That's the interesting one..........the general public will likely be much more influenced by what the Dowlers, McCann and Jefferies says that any politician
I expect they'll all say they feel let down and that could play badly for Cameron..............tho' of course the press will by and large support him
That's the interesting one..........the general public will likely be much more influenced by what the Dowlers, McCann and Jefferies says that any politician
I expect they'll all say they feel let down and that could play badly for Cameron..............tho' of course the press will by and large support him
Most people though watch telly ................
If the things that happened to a lot of those victims was already illegal how would legislation have prevented it?
If the things that happened to a lot of those victims was already illegal how would legislation have prevented it?
Indeed. Nothing in this report will stop future hacking or untrue headlines. All it will mean is a more robust framework in getting compensation and an apology.
Indeed. Nothing in this report will stop future hacking or untrue headlines. All it will mean is a more robust framework in getting compensation and an apology.
If the transgressor has signed up to the new regulatory body. Leveson has proposed membership is voluntary hasn't he?
Milliband, Clegg and now Hacked Off are strongly against his approach e.g. "I feel betrayed".
Stupid stupid man in *almost entirely* rejecting a legislative underpinning.
Surely Cameron knew this would be the outcome of his stand? There must be some hefty pressure on him from somewhere to go against the wishes of Leveson, a large number of politicians and the victims, not to mention the public in general.
Milliband, Clegg and now Hacked Off are strongly against his approach e.g. "I feel betrayed".
Stupid stupid man in *almost entirely* rejecting a legislative underpinning.
Having heard him on the radio I don't get that his is against legislative underpinning - so much that a future government could water down any proposals by a simple legislative change - not such a daft concern given that since 1979 governments with a reasonable majority are in the majority
If the things that happened to a lot of those victims was already illegal how would legislation have prevented it?
I don't now how much of Leveson you watched live....many victims were not subjected to things that are illegal...for one thing we have no privacy laws in this country...so a lot of intrusion was not against the law but WAS in breach of the PCC code.
This is my fourth Royal Commission/Judicial review into the press...frankly I don't want to have to fund another :mad:
Indeed. Nothing in this report will stop future hacking or untrue headlines. All it will mean is a more robust framework in getting compensation and an apology.
I think it should be fines in proportion to their profits. Something that really acts as a deterrent. Currently suing even for blatant lies is too risky for a lot of ordinary people and even if they win they get a few grand and a tiny apology at the bottom of page 23! That's no deterrent. It should make the media think about their sources and keeping to the truth.
I think that's better than restrictions about what they can print.
Given the fraud and corruption we have seen in recent years from Politicians, I am a bit surprised ta this clamour for them to regulate the press - would we have found out half the things we did if they were in control?
Having heard him on the radio I don't get that his is against legislative underpinning - so much that a future government could water down any proposals by a simple legislative change - not such a daft concern given that since 1979 governments with a reasonable majority are in the majority
Future governments could bomb Russia with Trident missiles as well...could make smoking compulsory....could invade the Isle of Man...could kill the first born...it's a silly and facile argument he would not be making if he was in opposition right now
Given the fraud and corruption we have seen in recent years from Politicians, I am a bit surprised ta this clamour for them to regulate the press - would we have found out half the things we did if they were in control?
Indeed. Nothing in this report will stop future hacking or untrue headlines. All it will mean is a more robust framework in getting compensation and an apology.
Which basically means the 'nobodies' will probably be spared but anyone in power can still have their reputations put through the grinder just so long as you don't mind it costing you a cool million.
I don't blame Cameron for being wary of diving in with legislation. What I think they should do is "advise" the press that they've got six months to sign up and implement Leveson without the under pinning and for those titles that don't say "and here's the state controlled version you will adhere to that future govt's reserve the right to tinker with if you don't.....take your pick"
We live in a democracy so give them the choice. Cat A is still a free press, Cat B a state controlled press - breach the former end up in the latter with all that it entails.
Future governments could bomb Russia with Trident missiles as well...could make smoking compulsory....could invade the Isle of Man...could kill the first born...it's a silly and facile argument he would not be making if he was in opposition right now
Nope its a good argument, look at how the anti terror laws are misused now.
