In part one I advocated the passing of legislation that would " enable voters to force the immediate resignation of their MP".
The second suggestion I had is that legislation should be formulated that would "enable MPs to force the immediate resignation of any MP". There may be a method already available for MPs to do this, if there is I feel that it should have been used in at least one instance, about a year ago, that being in respect of an MP from whom the Conservatives had withdrawn their whip. This power must not be invoked lightly but, conversely, in order to propose a vote of no confidence in a fellow MP the MPs proposing it need only advance the general complaint that they are not satisfied with the particular MPs performance in Parliament. Penalties can be devised against the proposers if the vote of no confidence is not carried. In my book and in my first blog on politics I have suggested, for example, that the MPs who proposed a vote of no confidence that failed should be forced to resign their seats or, alternatively, they could be fined, say, 3 months salary.
My third suggestion is that MPs need to be able to force any Minister or Deputy Minister to relinquish their office by proposing a vote of no confidence. Here again a penalty should be imposed if the vote is not carried, in this context it should be a fine of so many months salary. If such a vote is proposed the Minister or Deputy Minister may relinquish their office before the vote is taken. Further ideas that have a bearing on the above will be raised in my next blog.
In closing this blog I will quote a few words from my first blog, these are; "There is, I am sure, a prime need to give every responsible person in the country a justified feeling that they, the people, are fairly in control of events, other than natural disasters, and that their efforts and opinions, on a grand scale, do matter and are seriously considered".
Frederick W Gilling Sunday 14 February 2010
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Saturday, 13 February 2010
Voters Forcing Resignation of "their" MP.
On 15th December 2009 I wrote a letter and headed it "Open Letter to all of the UK's MPs", a copy of this was published on this site. I wish to record my sincere thanks to the providers of this facility for this absolutely fantastic service.
On 16th December 2009 I sent a copy of the letter to the leaders of our three main political parties, I asked them to kindly arrange for a copy to be given to each of their MPs. Not one of the letters to the leaders has been acknowledged and I do not know if any MP received a copy of my "Open" letter.
The open letter asked for three new pieces of legislation to be introduced, preferably before the next election. The first piece of suggested legislation was "Voters need to be able to force the immediate resignation of "their" MP". Mr Cameron, maybe a year ago, did raise the issue of MPs being recalled by the voters in the MP's constituency, I subsequently formed the opinion that Mr Clegg, in principle, was not averse to the idea, evidently several American States can do something similar. In my blog, Politics One, on this site I suggested several ways in which such legislation could be formulated. These ways are broadly similar to those I wrote in a self published book about two years ago.
In the last couple of weeks it has dawned on me, rather forcibly, that many MPs would be very averse to passing that particular piece of legislation, at this moment, as it could be used by angry voters to force the resignation of MPs whom they thought had exploited the expenses regulations. Perhaps such legislation could be enacted, by this government, with a starting date of 01 August 2010. I feel that it is an essential piece of legislation.
In my next blog I will deal with the second and third suggestions mentioned. Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling Saturday 13 February 2010
On 16th December 2009 I sent a copy of the letter to the leaders of our three main political parties, I asked them to kindly arrange for a copy to be given to each of their MPs. Not one of the letters to the leaders has been acknowledged and I do not know if any MP received a copy of my "Open" letter.
The open letter asked for three new pieces of legislation to be introduced, preferably before the next election. The first piece of suggested legislation was "Voters need to be able to force the immediate resignation of "their" MP". Mr Cameron, maybe a year ago, did raise the issue of MPs being recalled by the voters in the MP's constituency, I subsequently formed the opinion that Mr Clegg, in principle, was not averse to the idea, evidently several American States can do something similar. In my blog, Politics One, on this site I suggested several ways in which such legislation could be formulated. These ways are broadly similar to those I wrote in a self published book about two years ago.
In the last couple of weeks it has dawned on me, rather forcibly, that many MPs would be very averse to passing that particular piece of legislation, at this moment, as it could be used by angry voters to force the resignation of MPs whom they thought had exploited the expenses regulations. Perhaps such legislation could be enacted, by this government, with a starting date of 01 August 2010. I feel that it is an essential piece of legislation.
