Support Leveson - sign this

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

Well am still against the government having any legislation governing the press regardless untill i see the full written draft of any such proposed legislation.

We have other laws to protect peoples privacy and protect them from libel/slander its those laws that should be admended to give any new regulator the power to punish the press for breahes of those laws - After all its those very laws the press ignored when libelling people like joanne yates landlord and when they hacked peoples phones.

The press should themselves agree to a code of conduct for jornalists and agree to specific punishments for breaches of said code of conduct and the self regulator should be made up of people that are independant of the press, as well as former editors or former jornalist. End of the day no new law is going to stop anyone not even the jornalist hungry for a headline from breaching the law with or without any new legislation - After all the desie for the profit making big headline is exactly what caused the phone hacking and the libelling of joanne yates landlord, hunger for a profit making headline that draws people into buying the paper. No such new law is going to stop people making claims in court, or would this new legislation prevent people taking the matter to court? Do you know the answer to that? No - Because we don't know what full extent or the full version of this proposed legislation will entail!

So what really is the point of any new legislation other than to say, ok you did wrong, heres your £1 million pound slap on the wrist, and thats the end of the matter! Come on guys, what about criminal charges for them, what about civil remedy for those that are victims of the press. Sorry but am of the opinion any new legislation would mean us saying good bye to that!

So yeah why can they simply not just admend the current privacy and libel/slander laws to include press regulatary powers when such laws are breach by the press. After all those are the laws that were broken and led to the enquiry. Or why need to even admend them as regardless of whether your press or not, the laws still apply and you should still face criminal punishment for breaching them.

So am sorry but i see no need for any new legislation, and feel should such legislation be brought in then the press would be free from facing criminal charges for breaching privacy or slander laws. we've managed 300 years or more with a self regulartory press free of legislation, why do we need to change it now, when we all ready have laws that can be used to bring the press to account, both civil and criminal! I am concerned the new legislation will prevent civil and criminal remedy for the victims of the press, it will prevent the press reporting on scandals for fear of being fined and result in jornalists not reporting stories due to the extra work required to prove their findings are true and 100% accurate, where the slightest error in accuracy being deemed libel and could result in a £1 million fine. What about the effect on undercover jornalism too, or jornalists ability to follow a lead to get a story by following the person behind the story so they can catch them red handed and report on it, which in laymans terms would be survaillance, which would also in normal circumstance be a breach of privacy!

We need to know what the effect any such legislation would have as a whole before jumping on any bangwagon and supporting a new legislation when we don't even no what the legislation will actually be word for word! Where like lemmings if we follow and support implementing this new legislation so blindling. Hell its not even been bloody drawn up yet! Because at the moment, your supporting draft details of a legislation that has not even been drawn up yet and which you haven't even read or know what is exactly contained in it, without even considering what possible implications it will have, or other bits they intend to add to it! And yeah to see people supporting something so blindly without knowing the full extent of if, just worry me especially when its yourselves who should know better such as should know to read any new proposed legislation full proposed text before deciding whether to support it or not! As its not as simple as saying oh it will do this and that so i support it, like a lemming!

Put it this way, we wouldn't just jump on the bangwagon and support new legislation governing the finance or debt collection industry without first seeing what it fully entails!

[enaid]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

Well me being me would have thought that Lord Leveson took all eventualities into account before he made his recommendations, that is the reason it took 8 month and the reason he was asked to do the job, I may be wrong though lol

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

True, but did he, and do his opinions and what he thinks of legislation match what we think, has he drawn up the legislation or merely just mentioned the need for some form of legislation in his report - I doubt hes drawn up the legislation! So we do not know what the full draft version of the legislation will be or what it will entail, but you bet you bottom dollar the MP's will want some for of protection from the press for themselves in it, which may not be at all apparent in the draft text!

Which is why am saying i won't support it till i know exactly what it entails, and why others should be more cautious before fully supporting it!

[enaid]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

I thought the rules were already in place, as are many and that the rules were made by the press themselves. As with many rules they are broken because the consequence of doing so is virtually going unpunished. So with hopefully an independent unbiased and unbribable (hopefully)body with some clout overseeing them that will change.

