What do the Murdoch clan have on the PM?

[swannymere]

Is he committing political suicide by not implementing the findings of the Leveson enquiry? If yes, what do the Murdoch's have on him?

[Colinjb]

Actually, it's part of political principle towards the right wing to not have state regulated media, while I understand the ramifications of not following the enquiry he is at least being consistent. A split in the coalition over this is not a surprise.

 

The Leveson enquiry did state that all parties were too close to the media, not just the Conservatives.

[Barry Sanchez]

He would be commiting suicide by implementing it also, rock and a hard place and I dont know where I stand exactly on this, ethics, morals and the law to very different things though.

[Barry Sanchez]

Actually, it's part of political principle towards the right wing to not have state regulated media, while I understand the ramifications of not following the enquiry he is at least being consistent. A split in the coalition over this is not a surprise.

 

The Leveson enquiry did state that all parties were too close to the media, not just the Conservatives.

 

What I find ironic is the tories want it free and the liberals what to regulate it.

[Colinjb]

What I find ironic is the tories want it free and the liberals what to regulate it.

 

Ironic in that they are working together?

 

Such is the notion of a coalition.

[Barry Sanchez]

Ironic in that they are working together?

 

Such is the notion of a coalition.

 

No because of that fact the tories actually want a free and open press as such and the liberals would want some form of regulation on it, it seems to go against what both parties stand for.

Clegg has to make some sort of stand on this and I think he will, hasn't he endorsed Levesons report?

[Colinjb]

No because of that fact the tories actually want a free and open press as such and the liberals would want some form of regulation on it, it seems to go against what both parties stand for.

 

Well, if the current ruling parties had the free reign to implement everything they wanted then it really would make for an eclectic living environment! Thanks to our political processes nearly everything we get is a compromise.

[Barry Sanchez]

Well, if the current ruling parties had the free reign to implement everything they wanted then it really would make for an eclectic living environment! Thanks to our political processes nearly everything we get is a compromise.

 

That could actually be a weakness in some ways as nothing really happens.

[Thedelldays]

are you saying you want the government to silence a little, free speech..?

[Special K]

Is he committing political suicide by not implementing the findings of the Leveson enquiry? If yes, what do the Murdoch's have on him?

 

He may well have poked his withered little bellend up the toxic flange of Murdochs chief of staff at some point in the past. Probably during one of Jezza's Chipping Norton soiree's. So he'll be Murdoch's fluffy little pocket i guess.

 

Incidentally, Sam Cam went to the Bristol Poly / UWE when i was there and i swear i tried to give her some of the old Special K charm whilst bladdered in the Tube Club once. I can't remember if i was successful or not, i may have got a snog, but i really can't be sure. TBH I would have loved to have banged it and gone to the papers just to see if it would be printed, what with Dave in the pockets of the media.

[Barry Sanchez]

are you saying you want the government to silence a little, free speech..?

 

Me? I dont want free speech to be regulated at all but I want ethics to be observed and thats far harder to put down in a little book of regulations isn't it?

[buctootim]

He may well have poked his withered little bellend up the toxic flange of Murdochs chief of staff at some point in the past. Probably during one of Jezza's Chipping Norton soiree's. So he'll be Murdoch's fluffy little pocket i guess.

 

Incidentally, Sam Cam went to the Bristol Poly / UWE when i was there and i swear i tried to give her some of the old Special K charm whilst bladdered in the Tube Club once. I can't remember if i was successful or not, i may have got a snog, but i really can't be sure. TBH I would have loved to have banged it and gone to the papers just to see if it would be printed, what with Dave in the pockets of the media.

 

And that makes you better than Cameron and the Murdochs how exactly?

[sfc1976]

I would think that hardly a single vote placed at the next election will be influenced by this report, it's just not a big story for the average voter in the marginals. Indeed, most of the worst elements of the scandal were criminal in nature anyway and have nothing to do with Leveson - a point that Simon Jenkins attempted to make to the brain dead on Question Time last night. The Lib Dems can hardly kick up much of a fuss - they will be wiped out if they bring down the coalition and have to go to the polls. Basically the whole thing was a giant waste of tax payers money, a real shock there then.