In my next blog I will deal with the second and third suggestions mentioned. Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling Saturday 13 February 2010
Friday, 5 February 2010
Complaining Directly to Newspapers
Over a year ago, I sent a six page letter to the leaders of the three main political parties in the UK, as well as to eight of the national papers. The letter was prompted by a deep feeling of injustice I had over a decision by the Press Complaints Commission. This decision caused me, almost involuntarily, to really assess the press and its impact on so many aspects of our lives.
In the letter I stated that, while being very much in favour of the freedom of the press, within the bounds of national security, I was also totally against the unbridled power of the press. I lived in a country for many years where the press was not free and that is truly a deplorable situation.
As regards the power of the press in large democratic countries there are usually several papers, owned by different people or companies. This tends to level out the impact of their power in respect of, for example, influencing the result of elections. Interestingly a major UK national daily announced that they were switching their support from the government party to that of the opposition. However I feel that most politicians, public figures and celebrities are very aware of the power of the press and would think long and hard about being in any way critical of a paper or individual staff members. The following five paragraphs are as written in my letter to the politicians and papers.
"As a first step, to curtailing some aspects of the power of the press, I suggest that a law is passed requiring that every newspaper or magazine, offered for sale to the public in the UK, should on page three of every issue publish in the top left hand corner of that page the essential parts of the law, under words such as "This space is reserved for complaints against this paper". The exact wording should be specified in the law. Legal experts will write the law of course but the aims are covered below.
If a reader thinks a particular article or statement is distasteful, hurtful, inaccurate or? or? they may write a letter of complaint to the paper, no longer than (say) 100 words.
The paper must publish the complaint as written providing it complies with
existing laws regarding, for example, bad language. If more than two complaints, over essentially the same matter, are received then the paper need only publish one but must also state the number of complaints received, and give the names only of the writers of the unpublished letters.
The existing laws regarding race, libel and/or slander will apply and legal action by the newspaper, complainant or the police will, as usual, be at their discretion, in which case the courts will decide the outcome.
I feel,that in the course of time, well established and acceptable boundaries will be formulated regarding potentially distasteful, misleading, damaging and/or hurtful remarks or statements, beyond which newspapers, contributors and complainants will step at their peril". End of quote from my original letter to politicians and papers.
In thinking about the rallying call "Freedom of the Press" I am sure that most people thinking about that expression realise that it needs to be qualified in some respect or respects. That raises the question "Who has the right to determine in which way or ways should it be qualified"? and having answered that the next question is, "Who has the MIGHT to enforce the qualifications and impose punishment for any transgression of the qualification"?
One obvious qualification, I think, is in respect to National Security, guide lines to this may well be in existence, if not they should be. They could be backed up with the instruction, " If you have any doubts whatsoever about an article, bearing on National Security, that you wish to publish get in touch with "So and So" and ask for an interview to discuss it.
Another area where the " Freedom" is subject to some form or other, I know not what, of qualification is in connection with swear words, particularly the four or seven letter words connected with sexual acts. If a paper were to come out with front page headlines, containing any of those words, has a crime been committed? And if so what would the charge be?
The next questions, "Is the Freedom of the Press a misnomer"? followed by "If the answer to that question is yes do we accept, at least tacitly, that it is a misnomer, because we all know that it is qualified in several ways, but so what?
I feel, though I may be in a minority group, that the power of the press can be used in many ways to shape public opinion, I feel sure that the press has it in its power to demonstrate what is acceptable behaviour in many aspects of life in the UK at the moment. I have suggested that legislation should be enacted to enable reader's complaints to be published in the paper concerned, there is nothing to stop the publishing industry as a whole, or even individual publications, from agreeing to that suggestion, or something like it, without the need for legislation. That I feel would be a magnanimous and much appreciated action truly in line with the objective of self-regulation. This may result in more papers being sold but it should certainly not result in a fall in sales.
A new thought, at least on my part, regarding complaints is that draconian laws, and supreme technical expertise will be needed to control the use of the internet in "Publishing" anything whatever under the guise of "News", or even "In the public interest". The papers have power but one shudders to think about the ultimate power potential of the online route to untold millions of eyes and, consequently, minds. Not only the established media have access to that route for it is also available to virtually anyone with the ability to use the technology needed. Vast capital expenditure is not essential as low cost, even free, use of such technology is provided by many public libraries.
Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
Sunday 07 February 2010
In the letter I stated that, while being very much in favour of the freedom of the press, within the bounds of national security, I was also totally against the unbridled power of the press. I lived in a country for many years where the press was not free and that is truly a deplorable situation.
As regards the power of the press in large democratic countries there are usually several papers, owned by different people or companies. This tends to level out the impact of their power in respect of, for example, influencing the result of elections. Interestingly a major UK national daily announced that they were switching their support from the government party to that of the opposition. However I feel that most politicians, public figures and celebrities are very aware of the power of the press and would think long and hard about being in any way critical of a paper or individual staff members. The following five paragraphs are as written in my letter to the politicians and papers.
"As a first step, to curtailing some aspects of the power of the press, I suggest that a law is passed requiring that every newspaper or magazine, offered for sale to the public in the UK, should on page three of every issue publish in the top left hand corner of that page the essential parts of the law, under words such as "This space is reserved for complaints against this paper". The exact wording should be specified in the law. Legal experts will write the law of course but the aims are covered below.
If a reader thinks a particular article or statement is distasteful, hurtful, inaccurate or? or? they may write a letter of complaint to the paper, no longer than (say) 100 words.
The paper must publish the complaint as written providing it complies with
existing laws regarding, for example, bad language. If more than two complaints, over essentially the same matter, are received then the paper need only publish one but must also state the number of complaints received, and give the names only of the writers of the unpublished letters.
The existing laws regarding race, libel and/or slander will apply and legal action by the newspaper, complainant or the police will, as usual, be at their discretion, in which case the courts will decide the outcome.
I feel,that in the course of time, well established and acceptable boundaries will be formulated regarding potentially distasteful, misleading, damaging and/or hurtful remarks or statements, beyond which newspapers, contributors and complainants will step at their peril". End of quote from my original letter to politicians and papers.
In thinking about the rallying call "Freedom of the Press" I am sure that most people thinking about that expression realise that it needs to be qualified in some respect or respects. That raises the question "Who has the right to determine in which way or ways should it be qualified"? and having answered that the next question is, "Who has the MIGHT to enforce the qualifications and impose punishment for any transgression of the qualification"?
One obvious qualification, I think, is in respect to National Security, guide lines to this may well be in existence, if not they should be. They could be backed up with the instruction, " If you have any doubts whatsoever about an article, bearing on National Security, that you wish to publish get in touch with "So and So" and ask for an interview to discuss it.
Another area where the " Freedom" is subject to some form or other, I know not what, of qualification is in connection with swear words, particularly the four or seven letter words connected with sexual acts. If a paper were to come out with front page headlines, containing any of those words, has a crime been committed? And if so what would the charge be?
The next questions, "Is the Freedom of the Press a misnomer"? followed by "If the answer to that question is yes do we accept, at least tacitly, that it is a misnomer, because we all know that it is qualified in several ways, but so what?
I feel, though I may be in a minority group, that the power of the press can be used in many ways to shape public opinion, I feel sure that the press has it in its power to demonstrate what is acceptable behaviour in many aspects of life in the UK at the moment. I have suggested that legislation should be enacted to enable reader's complaints to be published in the paper concerned, there is nothing to stop the publishing industry as a whole, or even individual publications, from agreeing to that suggestion, or something like it, without the need for legislation. That I feel would be a magnanimous and much appreciated action truly in line with the objective of self-regulation. This may result in more papers being sold but it should certainly not result in a fall in sales.
A new thought, at least on my part, regarding complaints is that draconian laws, and supreme technical expertise will be needed to control the use of the internet in "Publishing" anything whatever under the guise of "News", or even "In the public interest". The papers have power but one shudders to think about the ultimate power potential of the online route to untold millions of eyes and, consequently, minds. Not only the established media have access to that route for it is also available to virtually anyone with the ability to use the technology needed. Vast capital expenditure is not essential as low cost, even free, use of such technology is provided by many public libraries.
Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
Sunday 07 February 2010
Thursday, 4 February 2010
My Ideas for a New Look PCC. Part Two.
