LETTERSFrom Laurie Tennant, Cowes:
Good Morning! You must have been asleep for a very long time because the evil of press self-regulation is hardly a new debate (CP Weekender 06-01-17)).
After Leveson it was obvious the Press needed to demonstrate accountability (so obvious even parliament demanded it).
Your industry’s response was to deny the need for regulation and instead you established the luncheon club called IPSO.
That it is completely supine is demonstrated by its record so far (2015 figures) — out of 4,000-odd complaints, a mere eight upheld and no sanctions.
Is this because the Press has suddenly become virtuous and innocent? Do turkeys vote for Christmas?
Your attempt now to remove a piece of established law (section 40 of the CCA 2013) confirms that you believe you should be completely free from legal consequences of Press activity.
No-one seriously thinks IMPRESS would be any better but it does have section 40 behind it, so your best bet is to revise IPSO and give it some real teeth (ie ability to invoke the law, if only as a last resort after publicity and nominal fines have failed). This is a mess of the Press’s own making. It behoves you to find a solution credible and acceptable to the public.
Editor’s footnote: I can assure Mr Tennant I have been awake throughout this thorny debate which came to prominence in the last fortnight as the consultation period neared an end.
We are not free of legal consequences (The CP has been sued for libel four times in the last 33 years to my knowledge), but no-one in the regional press would deny the wrongdoings in the past by some sections of the national press, but to my mind, making someone pay legal bills even if they are "not guilty" of a "crime" goes against the principles of natural justice.
IPSO is a rigorous scrutineer of the Press and Sir Alan Moses, its chair, is an experienced judge, who holds us to account fearlessly and fairly.
Yes, we should be held to account, but not by a quasi-governmental structure that has the potential to protect those with the most to fear from a free press.