Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Freedom of the press, UK style: Nice newspaper you've got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it   (telegraph.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Scary, culture secretary, nice, Leveson Inquiry, Press Complaints Commission, Maria Miller, political editor, director of communications  
•       •       •

9624 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Dec 2012 at 3:05 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-12-12 04:16:08 PM  
3 votes:

scopecreep: Has the UK ever even claimed they had a free and open press? I was under the impression that it just took a phone call from the palace to have stories held back. This is not my definition of a free and open press.


Would that be why the press regularly feature any and every embarrassing story with pics about anything any of the royals do? Duchess of York getting her toes sucked by a 'friend' while still married? Full story with pics. Prince Charles wishing he was a tampon? Every word printed. Every random guy that Diana farked? Named and shamed. The truth is the press print anything they like then face the court case later - a 3 line apology on page 27 is worth it.

The Press Freedom Index lists countries by press freedom. The UK is at number 28, considerably higher than the USA at number 47. What's happening in the US that your press is so repressed?
2012-12-12 04:39:56 PM  
2 votes:
The Telegraph can DIAF along with the tabloids as they passed on the entire expenses scandal and did nothing to investigate the journalists who were hacking phones left right a centre.

The Daily Mail is even worse as they employed the police officer in charge of the first hacking investigation that said it was a rogue staffer. They also passed on the expenses scandal and ignored the phone hacking.

The tabloids have intimidated politicians with threats to bury them in sleaze (real or made up) if you spoke against them

The Sun has written more column inches about Imogene Thomas' choice of bikinis than the entire phone hacking story.

We have enough laws to deal with the illegal shiat that the newspapers have pulled. What we need is a police force that isn't buying holiday homes in Spain with money from the newspapers and a cheaper route for the general public to get privacy/libel/slander protection.
2012-12-12 04:36:12 PM  
2 votes:

Millennium: Spiralmonkey: We have the Bill of Rights and the first amendment. Britain does not. I don't see anything wrong with this story. Does anything about Britans laws guarantee freedom of the press? If not that what is the issue here?

So let me ask you this. You said that you hope he will ignore calls to regulate the press and ignore the whole phone hacking things. Rupert Murdoch had his employees hacking into peoples private phones. If it were up to me he would be put to death.

Yes. The European Convention of Human Rights

Insufficiently protective language. All it does is call on governments to recognize these rights, rather than forbidding them from infringing upon said rights, and the "acceptable" infringements are far too vaguely worded.


It's law under the Human Rights Act 1998.
2012-12-12 03:46:09 PM  
2 votes:
Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big t!ts.

/Yes, Prime Minister
2012-12-13 11:25:28 AM  
1 vote:

Slaxl: scopecreep: Has the UK ever even claimed they had a free and open press? I was under the impression that it just took a phone call from the palace to have stories held back. This is not my definition of a free and open press.

Your impression is slightly misguided. They were free to ignore the call. They wouldn't have been thrown in the tower and beheaded for publishing an article bad for the monarchy. They just ask the journalists nicely to delay publicising a story. Anyone can do that, more people than the Royals do, it's just a simple courtesy the press may extend if they're feeling charitable. Given the amount of bad stuff that gets printed about the monarchy you can't surely believe they have editorial rights over all papers?


Like the way no US newspapers revealed the fact that FDR was wheelchair bound for years.
2012-12-13 11:24:46 AM  
1 vote:

Max Awesome: kg2095: cirby: Pert:
We have an extraordinarily free press in the UK, enshrined both in our unwritten constitution and the Rule of Law, and in written law via the Human Rights Act.

...as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone, that is. And plays by the rules.

A little reminder: you folks have been telling us for YEARS how wonderful the BBC is, and how fair it is, and how well it covers the news... except for the decades of covering up for child molesters because it would be embarrassing to the BBC and the politicians who rule it.

Do you have any evidence that the BBC knew about Jimmy Savile's vile crimes before the victims came forward this year? Because that is a prerequisite for alleging a cover up.


The fact that they killed the Newsnight story about him and replaced it with a glowing tribute has sunk their reputation irretrievably.


The fact that Newsnight spent time investigating Savile with a view to broadcast surely proves there was no BBC cover up. If there was the NN investigation would have been killed at birth. As it was the senior editor asked for evidence that the key witness said she had, and gave the team a week to get it and the broadcast would go ahead. They never got that proof because, as even the BBC-hating Daily Mail reported, the witness way lying or had been hoaxed. The letter she had was a fake, and the main claim that the Police dropped the investigation into Savile because of his age and senility was false. They dropped the investigation because they found no proof to support the allegation.

