Does the UK need a privacy law?

[Ron Simmons]

With super-injunctions and their merits one of the hot topics in the news right now, alongside the subject of privacy (Max Mosley's scandal-inspired campaign to have some sort of law/protection placed against media intrusion) I thought I'd ask the people of the UKFF what they think of the whole thing - specifically, do they think the country NEEDS some sort of privacy law?

 

There's no specific law dealing with privacy in this country, although the Human Rights Act 1998 seems to have kind of created one anyway. But do we need something specific, or are things fine as they are? Judges interpretation of the law is creating protection for certain individuals right now, but is that right? Is there a line between free speech and intrusion that shouldn't be crossed?

 

As for super-injunctions, Jeremy Clarkson said that only the rich and famous could afford them, but only the rich and famous need them - his point isn't exactly true, take a look at:

The Sun's story about a policewoman swinger

 

The Daily Mail "exposes" Tesco workers for slagging off customers

 

The Daily Express says Dunblane Survivors have "shamed" the memory of the victims of the massacre (although they later apologized for this article)

 

Are those kind of stories fair game, or is there a place for super-injunctions or a something similar in the UK? Do we need a privacy law, or alternatively should the press get more freedom to report on what they see fit?

[DJ Kris]

I think we need something, the media has created this issue for themselves by frequently trying to distroy lives in order to sell papers. I've always remembered when the News of the World ran a story about David Beckham having an affair, it was something like 8 whole pages dedicated to trying to break up someone's marrage. I don't believe it was even true and I know recently a former "Journalist" came out and said his editor would frequently have him make up a story or twist a story to the point it barely resembled the truth.

[Smeg_&_The_Heads]

It depends if it's something to do with a person private life then I don't care now if that person is doing illegal stuff and or hurting other people then it should come out and that person have to deal with the consequences

[Mandingo's Donger]

Yeah we don't need anti-privacy laws, we need anti-shithouses in the media printing lies and gossip as opposed to actual news laws.

[Dead Mike]

Alternatively the British public could vote with their wallets & not keep buying shite 'newspapers'.

[Smeg_&_The_Heads]

Alternatively the British public could vote with their wallets & not keep buying shite 'newspapers'.

Only time I ever buy one is if they have got a free gift I want

[Loki]

We don't need a privacy law. We need a properly independent Press Regulator that has teeth, not just fines but the power to shut a paper down altogether. It needs to be completely independent of the press, preferably with judges sitting on it, funded by the government but not run by the government.

 

The PCC is a joke, and a big reason that the press in this country feel free to print whatever they like.

[chokeout]

We don't need a privacy law. We need a properly independent Press Regulator that has teeth, not just fines but the power to shut a paper down altogether. It needs to be completely independent of the press, preferably with judges sitting on it, funded by the government but not run by the government.

 

The PCC is a joke, and a big reason that the press in this country feel free to print whatever they like.

 

^ This

[rubbafish]

Alternatively the British public could vote with their wallets & not keep buying shite 'newspapers'.

 

Precisely. The Divine Comedy got it spot on in the lyrics for 'Generation Sex' in reference to the Diana accident:

 

Lovers watch their backs as hacks in macs

Take snaps through telephoto lenses

Chase Mercedes Benz' through the night

A mourning nation weeps and wails

But keeps the sales of evil tabloids healthy

The poor protect the wealthy in this world

[Keith Houchen]

The PCC is a joke,

SWERVE~~~

[DJ Kris]

Alternatively the British public could vote with their wallets & not keep buying shite 'newspapers'.

Which isn't going to happen, therefore someone else needs to stop the press from being such utter, utter vile cunts. I'm all for having the freedom to print actual news, but these half truth gossip storys really need to stop.

[The King Of Swing]

We don't need a privacy law. We need a properly independent Press Regulator that has teeth, not just fines but the power to shut a paper down altogether. It needs to be completely independent of the press, preferably with judges sitting on it, funded by the government but not run by the government.

 

The PCC is a joke, and a big reason that the press in this country feel free to print whatever they like.

 

Spot on.

[Smeg_&_The_Heads]

The Tesco one is pretty stupid does it really surprise anyone that people who work in places like Tesco or anywhere else where they have to deal directly with customers have a bitch about some of the ones they have to deal with and some customers I've seen myself whilst shopping they deserved to be bitched about.

 

Yes of course you also get some employees who are at fault just because they can't be arsed to do their job and get pissed off if a customer has the audacity to ask them to do what they are been paid to do.

[textonly]

I agree with the suggestion that puts liability more on the press etc. The only thing I didn't like about the Giggs super-injunction business is that it gagged an involved party. Regardless of what you think about Imogen or her role or even the fact that she may have wanted to sell her story, unless blackmail was definitely involved I just don't think it's right to legally prohibit someone from talking about something that happened to them. If there was a law that prohibited direct profit from the story or one that prohibited its publication if deemed outside the public interest, then I think that's fair enough, but gagging one party just because the other party wants protection and can afford to make it happen has to be stopped.

[Smeg_&_The_Heads]

I agree with the suggestion that puts liability more on the press etc. The only thing I didn't like about the Giggs super-injunction business is that it gagged an involved party. Regardless of what you think about Imogen or her role or even the fact that she may have wanted to sell her story, unless blackmail was definitely involved I just don't think it's right to legally prohibit someone from talking about something that happened to them. If there was a law that prohibited direct profit from the story or one that prohibited its publication if deemed outside the public interest, then I think that's fair enough, but gagging one party just because the other party wants protection and can afford to make it happen has to be stopped.

 

I agree with that maybe at most give the person wanting a super injunction a week or 2 so he/she can tall their family themselves then after that if the other person wants to tell their story they can.