In Part One I explained my thoughts about the expression "Independent Self-Regulating" and then went on to deride it as a charade as, I think, the expression contradicts itself and should not be used as such. In the case of the publishing industry the expression can also be described as a facade behind which the industry can hide. The PCC, which presumably the industry created, helps to prop up this facade, indeed they often pat themselves on the back as they thicken the wall by claiming the success of "Independent Self-Regulation". I repeat the question, how can the word "Independent" be used when the industry tells them what rules [Code] to follow and pays their wages to do it?
At this point I feel another question can be asked, why the need for self regulation? Part of the answer could well be that many editors realised the need for curbs, within the industry, to restrain practices that they had felt were unbecoming. Yet again some editors and/or owners may well have thought that if the industry itself did not attempt, where necessary, to clean up its act then Government may seek to regulate the industry, and impose its own legislation for a Government created regulating body to follow. Such a body could truly claim to be an Independent Regulating body but no one could claim that it was a self- regulating body as, in fact, it would be an imposed regulating body.
As I have acted, metaphorically, as a bad cop so far, I will, all part of the act, switch to being a good cop. Having been exposed to a large range of the PCC's activities, and, though, to a much smaller encompass of those of the Editors' Code of Practice Committee I do feel that I know enough to be able to comment, favourably, on both of these bodies. The comment being that they both have honourable and commendable intentions, I put forward that statement with the hope that they will be able to, at least, acknowledge that a drastic change is needed to be able to do justice to the concept of self-regulation of the publishing industry, and in so doing gain the approval and acceptance, albeit in some cases grudgingly, of most of their critics.
Some of my suggestions are:
Firstly, the PCC and the Editors' Code of Practice Committee continue mainly, but not exclusively, in their present and accepted roles.
Secondly, neither of these bodies must countenance the use of the word "Independent" in describing the function of the PCC.
Thirdly, great stress should be placed on the words "Self-Regulating", as that concept will exactly describe the cohesion that exists in the publishing industry regarding, the rules created by the industry and the body created, also by the industry, to enforce those rules.
I have covered most of the following points in previous blogs and/or letters but, in rounding off this blog I will repeat and enlarge on some of them below. I also accept that there must be many more proposals made with the aim of enhancing the effectiveness and acceptance of the
publishing industry's self-regulation.
The PCC must have power to punish publications that have clearly not abided by the Code and have not accepted instructions from the PCC as to what to do to resolve a complaint.
The PCC voluntarily offer to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act
The PCC voluntarily ask for an ombudsman to be appointed to cover their actions if needed.
The PCC must have the power, even the duty, acting on their own initiative, without the need for a complaint from the public, to point out to the publisher that they have infringed the Code either in word and/or in spirit.
That the Editors' Code of Practice Committee consider writing in a clause in the Code that gives clear parameters within which the right of reply is obligatory.
That the same Committee consider formulating a clause under which newspapers, particularly, give space to complaints of readers. I will give suggestions regarding this specific matter in my next blog.
If the PCC cannot resolve a complaint to the satisfaction of both parties then they put the matter to the Editors' Code of Practice Committee. In effect that Committee is acting as though they are an industry court of appeal, if that Committee's decision fails to resolve the matter, to the satisfaction of both parties involved in the complaint, then at least the industry can claim to have followed their path of self-regulation to the end. From then on both parties can obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act, and/or seek the services of the Ombudsman, and/or consider legal action. In that connection the self-regulation of the industry could be tested to the limit.
In explanation of this please consider the following, the PCC tells the publication to follow a specific clause or clauses in the Code, the publication declines to do so. The PCC put the matter before the Editors' Code of Practice Committee, they agree with the PCC's decision but the publication does not follow the Editors' instructions. The PCC could now offer to pay the complainant's costs in an action against the publication concerned. That would show the industry's commitment to self-regulation.
Another suggestion I have made follows this paragraph. This suggestion could well be adopted if the PCC is given more power, it would support both their aim of "Fast" as well as the spirit of self regulation.
