Leveson Report

[Lateralthinking1]

If by that you mean that the independence of an independent press regulator must be, or at least include, independence from government and that such a regulator would therefore be a quango rather than an arm of government, you'd have to look no further than FSA to see how successfully a quango regulator can function for the benefit of - er - um...

In my view, the major problem with quangos is that they are run by so-called experts. Organisations of that kind should be managed by those who have experienced adverse effects in the relevant sphere as proven in law. Yes, they should have full assistance from professionals so that decisions can be informed but the decisions should rest with them.

Would you prefer a few lords, some ex CEOs and a couple of bishops to be in charge or Hugh Grant, a member of the Dowler family and someone who lost a relative at Hillsborough? To me, the question answers itself and the principle should apply everywhere. It is intuitively the natural way of ensuring checks and balances and is probably also why it is never done.

In the current system, industries have bodies which represent them exclusively. When it comes to the public, the great and the good are allegedly there to find a balance between competing interests. In practice, the see-saw is tilted firmly to the industry's side. So there is rarely any body that represents the public exclusively. That is why quangos are so discredited.

As it happens, the FSA was the one organisation which supported me on 50% of a substantial complaint. That though was luck if also right - although tellingly the decision arrived in a climate of utter condemnation in the press about misselling.

[MrGongGong]

It's so bleeding obvious that of course Davy doesn't want to go along with it
as so many of the offending folk are his friends
not that the rest of them have any scruples or morality in these things either ...........

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

is there not some magical thinking going on, does passing a law really cross a rubicon ... does passing any law require a pre-existing law ...phrases are being waved in the air as if they had magical force, they have appeared on every discussion and news programme as a primary argument against the 'statutory underpinning' notion ... quite fallaciously to my understanding of M'lLd's intent ...

so we know that Cameron Osborne Gove et al stand with the press barons as well as the bankers and the rich ...well no sh1t Sherlock ...

Leveson has not nearly done enough about the Metropolitan Police ... perhaps to save his proposals for the press from getting lost

Portillo and Campbell both were very pessimistic of anything at all being done last night on This Week ... and both very critical of Cameron for immediately 'dumping' his own inquiry ...

Max Mosley was scathing about Dave .... comparing him to the learned M'Lud he said what does this 'very lucky' PR dogsbody know of anything or some such words ... so that is the kinky sex vote gone ...


Ann diamond made the best comment it seemed to me ... why have they gone through the trauma of the evidence stand and the vilification again by Dacre NI and their gangs for Dave C to just turn it off ... it was betrayal ...and so it is ...

and the squirming wriggling misuse of the language by the editors and hacks of the press about free speech and freedom of the press is self interested garbage to protect their license to scandalise and make ££££££££££££

[MrGongGong]

is there not some magical thinking going on, does passing a law really cross a rubicon ... does passing any law require a pre-existing law ...phrases are being waved in the air as if they had magical force, they have appeared on every discussion and news programme as a primary argument against the 'statutory underpinning' notion ... quite fallaciously to my understanding of M'lLd's intent ...

so we know that Cameron Osborne Gove et al stand with the press barons as well as the bankers and the rich ...well no sh1t Sherlock ...

Leveson has not nearly done enough about the Metropolitan Police ... perhaps to save his proposals for the press from getting lost

Portillo and Campbell both were very pessimistic of anything at all being done last night on This Week ... and both very critical of Cameron for immediately 'dumping' his own inquiry ...

Max Mosley was scathing about Dave .... comparing him to the learned M'Lud he said what does this 'very lucky' PR dogsbody know of anything or some such words ... so that is the kinky sex vote gone ...


Ann diamond made the best comment it seemed to me ... why have they gone through the trauma of the evidence stand and the vilification again by Dacre NI and their gangs for Dave C to just turn it off ... it was betrayal ...and so it is ...

and the squirming wriggling misuse of the language by the editors and hacks of the press about free speech and freedom of the press is self interested garbage to protect their license to scandalise and make ££££££££££££

a good summary calum :sadface:

[Lateralthinking1]

I wonder whether the significant shifts in voting trends will make a long-term difference.

Rotherham was extraordinary as never before have 7 men and 4 women stood and the 4 women occupied all the top places.

