THE EDITOR’S CHAIR: I am angry that local press has been ignored (From South Wales Argus)

Did anybody really expect anything substantial to come from the Leveson inquiry? If they did, then they are deluded.
Few inquiries, held at enormous cost to the taxpayer, ever deliver a decent result for "ordinary" people.
Instead, they pander to Murdoch and his cronies in the corporate-owned media.
It's surprising that anyone thinks we have a free press, an honourable press. We don't, and never have had,
Local papers are the exception and that's because the journalists and editors live in their communities.
They're not here today, gone tomorrow merchants.
Politicians are just craven. We shouldn't expect anything honourable from them and as for the police?
What can we say about these upholders of the law?
We're screwed, basically.

correct me if im wrong - but isnt it beneficial for smaller papers like the argus to be involved in this royal commission? my understanding is that there are incentives for joining.
the argus (to my knowledge) has never been in trouble to the extent of phone hacking etc. so what is it worried of?

I probably sound angry. That's because I am. Bloody angry.

Sorry, I just wanted to find out if the SWA blank out the swear word in order to ascertain whether it really is one law for the press and another for Jo/e Public.

Whatintheworld

The article below, written by Roy Greenslade of The Guardian, perhaps best expresses why those of us in the regional press are worried by the fine detail of this Royal Charter:

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the setting up of a new regulatory body for the press is the creation of its arbitration service, a key Leveson requirement.
Though the so-called "arbitral arm" offers potential benefits to national newspaper publishers, the owners of regional newspapers and magazines fear the likely costs.
But it is fair to say that turning the theory into practice is giving the whole industry a collective headache. Exploratory discussions between in-house newspaper lawyers have tended to highlight more problems than solutions.
The talks have been hypothetical because, in advance of the existence of the regulator itself, it is obvious that a definite scheme cannot be agreed.
One giant problem concerns the different nature of the two main arms that will be available to complainants. The complaints system is code-based while the arbitral system involves the civil law and is governed by the 1996 arbitration act.
There appear to be two possible models. The first, considered to be the least expensive option, imagines the regulator having an arbitration administrator - a gatekeeper - who will merely sift out the obviously frivolous claims and pass on the serious ones to an external arbitrator, who will then assume responsibility.
According to the Anthony Abrahams, director general of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators , the costs do not appear exorbitant. It is impossible, without knowing exactly how much work is involved in each case, to guess at the amounts.
Professional arbitrators work on scale fees and that forms part of the contract agreed in advance. It is a reminder that people sign up for the arbitration process. It is not an ad hoc arrangement.
Abrahams is engaged in a series of meetings with press industry representatives to discuss the nuts and bolt of an arbitration system.
Going on his estimates, if the costs of inaugurating a gatekeeper system were shared across the industry, it would be relatively cheap. The downside of this first option is the outsourcing of the dispute and the lack of certainty about whether the arbitrator had specialised knowledge of journalism.
In the second model, the arbitrator would be hired to join the regulator's staff and work with the benefit of internal industry knowledge. This would necessitate bureaucratic back-up and could prove much more expensive, with estimates running as high as £400,000 a year.
There would be financial advantages for national newspapers in persuading people who believe they have been libelled or suffered intrusion into their privacy to choose arbitration rather than go to court.
By contrast, regional publishers believe complainants who have previously been satisfied with the service offered by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), might well seize on the existence of an arbitral arm to seek compensation.
One particular concern is the growth of a compensation culture among complainants or, more likely, among the legal community. It could lead to the regular transformation of complaints about inaccuracy, for example, into claims for libel.
Even if the arbitrator were to reject such claims, the publisher could well be out of pocket. One plausible outcome of trying to keep costs down is a consequent reluctance of regional and local papers to pursue possibly controversial stories. That's the chilling effect.
Legal costs raise a further nightmare for publishers. Complainants will have the right to be legally represented and their lawyers would surely seek to cover their costs from newspapers.
Another problem is the likely delay between the tabling of a complaint and its resolution. The PCC has been proud of its "fast, free and fair" slogan. Arbitration, though free to access, is likely to be slower. And it will not be free for publishers, of course.
Then there is the thorny matter of the system's compliance with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to a fair trial. It means that the arbitrator must follow strict rules when rejecting a complaint on the grounds that it is frivolous or vexatious. Similarly, it would apply to the original sifting of complaints.
Despite the problems over the arbitral arm's powers, rules and costs, Hugh Tomlinson QC - the chair of Hacked Off - believes it to be "a workable and practical solution to the problem of access to justice."
If administered properly, he argues that the scheme "would save costs for newspapers and would provide quicker and more effective remedies for claimants." Quicker than the courts, of course, not the PCC.
Other lawyers consulted by the regional publishers are not at all as sanguine. They view it as a step backwards from the PCC, which has handled hundreds of complaints about regional daily and local weekly newspapers without undue controversy for more than 20 years.

