Christopher Whiteside MBE is a Conservative activist.
He has served as a County, City & District, Borough, Town and Parish councillor, and has also been a school governor and health authority member.
He lives and works in the North of England, particularly spending time in Cumbria, Lancashire and Yorkshire.
Why section 40 must be repealed
Get link
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
The government is proposing to repeal Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, which in my opinion is one of the most malignant and dangerous pieces of legislation ever placed on the statute book.
This legislation has never actually been implemented, and for very good reason. If it were, those media organisations which have not signed up to a state-approved regulator would be required to pay the costs of both sides in any legal action brought against them for any of their stories, even if they win.
In other words, some modern Robert Maxwell who was trying to prevent an investigative journalist from publishing a truth he wanted to suppress could bring an action against the outlet which published that truth, and the courts could find that the story was
True
Fair
In the public interest
Not motivated by malice
and still get costs awarded against the publisher which might be ruinously expensive.
This pernicious clause, even in its current inactive form is a threat to free speech and accurate journalism, and my only complaint about the government's plans to repeal it is that this should have been done eight years ago as soon as the Conservatives gained a majority in parliament.
Opposition to this clause is an absolute litmus test in my book of whether someone understands democracy and is fit to hold elected office and it is not a particular surprise to me that Sir Keir Starmer fails this test: he has suggested that Labour will vote against repeal of Section 40.
It's probably a good thing for anyone involved in politics to occasionally ask themselves the Mitchell and Webb question:
Well, if you are voting to keep Section 40 on the statute book, or worse, to bring it into effect, on this issue you are the baddies.
I can't put the arguments against it better than they were put by "Index on Censorship" on the campaign page of their website for which my quote of the day for today is taken:
"Section 40 addresses the awarding of costs in a case where someone makes a legal claim against a publisher of “news-related material”. The provision means that any publisher who is not a member of an approved regulator at the time of the claim can be forced to pay both sides’ cost in a court case — even if they win.
What is wrong with Section 40?
Section 40 does not protect “ordinary” individuals as its advocates claim. It protects the rich and powerful and is a gift to the corrupt and conniving to silence investigative journalists – particularly media outfits that don’t have very deep pockets.
Special interest investigative news outlets could shy away from exposing government officials engaged in bribery, for example, because – even if the publication is right – they could end up paying both sides’ legal costs if the story is challenged by a claimant. This could bankrupt a small organisation and would make many investigative journalists think twice about publishing a story for fear of being hit with crippling costs from any claim. The role of the press is to hold the powerful to account and they need to be able to do this without the fear of being punished for doing so."
"It’s a fundamental principle of a free press – and a free society – that if journalists or anyone else wants to ensure politicians are held to account then they must be entirely free from political control."
"The publications most likely to be affected by Section 40 are small publications like Index on Censorship or local newspapers, like the Maidenhead Advertiser, that refuse to join a government-recognised regulator. Many local newspaper editors are very worried about the impact of this.
Section 40 does not protect individuals from an unchecked, irresponsible press. That is achieved by making redress cheaper and faster by mechanisms such as early arbitration and mediation that avoid courts altogether, and by making sure any self-regulator applies a clear and robust code of conduct that holds papers clearly to account for any mistakes."
Please note that the post below was published more than ten year ago on 21st November 2009 Nick Herbert MP, shadow cabinet member for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, was in Cumbria this morning to see the areas affected by the flooding. He writes on Conservative Home about his visit. Here is an extract. I’ve been in Cumbria today to see the areas affected by the floods. I arrived early in Keswick where I met officials from the Environment Agency. Although the river levels had fallen considerably and homes were no longer flooded, the damage to homes had been done. And the water which had got into houses wasn’t just from the river – it was foul water which had risen from the drains. I talked to fire crews who were pumping flood water back into the river, and discovered that they were from Tyne & Wear and Lancashire. They had been called in at an hours’ notice and had been working on the scene ever since, staying at a local hotel. You cannot fail to be impressed by the
It isn't impossible to find people making an intelligent, optimistic, free-market case for a Britain which would be open to trade with the whole world rather than a haven for Xenophobic little Englanders. The trouble is that you do have to go out and look for them. Writing as a professional economist - e.g. someone with two degrees in the discipline who has used the skills I acquired with those degrees for the majority of my professional life - I was not expecting the debate about the economic advantages of Leave versus Remain to be the walkover for the latter which it has been to date. The economic case about the risks of Brexit put by George Osborne and the Treasury is not without substance or supporting arguments, and it is silly and childish to dismiss their case as pure scaremongering but that does NOT mean there are no counterarguments and personally I think they have overstated a legitimate case. But it is most depressing that there has been almost no publicity given
I am devastated by the news that my friend and colleague, County Councillor Arthur Lamb died unexpectedly but peacefully in his sleep yesterday morning. He was thirty-one years old. (Picture from Whitehaven News from CCC election count 2017) Arthur William Creighton Lamb was Chairman of Copeland Conservatives at the time of the Copeland by-election, in which the Conservatives achieved the first governing party by-election gain on a directly comparable basis since Worcester in 1878. He was still chairman when the Conservatives held the seat in the 2017 general election. That year he was also elected County Councillor for the Cleator Moor East and Frizington division of Cumbria County Council and at the time of his death was Chief Whip of the Conservative group on the county council. He was also Deputy Chairman of Cumbria Conservatives. Arthur was a perfect example of what is meant by the expression "An old head on young shoulders." He was exceptionally shrewd and had a real kn
Comments