Tuesday 1st November 2016

[StephenDolan]

Is this a sign of the whips + Brown flexing their muscles or a bit more unity? Either way, progress. With a small p.

Labour MPs whipped to vote for phone-hacking costs amendment

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/n ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Morning all.

[SpinningHugo]

Is this a sign of the whips + Brown flexing their muscles or a bit more unity? Either way, progress. With a small p.

Labour MPs whipped to vote for phone-hacking costs amendment

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/n ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Morning all.

As the losing side has to pay the costs of the winning side in litigation in this country, presumably this amendment is to compel the winning side (the newspaper) to pay the costs of the party bringing a claim without merit?

That doesn't seem fair to me.

[PorFavor]

Good morfternoon.

Mark Carney's 2019 departure welcomed by City as UK factory data due – business live
(Guardian)

Rather a sloppily strange headline when the opening sentence of the article actually says this -

The pound got an immediate lift last night when the Bank of England announced that governor Carney would serve an extra year. (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/business/li ... -england-d

[yahyah]

Morning.

I'm trying to find a more reputable link than the Mail but they are reporting that Bank of England figures show credit card debt increased by 8.4% in the last year ''racking up credit card debt at the fastest pace since the financial crash''. Charities are warning of the possible consequences as households take on unsustainable amounts of debt.

[PorFavor]

Since I mentioned this vote, yesterday, here's the outcome -

Keith Vaz to serve on justice committee despite Tory MP’s move to stop him

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... l-mps-vote

[SpinningHugo]

Another barrister resigns from the icsa

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37830816" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reason this isn't going to work is that they have set the remit far to wide because that was what the victims groups have demanded. it can't function as a result.

[Womble44]

Is this a sign of the whips + Brown flexing their muscles or a bit more unity? Either way, progress. With a small p.

Labour MPs whipped to vote for phone-hacking costs amendment

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/n ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Morning all.

As the losing side has to pay the costs of the winning side in litigation in this country, presumably this amendment is to compel the winning side (the newspaper) to pay the costs of the party bringing a claim without merit?

That doesn't seem fair to me.

Have to agree, looks wrong in principle.

[PorFavor]

Is this a sign of the whips + Brown flexing their muscles or a bit more unity? Either way, progress. With a small p.

Labour MPs whipped to vote for phone-hacking costs amendment

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/n ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Morning all.

As the losing side has to pay the costs of the winning side in litigation in this country, presumably this amendment is to compel the winning side (the newspaper) to pay the costs of the party bringing a claim without merit?

That doesn't seem fair to me.

Unless it's badly worded or I'm just missing something, isn't this (my bold) the key bit, though?

The Hollins provision is similar to section 40 of the 2013 Crime and Courts Act, which proposes that the government can force publishers who are not signed up to a regulatory regime recognised by the royal charter-backed press recognition panel to pay both sides’ costs in libel and privacy cases – even if they win. (Guardian - my emphasis)

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ ... -amendment

[SpinningHugo]

Is this a sign of the whips + Brown flexing their muscles or a bit more unity? Either way, progress. With a small p.

Labour MPs whipped to vote for phone-hacking costs amendment

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/n ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Morning all.

As the losing side has to pay the costs of the winning side in litigation in this country, presumably this amendment is to compel the winning side (the newspaper) to pay the costs of the party bringing a claim without merit?

That doesn't seem fair to me.

Unless it's badly worded or I'm just missing something, isn't this (my bold) the key bit, though?

The Hollins provision is similar to section 40 of the 2013 Crime and Courts Act, which proposes that the government can force publishers who are not signed up to a regulatory regime recognised by the royal charter-backed press recognition panel to pay both sides’ costs in libel and privacy cases – even if they win. (Guardian - my emphasis)

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ ... -amendment

Yes. But that is because that regulatory regime is supposed to be the conduit through which you bring such complaints.

Nobody is suggesting that should apply to phone hacking, are they?

(As it happens I think there are good reasons why every newspaper has refused to sign up to this, including the Graun and FT, and if it were challenged that costs regime fall foul of Art 10).

[Willow904]

If the amendment Labour are supporting is a recommendation made by Leveson, I would assume all the pros and cons would have been carefully weighed and the recommendation made for good reasons. As Labour supported this amendment in the Lords, it would be strange for them not to back up that support in the Commons. Having said that, there's no real expectation that any Tory MPs will rebel, is there?