[buctootim]

Basically the whole thing was a giant waste of tax payers money, a real shock there then.

 

No it wasnt. It was a huge light going on process of education for a big chunk of the population about how the media operate(d) and the degree to which the politicians they thought were accountable to them as voters wwere actually puppeted by the press. Its the best value enquiry in decades.

 

If Cameron doesnt act on it people will doubt his independence, integrity and trustworthiness (I know) and thats a killer at the ballot box.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

No it wasnt. It was a huge light going on process of education for a big chunk of the population about how the media operate(d) and the degree to which the politicians they thought were accountable to them as voters wwere actually puppeted by the press. Its the best value enquiry in decades.

 

If Cameron doesnt act on it people will doubt his independence, integrity and trustworthiness (I know) and thats a killer at the ballot box.

 

It provided a lot of insight in the mechanics of the press and I think will undoubtedly have changed the culture of fleet street. Will Cameron lose out at the Ballott Box - no because essentially he is on the right side of the argument. The proposals are an alarming threat to free speech and the more this is debated the more this wil be flushed out.

[Barry Sanchez]

I would think that hardly a single vote placed at the next election will be influenced by this report, it's just not a big story for the average voter in the marginals. Indeed, most of the worst elements of the scandal were criminal in nature anyway and have nothing to do with Leveson - a point that Simon Jenkins attempted to make to the brain dead on Question Time last night. The Lib Dems can hardly kick up much of a fuss - they will be wiped out if they bring down the coalition and have to go to the polls. Basically the whole thing was a giant waste of tax payers money, a real shock there then.

I completely agree with you, it wont make a difference but that does not mean it should not be done, Jenkins was speaking a lot of sense last concerning the difference between moral/ethical and legal law.

[Barry Sanchez]

It provided a lot of insight in the mechanics of the press and I think will undoubtedly have changed the culture of fleet street. Will Cameron lose out at the Ballott Box - no because essentially he is on the right side of the argument. The proposals are an alarming threat to free speech and the more this is debated the more this wil be flushed out.

 

Again I agree but there should be some form of code of conduct written, there were far far more ethical boundaries crossed here than laws and thats the issue and bone of contention for many.

[rooney]

Tories are sinking fast. DC decision will finish them off. Ask the voters at the by-election yesterday.

[Barry Sanchez]

Tories are sinking fast. DC decision will finish them off. Ask the voters at the by-election yesterday.

 

That nearly always happens in the by-elections, suprised at how well UKIP did, mind you that is another story altogether.

[CB Saint]

The press should be free to choose what they print, however...

 

If they balls up then the penalties should be draconian. 8 pages incorrectly exposing someone - same 8 pages in the next edition as an apology. Significant damages payable by the paper and personally by the journo and editor if it is found that they have not been rigorous in their corroboration of the story or have been dodgy in any way.

 

A points ssystem - every time you screw up you get a black mark. X number of black marks and you are off the shelves for a period of time. X number of bans then you get closed down.

 

Simples.

 

next problem please

[Frank's cousin]

are you saying you want the government to silence a little, free speech..?

 

 

Got to be careful to differentiate between free speech and the protection of privicy. Law can be in place that provides for both - allowing the free reporting of information that is genuinely in the public interest (not who is screwing who) - yet protecting the right to privicy - not naming names etc until folk are convicted would be a start - not tapping missing kids mobile phones would be another... letting people have a holiday without topless pics from 1000mm lense pictures...

[sfc1976]

No it wasnt. It was a huge light going on process of education for a big chunk of the population about how the media operate(d) and the degree to which the politicians they thought were accountable to them as voters wwere actually puppeted by the press. Its the best value enquiry in decades.

 

If Cameron doesnt act on it people will doubt his independence, integrity and trustworthiness (I know) and thats a killer at the ballot box.

 

Fair enough, each to his own. I just assumed that everyone knew about the relationship between the press and politicians? And as I said, none of the worst excesses of the press have anything to do with Leveson, they are a criminal matter for the CPS to decide upon. And much of Leveson was a circus, just wealthy celebratory after wealthy celebratory bemoaning intrusion, rightly so in some cases, and then getting a fortune in compensation thanks to the best lawyers money can buy. The Dowler case is a criminal matter, as is paying police officers for evidence.

