Abolish the Press Complaints Commission

If my experience on this forum has taught me anything it is that the British public are woefully misinformed by the British press, and that self regulation does not work. At the moment the PCC has ruled that:

  • A headline constitutes an "opinion piece" and is therefore not required to be factually accurate
  • Factual corrections and apologies can take up as little 5% of the space of original article
  • Complaints can only be accepted from those "directly affected" by the article

The PCC is a watchdog which holds it's own leash, the press have their  shot at self-regulation and they have failed. Abolish the PCC and give us a proper regulatory watch dog.

Why is this idea important?

If my experience on this forum has taught me anything it is that the British public are woefully misinformed by the British press, and that self regulation does not work. At the moment the PCC has ruled that:

  • A headline constitutes an "opinion piece" and is therefore not required to be factually accurate
  • Factual corrections and apologies can take up as little 5% of the space of original article
  • Complaints can only be accepted from those "directly affected" by the article

The PCC is a watchdog which holds it's own leash, the press have their  shot at self-regulation and they have failed. Abolish the PCC and give us a proper regulatory watch dog.

Strict Privacy Restrictions on Press Reporting

In the light of William Hague's recent encounter with our trashy press, I think the time for respecting a human being's personal life is long overdue.

This has highlighted how essential a person's privacy needs legal enforcement behind it.

It's not a question of whether the gay affair he allegedly had is true or not. It's NO ONE'S business either way.

Bring in strict privacy press reporting laws now.

Why is this idea important?

In the light of William Hague's recent encounter with our trashy press, I think the time for respecting a human being's personal life is long overdue.

This has highlighted how essential a person's privacy needs legal enforcement behind it.

It's not a question of whether the gay affair he allegedly had is true or not. It's NO ONE'S business either way.

Bring in strict privacy press reporting laws now.

Allow Pets to Travel Internationally

Where did this crazy myth start up, that the Continent is riddled with rabies?

Fill in the missing letters: T*b*oids.

There might have been some rabies issue in the 80s, but within a few years of spraying animal habitats with antidote food-pellets, the number of infected aniimals had dimininshed to practically zero. This was achieved within a few years by the 1990s.

Yet it was NEVER reported on.

Well, it’s now 20 years on from 1990, and we’re still the nanny state we were then. (Even worse if you count everything else.)

A number of other rabies-free countries (like Finland and Cyprus) have already signed up for the Schengen freedom-of-movement agreement. And I’d hate to count the number of times I’ve been scratched and bitten by playful cats on the Continent.

Time we reviewed and reformed this uniquely British crazy law.

Why is this idea important?

Where did this crazy myth start up, that the Continent is riddled with rabies?

Fill in the missing letters: T*b*oids.

There might have been some rabies issue in the 80s, but within a few years of spraying animal habitats with antidote food-pellets, the number of infected aniimals had dimininshed to practically zero. This was achieved within a few years by the 1990s.

Yet it was NEVER reported on.

Well, it’s now 20 years on from 1990, and we’re still the nanny state we were then. (Even worse if you count everything else.)

A number of other rabies-free countries (like Finland and Cyprus) have already signed up for the Schengen freedom-of-movement agreement. And I’d hate to count the number of times I’ve been scratched and bitten by playful cats on the Continent.

Time we reviewed and reformed this uniquely British crazy law.

Let the BBC be the best it can be, for the public who pay for it

 

In the name of commercial fairness the BBC is held back from offering the services it wants too.  These additional services (such as offering more HD content, or creating iPhone Apps) would cost little to implement but would offer a good service for the public.  Various regulatory bodies however, often hold the BBC back.  This is apparently because the new services offered by the BBC would harm its commercial rivals.  In reality however, this probably wouldn’t hold true.  For example, there are few people who would watch a BBC program at the expense of an ITV one, just because it happened to be available on HD or remained on the iPlayer for a few more days.  It would merely improve the viewing experience for the public. 