Two senior personnel in the PCC secretariat should be given the authority to demand, in simple non complex cases, the appropriate action from the publication concerned. If the demand is met the case need not be referred to the Commission Members. A thought in addition to this is that
"All Cases Referred to the Commission Members Should be Adjudicated at a Formal Meeting of the Members". The Members should not be given draft resolutions by the secretariat. This should make it easier for recording, under suitable headings, the data regarding how complaints were dealt with by the PCC as a whole, and at which level complaints were handled.
Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
Friday 04 February 2010
At this point I feel another question can be asked, why the need for self regulation? Part of the answer could well be that many editors realised the need for curbs, within the industry, to restrain practices that they had felt were unbecoming. Yet again some editors and/or owners may well have thought that if the industry itself did not attempt, where necessary, to clean up its act then Government may seek to regulate the industry, and impose its own legislation for a Government created regulating body to follow. Such a body could truly claim to be an Independent Regulating body but no one could claim that it was a self- regulating body as, in fact, it would be an imposed regulating body.
As I have acted, metaphorically, as a bad cop so far, I will, all part of the act, switch to being a good cop. Having been exposed to a large range of the PCC's activities, and, though, to a much smaller encompass of those of the Editors' Code of Practice Committee I do feel that I know enough to be able to comment, favourably, on both of these bodies. The comment being that they both have honourable and commendable intentions, I put forward that statement with the hope that they will be able to, at least, acknowledge that a drastic change is needed to be able to do justice to the concept of self-regulation of the publishing industry, and in so doing gain the approval and acceptance, albeit in some cases grudgingly, of most of their critics.
Some of my suggestions are:
Firstly, the PCC and the Editors' Code of Practice Committee continue mainly, but not exclusively, in their present and accepted roles.
Secondly, neither of these bodies must countenance the use of the word "Independent" in describing the function of the PCC.
Thirdly, great stress should be placed on the words "Self-Regulating", as that concept will exactly describe the cohesion that exists in the publishing industry regarding, the rules created by the industry and the body created, also by the industry, to enforce those rules.
I have covered most of the following points in previous blogs and/or letters but, in rounding off this blog I will repeat and enlarge on some of them below. I also accept that there must be many more proposals made with the aim of enhancing the effectiveness and acceptance of the
publishing industry's self-regulation.
The PCC must have power to punish publications that have clearly not abided by the Code and have not accepted instructions from the PCC as to what to do to resolve a complaint.
The PCC voluntarily offer to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act
The PCC voluntarily ask for an ombudsman to be appointed to cover their actions if needed.
The PCC must have the power, even the duty, acting on their own initiative, without the need for a complaint from the public, to point out to the publisher that they have infringed the Code either in word and/or in spirit.
That the Editors' Code of Practice Committee consider writing in a clause in the Code that gives clear parameters within which the right of reply is obligatory.
That the same Committee consider formulating a clause under which newspapers, particularly, give space to complaints of readers. I will give suggestions regarding this specific matter in my next blog.
If the PCC cannot resolve a complaint to the satisfaction of both parties then they put the matter to the Editors' Code of Practice Committee. In effect that Committee is acting as though they are an industry court of appeal, if that Committee's decision fails to resolve the matter, to the satisfaction of both parties involved in the complaint, then at least the industry can claim to have followed their path of self-regulation to the end. From then on both parties can obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act, and/or seek the services of the Ombudsman, and/or consider legal action. In that connection the self-regulation of the industry could be tested to the limit.
In explanation of this please consider the following, the PCC tells the publication to follow a specific clause or clauses in the Code, the publication declines to do so. The PCC put the matter before the Editors' Code of Practice Committee, they agree with the PCC's decision but the publication does not follow the Editors' instructions. The PCC could now offer to pay the complainant's costs in an action against the publication concerned. That would show the industry's commitment to self-regulation.
Another suggestion I have made follows this paragraph. This suggestion could well be adopted if the PCC is given more power, it would support both their aim of "Fast" as well as the spirit of self regulation.
Two senior personnel in the PCC secretariat should be given the authority to demand, in simple non complex cases, the appropriate action from the publication concerned. If the demand is met the case need not be referred to the Commission Members. A thought in addition to this is that
"All Cases Referred to the Commission Members Should be Adjudicated at a Formal Meeting of the Members". The Members should not be given draft resolutions by the secretariat. This should make it easier for recording, under suitable headings, the data regarding how complaints were dealt with by the PCC as a whole, and at which level complaints were handled.
Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
Friday 04 February 2010
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
My Ideas for a New Look PCC. Part one.
Addendum to my previous blog that commented on an online article published by the Press Gazette on 21 January 2010.
As background information to this new blog please note that, the Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission [PCC], Baroness Buscombe, initiated an Independent Governance Review of the PCC, and invited submissions to the Panel formed to conduct the review.
More or less at the same time the Editors' Code of Practice Committee are due to hold their annual review of their Code, they also invited submissions in regard to their Code. It should be stressed that these reviews are completely separate.
I have written twice to both the Governance Panel and the Editors' Committee. The following paragraph was communicated to both Panel and Committee.
"Kindly consider the following reasoning, an industry can be independently regulated, an industry can be self-regulated but, I contend, an industry cannot be independently self-regulated. If the industry happens to be the publishing industry the power of the press can be used to support the effectiveness of their "Independent Self-Regulation". When the PCC self praise themselves, as they do, regarding the effectiveness of independent self-regulating they should at the same time acknowledge that they are dependent on the publishing industry, for the Code they have to follow, and for the funding, from the same source, that enables them to operate. Having acknowledged that they should think long and hard about the correctness of using the word independent in regard to their status." End of quote.
In trying to reconcile "independent self-regulation" with the fact that the PCC is dependent on the publishing industry for its very existence, I feel that both parties are guilty of trying to justify and perpetuate an Alice in Wonderland type charade. This coupled with other shortcomings has left both parties open to criticism. In my next blog I will outline what I think will go a long way toward justifying the expression "Self- Regulating" as well being much more effective in dealing with complaints, satisfying most critics and forestalling Government intervention except in exceptional circumstances. One example of that being "A right of reply", or, to show that I am, hopefully, not lacking in humour "A write of reply", or even "Rite of reply". There is, of course, nothing to stop the publishing industry introducing a cast iron right of reply themselves.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick W Gilling
Tuesday 02 February 2010
As background information to this new blog please note that, the Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission [PCC], Baroness Buscombe, initiated an Independent Governance Review of the PCC, and invited submissions to the Panel formed to conduct the review.
More or less at the same time the Editors' Code of Practice Committee are due to hold their annual review of their Code, they also invited submissions in regard to their Code. It should be stressed that these reviews are completely separate.
I have written twice to both the Governance Panel and the Editors' Committee. The following paragraph was communicated to both Panel and Committee.
"Kindly consider the following reasoning, an industry can be independently regulated, an industry can be self-regulated but, I contend, an industry cannot be independently self-regulated. If the industry happens to be the publishing industry the power of the press can be used to support the effectiveness of their "Independent Self-Regulation". When the PCC self praise themselves, as they do, regarding the effectiveness of independent self-regulating they should at the same time acknowledge that they are dependent on the publishing industry, for the Code they have to follow, and for the funding, from the same source, that enables them to operate. Having acknowledged that they should think long and hard about the correctness of using the word independent in regard to their status." End of quote.
In trying to reconcile "independent self-regulation" with the fact that the PCC is dependent on the publishing industry for its very existence, I feel that both parties are guilty of trying to justify and perpetuate an Alice in Wonderland type charade. This coupled with other shortcomings has left both parties open to criticism. In my next blog I will outline what I think will go a long way toward justifying the expression "Self- Regulating" as well being much more effective in dealing with complaints, satisfying most critics and forestalling Government intervention except in exceptional circumstances. One example of that being "A right of reply", or, to show that I am, hopefully, not lacking in humour "A write of reply", or even "Rite of reply". There is, of course, nothing to stop the publishing industry introducing a cast iron right of reply themselves.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick W Gilling
Tuesday 02 February 2010
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Comment on article in Press Gazette on 21 Jan 2010
The Press Gazette [Journalism Today] publish, online, a Daily Newsletter. This shows articles of interest to journalists. I am not connected to the publishing industry in any way, apart from having had two books "self-published". However I do find that many of the items in the Daily Newsletter are very interesting and comment is invited on them. On 21st January 2010 there was an article by Mr Oliver Luft about press regulation, I submitted a comment on the article and, as I have previously posted blogs about the Press Complaints Commission I have reproduced this comment below.
