Hacked Off 'steamrolled Labour into deal on press regulation'

http://m.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/27/hacked-off-labour-press-regulation

Should I be reassured?

EU Referendum has posted an interesting piece that addresses some of my worries I expressed in this piece:

'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.

However, online news sites such as Huffington Post, may well be caught in the net. Thus, if anything, this new law will have the effect of levelling the playing field between the clogs and the independent bloggers.'

I will wait to see if such a clause is inserted but I won't be allowing myself a celebratory drink just yet.


Thanks to Ronnie B for pointing me in the direction of the EU Referendum article.

Whilst I am saying thank you, I must also thank the two commenters who said such nice things following my rather depressed post:

Davieboy said...

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.

Anonymous said...

I can only agree with Davieboy. Thanks for your tireless work in upholding what is good and exposing what is evil.

 

The one hundred and eightieth weekly "No shit Sherlock" award

'Ian Hislop: Press regulation deal 'worrying''

per the BBC

"No shit, Sherlock"

Advance Notice - The end of this blog

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:

b) “relevant publisher” means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom:

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);

This blogger is currently based in the UK, where it is published is a moot point, and it contains news-related material.

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.

"Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free."

Liberty's Human Rights Page contains the following  

 

The right to freedom of expression and the right to protest are crucial in a democracy – information and ideas help to inform political debate and are essential to public accountability and transparency in Government.

Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.

- Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

Freedom of speech and freedom to protest are closely linked – free speech would mean nothing if there was no right to use public spaces to make your views known.

The rights to free speech and protest, along with the right to form and join associations or groups, are found in Articles 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act.

These rights can be limited by law to protect the interests of others, but only when the limitation is proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.

So, for example:

• the right to free speech will not protect a person who tries to spread hateful lies against another but it will protect fair comment;
• the right to protest won’t protect violent gatherings but it will protect peaceful protest.

In recent years we have seen a variety of measures introduced that undermine the right to protest and freedom of speech.

• Laws intended to combat anti-social behaviour, terrorism and serious crime are routinely used against legitimate protesters.

• Broadly drafted anti-terrorism offences of 'encouragement' and 'glorification' of terrorism threaten to make careless talk a crime.

• Membership of certain organisations can be banned under anti-terror laws even if the organisation is non-violent and political.

• Hate speech laws have been extended in a piecemeal way to ban ever-expanding categories of speech.

• Broad anti-terrorism powers of stop and search have been used to harass and stifle peaceful protesters.

• Protest around Parliament has been severely restricted by laws limiting and overly regulating the right to assemble and protest around Parliament.

Oddly I can see no mention of the plans to implememt the Leveson proposals on the Press. Not a word, odd? Come on Shami Chakrabarti have you opinion?

Freedom in the Middle East and North Africa

Freedom House's latest report into Press Freedom around the world is out.
Here's an interesting graphic

So where do these 2% of people live?

Here's how Freddom House rate the 20 countries:
Algeria - Not Free
Bahrain - Not Free
Egypt - Partly Free
Iran - Not Free
Iraq - Not Free
Israel - Free
Jordan - Not Free
Kuwait - Partly Free
Lebanon - Partly Free
Libya - Partly Free
Morocco - Partly Free
Oman - Not Free
Qatar - Not Free
Saudi Arabia - Not Free
Syria - Not Free
Tunisia - Partly Free
United Arab Emirates - Not Free
West Bank & Gaza Strip - Not Free
Western Sahara - Not Free
Yemen - Not Free

Do you spot the pattern?

20 Countries:
13 Islamic countries rated 'Not Free'
6 Islamic countries rated 'Partly Free'
1 non-Islamic country rated 'Free' - Israel - the country that so often bears the brunt of the world's criticisms.


I am waiting for the BBC to report this study on their Middle East news pages.... Somehow I doubt that Jeremy Bowen, Jon Donnison or the rest of the BBC Middle East news team will consider this to be newsworthy, how can it be as it paints Israel in a positive light.

The power of the threat

Some people believe that the the BBC and other left-wing media are actively in cahoots with Islamists. This Telegraph report puts forward an alternative explanation, fear of violence.

'Channel 4 cancels Islam documentary screening after presenter threatened A screening of a controversial documentary on the history of Islam has been cancelled on security advice after its presenter was threatened. ... Historian Tom Holland's Channel 4 film Islam: The Untold Story sparked more than 1,000 complaints when it was broadcast. Holland was threatened online with a torrent of abusive messages on Twitter. A Channel 4 spokeswoman said: "Having taken security advice, we have reluctantly cancelled a planned screening of the programme Islam: The Untold Story. We remain extremely proud of the film which is still available to view on 4oD." '

Press freedom in the UK is now only possible if Islamists allow it. Happy with that?

Freedom of the Press Chicago style

Jay Levine turning on a fellow journalist seemingly because someone tried to actually question Rahm Emanuel.


Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

Do people not see the problem with this? s Barack Obama 'taking the piss'?I

My piece about Barack Obama's odd way of honouring the murdered Jewish American Daniel Pearl missed a fascinating fact that the BBC amongst others have failed to mention. The BBC report Barack Obama's words that:

"This legislation, in a very modest way, puts us clearly on the side of journalistic freedom."

