1. A two-part inquiry was announced to the start of an investigation that would be examining
the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal on 13th July 2011, appointing
Lord Justice Leveson chairman of the inquiry. Part one will investigate the culture, practices,
ethics of the media and the relationship of the press with the public, police and politicians.
It will make proposals for the future of press regulation and governance, dependable with
maintaining freedom of the press and ensuring the highest ethical and professional
standards. Lord Justice
Leveson opened the hearings on 14 November 2011, saying: “The press provides an
essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects
all of us. At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the
guardians?”

2. Obviously some of the main points of Leveson's investigation were
the culture, practices, ethics of the media and the relationship of the
press with the public, police and politicians. Therefore, it led to a
whole new inquiry into how the Press and Media is regulated for the
public because it would seem that it is just one whole hypodermic
needle in the media world, which is seen as biased and unfair.
"Lord Leveson's exhaustive inquiry into the media is due to report
on Thursday
with recommendations on the future regulation of the press and
conduct between
the press, politicians and police."
The Leveson Inquiry has heard appalling evidence of Press
malpractice, abuse and criminality. People are optimistic that
Leveson will put forward recommendations to ensure this stops and
surprisingly, given what has happened, there already seems to be
good Press laws which are backed by a code. The problem is you
can't go to law unless you are rich, and several national newspapers
simply ignore their own code. The hope is that Leveson will
recommend that the power to enforce the law and the industry's own
code be given to an entirely independent tribunal to which everyone
has access irrespective of their means.

3. British journalism has been poisoned in recent years by something that happened at most of our national
newspapers. They became unaccountable, and then they became arrogant and cruel. An editor at the News
of the World summed up the attitude.
"This is what we do,' he said. 'We go out and destroy other people's lives."
That's not what most journalists think, but nor, sadly, has it been the view of a tiny minority. Almost every
national newspaper participated in the attempt to destroy the lives of Gerry and Kate McCann. Eight
newspapers tried to destroy the life of Christopher Jefferies, the Bristol teacher wrongly accused of
murder. This is bad for a profession whose mission, I was taught as a young reporter, is to bear witness to
the world in a truthful way.
"I want a body capable of asking the hard questions, pointing the finger of blame and ensuring
that lessons are learned. It must be independent of the industry
and of government and it should have the clout to
ensure that mighty news organisations take heed."
There are sections of the press that don't inform the public, which seems to be aimed at providing little
more than sensation and salacious forms of entertainment. Under the current system, the Press Complaints
Commission has been unable to reign in the excesses of certain sections of the press, and it stretches
credulity that one more attempt at self-regulation will result in something different. Unlike the PCC, this
new body should have powers to initiate investigations, plus significant powers to discipline newspapers
that flout journalist standards and make guilty publications compensate their victims.

4. However, what seemed like a 'mis-
regulation' by the Press, turned into
even more by the hacking of phones
and the discovery of David
Cameron's and Rebekah Brooks'
'cosy' texts. They claimed it was
purely innocent texting and no harm
was done, although several
conversations between had been
brought up in court as suspicious,
therefore the Press tried to expose
an 'affair' that they saw as an
opportunity for a good story and the
relationship between Cameron and
Brooks was either to be an 'affair' or
an 'exchange of policies', both of
which were seen as a conspiracy and
looked bad on The News of the
World and the Government.

5. In his evidence to the Leveson inquiry, Cameron acknowledged that he and Brooks had become
particularly friendly after she married his childhood friend Charlie Brooks - who lives in his Oxfordshire
constituency. Despite revealing the close relationship he holds with Brooks, the PM insisted it did not
demonstrate any wrong-doing. Brooks has previously laid bare the closeness of her friendship with the
prime minister - including his habit of signing off texts "LOL" apparently in the belief it meant "lots of
love".
He sent a message urging her to "keep your head up" when she too resigned over the phone hacking
scandal and expressed regret that he could not be more loyal, she disclosed to the inquiry last month.
Cameron launched an angry attack on his predecessor Gordon Brown for suggesting that the
Conservative Party had done a "deal" with Rupert Murdoch to bring in policies favored by News
Corporation in return for favorable press coverage. Cameron told the inquiry that while he wanted to
win over the newspapers this did not mean he promised to give media proprietors such as Murdoch a
"better time" on various policies.

