Support Leveson - sign this

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

On what errorneous facts? I made it clear from the start i was against legislation full stop, no fact is going to change that whether true or false! I do not believe in legislation of the press end off. My believe is not an errornous fact!

I would remind you that you made it clear from the very start of this thread that you wouldn't support the legislation on the basis that ''the government would control the press and dictators in other countries would too'', which is completely factually incorrect.

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

According to all the reports Cameron has accepted the Lord Black model of contractual agreements over statutory undepinning as the means of enforcement for the papers to honour the decisions of the regulator.

Reading Leveson, the problems with this system is that, typically, the courts remedy to breach of contract is an award of compensation rather than the enforcement of the specific term of the contract. This means that if the regulator obliges a paper to print an apology, correction or retraction on behalf of a victim and the paper refuses, all the court can do is to require the paper to give the regulator a payment of compensation, which wouldn't be much as the regulator wouldn't be out of pocket, leaving the victim with no apology, correction or retraction.

Even worse the victim cannot go on to sue the regulator or the paper because he isn't a party to the contract that was breeched.

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

I would remind you that you made it clear from the very start of this thread that you wouldn't support the legislation on the basis that ''the government would control the press and dictators in other countries would too'', which is completely factually incorrect.

How is it! You don't know what the next step would be. The hardest step is the first 1, once you have taken that step the following steps are easy. So for all you know legislation could indeed lead to such things! It is my believe, you can not tell me my believe is wrong - Or are you going to say my believe that their is a god is factually incorrect too!


Also a court has the power to order the papers to publish an apology and the power to order as to how it is published! Regardless of the regulator!

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

On your first point, the proposed legislation itself gurantees the freedom of the press which eliminates in law any further steps that could lead to a situation where, as you put it, ''the government would control the press''.

On your second point, that ''a court has the power to order the papers to publish an apology'' is irrelevant to the consideration of whether a decision by the Lord Black model of a regulator can be enforced, which was my point.

Clearly an alternative legal action by a victim isn't the answer and what is needed is a model of regulation where retractions and aplogies can be enforced by the regulator. And in fact you said exactly that yourself in post #35.

All thats need it more robust punishment and forced standards for issuing retractions and apologies with clearer more obivoius publication then the standard small side article thats easily missed, all of which can be regulated and enforce by an independant regulator free of legislation!

Remember?

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

On your first point, the proposed legislation itself gurantees the freedom of the press which eliminates in law any further steps that could lead to a situation where, as you put it, ''the government would control the press''. But does it, and how does it? You don't kow yet, you haven't read it! Just because thats what it says in the levesons report, doesn't mean it will be so clear cut in the legislation itself, or that they won't be a back door for further legislation or admendments removing that part of the legislation! - How long before further legistlation? Remeber the first step is the hardest one and the rest are easy, this is the first step!

On your second point, that ''a court has the power to order the papers to publish an apology'' is irrelevant to the consideration of whether a decision by the Lord Black model of a regulator can be enforced, which was my point. - No its not irrelevant, a court has the power to do exactly what any regulator can or could do!

Clearly an alternative legal action by a victim isn't the answer and what is needed is a model of regulation where retractions and aplogies can be enforced by the regulator. And in fact you said exactly that yourself in post #35. - No i referred to an independant regulator, where they sign up under contract, therefore not underpinned by legislation and therefore not an alternative legal action for victims! IT would simply be the same as the PPC only they would have legal obligations under contract and the punishments would be more servere - Heres the full quote of what i said "So are we really supporting the giving up or free speech and freedom of the press to protect people that are already protected under privacy laws and libel/slander laws! All thats need it more robust punishment and forced standards for issuing retractions and apologies with clearer more obivoius publication then the standard small side article thats easily missed, all of which can be regulated and enforce by an independant regulator free of legislation! Who do you thing will benefit the most from this, it will be celeb's and politicians!"



Remember? Yes i remeber i was clear all of which can be achieved free of legislation, if you don't remeber i outed what i said above and highlighted the relevent parts!

Now heres a question for you. What exactly will this legislation achieve, as some seem to have the misguided impression that it will stop people being libelled or having their privacy invaded, yet i see no mention as to this legislation doing that, only enforcing punishments. So we will still be in the same situation, where all it takes is one person to make a false accusation, for the press to get hold of it and publish it on the basis they believed it was true as so many people they questioned knew about it, when all it was was a rumour or false accusation!

