A draft Royal Charter on the Self-Regulation of the Press has finally been agreed by the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.

According to the First Post Online, Culture Secretary Maria Miller says Britain will have one of the toughest press regulators in the world under the new plan which has been put forward by David Cameron. Talk about being one of the most democratic countries in the world. But how will the new ‘watchdog’ policy operate? Some people (Labour) believe it will ‘safeguard against media abuses’, but I think it will completely cripple the idealism of free press.

So what was wrong with the old system? Well, from what I have learnt, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) which is a self-regulated body does have it’s flaws and has been dubbed as a ‘lapdog’ rather than a watchdog by The Guardian.

As far as I can see, the PCC was like declaring ‘Parlay’ in the Pirates of the Carribean – it was more like guidelines than actual rules.

This could be seen as a problem, however as the previous chairman of the PCC Sir Christopher Meyer has said, only a desperate man would lower to the services and flaws of the PCC.

As far as I am concerned, I would pay the price of risking the odd ‘media abuses’ if it mean’t sustaining the integrity of free press in the UK.

What newspaper is even going to risk provoking the public again after the Leveson inquiry and the closure of Britain’s most popular newspaper, The News of the World….

The thought of a ‘press regulator’ does not fill me with hope of a moral tomorrow, but a slippery slope to fascism.

Think about it, why are newspaper editors going to publish a story which is going to potentially cost them £1 million? There not. Even if it is in your public interest, they will choose to remain ignorant. We will become ignorant and our children will be ignorant.

Even if we did have a press regulator, I think it would be unlikely that statutory regulation of the press would have prevented the Phone Hacking scandal anymore than the failure of the PCC.

Now I’m not saying that nothing should be done about how the press is regulated – I think incidents like the Phone Hacking Scandal are atrocious but if we completely obstruct a journalist performing there job correctly, i.e. acting in the public’s interest, then we need to have a serious think about whether we’re still a democratically driven country.

 As an in-training journalist and a British citizen, I object to the watchdog policy.

Journalists from Rupert Murdoch’s now-defunct News of the World have been jailed, more working for other titles face charges and victims have received up to $4-million in compensation. All this under existing laws.

But after the ponderous Leveson inquiry into phone hacking, British politicians felt they had to do something, anything. A  deal was cooked up in dark of night between the three major political parties and the lobby group Hacked Off — no newspaper representatives were present.

It envisages media regulation by Royal charter, and would bring the press under state control for the first time since 1771, when John Wilkes established their right to report parliamentary proceedings uncensored. So far no major newspaper publisher has signed on.

Americans are aghast — it could never happen this side of the Atlantic because of the First Amendment guaranteeing the right of free speech.

Sadly, it’s all part of the deferential creep to the powerful and politically well connected that has made Britain such a fruitful jurisdiction for libel actions. This is also the country that invented the disgraceful super-injunction, a gag order by any other name, that sheltered such adulterers as Bank of Scotland head Fred Godwin and Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson.

Writing in the National Review, John O’Sullivan says the motives are all too obvious.

With all their flaws, Britain’s newspapers — not least the despised tabloids and the Daily Mail, hated for its strong defence of middle-class values — have uncovered a series of grave public scandals, including the fraudulent misuse of parliamentary expenses by MPs, that have embarrassed the politicians and the establishment … [The Leveson inquiry] was launched because Labour and Liberal Democrat parties wanted to get revenge on the conservative tabloids that they blame for their inability to keep working-class voters on the left-liberal plantation. They saw a chance to establish a system of press control that would protect them against the tabloids in future.

The front page of The Spectator, Britain’s oldest continuously published magazine, makes its response clear: it says simply “NO. ” As editor Fraser Nelson explains,

Yes, there have been horrific abuses by the press. But this was already illegal: this is why so many journalists have been arrested and why so many will go to jail.  No new laws are required. No political oversight is required. The Royal Charter would have done nothing to help the McCanns, Chris Jeffreys – or, indeed, Hugh Grant and Max Mosley. But it would help the ministers who want to speak softly to the press, while carrying a big stick. And anyone who thinks the loss of UK press freedom would not have any international effects should think how often Ireland is being cited as an example for our Press to accept political control.

The Daily Mirror’s Kevin Maguire is another who blames the politicians.

I know from conversations with many politicians of all parties they dislike a probing, often raucous press.
MPs’ expenses was a turning point and Parliament is to settle an old score.
MPs and Peers who defend their own free speech in the Commons and Lords don’t give a XXXX for the risks faced by people outside.
The great irony is the hacking which shut the News of the World is already illegal. Paying a policeman is a specific offence in law, punishable by prison.
The laws existed – the problem was they weren’t enforced by the cops.

Quentin Letts at the Daily Mail reports on the choleric — and chilling — response of a pro-Leveson MP.

Twelve hours after the Commons voted to kill the ancient freedoms of England’s Press, Scots-socialist lovely Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley) suggested that journalists who show insufficient respect to MPs should be booted off the premises.
Calling such scribes ‘a parasitical element’, he growled: ‘They abuse their position, hiding behind their pens and calling people names. I don’t know why they’re allowed here.’
Mr, Sheridan has long been one of the sketchwriting guild’s best clients. He is just such fun to describe, a hunched ball of scowling, scarlet crossness, steaming like a Chinaman’s laundry.

In refreshing contrast, The Daily Telegraph’s Boris Johnson — a frequent target of Fleet Street’s finest — defends

[T]he freedom of the press to speak truth to power: to ridicule, to satirize – even to vilify – and to expose wrongdoing.
Of course, not every businessperson or investor may personally relish the exuberance and ferocity of the British media … Like any strong detergent, the work of the British media may cause a certain smarting of the eyes. But if you want to keep clean the gutters of public life, you need a gutter press.
Since the days of Wilkes, the media have been lifting up the big, flat rocks to let the daylight in on the creepy-crawlies; and in all that time we have never come close to the state licensing of newspapers

compiled by Araminta Wordsworth
awordsworth@nationalpost.com

Tom Harper interviews war criminal Tony Blair

The feverish speculation around the identity of the Hackgate supergrass has reached new heights this week and the Evening Standard has Dan Evans in its sights.

I was contacted earlier this week by Tom Harper through the Twitter DM service and he asked for my help in exposing Dan Evans as the supergrass.

Harper wanted any information I had on Evans and wanted me to meet him in London to hand over a package of emails and recorded telephone calls.

I told Harper that  I would think about it but later he suggested that he travel to Derbyshire from London to meet me and collect the material. I rejected the offer.

He insinuated that I was “protecting a friend” but I pointed out to him that Evans was not a “friend” but rather someone I got on with quite well during his time at the Sunday Mirror and NOTW.

Photograph of Dan Evans leaked on internet by the BNP

The attempt at manipulation did not work and I removed Harper from my timeline last night after he sent me an abusive email through Hushmail because I had blown his secrecy.

Harper wanted no one to know that he had contacted me and was annoyed I tweeted him openly on Twitter. Why such feverish paranoia?

He wrote, ‘I regard you as a highly sensitive contact’ and then wanted me to talk to him on Skype, which offer I refused.

In essence, Harper wants to invade privacy and probe Evans and remain concealed and protected throughout the whole process.

He also wanted to know if Evans lives in Hayes or West London and I said, “I have no idea and wouldn’t tell you if I did”.

Having been subjected to a deny reference campaign in the British press since 2006, it is astonishing that these people have the audacity now to ask for my assistance.

