so there were sorts of sort of ripple effects from declarations like that and for sure extremists, and you know, so i suppose it could have been subject to judicial reviews as well as that happy prospect, so i think it is a good idea, yeah. >> and looking at paragraphs 45 and 46 of the witness statements, and 00551. in 45, you say you take seriously any concern of statutory regulation could lead to an unacceptable degree of state control. i do not believe that these concerns negate the concerns of a statutory system, but rather constructed with great care and then you explain how to do this in paragraph 46, that it is all done at arm's length. >> yes. and. >> and what about the concern though that there is a seepage or the perception of seepage that there might be state

control over the content of what newspapers can do? >> i don't think that there is state control over the content of what newspapers can do. i mean, by what process could the state, i mean, control what they were doing? they will be still free to publish anything they wanted within the general law. i think that if i may say so, i don't know who said this, but it is nonsensical, and a fantasy. >> i think that is made clear. indeed. unless you have any points that you want to develop in particular to the future, those are all of the questions that i had for you. >> and it was created in my mind by lord in reference to the justice of the times. i think that it is quite important to talk to the news

international about a single body, but what is striking in my dealings with these papers over sort of 30 years is that the life is sure they will end by the same group, and they are all very different, and you have had the "sun" which is the most powerful paper and the one that mr. murdoch has used as the agent of the power, and right out front, and then not far behind the "news of the world" and then the "sunday times" which in a sense that shares a name with the "times" is a very, very different animal from the works in a different market. and i put those three together in one bracket. and they are sort of parties and vehicles and quite separately

the times and i have to say in sort of an interest because i have written for them on and off for the last 30 years, but that, the times has a very different culture from these other papers, and in my lengthy experience, maintains high standards and i just say that, because i think it is quite important that they should not all be tarred with the same brush. >> it bears the weight of its history? >> yes. and it has -- and it is very interesting that they didn't end that building and end up in the other one, but a very different culture even though they are a floor apart, and it is what you might say what their readers expect. >> paragraph 50 of your statement. >> yes. >> now, if that is not an invitation, i don't know what is. >> i will provide you with more

details. >> i'd be very grateful, and the reason i would find it very valuable, and let me make it abundantly clear. much criticism has been addressed at least initially, and i hope not so much now to the fact that my background, and this is a lawyer, and laterally as a judge. and i have been parachuted in to a world that is not mine and expected to identify all of the pitfalls and the solutions, and the suggestion is that, that is simply not practical or feasible. you bring a very different

experience to bear, and i have said it to a number of people. and therefore any assistance that i can get to try to come to terms with the reference, the terms of reference that i've got and to produce a solution that is practical, effective and properly balances the legitimate interests of society where a free press is critical of the press who have the commercial problems that they have to face with the internet, and the public is quite a task. >> yes. >> and therefore, i would welcome enormously the assistance of you and as i have said to others and will continue to say to provide input. i will come up with the recommendations, and then everybody can do with them what

they will, but i wouldn't want to fail to miss to take up a point for want of the humility of asking. i am humble in this area. >> yes, sir. of course, i will do that. if i may i will reflect on it, and prepare a written statement, but i was also reflecting on the experience of setting up the parliamentary standards of the authority which i felt was a need to do, and that has been a very interesting institution, because here is a body which is, has considerable power over the members of parliament which is the parliament of the land, itself, and to begin with, it caused conflict and friction between

the members of the house of commons and this body, but it sort of gradually settled down, and there are mechanisms there by which the members of the authority and the five members are appointed at arm's length from the people of the house of commons and it works, so of course, i will -- >> well, there are a couple of things that you have agreed to look at. and i'm very grateful. let me just ask one further question if i might, really picking up on something that lord hunt said which lord wakem agreed with. >> and the lord chairman of the ppc at the moment, correct? >> yes. and lord hunt put it this way, oh, well, if you introduce legislation then members of both the house of commons and the house of lords will do their level best to really try to emasculate the press, and that

is my summary and not his words. and they will want to use the opportunity to impact on the freedom of speech and expression and the press which i have constantly espoused. another witness said, well, i'd like to know who these people are, and lord wakem said, well, there are certainly people like that, and if you have got some sense of that, i'd be interested to know it. >> well, i mean, that could be people in the house of commons and the house of lords afterall, a number of getting up for 1,400, and it may have this view that their business is to emasculate the press. i have yet to meet them, it has to be said, and i don't believe they have ever put their views

on record, and in any case, i'm afraid that i think that the prediction is completely unfounded. what we are talking about here, we are talking about a body which is hopefully statutory but whose role would be very narrow, and what is it there for? it is to provide remedies for -- which hopefully fast tracked for defamation, and maybe for breaches of privacy. >> and also maintain standards. >> and we query whether the adjudicated body would do that. >> i agree. >> and i talk about the three limbs. >> and if we talk about the, because, let's deal with the part of that body or the body which is enforcement mechanisms, and what he is enforcing there

is behaviors which are found to be in breach of the general law. i am not proposing any change in the substantive law here in terms of the defamation or the privacy and puts a side my thought of a separate talk, because mr. jay said it would not make a practical difference so we have talked about the provisional remedies, and what we have tried to do is to effectively make the current purpose of the ppc which is to provide fast track remedies in situations like this far more effective in the circumstances in which certainly i have come to the conclusion that the ppc cannot do it by voluntary behavior. so that is what you are doing. now, there is no way in the world that process is going to lead to control of the presses, complete nonsense.

