Mick Hume has written an excellent piece in Spiked on how censorship can only get worse with Labour, the clearest signal of which is the party’s commitment to bring in state-backed supervision of the press by implementing Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Here’s an excerpt.
The Tories belatedly want to abolish Section 40, but Labour has vowed to oppose its abolition. This alone should be enough to make anybody who cares about freedom of speech and of the press think twice about voting for Sir Keir Starmer’s party.
Some background. Section 40 was passed in the wake of the 2012 Leveson Inquiry. That was ostensibly an inquiry into the phone-hacking scandal at the closed Sunday tabloid, the News of the World, which became an inquisitorial probe into the entire “culture, practices and ethics” of the British media. It was effectively a show trial in which the tabloid press was found guilty before proceedings began.
Lord Justice Leveson’s final report called for a firm regime of press regulation backed by law – the first such state-backed system since Crown licensing of the printing press was abolished in 1695. An official regulator called Impress was duly established under the aegis of the monarch’s Privy Council. However, understandably, no national news publisher agreed to bend the knee to state-backed supervision. Impress is still boycotted, not only by the likes of the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Times and the Telegraph, but also by the Guardian, the Financial Times and the rest.
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was intended to force the reluctant news media to submit to state-backed regulation. Its rules mean that if any news publisher not signed up to the official regulator is sued, it will have to pay the substantial court costs of both sides – even if it wins! Dissident news organisations could also be subject to huge fines.
Ludicrously, this form of legal blackmail was presented by the establishment as a ‘carrot’ to induce newspapers to sign up to Impress. As I wrote at the time, if Section 40 was a carrot, it was one shaped like a baseball bat with a nine-inch nail sticking out of the end.
Section 40 was duly passed. But in the face of public pressure (not least a ‘consultation’ exercise that came out overwhelmingly against the new rules), successive Tory Governments refused to implement it. The law has instead sat dormant on the statute book, waiting for a Labour Government to enforce its repressive regulations, as the party promised to do at the last General Election.
As promised in its own 2019 election manifesto, the Tory Government has now reportedly moved finally to abolish Section 40 altogether, as part of its forthcoming Media Bill. In response, the Labour Party has pledged to oppose abolition. Note, Labour has not said that it will oppose the whole Media Bill – only that it will single out Section 40, and make a stand for state-backed regulation of the press.
A Labour Party spokesperson accused the Tories of “muddying the waters” by trying to abolish a dormant law. But, amid waffle about the press playing “an important and valued role in our democracy”, this spokesperson also gave the game away. According to this unnamed Labour official, one major threat we face today comes from “disinformation and misinformation”. Therefore, “It’s right that the press is held to the highest standards and [is] accountable for [its] reporting”.
In other words, a Labour Government would want to regulate the press to ensure that it does not spread “disinformation and misinformation” – a.k.a., stories and opinions of which the new establishment disapproves. To that end, the media must be held “accountable”. But not, as in a free society, by their many readers, viewers and listeners. No, held accountable by a handful of elite figures on a regulatory committee approved by His Majesty’s Privy Council.
A Labour leadership source added that “We know this will trigger a fight with the press, but it has been Labour policy for years to have Section 40. It would look very odd not to stand up for it now the Tories are trying to repeal it.” Tellingly, Starmer’s party of technocrats honestly believes that it would “look very odd” to stand up for the freedom of the press.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Man of the ppl, Dr professor vice chancellor king of the world Chris Packham, the worlds greatest scientist!
Jeez Louise, seriously, an article about Chris Packham’s choice of hat?!
If I had a pub I’d call it The Cock and Bull, and there’d naturally be a picture of a cockerel and a bull outside.
Am I the only one homing in on the fantastically named The Pecker and Bush pub?
It goes without saying that if I owned a launderette I’d call it ‘Sit&Spin’. Rude not to.
In fairness any chance to mock the man who sees himself as the heir to Attenbore has to be taken with glee. Of course the fact that this jumped up trouble causer is wearing a £500 piece of headgear only confirms that for his childish mumblings the
BBCtaxpayers are paying ridiculous money.Well personally, I can hardly wait for the next riveting installment about which aftershave Chris favours and how much it sets him back. I’d be quite intrigued to know what his skin care routine involves as well, seeing as he looks nowhere near his age. You bring the wine and I’ll bring the snacks.
It’s just unusual to see an article about Mr Packham that has the comments section open for business, to be honest. Or is it just anything that Toby writes about him where we’re not allowed to comment…?
Apologies if there are alcohol-free beer enthusiasts among our number but I am suspicious of people who drink it
Revolting stuff.
Friday night is gallon night.
I just don’t see the point
Every night is vino night chez ToF, though as I’ve said before I am
also partial to locally brewed golden
ale.
Completely off topic now there is a beach wedding going on in front of us and not only is there an army of professional photographers and cameramen provided by the resort but most of the guests are sitting there filming instead of paying attention. I find people weird!
It’s the same at concerts. An artist you have paid a fortune to see, and they are playing all your favourites, yet you are distracted by the numpties holding up their phones recording it all. Why don’t they just enjoy the experience? Do they ever actually watch what they’ve filmed? I always think they are missing out.
One of the last concerts I went to before I got too grumpy was Ben Harper. You’d think his audience would be fairly reverential but I ended up having a row with people around me who kept chatting.
I did traumatise my tastebuds by trying an alcohol-free Becks when I was pregnant and it was so vile it was grapefruit and soda from that day forth. One of the things I don’t understand about alcohol-free drinks is that they’re the same price as the real stuff. Over here it’s 17 euros for a bottle of Gordon’s gin, but it’s also 17 euros for a bottle of sugary water with flavourings that has ‘Gordon’s’ on the label. Who in their right mind is going to buy this alcohol-free version for that money when they can just buy the tonic ( or mixer of choice ) for a tiny fraction of the price and just make do with that on it’s own? It’s mental, right? A glass of lemonade would be a few cents in comparison, stick some ice and a slice in it, there’s your alcohol-free beverage! People are strange.
Anyway, I’ve never liked gin because it tastes like old ladies’ perfume, as does tonic actually.
Alcohol-free “spirits” are plain weird if you ask me. At least alcohol-free beer hydrates you.
The hat still has its security tag affixed.
He must have stolen it.
On the salary he gets from the BBC he can afford it.
Anyone who drinks an alcohol-free beer whilst wearing a stupid hat that cost £520 from Prada (but about £5.20 at Primark) is a colossal plonker.
Perhaps it’s the Primark version.
Alcohol free beer has a nasty ‘dry’ taste, its the only way I can describe it. Drinking fake alcohol is like vegans eating fake meat. Why bother, when there are tasty alternatives available, if that’s your thing.
I think it lacks taste. In fact, it’s a bit like drinking decaf coffee or tea. To me they just taste like hot water. As if somebody poured some water from the boiled kettle and went, ”There’s your coffee/tea” and you’re meant to close your eyes and imagine you’re drinking an Americano/Rington’s brew. Tastes of nothing. I’m harking back to when I was preggers though, a dim and distant memory now, as I stay well away from that sort of kack these days, of course.
Same with skimmed milk – it’s just water with a smidgen of milk added – but people kid themselves they are drinking milk. Someone’s making a profit!
He probably thought it said Pravda.
Is Truth his thing though?
Biggest take from this is How TLF-ck can a Bush Hat be £520 !!
The cost of his nylon (i.e. fossil fuel based hat) is notable.
But just remember that his hat size is certainly greater than his IQ score.
Shows how stupid he really is: £500 plus for a hat = T*at.