Kate and the PCC - who should have acted first?

As reported here earlier, the Press Complaints Commission has been criticized recently by a committee of MPs representing the Media, Culture and Sport over their slow action in the case of media harassment suffered by Kate Middleton. The committee condemned the PCC's actions as too slow and said they should have acted without waiting for complaint.

But hang on? Are they really suggesting it would have been better for the PCC to butt into the situation unannounced and unrequested? Methinks taking such an action would have gone against Kate Middleton's personal liberties. The very liberties she's seeking protection of.

As much sympathy as I feel for Kate Middleton finding herself followed by paparazzi and as sure as I am that it often feels harassing and even dangerous when followed by vehicle, this criticism of the PCC seems completely unfair, unjust and frankly ludicrous. It is afterall the Press COMPLAINTS Commission. By the commission's very nature they do not expect to step in until they have actually received--and then reviewed--a complaint from the person and their legal representatives directly; even if we assume they were aware of secondhand reports in newspapers saying Kate was feeling the pressure. Without a formal complaint and a request for intervention there simply was no action they could take.

Surely when Kate Middleton began to feel harassed it is she and her lawyers who should have acted sooner so the PCC could have stepped in to help her. That is if the PCC judged the situation as harassing, which they ultimately did and requested newspaper editors to back off and refrain from printing certain pictures of Kate as she went about her private business. Apparently the situation calmed somewhat although Kate--unsurprisingly all things considered--continues to find herself photographed in public. But apparently the PCC's actions--which have apparently gone on unquestioned before now--is not good enough for the MPs who reviewed the situation.

Said the MPs, "The PCC appears to have waited for a complaint to materialise: it could and should have intervened sooner.

"There may be valid reasons why a person who is suffering from media intrusion is reluctant to make a formal complaint. The PCC took too long to act to protect Kate Middleton from clear and persistent harassment.

While the PCC was correct in bringing editors' attention to the letter from the solicitors acting for Ms Middleton, it did so long after the worst abuses had occurred.

In its submission to the committee, the PCC said it relied on information provided by the parties concerned when issuing 'desist'. notices. The PCC should be readier to depart from its usual practice of issuing a desist notice only in response to a request."

Reading the letter I find myself not questioning the actions of the PCC--which look fair and orderly to me--but why anyone would expect a complaint made in January 2007 to receive an answer in April 2005?

I can't tell you if the chicken or the egg came first, but I can tell you that in the case of bodies such as the Press Complaints Comission it is the complaint which should come first, not the action.