But this was no glorious crusade to expose the truth. On the contrary, Harper was just looking for a scalp and Evans was the man in his sights. He had previously exposed Neville Thurlbeck as a registered police informant but that was common knowledge in the industry for years before Harper got on to the case.

Damning letter from Simon Heffer proves British newspapers have colluded for years over corruption

I have heard all the promises going from newspapers and am reminded of the Daily Mail smear in 2004, when I was promised one thing and then subjected to a two-page hit piece, edited personally by Paul Dacre.

My complaint against the Daily Mail was upheld at the PCC and I was given a private and public apology by the newspaper and a financial package.

What on earth gives journalists the notion that I would now return to the fray to help them do a job on Dan Evans? I am not for sale and the material I have on Evans is not for sale either.

I have stored the data in a separate safe location on a biometric HDD protected with an anti-tamper device. Anyone who locates it will destroy the data immediately by not having the registered fingerprints. Likewise, if the HDD is opened at the rear, the anti-tamper trigger will shatter the HDD making the data unrecoverable.

I suggested that Harper could see the material after the criminal trials had taken place some months down the line. But he was not content with that and wanted to see the material urgently.

Why such urgency? On the one hand he claims to be prevented by contempt of court from publishing anything about Evans before the criminal trials but on the other hand, wanted damaging information on him immediately. He was even prepared to travel from London to Derbyshire to collect said material.

This does not suggest a journalist with a laid back attitude content to wait until the criminal trials are over but rather someone prepared to test the contempt of court issue at the earliest stage.

Discrediting Evans now will only help the journo-crooks about to stand trial or being investigated by the police. I want the criminal trials against the Hackgate accused to succeed and will do nothing to derail due process.

But there is now little doubt that journalists are convinced Dan Evans is the supergrass and they want every scrap of dirty they can find on him. Why?

Evans is helping to nail the journo-crooks and has betrayed the industry in the eyes of journalists. Why would journalists want to nail him for no other reason than to prejudice the criminal trials and civil cases involving Evans?

Is this nepotism again, mere scalp hunting or trying to secure dirt on a supergrass to hand over to police and/or intelligence contacts/sponsors?

Harper told me that he had no doubt Evans has been a police informant with contacts in the police and intelligence services for many years. I don’t doubt it but I am not helping anyone to derail him on the foregoing grounds.

Moreover, I owe the press nothing. I am happy and content to watch dozens of journo-crooks go to prison and will do nothing to help them.

In fact, Harper was so desperate to get his hands on my material on Dan Evans that he offered to pay my expenses out of his own pocket. I have kept records of all of my correspondence with Harper…

The clean-up operation continues.

First, Jamieson claims that, since the provisions of the proposed Royal Charter will be entrenched by clause 92 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which applies to Scotland, the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate to amend the Royal Charter or provide that it should not apply to Scotland.  Clause 92 provides that the Charter cannot be amended except in accordance with the procedure laid out in the Charter itself (two thirds majority of each House).  As Jacob Rowbottom has argued on this blog, the degree of entrenchment actually provided by this device is limited because clause 92 can itself be repealed or amended by subsequent UK legislation with no special majority.

To argue that the Scottish Parliament will nevertheless bound be by clause 92 therefore requires the further claim that, because clause 92 (however indirectly) ‘occupies the field’ in relation to press regulation, the Scotland Act 1998 will be impliedly repealed insofar as it devolves power to legislate on that issue to the Scottish Parliament.  There are at least three ways of responding to this implied repeal argument, all of which lead to the conclusion that the Scottish Parliament will not in fact be bound by clause 92.

The first, and most speculative, response would be to rely on Laws LJ’s obiter dictum in Thoburn to the effect that, since the Scotland Act is a constitutional statute, it cannot be impliedly repealed.  This would mean that the only way in which the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence can be reduced would be through express amendment via primary legislation or a section 30 order, either of which would require (by convention, in the former case, and by statute, in the latter) the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

It is, however, unnecessary to adopt such a heterodox approach.  A second, more conventional, approach would be to accept that the Scotland Act may be impliedly repealed, but to argue, as Barber and Young have done (‘The Rise of Prospective Henry VIII Clauses and Their Implications for Sovereignty’ [2003] PL 112, pp 112-6), that a statute can only be impliedly repealed by a subsequent statute on the same subject matter, not merely by a later conflicting statutory norm.  Since the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill does not deal with the same subject matter as the Scotland Act (the division between reserved and devolved legislative competences), it cannot impliedly repeal the transfer of power to the Scottish Parliament effected by the Scotland Act even if a norm contained within it or flowing from it for the time being ‘occupies the field’ of a particular devolved competence.  It would, on this analysis, still be open to the Scottish Parliament to assert its legislative competence in relation to press regulation and repeal (expressly or impliedly) the provisions contained in clause 92.

A third, even more conventional approach, would lead to the same conclusion.  This would be to accept that a statutory provision can be impliedly repealed by a later inconsistent statutory norm, even if the subject matter of the two statutes is not identical.  This view, however, requires a more nuanced approach to when such a conflict arises.  In relation to the Scotland Act 1998, for instance, it may be argued that the transfer of legislative competence in devolved areas to the Scottish Parliament is not inconsistent with (and therefore not impliedly repealed by) later UK legislation on a devolved matter because the Scotland Act itself, in s.28(7) expressly envisages that such a situation may occur.  This approach suggests that the Scotland Act, properly understood, involves a sharing of legislative power between the UK and Scottish Parliaments, and that the latest norm on a particular devolved matter will prevail irrespective of the Parliament from which it emanates.  This analysis would appear to be the one which best fits the post-devolution legislative practice, where the Scottish Parliament has regularly consented to allow the UK Parliament to legislate on its behalf, but has on some occasions subsequently amended such legislation.

The second point which arises out of Jamieson’s blog concerns whether the UK government is legally or constitutionally entitled to impose a system of press regulation on Scotland via the royal prerogative.  The constitutional position, as set out in written answer by Tony Blair on 30 June 1999,  is that where the exercise of prerogative powers relates to a matter within devolved competence, it is for the First Minister rather than Ministers of the Crown to advise the Queen.  The situation is slightly different in relation to business of the Privy Council, such as grant or amendment of a Royal Charter, because it is the Privy Council as a whole rather than a particular minister which advises the Queen.  Nevertheless, the written answer states that:

‘the advice in relation to a particular matter which the Privy Council offers to Her Majesty is in many instances based, either by virtue of statutory provision but more often by convention, on advice or information provided to the Privy Council by one or more particular Ministers of the Crown as the Privy Counsellor with the principal interest in that matter.’

It goes on to state that, in areas of devolved competence, the Privy Counsellor with the principal interest would be the First Minister (who is a member of the Privy Council).

It is not clear from these provisions whether the Privy Council as a whole is entitled to depart from the advice of the principal minister.  Where there is a conflict of views between members of the same administration it may perhaps be argued that the majority view should prevail.  However, in the case of a conflict between the view of the First Minister and other Privy Counsellors representing the UK government, there is a strong case (for the reasons that Jamieson outlines) for saying that it should not.

Given that the question of who should advise the monarch on the exercise of the royal prerogative is a matter of convention rather than law, it may be difficult to argue that the UK government would be acting illegally if the Privy Council were to recommend the adoption of a system of press regulation applying throughout the UK in the face of Scottish opposition.  As a matter of constitutional morality, though, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that to treat the design of a new UK-wide system of press regulation as a matter for negotiation purely between the main parties in the UK Parliament is constitutionally improper.

