Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Leveson - the aftermath

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Ewanneil
Ewanneil  41118 forum posts Scotland2 Constructive Critique Points
2 Dec 2012 - 6:47 PM

It seems to me that we are now in the bizarre situation where all the laws necessary to prevent the sort of press intrusions that have occurred are already in place but just not enforced. So instead of enforcing existing legislation we may end up passing more laws to force newspapers to obey those laws that are already on the statute books. What a mess!

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
2 Dec 2012 - 6:47 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314993 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
2 Dec 2012 - 7:00 PM


Quote: It seems to me that we are now in the bizarre situation where all the laws necessary to prevent the sort of press intrusions that have occurred are already in place but just not enforced

Its enforced but its still no real deterrent when very often all the paper has to do is print a small apology, there should also be stiff penalties included.

http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

James_G
James_G  7166 forum posts5 Constructive Critique Points
2 Dec 2012 - 8:25 PM


Quote: Yes I have, and as K says, us mere mortals haven`t the same clout as celebrities Smile

Yes, but why? What was the situation?

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314993 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
2 Dec 2012 - 8:32 PM

Does the situation matter, they were found in breach of clauses 1 and 6.

Ewanneil
Ewanneil  41118 forum posts Scotland2 Constructive Critique Points
2 Dec 2012 - 8:37 PM


Quote: Its enforced but its still no real deterrent when very often all the paper has to do is print a small apology, there should also be stiff penalties included.


But that's not really enforcement. We are talking about crime here (bribery, blackmail, phone hacking, stalking (a crime in Scotland) etc). It's not the job of the PCC to enforce compliance with the law of the land. That's the job of the police and the courts and clearly they have abrogated their responsibilities in this regard. I wonder why?

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314993 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
2 Dec 2012 - 8:44 PM

Probably because there powers are limited, clauses 3 and 10 spring up all the time looking at the Leveson enquiry, possibly more.

James_G
James_G  7166 forum posts5 Constructive Critique Points
2 Dec 2012 - 8:45 PM


Quote: Does the situation matter, they were found in breach of clauses 1 and 6.

Well, yes obviously the situation does matter. Had the paper simply made a mistake?

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314993 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
2 Dec 2012 - 8:50 PM


Quote: Well, yes obviously the situation does matter. Had the paper simply made a mistake?

I stated they were found in breach of clauses 1 and 6, hardly a simple mistake is it, the situation does not matter a toss, the clauses do Smile

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 2 Dec 2012 - 8:52 PM
James_G
James_G  7166 forum posts5 Constructive Critique Points
2 Dec 2012 - 9:06 PM

Of course the situation matters. You claimed to have been subjected to bad treatment from the press, but you won't explain what that was. Why not? If you are going to make the claim, at least back it up.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314993 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
2 Dec 2012 - 9:10 PM

Its already backed up, why should I have to explain what it was, if you decide not to believe then that`s your problem Smile

discreetphoton
discreetphoton Site Moderator 93451 forum postsdiscreetphoton vcard United Kingdom20 Constructive Critique Points
3 Dec 2012 - 9:51 AM

Comments referring to the specifics of Paul's case have been removed on request, to allow those concerned to put it behind them.
Please keep to the general topic gentlemen, and try not to get personal. Thank you.

MODERATOR POST
mikehit
mikehit  46194 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
3 Dec 2012 - 10:21 AM

There are more and more reasoned comments as to why we should not have a law backing the new press commission (what ever they end up calling it). The strongest are that parliament is never particuarly good at drafting laws that are run by emotion rather than fact (witness the Dangerous Dogs Act) and once a law is in place (no matter how well it is drafted) it is easier to 'tweak it' if you disagree with its implementation.
In favour of the law is that left to their won devices the press will have a system they can influence and back out of.

Maybe the immediate step should be to relax the libel laws and make it easier to sue? Everything else the press did was already illegal anyway (phone hacking, paying police officers for information etc).

The first question we should answer though is what is it that the commission would do that is not being done already? I have not really seen a coherent explanation of this. If it is to stop obnoxious behaviour, is that really something that should be managed legally?If it is to stop illegal activity, then make that activity illegal.

gcarth
gcarth e2 Member 102263 forum postsgcarth vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
3 Dec 2012 - 10:37 AM


Quote: The first question we should answer though is what is it that the commission would do that is not being done already? I have not really seen a coherent explanation of this. If it is to stop obnoxious behaviour, is that really something that should be managed legally?If it is to stop illegal activity, then make that activity illegal.

I agree. I think this last statement of yours nicely gets to the nub of the matter.

jondf
jondf  82474 forum posts
3 Dec 2012 - 3:16 PM


Quote: If it is to stop illegal activity, then make that activity illegal

What compounds the problem is that the governing body over-seeing press regulation and complaints was - incredible, I know - the press. The PCC now stands denuded in the Leveson spotlight complete with toothless mouth and tabloid crutches, exposed as a private members club peopled by those who run or did run newspapers. An insestual relationship? Some may not think otherwise.

mikehit
mikehit  46194 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
3 Dec 2012 - 3:30 PM

Leveson uncovered nothing new in that respect - this criticism has been levelled at the PCC for decades where remedies under the PCC were meaningless or ignored which is why there is such a clamour for legal backing. For me, the revelations in Leveson were about how cosy the relationship had become between politicians and press and police and press. I wonder if the commission issue has now diverted attention away from the behaviour of the other two groups, with the press being a convenient lightning rod for all the discontent.

One interesting question: if there was a legally backed commission, would the Telegraph have published the story about MPs expenses knowing the material had been gained illegally? How can you draft a law that says it is OK to break other laws if it is in the public interest? And given that the Telegraph story went against the interests of the law-makers, would you trust them to legislate properly? At least with a non-legal oversight you can ignore the transgression as 'in the public interest' but this would be harder to do with lawyers involved.
Or how about the Belgrano story leaked after the Falklands War.

Apparently the Dept for Culture, media and sport are already drafting legislation so the press know they are on borrowed time and need to act quickly.

Last Modified By mikehit at 3 Dec 2012 - 3:31 PM

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.