LEVESON REPORT

http://news.sky.com/story/1018339/leveson-calls-for-new-press-regulator

Email
Lord Justice Leveson has called for the Press Complaints Commission to be scrapped and Ofcom to be given a key role in overseeing a new, independent, self-regulatory body.

Under his proposed regime, newspapers would be liable for fines of up to £1m when they are found to have overstepped the mark.

The judge expects publishers to sign up to the system voluntarily - and says "convincing incentives" should be supplied to encourage them to do so.


Lord Justice Leveson on Thursday
The new regulator should be governed by an independent board, under the oversight of media watchdog Ofcom, according to his long-awaited report on press standards.

The document stresses that the new body should be appointed in a wholly open and transparent way with no influence from industry or government.

But any involvement of Ofcom will mean new legislation, a move fiercely opposed by the press and many politicians amid fears of restrictions on free speech.

The findings come 16 months after Lord Justice Leveson was asked to investigate the press and after months of evidence from celebrities, politicians, media figures and the police.

David Cameron set up the probe following national outrage at revelations that the News Of The World hired a private detective to hack murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler's phone.

The Prime Minister was handed the 2,000-page report on Wednesday and will respond in the House of Commons later this afternoon.


Bob and Sally Dowler arriving to read the report
In an extraordinary move, Nick Clegg will also deliver his own statement in parliament once Labour leader Ed Miliband has responded for the Opposition.

The Prime Minister and his deputy held talks this morning to try to hammer out a joint coalition response but it has been decided they will speak separately.

:: READ MORE - Click for our Leveson live blog


Kate McCann at the QEII centre
:: WATCH - Live coverage on Sky News

It is an early blow to Mr Cameron after he vowed to try and seek a cross-party consensus on a new regulatory system.

Lord Justice Leveson's report says it is essential that the new system is supported in law, but stresses that this is different to statutory regulation of the press.

MPs on all sides are bitterly divided about how to proceed, with many insisting that any form of law governing the press would be a step too far.

Many key figures who took part in the inquiry, which is due to cost up to £6m, gathered at the QEII centre in London today to read the report in advance of its official publication.

They included Bob and Sally Dowler, Kate McCann, actor Hugh Grant, former F1 boss Max Mosley and ex-deputy prime minister John Prescott.

Thanks, Lily.

Lord Leveson is speaking just now; the forkers and hounders are NOT going to like this one bit......

They had better get used to hearing things they don't want to.

Welcome to the real world forkers, hounders and losers.

His speech is appearing here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/29/leveson-report-new-press-law

Leveson report calls for new press law
• Inquiry recommends new regulator with statutory backstop
• McCanns and Dowlers had 'devastating' experiences
• Hunt gave a 'perception of bias' in contacts with News Corp

Quote:

"There have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist. This has caused real hardship and, on occasion, wreaked havoc with the lives of innocent people whose rights and liberties have been disdained," the judge wrote.

Leveson said that people like the McCanns and the parents of Milly Dowler had "devastating" experiences at the hands of the press, and that parts of the industry viewed celebrities as little more than "fair game".

Hate to say but self-regulation doesn't work

It's proven that, hasn't it? A million-pound fine might make them think twice in future, though.

So where was the long statement about the McCanns that the haters promised would happen on Twitter

'Madeleine Foundation submits evidence to Leveson Inquiry'
sharonl on Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:47 pm

The Madeleine Foundation has today submitted evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.

Wonder what happened to that, then? Must have gone to the same place as Tango's rubbish.

The bin.

There's probably a section in the report itself, muratfan, but that is an enormous document.

Clearly, Lord Leveson didn't think it was of key importance. Certainly not as important as speaking about the disgusting treatment the McCanns, and others, have had from the media.

Mark Watts ‏@MarkWatts_1
Early word is that #Leveson report will say something tomorrow about News International, David Cameron and #McCann police review.

So, what happened then? Not a very good start for 1 Fetter Lane, but then, what can you expect from people who chat on twitter with the likes of Laffinthug.

The report is now online:

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0780/0780.asp

bb1 wrote:'Madeleine Foundation submits evidence to Leveson Inquiry'
sharonl on Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:47 pm

The Madeleine Foundation has today submitted evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.

Wonder what happened to that, then? Must have gone to the same place as Tango's rubbish.

The bin.

There's probably a section in the report itself, muratfan, but that is an enormous document.

Clearly, Lord Leveson didn't think it was of key importance. Certainly not as important as speaking about the disgusting treatment the McCanns, and others, have had from the media.

McCanns on p. 547.

Oh dear, the hounders, forkers, haters and ghouls are not going to like this ONE BIT.


The Kate McCann Diaries
3.35 Dr Kate McCann had kept a personal diary recording her innermost thoughts and feelings
following the disappearance of her daughter. It was intensely private, and she did not share
its contents even with her husband. The diary was seized by the PJ in August 2007 pursuant
to its investigations, but the Portuguese court ordered its return to Dr McCann, as well as the
destruction of all copies in its possession. The PJ had translated the diary into Portuguese and
unfortunately one of the copies of the translated version found its way into the hands of a
Portuguese journalist.


I am still skimming, it's a huge document, but there is NOTHING in it that I can see to give any comfort to the McCann-haters.

Not that anyone sane thought there would be.

longjohnsilver ‏@longjoh44309217
#McCann oh dear all the threats etc and it turns out the press should be self regulated!!! a good thing its freedom of speech

What is that moron talking about? What part of 'statutory regulation' and 'million pound fine' is hard to understand? 'New legislation' beyond her comprehension?

A bit more about the diary...........I hope the forkers remember this part in bold.