[PorFavor]

If the amendment Labour are supporting is a recommendation made by Leveson, I would assume all the pros and cons would have been carefully weighed and the recommendation made for good reasons. As Labour supported this amendment in the Lords, it would be strange for them not to back up that support in the Commons. Having said that, there's no real expectation that any Tory MPs will rebel, is there?

Exactly. It's presumably not something plucked out of the air on a whim.

[StephenDolan]

If the amendment Labour are supporting is a recommendation made by Leveson, I would assume all the pros and cons would have been carefully weighed and the recommendation made for good reasons. As Labour supported this amendment in the Lords, it would be strange for them not to back up that support in the Commons. Having said that, there's no real expectation that any Tory MPs will rebel, is there?

Nope, but it gets a refresher into the public consciousness of what was said wrt to the setting up of Leveson part 1, part 2 etc.

[StephenDolan]

Carney has played a blinder imho. Good luck recruiting someone to take over just before the Brexit Brown stuff really hits the fan and a GE.

[citizenJA]

Good-morning, everyone.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Carney has played a blinder imho. Good luck recruiting someone to take over just before the Brexit Brown stuff really hits the fan and a GE.

Some have noticed his term will now expire not long before the next Canadian GE is due......

[Lonewolfie]

Morfternoon all...

...and firstly, an apology for my post about the Yemen vote the other day - it seemed to stir up a bit of a hornets' nest, which was not the intention...I had also read the list of MPs involved and can't believe(TM) the likes of Yasmin Qureshi and Paul Flynn would have 'rebelled' in that way and on this subject (and should have made that clear in my comment)...so I did wonder, in my naive way, whether, just perhaps, the Whips Office had somehow arranged it...as the ensuing kerfuffle would strengthen them with the PLP and make it more difficult for 'rebel' MPs. (Not to forget the pro-Saudi contribution of some MPs though (ie Woodcock)).

I agree with Oborne (Again )

[AngryAsWell]

Japan Demands Talks With U.K. Government Over Brexit Strategy
Ambassador to London says his country is ‘major stakeholder’
Tells David Davis Japan should have ‘impact’ on talks

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... t-strategy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lonewolfie]

If the amendment Labour are supporting is a recommendation made by Leveson, I would assume all the pros and cons would have been carefully weighed and the recommendation made for good reasons. As Labour supported this amendment in the Lords, it would be strange for them not to back up that support in the Commons. Having said that, there's no real expectation that any Tory MPs will rebel, is there?

Nope, but it gets a refresher into the public consciousness of what was said wrt to the setting up of Leveson part 1, part 2 etc.

Quite...if only there was some way to highlight this and 'yet another Government defeat'...how many is that now? (I miss OhSo and her lists!)...and without an 'opposition' as well...I look forward to the media reporting it in full...or then again, maybe not

[AnatolyKasparov]

Complaining about the media is no longer enough, I feel.

There needs to be some sort of organised campaign to get them to report this stuff. Any ideas?

[AngryAsWell]

$17bn investment bank pulled every penny out of Britain because of Brexit
'We started selling off our UK holdings to absolute zero maybe a month before the vote.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 90356.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[StephenDolan]

Complaining about the media is no longer enough, I feel.

There needs to be some sort of organised campaign to get them to report this stuff. Any ideas?

By this stuff, do you mean Leveson or government problems in general? If the former I can't see how it happens given the resistance across the newspaper range. BBC takes their lead from that consensus so they're not going to go it alone. As to the government in general, unfortunately pass. Looking forward to hearing any good ideas from you and all!

[Lonewolfie]

Carney has played a blinder imho. Good luck recruiting someone to take over just before the Brexit Brown stuff really hits the fan and a GE.

...and yet...all of this is still true (and (again!) apologies, this time for the 'kool aid' reference in the title - I know that's quite a sensitive subject in itself)...

Then there is Carney’s Goldman Sachs connection: he served the firm for 13 years in New York, London, Tokyo, and Toronto. Yes, things could be worse: he might have been a don in the Sicilian Mafia or a bagman for the Colombian drug cartel. But for anyone who knows how the world really works, a career of rising “success” in an outfit like the latter-day Goldman Sachs does not smell right. For nearly three decades now, Goldman Sachs has brazenly thumbed its nose at its previous reputation for probity: in plain language its ethos lately has been that anything goes, provided only you stay out of jail.

