[DaveO]

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:51 am  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

Its as clear as mud ATM.

Quite. It seems Labour are saying the fact there will be a law that says royal charters in general can't be tampered with means it does have a legal underpinning whereas Miller doesn't mention the effect this legislation will have, only that they have stopped Labour's " Labour's extreme version of the press law".

Which is it?

The fact the legislation applies generally to all royal charters is supposedly a way of avoiding saying just underpinning this one by law means only the press has a royal charter regulating them that us underpinned by law.

I think there are some other compromises in there from both sides but given the Labour and Lib Dem position was legal underpinning was required I don''t see how they can accept anything that doesn't give that regardless of what other concessions are given towards their position (no veto by the press on commission members etc).

I will say however that Cameron has come back to the table (Even at arms length) and one has to wonder why?
Perhaps because he has realised he is going to be defeated when every single none Tory MP are lined up against him.

I think he was more worried about the 20 or so Tory MP's who would line up against him as well. It's not as party political as Miller wants to make out.

[DaveO]

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:07 am  

I saw this comment attributed to a labour source on the Guardian referring to the amendment to prevent royal charters being amended:

Lab source re Lords amendment:"This is not a little bit of statute, this is not a 'dab' of statute. This is statute pure and simple."

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:30 am  

DaveO wrote:

... I think he was more worried about the 20 or so Tory MP's who would line up against him as well. It's not as party political as Miller wants to make out.

And add to that the likes of Murdoch, the Barclay brothers and Viscount Rothermere, who won't be happy with any form of regulation with serious underpinning at all.

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:10 pm  

Kosh wrote:

And a few Tory MPs to be fair.

Camoron had no chance of winning a vote on the proposal he walked away from the table with. He must have known that at the time. What's more interesting is why Labour and the Lib Dems agreed to negotiate further when they already had a winning hand.

Because they didn't get their amendment in even with them being naughty and delaying the close of Parliament on Friday for over an hour

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:13 pm  

DaveO wrote:

I think he was more worried about the 20 or so Tory MP's who would line up against him as well. It's not as party political as Miller wants to make out.

True.

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:18 pm  

So a "free" press really means one free from having any responsibility to behave in a reasonable manner then?

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:26 pm  

Mintball wrote:

And add to that the likes of Murdoch, the Barclay brothers and Viscount Rothermere, who won't be happy with any form of regulation with serious underpinning at all.

I did get annoyed this morning when watching the news.
There was an editor of the Sun squealing about free press and how control of it is bad. Clearly the man doesn't realize the hypocrisy of it being him (NI employee) kicking off about it.
As for them using a picture of Winston Churchill this morning well nothing surprises me about that rag anymore.

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:28 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

So a "free" press really means one free from having any responsibility to behave in a reasonable manner then?

Yes that is exactly what the 'free press' think.

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:14 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote: I did get annoyed this morning when watching the news. There was an editor of the Sun squealing about free press and how control of it is bad. Clearly the man doesn't realize the hypocrisy of it being him (NI employee) kicking off about it. As for them using a picture of Winston Churchill this morning well nothing surprises me about that rag anymore. Still, it made a nice cover for the news that the Sun has admitted accessing an MP's mobile phone – in 2010. So much of it is an utter farce. I suspect that, for most people, the idea of a free press is one that will act in the best interests of the majority. The majority of our press acts in the interests of its owners. We can see that in many, many ways. But media is a business – why do we expect it to be any different to any other businesses, which also act in the interests of their owners and shareholders, such as Findus, with horsemeat in its beef products or the banks that mess up? And it's quite clear looking at those examples that proper regulation is required, properly enforced. It's farcical to try to pretend that that should not be the case for the media. To the argument that we already have laws that can deal with any problems – no, we don't. We do not have a privacy law. And it's worth noting that regulation, underpinned by statute, works perfectly well in other countries such as Denmark. Finally, ladies and gents, I give you what 'freedom of the press' means to the Mail: publishing pap shots of an eight-year-old child leaving a gym class and calling her "a leggy beauty".

Anakin Skywalker wrote: I did get annoyed this morning when watching the news. There was an editor of the Sun squealing about free press and how control of it is bad. Clearly the man doesn't realize the hypocrisy of it being him (NI employee) kicking off about it. As for them using a picture of Winston Churchill this morning well nothing surprises me about that rag anymore. Still, it made a nice cover for the news that the Sun has admitted accessing an MP's mobile phone – in 2010. So much of it is an utter farce. I suspect that, for most people, the idea of a free press is one that will act in the best interests of the majority. The majority of our press acts in the interests of its owners. We can see that in many, many ways. But media is a business – why do we expect it to be any different to any other businesses, which also act in the interests of their owners and shareholders, such as Findus, with horsemeat in its beef products or the banks that mess up? And it's quite clear looking at those examples that proper regulation is required, properly enforced. It's farcical to try to pretend that that should not be the case for the media. To the argument that we already have laws that can deal with any problems – no, we don't. We do not have a privacy law. And it's worth noting that regulation, underpinned by statute, works perfectly well in other countries such as Denmark. Finally, ladies and gents, I give you what 'freedom of the press' means to the Mail: publishing pap shots of an eight-year-old child leaving a gym class and calling her "a leggy beauty".

Re: Leveson - squeaky bum time? : Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:43 pm  

Mintball wrote: Finally, ladies and gents, I give you what 'freedom of the press' means to the Mail: publishing pap shots of an eight-year-old child leaving a gym class and calling her "a leggy beauty". I would say unbelievable, but that seems to be Mail Online's MO.

Mintball wrote: Finally, ladies and gents, I give you what 'freedom of the press' means to the Mail: publishing pap shots of an eight-year-old child leaving a gym class and calling her "a leggy beauty". I would say unbelievable, but that seems to be Mail Online's MO.