Post by Norman WellsPost by The TodalPost by Handsome JackPost by The TodalThe newspaper editors have always deeply resented press regulation.
Now they've got their way. The thinking probably is that all the bad
journalists have been prosecuted or cast out of journalism and now
everything's going to be okay.
After all, Kelvin McKenzie was eventually sacked for his offensive
journalism. Let's conveniently forget that the editors and sub editors
who published his offensive opinion-pieces have faced no sanction and
are unlikely to do so.
Is that really what you want? People who write material that offends you
should be categorised by the State as "bad journalists" and prevented
from publishing anything? Uurgh.
No, that isn't what I want and again, you have a lot of homework to do
to catch up. You could perhaps begin by reading the Leveson Report or
its executive summary.
He asked what *you* wanted, not what Leveson says. And it seems to me
that what *you* want is for 'offensive' pieces to be banned. Offensive
to whom, though, you don't bother to say.
No, you made that up. I haven't asked for any offensive pieces to be
"banned". What we need is a proper complaints system so that people who
have good reason to complain about news articles can have a fair and
objective investigation rather than an investigation by those who have
themselves been complicit in law-breaking.
Post by Norman WellsThere is no general law against causing offence. Nor should there be.
Freedom of speech *is* the freedom to offend. If that were not so then
anyone claiming to be offended could put a halt to any action he chooses
to dislike, and curtail anything anyone else says or does.
Again, you totally miss the point so that you can make a pompous speech
about freedom.
The current position, though, is that any rich celebrity can put a halt
to any journalistic investigation into his business life or private life
by getting an interlocutory injunction, as Robert Maxwell frequently
did. So the law favours the rich. The poor have no recourse.
Post by Norman WellsThat's just what the snowflake generation would like of course, and
tries to put into practice. It doesn't like hearing views contrary to
its own, so tries to silence them. In doing so, it is denying freedom
of speech.
While I'm about it, let me speak up for Kelvin McKenzie. He was sacked
for comparing the footballer Ross Barkley to a gorilla and making
disparaging comments about the city of Liverpool.
Apparently so. The irony is that his newspaper printed his remarks and
then decided that even more newspapers could be sold if they sacked him
for expressing his opinions.
So the newspaper has a win-win situation. It cynically prints
"controversial" opinion pieces to get more sales and publicity, then
cynically sacks the author to get more sales and publicity.
Post by Norman WellsWhat? You lose your job for making 'disparaging comments' that any of
us might make about any thick simian footballer and any city as grotty
as Liverpool? It's unbelievable! What on earth have we become if what
he has done is a sacking offence?
As above.
Post by Norman WellsOh, but of course the snowflakes have played the racism card, which
trumps all. Unknown to McKenzie, Barclay has a Nigerian grandfather,
which therefore elevates what he said into a heinous, unforgiveable crime.
The picture of the gorilla was inserted by the newspaper, not by Kelvin
McKenzie. It was offensive about Barclay regardless of whether it was
racist. It was also offensive about the people of Liverpool. Now, you're
certainly entitled to make the point that the people of Liverpool are
not a protected minority in the way that homosexual or disabled people
or racial minorities are. However they are a protected minority as far
as the newspaper itself is concerned because they want to sell
newspapers to the people of Liverpool.
Post by Norman WellsThe Thought Police are rising. Be very afraid.
Post by The TodalOr failing that, you could do the lazy thing and browse through the
press accounts of evidence given to Leveson by members of the public
such as the parents of Milly Dowler.
The Press commits numerous breaches of privacy and regularly libels
people. On occasion it makes racist statements or statements that insult
the people of Liverpool.
I don't accept that comparing a footballer to a gorilla is racist at
all. The fact that he was found later to have a Nigerian grandfather
doesn't alter that in the slightest.
Of course Kelvin McKenzie didn't intend to say anything racist. But who
knows what was in the mind of the sub-editor or picture editor who
inserted a picture of a gorilla into the text?
Post by Norman WellsI don't accept either that you shouldn't be allowed to gently mock the
people of Liverpool, or Southern Jessies, or mean Scots, or tight
Yorkshiremen, or no good boyos if you want. It's all part of freedom of
speech.
As was the Sun report accusing the Liverpool fans of urinating on the
dead people in the Hillsborough statium and picking their pockets. All
part of freedom of speech.
You couldn't sue the newspaper for maligning your community. You could
try making a complaint, of course, but who would hear that complaint and
adjudicate on it?
Post by Norman WellsPost by The TodalIf you complain to its regulatory body your
complaint is assessed and judged by newspaper editors, the very people
who are committing this offensive behaviour.
Good. They will robustly dismiss the complaints trying to curtail
legitimate freedom of speech with the rapidity they deserve.
And that's where you demonstrate that you have neither read nor
understood the Leveson report. A report which the Government promised to
heed and the recommendations from which the Government promised to
implement, but it has now broken that promise. Cosying up to the
powerful newspaper editors is far more important than protecting
ordinary members of the public from intrusive press reporting.