Contrary to Jamieson, therefore, I would argue that just because the UK government has chosen a regulatory vehicle which manages to avoid the application of the Sewel Convention, it does not thereby follow that the Scottish Parliament is compelled to accept it or deprived of its competence to legislate for a different system of press regulation in Scotland.

(I am grateful to Chris Himsworth for his very helpful comments on this note and particularly for alerting me to the Blair written answer.)

Aileen McHarg is Professor of Public Law at the  University of Strathclyde.

The draft Royal Charter flows from the Leveson Report. In is interesting that those who complained that Lord Justice Leveson failed to deal with the internet now appear to complain the measures taken to implement the report do include the internet.

A number of commentators such as Hugo Rifkind in the Times (£) argue that the effect of the draft Royal Charter will be that “anybody with a point to make or an accusation to level” will be subject to the same form of regulation as a newspaper and the possibility of £1 m fines (should they choose to sign up to the proposed regulator) or exemplary damages (if they don’t). I have to say I disagree.

Looking at both the draft Royal Charter and the Crime and Courts Bill it is of note that there are differing definitions of “relevant publishers”.

The definition of “relevant publisher” as it applies to a website within the draft Royal Charter (at Schedule 4) is:

“a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine).”

 Importantly, a person publishes in the United Kingdom if:

“the publication takes places in the United Kingdom or is targeted primarily at an audience in the United Kingdom”

This definition is deliberately permissive as it allows anyone who wishes to join the regulatory system to do so.

One also needs to look at the definition of a “relevant publisher” as proposed in the amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill (see amendment 18) to see what the situation would be if you are not signed up the regulatory system. Here the definition is as follows:

 “a person, who in the course of business (whether or not with a view to profit), publishes news related material-

(a)   Which is written by different authors;

(b)   Which is to any extent subject to editorial control”

 This definition is somewhat narrower than that contained within the Royal Charter no doubt as it is specifically dealing with the various ‘carrots and sticks’ for those who choose not to sign up to the regulator.

In light of these definitions individual bloggers are unlikely to be subject to the new proposed regulatory regime. So for example those individual blogs on WordPress or Blogger would remain unregulated and not subject to the adverse costs awards, or possibility of exemplary damages, that can result from not signing up as members of the proposed regulator. On the other hand websites such run by those such as the Huffington Post or Guido Fawkes could be.

Paul Staines’s ‘Guido Fawkes’ website for instance has a number of contributors, is run as a business and despite being off shore is targeted primarily at an audience in the United Kingdom. Whilst he is entitled to protest and refuse to join the regulator one has to ask, from a commercial perspective, why such a website would do so?

If the website continues to publish articles within the law it has nothing to fear. If it was to stray into libellous (or otherwise unlawful) territory it would be able to benefit from the proposed arbitration system which would be considerably cheaper than fighting High Court litigation, in which it would most likely be liable for the costs of in any event given most disputes will be able to be dealt with under the arbitration scheme.

Following the recent decision in Thompson v James [2013] EWHC 515 (QB) (see here for case comment) the claimant, who lost her case and was successfully sued herself, has said that she is unable to pay the £25,000 damages let alone the costs involved with a 6 day High Court trial. Had the new regulatory regime been in place, and Ms Thompson been a member, no doubt she would have benefited from a user friendly, speedy and considerably less costly arbitration process. All this is all the more relevant if the abolition of CFAs (currently on hold for libel and privacy claims) goes ahead.

As to the threat of exemplary damages for those who don’t sign up to the proposed regulator, these are only to be awarded “where the defendant’s conduct has shown a deliberate or reckless disregard of an outrageous nature for the claimant’s rights.” Even if this high threshold is met the Courts are likely to consider the offending party’s financial circumstances, and ability to pay, when assessing the amount of exemplary damages that should be payable.

Maria Miller, the Culture Secretary, appears to support this view as when asked to comment on this issue she said the “publisher would have to meet the three tests of whether the publication is publishing news-related material in the course of a business, whether their material is written by a range of authors – this would exclude a one-man band or a single blogger – and whether that material is subject to editorial control“. Miller also highlighted the various bodies excluded from this definition which includes broadcasters, special interest titles, scientific journals, public bodies and charities, company news publications and book publishers.

Whichever way ones look at it the law with regards to the internet remains uncertain; regulating it, even less so.

What of organisations such as Google, Facebook and Twitter? These companies will need to look closely at the draft Royal Charter and the way in which it affects them. Whilst on the face of it they are conduits for others to publish blogs or micro blogs do they in fact exert editorial control, such as to fall within the definition of “relevant publisher” through their use of various algorithms? They will also need to have in mind the recent decision in Tamiz v Google [2013] EWCA Civ 68 (see here for case comment) in which the Court of Appeal held that Google could be liable as a publisher at common law.

It is clear that these companies all make a significant amount of money within the United Kingdom and that they, along with other websites which are run as businesses, should be subject to the same rule of law as everyone else.

Whilst the individual blogger, passionate about his or her subject, should be offered some protection from the ‘stick’ of the not being a member of the proposed regulator it appears safeguards already exist; perhaps someone just needs to report this fact to them.

That said, there can be no denying that in this day and age individuals still retain the power to cause untold damage through their publications online. One tweet from Justin Bieber can reach 36 million followers in an instant, many more than the daily circulation all of the newspapers in this country (and several others) combined; and therein lies the problem which remains to be addressed.

Tim Lowles is a Senior Associate in the IP and Reputation Management team at Collyer Bristow. He can be followed on Twitter at @timlowles.

1. Anyone in a white coat with experience jamming needles into different parts of the body.

2. Anyone in a white coat.

3. Anyone attending a funeral who says, “Well, they’re in a better place now.”

4. Basically every political leader in the western world.

5. A dog who craps on my newspaper every morning.

6. Anyone whose hobby is getting together in the woods to worship owls and run around naked – wait, I covered that in #4.

7. Anyone who leaves the door open while using the washroom.

8. Anyone who calls the washroom their “office.”

9. Anyone who voted for a world leader who yearns for the “old days.”

10. PDAs (Public Displays of Affection). Get a room, would you?

Related articles

• !Kimberly-Clark Professional – Kleenex Towels Kleenex Hard Roll Washroom Towel Wht 12 Rol/Cs: 412-01080 – kleenex hard roll washroom towel wht 12 rol/cs (kimberlyclarkprofessionalwashroom4120108n5sale.wordpress.com)
• Is that red light a camera in the washroom?! (claassenx.wordpress.com)
• Lessons from a broken ring (annieyahaya.wordpress.com)
• Politician (wordsrhymesandrhythm.wordpress.com)
• NACCHO Press Release:Aboriginal Community Controlled Health vital to closing the gap (nacchocommunique.com)
• !c-600′ White Hardwound Towel (12) (c600whitehardwoundtowel129sale.wordpress.com)
• Serendipity (blowingthrumymind.wordpress.com)

Lord Leveson: an Appetite for Tyranny

We British prove ourselves, in spite of our vain national mythology to the contrary, a basically servile people. Again and again we are shafted, our liberties encroached upon, our currency raped, our officials corrupted, our national defences demolished, our infrastructure abused, our children perverted, our private life invaded, our livelihoods taken from us, our hard-earned cash diluted, polluted, and robbed, by the State. We do NOTHING; and every five years, we vote for more of the same.

