Notices
Non Scooby Related Anything Non-Scooby related

The Leveson Enquiry - what exactly was the point?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 28 August 2012, 12:01 PM
  #1  
f1_fan
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
 
f1_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default The Leveson Enquiry - what exactly was the point?

Cameron has spent millions of the taxpayers money on the Leveson Enquiry which I am not even sure whether it has now concluded or not and yet the Sun aka Murdoch are behaving the same way as they always have.... i.e. the pictures of Prince Harry.

What the hell was the point of the enquiry seeing as it has no teeth whatsoever and if anyone really thought it would make the scumbag press think twice over their lack of morals they forgot that these people don't think like normal human beings, they are just pure and utter pond life... much like the politicians really!

Why waste the money especially as the country is struggling just a wee bit
Old 28 August 2012, 12:05 PM
  #2  
tubbytommy
BANNED
iTrader: (20)
 
tubbytommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: crawley :)
Posts: 16,950
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by f1_fan
Cameron has spent millions of the taxpayers money on the Leveson Enquiry which I am not even sure whether it has now concluded or not and yet the Sun aka Murdoch are behaving the same way as they always have.... i.e. the pictures of Prince Harry.

What the hell was the point of the enquiry seeing as it has no teeth whatsoever and if anyone really thought it would make the scumbag press think twice over their lack of morals they forgot that these people don't think like normal human beings, they are just pure and utter pond life... much like the politicians really!

Why waste the money especially as the country is struggling just a wee bit
just shoot murdoch in the face.
job done
Old 28 August 2012, 12:06 PM
  #3  
f1_fan
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
 
f1_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by tubbytommy
just shoot murdoch in the face.
job done
Would have been a darn sight cheaper LOL
Old 28 August 2012, 12:09 PM
  #4  
Dedrater
Scooby Regular
 
Dedrater's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I didn't see the problem with printing the photos, considering they were all over the internet anyway and judging by the sales of the paper on that particular run, there was a public interest in them.

I would rather a free press.
Old 28 August 2012, 12:11 PM
  #5  
tubbytommy
BANNED
iTrader: (20)
 
tubbytommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: crawley :)
Posts: 16,950
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

murdoch has no morals just after making money and selling papers.

which he did.
Old 28 August 2012, 02:00 PM
  #6  
Leslie
Scooby Regular
 
Leslie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Just like anything else with Cameron, as long as he can get away without actually having to do anything,that is fine with him!

Les
Old 28 August 2012, 02:06 PM
  #7  
PeteBrant
Scooby Regular
 
PeteBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Until Leveson comes out with his recommedations we won't know. Personally I would liek the press regulated by an independent commision with real powers. The PCC is clearly not fit for purpose. I suspect even if he does recommend this, the Government will shy away from it, and we will end up with the same ineffective self regulation we have now.
Old 28 August 2012, 02:14 PM
  #8  
ALi-B
Moderator
Support Scoobynet!
iTrader: (1)
 
ALi-B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The hell where youth and laughter go
Posts: 38,034
Received 301 Likes on 240 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Dedrater
I didn't see the problem with printing the photos, considering they were all over the internet anyway and judging by the sales of the paper on that particular run, there was a public interest in them.

I would rather a free press.

Decorum, but more importantly - its not FREE press, as the Sun PAID someone to get the rights to publish those pictures.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...s-8079564.html

They still need to learn alot of lessons and this paying freelancers/whistle blowers etc for their pics/scoops/stories needs to end. Its not free press when its paying a bunch of barrel scrapers who are intentionally hunting around for dirt on people as a means of income. This is what got them into trouble with the phone hacking. When

This is one reason why I think copyright laws of publishing images or recording taken without consent of those featured within needs to be reformed. Especially when in a private setting (i.e in a hotel room).

Last edited by ALi-B; 28 August 2012 at 02:18 PM.
Old 29 August 2012, 01:25 PM
  #9  
speedking
Scooby Regular
 
speedking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ALi-B
This is one reason why I think copyright laws of publishing images or recording taken without consent of those featured within needs to be reformed.
In English? The photographer owns the copyright Does the BBC seek the consent of everyone in the background when they take news films in shopping centres?
Old 29 August 2012, 01:41 PM
  #10  
ALi-B
Moderator
Support Scoobynet!
iTrader: (1)
 
ALi-B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The hell where youth and laughter go
Posts: 38,034
Received 301 Likes on 240 Posts
Default

You missed a bit:
Especially when in a private setting (i.e in a hotel room).
And yes; If the person(s) within the photo/recording are used as the main focus of a publication or feature without their persmission in a private setting. Then I do think the law does needs reforming so that the photographer does not automatically assume or hold complete copyright.


The Sun paid the copyright holder to publish this. That In my opinion is not morally right.
Old 29 August 2012, 01:47 PM
  #11  
urban
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
urban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Never you mind
Posts: 12,566
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ALi-B
The Sun paid the copyright holder to publish this. That In my opinion is not morally right.
Whether you like it or not, everyone's got to earn a living though.
Old 29 August 2012, 01:49 PM
  #12  
ALi-B
Moderator
Support Scoobynet!
iTrader: (1)
 
ALi-B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The hell where youth and laughter go
Posts: 38,034
Received 301 Likes on 240 Posts
Default

Its a weak excuse to justify paperazzi scum and "kiss & tellers" though.

Last edited by ALi-B; 29 August 2012 at 01:51 PM.
Old 29 August 2012, 02:05 PM
  #13  
urban
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
urban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Never you mind
Posts: 12,566
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

OK, I'll give you that, paparazzi are pretty low
Old 29 August 2012, 02:29 PM
  #14  
dpb
Scooby Regular
 
dpb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

Nice earner for leveson , money for old rope

Last edited by dpb; 29 August 2012 at 02:31 PM.
Old 29 August 2012, 04:09 PM
  #15  
f1_fan
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
 
f1_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ALi-B
You missed a bit:


And yes; If the person(s) within the photo/recording are used as the main focus of a publication or feature without their persmission in a private setting. Then I do think the law does needs reforming so that the photographer does not automatically assume or hold complete copyright.


The Sun paid the copyright holder to publish this. That In my opinion is not morally right.
I must be ill or something as I 100% agree with you. I have done my stint as a studio photographer and the number of times I got looked at all funny when I presented the subject with a release form giving them sole rights to the photographs.

The photographer should not by default own the sole rights to the pictures he or she takes, it's a nonsense to think that is right from a moral perspective.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SilverM3
ScoobyNet General
8
24 February 2021 01:03 PM
IanG1983
Wheels, Tyres & Brakes
2
06 October 2015 03:08 PM
lozgti1
Non Scooby Related
8
28 September 2015 03:49 AM
Hangarrat93
Insurance
11
25 September 2015 08:42 AM



Quick Reply: The Leveson Enquiry - what exactly was the point?



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:38 AM.