Would the paisley pyjamas sting stand up in court? | LSE Media Policy Project:
"If the Daily Telegraph had exposed the abuse of parliamentary expenses today, rather than in 2009, it could be prosecuted for purchasing a disc of expense receipts from a public official under either the Data Protection Act or the Bribery Act.
Yet only under the Data Protection Act – which carries much lighter sentences – would the paper have technically been able to mount a public interest defence.
In some cases involving journalists, this means that the ‘defence of necessity’ has to be used to invoke the public interest indirectly. QC’s Alex Bailin and Edward Craven have argued that it is unacceptable that these defences have to be brought by the ‘back door’." 'via Blog this'
Monday, 6 October 2014
Three months to save IPSO
Three months to save IPSO – Damian Tambini | Inforrm's Blog: "The newspapers would be well advised to support a stronger IPSO. In time, they may even need to re-assess their position on recognition under the Charter. After all, Parliament has passed the Crime and Courts Act, establishing the legal framework for the Leveson system of press self-regulation to be put into place.
The Act creates a system of incentives: if you fail to join an approved regulatory system, you are likely in due course to be exposed to considerably higher costs and damages in relation to privacy, libel and other legal risks associated with journalism.
As Leveson himself acknowledged, if membership of a self-regulatory body is to confer such privileges on journalists there must be some form of oversight – to ensure the body is not a sham, as many claimed the PCC was. So the Leveson scheme is an ingenious combination of oversight with multiple protections against interference by government.
But the newspapers that support IPSO are not convinced. For them it is the Charter system of recognition that by definition pushes the regulator over the definitional rubicon from self-regulation to government regulation.
Newspapers are also aware that unlike the PCC, IPSO has no monopoly on self-regulation of newspapers.
The Guardian, the FT and the Independent remain outside the tent and IMPRESS; an alternative regulator led by civil society organisations including local news websites, may seek recognition under the Charter. If it is successful, it could trigger the ‘incentives’ (i.e. the end of press protection from damages and costs) under the Crime and Courts Act. Then all newspapers would have to think again." 'via Blog this'
The Act creates a system of incentives: if you fail to join an approved regulatory system, you are likely in due course to be exposed to considerably higher costs and damages in relation to privacy, libel and other legal risks associated with journalism.
As Leveson himself acknowledged, if membership of a self-regulatory body is to confer such privileges on journalists there must be some form of oversight – to ensure the body is not a sham, as many claimed the PCC was. So the Leveson scheme is an ingenious combination of oversight with multiple protections against interference by government.
But the newspapers that support IPSO are not convinced. For them it is the Charter system of recognition that by definition pushes the regulator over the definitional rubicon from self-regulation to government regulation.
Newspapers are also aware that unlike the PCC, IPSO has no monopoly on self-regulation of newspapers.
The Guardian, the FT and the Independent remain outside the tent and IMPRESS; an alternative regulator led by civil society organisations including local news websites, may seek recognition under the Charter. If it is successful, it could trigger the ‘incentives’ (i.e. the end of press protection from damages and costs) under the Crime and Courts Act. Then all newspapers would have to think again." 'via Blog this'
Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1881: defining newspaper & proprietor
Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1881:
"The word “newspaper” shall mean any paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or any remarks or observations therein printed for sale, and published in England or Ireland periodically, or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding twenty-six days between the publication of any two such papers, parts, or numbers.
The word “proprietor” shall mean and include as well the sole proprietor of any newspaper, as also in the case of a divided proprietorship the persons who, as partners or otherwise, represent and are responsible for any share or interest in the newspaper as between themselves and the persons in like manner representing or responsible for the other shares or interests therein, and no other person.
" 'via Blog this'
"The word “newspaper” shall mean any paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or any remarks or observations therein printed for sale, and published in England or Ireland periodically, or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding twenty-six days between the publication of any two such papers, parts, or numbers.
The word “proprietor” shall mean and include as well the sole proprietor of any newspaper, as also in the case of a divided proprietorship the persons who, as partners or otherwise, represent and are responsible for any share or interest in the newspaper as between themselves and the persons in like manner representing or responsible for the other shares or interests therein, and no other person.
" 'via Blog this'
Gerry McCann attacks ‘disgraceful’ Sunday Times after £55k libel payout
Gerry McCann attacks ‘disgraceful’ Sunday Times after £55k libel payout | Media | The Guardian: "“This is exactly why parliament and Lord Justice Leveson called for truly effective independent self-regulation of newspapers – to protect ordinary members of the public from this sort of abuse. The fact is that most families could not take the financial and legal risk of going to the high court and facing down a big press bully as we have. That is why News UK and the big newspapers have opposed Leveson’s reforms and the arbitration scheme which is a necessary part of it.”
Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children.
The Sunday Times said: “We have agreed a settlement with Mr and Mrs McCann.”
Much of the industry, with the exception of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times, has set up its own regulatory body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which started life three weeks ago.
In the statement, McCann calls Ipso the “latest industry poodle”. The McCanns have been involved in the Hacked Off campaign to tighten press regulation." 'via Blog this'
Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children.
The Sunday Times said: “We have agreed a settlement with Mr and Mrs McCann.”
Much of the industry, with the exception of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times, has set up its own regulatory body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which started life three weeks ago.
