The Inquiry has now published recent written evidence. You can read it here:
http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/about/module-4-submissions-on-the-future-regime-for-the-press/
I submitted evidence in January and added to it in May at their request. I also sent a copy of my Bill from 1991. You can see all three on the site. There is also other interesting evidence from the industry, victims and proponents of reform.
@ Lord Soley:
Your submission was a good read and, I felt, well thought out.
What the press must be required to do, in order to make sure, for them as well as us, they are giving accurate infromation on any matter regarding the general public in particular, is to verify the story and its facts are absolutely correct ‘before’ putting it in print.
If they erroneoulsy print a story that is obviously completely innacurate or hearsay, from the police or anyone else, then those who face damage to their lives as a result, must be substantially compensated for their distress in a way which will change their life for the better. Meaning a huge pay out. As well as an equally big headline on the front pages for the next week admitting their mistake.
As an example, the man who was accused in the press wrongly for the murder of a young woman who was his tenant. That was the most disgraceful persecution of an innocent man I had seen in a long time. And it reflects badly, world wide, on all of us as a nation when they do this.
Additionally, the continuous reporting of crimes carried out by people as children, when they were too young for exposure, year after year, which removes their ability to rehabilitate and or make a life for themselves as adults, is contemptuous. It denotes an attitude of mental instabillity on a nation who would want to read this about a human being who was clearly in terrible trouble as a child.
I am sure I could spend a full day listing the horrors we read and see, but this goes along the lines I am trying to draw attention to.
So when it comes to hacking, I presume you think that damages should be paid. I agree if that is the case.
Now the government illegally tapped lots of phones. They haven’t told the people whose phones were intercepted. They haven’t paid damages. They have no intention of paying damages either.
Why shouldn’t the field be equal?
ie. It’s politicians protecting themselves. There is an unequal playing field.
A good example is money laundering laws. MPs and Peers have exempted themselves from full money laundering regulations.
They want to control others, but get away with whatever they can when it comes to themselves.
@LB:
Yes, I do. However, hacking should be a criminal matter.
The government has been hacking for a long time. My GP of some years ago told me of this when having a conversation. Tapping has been something they simply had not told the public of until now, and even then only in the vaguest of ways.
Its when you see people charges with insuder trading after speaking to their family members onthe phone about it you realise the extent of the snooping. Which should be unlawful by any organisation unless specifically having court sanction to do so.
The Europen Human Rights legislation gives us all a right to privacy. Which is, of course, one of the reasons this government of ours want to be free of it. They, like their American bed pals, like the freedom to rummage through any and sundry details they may wish to, which are private property under the privacy law.
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/index.html
Another reason to cut the legal aid funds. Making it difficult to sue over infringement of this law unless you are extremely well off.
Law is only available to the wealthy in the US and now they are in the process of making it that way here. Which is not in the interests of any citizen in this litigious country of ours. And remember we pay our taxes to protect us from this kind of tyranny.
As an example, the man who was accused in the press wrongly for the murder of a young woman who was his tenant. That was the most disgraceful persecution of an innocent man I had seen in a long time.
For my six penn’orth, such concocted stories happen every day of the week from journalists
who are frequently the simplest of people!
Desperate for a story, they will investigate anything and invent their own conclusions without any regard for the axioms,theorems or proofs that a mathematician would require.
What surprises me about all these enquiries is the lack of condamnation of the BBC, whose presenters can be every bit as deceitful,lying hounds as all the rest of them put together.
I won’t tell you about my being victimized by such local press hacks. It bores me and it would bore you. Try as they might, they will not succeed in pinning a donkey’s tail to my backside.
NO COMMENT!
Maude – that is praise indeed from you. Thanks!
Lord Blagger. Phones can only be tapped legally with a warrant issued by a judge – any evidence to the contrary would allow a person to take legal action. I am not aware of MP’s being outside money laundering laws – that is very unlikely. You would have to quote your evidence for this.
Gareth. You can complain to the BBC and there is a fairly robust system.
money laundering laws. MPs and Peers have exempted themselves
Money laundering is the usual concern of big time drug dealers, and possibly bankers like Stansford, who is now serving a long sentence
in USA. Making money from illegitimate businesses seem lawful by losing vast sums so that everybody can see clearly that it is a vast loss making business….. making a profit, by transfering capital from the unlawful capital account to the lawful income and expenditure misad-venture, without the taxman knowing anything about the capital, and everything about the income
and…… expenditure.
