Latest post of the previous page:
I could (easily!) be wrong, but weren't they inserted by the Millipede, just to garm up the works...?Alan H wrote:As an aside to this topic, it looks like the Leveson press regulation clauses have just been removed from the libel reform Bill.
Indeed.Assuming that gets back to the House of Commons, there is every chance it will be passed. It's far from perfect with some notable changes missing, but at least it's an improvement.
I don't know quite what a Royal Cahrter is either, but I understand that it means that government ministers won't be able to alter regulations, which they would do under Millipede's original peoposal.However, back to Leveson and press regulation. David 'call me Dave' Cameron and his cronies don't really want proper, effective regulation of what his friends say in their newspapers, but he has proposed a Royal Charter. I'm still hazy on what this is supposed to do and how it will work, but one analysis of the scope of it seems to have the regulatory body covering everything from national newspapers to Facebook and Twitter. I kid you not: UK Bloggers & Tweeters: Be aware that the Royal Charter re: #Leveson is also aimed at regulating *you*
Be that as it may, does it strike anyone else that, for once, there has been some sort of reasonable co-operation betweent the three leading parties? (Ed Balls wasn't involved, for a start!)
It also strikes me as inconsistent to be concerned that the bastards in the press be "properly, effectively regulated", but that the internet should somehow be exempt..... What's the difference?
Be careful what you wish for....