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 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Why section 40 must be repealed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
"Wise men profit more from fools than fools from wise men; for the wise men shun the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the successes of the wise." ( Cato the Elder , who lived 234 BC - 149 BC, quoted in "Lives" by Plutarch.) There is a similar saying by Germany's Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck: Benjamin Franklin is supposed to have put the same saying in a more humorous form: "Wise men profit by the mistakes of others, while fools will not learn even from their own blunders." See also this thread on the "Quote Investigator" website . Let us all be wise and learn from the events of the last few days.
I was moved to put the passage below forward as a quote today when I saw a horrible post on twitter from someone writing that it was "excellent" that someone who took a different view from her about Brexit had died. I won't write which way round it was so that all the Remain supporters can assume the post was from a Brexit fanatic welcoming the death of a remainer and all the Leavers can assume it was a Remainiac welcoming one less Brexiteer. There's been plenty of nasty stuff on both sides but if you catch anyone of your own viewpoint posting something like that who might listen to you, please do call them out on it - and point out that they're giving everyone on your side of the argument a bad name. Anyway, here's the quote from John Donne.
Comments