intro

Great article Pete... you managed to lure me in with a few typos. I couldn't figure out what this sentence is supposed to mean though: "Around 30 of the cases were taken adjucated by the Commission before being resolved." fabiform | talk 15:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It means that only in 30 cases some other solution couldn't been found before the Commission had to sit down and formally decide whether the Code had indeed been broken. See http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaint/how_complaint.htm , in particular the What happens next? section of that page... yes this needs more but I am of home and away for the rest of the day now. Maybe will try tomorrow if no-one has cleared it up first. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:52, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah right. I've fixed the grammar ("were taken adjucated" was what confused me) and expanded the sentence after following the above link. It might be a bit wordy now though. I tend towards the verbose. :) fabiform | talk 16:23, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Er, did I double the article? I hit "save page" twice (jittery finger!) and had an edit conflict with myself. Not quite sure why it doubled everything though! I'll stay off the coffee in future. :) fabiform | talk 15:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki moves in mysterious ways. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:52, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

GOOD TIMES

accuracy

I don't have time to dig up the true statistics here, but to say 90% of cases are resolved to the complainant's satisfaction is a fiction. A vast number of the complaints submitted are dismissed for not being relevant to the very narrowly defined code of conduct. There are hurdles that make it rather difficult for a case to reach adjudication.

Brilliantine (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provide some references and we'll see what needs changing. --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 13 and 14 of http://www.pcc.org.uk/assets/80/PCC_AnnualReview2007.pdf would seem to be the latest info/stats from the PCC itself, but I think it is like many things statistical - you can make of it whatever storyline you choose. Sitush (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about this. I will have a look over the next few days. It will mean a news-trawl. Brilliantine (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any revision of this determined yet? Sitush (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality

Thanks for the advertisment. Perhaps we could adapt it into an encyclopedia entry, maybe mentioning that the PCC is an industry lobby group posing as a regulator. Soundwave (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

controversy

I'm amazed there is no comment on the neaturality, and conflicts of interest, regarding the group. On the basis that the PCC is just "the press monitoring the press". They aren't independent. And there have been various allegations of "keeping things in house" and "whitewashing" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read through the entire article and can't find anything that's not based in fact. If there are public opinions about the neutrality of the group or its lobbying efforts that can be referenced then these can obviously be added to article, perhaps under a section titled 'Criticisms of the PPC' (not being from the UK I'm not familiar with any and so can't add them myself). However I am removing the tags neutrality/POV because it misrepresents the article in its current format. If anyone considers a particular aspect to be a problem, they could add a citation tag, or list it here. Cheers, JenLouise (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dacre reference

I just edited out this line:

"the PCC contains many courageous, principled journalists in its ranks, including Paul Dacre, editor of the respected Daily Mail".

I felt it was quite out of place, POV, and really rather strange. This is my first edit on Wikipedia so I hope I didn't step out of line. 14:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Ganstickerly (talk) ganstickerly (my username)

=In the news

The article on News of the World has a tag to say that it is involved in a "current event" news story, so shouldn't this have a similar tag? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy

It is not correct to state that "It will be scrapped and replaced by a new body independent of the government and industry."

Please see why here:

http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NzI0Nw==

and here:

http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NzI0Ng==

can this please be amended so that it is accurate.

Press Complaints Commission (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. The BBC source cited did not support the statement. January (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Press Complaints Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]