Then there is Carney’s Bilderberg connection. Founded in the Netherlands in the 1950s, the Bilderberg Group is ostensibly merely a top careerist’s mutual aid society –nothing more than the Freemasons on steroids. Carney is officially acknowledged to have attended the most recent Bilderberg meeting, which is interesting as the British finance minister George Osborne, who appointed him to the Bank of England job, is an avid Bilderberger.*

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingl ... fb053843d1

Goldman-Sachs and the globalist bankers haven't gone away...and on this, in some small measure, I am in fact a 'Brexiter' in that, anything that shakes the control of the banks over the national interest and questions the political focus on money and only money (with no reference to history, facts, evidence or reality) is a good thing.

...and while I'm on Broke-sh1t/Remoaner-ing, I'd like to register my annoyance at the subtle but total acceptance of the geographical view of the vote - i.e. this area is remain and this area is leave - 'tis but bullsh1t (IMHO) - if I vote Remain but 52% in my area vote Leave, there are still Remainers in my area (48%, just of those that voted)...so in no way can it be considered a 'Leave' 'area'....so I see it as (purposefully) divisive.

* It has to be said that this years Bilderberg attendee list was remarkably 'vanilla', with very few of the recent 'high profile' attendees (no Gidiot or Ballroom Balls, for example)

[Lonewolfie]

Complaining about the media is no longer enough, I feel.

There needs to be some sort of organised campaign to get them to report this stuff. Any ideas?

Ha - make me king/emperor/president/omnipotent being for the day and I'll immediately replace James (Murkydochian) Harding with Richard Sambrook as BBC Head of News, with a remit to return to the fully independent and non-commercially-focussed attitude to news gathering...but as that is very unlikely to happen, I think it's very difficult - as individuals (or even collectives who are attempting to raise issues) it is impossible to take on the might of the 'media'...for example, the Risk Register attached to the 2012 Health & Social Care Bill - massive public outcry, a direct order from the Information Tribunal to HMG to release it and yet...

The risk assessment of the NHS overhaul in England will not be published after ministers vetoed demands to release it.
The cabinet decided that releasing the document listing possible risks to services could harm the quality of future advice from civil servants.
Labour's shadow health secretary Andy Burnham accused the government of a "cover-up of epic proportions".
An Information Tribunal had ruled in March that the risk register should be published.
The risk register is a written document drawn up by policymakers that lists the threat to the delivery of services from any changes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17989929

...and they can ignore it all, safe in the knowledge that the truth will not be told - how much/many of todays' NHS crises were forseen by that Risk Register?....and yet, here we are, 4 years on and still they give massive chunks of the NHS to their family and friends.

[SpinningHugo]

If the amendment Labour are supporting is a recommendation made by Leveson, I would assume all the pros and cons would have been carefully weighed and the recommendation made for good reasons. As Labour supported this amendment in the Lords, it would be strange for them not to back up that support in the Commons. Having said that, there's no real expectation that any Tory MPs will rebel, is there?

it isn't though is it? This is extra-Leveson?

[SpinningHugo]

Westminster voting intention:
CON: 42% (+3)
LAB: 28% (-)
UKIP: 12% (-1)
LDEM: 8% (-)
GRN: 4 (-1)
(via BMG / 19 - 24 Oct)

http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/westminste ... ober-2016/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(edit to add link)

[SpinningHugo]

ICM more positive as sees Labour cut Tory lead by 1%

Conservatives: 43% (no change)

Labour: 27% (up 1)

Ukip: 12% (up 1)

Lib Dems: 8% (no change)

Greens: 5% (down 1)

28-30 October

Quite interesting graph of this overtime

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is interesting is although Labour is slowly deflating from the low 30s to the high 20s, the big change overtime is to the Tories as they pick up the old Ukip vote.

Historically, catastrophically bad of course.

[Lonewolfie]

...and while I'm at it....a reminder of what 'we the people' are up against....from 2 years ago...

Central Government has more than 1,500 comms staff - 'and it's still impossible to get answers until after deadline'

Guardian and Spectator writer Nick Cohen said the revelation was a sign that current leaders are "as determined as the last government to propagandise".
He said: "Even when it is cutting essential public services, it will not cut the number of press officers back to a reasonable and affordable level.
"We will soon be at the point when there are more PRs in Whitehall than there are journalists scrutinising Whitehall. Indeed we may already have passed it. Honest debate and accountable government are the first victims of our shift into manufactured political reality."