It looks like the Council have two records for you, Editor, since the addresses are slightly different. If they had simply duplicated the printing and posting, the addresses would have been identical.

D Taylor
Only difference between two I received were words 'South Wales' - everything else identical.
Getting reports of others having the same issue.

Strange. I've only had one demand and so has my neighbour.

Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
Whatintheworld The article below, written by Roy Greenslade of The Guardian, perhaps best expresses why those of us in the regional press are worried by the fine detail of this Royal Charter: Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the setting up of a new regulatory body for the press is the creation of its arbitration service, a key Leveson requirement. Though the so-called "arbitral arm" offers potential benefits to national newspaper publishers, the owners of regional newspapers and magazines fear the likely costs. But it is fair to say that turning the theory into practice is giving the whole industry a collective headache. Exploratory discussions between in-house newspaper lawyers have tended to highlight more problems than solutions. The talks have been hypothetical because, in advance of the existence of the regulator itself, it is obvious that a definite scheme cannot be agreed. One giant problem concerns the different nature of the two main arms that will be available to complainants. The complaints system is code-based while the arbitral system involves the civil law and is governed by the 1996 arbitration act. There appear to be two possible models. The first, considered to be the least expensive option, imagines the regulator having an arbitration administrator - a gatekeeper - who will merely sift out the obviously frivolous claims and pass on the serious ones to an external arbitrator, who will then assume responsibility. According to the Anthony Abrahams, director general of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators , the costs do not appear exorbitant. It is impossible, without knowing exactly how much work is involved in each case, to guess at the amounts. Professional arbitrators work on scale fees and that forms part of the contract agreed in advance. It is a reminder that people sign up for the arbitration process. It is not an ad hoc arrangement. Abrahams is engaged in a series of meetings with press industry representatives to discuss the nuts and bolt of an arbitration system. Going on his estimates, if the costs of inaugurating a gatekeeper system were shared across the industry, it would be relatively cheap. The downside of this first option is the outsourcing of the dispute and the lack of certainty about whether the arbitrator had specialised knowledge of journalism. In the second model, the arbitrator would be hired to join the regulator's staff and work with the benefit of internal industry knowledge. This would necessitate bureaucratic back-up and could prove much more expensive, with estimates running as high as £400,000 a year. There would be financial advantages for national newspapers in persuading people who believe they have been libelled or suffered intrusion into their privacy to choose arbitration rather than go to court. By contrast, regional publishers believe complainants who have previously been satisfied with the service offered by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), might well seize on the existence of an arbitral arm to seek compensation. One particular concern is the growth of a compensation culture among complainants or, more likely, among the legal community. It could lead to the regular transformation of complaints about inaccuracy, for example, into claims for libel. Even if the arbitrator were to reject such claims, the publisher could well be out of pocket. One plausible outcome of trying to keep costs down is a consequent reluctance of regional and local papers to pursue possibly controversial stories. That's the chilling effect. Legal costs raise a further nightmare for publishers. Complainants will have the right to be legally represented and their lawyers would surely seek to cover their costs from newspapers. Another problem is the likely delay between the tabling of a complaint and its resolution. The PCC has been proud of its "fast, free and fair" slogan. Arbitration, though free to access, is likely to be slower. And it will not be free for publishers, of course. Then there is the thorny matter of the system's compliance with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to a fair trial. It means that the arbitrator must follow strict rules when rejecting a complaint on the grounds that it is frivolous or vexatious. Similarly, it would apply to the original sifting of complaints. Despite the problems over the arbitral arm's powers, rules and costs, Hugh Tomlinson QC - the chair of Hacked Off - believes it to be "a workable and practical solution to the problem of access to justice." If administered properly, he argues that the scheme "would save costs for newspapers and would provide quicker and more effective remedies for claimants." Quicker than the courts, of course, not the PCC. Other lawyers consulted by the regional publishers are not at all as sanguine. They view it as a step backwards from the PCC, which has handled hundreds of complaints about regional daily and local weekly newspapers without undue controversy for more than 20 years.