And they didn't "replace" the NN report with glowing tributes, the tributes were already in motion before NN started their investigation.
2012-12-13 02:08:49 AM  
1 vote:

kg2095: cirby: Pert:
We have an extraordinarily free press in the UK, enshrined both in our unwritten constitution and the Rule of Law, and in written law via the Human Rights Act.

...as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone, that is. And plays by the rules.

A little reminder: you folks have been telling us for YEARS how wonderful the BBC is, and how fair it is, and how well it covers the news... except for the decades of covering up for child molesters because it would be embarrassing to the BBC and the politicians who rule it.

Do you have any evidence that the BBC knew about Jimmy Savile's vile crimes before the victims came forward this year? Because that is a prerequisite for alleging a cover up.


The fact that they killed the Newsnight story about him and replaced it with a glowing tribute has sunk their reputation irretrievably.
2012-12-12 11:27:02 PM  
1 vote:

cirby: Pert:
We have an extraordinarily free press in the UK, enshrined both in our unwritten constitution and the Rule of Law, and in written law via the Human Rights Act.

...as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone, that is. And plays by the rules.

A little reminder: you folks have been telling us for YEARS how wonderful the BBC is, and how fair it is, and how well it covers the news... except for the decades of covering up for child molesters because it would be embarrassing to the BBC and the politicians who rule it.


Do you have any evidence that the BBC knew about Jimmy Savile's vile crimes before the victims came forward this year? Because that is a prerequisite for alleging a cover up.

The BBC, NPR, New York Times and Germany's Deutsche Welle are the only media outlets where I know I can always find intelligent, entertaining content. All the others are targeting the moron market.
2012-12-12 06:33:39 PM  
1 vote:
Pert:
We have an extraordinarily free press in the UK, enshrined both in our unwritten constitution and the Rule of Law, and in written law via the Human Rights Act.

...as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone, that is. And plays by the rules.

A little reminder: you folks have been telling us for YEARS how wonderful the BBC is, and how fair it is, and how well it covers the news... except for the decades of covering up for child molesters because it would be embarrassing to the BBC and the politicians who rule it.
2012-12-12 06:32:40 PM  
1 vote:

scopecreep: Has the UK ever even claimed they had a free and open press? I was under the impression that it just took a phone call from the palace to have stories held back. This is not my definition of a free and open press.


Considering all the Royal stories published that they would have preferred not to have been published this is clearly rubbish. I'm sure the Royals, like anyone, could "ask" a newspaper not to publish anyone and the paper could decide to oblige. How is that not free? How many years did US papers not report that stars like Rock Hudson were gay? They could have published, being a free press, but they chose not to.
2012-12-12 06:27:29 PM  
1 vote:

Pert: Lot of derp in here regarding British freedom of the press and the press being controlled by the Royal or the government.

Awful lot of derp.

We have an extraordinarily free press in the UK, enshrined both in our unwritten constitution and the Rule of Law, and in written law via the Human Rights Act.


Is that why Simon Singh had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money to protect himself from the quackery of the british chiropractors? Or why the phrase "libel tourism" was created pretty much to describe how easy it is to sue someone from anywhere in the world for supposed libel in England?
2012-12-12 05:49:09 PM  
1 vote:
Lot of derp in here regarding British freedom of the press and the press being controlled by the Royal or the government.

Awful lot of derp.

We have an extraordinarily free press in the UK, enshrined both in our unwritten constitution and the Rule of Law, and in written law via the Human Rights Act.
2012-12-12 04:37:04 PM  
1 vote:

Millennium: Spiralmonkey: The Press Freedom Index lists countries by press freedom. The UK is at number 28, considerably higher than the USA at number 47. What's happening in the US that your press is so repressed?

Nothing, really, if one goes by the report that created this index. Some reporters got mixed up in the OWS reports, were arrested along with the others, and this equated to a 27-place drop.


What about all the other years before OWS when UK consistently ranked higher than US?
2012-12-12 04:22:26 PM  
1 vote:

Warlordtrooper: Slaxl: It bothers me how many stupid people there are in this country saying that regulation of the press is needed to stop infractions like the NotW phone hacking and other egregious violations of the law by the press.

We already have laws that deal with those crimes, if we just apply them now we won't need to give up rights and a free press. But people are bloody stupid and can't see the hand in front of their face for all the misplaced outrage they have.

Fark Leveson, I'm really starting to hope that Cameron is such good friends with Rebekah Brookes and Rupert Murdoch that he will ignore the calls to regulate the press. He'd be doing the right thing but for the wrong reason, and I can live with that.

We have the Bill of Rights and the first amendment. Britain does not. I don't see anything wrong with this story. Does anything about Britans laws guarantee freedom of the press? If not that what is the issue here?