If you really want to prevent people being libelled or having their privacy invaded then the libel and privacy laws are the ones that need beefing up with more servere punishments including custodial, which should depend on the a nature of the libel and potential (not actual damage) that such libellous statements could do! Same for privacy, invade someones privacy then punishment should be equal to that of harassment or stalking in my view.

Yet i don't see anyone stopping to think about that, all i see is people with knifes out reading to slash the press!

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

But does it, and how does it? You don't kow yet, you haven't read it!

Please don't tell me I've not read the proposed legislation. I have and so can you (if you only would) at chapter 6, paragraph 6.3 onwards http://www.official-documents.gov.uk...80/0780_iv.pdf


No i referred to an independant regulator, where they sign up under contract, therefore not underpinned by legislation and therefore not an alternative legal action for victims!

I know exactly what you referred to but, as I've established, a regulator founded simply on a binding contractual basis cannot ''enforce'' it's powers, as you yourself suggested it should. The only mechanism for a regulator to enforce it's powers is legislation that permits it to do so. That is what Leveson proposes.


Now heres a question for you. What exactly will this legislation achieve, as some seem to have the misguided impression that it will stop people being libelled or having their privacy invaded, yet i see no mention as to this legislation doing that, only enforcing punishments. So we will still be in the same situation, where all it takes is one person to make a false accusation, for the press to get hold of it and publish it on the basis they believed it was true as so many people they questioned knew about it, when all it was was a rumour or false accusation!

I, and nobody else, is suggesting that the legislation will ''stop people being libelled or having their privacy invaded''. You are being disigenuous in suggesting anyone has and I invite you to provide examples. What the legislation will achieve is a far easier, quicker and cheaper alternative to suing through the courts, providing more of a deterrent on the part of the press. This is all explained in the Leveson report, if only you'd read it.


If you really want to prevent people being libelled or having their privacy invaded then the libel and privacy laws are the ones that need beefing up with more servere punishments including custodial

That you think that simply ''beefing up'' existing laws on libel and privicy will provide more ''servere punishments including custodial'' is risible and only serves to illustrate your breath-taking ignorance. Here you are not just out of the loop but beyond it's satalite because libel & privacy fall excusively within the civil law (not criminal) and breaches of which are not capable of being punishable in any way, least of all by a prison sentence.

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

But does it, and how does it? You don't kow yet, you haven't read it!

Please don't tell me I've not read the proposed legislation. I have and so can you (if you only would) at chapter 6, paragraph 6.3 onwards http://www.official-documents.gov.uk...80/0780_iv.pdf But that is not the actual legislation is it, its merely what is suggested by the leveson report nothing more, and said report doesn't cover what will or what won't form part of the legislation it merely makes suggestions. So sorry last time i checked legislation was a full written document of law, whether be in draft, final version or enacted - Not a report containing just suggestions! Truth is you don't know what will be in the legislation or what won't be, all you have is mere suggestions!


No i referred to an independant regulator, where they sign up under contract, therefore not underpinned by legislation and therefore not an alternative legal action for victims!

I know exactly what you referred to but, as I've established, a regulator founded simply on a binding contractual basis cannot ''enforce'' it's powers, as you yourself suggested it should. The only mechanism for a regulator to enforce it's powers is legislation that permits it to do so. That is what Leveson proposes. The power to enforce is in basic contractual law. Rubbish, there is no need to such legislation underpinning the regulator - If they refuse to oblige the regulators demands, then its Breach of contract for which they can be sued for untop of the original demand being by the regulator being enforced by a court order, thereby enforcing the contract on the publisher! So don't tell me it can not be enforced in law when it clearly can and is done so on daily basis between contractual parties! Why do you think Cameron himself is pushing for them to agree to a new regular without the need for him to bring in new legislation! The legislation is nothing but a ploy to force publishers to sign up to the regulator where if the do not they will not be allowed to publish, so sorry how is that freedom of the press! Its not, its censorship, its do as i say or you can't do anything at all!


Now heres a question for you. What exactly will this legislation achieve, as some seem to have the misguided impression that it will stop people being libelled or having their privacy invaded, yet i see no mention as to this legislation doing that, only enforcing punishments. So we will still be in the same situation, where all it takes is one person to make a false accusation, for the press to get hold of it and publish it on the basis they believed it was true as so many people they questioned knew about it, when all it was was a rumour or false accusation!