thank you for the reply, very informative!

from what i understand, there is a problem with remuneration of legal costs - potentially fatal to local press

How ironic that the local press be in a flap about what 'they' consider a fair shake of the 'free speech' stick. Which is essentially what this proposal will limit as it will filter down to us all.

Don't think that nobody notices the editors snarky remarks on this topic in past SWA commentaries, and the way 'disagreeable' contributions get denied for subject matter (not language or untruth) especially on this web forum, and sometimes sneakily I might add.

One might consider that allowing 'personal bias and interests' into a discussion about an isolated abuse of power, that was NOT the norm, but the 'exception' has alllowed rich and powerful people to turn this outwards, and into an issue of 'free speech'. Individuals are at fault here, and individuals got away with it.

No sympathy from me, you are just as bad.

PC Neilson
I'd be very happy to respond to your comments - unfortunately I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Perhaps you could explain further.
Thanks.

@Kevin Ward
I wasn't asking a question, I was making an observation. My opinion of where SWA considers censorship necessary is from personal experience. I have had 'the warning message', had posts deleted (sneakily to my mind) and by and large it was because of problems that 'might' arrise with others.

As a result I felt very disheartend, and it effected my view of how 'free' my local rag is and how it feels about 'free speech'. I don't imagine this, because there have been editorials before this scandal that had a tone that would agree with the rationale behind what is being proposed for all the papers right now.

Of course I expect to be told that I have no reason to question my papers integrity, and that I don't have to stay with SWA if I don't want to. That is why I didn't ask a question.

I may be completely wrong on your opinion here, but from your prose I get the impression that you don't feel the local papers should have to be part of an imposed and expensive regulatory body just because a minority group don't know how to behave themselves, and are being allowed to ruin things for everyone else, even though it is all such a ridiculous measure given our existing protection under current law. We should be accountable for our own behaviour.

Am I right?

Thanks for the response.
With regard to website comments, the rules are very simple.
When users register with our site they agree to abise by its terms and conditions.
We do not pre-moderate comments but we take action, if necessary, if we receive complaints.
There is nothing 'sneaky' about it. Our site terms are very clear and a reminder about them appears beneath the comments box every time a user posts.
With regard to press regulation, my view is that regulation under the PCC has always been extremely successful for the regional press. Unfortunately, some elements of the national press were unable to abide by the PCC code of conduct or to cooperate fully when complaints were upheld.
New, tougher regulation was inevitable given the actions of the NOTW and others - though it is unwelcome in the regions.
My stance throughout this saga has remained unchanged.
Phone hacking, police bribery etc are against the law. That such actions went unchecked for so long is a failure of policing and the justice system, not of the regulation of journalism.
New laws or Royal Charters cannot make something that is already illegal somehow more illegal.
I am against any form of statutory regulation of a free press because I believe that it is extremely dangerous for all of our freedoms.
So-called light touch legislation (if indeed such a thing exists) is the thin end of the wedge.
I think the Royal Charter proposals are ill-conceived and badly thought out.
Would I prefer local newspapers to be treated differently to the nationals? Yes.
Will it happen? I have no idea although there is an amendment to that effect being put before the House of Lords this week.

A 'yes' would have been sufficient. That was the standard response I anticipated. I wonder if I am the only one that gets the irony. The problem here is not an 'ill conceived' royal charter.

Thin end of the wedge is calling it kindly, when you consider the implications for society. Freedom of expression is possible because of democracy, democracy protects us all from being bullied by minority interests. That is the only thing that should have been considered here.

Phone hacking and bribery will still go on, and it will be the same group of people doing it. Meanwhile the rest of us fuss over what liberties should be granted to our press. Am I going around the twist here?

I despair.