Like everyone else, I am waiting to see what Sir Brian Leveson recommends in his report on the media, due in a few days’ time. I have no decided views at the moment about press regulation, except that I am very well aware of how difficult it is to regulate what is on the internet, especially what comes from abroad. (On this topic, see the Report of the Select Committee on Communications http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldcomuni/256/256.pdf and, while you are at it, take a look at the Committee’s prescient report on the governance of the BBC http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldcomuni/166/166.pdf).
Some commentators on the Leveson Inquiry are calling for state regulation; others are very much opposed. One thing I am sure of, is that there is no half way house. In my experience there is no such thing as “light touch” regulation. In making this comment, I am not referring to the substance or standards required by a regulatory authority of the regulated body. I am referring to the paraphernalia that is unavoidable in any formal regulatory scheme. In modern times it appears to be impossible to set up any regulatory body without requiring it to be accountable, naturally, and that means business plans, strategic plans, annual reports, CEOs, KPIs, mission statement, vision, risk register, corporate plan, governance, internal regulations, HR, PR, meetings, subcommittees, working groups, equality and diversity plans, consultations, responses, stakeholder relationships etc. This is expensive and cumbersome and it all has to be in place, whether the regulatory body is attempting to impose light or heavy touch regulatory standards.
And then the regulatory body will indulge, often quite inappropriately, in the language that is deemed necessary today, language which gives the appearance of being busy and effective. It will deliver goals going forward, it will have relationships with stakeholders, it will drill down, take deep dives, manage issues offline, be transparent and robust, subscribe to Nolan principles, take a holistic approach, see things under or over the radar. Problems will be challenges, easy actions are low hanging fruit. It will think out of the box and appraise 360 degrees; its ducks will be in a row and at the end of the day the necessary will be actioned. It will step up to the plate and avoid representative capture. It will go down to a level of granularity and leverage talents. There will be competencies and core competencies, and after blue sky thinking, there will be deliverables. Extra staff will be parachuted in, and other organisations will be partnered. There will be pushback and project creep. I could go on and on, but you get the picture. It will be expensive, and whole reports full of this language will be issued.
Good luck Leveson LJ.
600 million for you to ‘regulate the commons’.
Not one iota of irony in your post when it comes to the cost of regulation and revision is there.
There speaks a regulator taking the cash, living the high life.
Heh! Heh! I’ve not seen such an effective list before!
how difficult it is to regulate what is on the internet, especially what comes from abroad.
How difficult is it? I read a Europol list of responsibilities yesterday and it seems to be one of theirs to ensure no criminal content is transmitted/sent/available.
Of course, this applies to pretty much any area where government wants to impose oversight and control. We have a huge bill for the public sector precisely because this has happened time and time again over the past decade or so. The only advantage of the press is that they have their own publicity machine with which to attempt to influence the outcome, many other areas have succumbed because the government chose the right time to hit them when public opinion could be swayed by a one-off event to the government’s side.
Competency-award for Baroness Deech, in her down-to-the-common-earth-descriptors of what ‘should’ be goinf on (but which is so complex as to be tripping-itself-up, super-expensively in both human-energies and money-side materials)
[Blagger, for instance: I see a far more ‘Gordian-knot detailing’ and mature-emotionally-grounded post
than the ‘irony’ and (to me) vague “give us the cost of ‘regulation’ and ‘revision’ – that you are demanding;
but ‘cost’ of what ?
when the noble baroness has already painstakingly listed, more clearly and true-to-life than any-one before, the doubling-ups, multiple-in-depth-checks-and-balances, and circumventingish-Babelous bubble-bodies that The Commons has plopped into the Upper House’s already wrongly and over loaded lap and budgeting.
You seem to be saying “Baroness, you’re too costly and wrongly os in the first place, and you’ve also missed the main Point here…”].
————–
Isn’t there some straightforward and comparatively low-cost Way
of firstly ‘marshalling’ all informations -‘Grading’ but not ‘supressively-censoring’ nor ‘interpreting, paraphrasing, condensing such as to lose the verbatim-original offering’ –
accessibly for viewing at least, by the www public ?