So let me ask you this. You said that you hope he will ignore calls to regulate the press and ignore the whole phone hacking things. Rupert Murdoch had his employees hacking into peoples private phones. If it were up to me he would be put to death.


Yes. The European Convention of Human Rights

Article 10, Freedom of Expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold
opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities
and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing of
broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be
subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are
necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public
safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the
protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information
received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority or impartiality of the judiciary.
2012-12-12 04:21:17 PM  
1 vote:
Seems to me this Miller woman has more to worry about than the newspaper.
2012-12-12 04:20:56 PM  
1 vote:
Doesn't the UK government already own and operate the dominant news organization in the UK?
2012-12-12 04:13:51 PM  
1 vote:

Slaxl: It bothers me how many stupid people there are in this country saying that regulation of the press is needed to stop infractions like the NotW phone hacking and other egregious violations of the law by the press.

We already have laws that deal with those crimes, if we just apply them now we won't need to give up rights and a free press. But people are bloody stupid and can't see the hand in front of their face for all the misplaced outrage they have.

Fark Leveson, I'm really starting to hope that Cameron is such good friends with Rebekah Brookes and Rupert Murdoch that he will ignore the calls to regulate the press. He'd be doing the right thing but for the wrong reason, and I can live with that.


We have the Bill of Rights and the first amendment. Britain does not. I don't see anything wrong with this story. Does anything about Britans laws guarantee freedom of the press? If not that what is the issue here?

So let me ask you this. You said that you hope he will ignore calls to regulate the press and ignore the whole phone hacking things. Rupert Murdoch had his employees hacking into peoples private phones. If it were up to me he would be put to death.
2012-12-12 04:11:51 PM  
1 vote:
Re, the UK and freedom of speech. They are a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights and have incorporated most if not all of its provisions into their own legal system. Yes, Americans, other countries do indeed have freedom of speech, expression, etc. As far as freedom of the press, American media seem to be specialists in partisan propaganda rather than reportage in many cases.
2012-12-12 04:09:22 PM  
1 vote:
Insatiable Jesus:
Sounds like a right winger's wet dream.

Why do people always say this after a left wing politician pulls this crap? It happens so often, it's not even a left-winger's dream at all, it's just doing business as usual.
2012-12-12 04:01:03 PM  
1 vote:

what_now: Wait, British Newspapers don't follow the US Bill of Rights??

Damnit Obama


The United States didn't invent freedom of the press, dumb-ass.
2012-12-12 03:27:14 PM  
1 vote:
Slaxl [TotalFark]
2012-12-12 12:12:23 PM

It bothers me how many stupid people there are in this country saying that regulation of the press is needed to stop infractions like the NotW phone hacking and other egregious violations of the law by the press.

We already have laws that deal with those crimes, if we just apply them now we won't need to give up rights and a free press. But people are bloody stupid and can't see the hand in front of their face for all the misplaced outrage they have.

And Fools on both side of the political spectrum do it. The left wants to expand government control to ban / restrict what they hate, the neo-cons want to expand the government control to ban / restrict what they hate.

When faced with the pains of freedom, men beg for their chains.
2012-12-12 03:20:23 PM  
1 vote:
content8.flixster.com

Lies are not freedom.
2012-12-12 03:18:10 PM  
1 vote:
Has the UK ever even claimed they had a free and open press? I was under the impression that it just took a phone call from the palace to have stories held back. This is not my definition of a free and open press.
2012-12-12 01:51:08 PM  
1 vote:

Superrad: You know, not engaging in wide-spread, long-term, illegal behavior might have kept this sort of thing from happening. If you can't police yourself, someone else will do it eventually.


If their actions are illegal then why can't they be charged and dealt with under the existing laws that they broke? The police should be policing them, and the government should be more concerned with the fact that the police didn't, and indeed took bribes to look the other way or engage in even more criminal activities. Instead of focusing on that people are simply saying we shouldn't have a free press anymore. It's too asinine.
2012-12-12 12:31:46 PM  
1 vote:
You know, not engaging in wide-spread, long-term, illegal behavior might have kept this sort of thing from happening. If you can't police yourself, someone else will do it eventually.
2012-12-12 12:12:23 PM  
1 vote:
It bothers me how many stupid people there are in this country saying that regulation of the press is needed to stop infractions like the NotW phone hacking and other egregious violations of the law by the press.

We already have laws that deal with those crimes, if we just apply them now we won't need to give up rights and a free press. But people are bloody stupid and can't see the hand in front of their face for all the misplaced outrage they have.

Fark Leveson, I'm really starting to hope that Cameron is such good friends with Rebekah Brookes and Rupert Murdoch that he will ignore the calls to regulate the press. He'd be doing the right thing but for the wrong reason, and I can live with that.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report