All free nations need a free press, one that is not controlled by Government, but as with free speach, this freedom comes with responsibilities and also needs, in the case of the media, to be controlled, and not by self regulation, which never actually works, it is simply lazy government.

British Democracy would curtail the media, printed, broadcast or online to operate within certain bounds of decency.

1. All news stories and statements must be factually correct and supported by credible sources, that can be referenced, or scientific facts. These sources must be published on the organisation website, in plain language and plain site for anyone to check and fact check. Failure to adhere to this would be a criminal offcence. Where a story has an opinion piece within it, they must clearly state this is only an opinion, but the opinion must, like news stories, be backed by credible sources.
2. Investigative Journalism is critical to hold Government and other organisations or individuals to account, however, this gets carried away and overzealous photographers and reporters take things too far.
   1. Reporting on Government Employees who may be corrupt or acting in a way that breaches employment law, criminal law or accepted government standards is encouraged, but this should not entail investigating their family, naming them or photographing them, unless that family member(s) are directly linked to the reported wrongdoing. In the case of children, it will become a criminal offence to publish the name or image of any child, without signed and written consent of both of the parents, below the age of 18 years.
   2. Reporting on criminal matters is encouraged, but the reporting of names for any person who is the victim of a crime, or the accused will be a criminal offence, regardless of the seriousness of the offence accused until the person has been convicted in a criminal trial. Execeptions:
      1. The Police need the identity of a suspect made public for clear public safety reasons (Serial Rapists, Serial murderers, Terrorists)
      2. The Person has been reported missing and the Police require public help to locate them.
      3. Children (below the age of (18) reported missing may also be named and their image shown to aid in their safe location.
   3. Investigative Journalism relies on sources of information, these sources must be published on the organisation website, in plain language and plain site for anyone to check and fact check. Whilstleblowers do not need to be named in the reference material, but this information must be made available to a Judge, if requested to confirm voracity – this information would be confidential and not for open court or publication.  Failure to adhere to this would be a criminal offcence. Where a story has an opinion piece within it, they must clearly state this is only an opinion, but the opinion must, like news stories, be backed by credible sources.
3. Where a story, news or investigative, revolves around national security related to the military defence of the state, all source material must be made available to the Legal Services Division of the Ministry of Defence to ensure that there will be no compromise to said National Security – individuals who have given information can be referred to by codenames at this stage. If the LSD feuses permission to publish on National Security grounds then the publisher may request a closed hearing in front of three High Court Judges to hear arguments from both side. The Judges will have the power to call the whistleblowers to give verbal evidence, however, their identity will be protected – this hearing can have the witness give evidence from a safe location “in camera” and have their face blurred, except to the Judges.
4. Online Media, including Social Media.
   1. The deliberate posting of information known to be false will become a criminal offence where this information may cause alarm or fear in society, a specific group or an individual who may be identified by the publication.
      1. Posting false medical information will be punishable by unlimited fines for the poster and the hoster if they fail to remove when reported.
      2. Posting obviously false, rather than simply incorrect, science information will be punishable for fines up to £50,000 for the poster, unlimited for host for failure to correct when reported or repeated failures to act on aggretious posts. This should not detract from people posting ideas, or personal thoughts as long as the post is removed if flagged by sufficient people or corrected science information is posted by a third party or the host themselves.
      3. Posting false information about politicians or political policies will be punishable by fines laid out as below.
         1. Individual poster – up to £50,000 and/or 3 years community service order. If the false information is part of advocation political violence a 10 years max prison term.
         2. Organisational Poster – up to £1,000,000 and suspension of directors right to act as an officer of a company for life.
         3. Host – failure to act – unlimited fine at discretion of prosecutor / Judge.
   2. Posting information clearly advocating violence, except where is it clearly part of an established comedic routine or a statement such as “if he/she does that again I will kill them” will continue to be a criminal offence. Those posting may face fines, community punishments or, in extreme cases, prison terms. Companies that host such online posting, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok or other social media platforms must take such media down once it has been flagged by users, it must be checked by human eyes and not computer algorithms. If they choose to leave it posted, the reviewer must leave an additional message explaining their decision. Failure to do so will face legal repurcussions which can mean unlimited fines for repeated violations or failures. In extreme cases, the CEO/Managing Director will be held personally liable and may be prosecuted.

There will be those in the media that would object to these reforms, but just because the media think something is “in the public interest” does not make it so, Yes, we acknowledge that the public often like to read salacious stories and stories about the wrong doings of individuals – but people have a right to privacy too, and where the revealing of matters may also shine a light on the innocent, such as wives, husbands, children and their wider family, this is grossly unfair and unacceptable.

For too long the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has held sway over people, forcing people to pay a “media tax” for their continued existance, we find this unfair and obhorent. The BBC license fee will be scrapped, the BBC, TV and Radio, will need to compete on a level playing field with all other broadcasters and streaming services.