Newspapers Say No To Parliament

[jake-the-peg]

So all the Newspapers (except the Guardian and the Independant) have rejected what all the political parties have agreed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22294722

How should we show them that Parliament should run the country not them?

[mikey4444]

Can I suggest that Parliament says no to the bloody newspapers and gets on with it !

[doctordb]

I'm with the press on this one.

[jim360]

I'm yet to be persuaded either way -- seems sometimes that I can change my mind every five minutes when I do think about this -- but even so, Parliament should have somewhat more authority than the media. We vote for the parliament - we do not for editors of the Sun or Daily Mail. So Parliament, having made the decision on this, should surely be respected. Otherwise we'd be heading back to the time when Lords Rothermere, Beaverbrook, NorthCliffe et. al were virtually running the country. Exaggerating, perhaps, but still.

Parliament may be wrong, but it still has made its decision and, for now at least, that should be respected.

[bazwillrun]

"How should we show them that Parliament should run the country"

unlike how we let the eussr run us you mean !?

[FredPuli43]

So,inter alia, the press wants ex-editors on the panel and more say generally? Right. Well, the solicitors' governing body in complaints is constituted with one half of the committee solicitors with one as chairman. The difference is that those individual solicitors aren't in a business where illegality and reprehensible practices have been long established and perpetrated by them.

[Svejk]

Why would anyone care what the 'honourable' gentleman have to say about the press.
They're still smarting from the expenses scandal.
Most of the things the press did wrong are covered by criminal law.
Plenty of upcoming cases will attest to that.

[beckersjay]

Maggie would have known how to deal with this.....

[ludwig]

// How should we show them that Parliament should run the country not them? //

Obviously we shouldn't buy them. But we shouldn't have been buying them anyway as they're mostly garbage, but we were, so there's fat chance of that changing.

[Gromit]

We don't always agree with laws, but if parliament has passed laws, we HAVE to obey the or face fines, prosecution and imprisonment.

This is no different. If newspapers cannot work within the law they should be prosecuted and fined (proper fines).

The illegality of the last few years has to stop. As it is, a few journalists and corrupt officials may get fined or small prison sentences when we all know the rot is at the top with the proprietors. They are the ones who need to be made to act responsibly. They have demonstrated they are unable to under self regulatory PCC.

Parliament (and I believe the public) want a regulator that is independent of the self interest of the press barons. A regulator that has the interests of the public first, not profits.

If the newspapers don't like it, tough. The law is the law.

[Quizmonster]

Well, if the press barons get away with flouting laws affecting them, then I can see no reason why I should go on paying taxes, driving on the left or obeying any other rules laid down by Parliament.

[youngmafbog]

Err, its a free country Comrade Jake. Unless they break the law (and they are not breaking it by not signing up) then I dont see your problem.

If the public dont agree with what a paper is doing dont buy it, as pointed out earlier.

I am somewhat sceptical of any press regulation. It could easily be abused at some point in the future (by any party of any colour)

Personally I would prefer to see prosecutions under the laws we already have. What is the point of introducing more if we don't enforce what we have already?

[FredPuli43]

The problem has been that practices are so entrenched that getting around to prosecuting a few individuals is not addressing the problem and that some disreputable (to us, not to them) practices are not, per se, illegal. I have referred to solicitors and their controls already, but it's significant to note that not all bad practices of errant solicitors are actually illegal. Much of their wrongdoing, by the standards of proper people and practitioners, falls short of criminal offences but is undesirable. The same must be true of the press.

[emmie]

big fines to the papers and individuals concerned who make up, abuse their position, as in the Milly Dowler case. However one thing we are supposed to be noted for is freedom of speech, if the papers, people are tied hand and foot by legislation then how will the stories that affect all of us get to be heard. Unless that is the point we only get fed what the government wants us to know, pretty much how some countries operate, but not here until now perhaps. All in favour of giving them a big slap when they err, but who out of the politicians hasn't done something wrong, albeit expenses, tax evasion, and telling lies about where they reside.

[jake-the-peg]

I think you miss the point Youngmafbog

These papers are attempting to dictate to parliament exactlly what they should or should not do in terms of a code of conduct.

I think it also speaks volumes which papers are OK with a strict code of responsibility - the Guardian and the Independant.

I think elsewhere you suggested Cameron 'grow a pair' with regards to the ECHR

I suggest he start by 'growing a pair' with respect to our domestic newspapers before turning to the mainland