Written evidence from Mario Petrov
I write to give my view on the outcome of the committee's review of press standards, privacy and libel, in particular on press standards.
My view on press standards has been formed from my personal experience of the Press Complaints Commission, and it is that the PCC is biased towards its members - the press.
There is no independent body to which members of the public can appeal if they are dissatisfied with the PCC's 'investigation' of their complaint. The PCC claims it is 'independent', based on the reasonsing that it has a board of 17 members and an 'independent' charter commissioners.
But as my letter of appeal of 4 July (attached), to the PCC's new chair, baroness Buscombe, reveals, the logic and justification of the PCC's decisions and adjudication processes leave so much to be desired as to very easily be deemed as not working in the public interest, but against it.
My view is that the government ought to pay a nominal sum of one pound to the PCC, then as a contributor to its operating costs it can make the PCC's 'decisions' subject to appeal to a government ombudsman or other external body. The press cannot be entrusted with self-regulation.
I first complained
to the PCC in June 2008, and watched the committee's televised review in March
2009 with interest. I instantly empathised with
My complaint to the PCC has cost me much time and effort, which I expended in good faith. The PCC's responses have cased me to feel anger, distress, disillusionment, frustration, hopelessness and upset. I see no point in making a complaint about another matter - to the PCC in its present form.
Please read my attached letter. You are welcome to contact me if you find it difficult to read, require clarification or more detail. Thank you for your time and attention.