Leveson? Meh.
But he still voted for it, allowing Madelson's shambles to get through the wash-up.
Now he's the head of a department, DCMS, which has seen vested interests rule the roost whilst failing to sort out the mess that is the Digital Economy Act (now delayed until 2014 at the earliest).
So no, the revelations at Leveson today regarding Murdoch and News Corp don't surprise me in the slightest.
How he's managed to keep his hands clean this long, given the mess which is the UK's digital policy under his watch, I've no idea. Mr Hunt, who happens also to be my local MP, should now resign.
@JamesFirth
@JamesFirth
Actually, we wanted neither an iPod nor an Amstrad, we wanted freedom to choose our own device. An ability to think past specific products and about wider market conditions (as you intimate) would seem to be sine qua non for any politician dealing with regulatory matters.
ReplyDeleteWhen the DEA was at bill stage, the issue was raised about shared usages etc. (i.e. to the effect that an IP address is mainly akin to a Postcode rather than to a National Insurance number), and the response of the Government was that they had been assured that solutions were readily available that would facilitate the party "responsible" for the IP address filtering out infringing traffic without affecting anything else.
ReplyDeleteSurely the time has come for OFCOM to go back and ask the Government to spell out what those solutions actually are, as without them, there are problems that are insoluble.
And pending those on whose assurances the legislation relied actually coming up with the goods, deferring proceeding any further.