Aftermath of the Leveson Inquiry

[Brietta]

Press victims 'betrayed' by law delay
By David Sillito
Arts Correspondent

Victims of press intrusion have accused the government of breaking its promise over regulation.
The group, which includes Kate and Gerry McCann, says a delay in bringing into law a key part of the Royal Charter agreement is a "betrayal".

The change was one of the commitments made after the Leveson Inquiry into press standards and was passed by MPs.

But three years on, it still needs to be signed off by the culture secretary, who says it is "under consideration".

One of the regulations would require newspapers to pay libel costs even if they won a case brought against them, should they not have previously offered a low-cost means of resolving the claim.

Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has told newspaper editors he questions whether this legal change will be "positive" for the newspaper industry.

'Multiple promises'

The signatories to an open letter to Prime Minister David Cameron include the McCanns, whose daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal in 2007, and Christopher Jefferies, who was wrongly arrested during the investigation into the murder of Jo Yeates in Bristol in 2010.

Mr McCann says victims of the press feel very let down.

"The prime minister promised us on multiple occasions that we would be at the centre of press regulation reform and clearly that's not the case," he said.

"The people at the centre of this are the owners of the major newspapers.

"So, I think, we feel betrayed."

The letter, which the Guardian has published in full here,http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/05/letter-from-victims-of-press-abuse-to-david-cameron-full-text raises concerns about the lack of contact with victims when compared with the number of meetings between the prime minister and senior figures from the newspaper industry.
It also highlights reports that the second part of the Leveson Inquiry, which was scheduled to take place once the many criminal trials over phone hacking and payments to public officials had taken place, may be shelved.

'Vital public importance'

"Since this is meant to establish how lawbreaking took hold in our press, why the police failed to stop it and who was responsible, we need hardly say why this is of such vital public importance," the letter says.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act was devised to punish newspapers if they forced people to use the libel courts without offering a cheaper alternative.

But if Section 40 was signed in to law, it would come in to force only if there was an officially recognised regulator.

A new regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), has been set up by the newspapers and has wider powers than previous bodies.

It represents most of Britain's main newsbrands except for the Guardian, the Financial Times and the Independent .

However it has not yet offered public arbitration, a cheaper alternative to the libel court, to settle disputes.

Ipso looks unlikely to ever seek recognition although a rival regulator, Impress, has applied.

Impress has about a dozen members so far and more are expected to be announced in the months to come.

Risk-free claims

It made its application for recognition in January and, if it is approved, the new law on libel costs would become active.

The papers would then face the possibility of libel actions from the public that would for the first time be effectively risk free for claimants and enormously expensive for the papers.

In a statement the Department for Culture Media and Sport said: "No decision has been taken about when to commence the cost provisions."

A spokesman added: "The criminal investigations relating to the Leveson Inquiry have not yet completed and we have always been clear that the conclusion of these cases must take place before we consider part two of the inquiry."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35971933



It would perhaps be useful were consideration given to exactly what it is that the signatories of the open letter to the Prime Minister are actually complaining about.

Antipathy towards the McCanns would appear to have blinded some to the fact that one of the most worthwhile conclusions of the Leveson Inquiry which offers protection to those ordinary people who in the future who may find themselves libelled by media giants has been ignored.

Surely very much in the public interest and worth reminding those politicians who have failed to deliver on their promises; if it takes an open letter to do do that, so be it.

[stephen25000]

Press victims 'betrayed' by law delay
By David Sillito
Arts Correspondent

Victims of press intrusion have accused the government of breaking its promise over regulation.
The group, which includes Kate and Gerry McCann, says a delay in bringing into law a key part of the Royal Charter agreement is a "betrayal".

The change was one of the commitments made after the Leveson Inquiry into press standards and was passed by MPs.

But three years on, it still needs to be signed off by the culture secretary, who says it is "under consideration".

One of the regulations would require newspapers to pay libel costs even if they won a case brought against them, should they not have previously offered a low-cost means of resolving the claim.

Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has told newspaper editors he questions whether this legal change will be "positive" for the newspaper industry.

'Multiple promises'

The signatories to an open letter to Prime Minister David Cameron include the McCanns, whose daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal in 2007, and Christopher Jefferies, who was wrongly arrested during the investigation into the murder of Jo Yeates in Bristol in 2010.

Mr McCann says victims of the press feel very let down.

