Press regulation talks 'break down' **UPDATE** Deal now done

candyfloss wrote:Gerri Peev‏@GerriPeev
Am puzzled as to why Hacked Off will not answer any questions on celebrity donors or confirm that they will publish a full list #PeevedOff

Not a full list, but a jolly long one! Billions available apparently.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 1:40 pm




The original press releases had GM at the very forefront of the campaign, now it's not gone quite the way he hoped, he's nowhere to be seen or heard. In this article they've even dragged back some names we'd forgotten about, no mention of Gerry though.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Interesting article. Was hitherto unaware that Leveson had acknowledged that MD's phone being hacked was unlikely and that the deleted calls had in all probability been done automatically by the network provider. Incredible that neither the McCann or Dowler families, so publicly held up by David Cameron as THE ordinary people at the centre of it all, so much so that any implementaiton of the Leveson proposals needed to be satisfactory to them, had never actually been victims of phone hacking.

But we did all believe that the Dowlers were victims of hacking and it's only later that we found out that wasn't the case.
No-one ever pretended that the McCanns had been hacked, and indeed, the main hacking scandals occured long before anyone had ever heard of them.

M[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 6:30 pm
But we did all believe that the Dowlers were victims of hacking and it's only later that we found out that wasn't the case.
No-one ever pretended that the McCanns had been hacked, and indeed, the main hacking scandals occured long before anyone had ever heard of them.


Most people may not have been generally aware that the Dowlers hadn't been hacked, nonetheless they themselves knew and our worthy policians on both sides of the debate were aware also. It's disgusting that this implication was ruthlessly exploited by politicians and the Hacked Off body alike to gain their own ends, but why didn't the press themselves, who stood to lose most not ensure the general readership were aware of this? Concerning the McCs, while the internet may have been aware that they were never hacked, the fact that they appeared so prominently at Leveson would have been taken by many to imply that they had also suffered this fate.

A snip from BBC article, and what David Cameron said in the Commons today, which I watched in full............



Press regulation deal struck by parties

Announcing the draft royal charter, Mr Cameron told MPs: "What happened to the Dowlers, to the McCanns, to Christopher Jeffries and to many other innocent people who've never sought the limelight was utterly despicable.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Monty Heck wrote:M[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 6:30 pm
But we did all believe that the Dowlers were victims of hacking and it's only later that we found out that wasn't the case.
No-one ever pretended that the McCanns had been hacked, and indeed, the main hacking scandals occured long before anyone had ever heard of them.


Most people may not have been generally aware that the Dowlers hadn't been hacked, nonetheless they themselves knew and our worthy policians on both sides of the debate were aware also. It's disgusting that this implication was ruthlessly exploited by politicians and the Hacked Off body alike to gain their own ends, but why didn't the press themselves, who stood to lose most not ensure the general readership were aware of this? Concerning the McCs, while the internet may have been aware that they were never hacked, the fact that they appeared so prominently at Leveson would have been taken by many to imply that they had also suffered this fate.

Line in blue - I picked up on this also, I thought I was going bonkers and was the only one that had realised it.

I was watching the Channel 4 (7.00 p.m.) news this evening for another perspective on the issue other than BBC or Sky and it was mentioned at the end of the press regulation outcome that small internet websites may also come under the new guidelines (or words to that affect). Did anyone else hear that on other news reports? It was just mentioned quickly almost as an afterthought.

Have the McCanns done their dirty deeds and got their own way at last?

Newintown wrote:

Monty Heck wrote:M[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 6:30 pm
But we did all believe that the Dowlers were victims of hacking and it's only later that we found out that wasn't the case.
No-one ever pretended that the McCanns had been hacked, and indeed, the main hacking scandals occured long before anyone had ever heard of them.


Most people may not have been generally aware that the Dowlers hadn't been hacked, nonetheless they themselves knew and our worthy policians on both sides of the debate were aware also. It's disgusting that this implication was ruthlessly exploited by politicians and the Hacked Off body alike to gain their own ends, but why didn't the press themselves, who stood to lose most not ensure the general readership were aware of this? Concerning the McCs, while the internet may have been aware that they were never hacked, the fact that they appeared so prominently at Leveson would have been taken by many to imply that they had also suffered this fate.