I, and nobody else, is suggesting that the legislation will ''stop people being libelled or having their privacy invaded'' (See Incas post about her Father - You new legislation would not prevent that from have happening now would it! - Therefore it won't change anything!). You are being disigenuous in suggesting anyone has and I invite you to provide examples. What the legislation will achieve is a far easier, quicker and cheaper alternative to suing through the courts, providing more of a deterrent on the part of the press. This is all explained in the Leveson report, if only you'd read it. - 1 - Its not expensive to sue for libel in court, unless you loose. Which if your the innocent victim, then you have no chance of losing a libel. Saying its expensive is a myth! 2 - A regulator does not, nor should it have the power to decide if someone is guilty of an offense (We have courts for that) and 3 - If they sign up to the new regulator under lord blacks proposals, then they well be legally bound by contract to respect the decision of the regulator, aso if the regulator has the power under such contract to decide if the publisher had committed libel or invasion of privacy, then where does that leave you and your silly piece of legislation - Up ****s creek without a paddle as it renders the need for such legislation as irrelevant as (and if the legislation is all you believe it to be and believe it is intended for) all it would do, would legislate a contract between regulator and publisher, that is already legislated by contract law! e.g. 2 pieces of legislation, where both of which guarantee the same outcome! So if contract law guarantees the same as what this proposed legislation does, then what is the need for it? Simple, there would be no need for it as it wouldn't be worth the paper its written on!


If you really want to prevent people being libelled or having their privacy invaded then the libel and privacy laws are the ones that need beefing up with more servere punishments including custodial

That you think that simply ''beefing up'' existing laws on libel and privicy will provide more ''servere punishments including custodial'' is risible and only serves to illustrate your breath-taking ignorance. Here you are not just out of the loop but beyond it's satalite because libel & privacy fall excusively within the civil law (not criminal) and breaches of which are not capable of being punishable in any way, least of all by a prison sentence.- Really, well coming from someone that supports a legislation that will do bugger all to protect people from libel is even more risible. It is you sir that is being arrogant, as your supported legislation does bugger all to prevent people being libelled in the first place, where at least my suggestion does, but not only that it covers the whole board and not just victims of the press, therefore making it a fairer approach for all, whether libelled by the press, DCA's, on facebook or by romours circulated through town. What does you precious legislation do to actually tackle and prevent liebl and invasion of privacy? Nothing at all, in your own words it does "What the legislation will achieve is a far easier, quicker and cheaper alternative to suing through the courts, providing more of a deterrent on the part of the press" - Deterrent to the Press... And what about the a deterrent to everyone else as well as the press, which is exactly what my proposed admending of current legislation would provide? Not only that it doesn't take much to make invasion of privacy and libel criminal in the more serious cases by admendment of current laws!

You go on as if current laws can not be admended or civil laws be redefined in full or in part depending on seriousness to be criminal. Well yes they can be as any common or civil law can be admended to be criminal law! And my suggestion reference custodial sentences was for only the more serious acts of libel that would do servere damage or have the potential to do servere damage. Just like falsly claiming rape, which it self is also a form libel! Voyourjorism, is punishable by custodial sentence too, and it is also a form of invasion of privacy! All that is needed is a clear definition between what would amount to civil libel, invasion of privacy and what would amount to criminal! In any case thats a whole different debate.

Your legislation does nothing more that whatcontractual law does, in regards to the obligation under contract the publisher will have to the new independant regulator. Which the regulator can enforce by court action, or the court can be used to resolve disputes between regulator and publisher. There should not be any other alternative. The court is the place of law here, not the regulator itself, therefor such legislation should never be granted as it would be wrong to give a regulator the power of law!

Now as far as am concerned this debate is over, its also clear when it comes to arrogance that it is not i that is being arrogant - I am simply defending my believe that the press should not be legislated. But it is you that is being arrogant, your reponses to Militant and attempts to discredit my personal opinion on the matter with statements of "out of the loop" or "dreamt up reasoning" and now laughing at my suggestion of an alternative remedy that would actually help prevent the press publishing anything about anyone without first confirming that person guilt or having substantial evidence obtained legally and not just based on word of mouth! Where as your precious legislation does nothing to prevent it, and only deals witht he aftermath, and only does what basic contract law would do anyway, should they agree to sign up to the new legislator. If mud sticks then its better to prevent it being thrown althogether, don't you think!

And no i shall not be replying any more, as its a pointless debate - my opinion will not change, and i doubt the legislation will see the light of day anyway! So the whole thread is pointless in my opinion!

In fact, if your going to petition for anything then it should be things like this - https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...e=action_alert Rather then pointles legislation that does nothing to prevent the issues from occuring! Why do you think celebs what this new legislation - Simple, so they don't have to take time out to go to court and still get their damages!

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

I have added you to the 'ignore' function on the vBulliten software. This means I will never be able to read any and all of the worthless and infantile garbage you have written or will write ever again.