"The prime minister promised us on multiple occasions that we would be at the centre of press regulation reform and clearly that's not the case," he said.

"The people at the centre of this are the owners of the major newspapers.

"So, I think, we feel betrayed."

The letter, which the Guardian has published in full here,http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/05/letter-from-victims-of-press-abuse-to-david-cameron-full-text raises concerns about the lack of contact with victims when compared with the number of meetings between the prime minister and senior figures from the newspaper industry.
It also highlights reports that the second part of the Leveson Inquiry, which was scheduled to take place once the many criminal trials over phone hacking and payments to public officials had taken place, may be shelved.

'Vital public importance'

"Since this is meant to establish how lawbreaking took hold in our press, why the police failed to stop it and who was responsible, we need hardly say why this is of such vital public importance," the letter says.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act was devised to punish newspapers if they forced people to use the libel courts without offering a cheaper alternative.

But if Section 40 was signed in to law, it would come in to force only if there was an officially recognised regulator.

A new regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), has been set up by the newspapers and has wider powers than previous bodies.

It represents most of Britain's main newsbrands except for the Guardian, the Financial Times and the Independent .

However it has not yet offered public arbitration, a cheaper alternative to the libel court, to settle disputes.

Ipso looks unlikely to ever seek recognition although a rival regulator, Impress, has applied.

Impress has about a dozen members so far and more are expected to be announced in the months to come.

Risk-free claims

It made its application for recognition in January and, if it is approved, the new law on libel costs would become active.

The papers would then face the possibility of libel actions from the public that would for the first time be effectively risk free for claimants and enormously expensive for the papers.

In a statement the Department for Culture Media and Sport said: "No decision has been taken about when to commence the cost provisions."

A spokesman added: "The criminal investigations relating to the Leveson Inquiry have not yet completed and we have always been clear that the conclusion of these cases must take place before we consider part two of the inquiry."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35971933



It would perhaps be useful were consideration given to exactly what it is that the signatories of the open letter to the Prime Minister are actually complaining about.

Antipathy towards the McCanns would appear to have blinded some to the fact that one of the most worthwhile conclusions of the Leveson Inquiry which offers protection to those ordinary people who in the future who may find themselves libelled by media giants has been ignored.

Surely very much in the public interest and worth reminding those politicians who have failed to deliver on their promises; if it takes an open letter to do do that, so be it.

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.

[Alfred R Jones]

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

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

Do you support press regulation then, or not?

[stephen25000]

Do you support press regulation then, or not?

So what about Brenda Leyland, whose name was in the dossier and given BY THE MCCANNS (Hogan-Howe admitted that by the way) to the Police and sky of course ?

Didn't she deserve protection, or is your stand on this only for the mccanns ?

[Brietta]

We are a democracy which elects people to a parliament to speak for us and to enact legislation for the benefit of the public good.

Sometimes the legislation passed is sometimes reasonable sometimes downright appalling dependent on one's point of view.

We are told ...
The change was one of the commitments made after the Leveson Inquiry into press standards and was passed by MPs. ...
  ...  that seems clear enough.  Our elected representatives have obviously discussed it and agreed it should be introduced into law.
So where is the problem?

It seems that in our parliamentary democracy when a majority decision has been taken ... one man can decide whether or not that decision should be implemented.

But three years on, it still needs to be signed off by the culture secretary, who says it is "under consideration".

The question arises as to why the failure to recognise that our democratic process is being impeded with impunity and all that seems to be of importance to some is to post a derogatory twitter comment about one of the whistleblowers.


Quotes from  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35971933

[jassi]

Do you support press regulation then, or not?

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

[Eleanor]

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

Who should be prepared to be Sued, of course.

[G-Unit]

Press victims 'betrayed' by law delay
By David Sillito
Arts Correspondent

Victims of press intrusion have accused the government of breaking its promise over regulation.
The group, which includes Kate and Gerry McCann, says a delay in bringing into law a key part of the Royal Charter agreement is a "betrayal".

The change was one of the commitments made after the Leveson Inquiry into press standards and was passed by MPs.

But three years on, it still needs to be signed off by the culture secretary, who says it is "under consideration".

One of the regulations would require newspapers to pay libel costs even if they won a case brought against them, should they not have previously offered a low-cost means of resolving the claim.

Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has told newspaper editors he questions whether this legal change will be "positive" for the newspaper industry.

