30 July 2000 – Prime Minister Tony Blair asked the press to stay away from the christening of baby Leo. The Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice explicitly forbids the photographing of children without their parents’ consent. So what happens? The entire British Sunday press (with the exception of the Independent on Sunday) blazons pictures of young Leo across its pages.
When the complaint from Downing Street arrives on Lord Wakeham’s desk, the defence will undoubtedly be that this was in the public interest, though the Code does not allow for this. We await his lordship’s decision with fascination. PressWise happens to think that the Blairs were wrong in banning the press from such a joyful occasion, but rules are rules, and if they can be broken on this occasion what chance do ordinary people have of protection from the PCC?
Meanwhile the orgy of anti-paedophile hysteria whipped up by the News of the World continues in full spate, with 50 more pictures of convicted child abusers and page after page of ecstatic reaction from its readers. The paper protests its opposition to vigilantism while yet more innocent families are persecuted as a result of its revelations. This is pure hypocrisy.
The Sunday People, not to be outdone, calls for the death penalty for child murderers, with heart-wrenching pictures of their victims. It also, interestingly, carries an aerial picture of the secure accommodation set up in the grounds of Nottingham Prison to keep sex offenders who have completed their sentences away from the public. Is this not what the public has asked for? Not according to The People, which lambastes it as “The Pervert Hilton.”
The PCC apparently has nothing to say about these blatant attempts to whip up public hatred and violence. Unlike the fairly harmless exercise of photographing the Blair baby’s christening without consent, there is nothing in the Code to forbid it. Perhaps there should be. And perhaps, if the PCC is incapable of keeping its own house in order, it is time to think of some other solution which would improve and foster press freedom while combining it with a much-needed sense of responsibility.
(Bulletin No 24)