THE “LUVVIES” ARE LOVING IT!

Leveson has done us all a disservice. Contentious as that statement may read, it is my opinion that the conclusions arrived at by Leveson are disingenuous to the Press and give the impression that all newspapers be tarred with the same brush. It is my opinion that it will be, if legislation is wrapped around the suggestions, nothing more than a “Luvvies Charter”. 

Below, I have listed the “Key”points of the enquiry and, after some explanatory notes, I will give my views on these points.

The key points are as follows:

1. New self-regulatory body recommended
2. Independent of serving editors, government and business
3. No widespread corruption of police by the press found
4. Politicians and press have been too close
5. Press behaviour, at times, has been ‘outrageous’.

Even though points 1 & 2 are contradictory it would seem that an independent regulatory body for the press is the main thrust of the conclusion.

In summary, this regulatory body would; 

• Take an active role in promoting high standards, including having the power to investigate serious breaches and sanction newspapers;
• It should be backed by legislation; 
• Take an active role in promoting high standards; 
• Legislation would enshrine on government a legal duty to protect the freedom of the press; 
• An arbitration system should be created which would allow ‘victims’ of the press to seek redress without going through the courts;
• The body should be independent of current journalists, the government and commercial concerns and not include any serving editors, government members or MPs;
• The body should consider encouraging the press to be as transparent as possible in relation to sources for its stories, if the information is in the public domain;
• A whistle-blowing hotline should be established for journalists who feel under pressure to do unethical things;
• Newspapers that refuse to join the new body could face direct regulation by media watchdog Ofcom.

 “take an active role in promoting high standards,...... sanction newspapers” 

Does this mean that yellow journalism newspapers like the Sunday Sport would be sanctioned? Lets face it, the standard of story and journalism in that rag is very low. I think we all know that nothing would be done there. 

In general, our National newspapers, and so to, regional newspapers, are of a very high standard and the majority of journalists on those newspapers are true professionals. 

The next two bullet points confuse me, if the ‘regulatory body’ is backed by legislation designed to assess whether it is doing its job properly. i.e. regulating the press. How can you then impose a legal duty on the government to protect the freedom of the press? Surely a regulated press is not a free press. 

I know that the Max Mosley’s and Hugh Grants of this world would love the press to be shackled, if only to give them another fifteen minutes in the media limelight patting each other on the back for allegedly  blackmailing the weak Ed Miliband and the equally weak and odious Nick Clegg into complying with their wishes. 

Yes, there have been some shocking cases of unlawful intrusion into peoples lives, hence this enquiry. Non-the-less, you can’t help but wonder if some people bought a lot of unwanted attention upon themselves. The entertainment business relies on the press to boost careers and, lets face it, a lot of these “celebrities” need an awful lot of boosting. 

I find it quite hypocritical when these people then rail against the press when something derogatory is printed about them. For example, Hugh Grant; caught in an alley with his flies undone enjoying the attention of a prostitute. Similarly, Mr Mosley. Caught out leaving a - shall we say -  punishing meeting. Then we have the McCann’s. It was truly tragic that their daughter Madeleine was abducted whilst they were on holiday in Portugal. They, quite rightly, used the full extent of the press and media services to try to get her back. However, as soon as questions were asked in the press as to why they were out at dinner when the abduction took place, how much money they had raised through their charity and how was that money being used? They suddenly proclaim themselves to be victims.

The only true ‘victims’ in any of this sordid mess was the Dowler family. They neither sought nor wanted media attention. When I stated earlier that the majority of journalist were true professionals, here we had an example of those who were not.

The arbitration system to allow victims of the press to seek redress without going through the courts is a diabolical suggestion. People will argue against me here but I see this as just another “cash cow” for people who have a grudge against the press. It is totally ludicrous and, I would think, unconstitutional for a regulatory body to be allowed to impose any form of redress against a newspaper or its journalists. We would soon reach the point, (much to the joy of Grant and Mosley) where newspaper editors would be afraid to put stories into print in case they brought the newspaper into disrepute.

