Aftermath of the Leveson Inquiry

[stephen25000]

Oh.  Only in your humble opinion?  So not of any importance then.

No more than yours, but mine is shared by others....

[jassi]

No more than yours, but mine is shared by others....

Eleanor's not alone. There must be, oh, half a dozen who agree with her.   

[stephen25000]

Eleanor's not alone. There must be, oh, half a dozen who agree with her.   

I wonder who they may be ....... &%+((£

[Eleanor]

No more than yours, but mine is shared by others....

You think mine aren't?  And more so.  It's all about plain common sense in the end.

[Brietta]

Politicians make lots of promises. They seldom follow through and deliver.

Not when it has been thrashed out and a cross party agreement reached in which the government by force of numbers if nothing else must have acquiesced.


**Snip
A system of exemplary damages directed at newspapers that refuse to comply with the new regulatory structure was part of a late-night cross-party agreement made in 2013 ahead of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The victims have urged Cameron and the culture secretary John Whittingdale to impose the financial sanctions contained section 40 of the act.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/05/david-cameron-press-victims-gerry-kate-mccann

[Gadfly1.3]

A couple points on this appearance.

1.   Gerry's claim about a 'promise.' 

The Prime Minister can 'promise' to take into account a particular viewpoint -- but in the legislative process, that is a drop in the ocean.  The PM is lobbied by a range of interest groups and individuals.  He takes advice from the civil service.  From ministers.  From political strategists.  Legislation -- even then -- must survive press, parliamentary and judicial scrutiny.   And in any case, judicial reviews are not binding -- they are recommendations.  Respected yes, -- and led by able, intelligent people on the whole -- but not binding.  For Gerry to start using terms such as 'betrayed' is naive at best.  It also is an undemocratic perspective.  At the last election, David Cameron was quite clear that Leveson would not be implemented.  His party won a parliamentary majority.  The party that backed Leveson (Labour) lost 24 seats.   Worth reading this for a brief overview of our nation's history re: press freedom too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press#Great_Britain

2. Gerry being the spokesperson for Hacked Off.

Three points.  1)  Clarence Mitchell is a paid PR man.  Paid by the McCanns to promote their agenda in the press -- in essence. (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/18/madeleine-mccann-family-spokesman-launches-pr-agency)  2) According to today's Standard: 'The McCanns reportedly paid PR agency Bell Pottinger £500,000 to keep the case in the media spotlight.'  3) The McCanns have been paid for puff pieces in the press such as 'I couldn't make love to Gerry' (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3571775/Kate-McCann-I-couldnt-make-love-to-Gerry.html).

These three facts show that Gerry is not simply a 'passive' participant in the mainstream media.  As such, maybe the interviews should have been left to Christopher Jeffries -- who hasn't attempted to steer the media to meet his 'objectives.'  Good luck to Hacked Off in attempting to bring about a better regulatory framework for the media, but maybe Gerry should take a break until he has sacked Clarence Mitchell.

[G-Unit]

"I see your pain, and I sneer at it".

I see your complaints and they sound very self-pitying.

[jassi]

Not when it has been thrashed out and a cross party agreement reached in which the government by force of numbers if nothing else must have acquiesced.


**Snip
A system of exemplary damages directed at newspapers that refuse to comply with the new regulatory structure was part of a late-night cross-party agreement made in 2013 ahead of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The victims have urged Cameron and the culture secretary John Whittingdale to impose the financial sanctions contained section 40 of the act.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/05/david-cameron-press-victims-gerry-kate-mccann

Different government now.

[Eleanor]

Eleanor's not alone. There must be, oh, half a dozen who agree with her.   

While you share the views of the world in general?  Very strange that The Judiciary don't agree with you.  Perhaps there are only half a dozen of them.

[Alice Purjorick]

A couple points on this appearance.

1.   Gerry's claim about a 'promise.' 

The Prime Minister can 'promise' to take into account a particular viewpoint -- but in the legislative process, that is a drop in the ocean.  The PM is lobbied by a range of interest groups and individuals.  He takes advice from the civil service.  From ministers.  From political strategists.  Legislation -- even then -- must survive press, parliamentary and judicial scrutiny.   And in any case, judicial reviews are not binding -- they are recommendations.  Respected yes, -- and led by able, intelligent people on the whole -- but not binding.  For Gerry to start using terms such as 'betrayed' is naive at best.  It also is an undemocratic perspective.  At the last election, David Cameron was quite clear that Leveson would not be implemented.  His party won a parliamentary majority.  The party that backed Leveson (Labour) lost 24 seats.   Worth reading this for a brief overview of our nation's history re: press freedom too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press#Great_Britain

2. Gerry being the spokesperson for Hacked Off.

Three points.  1)  Clarence Mitchell is a paid PR man.  Paid by the McCanns to promote their agenda in the press -- in essence. (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/18/madeleine-mccann-family-spokesman-launches-pr-agency)  2) According to today's Standard: 'The McCanns reportedly paid PR agency Bell Pottinger £500,000 to keep the case in the media spotlight.'  3) The McCanns have been paid for puff pieces in the press such as 'I couldn't make love to Gerry' (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3571775/Kate-McCann-I-couldnt-make-love-to-Gerry.html).

These three facts show that Gerry is not simply a 'passive' participant in the mainstream media.  As such, maybe the interviews should have been left to Christopher Jeffries -- who hasn't attempted to steer the media to meet his 'objectives.'  Good luck to Hacked Off in attempting to bring about a better regulatory framework for the media, but maybe Gerry should take a break until he has sacked Clarence Mitchell.

 

[Eleanor]

I wonder who they may be ....... &%+((£

The Judicial World.  The people who matter.

[stephen25000]

You think mine aren't?  And more so.  It's all about plain common sense in the end.

The perception of mccann being arrogant is widely held and the ex-editor of the News of the World, Neil Wallis, in repsonse to mccanns appearance, nailed it.

Likewise he highlighted gerry mccanns hypocrisy.

[stephen25000]

The Judicial World.  The people who matter.

Not in the slightest.

Just members of the public, no matter their airs and graces.

[Lace]

mccann as per usual, was doing the big I am.

IMHO of course.

Or maybe he was asked to be Spokesperson?

[Lace]

The perception of mccann being arrogant is widely held and the ex-editor of the News of the World, Neil Wallis, in repsonse to mccanns appearance, nailed it.

Likewise he highlighted gerry mccanns hypocrisy.

Only in your little world,   everyone it appears who work and live near Gerry McCann say he is a lovely,  respected person.

So maybe your Psychology of the man is wrong.