[Update] The News Corp scandal

Originally Posted by Chris

You don't get legal aid for civil proceedings and on balance that's a good thing. The nearest we currently have to civil proceedings without the cost is no-win-no-fee arrangements for personal injury and the like - and that system is royally screwing everything up for the majority of us via massive increases in insurance premiums.

I agree but it rather puts the balance in favour of the rich media barons rather than the impoverished or merely strapped for finances Jo Bloggs..Now if the PCC had any clout it wouldn't be necessary for anyone to have to seek litigation to get any kind of apology with or without a bri err cash remuneration.Frankly just seeing a public apology across a newspaper's front page would be all I'd have gone for if I were in the Dowler's place.
Not that I blame them for taking the money.

In which case the regulation of media complaints needs to have an appropriate legal footing, which would enable assistance with costs to be handled effectively.

Originally Posted by Chris

In which case the regulation of media complaints needs to have an appropriate legal footing, which would enable assistance with costs to be handled effectively.

Oh I agree on that.Let us hope that something along those lines is what we get at some future date.

[denphone]

'Sun on Sunday' edges step closer with hiring spree


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...e-2365157.html

[denphone]

Hugh Grant: 'I warned government over Andy Coulson'

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/ne...y-coulson.html

[Stuart]

The real downside to all of this is it seems more likely that the Press will be more heavily regulated. I say this is a downside because inevitably, someone somewhere will find a way to use that regulation to their advantage, and use it to stop the press from reporting on something we need to know.

I'm thinking along the lines of what happened with the Super Injunctions. I read in Private Eye that while the press were going on about various celebrities doing things they shouldn't, then getting super injunctions to stop the press talking about it, a few groups of people were doing something rather more serious, using Super Injunctions to cover what they were doing, and going largely unreported.

So, while I don't normally agree with Conspiracy Theorists, we could end up in a situation where a group of people does something highly illegal, serious and possibly dangerous, yet we don't know about it because the News of the World thought that as part of their obsession with Milly Dowler, that they needed to know everything people were saying to her family.

Originally Posted by Stuart

The real downside to all of this is it seems more likely that the Press will be more heavily regulated. I say this is a downside because inevitably, someone somewhere will find a way to use that regulation to their advantage, and use it to stop the press from reporting on something we need to know.

I'm thinking along the lines of what happened with the Super Injunctions. I read in Private Eye that while the press were going on about various celebrities doing things they shouldn't, then getting super injunctions to stop the press talking about it, a few groups of people were doing something rather more serious, using Super Injunctions to cover what they were doing, and going largely unreported.

So, while I don't normally agree with Conspiracy Theorists, we could end up in a situation where a group of people does something highly illegal, serious and possibly dangerous, yet we don't know about it because the News of the World thought that as part of their obsession with Milly Dowler, that they needed to know everything people were saying to her family.

I too am concerned about a chance of a situation similar to the super injunction fiasco(and thanks to Parliamentary Privilege that it was revealed) if we get a new press regulatory body.That of course can be negated IF it's neutrality is guaranteed by making sure members have no direct or indirect connection with any of the media organisations.

Originally Posted by denphone

Hugh Grant: 'I warned government over Andy Coulson'

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/ne...y-coulson.html

So he warned them three years after they hired Andy Coulson....

[denphone]

Yes three years is a long time.

[muppetman11]

News International facing more than 60 phone hacking lawsuits

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/ne...-lawsuits.html

Ouch! That's going to hurt..

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Ouch! That's going to hurt..

It is when you read this part of the link?

Mark Lewis, one of the lawyers acting on behalf of the phone hacking victims, said that just 5% of Mulcaire's victims have so far been notified, and the scandal could go much further into the newspaper industry.

"He was just one agent used by one paper," he told Bloomberg News. "When the final tally takes place, we will see thousands of claims and more than one paper."

Lewis also said that Rupert Murdoch's £20 million contingency fund to deal with the hacking claims was not looking sufficient enough, and even added that claims it will take £100m to clear the cases seem "a serious underestimate".

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by denphone

'Sun on Sunday' edges step closer with hiring spree


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...e-2365157.html

As if there are not enough comics already

Originally Posted by Sirius

As if there are not enough comics already

Well they are going to have to find the cash for those 60+ lawsuits.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Sirius

As if there are not enough comics already

l can assure you they could give it away free to me and l would quickly rip it up.