So Camoron gets his preview of the first part of Leveson at noon today and the report published to the wider audience 24 hours later. What can we expect?



Personally, no matter what Leveson proposes, I reckon we'll end up with yet another "final chance" for the press to clean their own act up and the whole thing will get kicked into the long grass. The Press Complaints Commission may be given more teeth but they'll eventually prove to be as tough as those foam sweetie things in a pic 'n' mix.



I don't want to see a return of press licensing that was last seen during the English Civil War but there should be a system whereby a newspaper can no longer decide to opt out of the PCC, as the Express has done. There should also be a more robust (and less expensive) method of the falsely maligned being able to seek redress from delinquent reporters, without having to resport to expensive civil law cases. Breaches of criminal law, such as hacking phones & computers or stalking should be applied with more vigour. I'd also like to see a system of vicarious liability applied to editors and even proprietors, if they thought they may face some serious jail time, they may be inclined to encourage more responsible reporting.



Either way, we'll probably end up with the newspapers gnashing and wailing in public, while quietly celebrating that they've managed to get away with it again (for now at least)

Agree with that. I found myself agreeing with Anne Diamond this morning, which shocked me, but basically she said



"self-regulation has been given its chance and it hasn't worked. The only way to have some real teeth behind some agreed code of conduct is to have some kind of statutory underpinning... You have to change the culture and the enforcement."



A free press is important, but the one we have now is almost out of control and needs some form of reining back. It would be their own fault if regulation happens

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20524505[/url



Surely the press should remain free to carry on doing this type of thing.







I know it's Louis Walsh but crikey.

It would be better not to have regulation but to have draconian sanctions for defamatory or bad journalism. In other words, do not stifle investigative journalism and the ability of the Press to uncover wrong-doing by politicians, etc but where they are vexatious, make up stories, etc the consequences on them should be such that they would not risk it.

I'm afraid I agree with [iMr Careless Whisper's[/i description of Leveson.

First thing I would make happen if that if a story is wrong then the apology must cover exactly the same amount of the copy on exactly the same page(s).

Yep and printed on the same day of the week as the original story.

Spokesman for New Statesman said they will not comply with 'any' legislated control over the media coming out of Levison, even if it means jail.



Self regulation has not worked, so what's next.

You cannot hope to bribe or twist,

Thank God, the British journalist.

But seeing what the man will do

Unbribed, there's really no occasion to.



As Mr Belloc noted.

Hilairious

I agree. And any such 'draconian' sanctions should involve the individual journalist(s)/editor(s) concerned as well as the newspaper/group as an organisation.

The answer is simple - enforce the existing laws properly. The vast majority of the things which brought Leveson about were criminal acts yet very few perpetrators have faced any charges for them. Journalists seem to have been afforded some kind of special status which they have no right to. If the guilty had been dealt with properly under the criminal justice system then it would send out a clear message, and I'm not talking about the odd 'show trial' like Brooks but any hack be it junior or senior who had any involvement should be sitting in a cell now. The laws exist, use them.