Law needed for press

First published in Letters by

I SEE Terry Smith is against control of the press. Even grosser still is the advert in The Press of December 12 on the same subject: “Yes... even phone-hacking was a scandal revealed by a newspaper.”

Excuse me – but wasn’t that a crime perpetrated for and on behalf of a newspaper?

If the press is not regulated by law, then it is lawless. There is no such thing as independent regulation – he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Ken Barnes, North View, Catterton.

• Editor’s note: Lord Justice Leveson praised local newspapers in his report into the ethics and culture of the press, saying their contribution to local life was “truly without parallel”.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:19am Sat 15 Dec 12

capt spaulding says...

Well said Mr Editor. My only critisism is the strangling of comments made towards our Council and especially the Council Leader.
Highlighted by the fact that anything to do with these two is not given the
(Your Say) box.
One might start to think that the leader of the Council is able to exercise undue influence with editorial decisions ?
I do hope not.
Well said Mr Editor. My only critisism is the strangling of comments made towards our Council and especially the Council Leader. Highlighted by the fact that anything to do with these two is not given the (Your Say) box. One might start to think that the leader of the Council is able to exercise undue influence with editorial decisions ? I do hope not. capt spaulding
  • Score: 0

10:29am Sat 15 Dec 12

inthesticks says...

There is no good reason to be not allow comment on stories that involve the council or those elected into office. It is undemocratic. They work for us and are paid by us and will be voted out by us should we choose. It is obviously not on to make insulting comments and they should be removed as they are now.
There`s no wonder that people are starting to think that an elected person has more influence than they should over the local media. I know it must be hard to strike a balance but YP have got it wrong at the moment. It is making YP look bad and also COYC.
There is a letter about pay for apprentices at the council, why on earth are we not allowed to comment on that? It`s ridiculous. I was going to make points about the level of pay which is set by the government, which may have been in defence of the council, but stifling comments doesn`t allow the public to see other views on the matter.
I am not one to slag off people and certainly don`t agree with personal comments about people`s weight etc. but people who put themselves in public office have to accept criticism and sometimes public anger over their decisions and if they can`t then they are in the wrong job.
There is no good reason to be not allow comment on stories that involve the council or those elected into office. It is undemocratic. They work for us and are paid by us and will be voted out by us should we choose. It is obviously not on to make insulting comments and they should be removed as they are now. There`s no wonder that people are starting to think that an elected person has more influence than they should over the local media. I know it must be hard to strike a balance but YP have got it wrong at the moment. It is making YP look bad and also COYC. There is a letter about pay for apprentices at the council, why on earth are we not allowed to comment on that? It`s ridiculous. I was going to make points about the level of pay which is set by the government, which may have been in defence of the council, but stifling comments doesn`t allow the public to see other views on the matter. I am not one to slag off people and certainly don`t agree with personal comments about people`s weight etc. but people who put themselves in public office have to accept criticism and sometimes public anger over their decisions and if they can`t then they are in the wrong job. inthesticks
  • Score: 0

11:02am Sat 15 Dec 12

cityforthepremier says...

"Lord Justice Leveson praised local newspapers in his report into the ethics and culture of the press, saying their contribution to local life was “truly without parallel”. "

They obviously didn't read your letters page then because, if they had, they would have come to the same conclusion as the rest of us. That the local paper is the natural home of the mentally ill.
"Lord Justice Leveson praised local newspapers in his report into the ethics and culture of the press, saying their contribution to local life was “truly without parallel”. " They obviously didn't read your letters page then because, if they had, they would have come to the same conclusion as the rest of us. That the local paper is the natural home of the mentally ill. cityforthepremier
  • Score: 0

11:41am Sat 15 Dec 12

capt spaulding says...

cityforthepremier wrote:
"Lord Justice Leveson praised local newspapers in his report into the ethics and culture of the press, saying their contribution to local life was “truly without parallel”. "

They obviously didn't read your letters page then because, if they had, they would have come to the same conclusion as the rest of us. That the local paper is the natural home of the mentally ill.
cityof thepremier wrote this when matron wasnt looking.
[quote][p][bold]cityforthepremier[/bold] wrote: "Lord Justice Leveson praised local newspapers in his report into the ethics and culture of the press, saying their contribution to local life was “truly without parallel”. " They obviously didn't read your letters page then because, if they had, they would have come to the same conclusion as the rest of us. That the local paper is the natural home of the mentally ill.[/p][/quote]cityof thepremier wrote this when matron wasnt looking. capt spaulding
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Sat 15 Dec 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

I agree with 'inthesticks' (10.29am) post. The press have been unduly pressured by James Alexander to disallow comments on articles and letters featuring the Council leader, and it is not right. The excuse that it's because of abusive insulting personal comments is ostensible, and invalid. The majority of posts give opinions on important local issues, and the odd one that does overstep the mark can be reported and removed. The total ban should be lifted, as it only makes the press, the council, and the council leader look bad. The truth is, James Alexander cannot take criticism, and will do all he can to prevent bad press - his control freakery is obvious to all who take an interest in local council related issues.
I agree with 'inthesticks' (10.29am) post. The press have been unduly pressured by James Alexander to disallow comments on articles and letters featuring the Council leader, and it is not right. The excuse that it's because of abusive insulting personal comments is ostensible, and invalid. The majority of posts give opinions on important local issues, and the odd one that does overstep the mark can be reported and removed. The total ban should be lifted, as it only makes the press, the council, and the council leader look bad. The truth is, James Alexander cannot take criticism, and will do all he can to prevent bad press - his control freakery is obvious to all who take an interest in local council related issues. Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Sat 15 Dec 12

old_geezer says...

Like Terry Smith, I'm against state regulation of the press - but that is NOT what Leveson proposed; in fact he warns in so many words that people will try to misrepresent his proposal as such.

So what's the difference? Leveson proposes that an independent regulator operate within a statutory framework. That is not state regulation, still less censorship - but it does give the proposed new body more teeth than the almost-useless PCC.
Like Terry Smith, I'm against state regulation of the press - but that is NOT what Leveson proposed; in fact he warns in so many words that people will try to misrepresent his proposal as such. So what's the difference? Leveson proposes that an independent regulator operate within a statutory framework. That is not state regulation, still less censorship - but it does give the proposed new body more teeth than the almost-useless PCC. old_geezer
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Sat 15 Dec 12

roobarb85 says...

I don't often find myself in agreement with Messrs Spaulding and Pimpernel, but in this case they're spot on.

If you put yourself up for public office, you must expect strident examination of your words and deeds.
Isn't that what active democracy is all about?

If you believe in your words and deeds then they'll stand up to scrutiny won't they?

Of course, comments on a person's appearance etc are not on - but the Press website surely has a moderator who can remove any such pdq.

Let's have healthy debate - you do want more than 35% to turn up at the next election? Then show people it's worthwhile expressing their view!!
I don't often find myself in agreement with Messrs Spaulding and Pimpernel, but in this case they're spot on. If you put yourself up for public office, you must expect strident examination of your words and deeds. Isn't that what active democracy is all about? If you believe in your words and deeds then they'll stand up to scrutiny won't they? Of course, comments on a person's appearance etc are not on - but the Press website surely has a moderator who can remove any such pdq. Let's have healthy debate - you do want more than 35% to turn up at the next election? Then show people it's worthwhile expressing their view!! roobarb85
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree