Paxman gets Paxoed by the man from Plaid

Lovely clip from Newsnight.

Slightly sneering reference from Paxman to Eurfyl ap Gwilym's 'august' position as deputy chairman of the Principality to start off.

What follows is a beautiful example, as an interviewee, of how to deal with the aggressive interview.

Know your stuff, stay calm, and get your digs in when you can.

Eurfyl to Paxo: "Do your homework."

Paxo (truculent): "I have done my homework." (sound of shuffling papers as he finds that, actually, Eurfyl is right)

Eurfyl is obviously Wales's very own Vince Cable.

Post Script. If traffic to this blog since I posted the above is anything to go by, Mr ap Gwilym is an electoral smart bomb that Plaid could do to drop a little more often between now and election day.

With all three of the main parties today accused by the Institute of Fiscal Studies of being too vague in where they will make cuts after the election, an economist who knows what he is talking about would seem to be just what they need.

Jack Straw's Soapbox Blog

Take a look at the blog by one of Jack's self-described 'bag carriers' as Mr Straw tours the country with his soapbox speaking to, and taking questions from, the public.

In the interests of political impartiality (not that a blogger needs to be) if the other parties can point me in the direction of something as entertaining, I'll link to it too.

Tories and Lib Dems commit to libel reform too

Both the Conservatives and Lib Dems have included libel reform as a manifesto commitment.

Conservatives: "We will review and reform libel laws to protect freedom of speech, reduce costs and discourage libel tourism."

Lib Dems say they will: "Protect free speech, investigative journalism and academic peer-reviewed publishing through reform of the English and Welsh libel laws - including by requiring corporations to show damage and prove malice or recklessness, and by providing a robust responsible journalism defence."

So it's a commitment by all three main parties, with the Lib Dems being the most specific. Who will deliver though?

Labour's libel reform commitment

Labour has included libel reform in its manifesto.

"To encourage freedom of speech and access to information, we will bring forward new legislation on libel to protect the right of defendants to speak freely. "

Election law

Well, they're off, so here's a brief rundown of the legal problems that can arise when reporting elections.

Firstly, libel, it's always with us, but elections are that special time when candidates lay into each other with abandon and occasionally say something defamatory. Remember it is no defence to say you are simply reporting what someone else said (but see below). Anyone who repeats a libel is potentially liable for it and a defamed candidate may decide to sue the relatively wealthy media outlet that has repeated the libel rather than the relatively poor opponent who originated it. Beware accusations of racism, fascism and plain old lying.

However, if you are reporting remarks made at a public meeting, or press conference, then you have a defence of qualified privilege, so long as you are reporting fairly, accurately, on a matter of public interest and without malice. Don't get overly worked up about malice - the malice of the speaker does not 'infect' your report of their speech and has never yet destroyed a defence of qualified privilege mounted by a media organisation.

False statement about election candidates. Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 makes it a criminal offence "to make or publish a false statement of fact about the personal character or conduct of an election candidate, if the purpose of publishing the false statement is to affect how many votes he/she will get."

The false statement must be statement of fact, not opinion. It is a defence to show at the time of publication you had reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be true. A journalist who published false claims that a candidate was homosexual was fined £250 in 1997. Note that it is no longer defamatory to say that someone is gay (unless it implies they are dishonest by concealing their true sexuality) but it would contravene this law. The reason being that if the voters included those whose religious beliefs cause them to hold anti-gay views, then such a statement could affect turnout for the candidate.

The 1983 Act also makes it an offence to publish a false claim that a candidate has withdrawn from the election if you know the claim is false and it is being made to promote the election of another candidate.

Impartiality of broadcasters. The Ofcom code and BBC Editorial Guidelines have detailed guidance on achieving impartiality. Several radio stations have been fined by Ofcom after presenters declared political allegiance on air.

Exit polls. Section 66A of the 1983 Act makes it an offence to publish the results of an exit poll before polling has finished. The reason being if the exit poll reveals a runaway winner it may discourage people from voting an thwart the democratic process. It is also an offence to publish a prediction of an election result if it is based on such a poll.

