Leveson Report

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

I am amazed at the general complacency that it doesn't matter to us if the Press is shackled. It matters very much.

the press is shackled at present, the concentration of ownership is a very real problem in addition to the ethics behavior and practices ....


the arguments against Leveson are magical thinking in pursuit of self interest ... we do not have a free press and i have no interest in defending the current media from legal challenges to their behaviour ... they do not protect democracy, they serve the rich and the powerful ... and shout lies about their nature from the rooftops nearly as loudly as the rentier class and gangsters scream that low taxes for corporations and the rich are vital to freedom

[Lateralthinking1]

AH, I tend to agree with all that you say in your last post other than in the final paragraph.

My phrase "tax often exists largely to address social injustice" leaves it open to individual interpretation on its scope for doing so successfully.

Would you agree that an element of insurance premium is a tax under a different name?

[french frank]

so why have a regulatory "Court" for media law breach cases and the ordinary Courts for all other breaches of law...

Are the inverted commas to recognise that it wouldn't be a court at all, but a civil body, cf Ofgem, Ofcom &c which also have regulatory powers (sanctions) and statutory duties, NPower and the BBC having been fined in the past?

[ahinton]

Are the inverted commas to recognise that it wouldn't be a court at all, but a civil body, cf Ofgem, Ofcom &c which also have regulatory powers (sanctions) and statutory duties, NPower and the BBC having been fined in the past?

Broadly speaking, yes, in the sense that, unless it were to be constituted as the final port of call in adjudicating breaches of the laws governing issues that it would specifically be charged to regulate, a victim or group of victims taking a case to it and not having that case upheld by it would otherwise be expected to have recourse to the real Courts as is already the case with disaffected complainants who are the recipients of Ombudsman decisions against them.

[ahinton]

AH, I tend to agree with all that you say in your last post other than in the final paragraph.

My phrase "tax often exists largely to address social injustice" leaves it open to individual interpretation on its scope for doing so successfully.

What I meant by this specifically is that, whatever might be its avowed intent, tax does not, broadly speaking, do anything of the kind in practice.

Would you agree that an element of insurance premium is a tax under a different name?

An element of most if not all insurance premiums is tax under the name of tax itself, i.e. IPT (insurance premium tax)! If the meaning of your question is whether I consider that a further element of such a premium is also a "tax", then I would not do so, if for no better reason than that a "tax" is supposedly a fiscal imposition levied by governments national and local and, as such, payment of it is compulsory for all those liable to it, whereas insurance premiums are to a far greater extent the choice of the customer (other than in the case of the legal obligation to have motor insurance and, even then, the customer does at least have the theoretical option not to own a vehicle and therefore be exempt from an obligation to have cover for one).

[ahinton]

the press is shackled at present, the concentration of ownership is a very real problem in addition to the ethics behavior and practices ....

Sure, but even a regulator charged with regulating press activity will have limited scope for determining who owns whom in the media, especially given that its remit and "jurisdictive" power will inevitably be restricted to matters of British law and not the laws of countries where some of the media proprietors' head offices are located.

the arguments against Leveson are magical thinking in pursuit of self interest ... we do not have a free press and i have no interest in defending the current media from legal challenges to their behaviour ... they do not protect democracy, they serve the rich and the powerful ... and shout lies about their nature from the rooftops nearly as loudly as the rentier class and gangsters scream that low taxes for corporations and the rich are vital to freedom

What about the potential risk of arguments FOR Leveson being interpreted as the same kind of thinking in pursuit of the self-interest of the regulators-to-be? I don't think that this notion could reasonably or realistically be discounted.

[Serial_Apologist]

What about the potential risk of arguments FOR Leveson being interpreted as the same kind of thinking in pursuit of the self-interest of the regulators-to-be? I don't think that this notion could reasonably or realistically be discounted.

Well for one thing because we don't yet know who they will be.

For another, one could use this argument against any form of regulation, anywhere...

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

life is full of risks and logical equivalences have a nasty habit of being unreal in practice ...

i reiterate and i know i am boring, but the current press is not worth defending against the interests of a statutorily underpinned regulator as defined by M'Lud ... or an exterminating angel, meself i prefer the latter

[french frank]

Broadly speaking, yes, in the sense that, unless it were to be constituted as the final port of call in adjudicating breaches of the laws governing issues that it would specifically be charged to regulate, a victim or group of victims taking a case to it and not having that case upheld by it would otherwise be expected to have recourse to the real Courts as is already the case with disaffected complainants who are the recipients of Ombudsman decisions against them.

But isn't there a point about civil wrongs and criminal offences? And this isn't only about criminal behaviour which can be prosecuted in the normal way, it's about ethics: acceptable standards by the media. Doesn't it make sense to have specialist bodies dealing with the different types of industry - of which the press, consisting of commercial enterprises which want to sell as many copies as they can, is one?

In fact, the status of many of the so-called victims, who in certain circles gather little sympathy, indicates one thing: that Leveson was not initiated because of attempts at an endangeed 'serious journalism' at all but scandal and gossip-mongering. Nothing hindered The Telegraph in publishing its investigations about MPs' expenses and there were resignations because rules were broken (though not necessarily the law). Parliament too has its regulations.

[Lateralthinking1]

What I meant by this specifically is that, whatever might be its avowed intent, tax does not, broadly speaking, do anything of the kind in practice.

Yes I know but that would better address the phrase "tax often exists largely to address social injustice successfully" which in fairness was not what I said.