Line in blue - I picked up on this also, I thought I was going bonkers and was the only one that had realised it.

I was watching the Channel 4 (7.00 p.m.) news this evening for another perspective on the issue other than BBC or Sky and it was mentioned at the end of the press regulation outcome that small internet websites may also come under the new guidelines (or words to that affect). Did anyone else hear that on other news reports? It was just mentioned quickly almost as an afterthought.

Have the McCanns done their dirty deeds and got their own way at last?

I did see a tweet earlier that it would affect bloggers.

candyfloss wrote:

Newintown wrote:

Monty Heck wrote:M[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 6:30 pm
But we did all believe that the Dowlers were victims of hacking and it's only later that we found out that wasn't the case.
No-one ever pretended that the McCanns had been hacked, and indeed, the main hacking scandals occured long before anyone had ever heard of them.


Most people may not have been generally aware that the Dowlers hadn't been hacked, nonetheless they themselves knew and our worthy policians on both sides of the debate were aware also. It's disgusting that this implication was ruthlessly exploited by politicians and the Hacked Off body alike to gain their own ends, but why didn't the press themselves, who stood to lose most not ensure the general readership were aware of this? Concerning the McCs, while the internet may have been aware that they were never hacked, the fact that they appeared so prominently at Leveson would have been taken by many to imply that they had also suffered this fate.

Line in blue - I picked up on this also, I thought I was going bonkers and was the only one that had realised it.

I was watching the Channel 4 (7.00 p.m.) news this evening for another perspective on the issue other than BBC or Sky and it was mentioned at the end of the press regulation outcome that small internet websites may also come under the new guidelines (or words to that affect). Did anyone else hear that on other news reports? It was just mentioned quickly almost as an afterthought.

Have the McCanns done their dirty deeds and got their own way at last?

I did see a tweet earlier that it would affect bloggers.

Okey dokey, I'm not on Twitter so I'm always behind the times [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I'm not either Newintown, but I was reading the #hackedoff hashtag earlier.

Good article here...........



It’s not a press regulator, it’s a web regulator.


Nick Cohen
18 March 2013 20:31

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


[snipped from above]

“Press regulation” as the BBC News was saying at Six and Channel 4 News is saying as I type, does not sound so bad, not even to me, if all it means is stopping the tabloids. The briefest study of the Royal Charter, however, shows that the first attempt at press licensing since 1695 does not confine itself to the press. In public, the establishment talks about “press regulation”, in the small print, its demands are much broader and very modern: it wants Web regulation.

The regulator will cover “relevant publishers”. If they do not pay for its services and submit to its fines and rulings, they could face exemplary damages in the courts. It is not just the old (and dying) newspapers, which the state defines as “relevant publishers” but “website containing news-related material”.

As Index on Censorship says, “Bloggers could find themselves subject to exemplary damages in court, due to the fact that they were not part of a regulator that was not intended for them in the first place. This mess of legislation has been thrown together with alarming haste: there’s little doubt we’ll repent for a while to come.”



Tweets from Nick Cohen


NickCohen4 The enormity of what the state Wants. Quango will cover all who publish "a website containing news-related material". That's most of you





NickCohen4 BBC still talking about "press regulator" No it's not it's a Web regulator

Weren`t bloggers already included in the legal framework for libel anyway?

Best to have a server outside the UK.

candyfloss wrote:Good article here...........



It’s not a press regulator, it’s a web regulator.


Nick Cohen
18 March 2013 20:31

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


[snipped from above]

“Press regulation” as the BBC News was saying at Six and Channel 4 News is saying as I type, does not sound so bad, not even to me, if all it means is stopping the tabloids. The briefest study of the Royal Charter, however, shows that the first attempt at press licensing since 1695 does not confine itself to the press. In public, the establishment talks about “press regulation”, in the small print, its demands are much broader and very modern: it wants Web regulation.

The regulator will cover “relevant publishers”. If they do not pay for its services and submit to its fines and rulings, they could face exemplary damages in the courts. It is not just the old (and dying) newspapers, which the state defines as “relevant publishers” but “website containing news-related material”.

As Index on Censorship says, “Bloggers could find themselves subject to exemplary damages in court, due to the fact that they were not part of a regulator that was not intended for them in the first place. This mess of legislation has been thrown together with alarming haste: there’s little doubt we’ll repent for a while to come.”



