If you was PM for a day and could only change one rule after COVID

What would it be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WJ99mobile

What would it be

---

Total restructuring of the media:

Multi-millionaire media moguls banned from owning media outlets that provide news.
Media outlets to show their political allegience. No more than two newspapers allowed to promote any political party.
An independant media organisation with real teeth to clamp down on nonsense reporting and deliberate lies designed to hurt others - newspapers can be withdrawn from circulation for intentionally lying.
Same media organisation to check for impartiality.

Basically, a restructuring that gives everyone fair play in the media, not the most wealthy telling the masses how to think.

Increase the Prime Minister's severance package to a billion quid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J R Hartley

Increase the Prime Minister's severance package to a billion quid

---

Very clever :wave:>Boris ................... :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

Total restructuring of the media:

Multi-millionaire media moguls banned from owning media outlets that provide news.
Media outlets to show their political allegience. No more than two newspapers allowed to promote any political party.
An independant media organisation with real teeth to clamp down on nonsense reporting and deliberate lies designed to hurt others - newspapers can be withdrawn from circulation for intentionally lying.
Same media organisation to check for impartiality.

Basically, a restructuring that gives everyone fair play in the media, not the most wealthy telling the masses how to think.

---

you mean outlaw the freedom of the press? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

you mean outlaw the freedom of the press? :shrug:

---

No, regulation to ensure the press is freer than it is now.

Find a way to ensure Johnson didn't get his job back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

No, regulation to ensure the press is freer than it is now.

---

At the moment there is no regulation. It can hardly get freer than that.

Anyway, my rule would be Kate Beckinsale to give me a daily rub down.

Cancel Brexit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Cancel Brexit?

---

'like' button pressed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WJ99mobile

What would it be

---

To enable people to conjugate correctly.

Does "after covid" mean excluding covid related rules or literally after covid has passed? Brexit is probably biggest issue of internet debate after covid but likely to be settled, to the extent that it can't be cancelled, before the majority get vaccinated.

Stop being so hung up on economic growth.

I would abolish the House of Lords.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feedback

At the moment there is no regulation. It can hardly get freer than that.

---

But surely we're in a position where this supposed free-est of free press is mainly run by billionnaires. Journalists at them are hardly free, they have to conform to their masters. We don't get much neutrality, particularly in the printed media; it is driven mainly by very rich men and their agendas.

I suppose my idea of free press is that everyone deserves a voice, and I'd like to see people having a more equal voice, regardless of how rich they are or what school they went to. Supposed freedom of the press certainly doesn't allow for that. You're all for freedom of speech. What is wrong with some regulation to ensure more people and more different viewpoints have access to providing that speech without being drowned out by the wealthy and the establishment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feedback

At the moment there is no regulation. It can hardly get freer than that.

Anyway, my rule would be Kate Beckinsale to give me a daily rub down.

---

It's not that great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

But surely we're in a position where this supposed free-est of free press is mainly run by billionnaires. Journalists at them are hardly free, they have to conform to their masters. We don't get much neutrality, particularly in the printed media; it is driven mainly by very rich men and their agendas.

I suppose my idea of free press is that everyone deserves a voice, and I'd like to see people having a more equal voice, regardless of how rich they are or what school they went to. Supposed freedom of the press certainly doesn't allow for that. You're all for freedom of speech. What is wrong with some regulation to ensure more people and more different viewpoints have access to providing that speech without being drowned out by the wealthy and the establishment?

---

Based on what you have written, freedom of speech doesn't mean what you think it means. Freedom of speech is the ability to criticise the government, to be able to hold them to account.

Which billionaires own the Guardian, Private Eye, the BBC, the Independent etc etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

It's not that great.

---

I'm prepared to take that risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feedback

Based on what you have written, freedom of speech doesn't mean what you think it means. Freedom of speech is the ability to criticise the government, to be able to hold them to account.

Which billionaires own the Guardian, Private Eye, the BBC, the Independent etc etc?

---

That's not quite right. Freedom of expression is the right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference. The government can restrict this right in specific circumstances.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...dom-expression

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

But surely we're in a position where this supposed free-est of free press is mainly run by billionnaires. Journalists at them are hardly free, they have to conform to their masters. We don't get much neutrality, particularly in the printed media; it is driven mainly by very rich men and their agendas.

I suppose my idea of free press is that everyone deserves a voice, and I'd like to see people having a more equal voice, regardless of how rich they are or what school they went to. Supposed freedom of the press certainly doesn't allow for that. You're all for freedom of speech. What is wrong with some regulation to ensure more people and more different viewpoints have access to providing that speech without being drowned out by the wealthy and the establishment?

---

But if 2 papers already support a particular party and another who wants to is barred from doing so, then that isn't freeing the press its gagging it, suppressing it.

work as one nation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

work as one nation

---

Presume you mean by that abolish the devolved assemblies set up in 1998, rip up the Good Friday Agreement and recentralise power back in Westminster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

That's not quite right. Freedom of expression is the right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference. The government can restrict this right in specific circumstances.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...dom-expression

---

Well yes of course. No one is suggesting otherwise.

The point often overlooked is that freedom of speech is not about being able to say what you want about who you want (defamation laws see to that), but being able to criticise the government openly without fear of persecution (save for the points you've referred to)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Presume you mean by that abolish the devolved assemblies set up in 1998, rip up the Good Friday Agreement and recentralise power back in Westminster

---

Nah, he's an international Socialist.

Announce independent Wales and Scotland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

But if 2 papers already support a particular party and another who wants to is barred from doing so, then that isn't freeing the press its gagging it, suppressing it.

---

So does a one party monopoly encourage freedom of the press or does it gag it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feedback

Well yes of course. No one is suggesting otherwise.

The point often overlooked is that freedom of speech is not about being able to say what you want about who you want (defamation laws see to that), but being able to criticise the government openly without fear of persecution (save for the points you've referred to)

---

Is that why this government have suggested selling off Channel 4, as it is the only broadcaster really willing to criticise them? Is it why they want Paul Dacre in charge of Ofcom? Is that why Tory supporters keep getting top jobs at BBC news?

This government has done more to try and stop the media being critical of it than ever before. Yet you support this autocracy in the name of 'freedom of the press'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

So does a one party monopoly encourage freedom of the press or does it gag it?

---

But we don't have a one party monopoly.
And there are more places to access news and information now than there has ever been. Many people never read
a newspaper any more for example, they find no need to.