Normally I can't stand the paper, but after just checking out tomorrow's front pages I just had to laugh

Click to view attachment

(for the record, I think it's WRONG the Sun are publishing the pictures, and that Saddam has every right to sue, and to complain to the PCC, although I can't imagine the toothless body the PCC are would ever uphold the claim)

Don't let Chris hear you say that

O come on this is a low low level wy would some one put that pic on there? He does not deserve that.

He deserves more humiliation than we could ever possibly give him. I detest the man incredibly, but I think you're probably right. Nobody deserves that.

(Did I just contradict myself there?!)

A little bit. Now if it was Osama Errmm well that would still be wrong for the public saninty at lease :-"

Yes,

I suppose I should clarify myself. I strongly believe that the rules as outlined in the Press Complaints Commission (the self-regulating body of the British press) should apply to everybody, regardless of status, and the privacy clause of the PCC clearly states:



Now, surely a prison cell IS a private place, with a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's a room in which you live, photos of any other person in a prison cell wouldn't be publishable, yet because it's Saddam it's suddenly acceptable.

Despite the fact that I despise the man, we have rules and regulation for a reason, and it doesn't matter who the subject is, they should be adhered to. Unfortunatly since it's self-regulated, they pretty much do what they want interpret the rules to how it suits the editors and owners.

Well, true. But I do like the self-regulation system. It displays a certain maturity and common sense of purpose and is yet free from government meddling. For broadsheets, it works very well indeed. The Sun is just a piece of ###### and I think we just have to live with it.

You just have to look through some of the recent adjudications to see exactly what's wrong with it.

I don't want a heavily regulated press, I'd just rather the same code applied, but was administered by an independent regulatory body that could actually enforce their decisions. A paper *could* say screw the PCC and nothing, but NOTHING could be done about it.

The biggest problem I have, is that only the person the article offends can complain, so for example take this complaint, where the owner of the hotel lodged complaints under Clause 10 and Clause 3, but the PCC would only look at Clause 10 because the people photographed didn't lodge a complaint. Yet the story clearly has no public interest, but they can't do anything about it.

By and Large it's a toothless organisation, and the code means very little in practice.

[quote name='Hook' date='Jun 29 2005, 08:34 PM' post='1213381']
Now, surely a prison cell IS a private place, with a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's a room in which you live, photos of any other person in a prison cell wouldn't be publishable, yet because it's Saddam it's suddenly acceptable.[/qoute]

Thats what Im saying that post was more of a joke about Osoma

I know, and I was just clearing up my point before somebody jumped down my throat.

Woops quoted the wrong part and sorry if it sounded like I was ripping down your thourght I did not want it to sound like that.