 

Of course the real reason it was a waste of time and money is that it said nothing about social media. The print press will be dead in 10yrs anyway. It's social media where people get away with incredible abuses of the libel laws etc.

[sfc1976]

No it wasnt. It was a huge light going on process of education for a big chunk of the population about how the media operate(d) and the degree to which the politicians they thought were accountable to them as voters wwere actually puppeted by the press. Its the best value enquiry in decades.

 

If Cameron doesnt act on it people will doubt his independence, integrity and trustworthiness (I know) and thats a killer at the ballot box.

 

Fair enough, each to his own. I just assumed that everyone knew about the relationship between the press and politicians? And as I said, none of the worst excesses of the press have anything to do with Leveson, they are a criminal matter for the CPS to decide upon. And much of Leveson was a circus, just wealthy celebratory after wealthy celebratory bemoaning intrusion, rightly so in some cases, and then getting a fortune in compensation thanks to the best lawyers money can buy. The Dowler case is a criminal matter, as is paying police officers for evidence.

 

Of course the real reason it was a waste of time and money is that it said nothing about social media. The print press will be dead in 10yrs anyway. It's social media where people get away with incredible abuses of the libel laws etc.

[um pahars]

Fair enough, each to his own. I just assumed that everyone knew about the relationship between the press and politicians? And as I said, none of the worst excesses of the press have anything to do with Leveson, they are a criminal matter for the CPS to decide upon. And much of Leveson was a circus, just wealthy celebratory after wealthy celebratory bemoaning intrusion, rightly so in some cases, and then getting a fortune in compensation thanks to the best lawyers money can buy. The Dowler case is a criminal matter, as is paying police officers for evidence.

 

And whilst I have some sympathy for your argument suggesting existing criminal procedures are enough to curb the worst excesses of the press, it does not adequately address the various issues not covered by criminal proceedings.

 

For example in the Jeffries case I think only a couple of papers faced criminal proceedings, leaving Jeffries to pursue civil action against the others. Sadly for many individuals the option of taking these big corporations to court in civil cases is beyond them, and the press know this only too well.

 

Plus of course the existing criminal laws have not stopped a plethora of abuses (do those laws need toughening, do the CPS and Police need more support, do sections of the press think they are above the law, is getting caught a small price to pay???).

[um pahars]

Fair enough, each to his own. I just assumed that everyone knew about the relationship between the press and politicians? And as I said, none of the worst excesses of the press have anything to do with Leveson, they are a criminal matter for the CPS to decide upon. And much of Leveson was a circus, just wealthy celebratory after wealthy celebratory bemoaning intrusion, rightly so in some cases, and then getting a fortune in compensation thanks to the best lawyers money can buy. The Dowler case is a criminal matter, as is paying police officers for evidence.

 

And whilst I have some sympathy for your argument suggesting existing criminal procedures are enough to curb the worst excesses of the press, it does not adequately address the various issues not covered by criminal proceedings.

 

For example in the Jeffries case I think only a couple of papers faced criminal proceedings, leaving Jeffries to pursue civil action against the others. Sadly for many individuals the option of taking these big corporations to court in civil cases is beyond them, and the press know this only too well.

 

Plus of course the existing criminal laws have not stopped a plethora of abuses (do those laws need toughening, do the CPS and Police need more support, do sections of the press think they are above the law, is getting caught a small price to pay???).

[solentstars]

The press should be free to choose what they print, however...

 

If they balls up then the penalties should be draconian. 8 pages incorrectly exposing someone - same 8 pages in the next edition as an apology. Significant damages payable by the paper and personally by the journo and editor if it is found that they have not been rigorous in their corroboration of the story or have been dodgy in any way.

 

A points ssystem - every time you screw up you get a black mark. X number of black marks and you are off the shelves for a period of time. X number of bans then you get closed down.

 

Simples.

 

next problem please

what about the mccanns case would you like it if you were accused with your daughters murder and think a apology in a paper makes up for it.

they have been warned several times in the past and have not taken notice and cleaned up their act .. i am disgusted that cameron has not implemented Leveson enquiry in full and hopefully the rest of parliament will force him to toe the line for all those victims of the newspaper he should also follow the us that no media outlet can have more than 15 % of the market ..and has for politicians they already influenced by papers and do their bidding or on their pay rolls.