An element of most if not all insurance premiums is tax under the name of tax itself, i.e. IPT (insurance premium tax)! If the meaning of your question is whether I consider that a further element of such a premium is also a "tax", then I would not do so, if for no better reason than that a "tax" is supposedly a fiscal imposition levied by governments national and local and, as such, payment of it is compulsory for all those liable to it, whereas insurance premiums are to a far greater extent the choice of the customer (other than in the case of the legal obligation to have motor insurance and, even then, the customer does at least have the theoretical option not to own a vehicle and therefore be exempt from an obligation to have cover for one).

I don't think I agree at all. VAT is the example I would cite in support of my argument.

[Serial_Apologist]

But isn't there a point about civil wrongs and criminal offences? And this isn't only about criminal behaviour which can be prosecuted in the normal way, it's about ethics: acceptable standards by the media.

I and possibly others need continually reminding of this... :erm:

Doesn't it make sense to have specialist bodies dealing with the different types of industry - of which the press, consisting of commercial enterprises which want to sell as many copies as they can, is one?

In fact, the status of many of the so-called victims, who in certain circles gather little sympathy, indicates one thing: that Leveson was not initiated because of attempts at an endangeed 'serious journalism' at all but scandal and gossip-mongering. Nothing hindered The Telegraph in publishing its investigations about MPs' expenses and there were resignations because rules were broken (though not necessarily the law). Parliament too has its regulations.

:ok:

[ahinton]

Well for one thing because we don't yet know who they will be.

For another, one could use this argument against any form of regulation, anywhere...

Well, the first point is fair comment, of course - and I did in any case put it forward as a risk, not a certainty!

As to the second, whilst one could indeed try to use such an argument as you suggest, I'm not sure how successfully it could be made to stick; for one thing, much would presumably depend upon the extent of powers - especially punitive ones - vested in the regulator (in the sense of how close these might get to the powers already vested in the Courts) and, for another, I would question to what extent such an argument applied to the risk of regulators' potential pursuit of self-interest might compare to that as applied to the Courts and I suspect that it might be easier to pin it on an occasionally self-interested regulator than on judicial process.

[amateur51]

life is full of risks and logical equivalences have a nasty habit of being unreal in practice ...

i reiterate and i know i am boring, but the current press is not worth defending against the interests of a statutorily underpinned regulator as defined by M'Lud ... or an exterminating angel, meself i prefer the latter

An opportunity to be seized, perhaps :erm:

http://hackinginquiry.org/petition/

:biggrin:

[amateur51]

But isn't there a point about civil wrongs and criminal offences? And this isn't only about criminal behaviour which can be prosecuted in the normal way, it's about ethics: acceptable standards by the media. Doesn't it make sense to have specialist bodies dealing with the different types of industry - of which the press, consisting of commercial enterprises which want to sell as many copies as they can, is one?

In fact, the status of many of the so-called victims, who in certain circles gather little sympathy, indicates one thing: that Leveson was not initiated because of attempts at an endangeed 'serious journalism' at all but scandal and gossip-mongering. Nothing hindered The Telegraph in publishing its investigations about MPs' expenses and there were resignations because rules were broken (though not necessarily the law). Parliament too has its regulations.

Stonking stuff, french frank! :ok::bubbly:

[ahinton]

But isn't there a point about civil wrongs and criminal offences? And this isn't only about criminal behaviour which can be prosecuted in the normal way, it's about ethics: acceptable standards by the media. Doesn't it make sense to have specialist bodies dealing with the different types of industry - of which the press, consisting of commercial enterprises which want to sell as many copies as they can, is one?

There might well be; as I stated earlier, I am not sure what would be the best way to address this problem. That said, both civil wrongs and criminal offences can be and indeed are tried in Court, provided that breaches of the law are alleged and a Court accepts the case. Yes, this is indeed about ethics, but I fear that there may be an as yet insufficiently explored danger in trying to hive off ethical issues with breaches of the law to the extent that they might accordingly come to be perceived as occupying entirely distinct areas of concern. OK, there would no doubt need to be tightening up and expansion of certain areas of law but, purely "ethical" considerations aside (and the very fact that not everyone agrees on all details of ethics and they're not written down in statute might risk making this a woollier consideration in any case), how many of the events and actions that came within the purview and investigative remit of the inquiry chaired by Lord Leveson did not involve either breaches of the law or transgressions that ought to have broken the law and indeed would have done had the relevant law been written more tightly and more comprehensively? Ultimately, decisions made by a regulator with the extensive punitive powers for which one may presume that some who fully support Lord Leveson's findings are now hoping will still be challengeable in Court unless the law determines that said regulator be the final port of call in adjudication of the issues put before it, in which case the powers vested in it will effectively identify it as equivalent to such a Court; that said, however, there would first have to be a viable and acceptable answer to the question of whether any such regulatory decisions may be challengeable in a higher non-British Court such as ECHR and, so far, at least, such a question hasn't even been asked.

In fact, the status of many of the so-called victims, who in certain circles gather little sympathy, indicates one thing: that Leveson was not initiated because of attempts at an endangeed 'serious journalism' at all but scandal and gossip-mongering. Nothing hindered The Telegraph in publishing its investigations about MPs' expenses and there were resignations because rules were broken (though not necessarily the law). Parliament too has its regulations.

It does indeed, but its punitive powers - especially given that MPs are elected - are almost certainly more limited in their scope than those which some would hope a new regulator would possess might be; personally, were I to be asked my opinion not so much of why the Leveson inquiry was initiated but why it ought to have been initiated, it would most likely be because far too many events and actions appear not to have been sufficiently subjected or indeed even amenable to judicial process and, as some have also observed here, due consideration of the rôle of the police has, in some of these instances, been shown to have been almost as important and worrying as the unacceptable actions of certain areas of the media that came under Leveson's scrutiny.