The issue of press regulation came back again when on 2 April Baroness Hollins asked a question about what progress had been made in establishing a new system of regulation in the year since the Royal Charter was agreed. From the floor of the House there was almost unanimous support for what are regarded as the Leveson criteria, and for the view that the potential IPSO (independent press standards organisation) would not meet them. There are very few who agree with me that what we are likely to get is not only a long way from the core of the Leveson recommendations but could have quite a chilling effect on the tough investigative standards of journalism that we have for long enjoyed. Ominously, it was even suggested this week that the latest allegations about MPs’ expenses would not have surfaced had there been in place the sort of press regulation that Hacked Off wants and that many peers seem to support: a system in the shadow of political control. Leveson never recommended a Royal Charter; he proposed that OFCOM be the recognition body that validated a new regulator. Now we have a Royal Charter, which is a less democratic way of making law than a normal statute, and the ways in which it might be changed are obscure and have been misrepresented. And in place of OFCOM there will be a new recognition body. It is complicated, but I am clear that we ought to worry about a Charter put together by a consensus of the three parties and with the overwhelming influence of Hacked Off. I have written about this before – http://lordsoftheblog.net/2013/10/11/cross-party-cabal/; http://lordsoftheblog.net/2013/11/03/privy-council-poppycock/ and I am even more concerned now. Celebs live by the press but don’t like it when they cannot control what is being revealed. There was only praise when in 2009 the Telegraph broke all the rules (as far as I could tell) in getting to the bottom of MPs’ expenses. In other words we are quite happy for the free press to dig around when we like the result, but not when we don’t. If we have to choose between a muzzled or fearful press and one that is too intrusive and crosses the line occasionally, I know which I prefer.
@Baroness Deech:
And here in this link is the reason there is little or no opposition.The snouts in the trough are looking after themselves. Akin to criminals of the underworld, they back each other up and make sure there are no dissenters as they all fear they have something to hide.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/04/maria-miller-threatened-watchdog-in-attempt-to-limit-investigation#start-of-comments
Which leads us back to the need to get rid of the appointment system in that second chamber we pretend is part of a democracy. The very least the man in the street can do is vote the culprits out of that green space, but that red room is a harbour of the useless and the feeders for decades after we should have done with them.
I haven’t changed my view since you had this on here previously. In fact I’ve hardened toward it as I know for sure this, and the facts we are not allowed to know elsewhere, for example, the growing need for food banks and the homelessness created by the bedroom penalty, known as a tax, would be missing entirely from our media once this becomes a reality.
The only answer has to be ‘publish everything long and hard on the internet.’ Under a website or many sites, called ‘What the paper don’t say.’ And advertise them 24/7 everywhere so that the population know they can read all about it in every corner of the planet. No place for any to hide ever again.
BD, you are a brave lady putting this up here for us to see and comment on. Good on you. A lady of substance. You would have little trouble come elections.
As I have explained several times on this blog it is available on line in detail. And how many days a year do you work Lord Blagger?
Of course the Celebs are making a trade in their reputations and fame. Its a two way thing.
I’m glad to read
“Royal Charter, which is a less democratic way of making law than a normal statute”
on the Baroness’ blog. It is.
It makes me wonder about other events which have occured during this government’s term of office, closer to my own home than press regulation, and which I have investigated myself, but I will let them Rest. Time may tell.
Is this for real? Why is Ofcom, chaired by a state appointee, preferable to an independently appointed recognition panel? What is there in the Charter that would prevent exposure of the abuse of MPs’ expenses? You are aware that Hacked Off did not devise the Royal Charter approach, which was in fact cooked up by a handful of politicians and newspaper owners? You are also aware that those same owners continue to promote their version of the Royal Charter through the courts? With your academic record, I’m amazed that you have published such an impressionistic and un-evidenced analysis of the situation. Please show your working!
You have not declared your interest! Who appoints “Impress”? How many have joined? I was merely pointing out that the Royal Charter system is not what Leveson recommended, and it is misleading the public to say that the Charter can only be altered with a 2/3 majority in Parliament.
Meanwhile we have this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcsmiths-diary-a-month-in-the-lucrative-life-of-lord-hanningfield-9247097.html
November 2013 was the last full month that the old jailbird Lord Hanningfield was able to stroll in and out of the House of Lords to record his presence so that he qualified for his £300-a-day allowance, blissfully unaware that the Daily Mirror had photographic evidence of what he was up to. One pair of photographs showed that he spent just 21 minutes on the premises, earning himself a handy £14 a minute.
===========
Note that the FOI request that was turned into a state secret wouldn’t have court Hanningfield out and his clock in clock out, collect the cash.