Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1100 – Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Amendment) Bill 2017 Watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    B1100 – Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Amendment) Bill 2017, Jammy Duel MP

    Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Amendment) Bill 2017
    A Bill to repeal section 40 the the Crime and Courts Act 2013

    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    1. Amendment

    Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 is hereby repealed

    2. Commencement, Short Title and Extent
    This Act may be referred to as the Crime and Courts (Amendment) Act 2017
    This Act will extend to the United Kingdom; and;
    This Act shall come into force immediately.


    Notes
    Section to be repealed: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ion/40/enacted
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I think this relates to the topical issue of libel cases against newspapers, however, it would be nice to have an explanation of the section being repealed in the notes.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    I think this relates to the topical issue of libel cases against newspapers, however, it would be nice to have an explanation of the section being repealed in the notes.
    If I'm going to be brutally I don't feel I understand it well enough to give a clear and concise explanation without just ripping it from an opinions article or something. But yeah, costs of legal cases and regulators, the only current regulator being very anti free press, hardly surprising when headed by max Moseley

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    abstain
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye, a good amendment leading to a freer press
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Well, if I have understood section 40 that is.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    Sure, why not.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    Aye, a good amendment leading to a freer press
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Well, if I have understood section 40 that is.
    I'm not sure many people particular do, but if the press are *****ing about it I want it gone, even if it only slightly restricts them it restricts them too much

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'm not sure many people particular do, but if the press are *****ing about it I want it gone, even if it only slightly restricts them it restricts them too much

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Indeed, the word "freedom" implies that is is absolute. The press cannot be subjected to such regulation.

    Off topic but: would you be interested in signing up to the new libertarian party Jammy?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I'm not sure many people particular do, but if the press are *****ing about it I want it gone, even if it only slightly restricts them it restricts them too much

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I can only agree with you here. On the other hand though I did find an article arguing for it here:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...lation-justice
    thoughts?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by LifeIsFine)
    I can only agree with you here. On the other hand though I did find an article arguing for it here:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...lation-justice
    thoughts?
    It's the guardian, enough said.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Indeed, the word "freedom" implies that is is absolute. The press cannot be subjected to such regulation.

    Off topic but: would you be interested in signing up to the new libertarian party Jammy?
    I've been asked before, while I'm sympathetic with much of the libertarian cause there are a few deal breakers in there.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I've been asked before, while I'm sympathetic with much of the libertarian cause there are a few deal breakers in there.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm guessing one of them is common sense.

    Lol jk jammy, saw an opportunity and took it
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Abstain. Like Nigel, I would have liked it if Jammy Duel had added in some notes so I could really understand what this is repealing.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Since it seems so many of you are imbeciles that don't bother reading the news I guess I may as well try to briefly explain it with a link in every single word to a difference source either explaining Section 40 or arguing why it's an awful idea (and it's worth noting that almost every result googling article 40 is about how bad is is) from all sides of the political spectrum, local sources, national sources, and even some international sources, so here goes:

    It imposes regulation of the press via legal costs, namely that establishments that are not signed up to a recognised regulator bear all legal costs for all libel cases they are involved in.

    It is worth noting that is the very short and abridged version so I don't need to get scores of articles, however the "it" links to an overview of Section 40.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Since it seems so many of you are imbeciles that don't bother reading the news I guess I may as well try to briefly explain it with a link in every single word to a difference source either explaining Section 40 or arguing why it's an awful idea (and it's worth noting that almost every result googling article 40 is about how bad is is) from all sides of the political spectrum, local sources, national sources, and even some international sources, so here goes:

    It imposes regulation of the press via legal costs, namely that establishments that are not signed up to a recognised regulator bear all legal costs for all libel cases they are involved in.