Either we will fight, or we will perish. This latest act of constitutional vandalism, in the creation of de facto State censorship of the press, will pass without any serious challenge. People will grumble and mope and moan, but we will continue on our present path down to Hell, unshaken in our foul, virulent, pervasive, and fatal idolatry of Power which is the hallmark of all Protestant states.

At heart, I think the Englishman longs for tyranny; he no longer has any appetite for Liberty. Long decadence, carnality, and all the pleasures of this world have darkened his heart, and he now sees only those things which oppose his immediate comfort and pleasure, and those things which promise to increase it. And so he is delighted to have false whores for Politicians, who will bribe him with his own money, and flatter his conceits. He is delighted to be fed excrement by the commercial press, because he is delighted to live and embrace a Lie.

Woe to the English! God’s wrath, sine dubito, burns hottest against men like these: either we will remember our Christian courage for liberty, or we will relapse into the servitude and barbarism of our heathen ancestry. There is no middle road: the hour is already very late. As for me: civis Romanus sum!

‘The press are there to make our politicians accountable’ is something that I’ve heard quite often recently; now I’m not quite sure how people have managed to reach that conclusion because the reality is, that we, as the electorate are the ones that actually have that role. The press are there simply to report the truth to a wider audience in a way that no private individual could so, that is all. Essentially the press are just exercising freedom of speech on a mass level. So why are we at this stage? Well undoubtedly journalists overstepped the mark when it came to the means of obtaining information; by hacking the voicemails of many prominent figures, the British press jumped headfirst into a moral cesspit. As well as abandoning any sort of ethical principles, they also broke criminal laws; people have been, and will be, punished accordingly. So why the need for more regulation? The truth I think lies in the fact that people have become somewhat disillusioned by the standard of the media in this country (most notably the tabloid newspapers) and infatuated by the stories of the victims of the hacking scandal.

So what does this Royal Charter actually mean? It means that there will be new watchdog set up with the power to fine media outlets up to £1m if they breach the standards code that will be set, and to make newspapers issue prominent corrections and apologies if they breach this code. As well as these powers a new service that will handle complaints quickly, as well as being free of charge, will be established; meaning anyone who has a grievance with the press can take action against them. Now all of these powers seem fairly sensible, but are they truly necessary, and are they fair? For starters media organisations may be subject to harsher punishments if they don’t sign up to the regulator. And then what exactly does adherence to the code entail? It seems unlikely a truly objective code that will stop all press wrongdoings, but won’t stifle it’s ability to report sensitive and damaging stories is possible. Have we started to walk towards the nightmare scenario of a state-regulated press?

The ability that parliament now has to alter this Royal Charter, if there is a two-thirds majority in favour of doing so, I find slightly troubling. If this were to happen in a month, a year or a decade it would most probably mean one thing: more regulation. We are at the stage where our commitment to freedom of speech has been tested, and maybe we have already gone too far. With this mechanism in place, if a political scandal in the future is unearthed by the press, then theoretically parliament would be able to move the goalposts in terms if what the press can and can’t do, by voting to amend the Royal Charter.

It’s at times like this we need to think long and hard about the society we want to be. Maybe we, as the public, and as consumers shoulder some of the blame and responsibility for the position we find ourselves in. We have the power to condemn certain types of journalism and certain news groups by choosing to not buy their products, like anything it is a consumer driven market. I think there is some condemnation, but very little action. People are very quick to label actions as wrong, but not so quick to show this by turning their backs on certain publications. Will this change? I’m very skeptical. Has our love affair as a nation with substandard, formulaic, trashy news become more of an unhealthy marriage than just a sordid fling? Perhaps.

I think that ultimately as a society we have all failed. The press failed when they decided to begin a race to the bottom in terms of the quality of their publications; and they failed when they began a culture of harassment, that led to illegal practices such as phone hacking. We, the public, failed when we didn’t condemn the ethical decline of our media by continuing to buy products of certain organisations. And our politicians failed us when they decided to take us down a path that has the potential to lead to a state-run press.

It was for this reason that the Scottish Government appointed an Expert Group under the chairmanship of  Lord McCluskey  to consider what was the most appropriate way of giving effect to that Report in Scotland. The Expert Group has now published their report but it has been met with an almost universal hostile reception by the press.

However, the Expert Group Report may, to a large extent, now be irrelevant.  This is as a  result of the way in which the UK Government is proposing to give effect to the  main recommendations in Leveson regarding the setting up of the Recognition Panel  to recognise the independent regulatory body for the press.   The UK Government propose to do so by means of a Royal Charter. This will be contained in an Order in Council made under the Royal Prerogative. There is nothing in the Royal Charter to indicate that it is not intended to extend to Scotland. In the absence of any such indication, it will extend to Scotland.

By implementing the Leveson Report in this way, the UK Government has, in effect, bypassed the need to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament to the terms of the Royal Charter in so far as they extend to Scotland.. This is because the consent of the Scottish Parliament is only required, under the Sewel Convention, to approve any Bill proposed in the UK Parliament which deals with devolved matters or affects the legislative competence of the Parliament. Neither the Royal Charter nor the Order in Council will constitute such a Bill. The Scottish Parliament will, therefore, have  been deprived of having any say in the provisions of that Royal Charter.

Given the terms of the Royal Charter, it would not appear that the Scottish Parliament could provide for the press in Scotland to be compelled to join a regulatory scheme, as the McCluskey Report proposed.  Accordingly, it would seem that all that would be left for the Scottish Parliament to do is to provide , as a matter of Scots law, for  similar incentives to encourage the press to join the new regulatory scheme as those made in clause 21A of the Crime and Courts Bill (as amended  at Third Reading in the Commons).

In certain circumstances, the UK Parliament can over-ride the prerogative and it is thought that the Scottish Parliament would also be able to do so within devolved matters.  It may be thought, therefore, that it would still be possible for the Scottish Parliament to legislate to amend the Royal Charter or to provide that it should not apply in Scotland.

However, this would not appear to be possible because the Royal Charter also provides that it cannot be amended, or the Recognition Panel dissolved, unless a draft of the proposed change has been laid before the UK Parliament and approved by a resolution of two thirds of the members of each House.  No mention is made of any need to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament, whether by simple majority or otherwise.

These provisions in the Royal Charter are entrenched by clause 92 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill (as amended at HL Report) which provides-

“Where a body is established by Royal Charter after 1 March 2013 with functions relating to the carrying on of an industry, no recommendation may be made to Her Majesty in Council to amend the body’s Charter, or dissolve the body, unless any requirement included in the Charter on the date it is granted for Parliament to approve the amendment or dissolution have been met.”

This clause extends to Scotland (see clause 97(8)). However, it may be doubted whether, given the very general terms of clause 92, it would trigger the need for a LCM (or Sewel motion) in the Scottish Parliament but, even if it did, the consent required would only relate to that provision and not to the terms of the Royal Charter itself.

The effect of all this is that the Scottish Parliament has, in effect, been  deprived of its power to make substantive provision for the regulation of the press in Scotland. This has been done not by any of the recognised ways of amending the list of reserved matters in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, such as by means of a section 30 order, but indirectly as a by-product of the UK Government deciding to use the Royal Prerogative to give effect to Leveson.

Suggested citation: I. Jamieson, ‘The Leveson Report, the Royal Charter and the Scottish Parliament’ UK Const. L. Blog (20th March 2013) (available at http://ukconstitutionallaw.org)

“Basically I hold the press and journalism in some contempt because of my own experience but also because of all that was revealed during the Leveson enquiry.