In the statement, McCann calls Ipso the “latest industry poodle”. The McCanns have been involved in the Hacked Off campaign to tighten press regulation." 'via Blog this'
Friday, 3 October 2014
Sunday Mirror will find it hard to justify its Tory MP honeytrap
Sunday Mirror will find it hard to justify its Tory MP honeytrap | Media | theguardian.com: "Now for the flaws. The pictures of the two women featured in the Twitter trap were used without their knowledge or permission. I suspect that could open the door for them to take legal action
Only Tory MPs were targeted. Why was that? Was there a political motive? Again, on what basis did the freelance choose his targets?
Then there is the questionable matter of relying on an unidentified freelance for such an obvious contentious "investigation". That's so unusual for such a high-profile story that I cannot remember a previous instance. It's fine to have confidential sources, but journalists should not have such a privilege.
Worse still is the use of a freelance as some kind of built-in deniability for what is produced. It was noticeable that in his defence, the Mirror group's editor-in-chief, Lloyd Embley, said it was "not a Mirror sting." But that's semantics.
The Sunday Mirror accepted the story from the freelancer, evidently tested his methodology and his bona fides and then published it. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, it was the paper's sting. It is demeaning for the Mirror to distance itself from the exercise." 'via Blog this'
Only Tory MPs were targeted. Why was that? Was there a political motive? Again, on what basis did the freelance choose his targets?
Then there is the questionable matter of relying on an unidentified freelance for such an obvious contentious "investigation". That's so unusual for such a high-profile story that I cannot remember a previous instance. It's fine to have confidential sources, but journalists should not have such a privilege.
Worse still is the use of a freelance as some kind of built-in deniability for what is produced. It was noticeable that in his defence, the Mirror group's editor-in-chief, Lloyd Embley, said it was "not a Mirror sting." But that's semantics.
The Sunday Mirror accepted the story from the freelancer, evidently tested his methodology and his bona fides and then published it. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, it was the paper's sting. It is demeaning for the Mirror to distance itself from the exercise." 'via Blog this'
Conservatives pledge powers to ignore European court of human rights rulings
Conservatives pledge powers to ignore European court of human rights rulings | Politics | The Guardian: "Grieve said: “The suggestion that they can be negotiated with the Council of Europe so that the UK has its own space where it can [take what it wants] while everyone else complies is almost laughable. How can the UK obtain such a status when other countries have signed up to an agreement collectively to implement judgments?” Some ECHR judgments, such as the right to give prisoners the vote, were, he said, mistaken, but the proposals in the Conservative document seemed to “lack any maturity”.
They also drew a furious response from the Tories’ coalition partners. Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat justice minister, said: “The Conservatives don’t care about the rights of British citizens – they care about losing to Ukip. These plans make no sense: you can’t protect the human rights of Brits and pull out of the system that protects them.
“Europe’s human rights laws were designed by British lawyers to reflect British values of justice, tolerance and decency. We will not allow the Tories to take away the hard-won human rights of British people when in the UK or anywhere else in Europe.”" 'via Blog this'
They also drew a furious response from the Tories’ coalition partners. Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat justice minister, said: “The Conservatives don’t care about the rights of British citizens – they care about losing to Ukip. These plans make no sense: you can’t protect the human rights of Brits and pull out of the system that protects them.
“Europe’s human rights laws were designed by British lawyers to reflect British values of justice, tolerance and decency. We will not allow the Tories to take away the hard-won human rights of British people when in the UK or anywhere else in Europe.”" 'via Blog this'
Sunday, 28 September 2014
Phone hacking: Trinity Mirror to pay out over 10 claims
Phone hacking: Trinity Mirror to pay out over 10 claims | Media | The Guardian:
"Harris also cited evidence in the recent phone-hacking trial that saw former News of the World editor Andy Coulson found guilty. During the trial Dan Evans, a former reporter at the Murdoch tabloid, gave evidence. Evans was given a suspended sentence in recognition of his co-operation with police and prosecutors, having admitted hacking phones while he worked at the News of the World and his previous employer, the Sunday Mirror.
Evans had admitted in court in January that he started hacking phones after he was made a staff reporter at the Sunday Mirror and carried out this activity at that title for about “a year and a half”.
Evans described the phone-hacking target list at the Sunday Mirror as containing “lists of celebrities’ voicemail pin numbers” and “celebrity agents’ [voicemail numbers] where you would pick up voicemails left by them”.
He admitted hacking the voicemails of 200 people and listening to about 1,000 voicemails in total.
In a statement, Trinity Mirror “admitted liability to four individuals who had sued MGN for alleged interception of their voicemails many years ago”, before adding: “MGN has apologised to those individuals and agreed to pay compensation. The amount of that compensation will be assessed by the court if it cannot be agreed.”" 'via Blog this'
"Harris also cited evidence in the recent phone-hacking trial that saw former News of the World editor Andy Coulson found guilty. During the trial Dan Evans, a former reporter at the Murdoch tabloid, gave evidence. Evans was given a suspended sentence in recognition of his co-operation with police and prosecutors, having admitted hacking phones while he worked at the News of the World and his previous employer, the Sunday Mirror.
Evans had admitted in court in January that he started hacking phones after he was made a staff reporter at the Sunday Mirror and carried out this activity at that title for about “a year and a half”.
Evans described the phone-hacking target list at the Sunday Mirror as containing “lists of celebrities’ voicemail pin numbers” and “celebrity agents’ [voicemail numbers] where you would pick up voicemails left by them”.
He admitted hacking the voicemails of 200 people and listening to about 1,000 voicemails in total.
In a statement, Trinity Mirror “admitted liability to four individuals who had sued MGN for alleged interception of their voicemails many years ago”, before adding: “MGN has apologised to those individuals and agreed to pay compensation. The amount of that compensation will be assessed by the court if it cannot be agreed.”" 'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)