    It is worth noting that is the very short and abridged version so I don't need to get scores of articles, however the "it" links to an overview of Section 40.
    As someone who does keep up with the news, although albeit no longer tv reporting as I am in halls currently, this is an issue I have very rarely come across, and mostly in opinion piece or editorial form, which aren't for me always the parts of the new I am most keen to read unless the writer is one I know well and regularly read. Because of that Jammy I think you are being obnoxious and demeaning for next to no good reason, and purely are insulting the members of this House because like always you revel in being as demeaning and cruel to others as you can be, rather than simply engaging, friendly, and supportive, explaining or linking to the issue when members say they are unsure of the issue, indeed initially I was unsure of what the issue was until I read the post I'm now replying to.

    In any case most of the arguments I read are strongly against this, from all sides of the political spectrum, and while I think press regulation does need some reform, this particular reform looks to be making the issues worse not better
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    As someone who does keep up with the news, although albeit no longer tv reporting as I am in halls currently, this is an issue I have very rarely come across, and mostly in opinion piece or editorial form, which aren't for me always the parts of the new I am most keen to read unless the writer is one I know well and regularly read. Because of that Jammy I think you are being obnoxious and demeaning for next to no good reason, and purely are insulting the members of this House because like always you revel in being as demeaning and cruel to others as you can be, rather than simply engaging, friendly, and supportive, explaining or linking to the issue when members say they are unsure of the issue, indeed initially I was unsure of what the issue was until I read the post I'm now replying to.

    In any case most of the arguments I read are strongly against this, from all sides of the political spectrum, and while I think press regulation does need some reform, this particular reform looks to be making the issues worse not better
    Oh dear, to me that suggest that the press should be regulated
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Oh dear, to me that suggest that the press should be regulated
    Free press is the same as free speech, there are still limits that should/need to be in place. For example satire should be marked as satire, deliberately fake news should have to be marked as such ect, and if not marked as fake news and can be established to be deliberately fake then there should penalties. Just as hate speech is illegal, deliberate deceit and lying in the press should be too, not opinion to be clear (although if you are breaking hate speech crimes that is already illegal I do believe) but to make sure the consumer is not misled unknowingly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Free press is the same as free speech, there are still limits that should/need to be in place. For example satire should be marked as satire, deliberately fake news should have to be marked as such ect, and if not marked as fake news and can be established to be deliberately fake then there should penalties. Just as hate speech is illegal, deliberate deceit and lying in the press should be too, not opinion to be clear (although if you are breaking hate speech crimes that is already illegal I do believe) but to make sure the consumer is not misled unknowingly.
    Read the ECHR, article 10: "all shall have the right to freedom of expression and information" as this is an absolutist, universal right that is part of UK law as per the HRA 1998, then you cannot impose limits on the press.

    As for hate speech, that's a poor example that is more applicable in America, the only type of speech that is hate speech is inciting violence, if aggression is not being called for, then it should be allowed. This applies to the press as well.

    I think you should look up the word "freedom" - it's not a relativist term. If you want to limit one human right then by extension we can be relative about all of them; torture is ok in some circumstances if a regulated press is.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Read the ECHR, article 10: "all shall have the right to freedom of expression and information" as this is an absolutist, universal right that is part of UK law as per the HRA 1998, then you cannot impose limits on the press.

    As for hate speech, that's a poor example that is more applicable in America, the only type of speech that is hate speech is inciting violence, if aggression is not being called for, then it should be allowed. This applies to the press as well.

    I think you should look up the word "freedom" - it's not a relativist term. If you want to limit one human right then by extension we can be relative about all of them; torture is ok in some circumstances if a regulated press is.
    And let's not forget that "hate crime" stats and laws really cannot be taken seriously anymore, especially the stats.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Excuse my less than full understanding of libel law however doesn't the offending section just mean that if a media organisation lose a libel or privacy infringement case then they pay the legal costs? Doesn't sound like so massive an attack on 'freedom of the press' as you're making out. I would have thought that freedom of the individual to protect themselves from libel and privacy invasion without bankrupting themselves was something you'd support more strongly.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 20, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.