Election counts. Admission to the count is the responsibility of the returning officer. There is no national media policy, so best make contact early to make sure of arrangements for the night.

Libel law giveth and it taketh away

By now I'm sure those of you with half an interest in libel law will have heard news of Simon Singh's successful appeal in the action brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association. A very good summation of the hearing and what might happen next can be read in The Times report of the case.

To sum up, very briefly, Simon Singh, a science writer whose publications include the excellent Fermat's Last Theorem, wrote an opinion piece in The Guardian in 2008 in which he alleged the BCA promoted 'bogus treatments' for childhood conditions like asthma, colic and earache.

The BCA sued him for libel and in an earlier hearing in the High Court, Mr Justice Eady said that Singh's article had contained assertions of fact and so he could not use the defence of 'fair comment' which normally protects statements of opinion.

Singh might have given up then as his legal bills were already soaring, but he fought on to appeal that point, that he should be allowed to use fair comment as a defence. And that is what he won yesterday, the Court of Appeal said he ought to be allowed to use fair comment as a defence.

The judgement is interesting for a number of reasons, but I particularly liked phrases such as: "This litigation has almost certainly had a chilling effect on public debate which might otherwise have assisted potential patients to make informed choices about the possible use of chiropractic." And that in suing Singh personally and rejecting an offer of an article in reply from the Guardian "The unhappy impression has been created that this is an endeavour by the BCA to silence one of its critics."

The full judgement is beautifully crafted and has been put up on Scribd by journalism.co.uk as part of their coverage of the case.

Heartening thought the judgement is, it's taken two years and £200,000 to get this far and it's only half way. The ball is in the BCA's court. It can go back to trial, with Singh allowed to use fair comment, it can appeal to the Supreme Court or it can drop the case. As the appeal court judges said, this is no way to pursue scientific debate.

The problem is that Simon Singh is the tip of the iceberg. He is the brave writer prepared to devote the time and cash to the battle. But for every Simon Singh there are hundreds of publishers who drop articles apologise and pay out of court simply to avoid the ruinous expense of a libel action.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw, to his credit, has begun to do something about this and had introduced reforms into Parliament that would cut 'success fees' for no-win, no-fee lawyers. This is the system where a lawyer who takes on a case on a conditional fee - no-win, no-fee - can be awarded 'uplift' - a success fee if they win the case. This means, dependent on how much uplift the court awards, they might double the fees they charge.

Now the order introduced by Straw has been voted down by a committee of MPs. Straw is hopeful it might be revived when it comes to the Commons.

Somewhat strangely, one of the MPs who opposed the order was Chris Mullin, a former journalist of great repute. He said he felt lawyers would not take on tough cases any more.

This is a much more important issue for the regional press. I travel a lot talking to regional editors and they tell me that as much as 90% of the libel threats they get are coming from CFA lawyers and that in the vast majority of cases they settle rather than face the crippling costs of an action.

Straw's reform would have cut the fees that CFA lawyers could expect to get. This would make fighting an action more realistic as it would drive down costs.

For the regional press the issue of the potential cost of a libel action remains the most pressing concern and until that is addressed the chilling effect of libel will suppress freedom of expression.

Libel reform and the working group report

By now you may have had a chance to read the report of the working group on libel, and read some of the coverage of it and the response from Jack Straw.

There was a mass lobby of Parliament yesterday on this subject, and the minister, as well as opposition spokesmen attended.

There are a number of changes in the offing, some achievable by tinkering with regulations and therefore reasonably speedy, others requiring legislation and therefore the commitment of an incoming government, be it Labour, Tory or some combination involving the Lib Dems.

There will be those who say the changes proposed by the working party do not go far enough. The working party, being a broad cross-section of those representing media, NGOs, academia, claimant and defendants, was always going to reflect a multiplicity of opinions.

However, read the proposed changes being put forward and look at them in the context of a reduced costs regime as proposed by Jack Straw.

What you will get if the changes as proposed are all put into effect is, and this is a very broad brush description:

1. Less likelihood of being sued for libel due to changes to the multiple publication rule and restrictions on libel tourism.