In discussing the regulation of the newspaper industry it is essential that the exact meaning of the word "Independent" is made clear, not the least aspect being where the money comes from that funds an independent body. It should also be crystal clear as to who is conducting a survey and for who is it being conducted.
In considering the words " ----- a self-regulatory body independent of the newspaper industry ----- " I would argue that the English language is being strained by the use of the words "self" and "independent". Surely it is impossible to be "self-regulatory" and "independent" at the same time. The part sentence should read either " ----- a self-regulatory body for the newspaper industry ----- " or " ----- a regulatory body independent of the newspaper industry ----- ".
The mind is also strained when the independent self-regulatory body has to observe a Code of Practice formulated only by members of the industry that is being regulated. It is being
similarly strained when the self- regulating body is funded by the industry that it is self-regulating. If my memory serves me correctly no less a person than our Prime Minister
Mr Gordon Brown, when referring to MP's expenses said words similar in meaning to "Self- regulation does not work".
Surprisingly, in spite of what I have written above, I think the self- regulation of the newspaper industry by the PCC could be conducted more effectively providing;
They had power.
They had teeth.
They were prepared to use their teeth.
That they were, voluntarily, subject to the "Freedom of Information Act".
That they, voluntarily, subjected themselves to an Ombudsman.
I have written seven blogs regarding the PCC, these can be seen via
http://blrcfwg.blogspot.com Party Free Politics also feature.
Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
In discussing the regulation of the newspaper industry it is essential that the exact meaning of the word "Independent" is made clear, not the least aspect being where the money comes from that funds an independent body. It should also be crystal clear as to who is conducting a survey and for who is it being conducted.
In considering the words " ----- a self-regulatory body independent of the newspaper industry ----- " I would argue that the English language is being strained by the use of the words "self" and "independent". Surely it is impossible to be "self-regulatory" and "independent" at the same time. The part sentence should read either " ----- a self-regulatory body for the newspaper industry ----- " or " ----- a regulatory body independent of the newspaper industry ----- ".
The mind is also strained when the independent self-regulatory body has to observe a Code of Practice formulated only by members of the industry that is being regulated. It is being
similarly strained when the self- regulating body is funded by the industry that it is self-regulating. If my memory serves me correctly no less a person than our Prime Minister
Mr Gordon Brown, when referring to MP's expenses said words similar in meaning to "Self- regulation does not work".
Surprisingly, in spite of what I have written above, I think the self- regulation of the newspaper industry by the PCC could be conducted more effectively providing;
They had power.
They had teeth.
They were prepared to use their teeth.
That they were, voluntarily, subject to the "Freedom of Information Act".
That they, voluntarily, subjected themselves to an Ombudsman.
I have written seven blogs regarding the PCC, these can be seen via
http://blrcfwg.blogspot.com Party Free Politics also feature.
Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Open Letter to all of the UK's MPs
Dear MP
The views expressed are mine. Three pieces of legislation need to be introduced, preferably before the next election.
1/ Voters need to be able to force the immediate resignation of "their" MP.
2/ MPs need to be able to force the immediate resignation of any MP.
3/ MPs need to be able to force any Minister or Deputy Minister to relinquish their office.
Extremely careful consideration needs to be given as to how these three different events can be accomplished. In blogs about politics that can be found via http://blrcfwg.blogspot.com I have made several suggestions regarding this. Politics One on 07 July particularly applies.
Frederick W Gilling Tuesday 15 December 2009
The views expressed are mine. Three pieces of legislation need to be introduced, preferably before the next election.
1/ Voters need to be able to force the immediate resignation of "their" MP.
2/ MPs need to be able to force the immediate resignation of any MP.
3/ MPs need to be able to force any Minister or Deputy Minister to relinquish their office.
Extremely careful consideration needs to be given as to how these three different events can be accomplished. In blogs about politics that can be found via http://blrcfwg.blogspot.com I have made several suggestions regarding this. Politics One on 07 July particularly applies.
Frederick W Gilling Tuesday 15 December 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)