News2 mins ago
Cameron Caves In! - Press Regulator To Be Backed By Legislation.
Last week, much to everyones shock, the Conservatives pulled out of all party talks to get an agreement on implementing the Leveson Inquiry recomendations. It was looking like a Commons defeat for Cameron today as the other parties and disaffected Tories would have beaten Cameron.
But the Cameron came back to the table and accepted the LibDem/Labour deal.
http://
I am pleased. An all party agreement has a better chance of working.
Why did Cameron change his mind?
But the Cameron came back to the table and accepted the LibDem/Labour deal.
http://
I am pleased. An all party agreement has a better chance of working.
Why did Cameron change his mind?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As it currently stands, Cameron can claim he was defending the press against the dead hand of regulation favoured by Milliband and Clegg; By striking a last minute agreement, and conceding some ground, he staves off a defeat in the House.
He might calculate that this constitutes a good result for him personally- may well garner some more favourable coverage from the Press if they see him as their defender.
It will be very interesting to see what the various media groups do, assuming the Milliband/Clegg Royal Charter gets passed - several groups are already saying they will not join it, and are threatening to start their own version......
He might calculate that this constitutes a good result for him personally- may well garner some more favourable coverage from the Press if they see him as their defender.
It will be very interesting to see what the various media groups do, assuming the Milliband/Clegg Royal Charter gets passed - several groups are already saying they will not join it, and are threatening to start their own version......
He hasn't any more than the other parties.
No one has 'won' or caved in. It's called compromise, I know you lefties don't know the meaning of the word so here's a link to help you
http://
It's a pity they can't all do this a bit more on things that need a long term approach.
No one has 'won' or caved in. It's called compromise, I know you lefties don't know the meaning of the word so here's a link to help you
http://
It's a pity they can't all do this a bit more on things that need a long term approach.
Saying something is unacceptable one week, and then a week later accepting it, is not compromise.
Youngmafbog, try this dictionary definition...
http://
Youngmafbog, try this dictionary definition...
http://
YMB, Maria Miller, the Tory Culture Secretary, said on Sky News yesterday that Ed Miliband opted for a (quote) "climbdown", so you can't really blame anyone for saying Cameron "caved in", can you? Both sides will make the most of this did-he-didn't-he situation, of course. The one thing that CAN be claimed with certainty is that Cameron was the one who threw his toys out of the pram and stormed away from talks, saying the sides were too far apart ever to come to any agreement.
//It appears, according to a No 10 source, that Labour has conceded on the ownership of the press code committee and on the idea of a general purpose clause that would allow the recognition committee to rule that the regulator had failed. There had been concerns that newspapers were going to be able to write their own press code, even if it was to be interpreted by a regulator largely consisting of non-newspaper representatives.//
So exactly who *is* going to get to write the code?
So exactly who *is* going to get to write the code?
Here is the Daily Mail's headline at 8.30 this morning.
// Hacked Off 'very pleased' after David Cameron 'caves in' over statutory regulation for Press to avoid Commons defeat tonight //
Which at 9am they have changed to..
// Cameron secures a deal to create a powerful newspaper watchdog but press regulation will NOT be written into law //
// Hacked Off 'very pleased' after David Cameron 'caves in' over statutory regulation for Press to avoid Commons defeat tonight //
Which at 9am they have changed to..
// Cameron secures a deal to create a powerful newspaper watchdog but press regulation will NOT be written into law //
Some may rejoice that Labour and their Lib/Dems partners have got their way over this but believe me today could see the end of the 'free press' as which we have enjoyed in this country for hundreds of years.
Are you happy to allow the politicians and the establishment to have control over who the press expose, would we have ever found out about the expense frauds, the NHS hospital scandals, and would we see such as The Sunday Times campaign on behalf of the thalidomide children?
I am not saying that the phone tapping and other illegal practices should not be thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators put on trial and if found guilty jailed, but these illegal practices are already covered by law, we do not want the press gagged.
Or somewhere in the future, could we slip down the slippery slope and find ourselves in the ways of China or North Korea?
Are you happy to allow the politicians and the establishment to have control over who the press expose, would we have ever found out about the expense frauds, the NHS hospital scandals, and would we see such as The Sunday Times campaign on behalf of the thalidomide children?
I am not saying that the phone tapping and other illegal practices should not be thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators put on trial and if found guilty jailed, but these illegal practices are already covered by law, we do not want the press gagged.
Or somewhere in the future, could we slip down the slippery slope and find ourselves in the ways of China or North Korea?
I would be very interested to know which of the proposed new regulations contained within the Royal Charter would have blocked or prevented the press from publishing stories on MPs and their Expenses, or the investigation of the Thalidomide scandal, or the NHS hospital scandals.
The press would love everyone to think they are the noble defenders of truth, shining a spotlight into murky corners, and that these activities would be curtailed if we introduced tougher press regulation into this country - but that is disingenuous.
All the stories you mention, AoG ,would have been covered by a Public Interest Defence.The Telegraph had the Public Interest defence when it broke the law and published the MPs expense claims.
