{"id":2496,"date":"2014-09-04T09:56:32","date_gmt":"2014-09-04T09:56:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/english.thesunrisetoday.com\/?p=2496"},"modified":"2014-09-04T10:00:54","modified_gmt":"2014-09-04T10:00:54","slug":"leveson-inquiry-ethnic-media-was-overlooked","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/english.thesunrisetoday.com\/index.php\/leveson-inquiry-ethnic-media-was-overlooked\/","title":{"rendered":"Leveson Inquiry : Ethnic media was overlooked"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Barrister<\/a>Barrister Nazir Ahmed<\/strong>
\nIn 2007, News of the World’s Royal Editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glen Mulcaire were convicted of illegal interception of phone messages.\u00a0 According to the News of the World, this was an isolated incident, but influential dailies like the Guardian claimed that evidence existed that this practice extended beyond Goodman and Mulcaire.
\nIn 2011, after a civil settlement with Sienna Miller, the Metropolitan Police Service set up a new investigation in the name of the “Operation Weeting.”
\nIn July, it was revealed that News of the World reporters had hacked the voicemail of murder victim Milly Dowler.\u00a0 Those incidents created huge public outcry throughout the country.
\nAs a result, the Prime Minister David Cameron was more or less compelled to announce a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.
\nThe Inquiry (commonly and widely known as Leveson Inquiry as the Inquiry was headed by Lord Justice Leveson) was a judicial public inquiry headed by Lord Justice Leveson, a sitting Judge of the Court of Appeal.
\nOn 20th July 2011, the Prime Minister announced a panel of six people who would be working with Lord Justice Leveson on the Inquiry.\u00a0 Those six persons were: former Chairman of the Financial Times Sir David Bell, Director of the Liberty Shami Chakrabarti, former Ofcom Director Lord Currie, former Political Editor of Channel 4 News Elinor Goodman, former Political Editor of the Daily Telegraph George Jones and former Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Sir Paul Scott-Lee QPM.
\nIn making announcement on the penal of assessors, the Prime Minister said “These people have been chosen not only for their expertise in the media, broadcasting, regulation, government and policing, but for their complete independence from any interested parties.”\u00a0 Although the Prime Minister announced six penal of assessors, Lord Justice Leveson had the power under the Inquiries Act 2005 to appoint additional assessors should he feels necessary.\u00a0 The Cabinet Secretary nominated Collins Rice as the Secretary to the Leveson Inquiry.
\nThere was 16 staff employed in the Secretariat comprising both full and part time staff drawn from a number of Government Departments.\u00a0 The Solicitors have seconded from the Treasury Solicitors Department.The Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press was approached in four Modules.
\nThese are:
\nModule 1: The relationship between the press and the public and looks at phone-hacking and other potentially illegal behaviour.
\nModule 2: The relationship between the press and police and the extent to which that has operated in the public interest.
\nModule 3: The relationship between press and politicians.
\nModule 4: Recommendations for a more effective policy and regulation that supports the integrity and freedom of the press while encouraging the highest ethical standards.
\nThe Leveson Inquiry was funded by the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
\nThe final report was submitted to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympic, Media and Sport.\u00a0 The Prime Minister initially asked the Inquiry to report within a year.\u00a0 The Inquiry started with public seminars in order to take a broad brush look at the wider picture, to hear opinions and debate in the areas covered by the Terms of Reference.\u00a0 The seminars were distinct from the evidence-taking exercise that was being conducted, including through the public hearings. Hearings were taken place in the Inquiry Room at the Royal Courts of Justice, the Strand, in London, where nearly 400 witnesses were called and over 300 statements were made. A wide range of witnesses, including newspaper reporters, management, proprietors, police officers and politicians of all parties, all gave evidence to the Inquiry under oath and in public.\u00a0 The Press Release dated 14 September 2011 stated that Part 1 of the Leveson Inquiry would be addressing “the culture, practices and ethics of the press, including contacts between the press and politicians and the press and the police; it is to consider the extent to which the current regulatory regime has failed and whether there has been a failure to act upon any previous warnings about media misconduct.”\u00a0 And Part 2 would be addressing “the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International, other media organisations or organisations.\u00a0 It will also consider the extent to which any relevant police force investigated allegations relating to News International, and whether the police received corrupt payments or were otherwise complicit in misconduct.”\u00a0 Lord Justice Leveson opened the hearing on 14 November 2011, saying: “The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life.\u00a0 That is why any failure within the media affects all of us.\u00a0 At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?” Lord Justice Leveson published his Report on Part 1 of the Inquiry on 29 November 2012.\u00a0 However, Part 2 of the Inquiry cannot commence until the ongoing police investigations and any subsequent criminal proceedings have been completed.\u00a0 The final report consisted 2000 pages along with a 48 pages executive summary.\u00a0 Leveson found that those who sought to complain about newspaper coverage of their affairs were rarely taken seriously enough.\u00a0 He found “a cultural tendency within parts of the press vigorously to resist or dismiss complainants almost as a matter of course.”\u00a0 Celebrities certainly have right too.\u00a0 Leveson found “ample evidence” that parts of the press decided actors, footballers, writers and pop stars were “fair game, public property with little if any entitlement to any sort of private life or respect for dignity.”\u00a0 He added “Their families, including their children, are pursued and important personal moments are destroyed.”