If there is a mandatory license fee, the BBC should be obligated to offer the best possible service it can to the public.  If that drives up the competition, so much the better.  The commercial competition should not mind the BBC forging ahead with improved broadcasting technologies – taking the risk from first implementation away from them.

Why is this idea important?

 

In the name of commercial fairness the BBC is held back from offering the services it wants too.  These additional services (such as offering more HD content, or creating iPhone Apps) would cost little to implement but would offer a good service for the public.  Various regulatory bodies however, often hold the BBC back.  This is apparently because the new services offered by the BBC would harm its commercial rivals.  In reality however, this probably wouldn’t hold true.  For example, there are few people who would watch a BBC program at the expense of an ITV one, just because it happened to be available on HD or remained on the iPlayer for a few more days.  It would merely improve the viewing experience for the public. 

If there is a mandatory license fee, the BBC should be obligated to offer the best possible service it can to the public.  If that drives up the competition, so much the better.  The commercial competition should not mind the BBC forging ahead with improved broadcasting technologies – taking the risk from first implementation away from them.

KEEP PIRATE FM!!!!

Pirate fm should stay on air because it is probably the most listend to radio station and because we all l♥e!it think of it this way if we didnt have pirate fm the there would be no more secret sound,most wanted,friday songand gr8 music!!!!!!!

SO KEEP PIRATE FM!!!!!

Why is this idea important?

Pirate fm should stay on air because it is probably the most listend to radio station and because we all l♥e!it think of it this way if we didnt have pirate fm the there would be no more secret sound,most wanted,friday songand gr8 music!!!!!!!

SO KEEP PIRATE FM!!!!!

Fighting fire with fire (figuratively)

If the Daily Mail is allowed to outright lie to the public without reprimand then we, the public should be FREE to lie to whoever we want without reprimand i.e. the police, the tax office and immigration.

Why is this idea important?

If the Daily Mail is allowed to outright lie to the public without reprimand then we, the public should be FREE to lie to whoever we want without reprimand i.e. the police, the tax office and immigration.

Apply RIPA rules and restricitons to the Press

The press routinely use intrusive and directed surveillance to a far greater extent than any Council does yet do not have to comply with the RIPA restricitons regarding approval and recording of such actions; and are not monitored by the surveillance commissioner as Local Authorities are.

Why is this idea important?

The press routinely use intrusive and directed surveillance to a far greater extent than any Council does yet do not have to comply with the RIPA restricitons regarding approval and recording of such actions; and are not monitored by the surveillance commissioner as Local Authorities are.

Require all media organisations to fund an audited system of oversight for their profession

The proposal is that any media organisation operating in the UK should fund and adhere to a system recording all the facts and sources used in the creation of their stories. A trusted third party would audit this and would have the power to heavily fine those not complying or abusing the system.  The system would be used amongst other things for cases currently dealt with by the ineffective Press Complaints Commission.

Why is this idea important?

The proposal is that any media organisation operating in the UK should fund and adhere to a system recording all the facts and sources used in the creation of their stories. A trusted third party would audit this and would have the power to heavily fine those not complying or abusing the system.  The system would be used amongst other things for cases currently dealt with by the ineffective Press Complaints Commission.

Charge market rates for ALL Freedom of Information requests by the media

The idea is that all organisations or individuals with a commercial interest or who obtain commerial reward who submit Freedom of Information requests are charged for the work involved in gathering that information.  They would be asked to declare their position when submitting the request and pay a registration fee.  On completion, they would be billed for the work done to generate the information with the appropriate limits and quotes to minimise excessive charges.

Why is this idea important?

The idea is that all organisations or individuals with a commercial interest or who obtain commerial reward who submit Freedom of Information requests are charged for the work involved in gathering that information.  They would be asked to declare their position when submitting the request and pay a registration fee.  On completion, they would be billed for the work done to generate the information with the appropriate limits and quotes to minimise excessive charges.