On the other hand, a more strict Press Regulatory Body, its legitimacy protected by statute, and capable of imposing 6 figure fines, might make them think twice before hacking the mobile phones of murder victims, or printing stories and speculations about someone like Chris Jeffries, later found innocent of any involvement in the death Joanna Yeates, or just plain making any old rubbish up as they currently do.
And a complaints commission that can force papers to print retractions on the front page if necessary is to be welcomed also.....
The press would love everyone to think they are the noble defenders of truth, shining a spotlight into murky corners, and that these activities would be curtailed if we introduced tougher press regulation into this country - but that is disingenuous.
All the stories you mention, AoG ,would have been covered by a Public Interest Defence.The Telegraph had the Public Interest defence when it broke the law and published the MPs expense claims.
On the other hand, a more strict Press Regulatory Body, its legitimacy protected by statute, and capable of imposing 6 figure fines, might make them think twice before hacking the mobile phones of murder victims, or printing stories and speculations about someone like Chris Jeffries, later found innocent of any involvement in the death Joanna Yeates, or just plain making any old rubbish up as they currently do.
And a complaints commission that can force papers to print retractions on the front page if necessary is to be welcomed also.....
AOG
The problem with MPs expenses was that it was self regulated and not independently supervised. That is why it didn't work and why illegal practices went unpunished.
The exact same thing happens with the press. Self regulation does not work, especially when commercial pressures also come into it.
The problem with MPs expenses was that it was self regulated and not independently supervised. That is why it didn't work and why illegal practices went unpunished.
The exact same thing happens with the press. Self regulation does not work, especially when commercial pressures also come into it.
@AoG - And the purpose of your link? Long on rhetoric, very short on actual, you know, facts.... which could pretty much describe all of Melanie Phillips outpourings, come to think of it....
Which major press investigation over the last few years can you think of, that was in the public interest, that would be curtailed, muzzled or hampered by the proposed new Royal Charter, underpinned by statute?
Can any of the Press mouthpieces even show that this charter would prevent them exposing government hypocrisy or wrong- doing?
I have not seen them make any kind of compelling case at all. Just grumblings from hacks who realise that they may have to, you know, do journalistic stuff - like checking sources, verifying facts, etc before printing stuff....
Which major press investigation over the last few years can you think of, that was in the public interest, that would be curtailed, muzzled or hampered by the proposed new Royal Charter, underpinned by statute?
Can any of the Press mouthpieces even show that this charter would prevent them exposing government hypocrisy or wrong- doing?
I have not seen them make any kind of compelling case at all. Just grumblings from hacks who realise that they may have to, you know, do journalistic stuff - like checking sources, verifying facts, etc before printing stuff....
The Royal Charter is nort really underpinned though is it. All the statute says is that it cannot be changed without a set majority. That does not give the Charter legal teeth.
So I stick with what I said earlier. No winners no loosers. And if we are not careful with the views like Gromit it may well end up with nothing if the backbenchers get it into their head they are loosers.
Personally I am not sure what legislation we need. Phone hacking is illegal, it didnt stop it. Rather than more law how about reinforcing the ones we have?
So I stick with what I said earlier. No winners no loosers. And if we are not careful with the views like Gromit it may well end up with nothing if the backbenchers get it into their head they are loosers.
Personally I am not sure what legislation we need. Phone hacking is illegal, it didnt stop it. Rather than more law how about reinforcing the ones we have?
Well yes, it is - at least, the royal charter as it now stands needs a 2/3rds majority in both houses to change its remit.
And the royal charter guarantees a press regulator independent of the press. There are still details to be worked out - the details of the carrot and stick with which to ensure the press all sign up, probably in the form of exemption from exemplary damages to those media organisations that sign up to the new regulatory agreement.
So, not Leveson, but not Camerons vision of a PCC mark2 which was what he had been touting, and what some of the press had wanted.
Even Hacked Off seem happy enough with the compromise solution;http://hackinginquiry.org/news/hacked-off-welcomes-cross-party-agreement-on-leveson/
And the royal charter guarantees a press regulator independent of the press. There are still details to be worked out - the details of the carrot and stick with which to ensure the press all sign up, probably in the form of exemption from exemplary damages to those media organisations that sign up to the new regulatory agreement.
So, not Leveson, but not Camerons vision of a PCC mark2 which was what he had been touting, and what some of the press had wanted.
Even Hacked Off seem happy enough with the compromise solution;http://hackinginquiry.org/news/hacked-off-welcomes-cross-party-agreement-on-leveson/
"Throwing down the gauntlet"? Is that what walking away from talks means nowadays? In days of yore, when a knight threw down his gauntlet - probably accompanied by a very hard stare directly into his opponent's eyes - it was a challenge TO a fight, not a back-turning and wandering away FROM one!
It's simple, really, Cameron finally grasped what everyone else already knew, that he was going to lose the vote in the House.
It's simple, really, Cameron finally grasped what everyone else already knew, that he was going to lose the vote in the House.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV3 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Starmer In Jobs Push.....right Oh!
News15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.