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/central-g ... wers-until

[JonnyT1234]

Is this a sign of the whips + Brown flexing their muscles or a bit more unity? Either way, progress. With a small p.

Labour MPs whipped to vote for phone-hacking costs amendment

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/n ... -amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Morning all.

As the losing side has to pay the costs of the winning side in litigation in this country, presumably this amendment is to compel the winning side (the newspaper) to pay the costs of the party bringing a claim without merit?

That doesn't seem fair to me.

Have to agree, looks wrong in principle.

If I remember correctly*, this only applies to publishers who haven't registered with Impress. In other words, only those that don't want to be properly regulated rather than going through the likes of IPSO. So, if they want to carry on with the sham that is 'self-regulation' then this is the price for doing so.

Anyone who signs up to Impress would in all likelihood never get to court anyway because everything will likely be resolved by arbitration. Of course, anyone who signs up with Impress is far less likely to be publishing the kind of bullshit that will need regulation via the courts anyway.

In other words, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this at all if my * is right.

[JonnyT1234]

What you are seeing in the media against this clause is desperate attempts to stop themselves from being properly regulated so that they can carry on at will with libel, lies and lewdness with nothing more than the risk of a gentle rap on the knuckles from their cartel of press peers.

[AnatolyKasparov]

The polls simply demonstrate why media reform is urgently required IMO.

[JonnyT1234]

Donald Trump's companies destroyed emails in defiance of court orders - The Independent
https://apple.news/Az-63uaVTTmmWRsNVUSxISg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Actual 'criminal' activity as opposed to supposed or imagined.

[SpinningHugo]

The polls simply demonstrate why media reform is urgently required IMO.

And by 'reform' I assume you mean some kind of legal regulation?

You and I are both old enough to recall that blaming the media is exactly what the Labour party resorted to in the 1980s to explain failure. "It isn't our fault, they are all being brainwashed by Murdoch."

This has even less credibility now than it did then, with circulations of newspapers way down, and alternative sources of information all around us.

(Places like Facebook and messageboards like this are part of the problem however. People want to hear what they want to hear. So they block or shout down voices not fitting with their world view. This makes it very hard to change minds as people are literally not listening. The insanity of Trumps' rise is part of that phenomenon).

You might as well complain about the weather. Or blame gravity.

In 2001 the only papers to endorse the Tories were the Mail and the Telegraph.

If you think the BBC is stuff full of rightwingers, you don't know the people who work there.

[JonnyT1234]

Weak pound boosts UK manufacturing but import costs rise steeply - the guardian
https://apple.news/Avo6QzwJuRe-w4px8EY4NHw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PMI survey reveals manufacturers raised prices of goods at the fastest rate for five years and suggests higher inflation is on way

Painless.

[citizenJA]

Japan Demands Talks With U.K. Government Over Brexit Strategy
Ambassador to London says his country is ‘major stakeholder’
Tells David Davis Japan should have ‘impact’ on talks

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... t-strategy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tory government incompetence earns public contempt from Japan in no uncertain terms. It frightens me how little current UK government seem to care for the UK's international reputation. UK government receives Japan's unabridged censure. 'You're not leading and apparently don't care', says Japan, openly disgusted with Tory government. The loss of respect publicly broadcast is damaging to the nation.

[SpinningHugo]

A very depressing piece if, like me, you are one of the 'liberal progressives' criticised

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... s-identity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do fear that the 'New Labour' coalition is incapable of reconstruction. Indeed Labour as it is has few appeals for Metrosexual Remainers (like me) or the traditional Labour voter. I think it hits as high as 28% for want of any alternative, not because of media bias.

[Lonewolfie]

The polls simply demonstrate why media reform is urgently required IMO.

And by 'reform' I assume you mean some kind of legal regulation?

You and I are both old enough to recall that blaming the media is exactly what the Labour party resorted to in the 1980s to explain failure. "It isn't our fault, they are all being brainwashed by Murdoch."

This has even less credibility now than it did then, with circulations of newspapers way down, and alternative sources of information all around us.

(Places like Facebook and messageboards like this are part of the problem however. People want to hear what they want to hear. So they block or shout down voices not fitting with their world view. This makes it very hard to change minds as people are literally not listening. The insanity of Trumps' rise is part of that phenomenon).

You might as well complain about the weather. Or blame gravity.