2. If you are sued, a better chance of defending yourself if you are publishing in the public interest.

3. If you are sued and you lose, it will be less ruinously expensive due to the curtailment of the 'uplift' success fees charged by no-win, no-fee lawyers. The cuts in success fees will also, I would imagine, take some lawyers out of this market, again cutting the likelihood of getting sued.

So, a step in the right direction, a rebalancing of burdens. Not everything that those campaigning for reform might have wanted, but more then their opponents might have wanted to give.

What matters now is how much of this is put into effect, pre, and post-election.

Libel working group report published

The Ministry of Justice has published the report of the working group on libel, you can download it here

Libel working group report

The report of the Ministry of Justice working group on libel is due to be published this morning. Should be up on the MoJ website within the hour.

More later.

Is old law bad law? Nick Clegg thinks so, but he's wrong.

Nick Clegg was on Radio 4 Woman's Hour this morning and first question in was what he thought of MPs accused of expenses offences possibly using parliamentary privilege as a defence.

His quick answer was that it was wrong to use a defence dating back to 1689 in this day and age.

And some might agree, how can archaic laws possibly apply in this modern age.

But hang on, there's a lot of law out there and just because it's old, doesn't make it bad per se.

For instance, habeas corpus, the law which allows us to take action against unlawful detention by the state, dates all the way back to 1215. I doubt somehow that Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems would rush to do away with habeas corpus simply because it's a bit long in the tooth - albeit that European arrest warrants have rather undermined it already.

Yes, there's a lot of arcane law on the statute books, but to say that something is wrong simply because it's old is rather a foolish argument.

One could equally say that old laws have stood the test of time and so encapsulate fundamental principles which have prevented the need for repeal over the centuries.

Nick Clegg might have justifiable objections to the use of parliamentary privilege, but let's hear something a bit better thought out that simply saying: It's an old law, it shouldn't be allowed. That just insults our intelligence.

Furthermore, he might not like the use of a defence of parliamentary privilege, but surely that's a matter for a jury to decide upon. I would have thought that a Liberal leader, of all people, would defend principles like the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial, even of his political opponents. Unless of course, that chance to score a few points before an election means the temporary setting aside of such principles.

Former DPP says the PCC is 'farcical'

Sir Ken MacDonald, former Director of Public Prosecutions and now visiting professor of law at the LSE became the latest figure to attack the PCC last night.

He has advised lawyers and media organisations to withdraw from it.

This is the latest blow to the reputation of the PCC. In November, Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor, resigned from its code committee after if failed to rule in favour of The Guardian over its phone hacking investigation.

Rusbridger said last night that the PCC's credibility was clinging by its fingertips.

Other voices have criticised the PCC recently. Roy Greenslade described it as an effective mediator of the regional press, but less effective at regulation.

The PCC has been a bit flat-footed in its response to serious criticisms like this, some might say arrogant. It needs to heed such voices.

A new Parliament will be elected this year, and one which will perhaps have more of an appetite for statutory regulation. Criticism like that of Sir Ken MacDonald should be regarded as fair warning.

Working group members

Here's the membership of the working group on libel:

Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, chief executive of the Medical Research Council

Tracey Brown, managing director of Sense About Science

Desmond Browne QC, of chambers 5 Raymond Buildings

Rod Christie-Miller, partner and chief executive at law firm Schillings

Robin Esser, executive managing editor at the Daily Mail

Jo Glanville, editor of Index on Censorship

Jonathan Heawood, director English PEN

Tony Jaffa, head of the media team at law firm Foot Anstey

Sarah Jones, head of litigation and intellectual property at the BBC

Marcus Partington, chairman of the Media Lawyers Association and legal director of Mirror Group

Gill Phillips, director of editorial legal services at Guardian News and Media

Professor Gavin Phillipson, of Durham Law School

Mark Stephens, a partner with law firm Stephens Finers Innocent

Andrew Stephenson, a partner at law firm Carter-Ruck

Paul Tweed, senior Partner at Belfast-based law firm Johnsons

Sunday Times editor John Witherow

...and me.

The presence of Rod Christie-Miller might explain the 60 or so visits to this blog last week by someone at Schillings. Pity them having to wade through my Welsh column archive, they could have just called me.