Whilst other ‘market-side’ esites and media channels have apposite but minimum-cost legislation,
and would ‘need’ much less all-round strenuous and in-depth ‘regulation’
simply because we can any of us go straight to the “Verbatim-Side Public List of Informations”
enabling any (or even all) of us to thus rise above, and find truth-sanctuary against,
whatever separate running of whatever ‘reporting’, ‘discussion’, ‘debating’ each such “private market body” wishes to be profit-competitively ringmastering ?
The desire for regulation comes from Peers being exposed by papers.
For example today we read about yet another Peer committing fraud, and the Lords doing bugger all about it. Warsi.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9706715/Baroness-Warsi-rapped-by-Lords-sleaze-watchdog-over-undeclared-Wembley-flat-income.html#disqus_thread
The regulation is all about trying to stop these sorts of expose and revenge for newspapers having the temerity to tell everyone about the scams.
However, when there is a real need for regulation, because it doesn’t affect Peers, you won’t do anything.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article3612548.ece
Hundreds of preventable deaths in the NHS.
Action from Peers or MPs? Not a peep. If you’ve been a victim, its bugger off. Just like that paedophile Cyril Smith.
Blagger has simplified the situation but his take is wholly correct.
No one who is exposed, for whatever reason, likes it. They fear loss of face, respect, position or any other perk they have that may be affected by the public knowledge of their duplicity or deranged lifestyle choices that create a sense of fear in us at our judgement by being ruled by such deviants.
And as Blagger has highlighted, so many of these people come up again and again exposing their bent intent to get away with wwhatever the tax payer will not see or hear of. Warsi, and many others are walking a tightrope, but, as they are in the know and could expose a great deal of other unacceptable choices by those who walk that same rope, a blind eye is turned. And of course, the PC brigade not wanting to expose their naivety of belief by refusing to admit all in their garden is not as rosy as they want us to swallow.
As with, Cyril Smith, Jimmy savile, et al. How this great fat t**d and an obvious loony got away with their deviant c**p, whilst it was widely known of, was and is, another way to hide the rest who may be at the same lark.
Who were these people closely associated to? Birds of a feather, without doubt, always flock together.
For those on the outside, muzzling the press is great news. No subject to regulation, free to operate from anywhere people will move to using them more and more.
Look too at the pirate bay. As soon as they stop one site, 50 pop up, all synced to each other. By the time you’ve gone through the legal process, it doesn’t matter.
Now I can see the government saying, ah, we can dictate and shut down without due process. They’ve been doing it repeatedly. However that just reminds me of the vice squad operating in Soho. They raided a place. It’s a fair cop guv, comes the reply. So off to court. Charge will selling pornography. How do you plead? Not Guilty, mLud.
So it proceeds to trial. This involves viewing the videos. Something the prosecution hadn’t done. Bit hard trying to justify to the jury what’s pornographic about the magic round about. Same will happen.
Look too at Amazon. Its all about IP (intellectual property). Who pays the tax, who gets the profit? The IP can be owned anywhere, and its there that the profits are earned. eg. Amazon can run their website from servers anywhere in the world. That’s where the profits are for lots of their services. That service being the website by and large. So you have to resort to taxing the buyer, not the seller. If its virtual goods, you can’t even do that.
The connection is the press is about information. Try stopping its flow. Try taxing it. You’re stuffed.
The government can implore people, boycott Amazon. People aren’t stupid. They can see a good price and good services. They don’t like paying tax. You have to force them. So they will carry on.
So the government is going to try and regulate its way out, which is just going to kill off the industry, and with it what little tax it can collect. See the Guardian for a lesson on how to avoid tax http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-secrets-guardian-media-group-still-operates-caymans-company/
@LB:
Great stuff there LB. The closet door is finally ajar and will soon be wide open.
Here is alittle insight on the man who is the mover and shaker for the New Labour Party. In the close here but exposed there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=klw2-0CR51c
Abd where is he getting his money from and keeping it hidden. Along with his chums, Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson.
Now here is an interesting video critique.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/video/series-102/episode-1/the-wonderful-world-of-tony-blair
Now see if you can find this 46 minute expose which is blocked in the UK part of the Internet.
Why do you think we cannot see this, although it is said to have been aired? Who censored this and why?