General Chat

I would have thought the law already covered most serious offences though of course it often hasn't beenenforced , and in the past investigative journalism has been sometimes been very valuable - of course there should be some regulatory standards but we should be very wary of the ease with which this can slip into censorship - freedom of the press must not be eroded

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9939666/British-press-laws-are-just-crazy-say-shocked-Americans.html

We're the laughing stock of the world.....

John O’Sullivan, the British editor-at-large of the New York-based opinion magazine National Review, said it was a “shameful compromise”.

Under a headline: 1771–2013: The Era of the Free Press in Britain, he said: “It is a serious attack on freedom by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, and a cowardly retreat in the face of that attack by Prime Minister David Cameron and the Tories.”

He said that the motives behind the attack were all too obvious – the uncovering of “grave public scandals” that have “embarrassed the politicians and the establishment”.

The Kremlin controlled Russia Today reports the news under the headline: 'Freedom of press under pressure: UK to launch media regulator'.

The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development were among those expressing concerns about media freedom, warning that the phone hacking scandal should not be used as an excuse to rein in all print media.

Only in England and Wales,,,,,,,,,Scotland is excluded.!!!!

so where does that leave DC and the others? :-)

There is as yet no agreement with the press, just a threat by the Commons to take on the Fourth Estate. It is looking more and more that the Fourth Estate is not going to bite. And then what ?

Taking just one element of the proposed Charter. If a newspaper signs up then anybody can sue it under the code and even if the complainant wins the case the newspaper will have to pay all costs! That could sink Private Eye, the Spectator and some web sites in short order.

Leveson was a mistake from the word go, utterly over the top for the problem which was simply abuse of the law and trust by many people, not just the press. It was amazing just how many people did not bother to set a secure PIN on their voice mail box...

The Charter amounts to a super duper way to prevent such issues as Chris Huhne's driving habits, MP expense and mortgage arrangements, the truth about HS2 and a raft of other stuff getting into the public domain. No wonder all three parties have managed an agreement!

Lawyers such as Mishcon de Reya will have any newspaper that signs up to this reduced to a toothless wreck in no time.

It is plain wrong and I hope that the editors will tell Hugh Grant just where in Notting Hill he can stick his charter.

An interesting insight into the Milliband concept of freedom though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21848746

Ian Hislop says it exactly as I see it.

The main point of the new agreement is - think carefully before putting pen to papyrus.

I think the press need to have some restriction placed on them because they've abused their freedom too often. I think people should be entitled to some privacy whoever they are ...and as for all this celebrity nonsense! as an example, I was reading a paper in the dentists the other day and there was this tiny little apology to one of the royal family Andrew I think a few pages in basically saying there had been no truth in whatever story it was they'd published....I think they should have to publish an apology the same size and place as the article was originally.

It's all right thinking the terrible malicious journalism and treatment that we've heard of in this report only happens to other people who are in the public eye and deserve it but that's not always the case. People I know suffered and so have people like the Dowlers, who did nothing to expose themselves to the public eye except lose their daughter

Agree with Muffy and PigletsPal:))))

jude :-D

Muffyxx I agree with you and PigletsPal, this is yet another slippery slope they have embarked down, and it does not fair well for our so called democracy :-(

They are already trying to curb the power of judges, says a lot about the separation of powers and freedom from the control of the executive :-(

I agree with Piglets Pal......phone hacking was already illegal.....the laws in place just weren't being implemented....I don't like the outcome one bit....much as I loathe and despise our press.

I for one feel that the freedom of the press is paramount in our society

Yes I agree they went too far with the phone hacking

But I personally do not want to live in a society where Politicians and Celebrities can curtail what we learn about any dodgy dealings they hatch up

Remember without the press we would never have known about the Politicians expenses and lots of other major stories over the years.

Would you like a press such as they have in Communist countries where they cannot print anything derogatory about anyone for fear of imprisonment or worse.

does this mean
the newspapers will be telling us a better class of lies now :-D :-D

The common sense of the PM's advisors :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

Oh dear! You're right Muffy - slap my hands. It's my age you know (my excuse and I'm sticking to it) .... sorry everyone!

Wasn't that Oliver Hoare.......not Letwin?

Has anyone noticed that the person delegated by David Cameron to this group was Oliver Letwin? Wasn't Letwin's name splashed across the newspapers as the person whom Diana, Princess of Wales, phoned several times, apparently causing the innocent family some distress?

If so, what a crazy delegatory decision without using one's nous - what's happened to the common sense of the PM's advisors?

..... and, it appears to me, it's resulted in a biased decision against a free press, unless the newspapers have got it wrong. It's a wonder they've been allowed to report this!