Aftermath of the Leveson Inquiry

[G-Unit]

I agree with that.  He is too widely disliked by the general public to be a good figurehead for this particular issue.  But I think he has balls putting his head above the parapet knowing it will bring forth a torrent of abuse from the press and the public alike.  I would keep quiet myself.

I'm wondering if they do know how disliked they are. Perhaps no-one has told them? Whatever, they can now add a few newspaper proprietors to the list. Not a wise move imo. Courageous or out of touch?

[stephen25000]

..and what of Brenda Leyland alfred ?


We know who gave her name and others to the police and hence the press.

[Alfred R Jones]

I'm wondering if they do know how disliked they are. Perhaps no-one has told them? Whatever, they can now add a few newspaper proprietors to the list. Not a wise move imo. Courageous or out of touch?

I should think they are under no illusions about their lack of popularity amongst the gobbier section of the press and the public.  It would probably bother me knowing I was hated by thousands, but perhaps after 9 years of it they have grown tough carapaces.

[Brietta]

What you fail to understand it seems Brietta is the hypocrisy of the mccanns in using the press to their own end and bleating when it doesn't.

Then we have what happened to the press intrusion of Brenda Leyland.

Section 40 which has not been implemented by our parliament would assist people like Brenda Leyland to take action against media which they consider may have printed libellous statements about them without financial risk to themselves.

An ordinary person could never afford to take out a case against the Murdoch Empire as the law stands ... when the Leveson recommendations are implemented that will level the playing field somewhat.

Press intrusion happens to ordinary people who at the moment very often have to grin and bear it - that is what the news is about - I think that is a far more important message to take on board than criticising an individual involved in highlighting the situation.

[Mr Gray]

..and what of Brenda Leyland alfred ?


We know who gave her name and others to the police and hence the press.

Brenda chose to get involved and post some vile posts

[stephen25000]

Brenda chose to get involved and post some vile posts

She committed no crimes davel.

Never forget that.

[stephen25000]

Section 40 which has not been implemented by our parliament would assist people like Brenda Leyland to take action against media which they consider may have printed libellous statements about them without financial risk to themselves.

An ordinary person could never afford to take out a case against the Murdoch Empire as the law stands ... when the Leveson recommendations are implemented that will level the playing field somewhat.

Press intrusion happens to ordinary people who at the moment very often have to grin and bear it - that is what the news is about - I think that is a far more important message to take on board than criticising an individual involved in highlighting the situation.

So what help did she get after the mccanns passed the dossier to the police and press.

Bottom line, the mccanns are hypocrites.

[Mr Gray]

She committed no crimes davel.

Never forget that.

she was never judged by a court

[Eleanor]

Reluctantly, I have to agree with A Free Press.  But it should be far more easy for Victims to Sue.  And there should not be a torrent of abuse if and when they do.

There has been far to many incidents of clearly innocent people whose names have been dragged through the mud, and yet more misery heaped upon them.

The McCanns eventually sued because there was no help from any regulatory body.  But would undoubtedly have got very much more if they hadn't settled out of court.

[Alfred R Jones]

..and what of Brenda Leyland alfred ?


We know who gave her name and others to the police and hence the press.

What of her?  Do we?  Are you against press intrusion into private individuals?  Should door-stepping be outlawed? Or only when it's directed at people you approve of?  Should people who go to the police or the press about suspected criminal activity by others be arrested and prosecuted themselves if it turns out they were mistaken?  What's your position on press regulation and how it might have saved Brenda Leyland?
My position is - Sky did nothing wrong with regard Brenda, and nor did whoever handed them a dossier of hateful online activity.  It was simply unfortunate that she wasn't able to handle the shame brought about by her own online activity. 

[Alice Purjorick]

Section 40 which has not been implemented by our parliament would assist people like Brenda Leyland to take action against media which they consider may have printed libellous statements about them without financial risk to themselves.

An ordinary person could never afford to take out a case against the Murdoch Empire as the law stands ... when the Leveson recommendations are implemented that will level the playing field somewhat.

Press intrusion happens to ordinary people who at the moment very often have to grin and bear it - that is what the news is about - I think that is a far more important message to take on board than criticising an individual involved in highlighting the situation.

Only if the publisher has signed up. There is an option to not sign up and take an exemplary hit which is the cause of some debate vis a vis is it legal and should status rather than conduct be the prime mover in this instance.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldcomuni/135/13507.htm

[stephen25000]

What of her?  Do we?  Are you against press intrusion into private individuals?  Should door-stepping be outlawed? Or only when it's directed at people you approve of?  Should people who go to the police or the press about suspected criminal activity by others be arrested and prosecuted themselves if it turns out they were mistaken?  What's your position on press regulation and how it might have saved Brenda Leyland?
My position is - Sky did nothing wrong with regard Brenda, and nor did whoever handed them a dossier of hateful online activity.  It was simply unfortunate that she wasn't able to handle the shame brought about by her own online activity.

Skype and the dossier compilers took the law into their own hands.

Sky in the former of brunt stated she had committed crimes.

She hadn't.

Likewise, unlike the mccanns she had no legal backup.

and the dossier compilers hid behind anonymity.

[Alfred R Jones]

So what help did she get after the mccanns passed the dossier to the police and press.

Bottom line, the mccanns are hypocrites.

Could you explain how and why the McCanns are hypocrites in regard to press intrusion and Brenda Leyland please, with evidence to back up your assertions thanks.

[faithlilly]

I would, to some degree, but where would we be without unrestricted investigative journalism?

Unfortunately whenever journalists do dig any deeper than the press releases liberally handed out by Mr Mitchell the McCanns and their associates never come out of it particularly well. Lest we forget the Daily Mail article on the non-investigation of the Barcelona sighting, the Mike Hollingsworth article on the PIs, the Mail article on the investigation helplines, the Times article on the efits etc, etc, etc.

[Alfred R Jones]

Skype and the dossier compilers took the law into their own hands.

Sky in the former of brunt stated she had committed crimes.

She hadn't.

Likewise, unlike the mccanns she had no legal backup.

So how would you like the law to be changed in order to help people in similar situations in future?

Say in future a Mr X is suspected of sending hateful tweets to a high profile person and is doorstepped by Sky who then broadcast the encounter - how would you like Mr X to be protected from such an intrusion?