\nThere was no findings on any individual on phone hacking, but Leveson was not convinced that phone hacking was confined to one or two individuals. Leveson Inquiry found that the existing Press Complaints Commission was not sufficient and it recommended for a new independent body, which would have a range of sanctions available to it, including fines and direction of the prominence of apologies and corrections. The new independent Press Watchdog was to be formed without MPs or serving newspapers editor being on the penal.\u00a0 It should be underpinned by statute, but should be free of “any influence from industry and goveremnt.”\u00a0\u00a0 Leveson rejected the characterisation of his proposal as “statutory regulation of the press.”
\nAccording to him, the legislation should set up and organise the Watchdog and at the same time it should “place an explicit duty on the government to uphold and protect the freedom of the press.”\u00a0 The Watchdog would be able to fine press organisations that breach its code by as much as one percent of their turn over with a maximum fine of \u00a31 million.
\nMembership of the body would be voluntary, but incentivised by schemes such as kit mark and an inquisitorial arbitration service for handling for claims such as libel and breach of privacy.\u00a0 The law would allow the body to award exemplary damages in cases brought against non-participants.\u00a0 The newspapers that refuse to join the new body could face direct regulation by media watchdog Ofcom.
\nLeveson also made recommendations regarding the Data Protection Act, powers and duties of the Information Commissioner, and about conduct of relations between the press, the public, the police and politicians.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Immediately after the publication of the report Prime Minister David Cameron made a statement to the House of Commons.\u00a0 He welcomed many of Leveson’s findings but expressed “serious concerns and misgivings” regarding the prospect of implementing the changes with legislation.
\nMr Ed Milibad, the Leader of the Opposition, called for full implementation of the report.\u00a0 Mr Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of Liberal Democrats was unable to agree on a position with his coalition partner Mr Cameron.\u00a0 Thus, he made his own statement agreeing that changes in the law were necessary.
\nLeading newspapers such as the Financial Times, the Daily Telegraphs, the Independent, the Times, the Sun, the Daly Express, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail broadly agreed with Cameron’s position, while the Guardian declared that Miliband had taken a “principled position” but that great care would be required for the legislation.
\nThe leader of the National Union of Journalists, Michelle Stanistreet, hailed Leveson’s backing of a contractual “conscious clause.”
\nOn 20th July 2011, Prime Minister Cameron announced in a speech to Parliament the final terms of reference of Leveson’s inquiry, stating that it will extend beyond newspapers to include broadcasters and social media.\u00a0 But it fell short to include the ethnic community media.
\nThe ethnic media, both print and electronic, have been dynamic and vibrant.\u00a0 Along with multiculturalism in the pluralist society, the ethnic media has been gradually expanding. In London city alone hundred of foreign languages is spoken.\u00a0 Hundred of ethnic newspapers and satellite TV channels are being operated from the United Kingdom. Yet the Leveson Inquiry is totally silent on the issues of ethnic media. There is a strong presence of Bangladeshis in the UK.
\nIt is estimated that around half a million to a million Bangladeshi are living in the UK.\u00a0 Six community based satellite TV Channels are operated from London.\u00a0 More than 15 Bengali newspapers are published weekly from London.
\nSome Bengali newspapers are also published from other cities as well.\u00a0 These clearly show how deeply rooted the ethnic media in general and Bengali media in particular. Despite this, there has been no representation in the Leveson Inquiry from either the ethnic media as a whole or Bengali media.\u00a0 As a result, the issue, concerns, ethics, interests and sensitiveness of both ethnic and Bengali media have not been reflected in the Leveson Inquiry. This is unfortunate.
\nThe Leveson Inquiry could have, on their own initiatives, made arrangements to hear evidence and take representation from the ethnic media.\u00a0 Or alternatively the ethnic media could have, on their own motion, applied to the Leveson Inquiry for their concerns and representation to be heard and considered. We could then have a set direction and well thought out guidelines from the Leveson Inquiry for the ethnic media.
\nBarrister Nazir Ahmed: a UK based Legal expert, analyst, writer and columnist.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/div>\r\n