'Multiple promises'

The signatories to an open letter to Prime Minister David Cameron include the McCanns, whose daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal in 2007, and Christopher Jefferies, who was wrongly arrested during the investigation into the murder of Jo Yeates in Bristol in 2010.

Mr McCann says victims of the press feel very let down.

"The prime minister promised us on multiple occasions that we would be at the centre of press regulation reform and clearly that's not the case," he said.

"The people at the centre of this are the owners of the major newspapers.

"So, I think, we feel betrayed."

The letter, which the Guardian has published in full here,http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/05/letter-from-victims-of-press-abuse-to-david-cameron-full-text raises concerns about the lack of contact with victims when compared with the number of meetings between the prime minister and senior figures from the newspaper industry.
It also highlights reports that the second part of the Leveson Inquiry, which was scheduled to take place once the many criminal trials over phone hacking and payments to public officials had taken place, may be shelved.

'Vital public importance'

"Since this is meant to establish how lawbreaking took hold in our press, why the police failed to stop it and who was responsible, we need hardly say why this is of such vital public importance," the letter says.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act was devised to punish newspapers if they forced people to use the libel courts without offering a cheaper alternative.

But if Section 40 was signed in to law, it would come in to force only if there was an officially recognised regulator.

A new regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), has been set up by the newspapers and has wider powers than previous bodies.

It represents most of Britain's main newsbrands except for the Guardian, the Financial Times and the Independent .

However it has not yet offered public arbitration, a cheaper alternative to the libel court, to settle disputes.

Ipso looks unlikely to ever seek recognition although a rival regulator, Impress, has applied.

Impress has about a dozen members so far and more are expected to be announced in the months to come.

Risk-free claims

It made its application for recognition in January and, if it is approved, the new law on libel costs would become active.

The papers would then face the possibility of libel actions from the public that would for the first time be effectively risk free for claimants and enormously expensive for the papers.

In a statement the Department for Culture Media and Sport said: "No decision has been taken about when to commence the cost provisions."

A spokesman added: "The criminal investigations relating to the Leveson Inquiry have not yet completed and we have always been clear that the conclusion of these cases must take place before we consider part two of the inquiry."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35971933



It would perhaps be useful were consideration given to exactly what it is that the signatories of the open letter to the Prime Minister are actually complaining about.

Antipathy towards the McCanns would appear to have blinded some to the fact that one of the most worthwhile conclusions of the Leveson Inquiry which offers protection to those ordinary people who in the future who may find themselves libelled by media giants has been ignored.

Surely very much in the public interest and worth reminding those politicians who have failed to deliver on their promises; if it takes an open letter to do do that, so be it.

As I said, if Gerry McCann cares about press regulation he needs to step out of the limelight and restrict himself to working behind the scenes. His involvement as a spokesman is not helping the cause.

[Alfred R Jones]

So what about Brenda Leyland, whose name was in the dossier and given BY THE MCCANNS (Hogan-Howe admitted that by the way) to the Police and sky of course ?

Didn't she deserve protection, or is your stand on this only for the mccanns ?

Let me explain how satisfactory debate occurs on an internet forum:
Someone asks another person a question.  They address the question by giving a meaningful honest answer, then pose a question back at the other person, who then gives a meaningful and honest response, and so on.
So, let's start again.  Do you support press regulation or not then?

[jassi]

Who should be prepared to be Sued, of course.

Which, I think, is where we are at present.

[Alfred R Jones]

As I said, if Gerry McCann cares about press regulation he needs to step out of the limelight and restrict himself to working behind the scenes. His involvement as a spokesman is not helping the cause.

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.

[jassi]

Who was it who said 'No publicity is bad publicity', or something to that effect ?

[stephen25000]

Let me explain how satisfactory debate occurs on an internet forum:
Someone asks another person a question.  They address the question by giving a meaningful honest answer, then pose a question back at the other person, who then gives a meaningful and honest response, and so on.
So, let's start again.  Do you support press regulation or not then?

Let me explain to you.

You frequently don't answer questions yourself.

As to press regulation, what I want to see is that people who haven't the money or clout, to have access to the resources to challenge the press.

As to regulation, it would prevent the press investigating those who commit crimes or try to hide their dirty little secrets.

Would the Panama connection of the last few days been hidden with regulation ?

Then as to you alfred, it's all about the mccanns.

