I saw this comment attributed to a labour source on the Guardian referring to the amendment to prevent royal charters being amended:

Lab source re Lords amendment:"This is not a little bit of statute, this is not a 'dab' of statute. This is statute pure and simple."

And add to that the likes of Murdoch, the Barclay brothers and Viscount Rothermere, who won't be happy with any form of regulation with serious underpinning at all.

Because they didn't get their amendment in even with them being naughty and delaying the close of Parliament on Friday for over an hour

True.

So a "free" press really means one free from having any responsibility to behave in a reasonable manner then?

I did get annoyed this morning when watching the news.
There was an editor of the Sun squealing about free press and how control of it is bad. Clearly the man doesn't realize the hypocrisy of it being him (NI employee) kicking off about it.
As for them using a picture of Winston Churchill this morning well nothing surprises me about that rag anymore.

Yes that is exactly what the 'free press' think.

Still, it made a nice cover for the news that the [iSun[/i has admitted accessing an MP's mobile phone – in 2010.

So much of it is an utter farce. I suspect that, for most people, the idea of a free press is one that will act in the best interests of the majority. The majority of our press acts in the interests of its owners. We can see that in many, many ways.

But media is a business – why do we expect it to be any different to any other businesses, which also act in the interests of their owners and shareholders, such as Findus, with horsemeat in its beef products or the banks that mess up?

And it's quite clear looking at those examples that proper regulation is required, properly enforced. It's farcical to try to pretend that that should not be the case for the media.

To the argument that we already have laws that can deal with any problems – no, we don't. We do not have a privacy law.

And it's worth noting that regulation, underpinned by statute, works perfectly well in other countries such as Denmark.

Finally, ladies and gents, I give you what 'freedom of the press' means to [url=http://www.themediablog.co.uk/the-media-blog/2013/01/daily-mail-turns-the-creepiness-up-a-notch.htmlthe [iMail[/i[/url: publishing pap shots of an eight-year-old child leaving a gym class and calling her "a leggy beauty".

I would say unbelievable, but that seems to be Mail Online's MO.

It is quite extraordinary.

I'm far from the first to write about it, [url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/this-isnt-just-journalism-this-is-daily.htmlbut here's a piece from a few months before that was published, which shows that it's far from a one off[/url.

I've tweeted this link and a few direct questions at the [iMail[/i: for some reason, they seem to simply ignore them. Which suggests that they know full well but will not accuse me of lies etc.

For those who don't read that piece, [iMail online[/i is still, ultimately, the editorial responsibility of Paul Dacre, who is editor in chief of the entire group.

In typical Sun fashion, they use their front page to show a picture and quote from Winston Churchill



They obviously ignored the irony of Churchill editing the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_GazetteBritish Gazette[/url during the general strike

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2013/mar/19/press-regulation-cameron-murdoch-cartoonSteve Bell's take on it[/url

I doubt even press regulation could prevent the likes of the odious [url=http://web.archive.org/web/20121221195332/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2251347/Nathan-Uptons-wrong-body--hes-wrong-job.htmlRichard Littlejohn and his peurile comments on trans teacher Lucy Meadows[/url

No doubt he's proud of himself though and could possibly claim a result: [url=http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/teacher-due-begin-new-term-1767749Lucy Meadows found dead[/url

And Dacre, Rothermere and the scum writing for the rag are against any form of regulation.

Except that Littlejohn was right in that it was self-indulgent and thoughtless in the extreme for Mr Upton/Miss Meadows to come back after Christmas as a different gender and expect 7 year old kids to be able to handle it.

He'd be right only to the few idiots who think like you and he.

As someone just tweeted:

Mo Cropplod Ooglo ‏@MyCrippledEagle

"Trans issues are confusing for children." EVERYTHING IS CONFUSING FOR CHILDREN. THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON WE HAVE TO TEACH THEM [iS[/iHIT.

Where is the public (as in national) interest in his story?

Pssst: I think FA was, y'know, doing a Dally.



There was none.

Incidentally, I'd hasten to point out that we don't know, for sure, what happened and why – we don't actually have facts.

But that does not change the fact that Littlejohn is a bigoted, ranting piece of stirring scum, and the [iWail[/i is just one of a number of utterly disgusting vehicles for people like him to spread their bile in.

Which equally should not bee seen as an excuse for the apparently rather frightening numbers of dumb, unthinking twerps out there who believe everything that the Littlejohns of this world say to an almost sexual extent, and then take that bigotry forward.

I know that, there's plenty of speculation over suicide etc but I deliberately refused to join in the rumour mill



I agree wholeheartedly, there's more than a couple I'd lump in with him too

A good summation from [url=http://jackofkent.com/2013/03/the-death-of-lucy-meadows/Jack of Kent[/url

I know – but it was really intended as a general point. And I know that my own instincts are to hurl blame in a certain direction too.

Some of the stories I've heard, in the course of work, over the last years about what trans people go through ... and some people imagine it's 'a lifestyle choice'. There really are things that make me despair.



Absolutely.

I dont claim to be any kind of expert on this, but if it is a lifestyle choice, who am I to criticise someone's lifestyle anyway?

An entirely valid point!

But what I was meaning is that, 'lifestyle choice' tends to suggest something like changing your fashion style, whereas changing your sex is really not in the same ball park.

In just the latest illustration of what a piece of filth the [iMail[/i is, it's report on the death of Lucy Meadows refers to her throughout as male and by her pre-reassignment name.

It's just straightforward nastiness.

Couldn't put it better myself.

You know when magazines do these five-minute interviews with people and one of the questions they ask is "Who would you least like to be stuck in a lift with?" ... well, I'd say that I would really love to be stuck in a lift with Littlejohn.
He wouldn't love it though.

Reminds me of the time I had the pleasure of being doorstepped by Michael Fabricant and he foolishly accepted my invitation to come in "for a coffee and a chat".

Unfortunately (for him), he took his coffee black so after he necked the boiling hot mug of java, in record time, I reckon he went straight to Mid Staffs A&E to get the scalds on his mouth & throat attended to