How should the press be regulated?

The findings of Leveson Inquiry were published today - the inquiry was into the practice of newspapers and whether they had been in breech of certain rules and in some cases certain laws.

The most high profile parts of the inquiry involved the phone hacking of various high profile celebrities such as Hugh Grant and the Royal Family but also the families of murder victims such as Madeline McCann's parents and most shocking the phone of murdered teenager Millie Dowler.

This disgusted the public and raised the profile of the inquiry. It has been a constant feature of the news throughout the length of the 8 month inquiry...

The inquiry has raised many questions that are up for debate...

• How much privacy should celebrities have from the press?
• Are audiences to blame for buying newspapers that print this information?
• Is it in the public interest to pursue stories at any cost, or is there a point at which it is considered harassment? 
• Are the press and the politicians too close?

However the main questions that I think the focus of this forum should be are...

• Should the press be regulated by itself? (as it is now)
• Should the press be regulated independently?
• Should the press be controlled and regulated by the government?
• What should be the sanctions (punishments) for those who break the rules be?

And the question that underlies all of these things...

How important is it that our press has freedom of speech?

It's over to you...

Is a British Film Industry important?

With what you know about the UKFC's rise and fall - and how films like Slumdog and This is England were funded, you need to consider just how important a British film industry is...

What are the benefits of a British Film Industry?

Is it treated seriously by the government?

Is it taken seriously by audiences?

Are films like This is England important?

Why?

Slumdog's Characters - would Latika be your Phone a Friend?

Despite winning eight Oscars and being nominated for over 100 other awards, despite taking 377 million dollars at the box office and despite making many of us want to dance around the living room and screw in imaginary lightbulbs at the end of the film - Slumdog Millionaire wasn't universally liked.

Mind the gap between past & present.

Forget the 'Poverty Porn' accusations and the fact that it's a very conventional Romantic Drama dressed up in non-linear plotting, one of the most frequent arguments was that it was impossible to warm to the characters. Some critics claim that whilst the three young actors in the roles of Latika, Salim and Jamal as children were endearing and sympathetic it was hard to care about the same three in adulthood.


Was this due to lack of screen time, too much jumping around in the story or even wooden performances?

I'm asking the audience...

Dark Knight Rises above every other film of the past 12 years.

So you've heard me go on about this for a while now - but I need to make my case clear and as much as I'd like to there just isn't time in the lesson!
My argument is simple: The Dark Knight Rises is the best film this Millenium.

Waddaya mean soup for tea... again!?

When I talk about how much I love this film and how I saw it twice at Imax this summer, people always tell me that if I like comic book movies then I would love this year's Avengers Assemble. I always smile politely but know deep down that I wouldn't like it. I love the Dark Knight trilogy exactly because it takes the rule book of every comic book movie made and tears it up in front of us. I love that it tackles big subjects, I love that it doesn't treat its audience like idiots, I love that it's moody and dark but also funny and over the top.

So basically this is it. There hasn't been a more important, more exciting or more relevant movie since Fight Club.

When Gotham is ashes you have my permission to comment...