6. David Cameron has rejected the central proposal of the Leveson inquiry, for a statutory body to oversee the
new independent press regulator, warning that legislation could ultimately infringe on free speech and a free
press. Cameron warned that the legislation required to underpin the regulatory body would be more
complicated and create a vehicle for politicians in the future to impose regulation and obligations on the press.
He said other options should be explored for putting in place incentives, providing reassurance to the public and
ensuring other Leveson proposals were acted upon.
Clegg told MPs: "On the basic model of a new self-regulatory body, established with a change to the law in
principle, I believe this can be done in a proportionate and workable way."
The Lib Dem leader, who raised concerns about Leveson's proposal to give Ofcom a role and joined Miliband in
questioning the proposals on data protection, said he understood the "legitimate" concerns about legislation.
But he said: "Lord Justice Leveson has considered these issues at length. He has found that changing the law is
the only way to guarantee a system of self-regulation which seeks to cover all of the press. And he explains why
the system of sticks and carrots he proposes has to be recognized in statute in order to be properly
implemented by the courts."
Clegg said there was a difficult balancing act, though he said the time had come to end the bullying tactics of
the press.
He said: "There are two big, liberal principles at play in this debate: on the one hand, the belief that a raucous
and vigorous press is the lifeblood of a healthy democracy; on the other, the belief that the vulnerable, the
innocent and the weak should be protected from powerful vested interests.
"A free press does not mean a press that is free to bully innocent people or free to abuse grieving families.
What I want now is for us to strike a better balance between these two liberal principles so that our media can
scrutinize the powers that be, but cannot destroy innocent lives. So that the journalists up in the press gallery
can hold us – the politicians – to account, but we can look up to the individuals and families in the public gallery
knowing they have the right protections in place."

7. Leveson found that the existing Press Complaints Commission is not sufficient, and recommends a new independent body, which would have
a range of sanctions available to it, including fines and direction of the prominence of apologies and corrections. Membership of the body
would be voluntary, but incentivized by schemes such as a kitemark and an inquisitorial arbitration service for handling tort claims such as
libel and breach of privacy, and by allowing exemplary damages to be awarded in cases brought against non-participants in the scheme,
something not usually part of English law. Leveson rejected the characterization of his proposal as "statutory regulation of the press". Leveson
also made recommendations regarding the Data Protection Act, and powers and duties of the Information Commissioner, and about conduct
of relations between the press, the police, and politicians.
New watchdog: Create a new independent press watchdog with no MPs or serving newspaper editors allowed on the panel. It should be
underpinned by statute, but free of "any influence from industry and government".
Legislation: The industry should set up and organise the watchdog, but new legislation should "place an explicit duty on the government to
uphold and protect the freedom of the press".
Fines: The watchdog would be able to fine press organisations that breach its code by as as much as one per cent of their turnover with a
maximum fine of £1 million.
Speed: The new watchdog should be able to arbitrate civil legal claims against the press. The process should be a "fair, quick and inexpensive".
No obligation: Membership of the new body would not be a legal obligation. But any newspaper that opts out would not benefit from the
reduced legal fees enjoyed by members of the new arbitration service.
Phone hacking: There are no findings on any individual in the report, but Lord Leveson is not convinced phone hacking was confined to one or
two individuals.
Havoc: The damage caused by "a recklessness in prioritising sensational stories" has damaged people like the Dowlers and the McCanns.
Fame: Celebrities have a right to privacy, too. Leveson found "ample evidence" that parts of the press decided actors, footballers, writers and
pop stars were "fair game, public property with little if any entitlement to any sort of private life or respect for dignity". He adds: "Their
families, including their children, are pursued and important personal moments are destroyed."
Covert surveillance: The press has been willing to use covert surveillance, blagging and deception to get stories in cases where it is difficult to
see any public interest.
Complaints: Those who seek to complain about newspaper coverage of their affairs are rarely taken seriously enough. Leveson found "a
cultural tendency within parts of the press vigorously to resist or dismiss complainants almost as a matter of course".
Police: There is a perception that senior Met officers were "too close" to News International, which was "entirely understandable" given
police actions and decision-making and the extent of hospitality police officers received from journalists. "Poor decisions, poorly executed, all
came together to contribute to the perception." The Met's decision not to reopen the criminal inquiry into phone-hacking was "incredibly
swift" and resulted in a "defensive mindset".