and who are -- say you've got a press commission, let's call it that, they have an office, you have educators and you have power to require publication of corrections. and apologies. then they have partial damages. they -- and clearly a really tricky area of this, whether they have power to restrain publication in advance of publication and privacy cases. but how would any of that lead to -- >> i just want to say before we test you on the question of -- restraint, prior restraint -- >> yeah. >> -- you suggest there should be a presumption of prior notification. >> yes.

>> was it in your speech -- >> yes, it was. >> -- that it might be in default exemplary damages? >> yes, it was. it was page 10. i think -- i do come to -- i have sat down and talked to a lot of people before i read that paragraph, because a lot of the discussions i have had in justice is a really complicated area, about whether you should have an absolute required prior notification or whether they should have some qualification in the discussions i have serious cases where it was in . the public interest. that's for the subject to be ambushed, not very many, but they could be very serious cases.

i was trying to find a way through. and my suggestion was that if you make the presumption that can't meet the test, public interest, then it would be open in very serious cases for there to be damages. that's something they didn't take into account when they could risk assessment. >> yes, but i think i asked about, there was some mechanism for an editor to go to the commission and say, we don't want to notify -- >> no. well, that would be a very good idea, yes. >> of course, you couldn't force people to do it. it would be evidence relevant for the court to decide. and if you ignore the advice, then that's relevant.

>> i think that's a very good idea, yeah. and i think that would work, too. and just going back to this issue of state control, the commissioner is setting up into these newspapers to explain to editors that they won't get invitations to ask at the appropriate time. the way our society works, which is clear anyway, isn't like that. and by observation, i'm far more open than many, not all, but many european jurisdictions. i don't think anything is going to change in respect to this. >> well, i mean, our society is going to change. >> sorry, i tailed off. i don't think the pluralism is going to change.

because you have a press commission, which has a few powers and has not enjoyed public confidence, in which the public probably doesn't. >> i think that's probably a very convenient moment at which to conclude. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, sir. >> all right. well, you shrug, mr. j., you have allowed me to have an afternoon to do some work. thank you very much, indeed. let's say 10:00 tomorrow morning. thank you. here's a look at some live coverage tuesday on the c-span networks. here on c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the resources committee on the role of the federal government in energy innovation. witnesses include former lockheed martin ceo norman

augustine. they recently published a report concluding the government has an integral role to play in the process. also at 10:00, over on c-span, the senate banking committee is holding a hearing on the derivatives market and the ongoing implementation of the dodd/frank law, a provision known as the volcker rule would limit trading by banks for their own accounts. jpmorgan recently announced a more than $2 billion trading loss. congressman, there are people who look at what happened with jpmorgan and they say here is a company made a stupid decision, did something dumb, lost money, didn't collapse, fired people who were responsible. this is the market at work. this is how it's supposed to happen. why does the government need to play a role? >> well, to some extent that's true but i take credit for it. if this had happened five years ago, if jpmorgan, what appears to be more than $2 billion, i think you would have seen much more panic in the economy.

i think you would have seen much more concern. what we did in the legislature we passed and through other things was to require the financial institutions to be much better capitalized. so one of the things that's the result of the government telling them you had better have more capital than otherwise, that helps give people reassurance. this past weekend on newsmakers, barney frank spoke about the over $2 billion loss by jpmorgan chase as well as the state of the u.s. and world economies. the dodd/frank law and gay marriage. watch his comments online at the c-span video library. i think this is one of those markets that i think people vote for the -- don't vote for the party. i think this is the city of witchchita votes for the candid. you've seen a lot more than that though this is level republican midwest which is dynamic and it's great, you're seeing more of that in the recent years here in the midwest. they are voting more for what

the person stands for. june 2 and 3 book tv and american history tv explore the heritage and literary culture of wichita, kansas. >> the first place i want to show you is the monger house. and it is the only remaining original structure from the 1865 to 1870 time. it is a residence but also the headquarters of the wichita land compa company. >> watch for book tv and american history tv in wichita on june 2nd and 3rd on c-span 2 and 3. from 1971 to 1973 president richard nixon secretly recorded his phone conversations and meetings. this weekend on c-span radio, hear more from the nicks on tapes. saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern with conversations between the president and cia director

richard helm and j. edgar hoover. >> quite as active and i ought to make a statement about the freedom of the press and so forth. my inclination is not to say so. >> you're right. >> i kind of think i should stay out. what's your public relationship? >> you should remain absolutely silent abbbbbb