Petition

Congratulations to everyone for fantastic support over the past year. 816 votes is a great achievement, massively better than the 10 or 20 that pessimists thought would be the limit. It sets a high watermark that people opposed to adult content dont come anywhere near, and is fantastic given peoples reluctance to put their name to a rather private cause - opponents of adult content have not qualms about going public, supporters are often shy of publicity.

Time for phase 2. Lets start publicising it, something I have not been good at over the past year.

(25-08-2012 23:29 )eccles Wrote:  Time for phase 2. Lets start publicising it, something I have not been good at over the past year.

I have just read throught his and agree with you that this was not really publicised as it needs to be, it is now 3 or 4 months later, and where is the publicity? I assume you are still with us in this movement?

Quite right, its been too long. Various unexpected problems have held this back, but it goes forward this week or next. One hold up is the need for some -up to date supporting information, short clear examples of Ofcom bending the rules and coming down heavily on babe channels while being lenient on others. Recent sanction decisions dont make Ofcom look good.

The Leveson Report may be a surprise win. Leveson recommends Ofcom as a "backstop" regulator for papers that dont sign up to a new PCC, as well as regulating that new PCC.

The Labour party has suggested other regulators might be considered (if any).

Graham Stringer, MP for Blackley & Broughton has said that is where political interference could be applied.

Kate Hoey, MP for Vauxhall has questioned if MPs expenses would have been publicised.

At least 7 Labour MPs have come out against statutory regulation.

Examples of incompetence and inconsistency will reach sympathetic ears now, unlike 3 months ago.

Excellent! have you contacted the 7 MPs against regulation ?

(03-12-2012 02:50 )eccles Wrote:  ...
The Leveson Report may be a surprise win. Leveson recommends Ofcom as a "backstop" regulator for papers that dont sign up to a new PCC, as well as regulating that new PCC.
...

I'm still unclear on this point.
My understanding is that Leveson proposes a truly independent press watchdog, unlike the existing PCC which has serving editors involved. The 'recognition bodies' role (i.e. Ofcom) would be to ensure that independence is met and maintained, not to actually be involved in the regulation process.
Press organisations would voluntarily sign-up to this body to be bound by its adjudications, but those that don't sign up would be liable to much harsher punishments and costs through the courts.

It's still early days, and not entirely clear how this structure would work, and exactly what form it would take, but I'm not convinced the proposal is for Ofcom to actually regulate any press content, in the manner it does with tv, but merely to oversee the appointments to the body that does that job.

Here's the beeb's interpretation :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20531563

The proposal is that if a paper does not sign up to the new regulator Ofcom gets to regulate them direct. It is the socalled backstop regulator.

At the moment that would cover Desmonds papers, the Star and Express though he says he will sign up to the new one.

Also Ofcom gets to "recognise" the independent regulator at the start, 2 years later, then every 3 years. They will only "recognise" them if Ofcom think their rules and procedures are good enough.

This will give Ofcom massive scope to ask for the rules to be rewritten Ofcom style. In the 6 months leading up to fresh recognition they will also have scope to pick up the phone and say "Entirely up to you, old boy, but if it was us such and such would be ruled against the rules and we would introduce a new rule banning so and so. Up to you of course, you know you have our full confidence."

Thats Ofcom, master of the short, clear and legally watertight rulebook.

have you got any ideas of the publicity this time? lets kick it off in january for 12 months campaign

(04-12-2012 04:11 )eccles Wrote:  The proposal is that if a paper does not sign up to the new regulator Ofcom gets to regulate them direct. It is the socalled backstop regulator.
...

Just read an alternative view of the report and yes, it more or less confirms what you are saying.
Just goes to show, different reports are already interpreting it slightly differently, so goodness knows what we may actually end up with.

Personally I am wary of legislation on the matter, I don't feel it is neccessary or will improve matters, and ultimately gives potential for either government, or worse still, some unelected self-important body like Ofcom, to dictate what can and can't be published, which for me is unacceptable, and unworkable given the internet.
It should also be remembered that the worst excesses of the press that led to the Leveson Inquiry, i.e. phone hacking and paying off of police officers, are already illegal under existing law, so why does it need new laws?

Here's another good review of the reports proposals, and Ofcoms potential role :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov...port-qanda

(04-12-2012 09:31 )mido Wrote:  have you got any ideas of the publicity this time? lets kick it off in january for 12 months campaign

Great idea. Major papers and some organisations were contacted at the start of the year, but no response yet.

Right, the last few posts have gone far too deep into politics for me to understand.

Can you please make it simple and explain in layman's terms how whatever it is you're talking about might affect the babeshows.