Support Leveson - sign this

[miliitant]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

ask your self this

the americans have the freedom of the press in the first amendment (bill of rights) of their constitution,

a free and democratic society must have a free press, even if you disagree with the likes of murdoch, turner, etc

regulation is their allready if they step out of line, protection from harassment, liabel, etc

you need to ask yourself why are the media barrons allowed to get away with it, or is it the politicians are afraid media barrons will switch their loyalties to an opposition

article nine and ten of the human rights act upholds these values

regulation will not happen

todays news is tomorrows chip wrapper

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

As for what lord black proposed, well who says it wouldn't work? oh thats right lord leveson as it doesn't meet his opiniated critia of what is needed!

I think Leveson decided it wouldn't work because of the likes of Express Newspapers Group (publishers of the Express, Star and god knows how many magazines) who withdrew from the existing PCC years ago. So if they won't sign up to a body that Militant rightly compares to a 'chocolate Fireguard', what realistic prospect is there of them voluntarily signing up to a another body that has actually has some teeth.

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

Well thats hardly clear as to what the legislations actually entails, other than that it will underpin the independant regulartor, but it fails to say how or what said legislation will be exactly, our how it will not conflict with article 10 freedom of expression!

End of the day, you don't know what the legislation is only what leveson suggests it is, you haven't read it, seen or know what it will really entail. All you know is that it will be used to underpin the regulartory body, which doesn't even need such legislation if Lord Blacks proposal was considered and amended so that the person(s) on the independant regulartory body were not only ex editors or jornalists, but others from other professions not connected to the press in anyway and therefore 100% independant!

As for publishing a draft bill in 2 weeks. Bill on what the new legislation? I'd be very worried if that was the case, which i doubt. As for them to draw up a bill so soon would indicate they planned for it, which would widen my worries about politians taken advantage of this whole matter for their own personal gians!

You know what i don't even see what the point is in use debating this, because to be honest all i have said all along, despite my refusal to support said legislation, is that we should all be cautious about what we through our full fledge support at. In other words know exactly what your support, otherwise it could come back and bit you hard on the arse, and you'd be stood they thinking this is not what pledged my support to - But you did, because you through caution to the wind!

So i will not be debating it further, but don't moan about it when you get what you are supporting only to find its not all what you bargined for!

As er your last post, well what are the chances of them respecting any new legislation when they don't respect current libel/slander and privacy laws!!

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

ask your self this

the americans have the freedom of the press in the first amendment (bill of rights) of their constitution,

Yes they have that in the first amendment and we don't. Hold on! We could! if only Cameron would listen to Leveson.

''What would the legislation achieve? Three things. First, it would enshrine, for the first time, a legal duty on the Government to protect the freedom of the press.''

[miliitant]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

so now you are proposing a bill of rights

we allready have that believe it or not 1689, on which the american constitution is based on

but the british people cannot trust any goverment not to abuse statutory powers that are introduced for their own political agenda/ aims

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

As for publishing a draft bill in 2 weeks. Bill on what the new legislation? I'd be very worried if that was the case, which i doubt. As for them to draw up a bill so soon would indicate they planned for it, which would widen my worries about politians taken advantage of this whole matter for their own personal gians!

To be honest, and I don't mean this disrespectfully, you are so out of the loop on this I genuinely think you should read up a bit more on what's actually going on.

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

But exc, they already have that protection of freedom of the press as a result of it not being legislated. Having the government back it by legislation makes a difference how exactly? and how would the press benefit form it, or more precisely, just what benefit would the government gain from it!

[miliitant]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

just what benefit would the government gain from it!

exactly the point i am trying to make as well

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

But exc, they already have that protection of freedom of the press as a result of it not being legislated. Having the government back it by legislation makes a difference how exactly? and how would the press benefit form it, or more precisely, just what benefit would the government gain from it!

Yes the press have implied protection of freedom by way of no legislation to the contrary. Putting it expressly into law makes it impossible for any Government to amend the rest of the proposed legislation (underpinning the legal powers of the regulator) at some later date, for their own ends. Unfortunately this point seems to have been lost on the anti legislation brigade.