Bit above Mps and peers surely?
Is there any scrutiny-issue on The Table, questioning the
natural-power and impartiality of
1) those whose Earth and Human Lifeplace personal efficiency is significantly less than 1.0000
a serious deficit due to their drawing from the Common Purse more than one-sufficient-human-living, each;
but who have instigated and commanded this Inquiry
by Lord Leveson
who himself is drawing many times more than one-sufficient-human-living from Our Common Purse ?
———
The question goes to the hidden roots of our Civilisational Values and of our Future-Sustainworthiness(es).
Just how corrupt are the various, and often “Babel-Babble-like” time-and-energy-wasting, tiers of our Constitution and Civilisation ?
In addition to what I wrote in a previous post, this morning we see, Mr Cameron, and his party are fessing up to the fact that they are united with the USA on policy. Of course they use the benefit segment an an example, whilst they leave out policing, health, defence and the rest of their aims for us that have not been offered to the public for scrutiny or a vote on them.
However, although they do not tell the British public we are part and parcel of the US and follow their lead completely on social change, they haven’t opened the public up to the known outcome of these changes. They know full well the results changes of this nature will have on the people of our country, as they rolled out these policies for years in America and so know only too well the devastation and cruel poverty that will result from it.
Malnutrition in pregnant women, is a major cause of mental illness in their children, as well as other serious ongoing illnesses not showing until they become adults. And the size of the person has little to do with whether they are properly nourished or not.
To have a vision of bringing the British people to a state of poverty not known since the war is a horror most people here are not equipped to deal with.
To fantasize along the lines ‘there is work out there in the private sector for anyone wo wants it’ is a willful misinformation and they know it.
Are New Labour backing these cuts as a way to go, or, are they going to produce a decent opposition to them?
How many parents are looking forward to taking in their children and grandchilren when they find them out of work? How many families with be smashed to pieces as a result of it, as they were in the sixties.
This film caused the nation to have a rethink then. Will it work today?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1RYVjlP0dM
And this is the article I read today.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164124/Benefit-curb-bigger-families-Payouts-stop-children-PMs-welfare-vision.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Does DC live in the real world? Does he really believe contraception is foolproof? If he does that is naive beyond belief. And if you follow that through, does that mean he is intending to deprive women who refues to abort their unborn child.
China springs to mind. Can this be legal under the Human Rights Act these men are planning to remove from us?
“Does David Cameron live in the real world ?”
(the UK Prime Minister today but maybe not tomorrow ?)
We need a reliable ‘permanent-human-standard’,
to keep our ‘perception’ of the real-world sober,
for sustainworthiness;
and for resilience but not for any ‘iron rice bowl rigid and lifeless*
guaranteed-career-ladder-states’,
we need to keep reins,
rather than ‘royal-reigns’,
upon all ‘levels’ of human-beings, including our own selves:
so let me offer to
shove the first “ha’penny”
onto such an as yet only ‘virtual’ common-table,
with
“Does any-one who is drawing more than one-human-living, from the Common Purse,
live in the real world ?”
————
(Maude ?
* “lifeless” = Remember, Zhu ‘smashed’ China’s “advancement” for their Civil Service, begun in Mao’s time and strengtherned in Deng’s, of the
‘guaranteed-for-life’ iron-rice-bowl
of job-tenure, wages and welfare-benefits (but only for the Civil Service),
and did it ten years ago:
so ‘some’ Chinese are genuinely advancing into a more-real-world, in some of their Governance (versus) General-Public Matters –
and hopefully in their International Intentions too,
(where, beware! they’ve already gobstopped European Colonialism’s History,
by themselves paying a fair market price for the Resources they import from other Countries around the World,
and calmly pointing out to us that we never paid for all that we took from our colonies,
and (worse) we (our forebears that is)prevented our ‘victims’ from developing their own secondary and tertiary industries).
So perhaps we need far more than just one “ha’penny” (pieces of Evidence)
to be shoved onto this Table ……. ?