In 2001 the only papers to endorse the Tories were the Mail and the Telegraph.

If you think the BBC is stuff full of rightwingers, you don't know the people who work there.

How the BBC betrayed the NHS: an exclusive report on two years of censorship and distortion

In the two years building up to the government’s NHS reform bill, the BBC appears to have categorically failed to uphold its remit of impartiality, parroting government spin as uncontested fact, whilst reporting only a narrow, shallow view of opposition to the bill. In addition, key news appears to have been censored. The following in-depth investigation provides a shocking testimony of the extent to which the BBC abandoned the NHS.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/o ... d-distorti

...so was it all reported truthfully?...and there's absolutely no 'behind the scenes' stuff in politics...and was the general consensus that the H & SC Bill (the largest reorganisation in the history of the NHS) was a 'good' thing? (As above - the current state of the NHS might point to a different answer)

ttfn

[JonnyT1234]

I did say the other week how monumentally pissed off the Japanese were with this government, didn't I. More than likely it isn't limited to the Japanese.

The Nissan thing is another sham too. They're going to make their new models in Sunderland *before* Brexit is completed. Once the reality of Brexit hits - either full freedom of movement and the single market or no freedom of movement and no single market access - Nissan will either (a) have what they want as the least worst option with the former or (b) will leave if it's the latter. By the time it happens, those new models will be old models that are being phased out while, between now and then, Nissan plants in Europe will be invested in to enable them to fill the gap that winding down Sunderland will create.

[AnatolyKasparov]

A very depressing piece if, like me, you are one of the 'liberal progressives' criticised

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... s-identity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do fear that the 'New Labour' coalition is incapable of reconstruction. Indeed Labour as it is has few appeals for Metrosexual Remainers (like me) or the traditional Labour voter. I think it hits as high as 28% for want of any alternative, not because of media bias.

The piece starts off OK, but drifts off into the now familiar guff about "progressive patriotism" and the like.

That does not offer Labour a viable future.

[JonnyT1234]

Another education U-turn? This is dangerous driving from Theresa May - the guardian
https://apple.news/AthC15PBMQYidGGGBbJoKEA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Angela Rayner writing in the graun

The Tories managed a remarkable feat last week by announcing two U-turns in one written statement. They waited until the end of the week, when MPs had started to head home to their constituencies, before sneaking out a written statement on the new education bill, adding at the end that they did not “require wider education legislation in this session”.

[AngryAsWell]

Jeremy Hunt admits his £10bn for the NHS involves other cuts to UK health budgets
Under pressure in the Commons, the Health Secretary acknowledged there was no '£10bn increase in the department of health’s budget' overall

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 89696.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Health Secretary was forced to make the concession after five senior MPs – including two Conservatives – accused him of misleading the public about the extra funding being put in.
Led by the Dr Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative chairman of the Commons health select committee, the five wrote to the Chancellor, urging ministers to abandon the “incorrect” £10 billion claim.

[SpinningHugo]

A very depressing piece if, like me, you are one of the 'liberal progressives' criticised

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... s-identity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do fear that the 'New Labour' coalition is incapable of reconstruction. Indeed Labour as it is has few appeals for Metrosexual Remainers (like me) or the traditional Labour voter. I think it hits as high as 28% for want of any alternative, not because of media bias.

The piece starts off OK, but drifts off into the now familiar guff about "progressive patriotism" and the like.

That does not offer Labour a viable future.

ie the prognosis of failure at the start is right, but the author has no viable suggestion of how to avoid it.

[citizenJA]

The polls simply demonstrate why media reform is urgently required IMO.

And by 'reform' I assume you mean some kind of legal regulation?

You and I are both old enough to recall that blaming the media is exactly what the Labour party resorted to in the 1980s to explain failure. "It isn't our fault, they are all being brainwashed by Murdoch."

This has even less credibility now than it did then, with circulations of newspapers way down, and alternative sources of information all around us.

(Places like Facebook and messageboards like this are part of the problem however. People want to hear what they want to hear. So they block or shout down voices not fitting with their world view. This makes it very hard to change minds as people are literally not listening. The insanity of Trumps' rise is part of that phenomenon).

You might as well complain about the weather. Or blame gravity.

In 2001 the only papers to endorse the Tories were the Mail and the Telegraph.

If you think the BBC is stuff full of rightwingers, you don't know the people who work there.

The weather isn't conscious and neither is gravity. Those forces don't make choices. What are they doing in your post?