[solentstars]

The press should be free to choose what they print, however...

 

If they balls up then the penalties should be draconian. 8 pages incorrectly exposing someone - same 8 pages in the next edition as an apology. Significant damages payable by the paper and personally by the journo and editor if it is found that they have not been rigorous in their corroboration of the story or have been dodgy in any way.

 

A points ssystem - every time you screw up you get a black mark. X number of black marks and you are off the shelves for a period of time. X number of bans then you get closed down.

 

Simples.

 

next problem please

what about the mccanns case would you like it if you were accused with your daughters murder and think a apology in a paper makes up for it.

they have been warned several times in the past and have not taken notice and cleaned up their act .. i am disgusted that cameron has not implemented Leveson enquiry in full and hopefully the rest of parliament will force him to toe the line for all those victims of the newspaper he should also follow the us that no media outlet can have more than 15 % of the market ..and has for politicians they already influenced by papers and do their bidding or on their pay rolls.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The Irish have a similar regulation that Levision is proposing, yet that didn't stop a paper publishing Kate's knockers.

 

The BBC and ITV are "underpinned" by state regualtion ( Ofcom, the body that Levison proposes) and that didn't stop McAlpine being accused of the worst type of crime, without foundation.

 

What exactly are we regualting against? Phone hacking was already illigal, and known about by the present and previous Governments long before the Dowler hacking came to light. Paying police officers is illigal. Max Mosley, Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan seem to want some sort of privacy regulation, but that would end with rich and powerful people hushing up stuff ala France. Ok so maybe Steve Coogan's sex life is his own business, but is Gordon Brown's, was John Perfumo's, who decides whose sex life is private and whose is in the public's interest? Chris Pattern or some other career busybody?

 

You cant make legislation on the basis of what victims want, if we did that, we'd have hanging and cutting off peado's and rapists balls.

 

So who is going to lead this ofcom or similar type body? and whose going to appoint him? Is the Ofcom/similar chairman's sex life in the public interest or not? Who decides.

 

There is a very simple way of regulating the press, of making sure they police themselves in a proper correct and harsh manner. It's called to buy or not to buy their ****ing papers. If a paper keeps printing rubbish, keeps hounding innocent people, then dont buy it. If a paper keeps printing stuff about Harry Hill's or Peppa Pig's sex life and you feel it's againt the public interest, dont ****ing buy it. If papers wont sign up and adhere to a code of conduct, dont ****ing buy it, and dont advertsie with it. Simple.

 

Why do people always turn to the state to sort their problems out? We can sort our own out. Dont like the Sun, then dont buy it. Liverpudlians dont, if the rest of the country followed suit it would have 2 option, change it's practises or go bust.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The Irish have a similar regulation that Levision is proposing, yet that didn't stop a paper publishing Kate's knockers.

 

The BBC and ITV are "underpinned" by state regualtion ( Ofcom, the body that Levison proposes) and that didn't stop McAlpine being accused of the worst type of crime, without foundation.

 

What exactly are we regualting against? Phone hacking was already illigal, and known about by the present and previous Governments long before the Dowler hacking came to light. Paying police officers is illigal. Max Mosley, Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan seem to want some sort of privacy regulation, but that would end with rich and powerful people hushing up stuff ala France. Ok so maybe Steve Coogan's sex life is his own business, but is Gordon Brown's, was John Perfumo's, who decides whose sex life is private and whose is in the public's interest? Chris Pattern or some other career busybody?

 

You cant make legislation on the basis of what victims want, if we did that, we'd have hanging and cutting off peado's and rapists balls.

 

So who is going to lead this ofcom or similar type body? and whose going to appoint him? Is the Ofcom/similar chairman's sex life in the public interest or not? Who decides.

 

There is a very simple way of regulating the press, of making sure they police themselves in a proper correct and harsh manner. It's called to buy or not to buy their ****ing papers. If a paper keeps printing rubbish, keeps hounding innocent people, then dont buy it. If a paper keeps printing stuff about Harry Hill's or Peppa Pig's sex life and you feel it's againt the public interest, dont ****ing buy it. If papers wont sign up and adhere to a code of conduct, dont ****ing buy it, and dont advertsie with it. Simple.