What they do not report is that first the ceremony raised eyebrows as the White House restricted media access as the president signed the free press bill. Also there was this interesting exchange:
when Chip Reid, a CBS News correspondent, tried to exercise his press freedom by asking the president a question about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico thus "Speaking of press freedom, could you answer a couple of questions on BP?".
Barack Obama replied "You’re certainly free to ask them, Chip,"
Chip Reid then asked "Will you answer them?... How about a question on Iran?"
To which that great preserver of a free press replied "We won’t be answering... I’m not doing a press conference today."

Free press must mean something different to Barack Oabama than it does to me. Maybe he means a press free to write articles glowing with praise for 'The One' and lauding all that 'HE' does.

Peter Mandelson and Oleg Deripaska

Peter Oborne is interested... see "Deeply disturbing questions over Mandy's oligarch" the second item in the column.

"It is almost now a year since the connection between Mandelson, then EU trade commissioner, and Deripaska first became public knowledge.

I found the details shocking then, and I still find them shocking today. Many profoundly important questions remain unanswered, such as: Why is Deripaska denied a visa in the U.S? Why did Mandelson accept hospitality from such a figure, especially since Deripaska is an aluminium tycoon with a keen interest in breaking down trade barriers with Europe.

Why did Mandelson lie - saying that he had made only a fleeting visit to Deripaska's yacht when, in fact, he stayed several days?

If any readers can cast any light on all this, I would be keenly interested."

In the USA soon and how long before it finds it way to the UK?

Barack Obama's administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plans to support "net neutrality" and go after anyone who violates its tenets. So that will be the left stopping free speech on the Internet but allowing big corporations to suck up to Barack Obama in the USA and the Labour party in the UK. The legislation is designed to keep the left wing advantage in all things media. "Net neutrality" isn't about fairness, it's the product of the leftist state of mind. A state of mind that compels liberals to silence the opposition by any means necessary - all in the interest of "neutrality" and "fairness", of course.


Here's Andrew Klavan explaining why the left just want opponents to "Shut up!"

The police and photographers

Here's some video form December 2008 that may be of interest...



Thanks to Journalism.co.uk for the spot.

News update

Photographers fight back (update and reminder)

The protest goes ahead against section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 which comes into force today. Daniel 1979 has a good anecdote:

"When I was at school, not too many years ago we were taught that cameras were forbidden in the Soviet Union and in East Germany. This, our liberal teacher told us was because cameras can be used to document offences of the state against civilians; as such, they were considered a tool that can bring about civil unrest and encourage protest against the Communist Governments. This particular teacher, sneered at this particular law and the system in which it helped preserve."

Daniel 1979 also has a warning for us:

"We take a big step further into Labour's totalitarian state tomorrow, as professional photographers can be arrested and detained for doing their jobs. Tourists taking pictures of the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace are liable for prosecution. Taking photos in the street, at sporting events, at weddings and during state proceedings could all lead to the possibility of prosecution."

If you voted Labour in 2001 or 2005 then you are partly to blame for what is happening; what you learnt from 1997 to 2001 should have told you all you needed to know about this Labour government's integrity and their control-freakery.

I aim to be outside New Scotland Yard at 11am, Nikon in hand; so long as work doesn't get in the way.

Photographers fight back

I have blogged many, many times about the way that this Labour government and its tame Police have been restricting the rights of photographers. The last two items showed how we photographers are seen as perverts and as terrorists, do read both articles and the articles they link to.

Today I see at SpyBlog that there is a fightback. Apparently the NUJ and comedian Mark Thomas are organising "a mass picture taking session outside London's police HQ on Monday 16 February - the day the act becomes law.". The NUJ article continues:

"Mark - who uses his comedy act to expose state and corporate wrongdoing - will be joined outside New Scotland Yard by renowned documentary-maker Chris Atkins, NUJ vice-president Pete Murray and a bevy of photographers.

Photojournalist and NUJ member Marc Vallée said: "The plan is simple, turn up with your camera and exercise your democratic right to take a photograph in a public place."

There have already been cases of photographers stopped from working by police quoting anti-terror laws.

John Toner, the NUJ's organiser who looks after freelance photographers, said: "Police officers are in news pictures at all sorts of events - football matches, carnivals, state processions - so the union wants to make it clear that taking their pictures is not the act of a criminal.

"Our members are photographers - not terrorists."

Roy Mincoff, NUJ Legal Officer, said: "Photographers do not want to endanger the health and safety of the police or the public - but it is important in a democracy that they can do their jobs properly without facing unnecessary legal restrictions."

The photo taking will start at 11am outside New Scotland Yard on Broadway, London."

I will see you there.

UN secrecy

Read this story and wonder why we bother with the pretence that the UN is a force for good.

"A television production crew was expelled Thursday from a United Nations meeting discussing freedom of expression and defamation of religions.

Two journalists from the French-German cultural channel ARTE were asked to leave a meeting room at the UN's European headquarters during a public session of a human rights body preparing for a racism conference in South Africa later this year.

