Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:47 pm  

Dally wrote:

It would be better not to have regulation but to have draconian sanctions for defamatory or bad journalism. In other words, do not stifle investigative journalism and the ability of the Press to uncover wrong-doing by politicians, etc but where they are vexatious, make up stories, etc the consequences on them should be such that they would not risk it.

I agree. And any such 'draconian' sanctions should involve the individual journalist(s)/editor(s) concerned as well as the newspaper/group as an organisation.

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:06 pm  

The answer is simple - enforce the existing laws properly. The vast majority of the things which brought Leveson about were criminal acts yet very few perpetrators have faced any charges for them. Journalists seem to have been afforded some kind of special status which they have no right to. If the guilty had been dealt with properly under the criminal justice system then it would send out a clear message, and I'm not talking about the odd 'show trial' like Brooks but any hack be it junior or senior who had any involvement should be sitting in a cell now. The laws exist, use them.

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Thu Nov 29, 2012 1:54 pm  

No comments on the actual report?

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:11 pm  

Dally wrote:

No comments on the actual report?

What a whole 5 mins after Leveson has delivered his summary?

[tb]

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:55 pm  

knock yourselves out

knock yourselves out

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:01 pm  

Or even: tb should of wrote: knock yourselves out Very careles's use of quotation mark's

Or even: tb should of wrote: knock yourselves out Very careles's use of quotation mark's

[tb]

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:45 pm  

very improper use of a possessive apostrophe!

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:49 pm  

tb wrote:

very improper use of a possessive apostrophe!

Is it

Mark's marks out of ten

or

Marks mark's out of ten

if you say neither, I will cry.

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:23 pm  

Giving this to Ofcom as a regulator with statutory powers is the way to go. TV/radio stations don't seem to be cowtowed at all by this oversight, so neither should 'Fleet Street'. The time for special pleading by the sanctimonious UK press is long over.

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:55 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

So Camoron gets his preview of the first part of Leveson at noon today and the report published to the wider audience 24 hours later. What can we expect?

Personally, no matter what Leveson proposes, I reckon we'll end up with yet another "final chance" for the press to clean their own act up and the whole thing will get kicked into the long grass. The Press Complaints Commission may be given more teeth but they'll eventually prove to be as tough as those foam sweetie things in a pic 'n' mix.

I don't want to see a return of press licensing that was last seen during the English Civil War but there should be a system whereby a newspaper can no longer decide to opt out of the PCC, as the Express has done. There should also be a more robust (and less expensive) method of the falsely maligned being able to seek redress from delinquent reporters, without having to resport to expensive civil law cases. Breaches of criminal law, such as hacking phones & computers or stalking should be applied with more vigour. I'd also like to see a system of vicarious liability applied to editors and even proprietors, if they thought they may face some serious jail time, they may be inclined to encourage more responsible reporting.

Either way, we'll probably end up with the newspapers gnashing and wailing in public, while quietly celebrating that they've managed to get away with it again (for now at least)

So all pretty much as I predicted then