“We have not got a free press at the moment, and have not had one for quite a long time.

What we have is a national press, owned by mainly right wing wealthy moguls, that has been hijacked to provide a mouthpiece for their incredibly biased views.

No way is that a free press.

We also have a dreadfully irresponsible press which they themselves have never been able to prevent.

The Leveson proposals must be implemented in full!”

“Bob is quite right.
whats the use of having press at all unless they are allowed to inform us as to what might be going on.”

“David Cameron individually cannot decide whether to act on the outcome of the Leveson enquiry as it was commissioned by a Parliamentary Select Committee. He can put forward his views, which his Whip will try to instil into his party, but when the Select Committee vote and it goes to the house, it will be up to those who attend on the day.”

“I believe most editors are going to comply. I do believe in a free press, some of the most significant exposures of wrong-doings were done through a free press. I thought from the beginning that the Leveson enquiry was a bit of a non-starter, I wasn't sure what its purpose was or what it could achieve. There were other ways of bringing the press into line regarding privacy where it is considered appropriate. Its important we do not restrict the press as far as public concern goes, for example wrong-doings of government, and other public representatives, but of course on a more personal level phone hacking of victims family and such like is unacceptable.”

“Of course it should be implemented in full but as long as Cameron is prime minister it won't be implemented because of his cosy association with the likes of Rebecca Brooks and Andy Coulson.
Thats patently obvious.”

“Far more worrying than what was reported was the single main cause of the complaints. Mobile phone (voicemail) hacking.

Surely it would be FAR more important to find out HOW phones were hacked and work on how to prevent it technologically. Strangely, this hasn't been raised as far as I remember.”

“Daveb0360.

No matter what technology you build to prevent hacking, someone will have a method of hacking it.

The intelligence services in many countries for example. It's not just the baddies, but the goodies.

Increasing security is inevitable - but it will push up costs and ultimately prove futile, commercially and legally. The law should be robust enough to prosecute those not licensed to monitor electronic transmissions. Sending those found guilty to prison is the only clear message that will work.”

“We must have a free press. Would we have known about the MP's expenses scandel, without a free press. If the press or anyone breaks the law of the land, we have courts to deal with the law breakers. We don't want a state controlled press.”

“Quote: "We don't want a state controlled press."

Neither do we want what we have now - an over wealthy, right wing mogul controlled press, which exists to spread the right wing dogmas of their owners.

A free press - there is absolutely no chance unless Leveson is implemented in full. And there is not much chance even then while right wing moguls control almost all of it.

Let's face it; only one national newspaper is worth reading and that is the Guardian. I don't trust any others to speak even half the truth.”

“Having a Free Press is one thing,
Having the right to use clandestine operations to obtain information for the sale of a newspaper is another.

You can have a free press - the reader will ultimately decide what they want to buy, but would you endorse a "reporter" burgling a house or hiding in your bedroom to get a scoop?

I doubt it.. They aren't authorised to obtain private information by illegal means.
If a person betrays the trust placed in them and provides the press with it (i.e. a whistleblower), then that is not illegal - but the when the press use incentives to coerce a betrayal of trust, then the ethics of the press are questionable.


It's not the information or publication of it that's wrong.
It's how you come by that information. If you circumvent this law under the auspices of press freedom, you negate the law and say that it's all right for anyone to do it.”

“another thing you have to question,

how many examples of high profile fraud and murder trials which have collapsed because of press interference are there. Sometimes they merely delay proceedings,
sometimes they affect the outcome,
and in some cases a dangerous criminal walks free.

all because the press occasionally abuse their "freedom".

There is no absolute confirmation of this, but there are procedures in place to help prevent it.”