Bye bye :santa3:

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

LOl exe, talk about going in a sulk. You don't like my opinion, fair enough but sulking about it does you no favours! Whos the infantile really EXC, as your actions would suggest you are!

By the way Cammeron shares my concerns about such legislation being admended in future to strifle free press! And everything i said is perfectly possible and doable. You just don't like it because i don't support your precious legislation, and instead you revert to insults, and childish sulking behavouir.

To be honest i couldn't careless if you read this or any of my future posts, if you act in such childish ways when someone has a different opinion to you. Perhaps you should learn to accept and respect other peoples opinions instead of trying to discredit them and trying to tell them their opinion based soley on their beliefs are based on errornous facts! All you have done is read the report. Read the suggstions regarding the legislation (which does nothing to prevent the press committing libel in the first place) yet fail to understand that everything the legislation would do to benefit people can be done by mere contract between the new regulator and the publishers. You then dismiss my alternative changes to current libel and privacy laws, that would actually help prevent the press ann anyone else from committing libel or invading an others privacy as laughable! Yet here you are calling militant paranoid, and me arrogant and now adding me to your ignore list whilst you go off on a childish sulk - Truely laughable behavoiur if ever i saw it!

I was never being personal with you EXE, i respect your opinion on legislating the press. But don't tell me what i belief is wrong or that my suggested alternative is laughable, when your own supported legislation would do nothing to change the main issue of the press libelling or invade the privacy of people in the first place - Just because you do not like my opinion!

Heres what the legislation would do:

1 Grant people remedy against the press via the regulator who can issue fines of £1million

Heres what the Legislation does not do!

1 Prevent the press for libelling people or invading their privacy in the first place. So no overall added protection there!

Heres what a change in current libel and privacy laws would do:

1 Prevent the press publishing stories without first confirming the validity and have supporting evidence to back up their claims, therefore making it less likely for the press to publish liebllous stories.

2 Prevent the press invading peoples privacy. There for no more sneaky photos of Duchess of Cambridge Naked (unless taken in France) etc.

3 Make more serious acts of libel and privacy invasion criminal acts as well as having civial remedy, making the press and anyone else for that matter think twice before they do anything through fear of possible custodial sentences and criminal records as well as large compensation payouts to their victims and large fines. At no cost to the victim at all.

What will a independant regulator not underpinned by legislation acheive.

1 Grant people remedy against the press via the regulator who can issue fines of £1million (ohh wait a minute, isn't that the same as if it was underpinned by legislation!) enforced under contract law, where the regulator can take the case of victims to the courts on the victims behalf when the publisher disputrs the regulators findings/judgement to get the court to enforce the contract that the publisher signed up to which would cost the publishers court costs (should the dispute be taken to court) the original sum of compensation the regulator demanded they pay the victim, a sum of compensation for breach of contract to be paid to the regulator, plus any additional compensation to the victim for the luxury of having it go to court!

So wheres the need for legislation of the press!

[enquirer]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

"There are laws to protect the freedom of the press's speech,
but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press".
Mark Twain (Licence of the Press 1873).

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

Thats True Enquirer, and the new legislation wouldn't protect them from the press only give them an alternative to the PPC which will only have slightly more clout then the PPC. What the new legislation would do is something which can be done by contractual agreement between publishers and the new regulator.

To protect people from press, then current libel and privacy laws need to be admend and some new criminal law for the more serious acts of libel or breaches of privacy, as i suggested! Otherwise their is still no protection from the press or from anyone else who's is determined to ruin someones reputation for whatever reason!!

[enquirer]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

To protect people from press, then current libel and privacy laws need to be admend and some new criminal law for the more serious acts of libel or breaches of privacy, as i suggested! Otherwise their is still no protection from the press or from anyone else who's is determined to ruin someones reputation for whatever reason!!

Sleazy politicians, corrupt police officers and opportunistic journalists collude together to make a mockery of justice and the judicial process.

We often see the police and the newspapers working together to pillory someone who has been arrested, but is yet to be tried. How many times have we seen newscasts with reporters present by arrangement during a raid or arrest? Trial by tabloid is now the norm, yet years ago, no editor would have dared to print such material.

Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, said at the enquiry that there is no need for legislation, that all we need is for existing legislation to be enforced. He has a point, but the existing system is prohibitively expensive and difficult to negotiate.

The system needs reform, but not regulation. We don't want the dead hand of big brother interfering with freedom of the press. What we want is a system so constructed that the victims of the press can themselves take it on and win.