“Surely the point is that sections (and an increasing number of sections) did not act ‘occasionally’ but consistently and over many years. One may forgive an occasional lapse but what has been revealed is an industry that in the name of ‘freedom’ has acted without morality and decency over and over again. This was no occasional lapse but a capitulation to illegality and interference. My blood boils when I read of some of the inappropriate intrusions (coupled with law breaking) into people’s lives.

“Seems to me that the ‘Press’ use the word ‘freedom’ as a cover for activities that (as you write) are/have been undertaken with the morality of pond scum. Who is to reveal press corruption? Hasn’t a line been crossed?”

Peter’s reaction to press corruption is one which the Bible would describe as ‘righteous anger’ something we have too little of today. He is totally justified in this reaction, a response shared by most of us.

For those who are deeply concerned with press freedom Peter’s accusation that many in the press have used the concept of the freedom of the press as a cover for reprehensible criminal activities strikes at the heart of the debate. Our position is that the best defence against abuses of a free press is a free press.

The transgressions of the press which have outraged us are already punishable by criminal law. The indefensible practice of ‘phone hacking has already ended, and will not be repeated. It was revealed by a free press and already existing law was able to take its course.

Aristotle told us that ‘Law is reason, free from passion.’ There is little reason and much passion behind this proposed regulation.

The present proposals for a Royal Charter with a form of parliamentary oversight have been produced by a consensus of politicians and the pressure group Hacked Off. The press who are being asked to sign up to this regulation were excluded form Sunday’s inter-party discussions, but Hugh Grant’s chums were present and consulted. The result is that for the first time since the seventeenth century we will have political interference in British newspapers.

We may yet find that in order to prevent journalistic abuse we have opened the door to political abuse.

We should ask ‘Cui bono?’ Who benefits most from the regulation of the press, the people or the politicians? We have more to fear from the loss of press freedom than we do from an unregulated press. Journalistic abuse hurts individuals, political abuse hurts nations. We don’t trust journalists, do we have any greater trust in politicians? We know why Max Mosely and Hugh Grant want the press controlled, why do politicians?

Legitimate journalism will be hampered by the new Royal Charter for the press. The fact that men are serving time for the murder of Stephen Lawrence is due to the actions of the Daily Mail who bravely put themselves in a position where they could be sued for accusing those men of murder.  The information from within the police regarding the murder came to a press free to use such inside information. Under the new Royal Charter the Mail would have been unable to take the gamble.  In this case justice was done due to a free press.

The Daily Telegraph broke the cash for questions story. David Henke, the journalist responsible, is on record as saying that he doubts that the story could have been published under the Leveson recommendations. Likewise it can be reasonably doubted that the Daily Telegraph would have been able to break the story of political corruption in the expenses scandal.

Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that a Christ Huhne figure could get his political chums to pressurise a regulated press to keep silent on his crimes? If the press could be brought before a politically appointed group of regulators how many editors will take the risk of revealing the wrongdoing of politicians?

Think of how the BBC, who operate under a form of Royal Charter, caved in to Alastair Campbell over the sexed up dossier during the Iraq war. The abject failure of the BBC concerning the Jimmy Saville scandal tells us all we need to know about the usefulness of a neutered media.

When politicians license the regulator, or retain the right to take more powers if the regulator does not do what the politicians consider appropriate, then we have crossed a bridge. When we begin to chip away at a fundamental principle that principle has been lost completely. A principle is like virginity, it is either there or it isn’t, there are no partial virgins. The principle of a free press is too important to the freedom of us all to cast it away because of justified disgust at sections of the press.

Churchill had it right when he said, ‘A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right free men prize.’

Humour failure: Jim Sheridan insisted he was targeting ‘trivial sketch writers’ (Picture: Getty)

A Labour MP has called for parasitical journalists who criticise the appearance and weight of politicians to be banned from parliament.

Jim Sheridan launched his scathing attack less than 24 hours after the Commons voted to set up a new watchdog to regulate the press.

The MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, told a Commons committee: ‘What concerns me is the parasitical elements within the press who abuse their position in here in terms of hiding behind their pen and calling people names.

‘That’s the so-called brave people. I don’t understand why they are allowed to come into this place and behave in the way that they do.’

Campaign group Index On Censorship scalled his remarks sinister. Spokesman Paidraig Reidy said: ‘If we wanted any indication of the glee with which certain politicians felt for the punishment they have handed out to the press this is it.’

Journalists, who have been allowed to report from within Parliament since 1771, came under fire at a meeting taking evidence from victims of press intrusion.

Later, Mr Sheridan explained that he was targeting only sketch writers, ‘who write about people’s appearances’.

Quentin Letts described Jim Sheridan as ‘an old boobie’ (Picture: PA)

He told Metro: ‘I made the point that some of the journalists just exist to slag off MPs about their appearances: too fat, too thin, too much hair, that kind of thing.They should have to watch it on TV or go into the public gallery.

‘By no stretch of the imagination am I criticising political journalists just going about their day-to-day job.

‘It’s the trivial sketch writers who undermine parliament.’

Mr Sheridan, who is a member of the Commons culture, media and sport committee, was among MPs emabarrassed during the expenses scandal when it was revealed he billed the taxpayer for a 42in plasma TV, a memory foam mattress and an ivory leather bed.

Daily Mail sketch writer Quentin Letts, who Mr Sheridan tried to have thrown out of parliament in 2009 for calling his friend, former Commons speaker Michael Martin, ‘Gorbals Mick’, told Metro: ‘Jim Sheridan is an old boobie. It says everything you need to know about Labour’s attitude to the press.’

Photograph of Daniel Evans leaked on the internet

Last week it was revealed that ‘supergrass’ evidence had pointed the Metropolitan Police in the direction of ‘new’ targets at Trinity Mirror and sparked a wave of arrests.

The ‘evidence’ uncovered a new tranche of hacking at the News of the World as well and opened up a potential 600 new cases of hacking.

But who is the mysterious ‘supergrass’ behind the new evidence and the latest wave of arrests at Trinity Mirror?

Many journalists in the national press have speculated the supergrass is Dan Evans, former hack at the Sunday Mirror and News of the World. And there could be a great deal of credence for this belief.

Evans was arrested on suspicion of phone hacking by Operation Weeting and bailed to a future date but was not charged with the other journo-crooks at the defunct NOTW. The same also applies to Lucy Panton married to a Met Police detective.

Indeed, their bail conditions specifically prevent any contact with ‘Daniel Evans’ but all of those charged have remained quiet. They could hardly do anything else considering the terms of their bail conditions.

In 2010, Guardian journalist James Robinson told me that he had seen evidence to prove Evans was a “serial phone hacker” and had hacked Sienna Miller.

On 3 May last year, I met top hacking lawyer Mark Lewis for lunch on Fleet Street and we discussed Evans and his client Paul Burrell. It became perfectly clear that Evans was embroiled in the hacking scandal and that his involvement may have stretched as far as American soil. Burrell was living in Florida in 2008 and was targeted by The Sun and NOTW.

Just weeks ago I asked Lewis what deal Evans had struck with the Met Police in return for immunity? Lewis did not deny the deal but said he could not discuss the matter openly, if at all.

I first encountered Evans in 2003, when I contacted him in relation to the British National Party. He printed two articles based on my information but did not name me as the ‘source’ at my request.

From that point, I became quite friendly with Evans and regarded him as a decent type at heart and not the merciless hack who did not give a damn about other human beings. He had taken steps to protect me and I thought him a decent chap.