The body should be independent of, current journalists, the government and commercial concerns and not include any serving editors, government members or MPs;

On the face of it a reasonable and sensible suggestion. However, the two words, “current & serving”, worry me. Also, who appoints people to this body. Will they be independent of current journalists, the government and commercial concerns, and not be serving editors, MPs or government members? 

We know from past experience, especially if Labour or LibDems have their sticky fingers anywhere near, that these “bodies” are usually filled with failed politicians, a Lord or a Lady and supplemented by professional quango panelists. I fear that this will turn out to be another crock of the dirty stuff.

Transparent as far as sources for information are concerned. Kiss goodbye to sources of information then. It has long been the LibDem contention that sources of information be put in the public domain. A very dangerous thing to want and, if I may say, a very sinister and populist attitude to take where the gathering of information is concerned. We all know how good the police are at protecting the public, except if your name is Abu Hamza al-Masri or Abu Qatada, then you are protected to the full extent of the law.

I believe this to be a very dangerous path to go down.

The last two bullet points are, I believe, nothing more than a sop to appease the very journalists that this report has slapped in the face.

Key Point 3, “No widespread corruption of police by the press was found.”

It is very interesting as to how this point is worded; “of the police by the press”. I can only assume that Lord Leveson was on a tea break during this part of the hearing because I was sure that many instances of collusion between police and the press were discussed. Yes, the former Met Police Assistant Commissioner, John Yates was criticised because he had friends at The News of the World. 

If their was no “widespread” evidence of police corruption does this not lead one to assume that there was some evidence of some corruption? That wording would imply that John Yates was not the only one in the Met involved. The law protecting the law?

Key Point 4; Politicians and press have been too close. 

As a statement, I would say very true, none more so than in the ‘New Labour years” under Tony Blair. He and his team of press officers manipulated the press at every twist and turn. We, as a gullible public, loved it. Not only that, it sold newspapers. 

Leveson states that the “relationship between politicians and press over the last three decades has damaged the perception of public affairs.” 

I don’t aspire to that view at all. What is the average person’s perception of public affairs? If Leveson had said “Manipulated” the view of public affairs, I would have agreed with him. Here though, we have a double edged sword. Politicians need the press and the press need politicians and this is where I find the good Lord showing some bias. David Cameron, who we all know is a close friend of Rebecca Brookes was cleared of being too close to the Murdoch media empire. How?

It’s like stating that Blair didn’t want to go to war with Iraq.

Finally, Key point 5, Press behaviour, at times, has been outrageous.

I can’t argue that this is not true. Given the facts which came out concerning phone hacking at the News of the World. I would argue however, that the precedent was set by the police and secret services who, through the Blair and Brown governments, were allowed to ride roughshod over every citizen in this country. Albeit all in the name of counter-terrorism. 

Leveson states that ‘when chasing stories, journalists have caused real hardship and, on occasion, wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people.’ This happened to both famous and members of the public.

I refer back to the, so called, celebrities of the entertainment industry who rely on the press for their fame because, in a lot of cases, their talent is so limited they need the press to boost their public profile. Fame is a dangerous game and its no good crying foul if you find yourself on the losing side.

I will admit that whilst I have no time at all for the pathetic bleatings of the likes of Grant, Mosley and the other ‘C’ - listers out there I do draw the line when the press unfairly intrudes into the private lives of real victims. Where there is a genuine lack of respect for individual privacy and dignity then the press should quite rightly be pulled up. 

If the Government is forced to adopt into legislation the recommendations of this report I think it will be very wrong. It will be another freedom being stripped from the Establishment, one that will suit the socialist left and the “do as I say not as I do” brigade far more than the people it purports to to be helping. If passed into law it will most definitely be a Charter for the Luvvies and the media manipulators.