The free Press keeps democracy ticking. Its failings can be covered by conventional laws.

Not the only one hacked off. Photo: Liberal Democrats (Flickr)

Not the only one hacked off. Photo: Liberal Democrats (Flickr)

It isn’t often that I wish I wasn’t born in Britain. I am proud (or at least as proud as anyone can be about an accident of birth) of my country: I find its history fascinating, its past leaders inspiring, and the lessons it has provided for the rest of the world powerful reminders of the rule of freedom and the continuation of ‘modern’ values. There’s a reason why Westminster is referred to as the ‘Mother of Parliaments’, after all.

One of the key things keeping democracy ticking is the concept of a free Press. British Press has not faced any state regulation since the Bill of Rights in 1689 agreed freedom of speech and the restriction of royal prerogative; this was supplemented by Parliament not renewing the Licensing Act in 1695. It is therefore ironic that a Royal Charter will be used to implement the proposed regulation of Britain’s media, not an Act of our democratically accountable Parliament. The way that this plan has been created; cobbled together in the dead of night, by a group of wonkish SpAds, shows its qualities resemble a shoddy compromise, but this time not over petty policy, but the fundamental liberties of British citizens.

It is here where the ancient traditions of the United Kingdom begin to unravel in the face of modern technology; and the persistent efforts of a few affronted celebrities. One online petition – of which numbers are impossible to verify – seems to suggest that a lot of people want regulation, and so, to appease the fatal opinion polls, it was quickly, and shamefully, called for.

I can’t think of a less trustworthy bunch than Hacked Off. Their primary support base is made up of sleazy semi-notables who wish to get compensation for being found out; people like the disgraced actor Hugh Grant, who has become a professional windbag and wants to find a way to censor the tabloid newspapers whom he so despises. They didn’t force him to pick up a prostitute, they merely reported on it, but who thinks his vigour to regulate such a vital institution came from anything other than spite?

My patriotic admiration is now sorely lacking. Britain’s leaders are homogenous clones, each coming from cosily secure affluent households. They get away with the gulf between them and the majority of the British people by hiding their vast wealth and always appealing to the unidentified ‘middle class’ (an annoying habit it appears they have picked up from across the Atlantic). I’m not knocking net worth or privilege here at all: as some of our greatest leaders were from less than ‘ordinary’ stock: Churchill, for example, was from a powerful ducal line.

It is the concentration of power in a small microcosm, below genuine aristocrats, but above almost everyone else, which irks me. All of our Prime Ministers from Harold Wilson in 1964, to the end of John Major’s premiership in 1997 were state-school educated. Since then; all of our heads of government have attended fee-paying schools. It is this concentration of power which is causing the elitist attempts to hurt tabloid newspapers above all others, as they publish unfavourable stories about Hacked Off’s millionaire donors.

America got it right with the First Amendment; it stands as a lasting testament to the freedom of individuals in the Great Republic. What is particularly galling, then, is that this rallying call on behalf of free speech and a free Press was based on the aforementioned British Bill of Rights, which is now being cannibalised to suit the tastes of a very wealthy and powerful media lobby, keen to protect their ‘clean’, but misattributed images.

I think it is genuinely deplorable for Max Mosley; whose German-themed spanking parties were uncovered by tabloid journalists, to hide his shadowy support of tight regulation behind innocent victims like the parents of Millie Dowler, a murdered teenager who’s mobile phone was hacked by News of the World journalists before that paper’s closure. They do have a case against some sections of the media, but all of the egregious offences committed against them are covered by conventional laws.

What we have now is the isolated political class desperately trying to regulate the Press; based on nothing more than a heartbreaking tale, and a list of wrongs which could all be punished by extant legislation. This is incubated by the back-scratching culture of supposedly ‘wronged’ love-rats, liars, cheats and frauds.

James Snell. Follow on Twitter @James_P_Snell