In June 2003, he tipped me about a surveillance operation at my girlfriend’s home in Nottingham, where I was staying. In fact, he said “the surveillance is unfriendly and you need to leave immediately,” which I did.

Evans had contacted his sources at the Met Police to get the information and I was never told who was behind the surveillance and further asked not to ask.

In 2008, I worked with Evans again when he’d left the Sunday Mirror to work at the NOTW. This time the object of our attention was a man claiming to be Paul Burrell on YouTube and we decided to either expose Burrell as the source or the person pretending to be him.

MI5 secrets are blown – NOTW 16 March 2008 – by Dan Evans and Neville Thurlbeck

On 18 March 2008, Evans telephoned me to say that my website http://www.news-alliance.com had been hacked offline again. I was not surprised and the site had been subjected to denial of service attacks several times before.

But Evans opined, “you know who’s done that don’t you?”  and I asked who, to which he replied, “in my opinion MI5.”

I asked why he thought MI5 would hack my website and he said, “because they’ve got it in for you because of your subversive past.” That did not surprise me in the slightest but in actual fact I suspected News International had taken down the website to stop me from exposing the story they were working on in relation to Paul Burrell.

Burrell and Lewis

Detective Constable Richard Scott for Operation Weeting later denied that Evans or anyone else at News International was behind the hacking of my website. Which begs the question why the website was hacked?

The web host Dataflame could not trace any of the hackers and simply got the website back online each time but on one occasion, the website was down for 10 days as Dataflame battled to restore service.

But can anything the Met say be taken at face value? After all, they’ve given immunity from prosecution to a “serial phone hacker” in return for his cooperation. And there are other witnesses as well with a shady past at News International…

This leaves Mark Lewis in a very curious position regarding his clients. On the one hand, Paul Burrell is suing News International for hacking, with the suspected involvement of Dan Evans. On the other hand, Lewis is representing clients in a class action against Trinity Mirror for hacking in which Evans is the suspected supergrass.

It’s a tangled web of betrayal, intrigue and lies akin to the Roman Senate in which competing forces work to a tacit agenda hidden from public view.

Can the evidence of a supergrass be trusted? And the Met has appalling form for its use or misuse of supergrass evidence.

And Evans is now busy touting for business in the film world to tell his story. This morning Guido Fawkes blogged about the latest development in the supergrass saga…

I’d be interested to know what this film is going to be called? The Backstabber, Just Another Supergrass or Grasses Like Us? Or as Le Carré wrote in A Perfect Spy, ‘betrayal, betrayal, betrayal, betrayal as a way of life.’

Nonetheless, unlike Evans I am not minded to blame MI5 when in doubt about the source of hacking and I do not believe the line spun by the Metropolitan Police about the website DDoS attack.

After all, Evans is their asset and the police will lie to protect him or any other supergrass for that matter. And it reminds me of why Evans asked for my mobile phone number to arrange a meeting with him at the Garden Gate public house in Hampstead, only to cancel the meeting once he had got my mobile number.

Was Evans and the News of the World trying to ascertain who I’d been contacting in relation to the story about Paul Burrell? We can be certain now that the truth will never come from the Metropolitan Police…

So what has Dan Evans confessed to in return for immunity from prosecution? The terms of immunity mean that he has to confess to all criminal activities or face prosecution at a later stage for withholding such details from the police and Crown Prosecution Service.

Le Carré was right… it’s ‘betrayal as a way of life’.

Websites could have to pay exemplary damages if they don’t sign up to new regulator, claim opponents of Leveson deal.

Carla Buzasi of the Huffington Post: ‘Someone said this is a carrot and stick approach. There doesn’t seem to be too much of a carrot.’ Photograph: Finbarr O’Reilly/Reuters

Bloggers could face high fines for libel under the new Leveson deal with exemplary damages imposed if they don’t sign up to the new regulator, it was claimed on Tuesday.

Under clause 29 introduced to the crime and courts bill in the Commons on Monday night, the definition of “relevant” bloggers or websites includes any that generate news material where there is an editorial structure giving someone control over publication.

Bloggers would not be at risk of exemplary damages for comments posted by readers. There is also a schedule that excludes certain publishers such as scientific journals, student publications and not-for-profit community newspapers. Websites are guaranteed exclusion from exemplary damages if they can get on this list.

Kirsty Hughes, the chief executive of Index on Censorship, which campaigns for press freedom around the world, said it was a “sad day” for British democracy. “This will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on everyday people’s web use,” she said.

She said she feared thousands of websites could fall under the definition of a “relevant publisher” in clause 29.

Hughes said: “Bloggers could find themselves subject to exemplary damages, due to the fact that they were not part of a regulator that was not intended for them in the first place.”

Exemplary damages and costs imposed by a court to penalise those who remained outside the regulator could run to hundreds of thousands of pounds, enough to close down smaller publishers.

Harry Cole, who works for the Guido Fawkes political blog, said it would not be joining the regulator and believes that because its servers are based in the US it will be excluded from the exemplary damages clauses.

“I don’t see I should join a regulator. This country has had a free press for the last 300 years, that has been irreverent and rude as my website is and holding public officials to account. We as a matter of principle will be opposing any regulator especially one set up and accountable to politicians we write about every day,” he told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme.

Carla Buzasi, the editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post website, told the BBC: “I can’t imagine any politician has had this discussion because they have rushed this through so quickly.

“It does worry me to a certain extent. Someone said this is a carrot and stick approach. There doesn’t seem to be too much of a carrot here.”

As part of the ongoing discussion surrounding the Communications Review, Lorna Woods, Professor and Associate Dean of Research at City Law School, City University London, explains which areas of communications regulation are being given the most attention, and which areas should be given more. This post was originally published on the LSE Media Policy Project blog.

The current government has long promised us a review of the Communications Act 2003, but with Leveson rumbling on in the background, progress seems slow.  The review process was launched by Jeremy Hunt in 2011 who issued an ‘open letter’ and DCMS created a review webpage. In 2012 a series of seminars were held (aimed at industry, not consumers/audiences).  The topics identified were:

• Consumers: this includes content regulation, and online transactional and audience behaviour.
• Competition in content: this envisages the market as the solution to diversity issues.
• Spectrum: this concerns greater roll-out/connectivity and assumes the desirability of spectrum trading.  For example, Ofcom has recently issued a consultation on one aspect of spectrum: whether there should be charges for national digital terrestrial TV (DTT), local TV and digital audio broadcasting (DAB), in line with Ofcom’s duty to secure optimal use of radio spectrum.
• TV Content: this questions the current requirements of the existing regulatory framework for broadcasting and looks for other options such as the introduction of tax incentives to support the creation of digital content. It also considers the policy objectives for UK and European regulatory requirements for Electronic Programme Guide (EPG) prominence, conditions for carriage consent and product placement. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is examining these issues as part of its inquiry into support for the creative industries, with a focus on the development of high quality British content.
• Radio: this questions whether the radio licensing regime is sufficiently flexible for future changes, and whether there are existing barriers to the on-going success of the radio sector.

Two points should be emphasised. The first is a recognition of a changing media environment that focuses on new (or not so new) services beyond traditional mass media.  The second is a deregulatory impulse.  These are no doubt important topics, but does the Communications Review cover everything that is actually under review, or needs reviewing?

While the review did identify carriage issues – and certainly the issue of the fees charged to PSB by satellite companies has risen up the agenda – it did not raise the issue of net neutrality directly, although this has already been the topic of considerable discussion.  (See, e.g., Ofcom’s approach as well as the voluntary code. Ofcom’s workplan suggests there may be more to come.)

