I have been reading reports on the Royal Charter on Press Regulation and I fear they sound the death knell for this blog and many like it. Despite claims that blogs are not included in this Charter, this extract seems to say that they are:
As we live in a post-democratic age, I was not surprised to read that:
I am not a wealthy man and I am not going to risk losing what little I have in order to keep this blog running as it is. So if this Royal Charter is signed into being, as is, then it will have succeeded in destroying freedom of expression in this country and my little blog with it.
b) “relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom:This blogger is currently based in the UK, where it is published is a moot point, and it contains news-related material.
i.) a newspaper or magazine containing news-related material, or
ii.) a website containing news-related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine);
As we live in a post-democratic age, I was not surprised to read that:
'The charter will not be passed by MPs, but will need to be approved at the May meeting of the Queen's Privy Council - advisers to the Queen, mostly comprising senior politicians.'And that:
'Meanwhile, a clause in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which will mean that the charter cannot be amended without a two-thirds majority in Parliament, was approved in the Lords on Tuesday evening.'The BBC manage to report that:
'And a separate bill, the Crime and Courts Bill, will have amendments ensuring that newspapers who refused to join the new regulatory regime would be potentially liable for exemplary damages if a claim was upheld against them.'But not that if anyone in the future should have a complaint about something written on this blog then they will be able to complain to the new Regulator without bearing any costs. If the Regulator finds for complainant then I would be forced to apologise and retract, which is fair. What is not fair is that regardless of whether the complaint is upheld or not, I would have to pay the costs of the complainant. That is iniquitous and a licence for the censorious, the vexatious and the malicious to make complaints. This Charter will simply encourage people with a grudge to make a complaint in the full knowledge that they will never be held responsible for so doing.
I am not a wealthy man and I am not going to risk losing what little I have in order to keep this blog running as it is. So if this Royal Charter is signed into being, as is, then it will have succeeded in destroying freedom of expression in this country and my little blog with it.
3 comments:
Much as I admire you and would be desperately sorry to lose your blog, I cannot blame you. The bastards are making themselves unaccountable. A very, very dark day.
Thanks for all you've achieved to date - I'm sure it's been a pretty thankless task but many of us value it tremendously.
Richard North posted: There has been a certain amount of concern as to whether bloggers might be caught by the proposed press regulations, and thus be exposed to crippling fines. However, in the debate last night in the Commons, the position was made clear by culture secretary Maria Miller.
A clause inserted into the coming Bill makes the law apply only to a "relevant publisher". Such a publisher would have to be publishing news-related material in the course of a business, the material would have to be written by a range of authors and it would have to be subject to editorial control.
These tests, says Miller, "would exclude a one-man band or a single blogger". The clause added is "specifically designed to protect small-scale bloggers", she said. Lone bloggers clearly do not meet the criteria necessary to include them in the regulatory maw.
I can only agree with Davieboy. Thanks for your tireless work in upholding what is good and exposing what is evil.
Post a Comment