Looks like the "Calm Down Dear" comment was ill-advised, not to mention the overall "style".

[ahinton]

In my view, the major problem with quangos is that they are run by so-called experts. Organisations of that kind should be managed by those who have experienced adverse effects in the relevant sphere as proven in law. Yes, they should have full assistance from professionals so that decisions can be informed but the decisions should rest with them.

Indeed so, but when the decisions, however they're arrived at, reveal from time to time cases where the place of competence and understanding is taken instead by self-interest and laziness, it doesn;t seem to matter who's at the helm or who makes or influences those decisions, not to mention decisions that should have been taken but have not been taken.

Would you prefer a few lords, some ex CEOs and a couple of bishops to be in charge or Hugh Grant, a member of the Dowler family and someone who lost a relative at Hillsborough? To me, the question answers itself and the principle should apply everywhere. It is intuitively the natural way of ensuring checks and balances and is probably also why it is never done.

Neither, frankly; the former group would risk the kind of situation that I've outlined above and the latter a set of results that would be no better due to an inevitably myopic and case-specific experiential background. I don't, as I've suggested, believe that there is any easy set of answer to this one and there may even be none that could be made to work in all cases, but if the Courts have sufficient powers to punish wrongdoers then some of those wrongdoers might act rather less self-interestedly than might be the case if tougher regulation were to be imposed. Media professionals know how to get around regulators; they simply hire the right lawyers to help them get away with what might otherwise be breaches of regulation.

In the current system, industries have bodies which represent them exclusively. When it comes to the public, the great and the good are allegedly there to find a balance between competing interests. In practice, the see-saw is tilted firmly to the industry's side. So there is rarely any body that represents the public exclusively. That is why quangos are so discredited.

Indeed - but where can the great and good public go (apart from Ombudsmen) to have their grievances and accusations heard other than in the Courts?

As it happens, the FSA was the one organisation which supported me on 50% of a substantial complaint. That though was luck if also right - although tellingly the decision arrived in a climate of utter condemnation in the press about misselling.

Well, I'm pleased to hear this, even though at the same time surprised, as I had thought that the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is the organisation charged with dealing with complaints that have failed to be resolved between disaffected clients and the financial organisations with which they have dealt. FSA's not all bad news, for sure, but its dilatoriness and frequent incompetence in addressing banking and other financial malpractice and its heavy-handed approach to the independent financial sector which has for some time received a vanishingly small percentage of overall complains against practitioners in the financial services industry has earned it no favours whatsoever and actually generated a substantial vote of no confidence in it which was submitted to the Brown government and assessed by the present one which is largely why its demise occurs at the close of next month when it's split asunder and reinvented into the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), thus giving the public two quangos for at least the exorbitant price of one, which prompts me to wonder if indeed it takes two to quango. Oh and, by the way, FSA is the only industry regulator in UK who cannot be sued for damages for the outcome of its professional conduct except in cases of Human Rights Act breaches or acts of bad faith; I have no idea why this should be - have you?

[Lateralthinking1]

Indeed - but where can the great and good public go (apart from Ombudsmen) to have their grievances and accusations heard other than in the Courts?

Nowhere!

What do you do if:

- planning consent is required for deep excavations 10ft from your kitchen and a new boundary wall built into those excavations
- the LA refuses to comment on damage during the excavations 3yrs ago which inadvertently came to light this autumn
- the new wall is only required to be visually attractive contrary to surveyors' advice
- it hasn't been given final approval anyway on the grounds that it is technically too high rather than structurally inadequate
- the excavations may or may not have been given final approval - the LA won't say
- the LA says there was no encroachment but that the ownership of a low structure damaged on one's own land is uncertain
- the Ombudsman is not of the opinion that there has been maladministration
- the Ombudsman is of the view, even where planning consent is needed, that an LA has no duty to protect other property

We will be spending the next dozen years in court and making ourselves bankrupt in the process. I think I am well placed now to make a mint out of advising people how to get round the system and ruin lives in the process with the full support of the system. The intelligence is there and I don't need qualifications. All I need to do is seek intensive treatment to cure moral scruples.

