Cameron, the odious, lying shit

[David Johnson]

So there we have it from Cameron.

He boasts about supporting the setting up of the Leveson inquiry. Though he chooses to ignore the fact that without Ed Miliband, in a welcome step away from the Blair/Brown government sucking up to Murdoch, had to drag Cameron kicking and screaming into setting up a judicial inquiry.

Cameron stated that, unless the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry were "bonkers" he would implement them. THe recommendations of Leveson do not appear "bonkers" to me. They merely provide an element of regulatory underpinning, which is similar to many professions in British society like doctors, the legal profession etc. And Cameron goes back on his promise and states today he is against statutory regulation in any form.

Why? Well for as long as I can remember over 80% of the press have supported the Tories. THe press, understandably, want to continue self regulation which has failed time and time again. The reason the press overwhelmingly support the Tories is because their rich, corporate owners support the party of the rich, the Tory party which is owned and funded largely by the City and corporate Britain.

So Cameron does the bidding of the rich and wealthy press barons and the parents of Millie Dowler can go fuck themselves.

What a shithead!

[Flat_Eric]

David Johnson wrote:

> And Cameron goes back on his promise
> and states today he is against statutory regulation in any
> form.


Dave the Duplicitous going back on a promise? Or even on a "cast-iron guarantee"??

Surely not !laugh! !laugh!

- Eric

[David Johnson]

Yes I know, "SHock horror, politician lies".

However, when it involves undertakings made to the parents of a murdered schoolgirl who got her phone hacked, I can see Cameron getting an almighty kicking over this and well deserved it would be too.

[max_tranmere]

Leverson said today there have been 7 of these type enquiries over the last 70 years. This is the 7th one and the last 6 have either been ignored or resulted in toothless bodies being set up. It seemed likely this one, the 7th one, would make little differnce to anything aswell. Will be interesting to see what the newspaper front pages have tomorrow about all this.

[David Johnson]

"This is the 7th one and the last 6 have either been ignored or resulted in toothless bodies being set up."

The reason for that is that each time the UK press which is self regulating was told "you have one last chance to sort yourself out or we will bring in legislation". Each time the press self regulation failed but the government of the day did not act.

The Leveson report recommends a small element of statutory legislation. That is the difference. But if Cameron refuses to implement it, then we will just carry on as normal and be back to square one.

[Arginald Valleywater]

Alistair Campbell was on The One Show. Sanctimonious lying choad sniffer and the biggest stranger to the truth since Max Clifford. You could smell him through the speakers. Be very careful if you want the press censored, more legislated etc or do you fancy a move to North Korea?

[Gentleman]

That's exactly the scaremongering rubbish that has been put about.

[Lizard]

Regulating the press is a bad move, the people involved in the hacking scandal should face the ordinary law. Leveson is calling for the State to 'regulate' the press, ie: for government control of the newspapers. This is not what's needed in a free society. We don't need new laws to restrict press freedom. Some of the recent 'outings' Savile, Smith, and many other Injustices would probably never have come to light if the press was regulated. The whole enquiry was set up so that rich Lawyers and judges could make even more money, I agree Cameron is a cunt mind, but that's a separate issue.

[David Johnson]

"Be very careful if you want the press censored, more legislated etc or do you fancy a move to North Korea?"

"Be careful if you want the press censored"

No-one is talking about censoring the press apart from the press who want to carry on as usual so invent this as a risk. Leveson suggests enshrining press freedom in legislation, something that doesn't exist at the moment.

"more legislated etc "

Since as usual you have no idea what you are talking about, these are the relevant bits from the report below.

"do you fancy a move to North Korea?"

Your comments are so melodramatic, I am beginning to wonder if you are a closet queen.

!wink!

It is worth being clear what this legislation would not do. The legislation would not establish a
body to regulate the press: it would be up to the press to come forward with their own body
that meets the criteria laid down. The legislation would not give any rights to Parliament, to
the Government, or to any regulatory (or other) body to prevent newspapers from publishing
any material whatsoever. Nor would it give any rights to these entities to require newspapers
to publish any material except insofar as it would require the recognised self-regulatory body
to have the power to direct the placement and prominence of corrections and apologies in
respect of information found, by that body, to require them.

72.

What would the legislation achieve? Three things. First, it would enshrine, for the first time, a
legal duty on the Government to protect the freedom of the press. Second, it would provide
an independent process to recognise the new self-regulatory body and reassure the public
that the basic requirements of independence and effectiveness were met and continue to
be met; in the Report, I recommend that this is done by Ofcom. Third, by recognising the
new body, it would validate its standards code and the arbitral system sufficient to justify the
benefits in law that would flow to those who subscribed; these could relate to data protection
and the approach of the court to various issues concerning acceptable practice, in addition to
costs consequences if appropriate alternative dispute resolution is available.