The Kate McCann Diaries
3.35 Dr Kate McCann had kept a personal diary recording her innermost thoughts and feelings following the disappearance of her daughter. It was intensely private, and she did not share its contents even with her husband. The diary was seized by the PJ in August 2007 pursuant to its investigations, but the Portuguese court ordered its return to Dr McCann, as well as the destruction of all copies in its possession. The PJ had translated the diary into Portuguese and unfortunately one of the copies of the translated version found its way into the hands of a Portuguese journalist.

3.36 A former NoTW journalist told the Inquiry how a copy of the diary was acquired by the paper on payment of a substantial sum and then translated back into English. As Dr McCann pointed out in her evidence, the re-translated text did not completely match the wording of the actual diaries, but this is a minor point when set against the scale of the violation to her privacy which came to be perpetrated.

3.37 The journalist’s understanding was that the news editor, Ian Edmondson, would ‘confirm with the McCann press spokesperson that the diary was genuine’, and would obtain his consent to publish extracts from the diary. However, his written and oral evidence about these matters was somewhat vague,54 not because he was seeking to mislead the Inquiry in any way but for reasons which will soon become apparent.

3.38 One piece of evidence given by the journalist was particularly revealing:55
‘But I think in terms of considering it being appropriate to publish Mrs McCann’s diary and the obvious considerations over privacy, the view taken by senior executives was that there were all sorts of false allegations being made about the McCanns and they
really were being pilloried in the press, that this account gave a true picture of the McCanns and dispelled some of the lies being written about them’

Thanks, Lily.

Oh, they won't like the opening of that section:

3.2 Madeleine McCann was abducted from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on
3 May 2007, shortly before her fourth birthday

This won't go down well:

It is well
known that British newspapers were relying on reports in Portuguese journals and other
sources which were either associated with, close to, or directly part of the PJ. But, as the
McCanns themselves explained, the British press often did not know the source; or did not
know whether it was accurate, exaggerated or downright untruthful; or (as the McCanns
believed) sometimes made up.

Can anyone see anything about Cameron and the Scotland Yard review, as promised by 1 Fetter Lane? Because I am b*ggered if I can, unless it is in a sub-section?

Indeed, Leveson doesn't think there was much of a relationship between Number 10 and NI at all, never mind one involving the Yard:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20539192


1435: Ross Hawkins Political correspondent, BBC News tweets: "#Leveson: Evidence doesn't establish anything resembling a deal between News Int and Cameron."

Bonny, I thought that was good too.

Oh dear.

Team Gonc won't like this bit:

.5 In answer to the suggestion that the positive decision made by the McCanns to engage with
the press in order to serve their own interests effectively meant that they had waived their
rights to privacy and everything else, Dr McCann said this:
20
‘‘Well, it has been argued on many occasions that by engaging then it was more or
less open season, and I think it’s crass and insensitive to suggest that by engaging
with a view to trying to find your daughter, that the press can write whatever they
want about you without punishment.’’
3.6 Dr McCann was not of course suggesting that the press was obliged to write about him only
on his terms rather than on theirs. However, the point he was making was entirely valid; a
decision to engage with the press does not make a private person public property for virtually
all purposes, still less does it begin to justify defamatory reporting

Remember that wierd hole-in-corner unbanning decision? Bizarrely, the judge seemed to think the McCanns were 'fair game' for Gonc.

That's that one out the window, isn't it?

OMG! Cameron has just spoken in parliament to denounce the Fridge Theory Accusations!

Here's a good bit:

3.16 It is of interest that the journalist could not bring himself to mention the McCanns by name;
they, after all, would be the prime candidates for being ‘unhappy’ about the story. By then,
they had become almost depersonalised, a commodity. Further, the newspaper decided to
publish in the face of the concerns they had identified, placing themselves at ‘the mercy of
potential litigants’. Again, the McCanns are not mentioned by name and the newspaper is
close to being placed in the role of victim. As the journalist put it, ‘they [the newspaper]
simply are unable to defend themselves’. One might have thought that the more sensible
response to this assessment, rather than bemoaning the apparent unfairness of being placed
in an impossible position, would have been the prudent course of not publishing stories which
not only could they not prove, but for which they had not a scintilla of evidence. Behind the
scenes briefings by police officers, themselves under pressure and constrained by Portuguese
law which were passed through third and fourth parties, could hardly be thought to constitute
any, let alone a sound, basis for publishing such allegations as truth.

“Q. “Maddie ‘sold’ by hard-up McCanns.” This is the article you do refer to, the selling
into white slavery allegation. Probably you don’t want to dignify that with a comment?
A. That’s nothing short of disgusting.
MRS McCANN: I think this same journalist, if memory serves right, also said we stored
her body in a freezer. I mean, we just ...
LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Just to make the comment, there’s absolutely no source for
that assertion in the article.’’

Oh....

The
apology correctly pointed out that ‘it is difficult to conceive of a more serious allegation’. It
also correctly recognised that ‘there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Mr and Mrs
McCann were responsible for the death of their daughter, they were involved in any cover up
and there was no basis for Express Newspapers to allege otherwise’. Given this admission, it is
difficult to understand why the defamatory articles ever saw the light of day in the first place.

Oh, good find, muratfan!

This is good, too - though I doubt if the McCann-haters will like it now being a matter of legal record that Clarence Mitchell was telling the truth about the diaries, having been lied to by NOTW:

To give him the impression that we were running a story but not tell him specifically
what story, certainly don’t tell him that we were in possession of the complete diaries,
as we understood.

Two days after Madeleine’s disappearance, the PCC contacted the British Embassy in Lisbon
and asked the consular service to inform the McCanns that the services of the PCC were available to them