Royal Charter

  morddwyd 16:19 01 Nov 13
Locked

I was going to add this to the televising of courts thread, but thought it deserved a thread of its own

Of far more concern than the televising of courts is, or should be, the Royal Charter on press regulation.

As the current high profile case shows (and there are others) and as Ian Hislop can testify, the current laws and procedures are fully adequate – that’s why the major titles, and the big networks, maintain legal department.

The current system as seen an old established, and sometime respected, major title closed down. (Although closed by the owner it was the system that forced his hand, and Murdoch is not easily forced into anything.) Can the Royal Charter do better than that?

For entirely political reasons we have taken the first step on a very slippery, and deceptively innocent looking, and I, for one, regret it.

What we really need are strictly enforced anti-corruption laws so that anyone in public office, whether police officer, civil servant or MP, who sells information (not genuine whistle blowers) is sacked and/or prosecuted, with a total loss of pension, and not just allowed early retirement with full benefits.

  fourm member 17:20 01 Nov 13

For entirely political reasons we have taken the first step on a very slippery, and deceptively innocent looking'[slope]', and I, for one, regret it.

How so?

At the moment, parliament can, by simple majority, pass a law saying that the press can only publish stories about funny cats.

The new royal charter requires a two thirds majority for any amendment to be made to it.

The protection of the press is increased not decreased.

And it is not about the idea that existing laws are sufficient. The point is to have a working system of regulation that means things don't get to the point where the law has to become involved.

Here's what the press aren't telling readers about the new system.

  Forum Editor 17:26 01 Nov 13

"And it is not about the idea that existing laws are sufficient. The point is to have a working system of regulation that means things don't get to the point where the law has to become involved."

Well said - that's precisely the point.

  spuds 17:42 01 Nov 13

Perhaps off subject slightly, but seeing the BBC Parliament programme when Lord Justice Leverson was being quizzed by a Select Committee, the question regarding a Royal Charter was asked, and apparently he (Leverson) and the many experts who were involved in consultations for his report, never even thought about a Royal Charter, it was not even mentioned in the time the report was being produced?.

Might be worth a read? click here

  morddwyd 06:53 02 Nov 13

I take the point, but I'd still rather the press was looked after by an independent, fiercely independent, judiciary rather than politicians who always, invariably and without exception, have their own agenda.

  Forum Editor 08:03 02 Nov 13

"I'd still rather the press was looked after by an independent, fiercely independent, judiciary rather than politicians who always, invariably and without exception, have their own agenda."

You should note that serving politicians cannot be appointed as members of the Recognition panel, and that nobody who has had an official affiliation with any political party within the previous five years can be appointed.

  fourm member 08:24 02 Nov 13

Everybody has to be appointed by somebody so the notion of 'independence' is never perfectly achieved.

I'm comfortable with the idea of a regulation system the press hates because I know they'll do what they can to discredit it. And I also know that online writers outside the press will point out when those attempts are baseless.

  spuds 11:06 02 Nov 13

A BBC report into the story click here

  spuds 11:09 02 Nov 13

A (faulty) keyboard error in link, try click here

  fourm member 11:46 02 Nov 13

The key feature in the flowchart in spuds' link is that no current editors can be part of the process.

That's the main reason for the complaints against it. Editors have long believed they were the best people to regulate the press.

That's like saying the CEOs of the energy companies should be responsible for deciding what is fair pricing.

  flycatcher1 10:48 04 Nov 13

I am greatly in favour of Press Freedom particularly when it was expressed by the Telegraph who broke the law by publishing the misdeeds of many Lords and MPs. On reading what else was going on I realised that the Press did require a strong over-looking organisation and Levinson did seem to be going the right way.

However, having read about the Royal Charter I feel that things are not right. I note that nearly all the MPs voted in favour and that, in itself, is enough to make me suspicious and then I read up about " Hacked Off "who appear to be pulling many strings. Why is it that a left wing and anti Press, especially Murdoch, unelected organisation has so much influence in this country?

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

How to get Windows 10 for free | How to install Windows 10: There is still a way to avoid paying…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

Alex Chinneck’s giant ice cube Christmas tree at Kings Cross

Apple rumours & predictions 2017: The iPhone 8, new iPads, and everything else you should expect fr7…