The review did not directly address challenges in broadcast regulation, implicitly affirming the consensus established in the 2003 Act. Several broadcasting licences are currently being renewed, while the BBC Charter is not due for renewal until 2016. It may be that the Government was wary of opening the door to calls for Leveson to be implemented, or that the government is complacent if certain PSB obligations are weakened following licence renegotiation. Moreover, it is often unclear which platforms for content are subject to which types of regulations, such as the Authority for Television On Demand (ATVOD) rules. Having a fractured and piecemeal system does not reflect a converged environment and may be confusing for consumers.

The final issue is media ownership as it relates to competition law. The debacle over the News International/Sky acquisition and the concerns over political influence beg the question: is the current system appropriate? The government has put forward proposals to reform the competition regime, but these changes are not driven by media concerns.  There is no specific consideration of the public interest aspects of media ownership. Indeed, one proposal is to move the regulators away from using sector specific powers towards considering matters under general competition law, thus undermining future regard for a media specific public interest.  This is particularly noteworthy given the criticism of the UK by the High Level Group on Media Pluralism. Moreover, these changes are not being introduced through the review of communications, but as part of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill.  The issue of media ownership may therefore not get the scrutiny it deserves.

At the same time, provisions relating to costs and exemplary damages were inserted into the Crime and Courts Bill.  Finally, an amendment was made to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill to protect certain future Royal Charters against being changed by the Privy Council without Parliamentary approval.  The agreement was announced in the House of Commons on 18 March 2013 and was followed by a debate  on the Royal Charter.

This package was welcomed most of those who spoke in the debate and the House of Commons resolved

That this House has considered the welcome publication of the draft royal charter by the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister’s intention to submit the charter to the Privy Council for Her Majesty’s approval at the Privy Council’s May meeting.

The cross-party agreement was welcomed by the campaigning group Hacked Off, by the Guardian and the Independent which described it as a “Leveson deal worth backing“.  The reaction of others was less positive.  The Newspaper Society claimed that the recommendations “would place a crippling burden on the UK’s 1100 local newspapers inhibiting freedom of speech and the freedom to publish”.  According to the Daily Mail “fears grow of a threat to free speech”.

The Daily Mail Group, News International, Newspaper Society, Professional Publishers Association, Telegraph Media Group and Northern & Shell released a “joint statement” on Monday afternoon in which they said they had only just seen the proposals and, as a result, “we are not able to give any response on behalf of the industry to this afternoon’s proposals until we have had time to study them”.

The Daily Mail has an interesting  graphic on the operation of the new system – which sets out the industry’s view of the operation of the new system (and which includes the so-called “Foundation Board” established by Lord Hunt to assist in the designed of the process).   This indicates the role which “Industry Funding Board” intends to play  – in advising on industry members of the appointments panel and funding the new system.

Surprisingly, the most controversial aspect of the package seems to be the wholly anodyne new clause inserted into the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill which was in the following terms

Royal Charters: requirements for Parliamentary approval

Where a body is established by Royal Charter after 1 March 2013 with functions relating to the carrying on of an industry, no recommendation may be made to Her Majesty in Council to amend the body’s Charter or dissolve the body unless any requirements included in the Charter on the date it is granted for Parliament to approve the amendment or dissolution have been met.”

It should be noted that this does not mention the press or press regulation.  It simply provides that future Royal Charters which include a provision which says that they cannot be amended without parliamentary approval cannot be amended by the Privy Council (that is, by Ministers) until that approval has been obtained.  In other words, the provision protects such Charters against political interference.   It is difficult to see how this could possibly be objected to by the press.   Rather than “statutory underpinning” it is best described as “statutory protection”.

There are four more phases in the process which are required before a new system of press regulation is in place:

• The setting up of the “Recognition Panel”: members must be appointed and a “recognition system” in place
• The application for recognition: publishers will have to formulate proposals for a new self-regulatory body and submit them to the Recognition Panel for consideration. The Recognition Panel will consider the application for recognition, suggest any changes that it considers necessary and then grant “recognition”.
• The establishment and operation of the self-regulator:  Once the self-regulator has been recognised it will be able to be established and begin operation.

It seems likely that this process will take many months.  In the interim, the PCC will apparently continue in operation dealing with the “complaints” function.

The Royal Charter has arisen from Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals. (Photo: Evening Standard)

The central proposal in Leveson’s report was for a new press regulator, set up by newspapers, with “statutory underpinning” from Parliament, which would ‘recognise’ that regulator. These scans of recognition are necessary to the proposal, because submission to this regulator would affect the legal standing of a publisher. Any publisher that escaped the new regulator’s purview would face much higher damages through court cases, ensuring that membership to the reloaded Press Complaints Commission remains a lingering incentive. An amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill creates these precise enticements. This was Leveson’s main proposal, now brought to life by legislation and charters.

Exemplary court damages are meant to envelop those publishers that refuse to join the resurrected regulator, so that there is no direct compulsion to join. However, it becomes difficult to describe a newspaper’s membership as wholly voluntary, since they will be stalked by higher court costs if they dare to defy this new regulator. Nor can it be described as self-regulation, since there is an impressive list of criteria in the Royal Charter that the PCC Mk. 2 must meet in order to be ‘recognised’, including the exact power to levy fines of £1m. Since the absence of a ‘recognised’ regulator would ensure that all publishers face inflated court costs, there is a strong impetus to construct a Leveson-compliant body.

The Devil Hides in the Definitions

Even if you believe these proposals are a proportionate response to newspaper impropriety, the devil hides in the definitions. In Schedule 4 (Interpretation):

1. For the purposes of this Charter:

a) “Regulator” means an independent body formed by or on behalf of relevant publishers for the purpose of conducting regulatory activities in relation to their publications;

b) “relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom:

i. a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material, or

ii. a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine);

c) “broadcaster” means:

i. the holder of a licence under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or 1996;

ii. the British Broadcasting Corporation; or

iii. Sianel Pedwar Cymru;

d) a person “publishes in the United Kingdom” if the publication takes place in the United Kingdom or is targeted primarily at an audience in the United Kingdom;

e) “news-related material” means:

i. news or information about current affairs;

ii. opinion about matters relating to the news or current affairs; or

iii. gossip about celebrities, other public figures or other persons in the news.

The Leveson Inquiry contained itself to its remit – the relationships, ethics and culture of newspapers in the UK. The short chapter in Leveson’s final report on the internet was heavily criticised, as the slow petrification of the daily newspaper industry is caused by the raucous and vibrant world of online news and comment. The ability to deliver news around the world instantaneously is rendering the daily newspapers out-of-date as they sit patiently in their stands. That ability, however, can breathe life into more sporadic publications, such as the weekly Bath Chronicle or the fortnightly student newspaper bathimpact, as regular updates fosters relevance and permanence.

The jurisdiction of this regulation is apparently the entire world, as the term ‘publishes in the United Kingdom’ includes news organisations or websites where the content “is targeted primarily at an audience in the United Kingdom”, meaning that those publishers can be based outside of the UK. The universal scope of the new regulator is a devastating flaw, and can only force the regulatory system to collapse, as our country maintains its penchant for libel and complaint tourism.

