Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Wednesday 11 January 2017

Daily Mail Section 40 Own Goal

After the Government’s “consultation” - in other words, another delaying tactic designed to help the press establishment to shirk their responsibility to those they so regularly and viciously attack, smear, defame and otherwise monster - over Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act and Leveson Part 2 ended, the obedient hackery of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre at the Daily Mail decided to declare victory.
What the f***'s wrong with lying to keep the readers in line, c***?!? Er, with the greatest of respect, Mr Jay

The problem with the resulting Mail Online piece, under the by-line of Martin Robinson, is that it is amateurish in the extreme. So here is the fisk of “Majority of British public do NOT want draconian libel laws that put the freedom of Britain's Press in peril”, which means only one thing: the press wants the kinds of libel laws that enable them to tell the little people to shove off, or sue if they think they’re hard enough.

Tens of thousands of people have voted to oppose the implementation of unfair new libel laws that would muzzle the free Press”. You sure about that? “The consultation closed yesterday and it is believed at least 50,000 members of the public responded online calling for repeal of s40 and tens of thousands more submitted the same in postal responses”. So you don’t actually know. “Analysis of social media views also suggested up to 65 per cent are also in favour of repealing s40”. You still don’t know.

But remember, “newspaper industry sources are confident there was a clear majority in favour of the repeal of s40”. They really, really don’t know. But they do know how to lie through their teeth: “Under section 40, newspapers that refuse to sign up to a State-backed regulator called Impress would be forced to pay the costs in libel cases, even if they won”. IMPRESS isn’t state-backed, and no they wouldn’t.

The Mail, MailOnline and the majority of the press have argued that no country can call itself a true democracy without independent media, free from state interference”. Quite so. They would much rather have a media that isn’t independent, and subject to political, editorial and proprietorial interference. Like they have now.

Critics also agreed that it would hand the rich, powerful, criminal and corrupt a weapon to silence criticism and continue their wrongdoing”. Which the rich, powerful, criminal and corrupt don’t need, because they already possess weapons called the Murdoch, Rothermere, Desmond and Barclay Brothers press.

Many thousands of people have registered their dissent about the proposed censorship of British newspapers and news websites”. As there is no proposal to censor British newspapers and news websites, this represents a challenging proposition.

Most newspapers and websites, including the Daily Mail and MailOnline, are instead members of the independent regulator IPSO, which is free of State control”. IPSO is not independent, and it is not free from interference. And no, IMPRESS is not under state control, but thanks for the smear. And then comes the pièce de résistance.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has today said that 140,000 took part in its online consultation. There was also a 130,000-strong petition handed to civil servants … The Government has not said how they voted … But analysis of online opinions suggests that up to 65 per cent of likely respondents believe Section 40 should be repealed completely”. You still don’t know, do you? And there’s more.

You know that petition? The one with 130,000 signatures? Well, we know exactly how those people voted, because the petition was run by campaign group 38 Degrees, and it wasn’t about Section 40. This is what they Tweeted yesterday afternoon: “Over 130,000 of us signed the petition asking the gov't to start the Leveson Inquiry Part 2 - today we handed it in! RT to celebrate!It’s in support of Leveson 2.

The Mail Online article quotes the 130,000 figure, then suggests those signing were against Section 40. Another easily rumbled pack of lies. And remember, punters, when the Mail tells you “The UK News Media Association said today Article 40 would cost the regional and national newspapers it represents £100million a year in extra legal costs. Some would be put out of business”, that’s another pack of lies.

All the article can do is urge readers to “look over there at Max Mosley”, who is “the son of former fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley”, unlike the Rothermeres, who were fascist sympathisers and Hitler groupies in the 1930s. More amateur hour stuff.

The Mail is inventing support its campaign does not have, inventing “facts” about press regulation that don’t stand up to the most basic scrutiny, calling on the rich and powerful while not realising that those are the people who run most of the UK’s press, and railing against the criminal and corrupt, while forgetting that they, too, inhabit significant parts of the Fourth Estate. It’s another feeble example of lying for money.

Don’t believe the Dacre doggies. Or those in the remainder of the press establishment. When it comes to rich and powerful, and criminal and corrupt, they have no equal.


IanLilbourne said...

Good Tweeted Private Eye article about one Daily Mail contributor who was anti Leveson 2 and why

Alan Clifford said...

I must say I get tremendous enjoyment from the spectacle of tenth rate media thugs squirming in terror at the prospect - the mere prospect, mind - of a level playing field for victims of low life scum like Dacre.

I get even more enjoyment at the notion of seeing an apology at the same exposure as the original lie.

Bring it on, I say, bring it on.

AndyC said...

“Many thousands of people have registered their dissent about the proposed censorship of British newspapers and news websites”. As there is no proposal to censor British newspapers and news websites, this represents a challenging proposition.

But it IS the intention of the Govt to dramatically censor the internet through the offices of the BBFC and impose age-verification on websites considered by the nanny state to be unsuitable for those under 18. This will not only be porn blocking but will also cover a wide range of blogs, advice sites and internet resources. Where is the opposition to these measures from the newspapers?