Repeal law that allows ‘Super Injunctions’

Taken straight from Wikipedia as I am too lazy and unknowledgeable to do my own:

In England and Wales a new form of injunction known as a "super-injunction" is a form of gagging order in which the press is prohibited from reporting even the existence of the injunction, or any details of it. An example was the super-injunction raised in September 2009 by Carter Ruck solicitors on behalf of oil trader Trafigura, prohibiting the reporting of an internal Trafigura report into the 2006 Ivory Coast waste scandal. The existence of the super-injunction was only revealed when it was referred to in a parliamentary question (mention in which Parliamentary Privelage permits the disclosure without being held in contempt of court), which was circulated on the internet, leading to the injunction being varied (before it could be challenged in court) to permit reporting of the question

Why is this idea important?

Taken straight from Wikipedia as I am too lazy and unknowledgeable to do my own:

In England and Wales a new form of injunction known as a "super-injunction" is a form of gagging order in which the press is prohibited from reporting even the existence of the injunction, or any details of it. An example was the super-injunction raised in September 2009 by Carter Ruck solicitors on behalf of oil trader Trafigura, prohibiting the reporting of an internal Trafigura report into the 2006 Ivory Coast waste scandal. The existence of the super-injunction was only revealed when it was referred to in a parliamentary question (mention in which Parliamentary Privelage permits the disclosure without being held in contempt of court), which was circulated on the internet, leading to the injunction being varied (before it could be challenged in court) to permit reporting of the question

Repeal Jeremy Clarkson

The BBC is funded by a television tax, which inflict grossly overpaid state 'entertainers'. 1.2 million people are expected to be made unemployed because of government cuts – cutting Jeremy Clarkson would save the annual salary of about 100 workers.

The is first on the list, because of his gross offensiveness, which we pay for. Others to follow soon after.

Why is this idea important?

The BBC is funded by a television tax, which inflict grossly overpaid state 'entertainers'. 1.2 million people are expected to be made unemployed because of government cuts – cutting Jeremy Clarkson would save the annual salary of about 100 workers.

The is first on the list, because of his gross offensiveness, which we pay for. Others to follow soon after.

Why switch off DAB?

DAB is more inefficient in terms of the power required to power the radio

DAB does not have full coverage of the country

DAB is not currently standard kit within the vast majority of cars

 

Why are you insisting on fixing something that isn't broken? Keep FM and can DAB, which is an inferior digital product that I can't get, so I will just lose my radio signals in 2015.

 

Bloody ridiculous…haven't you got better things to be doing rather than forcing peiople to spend unecessary hundreds of pounds on radios?

Why is this idea important?

DAB is more inefficient in terms of the power required to power the radio

DAB does not have full coverage of the country

DAB is not currently standard kit within the vast majority of cars

 

Why are you insisting on fixing something that isn't broken? Keep FM and can DAB, which is an inferior digital product that I can't get, so I will just lose my radio signals in 2015.

 

Bloody ridiculous…haven't you got better things to be doing rather than forcing peiople to spend unecessary hundreds of pounds on radios?

End The Need For Political Polling That Could Influence Opinion

During the last election, the public were subjected to endless polling.  The polls were the main talking point of every news channel and paper.

Considering many of these "independent" polls are connected to partisan media, and not to mention the fact that rarely did the polls tally up with each other, and completely overlooking the flawed results that were proven time and again, these polls do manipulate opinion and coerce a political stance within people.

In this day and age, do we need to be told which way the vote is going?  Does this not defeat the exercise of democracy?  When a balance can be tipped through selective numbers and reporting, I do not feel this has the best intentions for democracy in mind. 

Why is this idea important?

During the last election, the public were subjected to endless polling.  The polls were the main talking point of every news channel and paper.

Considering many of these "independent" polls are connected to partisan media, and not to mention the fact that rarely did the polls tally up with each other, and completely overlooking the flawed results that were proven time and again, these polls do manipulate opinion and coerce a political stance within people.