This is how the new regulator will supposedly function. (Photo: Daily Mail)

Demarcation of Opinion

The Royal Charter seeks that all deliverers of “news-related material” should be recognised and regulated: every magazine, every student newspaper, every town hall newsletter, every blog. This sprawling remit is unshackled from the concerns raised by the Leveson Inquiry, and would most likely mean that blogging authors would face complaints via the Leveson-PCC, whilst the accusers bear no costs and the publisher always pays, even when the publisher wins. Whilst this rule has its justifications with large news corporations in mind, it has no justification for citizen journalists.

The reaction of columnists to the Leveson-PCC proposal has revealed a great demarcation of opinion. Toby Young of the Telegraph believes that: “This isn’t a compromise. It’s a capitulation. Anyone who cares about press freedom should resist by any means necessary.” Joining him is Kevin Maguire of the Daily Mirror: “Instead of a US First Amendment to guarantee free speech and a free press, we’ll be shackled.”

Grand Moff Toynbee at the Guardian vehemently disagreed, claiming that:

The press is free, but the balance is tilted a little in favour of the citizen against bare-knuckle thuggery.

The real focus of her piece yawns open, as “the citizen” is not even a temporary concern to Ms Toynbee – it’s about power and press ownership:

This is about who runs the country – a democratically elected parliament with strong public opinion on this or Rupert Murdoch, the Barclay Brothers and the Mail’s Paul Dacre, strong-arming politicians to their will.

Later in her column, Ms Toynbee writes:

Shrinking in sales but not influence, 80% of newspaper readership is owned by far-right proprietors – mostly non-UK taxpayers, something that’s not allowed in the US.

It is outrageous for Ms Toynbee to say that all of the sales by nominally right-wing newspaper are owned by “far-right proprietors”, a term commonly reserved for fascists and neo-Nazis.

Conclusions

The tumultuous debate around a Leveson-type Royal Charter has exposed a significant contingent of our politics: those who believe in policy as penance. With journalists being arrested for the crimes of phone-hacking and unjustified interceptions, the wheels of justice revolve slowly, crushing the press culture that sustained such criminality. In a country where anyone can become a journalist, we should not set aside special laws for journalists. Instead of a Royal Charter constraining publishers and journalists, we should err on the side of liberty and write our own First Amendment, guaranteeing their freedom.

I have never allowed myself to use the word “oxymoron,” because I hate the way in which a word is mentioned by some commentator and thereafter is used by one and all. My most hated expession is, “Having said that.” I have spent many hours trying to figure out, how, what had just been said, was in any way connected to what followed. Anyway, having said that, whoops, I find that the word oxymoron and the idea of a Free Press in the United Kingdom, were made for one another.

The UK Parliament has just voted for a Royal Charter, which will ensure, that should an editorial inaccuracy, result in pain or grief for a celebrity or member of the public, the Statutory underpinning of the Charter, will make it possible for the richest of those offended, to be offered as much as one million Pounds in compensation, while the ordinary man in t………. sorry, person in public, will no doubt be offered, a sum more in keeping with their class.

The question of balance and truthfulness, played no part in this discussion, it revolved around, what in most cases was no more than the tittle, tattle which surrounded the lives of celebrities. The lies and deceptions, which are even now,  disguising the reality of the slaughter which is taking place in Syria, which was in fact generated by the British, in order to fabricate an excuse to take down Assad, is being presented unanimously, by this Free Press, as a form of Just War, which is being carried out by courageous Syrian youngsters, against a tyrant, when in reality, these thugs are not Syrian, as in Libya, where the same group was operating, under British control, they are professional mercenaries, from all across the globe.

In the manner of Saddam, in Iraq, we have been told that Assad has carried out atrocities, without a shred of evidence in support of the claim. While the same press is celebrating the tenth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, which is still in chaos, and suffering from a nightmare of  terrorism, which the press informed us, at the time of the invasion, the relief from this turmoil, was the aim of the attack. If, after ten years, the people are still being murdered on a daily basis, how can it be claimed that the invasion was a success?  Why is the Press not urging caution? Why are BBC and Sky News reporters delivering daily doses of disinformation?

Having been told that those whom do not learn from history are condemned to  repeat it, it would appear that the Free Press, which was gung ho, for the attack against Gadaffi, Bosnia, Afghanistan and now Syria, while giving an impression that they have not learned,  are in fact closely following the agenda of the City of London, whom most certainly know exactly what they are doing and they of course have total control over the British Free Press.

War Criminal Tony Blair, while celebrating the slaughter of a million souls in Iraq, used the occasion of the Iraq Anniversary, to insist that the West must take down Syria. Blair is of course  working for the City of London, his City  salary, coming through the books of J.P. Morgan, which is controlled by Rothschild. He claimed, that should the West hesitate over the taking down of Assad, Syria will become another nest of terrorism. The Free Press gives very little guidance as to whether these assertions are justified, or no more than a beating of the war drums.

Blair’s claim, that should no action be taken against Assad, the death toll in Syria, could be greater than that in Iraq, where the killing goes on and on.  As he was preaching, the British supported Mercenaries in Iraq, were planting their car bombs, which is never reported by the Free Press, to generate an excuse for US troops to continue their presence, through the tactic of provoking a religious conflict. Shiites are the main target of these attacks.

Blair needs more basic information himself. He would do well to research the results of some of his past crimes, that is if he is not fully aware of the death and destruction and failure with which he has been involved. Perhaps he could explain the missing Terrorist Training Camps in Afghanistan, the missing WMD in Iraq. He could then set about assuring the people of Syria, that they would not end up in the same boat as the folk in Iraq and Afghanistan and more recently in Libya, should he get his way.

When Blair’s chum from The Manse, Gordon Brown was selling off the UK Gold Reserve, at bargain basement prices, to an unknown customer, the Free Press remained silent. there was no outrage generated and no demand to be told by whom it was purchased.

The Free Press, even as the UK is heading into a triple dip winter, are continuing to support the lie of Man Made Global Warming. This lie enabled the aforementioned Gordon Brown, to cynically close down a steel works in the North of England, claiming it to be necessary to reduce Carbon output. This policy, which is a lie, will soon plunge the UK into the depths of Third World poverty.  The Free Press has been in the forefront of the Greening of the UK. They have as yet, offered no reasonable explanation, as to how the Greening of Europe will save the planet, should all of European Industry be simply installed in those countries which are not subject to Carbon restrictions.

This same Free Press, has as yet offered no discussion of the fraudulent banking system, the use of which, has enabled the City of London, to take control of most of the worlds resources. For example, the use of the same system and the problems which are an integral part of this fraud, made it possible for the bankers to buy up 99% of the infrastructure of Berlin in the 1920s in Germany.

So there you have it, the contradictory terms of Free and Press, most certainly do not apply to the garbage with which the British Press is occupied.  The Press is in fact a vital part of the system of control, which is cynically made use of by the Establishment. It is a tool, which when necessary, can be used against the Government itself, as in the “Expenses Scandal” and the threat of exposure of the child abusers and other deviants, whom are in place deliberately, as a means of ensuring that nothing untoward takes place in Parliament.

The Leveson Inquiry, has made not a jot of difference to the freedom or otherwise of the Press.  What they have been found guilty of were crimes, for which they should have been prosecuted.  The real question, which has been avoided, was the extent of their collusion with the Police. This is far more serious, should it be discovered that the police were failing to prosecute, because to do so would expose their own criminality and corruption, should be of far more concern than phone hacking and yet the reporting remains in the hands of the guilty and the Police investigate themselves, while the Government, which has need of a dishonest press, to add weight to unjust decisions, are attempting to look as if they are endeavouring to rein in the Press, while doing nothing to alter the status quo.