The journalists were working on a documentary on how the issue of human rights is debated at the United Nations.

According to a diplomatic source, the expulsion announced by the chairman of the session, Russian representative Yuri Boychenko, was requested by the Organisation of Islamic Conference and by the African group of states."

"We are doing this because we want to ensure better flow of information"

"We are doing this because we want to ensure better flow of information"

The words of the Kenyan government, explaining why "The Kenyan government has barred unapproved contacts between the media and President-elect Barack Obama's
extended family.

Family members will be required to receive permission from the government before making any public statements about their famous relative, according to the Nairobi Star.

"We are doing this because we want to ensure better flow of information," Athman Said, an under-secretary in the Ministry of Heritage, told the Obama family in Kogelo.

"The government has decided that you should inform its officers who will be based here if you want to address the media."

Journalists wishing to speak with the family must first be approved by the government. "

You can read the rest of the article here.

Anyone would think that the Kenyan government and maybe the Barack Obama team had something to hide re his Kenyan connections, especially those to Raila Odinga.

A quote that sums up this Labour government

From The Scotsman's report on Sarah Brown's trip to campaign for her husband's party in Cardenden comes this extract:

"Then came the most extraordinary piece of control freakery of the day. "I want you guys on the green," said the man from the Labour Party. "There will be six or seven guys with guns who will keep you away from her. You may be shot and then it won't be my problem.""

Democracy, freedom of the press, freedom of speech - just three concepts that appear to have passed this Labour Government by.

Press Freedom: "Collateral Damage"

The forward intelligence team and "the Press"..

Do I hear the phrase "police state"?


Thanks to Current.Com

Photographer = terrorist or paedophile

Being a keen photographer, I like to carry at least one camera with me at all times and photograph landscapes, buildings, trees, flowers and occasionally people. Recently I have been aware of some worrying articles reporting that amateur photographers like myself were under suspicion. here is one article from The Register about:

"Stephen Carroll is a keen amateur photographer, with an interest in candid portraiture: "street photography", he calls it. In December 2007, he was in the centre of Hull taking photos.

Unfortunately for him, his actions were spotted by two local policemen. They stopped him in the middle of Boots and asked him to accompany them outside. There they told him that he had been taking photographs of "sensitive buildings". One said: "I am taking your film".

Mr Carroll requested an explanation. He asked whether he was "obligated" to hand over the film. In vain! Every time he asked, back came the same response: "I am taking your film". Robocop is alive and well and apparently working in Humberside.

When he eventually handed over his film, he was asked to turn out his pockets and to show what other films he had on him."

You can read about other instances of photographers being detained etc. here including this re Austin Mitchell MP:

"Austin Mitchell MP has tabled a motion in the Commons that has drawn on cross-party support from 150 other MPs, calling on the Home Office and the police to educate officers about photographers' rights.

Mr Mitchell, himself a keen photographer, was challenged twice, once by a lock-keeper while photographing a barge on the Leeds to Liverpool canal and once on the beach at Cleethorpes.

"There's a general alarm about terrorism and about paedophiles, two heady cocktails, and police and PCSOs [police community support officers] and wardens and authorities generally seem to be worried about this."

Photographers have every right to take photos in a public place, he says, and it's crazy for officials to challenge them when there are so many security cameras around and so many people now have cameras on phones. But it's usually inexperienced officers responsible.

"If a decision is made to crack down on photographers, it should be made at the top. It's a general officiousness and a desire to interfere with people going about their legitimate business.""

Here is Austin Mitchell's EDM and the signatories to it.

Here is a BBC piece from the PM blog that shows the Metroplitan Police advertising poster that has worried many and where this comment was posted:

"I have been stopped twice when I have been using my camera in public. The first time was in 2005 when Iwas attempting to photograph a rather stunning sunrise from my seat on the train between Basingstoke and Waterloo. The conductor ran down the carriage and ordered me to stop, then told me he was confiscating my camera as it was illegal to take photographs from trains. I refused to give him my camera and asked exactly which part of the law stated that. He could not answer this, but became physically aggressive and tried to grab my camera. At this point two men in the carriage told him he was being an unreasonable idiot and to leave me alone. There was a very unpleasant argument and he finally left, threatening me with arrest by the British Transport police at Waterloo (this did not happen) as I was apparently a 'risk' to national security.

The second was last year in the city of London, where I was approached by someone who claimed to be a security guard from a building that I had just photographed. This man was not in uniform and had no identification to confirm his claim. He attempted to confiscate my camera as well. I explained that I had been photographing an architecturally interesting building and made it very clear that I knew the law and my rights, and if he attempted to touch me that would be a physical assault and taking my camera would be theft. He lfinally walked away muttering 'well don't do it again without asking my permission first'.

Anecdotal I know, but all true."

Here are some stories of professional photographers being mistreated by the police, some of the stories are quite frankly scary - this is Britain not a totalitarian police state, or are the two becoming synonymous?


Here are the ACPO Police-Media Guidelines.

Here are the details of Marc Vallee's assault and subsequent case.

Here is "A short guide to photographers rights in the UK."

and finally here is a spoof that my soon be rather too close to the truth.