesn't he? He has been told to have 'misgivings' about the recommendations, yet a chunk of his own party, his coalition buddies, the Labour Party, a large body of witnesses and from chat's in RL most (?) of the GBP would like to see a legislative back stop.

But we can always rely on Camrun's good sense and judgement in these things....

Pan : Solution?

what legislation wouldn't impede freedom of speech?

I think it depends on what you mean by "freedom of speech". This has always been curtailed to avoid abuses/incitements/harrasment, by law, so there isn't any great Rubicon being crossed here, as 'anti-legislators would have it.

One knows that the 'last chance salon' has been well drunk in repeatedly re self regulation.

Of course I am making all this up as I go along, as we all are, but it convinces me.

i note also that the labour party had 13 years to legislate on this subject and didn't.

There's a big long list of things the Labour Party should have legislated on but didn't.

All governments over the past few decades have been desperate to win Murdoch's approval. To be fair, it wasn't until 2006 that the royal reporter scandal broke and 2009/10 when the Guardian started to expose the full scale of wrongdoing.

Cameron was warned not to appoint the ex-editor of the Screws, who had resigned in disgrace over phone-hacking, as his press secretary. But insisted on doing it anyway - and refused to sack Coulson even as the scandal unraveled.

It's about balance, surely. I for one want a free press-free to uncover stories like the MPs' expenses scandal. The law should punish phone-hackers. But I am more than a little bit put out to see people who have used the Press to their advantage when it suited them then appearing at the enquiry wanting freedom of the press hampered because they don't like some of the stories that have been published.

I agree muchly with you kweggie. There are more than several names that spring to mind who have used the press massively and it so pisses me off that they are now trying to stifle the press because certain stories were not favourable. Obvs I feel for the dowlers et al but I can't find myslelf crying buckets for the the rest. I have much more in my life to worry about than Jk friggin Rowling, Steve coogan or the mccanns.

I don't think the celebs are complaining about the stories - they are complaining about the depth of intrusion into their private lives, which is understandable.
Just because the film marketing requires distribution/production companies to advertise the films doesn't mean nasties from rags have a 'right' to invade people's lives.

It will be interesting to see if labour make this law if they win the next election. I very much doubt it.