In this day and age, do we need to be told which way the vote is going?  Does this not defeat the exercise of democracy?  When a balance can be tipped through selective numbers and reporting, I do not feel this has the best intentions for democracy in mind. 

allow the bbc to advertise on air commercially

then i will be £100 a year better of

 

right now we need the money and businesses need the exposure so lets just do away with restrictions on all tv advertsing and save the taxpayer funding a tv station

Why is this idea important?

then i will be £100 a year better of

 

right now we need the money and businesses need the exposure so lets just do away with restrictions on all tv advertsing and save the taxpayer funding a tv station

Net Neutrality

Anyone running an internet website, webshow, or other internet based communication in any form should be entitled to the exact same speed of communication to their customers as anyone else.

No ISP should be allowed to slow down selectively anyones website, for whatever reason.

Why is this idea important?

Anyone running an internet website, webshow, or other internet based communication in any form should be entitled to the exact same speed of communication to their customers as anyone else.

No ISP should be allowed to slow down selectively anyones website, for whatever reason.

Tighter Decency Controls on Media Coverage

I'm not sure that this is in the right section, but one thing I'd really like to see in the UK is a tighter control on the domineering attitude of the press and media.

An example of this is video and camera footage taken at high profile funerals, particularly when the funeral is the result of a serious crime. Its horrific, and I honestly can't see any benefit of showing the mourners on TV.

I think that laws should be introduced to protect non media savvy individuals (i.e. joe public!) if they come to the attention of the press. The McCann case really does highlight the damage that a speculative and corrosive press can cause.

 

Why is this idea important?

I'm not sure that this is in the right section, but one thing I'd really like to see in the UK is a tighter control on the domineering attitude of the press and media.

An example of this is video and camera footage taken at high profile funerals, particularly when the funeral is the result of a serious crime. Its horrific, and I honestly can't see any benefit of showing the mourners on TV.

I think that laws should be introduced to protect non media savvy individuals (i.e. joe public!) if they come to the attention of the press. The McCann case really does highlight the damage that a speculative and corrosive press can cause.

 

Legalise Filesharing

Filesharers have long been accused of stealing, with ad campaigns telling is that downloading a film is the equivalent of stealing a DVD.

That is simply not the case:

For a start, when filesharing one is not taking anything of material or intrinsic value. One is taking copying and taking a file, that is, a collection of 1s and 0s.

Digital media can be copied instantly and sent to anyone on the globe with an internet connection at incredible speed, free of charge. To allow large corporations to charge money for this sort of media is absurd; it's like making people pay for air.

The media conglomerates say that they are losing revenue. They are only losing a nominal sum of money. Truth be told it cannot be quantified, but let me just say this: someone who downloads a film or album free of charge, illegally, in 90% of cases would not have purchased it anyway. Therefore they are not depriving anyone of any income.

Films and music will always be profitable; there is such thing as a cinema and a concert. To say that a downloaded copy of a film or album is the same as a cinema showing or concert (which one must pay for to enter) is complete nonsense. To say that people will prefer the former to the latter is also nonsense; fans will always want the true, immersive experience you get in a cinema or concert.

Why is this idea important?

Filesharers have long been accused of stealing, with ad campaigns telling is that downloading a film is the equivalent of stealing a DVD.

That is simply not the case:

For a start, when filesharing one is not taking anything of material or intrinsic value. One is taking copying and taking a file, that is, a collection of 1s and 0s.

Digital media can be copied instantly and sent to anyone on the globe with an internet connection at incredible speed, free of charge. To allow large corporations to charge money for this sort of media is absurd; it's like making people pay for air.

The media conglomerates say that they are losing revenue. They are only losing a nominal sum of money. Truth be told it cannot be quantified, but let me just say this: someone who downloads a film or album free of charge, illegally, in 90% of cases would not have purchased it anyway. Therefore they are not depriving anyone of any income.

Films and music will always be profitable; there is such thing as a cinema and a concert. To say that a downloaded copy of a film or album is the same as a cinema showing or concert (which one must pay for to enter) is complete nonsense. To say that people will prefer the former to the latter is also nonsense; fans will always want the true, immersive experience you get in a cinema or concert.