[EXC]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, said at the enquiry that there is no need for legislation, that all we need is for existing legislation to be enforced. He has a point, but the existing system is prohibitively expensive and difficult to negotiate.

I totally agree.

I'm a big Hislop fan and an avid Eye reader but in my view he doesn't quite get that a significant proportion of press abuse isn't covered by any legislation in any event and what is cannot be enforced without an unreasonable amount of determination, risk and expense on the part of the victim.

Changing the system is too cumbersome as the limited prgress of the Libel Reform Bill has demonstrated.

Changing the existing legislation isn't a reality that could have meaningful effect as it is too complicated and counter to the interests of a free press. Until quite recently in the UK there were two specific areas of defamation that fell within the criminal law but were adolished largely because they retricted a free press and rightly so.

''Criminal defamation has been abolished in the UK since 12 January 2010 when the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 came into force. Section 73 of this Act abolished the criminal defamation offences, which were the offences of sedition and seditious libel, the offence of defamatory libel, and the offence of obscene libel.......one of the main reasons for its abolition was the view that the UK's retention of the archaic criminal offence of defamation justified its use by foreign countries to prosecute and imprison journalists, and to restrict free speech.''

Changing the regulation is the only realistic option with an indepedant regulator that has the genuine legal authority to protect the rights of individuals effectively while it is bound to recognise and uphold the rights of a free press in law. It's not ideal, nothing is, but at least it accomodates those on both sides of an increasingly high fence.

[teaboy2]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

I totally agree.

I'm a big Hislop fan and an avid Eye reader but in my view he doesn't quite get that a significant proportion of press abuse isn't covered by any legislation in any event and what is cannot be enforced without an unreasonable amount of determination, risk and expense on the part of the victim.

Changing the system is too cumbersome as the limited prgress of the Libel Reform Bill has demonstrated.

Changing the existing legislation isn't a reality that could have meaningful effect as it is too complicated and counter to the interests of a free press. Until quite recently in the UK there were two specific areas of defamation that fell within the criminal law but were adolished largely because they retricted a free press and rightly so.

''Criminal defamation has been abolished in the UK since 12 January 2010 when the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 came into force. Section 73 of this Act abolished the criminal defamation offences, which were the offences of sedition and seditious libel, the offence of defamatory libel, and the offence of obscene libel.......one of the main reasons for its abolition was the view that the UK's retention of the archaic criminal offence of defamation justified its use by foreign countries to prosecute and imprison journalists, and to restrict free speech.''

Changing the regulation is the only realistic option with an indepedant regulator that has the genuine legal authority to protect the rights of individuals effectively while it is bound to recognise and uphold the rights of a free press in law. It's not ideal, nothing is, but at least it accomodates those on both sides of an increasingly high fence.

Rubbish - How can strenghing existing laws and turn some back to being criminal offenses, restrict freedom of the press! Sure you use the abolished criminal defamation laws, and the ASSUMPTION other countries used it to breach human rights and arrest journalists. What do you think they are still doing to this day! My suggest would be criminal offences for the more serious offences not just when the press commit libel. For exmaple if someone calls you a rapist when your not or a pedo when your not, they should be criminal! Funny how after the defamtion law was reduced from criminal that we had all these phones hacked and libellous publications about people, is it!

If other countries lock up journalists well whats that to do with us, we should be putting our own people first, and any country locking up journalists should be dealt with via by the international courts for human rights abuses. We should not reduce the legal protection of our own people, simple on the assumption that it will stop despots and dictators locking up journalists, when evidently, as they are still locking them up, the assumption was clearly wrong, and therefore the retraction of criminal defamation has clearly backfired in our faces especially with the phone hacking!

By the way, there are concerns your legislation will encourage dictators to censor press and lock up journalists too.

Eitherway, they will always be despots and dictators in other countries locking up journalist or restricting the press and theres nothing we can do about it. Look at argentina, they just passed a law against the press that destroys press freedom. Will north Korea give a ****, will syria or iran! Your bloody stupid if you think any country will give a crap about what laws we have, as they will still lock people up if it means it helps them to stay in power!!

[Celestine]

Re: Support Leveson - sign this

I must admit, having only just caught up with this, that I'm astonished that anyone could advocate criminalising libel laws as a sane alternative to implementing Leveson's report and is perhaps a teabag short of a brew!

Sorry, but having twice been personally accused of libel this year, I find that suggestion quite alarming.

The Leveson report actually improves the landscape for forums such as ours, but it quite rightly suggests underpinning the current toothless press regulation with some teeth.

And stating that 'even Cameron agrees with me' is not necessarily a positive!