Ahoy! anniebach, and other Corbyn fans (cough)!

Nope! I think Leveson Part 2 should go ahead, although I'm doubtful that it will.

To be fair thatbags, she is kinder than I am about the lying, back stabbing , hypocritical toad.

He is to be relaunched in the new year,, more tv appearences , hope the studios have plenty of glass doors for him to hide behind

A state regulated press ? No way

So you don't think state laws should apply to the press?

Part 2 is about specific claims of phone-hacking at the News of the World and what went wrong with the original police investigation. Why shouldn't it go ahead?

Since when did 'state regulated' mutate to obeying 'state laws'?

In what way would the state regulate press without applying laws applicable in other contexts?

In any case, Leveson Part 2 (which is what the petition is about) is not about regulating the press. It's about specific allegations of police corruption and the conduct of the News of the World.

What the link is about is the fact that Leveson is suggesting that where a newspaper, for instance, publishes something that someone challenges through the courts, even if the newspaper wins the case in law (i.e. it is proved that the newspaper did not break any laws in saying what it said) the newspaper would still have to pay the court costs. This, it is feared, would bankrupt many publications very quickly, quite apart from the fact that it looks like an completely unjust suggestion.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 isn't about state regulation either.

Some reasons why Section 40 should be implemented:

hackinginquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hacked-Off-S40-submission.pdf

Read the link!

Is the site sponsored by News International by any chance?

There is no obligation for any newspaper to sign up to the regulatory body. It's like an insurance scheme. If the newspaper chooses not to sign up to the scheme, it runs the risk of being sued and having to pay out huge sums.

It protects newspapers which want to run genuine public interest stories from being prosecuted. It also provides people such as Millie Dowler's family and Christopher Jefferies with a low cost means of suing powerful media.

The press should keep the laws , why do they need state regulations to do this?

Well, I think that is a very unfair comparison.

Kumquats are delicious (not if they are old and shrivelled of course), but I suppose you could say that both JC and kumquats are thin-skinned.

I'll have a think about the second part of the OP.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point, ab.

The press should obey laws, just like anybody else, but they're not. That's the point. They often get away with what they do, because most people don't have the finances to take them on.

Section 40 isn't about state regulation. It's about setting up a system, which newspapers can choose to opt into and limits their liability.

In a democracy, it's essential that we have not only a free press, but an honest and responsible one. Personally, I don't think we have. Failing that, people need to be more cynical about what they read. Compulsory media studies?

The other part of the petition is about Leveson Part 2, which will probably not happen anyway. It's specifically about the News of the World's hacking, police involvement and any cover up and/or corruption. I'm a bit cynical about why somebody wouldn't want that to happen. It's about the press being responsible, even if they escape the force of law.

No newspaper should escape the force of the law if they break the law,

The current balance works in favour of the media.

www.theguardian.com/law/2011/jul/18/no-win-no-fee-cfas-media-abuse

Personally, I don't think Section 40 goes far enough. It's about voluntary self-regulation, not some kind of state censorship.

The press should go to the cleaners for some of the stuff they write, but it won't ever happen.

If the law was enforced they would soon learn not to break it, hacking phones, libel, stalking is against the law yet they get away with it, it's all nonsense, it will not stop

It certainly won't stop until people can afford the risk of taking the press to court, which is exactly what Section 40 is supposed to enable, but you seem to want to stop it. Baffling!

yes - supposed to enable

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're getting at.

It wasn't that difficult to find out who is behind 'freethepress'. It's a Twitter account and the replies and identities of some of the contributors are public.

They're a bunch of right-wing neo-cons, who want the freedom to be racist and call people 'yids' - that kind of thing. They support Trump and English nationalism. Even Arron Banks is a contributor.

They seem to think that Joshua Bonehill-Paine's prison sentence for inciting racial hatred against Jews is outrageous, because he has the right to free speech. If you don't know about Bonehill-Paine, this is the first paragraph of his Wiki entry:

Joshua Mark John Bonehill-Paine[2] (born 7 December 1992, also known as Joshua Bonehill) is an English far-right nationalist from Yeovil, Somerset. Styling himself as a "nationalist, fascist, theorist and supporter of white rights", he ran a blog called The Daily Bale ("Britons Against Left-wing Extremism") which published several racist and anti-immigration hoaxes, as well as false accusations against his opponents. Bonehill-Paine has described himself as being "a proud anti-Semite"

Their style was remarkably familiar, which is why I was suspicious. Personally, I don't want to support people like that, but feel free to do what you want.

Thsnk you but do not need your permission to do what I want Daphne. I don't know what Twitter has to do with the press , I am sure you will explain.

They also seem to be some of the same people behind 'National Action', a neo-Nazi group which was officially banned a few days ago. It's a criminal offence to be a member as of last Friday, so I certainly won't be associating myself with them by signing any emails.

I wasn't suggesting you need my permission. I'm just surprised you want to agree with a banned neo-Nazi group and its propaganda.

Did I say that?