 

Why do people always turn to the state to sort their problems out? We can sort our own out. Dont like the Sun, then dont buy it. Liverpudlians dont, if the rest of the country followed suit it would have 2 option, change it's practises or go bust.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Oh and just to add to the question " What do the Murdoch clan have on the PM" Levison found that they did no favours (despite what Gordon Brown claimed) and he also exonerated Jeremy Hunt , much to the lefties dissapointment no doubt. I dont suppose Tom Watson will accept that part of the report.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Oh and just to add to the question " What do the Murdoch clan have on the PM" Levison found that they did no favours (despite what Gordon Brown claimed) and he also exonerated Jeremy Hunt , much to the lefties dissapointment no doubt. I dont suppose Tom Watson will accept that part of the report.

[aintforever]

There is a very simple way of regulating the press, of making sure they police themselves in a proper correct and harsh manner. It's called to buy or not to buy their ****ing papers. If a paper keeps printing rubbish, keeps hounding innocent people, then dont buy it. If a paper keeps printing stuff about Harry Hill's or Peppa Pig's sex life and you feel it's againt the public interest, dont ****ing buy it. If papers wont sign up and adhere to a code of conduct, dont ****ing buy it, and dont advertsie with it. Simple.

 

That will never work because some people like to read about who is ****ging who. That doesn't mean it's right to splash people's personal lives over the paper or it's in the public's interest.

 

It would make a mockery of the whole enquiry if it's findings are just ignored.

[aintforever]

There is a very simple way of regulating the press, of making sure they police themselves in a proper correct and harsh manner. It's called to buy or not to buy their ****ing papers. If a paper keeps printing rubbish, keeps hounding innocent people, then dont buy it. If a paper keeps printing stuff about Harry Hill's or Peppa Pig's sex life and you feel it's againt the public interest, dont ****ing buy it. If papers wont sign up and adhere to a code of conduct, dont ****ing buy it, and dont advertsie with it. Simple.

 

That will never work because some people like to read about who is ****ging who. That doesn't mean it's right to splash people's personal lives over the paper or it's in the public's interest.

 

It would make a mockery of the whole enquiry if it's findings are just ignored.

[um pahars]

But that offers no solution to Jeffries et al. They probably don't buy these papers, but they still got slaughtered.

[um pahars]

But that offers no solution to Jeffries et al. They probably don't buy these papers, but they still got slaughtered.

[Wade Garrett]

The actions of the press, uncovered by Leveson, demonstrates how woefully flawed letting them regulate themselves is.

 

Ideologies aside, there must be independent regulation.

[Jonnyboy]

Wouldn't it be nice to pick up a paper and read it knowing that 99.99% of it is truthful.

[Lord Duckhunter]

That will never work because some people like to read about who is ****ging who. That doesn't mean it's right to splash people's personal lives over the paper or it's in the public's interest.

 

It would make a mockery of the whole enquiry if it's findings are just ignored.

 

it's not as simple as that. Was it in the publics interest that perfumo was banging Keeler, if Cameron snagged Rebecca brooks would that be in the publics interest? Who decides what is and isn't in the publics interest. Now, you could say nobodies sex life can be published,but surely we don't want the great and the good hiding behind privacy laws. Please explain who deuces what can and can't be published. Is it you,who doesn't want to read about sex or someone who does.

[Wade Garrett]

The press are banging on about freedom of speech etc. But what about the rights of every individual not to be the subject of spying techniques that wouldn't have looked out of place in communist Russia 30 years ago.

 

The press had their chance of self-regulation and have spectacularly blown it. Cameron would really go down in my estimation if he caved into them, and so they can't hound 1 political party, it should be an open agreement between all the Westminster parties.

[Wade Garrett]

it's not as simple as that. Was it in the publics interest that perfumo was banging Keeler, if Cameron snagged Rebecca brooks would that be in the publics interest? Who decides what is and isn't in the publics interest. Now, you could say nobodies sex life can be published,but surely we don't want the great and the good hiding behind privacy laws. Please explain who deuces what can and can't be published. Is it you,who doesn't want to read about sex or someone who does.