Ministry of Justice working group on libel

Over the Christmas break I was invited to join the working group being set up by the Ministry of Justice to look at the law of libel.

It is an area of law that's creating a lot of 'heat' at the moment - issues such as 'libel tourism', conditional fee agreements and the burden on a defendant have all attracted a great deal of attention from the traditional media as well as bloggers and the Twitter community too.

The working group is to meet four times in January, February and March before reporting to Jack Straw with its recommendations.

As yet I don't know who the others members of the working group are, although when announced it was said to be made up of editors, lawyers and academics.

Incidentally I've also advised the MoJ on opening up the family courts and the plans to allow further media access.

I'll blog whatever I can, whenever I can. although I suspect the discussion may be confidential until the report to the Minister is made public. So watch this space.

Happy Christmas

A happy Christmas to those who visit the blog.

Especially to the bewildered souls who wonder why more of my graffiti art is not on here (wrong Banksy, sorry)

Have a good break all of you.

Apparently 10am tomorrow morning is the optimum time for the family arguments to kick off. So, eyes on the clock, stiff drink in hand and let's try to stay civilised until 10.05am.

Have a good one, eat a bit too much, drink a bit too much, go out for a good walk and fall asleep in front of the TV. It's Christmas, them's the rules.

Media Guardian web article

I attended a debate organised by the Family Justice Council on Wednesday which discussed proposals to open up the Family Courts to greater press scrutiny.

It was a lively event, and I was one of a very few voices there raised in support of greater access.

I've written a piece about it for the Media Guardian website, which you will find here. 

You know you're getting old when....

Something you remember writing like it was yesterday appears in the publication's 'Looking Back' column.

Richard Williams, ex-assistant editor of the Daily Post and now Wales director of RNID e-mailed to say he'd been back up north and picked up a copy of The Leader, as it is now having dropped Evening from its title, and there in the Looking Back page was a piece I'd written 20, Dear God, 20 years ago. There had been an earth tremor in North Wales and I'd done a backgrounder on it. I remember the day it happened and suggesting the piece to the Leader's features ed.

Richard has said he'll send it up to me, I'll scan it in and put it on here when it arrives.

Richard, incidentally, was another of the losses to journalism Trinity Mirror managed to achieve in recent years. He was one of the most talented editors I worked with with a real, and all too rare, feel for what readers are interested in and knew how to keep a paper in touch with its community. He was one of a number of really talented journalists who flourished on the DP under the editorship of Ali Machray, which is worth a blog post in itself(to follow soon). He left journalism when he was editor of the South Wales Echo.

TM's loss is RNID's gain.

The newspapers I love

When introducing myself to students or training delegates for the first time I'll describe myself as an inky-fingered old hack. This is literally true. When I started work on the Evening Leader back in 1988 the reporters still bashed away at old 'sit-up-and-beg' typewriters, on two sheets of folio paper (half A4) with a sheet of carbon paper between to produce a 'black' copy. The carbon paper would deposit its ink on your fingers and anything else you touched afterward.

When I started in journalism there were just two papers I wanted to work for. The first was the Liverpool Daily Post. I had grown up in North Wales reading this paper, where despite its 'Liverpool' title, it was the region's paper, a respected and trusted title, a serious newspaper. The fact that it was produced from Liverpool mattered little as most of North Wales looked to Liverpool as their major city, far more so than Cardiff because of simple logistics.

I ended up on the Post after four years on the Leader, and worked at the paper from 1992 to 1999, first as a reporter, then chief reporter, night news editor and finally night editor.

I did not take the well-trodden path from the regions to shifts on Fleet Street in hope of a permanent contract, so never looked like fulfilling my hope of working for the other paper I loved The Guardian.

I began reading that back in college, persuaded to give it a try, I kid you not, by the TV ad campaign back in 1984ish, featuring the likes of Harold Evans and Edna O'Brien.

When I went to University College, Cardiff (as was) to do a  journalism course, such was my devotion to the paper that one of my fellow postgrad hacks, Steve Busfield, gave me a badge of the Guardian masthead.

