Why have a dog and bark yourself?
Yesterday the Guardian published an intriguing story on their web site - about the widespread use of private investigators by the UK press.
See post from earlier today: 'Asleep on the Job'.
10.37am:
Earlier this morning Christopher Graham, the information commissioner, said that the punishment for "blagging" should be tougher than it is at the moment. (See 8.41am.)
This is the practice that was used by investigators finding private information about Gordon Brown. Graham said that the last Labour government passed a law creating a maximum two-year jail sentence for this offence, but the relevant section of the Act has not been implemented.
That was because of a stand-off between the press and the politicians, he (Christopher Graham) said.
The Guardian report went on to say:
In 2008 Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail, gave a speech to the Society of Editors that covered this.
And who did he praise for helping to ensure that journalists don't go to jail for blagging?
It was Gordon Brown.
Here's are the remarks attributed by the Guardian - to Paul Dacre and the Daily Mail:
"The fourth issue we raised with Gordon Brown was a truly frightening amendment to the Data Protection Act, winding its way through Parliament, under which journalists faced being jailed for two years for illicitly obtaining personal information such as ex-directory telephone numbers or an individual's gas bills or medical records.
This legislation would have made Britain the only country in the free world to jail journalists and could have had a considerable chilling effect on good journalism.
The Prime Minister – I don't think it is breaking confidences to reveal – was hugely sympathetic to the industry's case and promised to do what he could to help.
Over the coming months and battles ahead, Mr Brown was totally true to his word. Whatever our individual newspapers' views are of the Prime Minister – and the Mail is pretty tough on him - we should, as an industry, acknowledge that, to date, he has been a great friend of press freedom."
So, the Information Commissioner - highlights widespread abuse of data protection laws by the press - yet the Prime Minister of the day fails to take tough action.
Which begs the question:
Why bother with a public watchdog - if politicians are really on the same side as the press barons and media tycoons - when it suits their own agenda?
See post from earlier today: 'Asleep on the Job'.
10.37am:
Earlier this morning Christopher Graham, the information commissioner, said that the punishment for "blagging" should be tougher than it is at the moment. (See 8.41am.)
This is the practice that was used by investigators finding private information about Gordon Brown. Graham said that the last Labour government passed a law creating a maximum two-year jail sentence for this offence, but the relevant section of the Act has not been implemented.
That was because of a stand-off between the press and the politicians, he (Christopher Graham) said.
The Guardian report went on to say:
In 2008 Paul Dacre, the editor of the Daily Mail, gave a speech to the Society of Editors that covered this.
And who did he praise for helping to ensure that journalists don't go to jail for blagging?
It was Gordon Brown.
Here's are the remarks attributed by the Guardian - to Paul Dacre and the Daily Mail:
"The fourth issue we raised with Gordon Brown was a truly frightening amendment to the Data Protection Act, winding its way through Parliament, under which journalists faced being jailed for two years for illicitly obtaining personal information such as ex-directory telephone numbers or an individual's gas bills or medical records.
This legislation would have made Britain the only country in the free world to jail journalists and could have had a considerable chilling effect on good journalism.
The Prime Minister – I don't think it is breaking confidences to reveal – was hugely sympathetic to the industry's case and promised to do what he could to help.
Over the coming months and battles ahead, Mr Brown was totally true to his word. Whatever our individual newspapers' views are of the Prime Minister – and the Mail is pretty tough on him - we should, as an industry, acknowledge that, to date, he has been a great friend of press freedom."
So, the Information Commissioner - highlights widespread abuse of data protection laws by the press - yet the Prime Minister of the day fails to take tough action.
Which begs the question:
Why bother with a public watchdog - if politicians are really on the same side as the press barons and media tycoons - when it suits their own agenda?
