Ten things that discredit the press industry's 'PCC2'

Posted: November 19, 2012 at 12:03 pm

The first detailed analysis of the press industry’s own plan for press regulation – the scheme proposed by the papers to the Leveson inquiry – indicate that it would be dominated and controlled the big newspaper companies and would barely be an improvement on the discredited Press Complaints Commission.

The study of the so-called Black plan by the Media Standards Trust, which can be read in full here, leaves little doubt that the aim of editors and proprietors is to give the appearance of independence to their proposed new body, but to retain for themselves the power to be judge and jury in their own court.

It identifies ten serious failings:

  • It is not (as advertised) a ‘new system entirely’
  • It is not independent
  • It maintains the dominance of the key vested interests
  • The incentives to participate will damage journalistic freedom
  • A news organisation can effectively buy itself out of the contract
  • It is unwieldy, bureaucratic, and significantly under-costed
  • Its powers of sanction are limited and unspecified
  • Third parties will find it as hard as before, if not harder, to complain
  • It remains mediation not regulation
  • It has a five-year sell-by date

As well as these flaws, it is important to remember that the plan has already been rejected by the victims of phone hacking and press abuse in a letter to David Cameron. Read their arguments against the proposals here.

Shares 0



    The creation of organizations of ” apparent investigation-act ” is the hall mark of the Free Masons – you will find the ” Office of Judicial Complaints ” to be such an organization, the Criminal Case Review Commission is another ” pretend investigation “, the Independent Police Complaints Commission yet another independent investigation
    If you could listen in to the conversations of the people that set up these organisations you would see how they laugh, mock and ridicule how gullible and stupid we the plebs are
    The new press regulator would be a mack, pretend investigation organisation set up to pretend we have a serious investigation body but with case workers prepared and trained to frustrate any complaint
    ACPO ( Association of the Chiefs of Police ) set up the APCC ( Association of Police Crime Commissioners ) long before the PCCs were even elected – they did this to control the PCCs and retain power
    These people will not share power – they are hypnotized into believing they have a right to set up platforms to fool us, dupe us, trick, cheat – whilst at the same time remaining in control and with a very firm grip of the reigns
    Any organization set up by the Press will be a pretend-to-investigate-fool us all regulator
    The concept of processing facts and punishing is completely strange to these people and inconceivable
    The credo of the Free Masons is ” all that are not Free Masons are fair game “

  2. Thomas

    Rita Chacrabati has stated that it would be a human rights issue if Levensons proposals were implimented.

    I here the words kicked and long grass ringing in my ears.

  3. david meurig thomas

    Hunt /Black are in flight from reality & the will of the people
    Like cameron & his shower they seek to maintain the hegemony of money & class structure
    VIVAT THE PLEBS (or whatever the plural of vivat might still be)

  4. Rob

    Expecting the press to self-regulate responsibly is akin to asking Jimmy Saville (were he still alive) to become a housemaster in a school for vulnerable children.

    We MUST have an apolitical and entirely independent body comprising ORDINARY citizens in addition to those who understand the complexities of modern media. Thus, it would be more representational of the minorities who hitherto have been bullied, abused and neglected.

    The press performs an essential role in a democracy – that is not in question and we must continue to enjoy the benefits of this freedom. BUT, the fundamental problem here is not what the press do, but how they do it. Hence we need clear guidelines on proper behaviour and decorum, and very harsh penalties for transgressors – imposed by a body that does not have a vested interest!