Steve made it onto the Guardian, where those of you who Twitter can follow him as @Busfield. I did not.

But then via a circuitous route that saw me go into training and media law, I ended up as co-author of McNae's Essential Law for Journalists and as such able to write about that niche subject. So for the past couple of years I've been filing contributions to Media Guardian on the subject. The pieces, though small, give me disproportionate pleasure. To get my name in what I regard as one of the world's great papers gives me as much of a buzz as getting my first front page on the Evening Leader back in 1988.

Still a hack then, just not so inky-fingered.

Guardian article (on the PCC)

I've contributed to a piece in Media Guardian today, on suggestions for PCC reform.

PCC (Slight Return)

Baroness Buscombe has pre-empted the collective response heading her way. Reported here on Roy Greenslade's blog.

She says: "My point was that, as there is already pressure to increase regulation of the internet, it is important to make clear that this must not lead to some form of statutory interference.

"Rather, a system of self-regulation (such as exists by the PCC for newspapers) would be more appropriate, if any bloggers wished to go down that route."

Hmmm. And the advantages to bloggers of such a route would be what?

Remember the newspaper industry signed up for the PCC facing the loaded gun of statutory regulation.

Despite what Baroness Buscombe says, there is no impending statutory regulation of blogs and so no perceived need by bloggers to run into the regulatory embrace of the PCC or anything like it.

Why the PCC could never regulate bloggers (and shouldn't even try)

There has been much chatter about Baroness Buscombe's comments on Ian Burrell's Blog regarding the PCC and regulation of blogs.

She is quoted as saying the PCC should "consider" whether the PCC should seek to extend its remit to the blogosphere (Burrell's quotation marks intact there, just on the word consider).

Cue righteous indignation from, among many, Iain Dale, a collective response which had attracted a couple of hundred signatures at the time of writing this, and a more sceptical view from Guido Fawkes' Blog.

I don't know just how seriously this has been considered by the Press Complaints Commission. But those who think it has any likelihood of becoming a reality misunderstand just what PCC is and also cannot really understand the nature of blogging and the internet.

To appreciate what is onvolved you have to go back to the birth of the PCC. This was the late '80s early '90s, there was a widely-held beliefe among some politicians that the press, particularly the then tabloid press, was out of control. David Mellor, minister of state for culture memorably said that the press were 'drinking in the last-chance saloon.'

There had been a circulation war raging between The Sun, Daily Mirror and The Star and the tactics employed to outdo one another gave ammunition to those who believed there needed to be statutory regulation of the press.

The then regulatory body - The Press Council - had been discredited, its adjudications ignored by papers, and even attacked in print by the same papers. It was seen as offering little or no protection to those who found themselves in the pages of the papers.

The Calcutt Committee of Privacy, in its report to Parliament, stopped short of recommending statutory regulation of the press and its recommendations were accepted - self-regulation was to be given a last chance.

So how does this relate to bloggers? Well, if you look back at when the PCC was established there was a political will supporting its establishment and remit - indeed many wanted to go further and have it on a statutory basis. There was a demand for what it was going to do.

Where is the demand, political or public, for the regulation of bloggers by the PCC?

Of course, it might be coming from some quarters of the newspaper industry who see bloggers breaking stories and doing things they think they can't. But as for politicians or the public - nothing of any note. The idea that any politician is going to alienate 10m plus bloggers by putting the PCC in as their overseer is ludicrous.

Furthermore, the PCC is a self-regulatory body, not statutory. Bloggers would have to sign up to be regulated by it and I can't see that happening any time soon.

To be imposed upon bloggers it would have to be put on some sort of statutory footing (cue squeals of outrage from the newspaper industry who would fight that tooth and nail) And they would have a very hard time making the logical case for statutory regulation of bloggers whil retaining self-regulation of newspapers.

But just how would it impose its will upon something as mercurial as the blogosphere?Overseas hosting would mean evasion of its clutches would be a simple matter. Blogs would spring up and disappear before any adjudication could be made, no matter how 'fast free and fair' it might be.

Also, what makes the PCC think it has the capacity to govern so large and diverse a group as bloggers?

If they think they can do it, they'd better start recruiting now.