Labour should not be supporting Leveson

I liked this.

An article in todays DM by Robert Harris 'A chilling lesson from history and why shackling the Press is inimical to liberty'. He was telling the well known tale of Captain Richard Dreyfus. Harris wrote, in the words of the philosopher, Isaiah Berlin:

'Everything is what it is, liberty is liberty, not equality or fairness or justice or culture, or human happiness or a quiet conscience'

I agree, Grannyactivist. In fact the word I would use for his definition of the British Press is bullying.

Tom Harris says, "But the state should have no role in forcing its definition of “decency” on a free press. The British press is intrusive, arrogant, vicious, unfair, unbalanced and generally infuriating. What a relief! That is as it should be."
Really? I completely disagree; it is NOT as it should be. Imagine that the British press was any other institution; would we really tolerate this sort of behaviour?

It'll be interesting to see how Tom Harris votes. He has never voted against the party line since 2009.
(they work for you)

What was the point of the government setting up an enquiry into the press and then going against the Leveson recommendations because it does not suit them and their press overlords?
There was an all-party agreement which should be made law now, before Brooks etc. go to court. The worry is that future governments will change that agreement, but it can be enshrined in law that that could not happen, which is what the Royal bit of it is all about.
From what I have read recently, Cameron lied about his friendship with Brooks. If newspapers get their way, things like this will get swept under the carpet again.
I am afraid Tom Harris lost my sympathy when he equated freedom of the press with euthanasia.

I'm leaning towards limited, independent regulation of the press, and think built-in reviews of how it's working should prevent inappropriate censorship, control rogue journalists and their editors, and enable the freedom of speech that we value. If they can't regulate themselves, especially in the harassment of private individuals, wild speculation that has no foundation, and downright lies that they don't retract, then I see no other way.

Ideally, if independent regulation helped to bring journalism back to the responsible reporting we appreciate, and good investigative journalism that has been lauded in the past, the press will settle down and self-regulate. Private Eye seem to manage to tread that fine line. They could follow their lead! They certainly don't know-tow to the establishment.

Leveson in Brief

A moderate report which certainly does not challenge freedom of the press.