[Inca]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

I'm neither BLIND,STUPID OR A LEMMING TYVM. I watched a lot of the enquiry when it was televised and it's from that I drew my own conclusions,and,unless and until I am proven wrong I'm happy to add my voice to supporting Leveson.

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

But they broke the law, in regards to the phone hacking and libellous reports on Joanne Yates Landlord, so they should be punishable under existing laws! Therefore why do we need new legislation when we already have laws for which they should face punishment under? There is a risk of having a 2 tier sysytem here - 1 for the press, slap on the wrist and fine and no convictions and one for the rest of us which can result in criminal conviction!

The press have faced criminal conviction for the phone hacking, its still in the courts! Its who it should be dealt with whether your the press of a member of the public, the same laws should apply to all and their should not be different ones for the press! Which is what am concerned any such legislation would mean!

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

I'm neither BLIND,STUPID OR A LEMMING TYVM. I watched a lot of the enquiry when it was televised and it's from that I drew my own conclusions,and,unless and until I am proven wrong I'm happy to add my voice to supporting Leveson.

Am not saying you are Inca, am not saying anyone is. But do you know the legislation, have you read it? No, you haven't no one has, so no one knows what it will really entail other than the gloss that has been painted over it so far! Hence why am saying we should be cautious, and wait till we know what it will fully entail before throwing our whole hearted support at it!

Am all for levesons suggestions, but am not ready to support any legislation without having first read it to see what it would entail and what the implications would be! Would you support a new legislation on financial services that has been publisied as being in the consumer favour without reading the full draft of the proposed legisaltion. Only to then read it and see it actually does nothing more to support consumers and does more to support financial services!

Where did blowing caution to the wind ever get us! No where, thats where it got us!

[enaid]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

But they broke the law, in regards to the phone hacking and libellous reports on Joanne Yates Landlord, so they should be punishable under existing laws! Therefore why do we need new legislation when we already have laws for which they should face punishment under? There is a risk of having a 2 tier sysytem here - 1 for the press, slap on the wrist and fine and no convictions and one for the rest of us which can result in criminal conviction!

The press have faced criminal conviction for the phone hacking, its still in the courts! Its who it should be dealt with whether your the press of a member of the public, the same laws should apply to all and their should not be different ones for the press! Which is what am concerned any such legislation would mean!

Exactly my point in a round about way, the laws are there but have not been applied fully and probably never until the uproar over Millie Dowler and other innocents being targeted. Maybe because the actual powers that be are all in the presses pocket and that has to change for starters.

[Inca]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

As far as I'm concerned,any suggestion,legislation,inquiry..blah blah blah that blows the gutter filth press sky high is good enough for me.Reach into the back pockets and pull out the scum bags that are in there being paid huge 'bungs' to fill the papers with salacious and more than often untrue gossip that cripples the victims. Doesn't matter to me who gets caught,,MP,callgirl,prince or pauper,feed the gutter press and get caught doing so then be prepared to face the justice system with as much gusto as you took the 'fee' from the press

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

Exactly my point in a round about way, the laws are there but have not been applied fully and probably never until the uproar over Millie Dowler and other innocents being targeted. Maybe because the actual powers that be are all in the presses pocket and that has to change for starters.

Exactly the powers that be. The very powers that be which would be responsable for bring in any new legislation and would want to cover their own backsides too, so press owners and MP's getting their own way. Which is why i say we should be cautious, after all the powers that be that are in the pockets of the press owners will not want to lose their press financial backing and you canbet your bottom dollar they'll be trashing out a deal where the legislation suite both sides own needs, under the disguise it protects the public from the press acted the way they did in the phone hacking scandal or publishing libellous stories!

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

But they broke the law, in regards to the phone hacking and libellous reports on Joanne Yates Landlord, so they should be punishable under existing laws!

The newspapers who libeled Joanna Yates landlord weren't punishable under any existing law. He had to resort to a risky and expensive defamation claim in the civil courts to get damages - something most people wouldn't have the money or the gumption to do.

The News of the World published the diary of Kate McCann - a grieving mother in distress - without her consent. I'm sure we can all agree that this was completely and totally unacceptable yet they broke no laws in doing so. That was nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with the regulatory, ethical and legal void in which newspapers currently operate.