Governance around the press

The press in the UK seem to be able to report on anything, whether it’s true or not. They have a reputation as being the worst press on the planet and at times seem to hound people. We need some rules around what the press can and cannot do and some proper punishments in place to make sure they stick to this.

Why is this idea important?

The press in the UK seem to be able to report on anything, whether it’s true or not. They have a reputation as being the worst press on the planet and at times seem to hound people. We need some rules around what the press can and cannot do and some proper punishments in place to make sure they stick to this.

TV licence fee should be reclassified as a civil offence – not a criminal offence

Please support amendments intended to ensure that the TV licence  fee is recoverable as a civil matter only, following non-payment and failure to respond to a notice issued by OFCOM – not a criminal offence.  This is an unfair and outdated penalty.

The television licence fee is a "despised compulsory impost" and should be scrapped.  The annual charge and the BBC should be funded by other means.

Why is this idea important?

Please support amendments intended to ensure that the TV licence  fee is recoverable as a civil matter only, following non-payment and failure to respond to a notice issued by OFCOM – not a criminal offence.  This is an unfair and outdated penalty.

The television licence fee is a "despised compulsory impost" and should be scrapped.  The annual charge and the BBC should be funded by other means.

Cleanse our mental environment

Freedom is a funny old thing. One person wants to be free to do something. Another wants to be free from the impact of them doing that thing.

I would like my children to be free to walk into a newsagent without being assaulted by pornographic images of women. I believe my children do not have the freedom to be children while their environment is continually sexualised. I have it from a number of newsagents that the majority of copies of so-called 'lads' mags' are read by school-aged children, and I would like to make these backward publications less available to children by preventing their display in prominent positions. Put them on the top shelf where they belong.

Why is this idea important?

Freedom is a funny old thing. One person wants to be free to do something. Another wants to be free from the impact of them doing that thing.

I would like my children to be free to walk into a newsagent without being assaulted by pornographic images of women. I believe my children do not have the freedom to be children while their environment is continually sexualised. I have it from a number of newsagents that the majority of copies of so-called 'lads' mags' are read by school-aged children, and I would like to make these backward publications less available to children by preventing their display in prominent positions. Put them on the top shelf where they belong.

The TV License re-evaluated

Understandably, there is a growing amount of hostility towards the TV license. Many see the License fee as just another tax and, perhaps, do not recognise the important part it plays in maintaining high quality and cheap broadcasting in Britain.

Britain has the best television and radio in the world and one of the most economical. The unique way broadcasting is funded through the TV license is a fundamental reason for this. Although the public may feel like they are paying twice to watch television and have no choice in the matter, in fact the license fee actually sets the price point for TV in Britain. Just look across the ocean to our neighbours in North America who have fully commercial television. A typical cable bill is $100 per month and the service is riddled with advertising every eight minutes.

The TV license is not a “BBC-TV tax”, yes it funds BBC television but also national and local radio services. The so-called “freeview” channels also benefit from it.

However, the BBC has changed over the last decade and become too commercial. Celebrities are paid far too handsome salaries and private production companies profit from BBC programming. It seems a shake up at the Beeb and a re-evaluation of the license fee would be in the publics’ interested. The uniqueness of the license fee should be protected but its revenue used in a new way.

My proposal is that the TV license is replaced with a “Broadcasting License” to reflect that the financial contributions from the license fee not only support BBC television production but local and national radio services and other independent TV broadcasters. We also need to recognise the changing way the public access broadcasting. The Broadcasting License should also support the internet/network infrastructure across the UK. The new license, as well as supporting the BBC, should also contribute to the development of a national fibre optic network and supply every UK license fee payer with free high-speed broadband internet access. Profits from the commercial arm of the BBC should also be used to support the national broadcasting and network infrastructure.

The BBC also needs to get back to its roots. It should become a television producer again rather than a publisher. It should reinvest in its production and post-production facilities so that it can make its own programming once more. The BBC should be making a wide spectrum of programming not just cheap commercial reality-type shows. It should be the world leader in training broadcasting professionals and in research and development of broadcasting technology. Its back catalogue of vintage programming and radio productions should be made available online for the public to access freely. No more ridiculous salaries for celebrities. The BBC does not need to pay these high wages, there are plenty more upcoming actors and presenters ready waiting to take they place without requiring Hollywood contracts.