Which basically means the 'nobodies' will probably be spared but anyone in power can still have their reputations put through the grinder just so long as you don't mind it costing you a cool million.
I don't blame Cameron for being wary of diving in with legislation. What I think they should do is "advise" the press that they've got six months to sign up and implement Leveson without the under pinning and for those titles that don't say "and here's the state controlled version you will adhere to that future govt's reserve the right to tinker with if you don't.....take your pick"
We live in a democracy so give them the choice. Cat A is still a free press, Cat B a state controlled press - breach the former end up in the latter with all that it entails.
That's pretty much what Cameron said this afternoon.
Which basically means the 'nobodies' will probably be spared but anyone in power can still have their reputations put through the grinder just so long as you don't mind it costing you a cool million.
I don't blame Cameron for being wary of diving in with legislation. What I think they should do is "advise" the press that they've got six months to sign up and implement Leveson without the under pinning and for those titles that don't say "and here's the state controlled version you will adhere to that future govt's reserve the right to tinker with if you don't.....take your pick"
We live in a democracy so give them the choice. Cat A is still a free press, Cat B a state controlled press - breach the former end up in the latter with all that it entails.
So he shouldn't dive in with legislation...just use it for blackmail...nice one
Comments
That's the interesting one..........the general public will likely be much more influenced by what the Dowlers, McCann and Jefferies says that any politician
I expect they'll all say they feel let down and that could play badly for Cameron..............tho' of course the press will by and large support him
Most people though watch telly ................
Here....have some parrot seed....either that or please provide us all with the benefit of your personal expertise as either
1) a data commission expert lawyer/investigator
2) an investigative journalist
Cameron is in deep trouble.
Milliband, Clegg and now Hacked Off are strongly against his approach e.g. "I feel betrayed".
Stupid stupid man in *almost entirely* rejecting a legislative underpinning.
Ouch
If the things that happened to a lot of those victims was already illegal how would legislation have prevented it?
Indeed. Nothing in this report will stop future hacking or untrue headlines. All it will mean is a more robust framework in getting compensation and an apology.
That doesn't surprise me at all.
Yes - that sums it up.
If the transgressor has signed up to the new regulatory body. Leveson has proposed membership is voluntary hasn't he?
Surely Cameron knew this would be the outcome of his stand? There must be some hefty pressure on him from somewhere to go against the wishes of Leveson, a large number of politicians and the victims, not to mention the public in general.
Having heard him on the radio I don't get that his is against legislative underpinning - so much that a future government could water down any proposals by a simple legislative change - not such a daft concern given that since 1979 governments with a reasonable majority are in the majority
I don't now how much of Leveson you watched live....many victims were not subjected to things that are illegal...for one thing we have no privacy laws in this country...so a lot of intrusion was not against the law but WAS in breach of the PCC code.
This is my fourth Royal Commission/Judicial review into the press...frankly I don't want to have to fund another :mad:
I think it should be fines in proportion to their profits. Something that really acts as a deterrent. Currently suing even for blatant lies is too risky for a lot of ordinary people and even if they win they get a few grand and a tiny apology at the bottom of page 23! That's no deterrent. It should make the media think about their sources and keeping to the truth.
I think that's better than restrictions about what they can print.
Future governments could bomb Russia with Trident missiles as well...could make smoking compulsory....could invade the Isle of Man...could kill the first born...it's a silly and facile argument he would not be making if he was in opposition right now
Probably not is the answer to that.
Which basically means the 'nobodies' will probably be spared but anyone in power can still have their reputations put through the grinder just so long as you don't mind it costing you a cool million.
I don't blame Cameron for being wary of diving in with legislation. What I think they should do is "advise" the press that they've got six months to sign up and implement Leveson without the under pinning and for those titles that don't say "and here's the state controlled version you will adhere to that future govt's reserve the right to tinker with if you don't.....take your pick"
We live in a democracy so give them the choice. Cat A is still a free press, Cat B a state controlled press - breach the former end up in the latter with all that it entails.
Nope its a good argument, look at how the anti terror laws are misused now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/21/local-councils-abusing-anti-terrorism-powers_n_1819715.html
That's pretty much what Cameron said this afternoon.
So he shouldn't dive in with legislation...just use it for blackmail...nice one