![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
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.
StephenDolan wrote: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.
Rather a sloppily strange headline when the opening sentence of the article actually says this -Mark Carney's 2019 departure welcomed by City as UK factory data due – business live
(Guardian)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/li ... -england-dThe 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/politics/20 ... l-mps-voteKeith Vaz to serve on justice committee despite Tory MP’s move to stop him
Have to agree, looks wrong in principle.SpinningHugo wrote:StephenDolan wrote: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?SpinningHugo wrote:StephenDolan wrote: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.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ ... -amendmentThe 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)
Yes. But that is because that regulatory regime is supposed to be the conduit through which you bring such complaints.PorFavor wrote:Unless it's badly worded or I'm just missing something, isn't this (my bold) the key bit, though?SpinningHugo wrote:StephenDolan wrote: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.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ ... -amendmentThe 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)
Exactly. It's presumably not something plucked out of the air on a whim.Willow904 wrote: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.Willow904 wrote: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?
Some have noticed his term will now expire not long before the next Canadian GE is due......StephenDolan wrote: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.
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 notStephenDolan wrote: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.Willow904 wrote: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?
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!AnatolyKasparov wrote: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?
...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)...StephenDolan wrote: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.
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...AnatolyKasparov wrote: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?
Willow904 wrote: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?
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.Womble44 wrote:Have to agree, looks wrong in principle.SpinningHugo wrote:StephenDolan wrote: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.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:The polls simply demonstrate why media reform is urgently required IMO.
Painless.PMI survey reveals manufacturers raised prices of goods at the fastest rate for five years and suggests higher inflation is on way
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.AngryAsWell wrote: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;
How the BBC betrayed the NHS: an exclusive report on two years of censorship and distortionSpinningHugo wrote:AnatolyKasparov wrote: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 piece starts off OK, but drifts off into the now familiar guff about "progressive patriotism" and the like.SpinningHugo wrote: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 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”.
AnatolyKasparov wrote:The piece starts off OK, but drifts off into the now familiar guff about "progressive patriotism" and the like.SpinningHugo wrote: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.
That does not offer Labour a viable future.
The weather isn't conscious and neither is gravity. Those forces don't make choices. What are they doing in your post?SpinningHugo wrote:And by 'reform' I assume you mean some kind of legal regulation?AnatolyKasparov wrote:The polls simply demonstrate why media reform is urgently required IMO.
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.
(cJA edit)JonnyT1234 wrote: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.
andIf 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.
Which retains powers for the courts to award costs if they feel they must but, clearly, only in exceptional circumstances...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.
Your assessment is accurate and your question a good one to ponder. I regret I don't have any ideas at this time.AnatolyKasparov wrote: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?
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'.SpinningHugo wrote:AnatolyKasparov wrote: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.