The UK decent all round in terms of press freedom however we have by far the worst when it comes to major corporate crime and stories that matter (see
use of super-injunctions by Trafigura killing thousands in the Ivory Coast but it was illegal to report, mention the super injunction existed and
mention the company name or anything related to it). Super-injunctions spread to gossip like it being illegal to say Ryan Giggs was snorting coke and
shagging hookers for years but perfectly legal on a US website or twitter.
There have been dozens of attempts to gag the press by calls for prior notification to be mandatory - this would mean newspapers would have to give
public figures/companies/governments a heads up negative press about them will be published - which always results in legal threats to sue/make
poublication illegal on spurious charges.
We have a backdoor privacy law and terrible libel/slander laws where the onus is on the defendant as they're viewed as guilty until proven innocent
and have to prove they had reasonable. In general it's advised to use US servers to avoid multi-million pound CFA suits.
We have some messed up laws in the UK but the police ethics code on how to enforce the law is pretty excellent. Generally they're never enforced as
harshly as the law states plus arrest in the UK is nowhere near as arrest in the US, it's just asking questions. In this case there was never any
threat of arrest just facebook ban - which they rightly got mocked for as the public has the power to stop the police enforcing the law if its
unpopular or unrealistic.
The nine principles were as follows:
To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and
behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the
public in the task of securing observance of laws.
To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of
physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in
complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual
service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good
humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent
necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular
occasion for achieving a police objective.
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the
public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every
citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the
judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing
edit on 18-5-2018 by bastion because: (no reason given)