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

To be honest, and I don't mean this disrespectfully, you are so out of the loop on this I genuinely think you should read up a bit more on what's actually going on.

So having a different opinion to you on supporting or not supporting a piece of legislation which neither of us know word for word, as it has not been drafted up yet. Therefore neither of us, or anyone else for that matter have read it section by section, subsection by subsection, schedule by shedule and chapter by chapter - Makes me "out of the loop" as you put it because my opinion is different to yours, does it! - Despite the fact we both have access to the same amont of limited information. So you claim to know more than i and anyone elese does about this suggestion of legislation!

And equally not to be disrespectful, but claiming anyone that disagrees, despite their opinion being based on the same amount of limited information that is available, means they are, educationally wise, on this particular subject "out of the loop"! Is to me not only illogical but somewhat arrogant too. Especially when "out of the loop" is another way of saying am not educated or am lacking in knowledge in the matter!

Well am not lacking knowledge and i am well aware of the whole thing to be honest. All i have been saying is we should be cautious before pledging our full support to legislation when we do not know what it fully entails and what the consquences of such legislation would be! Not only that, we should allow all other alternative options to be given a chance to work first!

And you still haven't answered my question either. what are the chances of them respecting any new legislation when they don't respect current libel/slander and privacy laws!! as it seems rather pointless in bringing in new legislation when they can not respect current legislation. Not only that, heres another question - what happens if the press refuse this new legislation or be part of the regurlatory body that is backed by the legislation? Bye Bye freedom of the press, hello black market!

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

So having a different opinion to you on supporting or not supporting a piece of legislation which neither of us know word for word, as it has not been drafted up yet. Therefore neither of us, or anyone else for that matter have read it section by section, subsection by subsection, schedule by shedule and chapter by chapter - Makes me "out of the loop" as you put it because my opinion is different to yours, does it! - Despite the fact we both have access to the same amont of limited information. So you claim to know more than i and anyone elese does about this suggestion of legislation!

And equally not to be disrespectful, but claiming anyone that disagrees, despite their opinion being based on the same amount of limited information that is available, means they are, educationally wise, on this particular subject "out of the loop"! Is to me not only illogical but somewhat arrogant too. Especially when "out of the loop" is another way of saying am not educated or am lacking in knowledge in the matter!

Well am not lacking knowledge and i am well aware of the whole thing to be honest. All i have been saying is we should be cautious before pledging our full support to legislation when we do not know what it fully entails and what the consquences of such legislation would be! Not only that, we should allow all other alternative options to be given a chance to work first!

And you still haven't answered my question either. what are the chances of them respecting any new legislation when they don't respect current libel/slander and privacy laws!! as it seems rather pointless in bringing in new legislation when they can not respect current legislation. Not only that, heres another question - what happens if the press refuse this new legislation or be part of the regurlatory body that is backed by the legislation? Bye Bye freedom of the press, hello black market!

What makes you out of the loop is that you didn't know that the Government plans to publish the draft legislation in a fortnight and, more importantly, why. Becuase you then dream up reasons that are clearly unfounded and which pollute your view making it difficult for me to have an informed debate about it.

As for ''And you still haven't answered my question either. what are the chances of them respecting any new legislation when they don't respect current libel/slander and privacy laws!! as it seems rather pointless in bringing in new legislation when they can not respect current legislation''.

If not respecting current libel laws is not justification for having a legally unpinned regulator then what is?

As for ''Not only that, heres another question - what happens if the press refuse this new legislation or be part of the regurlatory body that is backed by the legislation?''

The incentive to sign up to the new regulator is that the arbitration arm of it offers a far cheaper alternative to defending libel and privicy actions in court for the newspapers, in terms of defence costs and awards. What happens if they don't sign up, I don't know, but it doesn't make economic sense not to - as far as Levison is concerned.

