Joined: 07 Jan 2007
|Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:48 pm Post subject: Definitions of " The Public Interest " ( IPSO etc
|" The Public Interest " is a phrase much abused by The Democrats in Wales and Westminster who frequently rant at The Republicans in Wales - especially me ( dai ) for arguing against " Democracy " which is another word which they pay lip service to without knowing what it means. Due to over two hundred years of propagandising the idea that those who subscribe to the politics of " De Re Publica " are involved in some kind of a criminal conspiracy against " The Public Interest " and over one hundred years of treating the word " Democracy " as a shibboleth to test whether a person is loyal to " The United Kingdom " as a non-political system and yet previously in the one hundred years before that exactly the same sort of people were treating the word " Democracy " as a shibboleth to test whether a person was disloyal to " The United Kingdom " as a non-political system ... well ... what you can learn from this is that " The Demockerats in Wales and Westminster " for the most part put all of their effort into getting themselves elected because to be a County Councilor, Assembly Member, Member of Parliament or Prime Minister is now the only job which you can get without possessing any knowledge - let alone qualifications - of how to actually do it ... even The Prince of Wales had to learn Welsh ! ...
... Republicans when asked will typically point to " The Law " as being the agreed account of " The Public Interest " because " De Re Publica " is the name of the book by the Roman lawyer Marcus Tullus Cicero which is a treatise on the situation which he was witnessing : the overthrow of The Republic in Rome by Julius Caesar and others whom I define as " Ultraists " i.e. those who go " Beyond The Boundary ( -ism ) " which prompted him to look back to the legal philosophers of Ancient Greece and to argue for " The Rule of Law " which is something rather different to simply " The Law." Those who supported the emperors claimed that The Republic in Rome had not been destroyed by them but restored - those who opposed the emperors denounced the use of violence to assert their arbitrary claims to power : there has to be a higher authority than The Government of The State or otherwise political authority becomes self justifying - those who control The State can then make The Law and declare this to be Justice : that they are not subject to The Law i.e. " ( Beyond ) The Rule of Law." In other words if there is a single instance of anybody being placed above, beneath or beyond " The Rule of Law " then it is not present - and there are multiple examples of this in the non-political system whose supporters do not call it " The Dis-United Kingdom " e.g. " The Demockerats in Wales " as I have dubbed them : those political illiterates who foisted onto The People in Wales a constitutional mess - Devolution instead of Revolution !
I was prompted to write this thread because I consulted IPSO's Code of Practice which has a section defining " The Public Interest " - again they are abusing the term because this is not " The Law " - and not written like a law either but is rather more like the kind of memos found amongst the waste paper recycled by The Western Mail ... on the other hand ... no ...
We are a trifle reckless at times on " Y Repwblic " in our angry indignation : it is just as well to remember the kinds of standards which are expected of professional writers although unlike them we do not deal in gratuitous advocacy of political violence, perverse sexuality or sectarian sports on the grounds that our host informe.com requires us not to attract children under thirteen ... of course we do welcome all childish adults under three hundred years old to express themselves according to their own abilities.
" IPSO " is the Independent Press Standards Organisation -
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) was established on Monday 8 September 2014 following the windup of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), which had been the main industry regulator of the press in the United Kingdom since 1990. The PCC received extensive criticism for its lack of action in the News International phone hacking scandal, including from MPs and Prime Minister David Cameron, who called for it to be replaced with a new system in July 2011. The Leveson Inquiry was set up and reported in November 2012, recommending in favour of the establishment of a new independent body.
IPSO claims to be an independent regulator of the newspaper and magazine industry, and exists to promote and uphold the highest professional standards of journalism in the UK, and to support members of the public in seeking redress where they believe that the Editors' Code of Practice has been breached. The Editors' Code deals with issues such as accuracy, invasion of privacy, intrusion into grief or shock and harassment. IPSO is able to consider concerns about editorial content in newspapers and magazines, and about the conduct of journalists.
IPSO handles complaints, and conducts its own investigations into editorial standards and compliance. It also undertakes monitoring work, including by requiring publications to submit annual compliance reports. IPSO has the power, where necessary, to require the publication of prominent corrections and critical adjudications, and may ultimately fine publications in cases where failings are particularly serious and systemic.
... The chair of IPSO is retired Court of Appeal judge, Sir Alan Moses and a 12-strong board has been appointed. A majority of the members are independent (7) which means they have no connections with the newspaper and magazine industry. The other members (5) represent the newspaper and magazine industry. ...
Editors’ Code of Practice ©2017 Regulatory Funding Company
The Public Interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
Detecting or exposing crime, or the threat of crime, or serious impropriety.
Protecting public health or safety.
Protecting the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.
Disclosing a person or organisation’s failure or likely failure to comply with any obligation to which they are subject.
Disclosing a miscarriage of justice.
Raising or contributing to a matter of public debate, including serious cases of impropriety, unethical conduct or incompetence concerning the public.
Disclosing concealment, or likely concealment, of any of the above.
There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
The regulator will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain or will or will become so.
Editors invoking the public interest will need to demonstrate that they reasonably believed publication - or journalistic activity taken with a view to publication – would both serve, and be proportionate to, the public interest and explain how they reached that decision at the time.
An exceptional public interest would need to be demonstrated to over-ride the normally paramount interests of children under 16.