People want to know the truth, we're born curious and stay that way unless love of learning is destroyed. People can only know what they're taught. Hoarded resources spent advertising and transmitting information a few with access to billions choose, not what most people decide they want to see. You're blaming many individuals for something they've not created or can stop in isolation. Regular people looking over their Facebook pages and Internet websites already live fragmented, busy lives without time, money and/or inclination for taking over mainstream media, if it's possible at all. Most individuals don't have capacity, resources or enough information choosing alterations to society, government or work on their own. Some individuals have more power than others, persuading greater numbers of people, using technological innovations influencing many, not just a few.

I can't emphasise enough how wrong and futile it is blaming individuals for choices not wholly within their power to make. Without understanding this reality, there's less likelihood of successful endeavour. Individual people choosing what's seen and heard and media giving people what they want isn't accurate. I can only urge you to give my effort here some thought. I've not written it well but I hope some sense is made from it.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Anyway, looking like some more "interesting" stuff might be coming out about Trump. Just as he was gaining in the polls again......

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ls-tooting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


NHS teaching trust to go into special measures after inadequate rating

[HindleA]

http://m.insidehousing.co.uk/7017431.bl ... 9h.twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Cutting the cap

[citizenJA]

I did say the other week how monumentally pissed off the Japanese were with this government, didn't I. More than likely it isn't limited to the Japanese.

(cJA edit)

I agree with you, others are likely alarmed. Japanese businesses' explicit official communications with Tory government indicate particular outrage. Japan communicating this way isn't typical.

[adam]

On newspaper regulation, defamation and costs... - a lot of this has been said above but I think there is a consequence that hasn't been mentioned

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 is brought into force so far as costs is concerned as soon as the regulatory body 'is first recognised as an approved regulator', which has now happened so far as IMPRESS is concerned...

So, as has been said, there is an expectation that aggrieved parties from the public will go through IMPRESS's systems of arbitration rather than issue a libel action.

S40ss2&3...

If the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced ... the court must not award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that—
(a)the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator, or
(b)it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to award costs against the defendant.

and

If the defendant was not a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced... the court must award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that—
(a)the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator (had the defendant been a member), or
(b)it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs.

Which retains powers for the courts to award costs if they feel they must but, clearly, only in exceptional circumstances...

You can read the IMPRESS code here.

IMPRESS can impose financial sanctions, but any funds raised go to ... IMPRESS. Who have to hold them ringfenced and use them to fund future investigations.

Which means that the right to legal redress for defamation against the press, and in particular the right to financial compensation for defamation, has effectively been curtailed.

Bit of tidy up editing, sorry.

[Womble44]

I see the member for the 18th century described Max Mosley as a degenerate libertine in parliament today. He's a satirical character right? There'll be Borat style movie by the end of the decade, mark my words

[citizenJA]

Complaining about the media is no longer enough, I feel.

There needs to be some sort of organised campaign to get them to report this stuff. Any ideas?

Your assessment is accurate and your question a good one to ponder. I regret I don't have any ideas at this time.

[Womble44]

The polls simply demonstrate why media reform is urgently required IMO.

And by 'reform' I assume you mean some kind of legal regulation?

You and I are both old enough to recall that blaming the media is exactly what the Labour party resorted to in the 1980s to explain failure. "It isn't our fault, they are all being brainwashed by Murdoch."

This has even less credibility now than it did then, with circulations of newspapers way down, and alternative sources of information all around us.

(Places like Facebook and messageboards like this are part of the problem however. People want to hear what they want to hear. So they block or shout down voices not fitting with their world view. This makes it very hard to change minds as people are literally not listening. The insanity of Trumps' rise is part of that phenomenon).

You might as well complain about the weather. Or blame gravity.

In 2001 the only papers to endorse the Tories were the Mail and the Telegraph.

If you think the BBC is stuff full of rightwingers, you don't know the people who work there.

I have to agree about social media, personally I feel I've probably over-stepped what's considered acceptable in discussions here for my views on certain issues, as some topics seem to be 'off the table'.

I know for a fact I disagree on the causes of Labour's problems with you (I'm very much of the view that the PLP have actively sabotaged the party in very short-sighted and unnecessary way, and it would have been easier to handle the problems a biased media present if MPs weren't leaking poison to them from the start), but I'd rather read that than feel uncomfortable raising topics.