In summary my proposals are:

  1. Ditch the current TV license for a new “Broadcasting License”.
  2. The License to also fund a national high-speed fibre optic network.
  3. Free high-speed broadband internet access for all license fee payers.
  4. The BBC to make its own television programmers in house.
  5. The BBC should be a world leader in broadcasting staff training and R&D.
  6. No more celebrities on Hollywood salaries.
  7. The BBC should be making TV programmes for all from costume dramas, to documentaries, educational, special interest, comedies, etc. Cut the cheap commercial reality and quiz shows.
  8. BBC worldwide profits re-invested in the broadcasting/network infrastructure.

The downside – there has to be one right?
The new Broadcasting License would be payable by any residence owning a TV, radio, or with any other means of accessing “Freeview” channels either through terrestrial, satellite, cable or via the internet.

Why is this idea important?

Understandably, there is a growing amount of hostility towards the TV license. Many see the License fee as just another tax and, perhaps, do not recognise the important part it plays in maintaining high quality and cheap broadcasting in Britain.

Britain has the best television and radio in the world and one of the most economical. The unique way broadcasting is funded through the TV license is a fundamental reason for this. Although the public may feel like they are paying twice to watch television and have no choice in the matter, in fact the license fee actually sets the price point for TV in Britain. Just look across the ocean to our neighbours in North America who have fully commercial television. A typical cable bill is $100 per month and the service is riddled with advertising every eight minutes.

The TV license is not a “BBC-TV tax”, yes it funds BBC television but also national and local radio services. The so-called “freeview” channels also benefit from it.

However, the BBC has changed over the last decade and become too commercial. Celebrities are paid far too handsome salaries and private production companies profit from BBC programming. It seems a shake up at the Beeb and a re-evaluation of the license fee would be in the publics’ interested. The uniqueness of the license fee should be protected but its revenue used in a new way.

My proposal is that the TV license is replaced with a “Broadcasting License” to reflect that the financial contributions from the license fee not only support BBC television production but local and national radio services and other independent TV broadcasters. We also need to recognise the changing way the public access broadcasting. The Broadcasting License should also support the internet/network infrastructure across the UK. The new license, as well as supporting the BBC, should also contribute to the development of a national fibre optic network and supply every UK license fee payer with free high-speed broadband internet access. Profits from the commercial arm of the BBC should also be used to support the national broadcasting and network infrastructure.

The BBC also needs to get back to its roots. It should become a television producer again rather than a publisher. It should reinvest in its production and post-production facilities so that it can make its own programming once more. The BBC should be making a wide spectrum of programming not just cheap commercial reality-type shows. It should be the world leader in training broadcasting professionals and in research and development of broadcasting technology. Its back catalogue of vintage programming and radio productions should be made available online for the public to access freely. No more ridiculous salaries for celebrities. The BBC does not need to pay these high wages, there are plenty more upcoming actors and presenters ready waiting to take they place without requiring Hollywood contracts.

In summary my proposals are:

  1. Ditch the current TV license for a new “Broadcasting License”.
  2. The License to also fund a national high-speed fibre optic network.
  3. Free high-speed broadband internet access for all license fee payers.
  4. The BBC to make its own television programmers in house.
  5. The BBC should be a world leader in broadcasting staff training and R&D.
  6. No more celebrities on Hollywood salaries.
  7. The BBC should be making TV programmes for all from costume dramas, to documentaries, educational, special interest, comedies, etc. Cut the cheap commercial reality and quiz shows.
  8. BBC worldwide profits re-invested in the broadcasting/network infrastructure.

The downside – there has to be one right?
The new Broadcasting License would be payable by any residence owning a TV, radio, or with any other means of accessing “Freeview” channels either through terrestrial, satellite, cable or via the internet.