Support Leveson - sign this

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

No I haven't been mislead. My opinion is the same as it always has been both before and after all this phone hacking and enquiry ****. The press should be free from legislation end off, as we already have laws to punish jornalists that break those laws. So what you should be looking at exc is why the jornalists were being allowed to get away with it for years before the phone hacking. I here the PM was very close to a certain someone!

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

No I haven't been mislead. My opinion is the same as it always has been both before and after all this phone hacking and enquiry ****. The press should be free from legislation end off, as we already have laws to punish jornalists that break those laws. So what you should be looking at exc is why the jornalists were being allowed to get away with it for years before the phone hacking. I here the PM was very close to a certain someone!

In believing and posting an article to support your view that was based entirely on an interview that the interviewee has subsequently rubbished, you were clearly and demonstrably misled.

I've already looked at ''why the jornalists were being allowed to get away with it for years'' and concluded that it is the absence legally underpinned regulation that is the reason.

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

No i haven't been misled. So what if the article has or statements made in it have now been retracted. My view was the same before such article and is still the same now, that is, i will not be supporting any legislation of the press! There is no valid reason for such legislation as all the press victims have access to sue the press for invasion of privacy or libel under current laws. to give them alternative avenues creates a 2 tier system. To say its two expensive to take them to court is a misleading statement itself, as its only expensive if you lose, and if you lose, then that must mean the press were in the right and the story true and or was not an invasion of privacy. We can not have 1 rule for press victims and 1 rules for victims of others that are not the press! Not only that, the court should be the ones to decide, not a state regulatory body! Because once its regulated by the state, the state has power to censor the press!

Now as far as ma concerned there is nothing to debate here, until we see the new legislation. As my opinion will not be changed regardless unless am satisfied that the legisalation when i have read the draft, imposes no censorship in any form or through the backdoor, and does not create an independant legal remedy independant from the courts, for breaches of current laws!

[Inca]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

Lets hope the next poor sod whose kid gets abducted and/or murdered,or who is plastered all over the rags for something they haven't done but the story sold millions of newspapers is comforted by knowing that 'heyho,there was no legislation/law to stop them slandering/libelling me,but we'll eventually toddle off to court so that's ok'
Mud sticks,my friend...and there is always the doubting Thomases of this world who will always believe there is no smoke without fire.

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

No i haven't been misled. So what if the article has or statements made in it have now been retracted. My view was the same before such article and is still the same now, that is, i will not be supporting any legislation of the press! There is no valid reason for such legislation as all the press victims have access to sue the press for invasion of privacy or libel under current laws. to give them alternative avenues creates a 2 tier system. To say its two expensive to take them to court is a misleading statement itself, as its only expensive if you lose, and if you lose, then that must mean the press were in the right and the story true and or was not an invasion of privacy. We can not have 1 rule for press victims and 1 rules for victims of others that are not the press! Not only that, the court should be the ones to decide, not a state regulatory body! Because once its regulated by the state, the state has power to censor the press!

Now as far as ma concerned there is nothing to debate here, until we see the new legislation. As my opinion will not be changed regardless unless am satisfied that the legisalation when i have read the draft, imposes no censorship in any form or through the backdoor, and does not create an independant legal remedy independant from the courts, for breaches of current laws!

To describe the proposed legislation as a ''state regulatory body'' and that the press will be ''regulated by the state'' and which somehow would give the state the ''power to censor the press' is simply both untrue and ridiculous. Perhaps you could point out where in the Leveson report it says such a thing? Or perhaps you couldn't.

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

The BBC have neatly summarised what the proposed legislation is and, importantly, what it isn't.

Proposed new press law

Would:

• Create a process to "validate" the independence and effectiveness of the new self-regulation body
• Validate a new process of independent arbitration for complainants - which would benefit both the public and publishers by providing speedy resolutions
• Place a duty on government to protect the freedom of press

Would not:

• Establish a body to regulate the press directly
• Give any Parliament or government rights to interfere with what newspapers publish

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

to give them alternative avenues creates a 2 tier system....... We can not have 1 rule for press victims and 1 rules for victims of others that are not the press!

Here you have described a model that is the press equivalent of the Financial Ombudsman Service - which one can use as an alternative to the courts and applies only to one industry sector. Do you believe the FOS is a bad idea?

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

Yes but, the financial ombudsmand does not decide on matters of law (i had written confirmation of that from, the FOS in my fight against MBNA!), plus the press legislation would be at the expense of freedom of press, it wouldn't guarantee it at all. As it would be sign up to new regulator or you are prohibited from publishing, so don't give me that crap it will guarantee press freedom when it will prevent those not signed up from being allowed to publish! The press should not be shackled or legislated at all. The FOS is a different thing altogether, it regulates banks and credit companies, which need regulation - It does not however punish for criminal law such as invasion of privacy or libel. It makes decisions based on a finance companies conduct. The press does not such regulation as current privacy and libel laws can be enforced in court and by a non state legislated independant regulator for which they will be legally obligated too! Therefore removing the need for any legislation!

They have already stated they will willing support a new independent regulator, so if this legislation was just to give the regulator teeth, when the publishers have already agreed such regulator should have more teeth, then what exactly is the point or need of any new legislation when by signing up to the new regulator, they will have a legal obligation to it in anycase.

So what is the actual point in having the legislation, if it is as suggested, meant to only persuade them to sign up! When they are already willing to do so!

The only use for such legislation would be for the powers that be to control who can publish, and what they can publish. If we had this 5 years ago their would be no MP expenses scandal, no undercover reporting on criminals caught by the press jornalists undercover (through fear the criminals would claim invasion of privacy) and the press being fined!

Am sorry, but thats my opinion and its not going to change! So don't try to denouce my opinions or say my reasoning is dreamt up or am out of the loop, just because my opinion isn't the same as yours. Your entitled to your views am entitled to mine, whether we agree or disagree on the matter! I believe in free press, and i do not believe in any legislation of the press, no matter what the reasoning behind it is!

[miliitant]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

legislate a free press and you end up with censorship

history has shown this to be true

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

Groan.

1) ''the financial ombudsmand does not decide on matters of law''

''The ombudsman will decide what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of each individual complaint. In doing so, the ombudsman takes into account the law.....'' http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...eb-changes.htm

2) ''So don't try to denouce my opinions or say my reasoning is dreamt up or am out of the loop''

See above.

3) ''As it would be sign up to new regulator or you are prohibited from publishing''
I'm convinced that you're smply making this up as you go along now. There is no basis whatsoever for this. Leveson has made it absolutely clear that their would be no sanctions for not signing up. Not even the Daily Mail is suggesting this is what will happen.

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

legislate a free press and you end up with censorship

history has shown this to be true

Has it? When?

[miliitant]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

all press is a free press until the state gets involved

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

all press is a free press until the state gets involved

Let me try again.

Where & when has history taught us that it is true that to legislate a free press ends up with censorship? I'd genuinely be interested to know.

[miliitant]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

this is now getting silly

throughout the 20th century goverments come into power, to cement that power to control the mass population, state control of the media is needed

thats an autocracy

germany in the thirties is a prime example
stalin
mao tse tung
yugoslavia/bosnia

all the countries above had a free press until a different goverment came into office

we cannot let even a small step to deny the fredom of the press, and to take root, it will be like a canker on society the reforms, a little here, a little there until you have state control

those who forget the past are destined to repeat it

never again

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

this is now getting silly

You're not wrong there. Quoting examples from non democratic communist and facist states is completely ludicrous.