So, what do you think of the Leveson enquiry proposals?
If you are really interested and want to form an intelligent opinion on the matter don’t, and I mean don’t read any of the national papers; they all have their own vested interest in the matter and from what I’ve seen so far, not one of them is able to report on the recommendations of Leveson without some sort of spin. Obviously a spin that suggests that to implement them in full would be a mistake, disaster, a backward step, removing a freedom etc. You’ve seen them; even Dave (David 'call me Dave' Cameron) suggested it would be “crossing the Rubicon”. Some of you may be asking why I say ‘obviously’. Let me answer that with a question. How many of you believe the national press (the Sun, Mail, Telegraph, Guardian etc, you know, the dailies) tells the whole truth, come on, let’s see a show of hands. You have got to be kidding me. The national press wouldn’t know what the whole truth is if it bit them in the bum. One of the first indications of their lies over this whole affair is inclusions in their reporting that the general public is not interested in Leveson or his recommendations.
You are interested (Oh please tell me you are). You may have a big interest or just a little interest. It doesn’t matter, the press are trying to put you off by suggesting you are out there on your own, it’s just you because no one else cares one way or the other. They are all making the same noises now, saying please don’t take our freedom away, we are ever so sorry, what we need is a system of self-regulation, that’ll do it. Are you nuts? The one thing that no one seems to take into account is human nature. We just can’t be trusted. If the press is incapable of reporting the Leveson report and recommendations honestly, without any sort of bias one way or the other, then what chance do we have?
Don’t be fooled by Dave’s stance on the issue. The only reason he doesn’t want to implement the recommendations in full is because he’s shit scared of thepress and how they will hang him out to dry. Are you starting to get the picture? How long do you think a fox can be trusted to guard a hen house? Remember, it’s the boss fox who’s saying ‘trust me; the chickens are safe in my hands’. Don’t go away with the idea that I think all of the Leveson report and recommendations are good. I don’t think enough was made of the police failures to pursue and prosecute for phone tapping/hacking. I think it’s true what some are saying in that a lot of the wrong doing was in fact illegal. So I can also see why there is an argument about further legislation. However, I still think it just can’t be left to human nature to maintain freedom of the press. Example of human nature and its results (or consequences); the unspeakably vile and despicable abuses perpetrated by the Murdoch press in particular. Example; more than 4,000 people have been identified by police as possible victims of phone hacking by the NOTW. The forthcoming prosecutions specify 600 identifiable alleged victims. The alleged targets have included relatives of dead UK soldiers and people who were caught up in the 7/7 London bombings.
Don’t forget it was Cameron who made firm and binding promises to some the victims of the worst examples of exploitation, unscrupulousness, breach of both trust and basic decency that should Leveson's conclusions be anything other than completely barking, which they aren't then he would implement them in full. Get out of that one Dave. The fact is he running scared of Murdoch and the rest of the major printing players. At the end of the day we need a proper code of conduct, one that is enforceable (by law if necessary). The code must take into account freedom of speech, in such a way that over-influential individuals such as Rupert Murdoch cannot cynically and repeatedly abuse it. The code should also ensure there are appropriate standards of conduct in relation to the treatment of other people in the process of material gathering; an appropriate respect for privacy and the need to avoid misrepresentation. It must take into account the interests of the public in detecting or exposing crime or serous impropriety, protecting public health and safety, preventing the public from being seriously misled and the rights of individuals. But bove all, it must take into account that major variable; human nature.