Well, I'm pleased to hear this, even though at the same time surprised.......Oh and, by the way, FSA is the only industry regulator in UK who cannot be sued for damages for the outcome of its professional conduct except in cases of Human Rights Act breaches or acts of bad faith; I have no idea why this should be - have you?

No, I don't know.

[ahinton]

In response to my question
where can the great and good public go (apart from Ombudsmen) to have their grievances and accusations heard other than in the Courts?
you wrote

Nowhere!

Might not that support my thoughts about those Courts being charged with greater and more wide-ranging punitive powers when dealing with media transgressions?

As to your reply to my question about FSA as the only industry regulator in UK that cannot be sued for damages for the outcome of its professional conduct except in cases of Human Rights Act breaches or acts of bad faith - namely

No, I don't know.

I can add only that I doubt that anyone else does either...

[David-G]

is there not some magical thinking going on, does passing a law really cross a rubicon ... does passing any law require a pre-existing law ...phrases are being waved in the air as if they had magical force, they have appeared on every discussion and news programme as a primary argument against the 'statutory underpinning' notion ... quite fallaciously to my understanding of M'lLd's intent ...

so we know that Cameron Osborne Gove et al stand with the press barons as well as the bankers and the rich ...well no sh1t Sherlock ...

Leveson has not nearly done enough about the Metropolitan Police ... perhaps to save his proposals for the press from getting lost

Portillo and Campbell both were very pessimistic of anything at all being done last night on This Week ... and both very critical of Cameron for immediately 'dumping' his own inquiry ...

Max Mosley was scathing about Dave .... comparing him to the learned M'Lud he said what does this 'very lucky' PR dogsbody know of anything or some such words ... so that is the kinky sex vote gone ...


Ann diamond made the best comment it seemed to me ... why have they gone through the trauma of the evidence stand and the vilification again by Dacre NI and their gangs for Dave C to just turn it off ... it was betrayal ...and so it is ...

and the squirming wriggling misuse of the language by the editors and hacks of the press about free speech and freedom of the press is self interested garbage to protect their license to scandalise and make ££££££££££££

So are you not concerned to preserve freedom of the Press? I am.

[french frank]

So are you not concerned to preserve freedom of the Press? I am.

What do you intend by the 'freedom of the press'? How would you define it?

[David-G]

What do you intend by the 'freedom of the press'? How would you define it?

There must be no means by which the government or politicians can suppress stories which are awkward or embarrassing for them, or exert influence to this end. This is the big danger, and in trying to prevent abuses we must not lose sight of it.

[Resurrection Man]

Unless I've missed it, aren't we ignoring the fact that most of what brought this all about was the press carrying out illegal acts. Already covered by statute. So why didn't the police investigate?

[David-G]

Unless I've missed it, aren't we ignoring the fact that most of what brought this all about was the press carrying out illegal acts. Already covered by statute. So why didn't the police investigate?

That is a very good point, and there seems to be a strong body of opinion that the police were let off lightly by Leveson.

[french frank]

There must be no means by which the government or politicians can suppress stories which are awkward or embarrassing for them, or exert influence to this end. This is the big danger, and in trying to prevent abuses we must not lose sight of it.

It doesn't look as if Leveson will allow that, and the point was specifically mentioned by Clegg in the bit of his speech that I quoted.

"... a better balance between these two liberal principles so that our media can scrutinise the powers that be, but cannot destroy innocent lives. So that the journalists up in the press gallery can hold us – the politicians – to account, but we can look up to the individuals and families in the public gallery knowing they have the right protections in place."

Leveson itself is about the unacceptable behaviour of the press, not the unacceptable behaviour of politicians.

[David-G]

"... a better balance between these two liberal principles so that our media can scrutinise the powers that be, but cannot destroy innocent lives. So that the journalists up in the press gallery can hold us – the politicians – to account, but we can look up to the individuals and families in the public gallery knowing they have the right protections in place."

It is very easy to say that both these liberal principles can be accommodated, but I am not at all convinced that a way can be found to do it. A "balance" implies to me that neither principle is going to be 100% upheld. To me, the greater danger is not being able to hold politicians to account. I would not be content with a "balance" that endangers this.