 

I think it's more about the unscrupulous methods the press use to get their evidence.

[um pahars]

it's not as simple as that. Was it in the publics interest that perfumo was banging Keeler, if Cameron snagged Rebecca brooks would that be in the publics interest? Who decides what is and isn't in the publics interest. Now, you could say nobodies sex life can be published,but surely we don't want the great and the good hiding behind privacy laws. Please explain who deuces what can and can't be published. Is it you,who doesn't want to read about sex or someone who does.

 

Deciding on Public Interest already happens in Criminal Law, from deciding whether it is in the general interest to prosecute right through to be considered as a line of defence.

 

And whilst there is no overriding Public Interest defence, the DPP Have issues interim guidelines on this, which all seem rather sensible and reasonable to me.

 

http://www.thelawyer.com/clearing-up-the-public-interest/1012666.article

 

The fourth paragraph listing all the examples would cover many of the worries you have. Public Interest already exists (and generally seems to work).

[CB Saint]

what about the mccanns case would you like it if you were accused with your daughters murder and think a apology in a paper makes up for it.

they have been warned several times in the past and have not taken notice and cleaned up their act .. i am disgusted that cameron has not implemented Leveson enquiry in full and hopefully the rest of parliament will force him to toe the line for all those victims of the newspaper he should also follow the us that no media outlet can have more than 15 % of the market ..and has for politicians they already influenced by papers and do their bidding or on their pay rolls.

 

An Apology wouldn't be sufficient hence the need for sanctions that have teeth. If the editor and journo thought they had personal culpability then they might research the hel;l out of the story before going to print. Similarly a propriator is not going to risk being closed down for the sake of running a dodgy story

[CB Saint]

There is a very simple way of regulating the press, of making sure they police themselves in a proper correct and harsh manner. It's called to buy or not to buy their ****ing papers. If a paper keeps printing rubbish, keeps hounding innocent people, then dont buy it. If a paper keeps printing stuff about Harry Hill's or Peppa Pig's sex life and you feel it's againt the public interest, dont ****ing buy it. If papers wont sign up and adhere to a code of conduct, dont ****ing buy it, and dont advertsie with it. Simple..

 

Unfortunately too many people like gossip. The press didn't print kate's knockers but 7 milllion brits went online to have a peek.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti has said that she does not support compulsory regulation, she says. "In a democracy, regulation of the press and imposing standards on it must be voluntary."

 

This is pretty similar to Cameron's view. Do the Murdoch have something on her as well?

[Thedelldays]

I thought a complete free press was essential..

whats the issue here..?

[TheCholulaKid]

I thought a complete free press was essential..

whats the issue here..?

 

Essential to what?

[um pahars]

Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti has said that she does not support compulsory regulation, she says. "In a democracy, regulation of the press and imposing standards on it must be voluntary."

 

This is pretty similar to Cameron's view. Do the Murdoch have something on her as well?

 

Like many people who raise their head above the parapet I bet Murdoch & co have something on her!!! (had a friend who worked at NOTW and he used to tell me how they had files on most "famous" people that we're regularly reviewed to see when would be the best time to print them).

 

But like The Mail, you seem to have misinterpreted Chakrabati's point of view as her comments don't even refer to any of Leveson's reccommendations.

[ecuk268]

When he announced the Leveson inquiry, Cameron said that he would implement all it's recommendations unless they were "bonkers".

 

Then again, he also said, before the last election, that "there will be no top-down re-organisation of the NHS".

 

Telling the truth isn't one of his strong points (I suppose that's why he's in politics.

[Thedelldays]

Essential to what?

I thought a free press was essential for our free society..or so we are told on here.personally, I would happily have the powers at be shut the press up...but that is a dangerours road..is it notI thought, no matter what political colour you are...the PMs stance on this should be most welcome...yet so many are quiet.BTF...do you not welcome the PMs stance on this...or is that impossible for you because of who he is..?

[ecuk268]

20 years ago John major said that the press were "drinking in the last-chance saloon".

 

Not got any better have they?

 

Self-regulation via the PCC has been a joke.

 

Any regulatory body needs to be independent of the press and of government, but it should have judicial powers, not through Ofcom but by a senior Judge (or a small panel of Judges).