[Alice Purjorick]

Press victims 'betrayed' by law delay
By David Sillito
Arts Correspondent

Victims of press intrusion have accused the government of breaking its promise over regulation.
The group, which includes Kate and Gerry McCann, says a delay in bringing into law a key part of the Royal Charter agreement is a "betrayal".

The change was one of the commitments made after the Leveson Inquiry into press standards and was passed by MPs.

But three years on, it still needs to be signed off by the culture secretary, who says it is "under consideration".

One of the regulations would require newspapers to pay libel costs even if they won a case brought against them, should they not have previously offered a low-cost means of resolving the claim.

Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has told newspaper editors he questions whether this legal change will be "positive" for the newspaper industry.

'Multiple promises'

The signatories to an open letter to Prime Minister David Cameron include the McCanns, whose daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal in 2007, and Christopher Jefferies, who was wrongly arrested during the investigation into the murder of Jo Yeates in Bristol in 2010.

Mr McCann says victims of the press feel very let down.

"The prime minister promised us on multiple occasions that we would be at the centre of press regulation reform and clearly that's not the case," he said.

"The people at the centre of this are the owners of the major newspapers.

"So, I think, we feel betrayed."

The letter, which the Guardian has published in full here,http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/05/letter-from-victims-of-press-abuse-to-david-cameron-full-text raises concerns about the lack of contact with victims when compared with the number of meetings between the prime minister and senior figures from the newspaper industry.
It also highlights reports that the second part of the Leveson Inquiry, which was scheduled to take place once the many criminal trials over phone hacking and payments to public officials had taken place, may be shelved.

'Vital public importance'

"Since this is meant to establish how lawbreaking took hold in our press, why the police failed to stop it and who was responsible, we need hardly say why this is of such vital public importance," the letter says.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act was devised to punish newspapers if they forced people to use the libel courts without offering a cheaper alternative.

But if Section 40 was signed in to law, it would come in to force only if there was an officially recognised regulator.

A new regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), has been set up by the newspapers and has wider powers than previous bodies.

It represents most of Britain's main newsbrands except for the Guardian, the Financial Times and the Independent .

However it has not yet offered public arbitration, a cheaper alternative to the libel court, to settle disputes.

Ipso looks unlikely to ever seek recognition although a rival regulator, Impress, has applied.

Impress has about a dozen members so far and more are expected to be announced in the months to come.

Risk-free claims

It made its application for recognition in January and, if it is approved, the new law on libel costs would become active.

The papers would then face the possibility of libel actions from the public that would for the first time be effectively risk free for claimants and enormously expensive for the papers.

In a statement the Department for Culture Media and Sport said: "No decision has been taken about when to commence the cost provisions."

A spokesman added: "The criminal investigations relating to the Leveson Inquiry have not yet completed and we have always been clear that the conclusion of these cases must take place before we consider part two of the inquiry."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35971933



It would perhaps be useful were consideration given to exactly what it is that the signatories of the open letter to the Prime Minister are actually complaining about.

Antipathy towards the McCanns would appear to have blinded some to the fact that one of the most worthwhile conclusions of the Leveson Inquiry which offers protection to those ordinary people who in the future who may find themselves libelled by media giants has been ignored.

Surely very much in the public interest and worth reminding those politicians who have failed to deliver on their promises; if it takes an open letter to do do that, so be it.

Good point; try in 'ere:
http://hackinginquiry.org/mediareleases/victims-of-press-abuse-write-to-the-prime-minister-these-solemn-promises-have-not-been-kept-and-we-urge-you-to-honour-them-now/

[Alfred R Jones]

Let me explain to you.

You frequently don't answer questions yourself.

As to press regulation, what I want to see is that people who haven't the money or clout, to have access to the resources to challenge the press.

As to regulation, it would prevent the press investigating those who commit crimes or try to hide their dirty little secrets.

Would the Panama connection of the last few days been hidden with regulation ?

Then as to you alfred, it's all about the mccanns.

OK, thanks.  It seems you are against restricting the freedom of the press to report on whatever they want, and in whatever manner they choose to report it, or have I misrepresented your position? 
Personally, I am in favour of complete freedom of the press, no ifs no buts, however I do believe that the press should be held to account for printing inaccurate articles, especially those that harm private individuals.  I disagree with Gerry McCann that media institutions should have to foot the bill for ALL legal actions brought against them whether they win or lose, as that would only open the floodgates to a load of lawsuits which would only serve to enrich lawyers at the expense of the free press.