[miliitant]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

let us all adjourn this debate until any draft legislation is out in the open

with the majority that the goverment has, and the coalition split over this,

it has no chance of becoming law anyway

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

let us all adjourn this debate until any draft legislation is out in the open

with the majority that the goverment has, and the coalition split over this,

it has no chance of becoming law anyway

Well not really in fact it's the other way round - most MPs (and Lords) support it so if it goes to a vote Cameron will lose.

I don't actually think that the draft will tell us too much as it will purposely be designed to shown to be unworkable - which is why it's being drafted.

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

What makes you out of the loop is that you didn't know that the Government plans to publish the draft legislation in a fortnight and, more importantly, why. Becuase you then dream up reasons that are clearly unfounded and which pollute your view making it difficult for me to have an informed debate about it. - Dreamt up reason!! Sorry but thats absord. I have a difference of opinion to you and regardless of if or when he draft bill is going to be drawn up, it doesn't change mean am out of loop, when my opinion and argument is not about when the draft will be presented but whether we should or should not support such legislation - So big difference there! Not only that, you do not know what will be in the draft nor does anyone else, all you know is the gloss thats been painted over it so far! So i fail to see how anyone not knowing that a draft bill is to be presented in 2 weeks means they are out of the loop when their overall opinion is people should not plegde support to any new legislation till they have read the final draft and know exactly what the consquences such legislation will have. So please tell us, and enlighten us as to how my reasoning behind "my" opinion and call for caution is "dreamt up"!!

As for ''And you still haven't answered my question either. what are the chances of them respecting any new legislation when they don't respect current libel/slander and privacy laws!! as it seems rather pointless in bringing in new legislation when they can not respect current legislation''.

If not respecting current libel laws is not justification for having a legally unpinned regulator then what is? Still doesn't answer my question does though! Do you seriously expect them to just respect the new regulatory because legislation tells them to. When previous legislation told them to repsect peoples privacy and not publish false information about them as though it was a fact or true!

As for ''Not only that, heres another question - what happens if the press refuse this new legislation or be part of the regurlatory body that is backed by the legislation?''

The incentive to sign up to the new regulator is that the arbitration arm of it offers a far cheaper alternative to defending libel and privicy actions in court for the newspapers, in terms of defence costs and awards. What happens if they don't sign up, I don't know, but it doesn't make economic sense not to - as far as Levison is concerned. Lol - But isn't that exactly what an non state regulated independant regulatory body would do, which for the record according to recent reports the press are willing to sign up to without legislation underpinning it - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/chakrabarti..._ylv=3#OBOwxA2

Sorry exc but saying my reasoning behind my objection to such legislation are "dreamt up" is rediciulous to be honest - You weren't able to counter my arguements, based on my opinion, so called them dreamt up instead in a way to validify your own opinion. Which for the record i respect your opinion, but that doesn't mean i agree with your opinion! And saying am out of the loop because i didn't know they were planning to release a draft bill, when to be honest its irrelevant when they release such bill as the core debate here isn't about the draft bills "RELEASE DATE", its about whether they should be any legislation or, whether to support it or whether to be cautious and wait to we actually see the draft legislation before pledging support to it!

On that point, i think this debate should cease and not continued further until we actually see the draft legislation, where we can then debate it. As we are clearly not making any progress anf therefore making the debate on difference of opinion over new legisation a futile and pointless exercise! Thats starting to turn into a effot of point scoring against the other, given your, and i mean no offence, remarks such as "Out of the Loop" and "Dreamt up Reasons"!

[EXC]

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!

It looks like you've been misled here, by none other than those guardians of impartial free speech, the press.

Shami Chakrabarti's organisation, Liberty, has now issued a statement in relation to this story which originally came from an interview she gave to The Mail who claimed ''Bombshell by Leveson's own adviser: His law to gag press is illegal as it breaches Human Rights Act...''

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ights-Act.html

Essentially the statement says that the The Mail story was a complete load of bollox and that ''As this last-ditch alternative is not even a recommendation of the Report, it is misleading to suggest that Liberty or its director is in any way dropping a "bombshell" on the Lord Justice's Report, not least as this position was clearly footnoted in it.''

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org....thics-of-t.php