According to Thangam Debbonaire MP, Labour’s current shadow culture secretary, there is nothing more to be done about press regulation. When asked, recently, if a Labour government would revive Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry, or do anything else to hold the press to account, she answered: “There is already media regulation, there is already the criminal and civil law. We don’t have plans to do anything, any new legislation in that area, no”. Continue reading


In order to protect the confidentiality of journalists’ sources it is arguable that the concept of national security ought to be accorded a full legal status. This question has been reignited by the debate concerning
Press freedom is once again in peril, according to right-wing newspapers. As part of a mass offensive recalling the heady days of reaction to the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices, and ethics of the British press following the phone-hacking scandal, an editorial in the Mail on 28 November boomed that freedom of the press is a “democratic necessity” and among the “precious institutions and freedom which must not be compromised at any price” – while Charles Moore warned in the Telegraph on 24 November that “the nationalisation of a British national newspaper seems possible”. 
On July 19, 2011, I sat three rows behind Rupert Murdoch at the select committee hearing where he had been summoned to give evidence after the shocking revelations about murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler’s phone being hacked by News of the World journalists.
In a comprehensive judgment handed down today in the case of Various Claimants v Associated Newspapers Limited 

