One would have to see what it said, of course.
And there is already state licensing from the Parliamentary Lobby to the registration of newspapers with the Post Office, without which there would be nothing remotely resembling our diverse print media, although they have been becoming rather more homogeneous in recent years under a foreign commercial influence.
But in principle, a Royal Charter is a superb idea, and here is why. Finland may come top, but the next seven countries are monarchies, with Sweden in tenth place, Jamaica in thirteenth, Canada in twentieth and Belgium in twenty-first.
The Three Realms of King Rupert do not fare terribly well. But one of those is a republic in the ordinary sense anyway (constitutional monarchy is in fact a res publica), as are all of the bottom 14.
A Royal Charter declaring independence from King Rupert would be capital. Bring it on.
The Three Realms of King Rupert do not fare terribly well. But one of those is a republic in the ordinary sense anyway (constitutional monarchy is in fact a res publica), as are all of the bottom 14.
A Royal Charter declaring independence from King Rupert would be capital. Bring it on.
A Royal Charter is state censorship by another name-the Privy Council aren't allowed to bind the next Parliament so any decision could easily be overturned.
ReplyDeleteNote that ex-editors are banned from the new 'regulator'- in other words, anybody with any experience of newspapers is automatically barred from overseeing them!
The rules forcing newspapers to join the regulator or face paying out even when they win a libel case are, obviously, unlawful-so we can at least look forward to them being overturned.
Us children and students of Burke won't allow Britain to become a totalitarian state.
We'll fight this every step/
You know nothing about Burke. This is not the first time that that has become apparent.
ReplyDeleteI would be happy to bet I know more about him than you-I did a dissertation on that fine gentleman.
ReplyDeleteEnoch Powell's remark when told that he had influenced Margaret Thatcher springs to mind: "She can't have understood any of it, then."
ReplyDeleteThe principle of State regulation, in addition to the numerous forms that already exist and without which the Press could not function, is now accepted across the board.
You or anyone else is going to resist it how, exactly? What are you going to do? In best Burkean fashion, nothing.
It isn't accepted across the board-Cameron has already rejected it, much to the annoyance of Hacked Off and Hugh Grant.
ReplyDeleteThe Royal Charter will get thrown out, too.
If you are so thick that you really think,after 30 years of appalling Governments, that it's our press (and not our politicians) who need regulating, you haven't woken up to what is happening in Britain.
The only thing still in dispute is the precise mechanism, and that will be agreed soon enough.
ReplyDeleteBlame Murdoch. It is he who has made this necessary.
How has Murdoch made this necessary? When did he ever force anyone to buy his newspapers?
ReplyDeleteI've never bought the Sun or The Times and nor do I intend to.
You mean we should blame the people who buy them, for state regulation?
No.
ReplyDelete