Tweets from Nick Cohen


NickCohen4 The enormity of what the state Wants. Quango will cover all who publish "a website containing news-related material". That's most of you





NickCohen4 BBC still talking about "press regulator" No it's not it's a Web regulator

Thanks for finding that Candyfloss. It's an illuminating, but also alarming, article. I noted the only message at the end, regarding the McCanns.

So, according to this, and some tweets 'hacked off' representatives were at this late night meeting, along with Government, but the people who this affects, the newspaper editors were not. Snipped from article...

Newspapers irritated by exclusion from Leveson talks


Isabel Hardman18 March 2013 20:02




What has irritated the industry is that, even though Cameron has been careful to paint himself as the champion of press freedom, their representatives were not present at the cross-party talks over the weekend when Hacked Off had four people present. If the government can’t get the press on side for the new system, then today’s congratulations in the Chamber will seem rather hollow: cross-party talks that failed to implement something workable won’t seem quite so successful at that stage.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So will all websites and bloggers and anyone who chats about persons in the news have to sign up to this voluntary regulation scheme?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Problems already....



Press regulation at risk as newspaper groups refuse to endorse deal


Publishers of Daily Mail, Sun and Telegraph taking high-level legal advice before deciding whether to join new watchdog

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Cameron has crossed the Rubicon. The new system of press regulation should be resisted by any means necessary

By Toby Young



[snipped]

This isn't a compromise. It's a capitulation. Anyone who cares about press freedom should resist by any means necessary

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This new article on the BBC (they've updated it several times today) is making things look ominous as tbere is a reference to this new regulatory body having power over 'news-related blogs'.

As this forum has a popular section headed 'Main Maddie News', will it be covered?

I suggest we might all ask our MPs, who after all are going to vote on this, whether this is really what they want?

Article below:

++++++++++++++++++++++++

A deal has been struck between the three main political parties on a new press regulation regime in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal.

An independent regulator will be set up by royal charter with powers to impose million pound fines on UK publishers and demand upfront apologies from them.

Party leaders told MPs the charter would preserve press freedom and protect victims of press intrusion.

Many of the major newspapers said they needed time to study the details.

Press reform campaign group Hacked Off has welcomed the deal.

It follows Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry into press ethics, which found that journalists had hacked thousands of phones. He called for a new, independent regulator backed by legislation designed to assess whether it is doing its job properly.

'Without delay'

Prime Minister David Cameron said the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour had agreed on a new system of "tough independent self-regulation that will deliver for victims and meet the principles set out in (Leveson's) report".


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Christopher Jeffries on a new regulator


He said a new system would ensure:

• upfront apologies from the press to victims
  
• fines of 1% of turnover for publishers, up to £1m
  
• a self-regulatory body with independent appointments and funding
  
• a robust standards code
  
• a free arbitration service for victims
  
• a speedy complaints system
  

The charter defines publishers as newspapers, magazines or websites containing news-related material.


But there was confusion over how the plans would extend to the rest of the internet - with one Downing Street aide telling the BBC it would not cover blogs such as Guido Fawkes' political commentary.

While the charter is intended to cover organisations publishing in the UK, the Scottish government has asked Westminster to clarify the Scottish impact of plans for press regulation, which is a devolved matter.

Continue reading the main story

Analysis


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Chris Mason Political
correspondent

---

To anyone outside Westminster this must all sound like not so much a dance, but more an enthusiastic disco on the head of a pin.

The political songs the leaders are playing demonstrate the shimmying under way over the ownership of this deal and the deft moves over the language to describe it.

It all revolves around a horrible phrase you would brace yourself for encountering on the instructions to a piece of flatpack furniture: "statutory underpinning".

It means a reliance on the law; an assault, many newspapers have long argued, on long-held freedoms of the press.

In the Commons, the prime minister was categoric: the royal charter that will oversee the new regulator will not be underpinned in law.

Labour leader Ed Miliband and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg were equally categoric too. It will, they said.

And if second best is the twin of compromise, victims of the press and lobbyists for its freedom appear to be meeting in the middle, but newspapers remain nervous.

Announcing the draft royal charter, Mr Cameron told MPs: "What happened to the Dowlers, to the McCanns, to Christopher Jeffries and to
many other innocent people who've never sought the limelight was utterly despicable.