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

All am saying is we need to be cautious about it and not go in gung-ho!

[enaid]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

50,000 Sign Hacked Off Petition


An online petition demanding the Government act on Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations in full has attracted 50,000 supporters in less than 24 hours.
Support for the petition launched by Hacked Off, the group campaigning for victims of phone hacking, has doubled overnight.
It comes as the Culture Secretary warned newspaper editors not to drag their feet in acting on Lord Justice Leveson's calls for setting up a new press watchdog.
Maria Miller will meet the newspaper industry's most powerful editors next week to push for urgent action.
Lord Hunt of Wirral, the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, who will also attend, told The Times he wanted a speedy industry resolution to help persuade the public and MPs that laws were not needed to underpin the new independent regulator.
"There's an awful lot we can agree on and I have suggested to the industry (that we) all read the report, digest it and seek out the common ground and unite with one voice," he said.
Ms Miller's warning will come the day before editors on the Code of Practice Committee, chaired by Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, meet to decide how to tackle the Leveson recommendations.
Mr Dacre said: "Lord Justice Leveson has set us a number of challenges: our task is to address them as urgently as possible."
It comes as reports emerged that Foreign Secretary William Hague warned Cabinet colleagues earlier this week that a "Leveson law" would undermine the UK's ability to address freedom of speech issues globally, particularly on cases such as the jailing of punk band Pussy Riot in Russia.
A Government source told The Daily Telegraph: "It was a very serious presentation. He warned that Britain demonstrating that we have a free press is part of our ability to say we believe in democracy."
But David Cameron is under intense pressure to drop his opposition to a law backing up the new watchdog the press has been tasked with devising.
The Prime Minister is facing a backlash from victims of media intrusion over his resistance to legislation.
Author JK Rowling has said that she felt "duped and angry" by Mr Cameron's hesitance to "cross the Rubicon" and introduce a press law.
The Harry Potter author, who gave evidence about press intrusion into her family's privacy to the inquiry, said: "If the Prime Minister did not wish to change the regulatory system even to the moderate, balanced and proportionate extent proposed by Lord Leveson, I am at a loss to understand why so much public money has been spent and why so many people have been asked to relive extremely painful episodes on the stand in front of millions."
The most high-profile victims of phone hacking refused to meet the Culture Secretary on Friday, saying they felt let down by Mr Cameron's response.
Despite the boycott, Ms Miller has met the leaders of the Hacked Off campaign and described the talks as frank.
Madeleine McCann's father Gerry said giving evidence to the Leveson Inquiry would have been "almost useless" if the proposals were not implemented in full, and urged the Prime Minister to "do the right thing".
London bombing hero Paul Dadge, a victim of phone hacking, said he was very disappointed with Mr Cameron's stance and called on him to back the public rather than the press.
Christopher Jefferies, the landlord wrongly arrested for the murder of Joanna Yeates, warned it would be a "disaster" if the recommendation on legislation was ignored, and said he would feel "let down" by Mr Cameron.
Lord Justice Leveson condemned the "culture of reckless and outrageous journalism" that dominated sections of the press for decades as he unveiled the findings of his 16-month inquiry on Thursday.
The Appeal Court judge called for a new watchdog with statutory underpinning to be given the power to require prominent apologies and impose fines of as much as £1m.
Mr Cameron immediately voiced "serious concerns and misgivings" about legislative action, and said the press should be given a "limited period of time" to show it could get its own house in order.
Labour leader Ed Miliband said: "Many of the victims of sections of the press will be feeling utterly betrayed by David Cameron."



http://uk.news.yahoo.com/leveson-edi...8.html#G3S2QLS

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/chakrabarti..._ylv=3#OBOwxA2

Coming from an insider behind the leveson report - Seems am not the only one to be concerned and unable to support legislation. She would know more about what the legislation would entail then the rest of us!

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/chakrabarti..._ylv=3#OBOwxA2

She would know more about what the legislation would entail then the rest of us!

Have you considered that Lord Justice Levison - who is infinately more legally senior - might know a tad more than her?