In my case, from a philosophical viewpoint, you have to err on the side of freedom.
Lord Justice Leveson reports at 1.30pm [today] and David Cameron has blocked out 90 minutes in parliament to respond. The big question is this: will he introduce state licensing of the media?
A group of 42 Tory MPs wants him to, and No.10 apparently thinks they will rebel if he doesn’t.
Much is made of a supposed huge number of people wanting this control of the press by the government. “By the government” is the big issue here. You only have to go to our site based on material from Ken Craggs and Graham Roberts, to know:
And Witterings from Witney was onto it very quickly:
In his article Gilligan also alleges ‘links’ between HackedOff, Sovereign Strategy, and Common Purpose and in connection with his accusation about ‘left-wing’ support, it is one perhaps understandable when looking at HackedOff’s list of supporters, amongst whom are Polly Toynbee, Julia Middleton, Helena Kennedy and Chris Bryant MP. It is also worth mentioning at this stage that the Media Standards Trust, set up by 2 Common Purpose trustees – Middleton and Bell – have now got involved in the hacking scandal.
This lot are Common Purpose and there’s been much of them in the MSM of late, let alone today’s news item:
Doubts over ‘manipulated’ poll that suggests majority want new Press watchdog backed by law just weeks after survey gave opposite result
There are sufficient laws of the land as of now to take care of miscreants in the press and we at this blog agree about coming down hard on abuses which really occurred, in order to preserve the integrity of the press. No one is disputing that if there’ve been actual abuses, they must be dealt with but that is a completely different thing to the MST campaign to get press regulation in place, using an exploited crisis as its vehicle.
The issue is partly that of the MST and partly, in adapting the words of the Spectator to us:
As State control of the Press would mean revoking Britain’s 317-year history of press freedom and give Parliament power to set the parameters under which the press operates, if the state seeks to compel publications to join the government scheme, meaning they face a choice: sign up, or defy the new law, then Nourishing Obscurity will have no part of it, no matter what comes down on us from above.
And again,adapting the words of the Spectator to this blog:
We would happily sign up to any new form of self-regulation which the industry proposes, no matter how onerous. But we would have no part of any regulatory structure mandated by the State. That is to say: we would not attend its meetings, not pay its fines nor heed its menaces. To do so would simply betray everything that Nourishing Obscurity has stood for since 2006.
Other countries are also watching to see what happens today and le Figaro is in no doubt as to the issue at stake:
Feel free to use and adapt any part of this post for your own publication but if using the Spectator’s words, they would need to be attributed.
James Higham [for the authors]
November 29th, 2012
Supporting press control by government – usual suspects:
* Ed Miliband
* Nick Clegg
* Kenneth Clarke
* Max Mosley
* Michelle Stanistreet
* Hacked Off
* George Eustice and the 42
* Kate McCann
and most predictably:
* The Media Regulation Roundtable Group [Common Purpose Media Standards Trust]
Now what was it someone was saying about them never going for the internet?
Filed under: Politics & economics