"It is right that we put in place a new system of press regulation to ensure such appalling acts can never happen again. We should do this without any further delay."

Labour leader Ed Miliband said the agreement satisfied the demands of protection for victims and freedom of the press.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said he hoped newspaper groups would see the logic of the deal and back it.

The charter will not be passed by MPs, but will need to be approved at the May meeting of the Queen's Privy Council - advisers to the Queen, mostly comprising senior politicians.

Meanwhile, a clause in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which will mean that the charter cannot be amended without a two-thirds majority in Parliament, was approved in the Lords on Tuesday evening.

And a separate bill, the Crime and Courts Bill, will have amendments ensuring that newspapers who refused to join the new regulatory regime would be potentially liable for exemplary damages if a claim was upheld against them.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Brian Cathcart, Hacked Off: "An artfully crafted piece of
legislation"


The three main parties differed over whether this amounted to bringing in a new law.

Mr Cameron said a press law had been avoided - although he conceded the clauses were "two very important but relatively small legislative changes" that needed to be made.

Mr Miliband said there was statute underpinning the charter, "which is actually protecting it from being changed".

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the press had been informed over the days and months of wrangling, with key players being Telegraph's Lord Black, Associated Newspapers' Peter Wright, the editor of the Times John Witherow and the editor of the FT Lionel Barber.

'Deeply contentious'

In a joint statement, the Mail and Telegraph groups, Northern and Shell, News International, the Newspaper Society and the Professional Publishers Association said the industry had not been represented in Sunday night's talks.

It said early drafts of the charter had contained "several deeply contentious issues" which had not been "resolved with the industry".

"We are not able to give any response on behalf of the industry to this afternoon's proposals until we have had time to study them," the statement concluded.

The Sun and others have previously said they would accept everything recommended by Lord Justice Leveson - except statutory legislation.

Evan Harris of campaign group Hacked Off was at the overnight talks with three other pressure group members. The group later said it believed the deal "can effectively deliver" Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations.

But the idea of a charter was criticised by free speech campaign group Index on Censorship. Chief executive Kirsty Hughes said the decision was a "sad day for press freedom in the UK".

She said: "Index is against the introduction of a royal charter that determines the details of establishing a press regulator in the UK - the
involvement of politicians undermines the fundamental principle that the press holds politicians to account."

Great piece .......



Amol Rajan: Victim justice is a dangerous way to run newspapers

Amol Rajan



To deny victims a special role in reforming laws when they have suffered terribly may seem cruel; but their suffering does not bestow them with expertise

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ooo errr...

Hacked Off, by bullying politicians, hijacking legislation and holding secret meetings, has become what it despised

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



Another good article.

The house of commons is still voting on this and that, giving their long speeches of the details of why, who and how, newspapers will be obliged to join the cooked up plan, and they are quite oblivious to the fact that outside, in the real world, the newspapers are already thinking 'no'.
It's funny to see their cocooned world, believing that their proposals will without question be accepted, and obviously no one is updating them from outside.
Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, brilliant, stating that Hacked Off were despicable, hijacking people's real misery, to get a deal through to protect celebrities whose dodgy pasts have been despicable and who wanted to stop papers writing about them. It will be in Hansard as a proper quote tomorrow. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Damien Green now talking (Crimes and Courts Bill) about rich people using legal aid, an abuse.....this might be interesting, new legal aid regulations to be developed and sensitive support for children in court on sexual abuse cases.

Meanwhile back in the real world where the z lists celebs have stacks of money, the people are getting poorer, the bedroom tax about to come into force and they carry on like Britain owes them something.
If they don't want their grubby little goings on reported on then don't pay frequent prostitutes etc. etc.
If they think the newspapers aren't thinking up ways to get this sorted to their liking they should think again.
Freedom of speech and human rights courts might very well be very busy for a long time to come.
Wasn't Mitchell saying a few years back that the internet needed to be controlled. Well go to China matey if that's what you want.

Andrew Neil ‏@afneil
Growing signs tonight that major newspaper groups will not sign up to Cameron-Clegg-Miliband version of Leveson. Huge anger with Cameron.

Iain Dale‏@IainDale
Blogpost: Is this the day Oliver Letwin effectively shut down my blog? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]