A Response to the Leveson Consultation, Part 4: Press Freedom and Charter Regulation – Brian Cathcart

10 01 2017

prpThis is the fourth part of a response to the government consultation. More will follow. We will welcome your comments, and if you wish to register your views with the government, click here. Read the rest of this entry »





A Response to the Leveson Consultation, Part 3: The State of Press Regulation – Brian Cathcart

9 01 2017

IPSOVSPCCThis is the third part of a response to the government consultation. More will follow. We will welcome your comments, and if you wish to register your views with the government, click here. Read the rest of this entry »





A Response to the Leveson Consultation, Part 2: The Falsehood that “much has changed” – Brian Cathcart

8 01 2017

Leveson.jpgThis is the second part of a response to the government consultation. More will follow. We will welcome your comments, and if you wish to register your views with the government, click here. Read the rest of this entry »





A Response to the Leveson Consultation, Part 1: A Damaging Political Intervention – Brian Cathcart

8 01 2017

Leveson-inquiryThis is the first part of an extended response to the government consultation published by Hacked Off. More parts will follow. If you wish to register your views with the government, click here. Read the rest of this entry »





#FreeThePress from press barons – Media Reform Coalition

7 01 2017

composite-free-the-press-update-268x166This is the Media Reform Coalition’s handy guide to the government’s official consultation on Section 40 and Leveson 2.  This submission draws heavily on the draft response to the DCMS Inquiry at which has been heavily promoted in the Sun and Spiked. You may notice some significant differences however.) Read the rest of this entry »





The Risks of Abandoning Leveson – Martin Moore

6 01 2017

Lord Justice LevesonHow will Theresa May’s government decide whether to implement Leveson after the current consultation closes? It appears to be inclined to dilute or abandon the court costs incentives and Leveson Part Two – otherwise why launch the consultation in the first place? Read the rest of this entry »





Judicial review claimants seek order quashing “misleading and unbalanced” Leveson Consultation

5 01 2017

high_courtTwo phone hacking victims and a news website have launched a judicial review of the Government’s consultation on the Leveson Inquiry and its Implementation [pdf]. The Claim Form, which was issued on 15 December 2016, seeks declaration that the Consultation is unlawful and an order quashing it.   The Defendants are the Home Secretary and the Culture Secretary. Read the rest of this entry »





Implementing Leveson: “FreeThePress” another dishonest anti-Leveson campaign – Hacked Off

3 01 2017

presentation1-1The corporate press has, in recent weeks, been heavily promoting an anti-Leveson campaign called “FreeThePress”.  This is described by the News Media Association as a group of “Free speech campaigners and activists concerned about the threat to press freedom”. The website was set up by the Trotskyists-turned-libertarians of “Spiked” magazine but provides no details as to its members or supporters and appears to be financed by the newspapers. Read the rest of this entry »





Implementing Leveson, the local press seeks to defend the indefensible – Hugh Tomlinson QC

29 12 2016

trinity-mirror-papersOver the past few weeks the national press has ramped up its dishonest and unprincipled campaign against the implementation of the Leveson recommendations.  It finances and promotes something called “Free the Press” – which, among other things, offers a series of misleading and inaccurate graphics to place in anti-Leveson articles. Read the rest of this entry »





Consultation on Leveson: the Press has no case at all – Brian Cathcart

6 12 2016

presentation1The Government has launched a public consultation on ‘The Leveson Inquiry and its Implementation’. You might think that when they consult in this way it must be a thorny issue with strong arguments on both sides, but in this case you would be wrong, because one side has no arguments at all. Read the rest of this entry »