Or even'"

very improper use of a possessive apostrophe!

Giving this to Ofcom as a regulator with statutory powers is the way to go. TV/radio stations don't seem to be cowtowed at all by this oversight, so neither should 'Fleet Street'. The time for special pleading by the sanctimonious UK press is long over.

So all pretty much as I predicted then

I saw the [ivictims[/i press conference.
They seemed very angry with the PM's statement.

What's that bleating journo? You're worried regulation that may be introduced after a small section of your industry screwed up might ruin your industry, impinge on your ability to do your job and have a negative effect on wider society? Really? Well man the **** up and make yourself comfy in our World.

Yours,
A Banker.

Remind me again, what new regulations do bankers work under since they screwed the global economy?

I do wonder exactly what are Dave and the press worried about?
It's not like Leveson is asking every piece has to be viewed by Ofcom before they go to press.
Ofcom are hardly ogres when it comes to TV (Newsnight as a prime example) and it is clear that self regulation of the press doesn't work.

I would love to have seen Cameron's face when he read that report I bet all the colour drained.
The guy that HE put in charge of the enquiry made report that HE has had to ignore.
Cameron my well has just said 'That spiffing Brian bloke that I trusted to give me the report I wanted has royally screwed me over so I'm going to totally ignore him'.

Is that a serious question?

So Cameron orders an enquiry, spending millions whilst doing so, then decides, that because it doesn't suit him and his press chums, he will choose to ignore the results of that enquiry??

Call me stupid, but during this time of austerity (as we are often reminded by Cameron), isn't our PM simply taking the p!$s and sticking two fingers up at the genral public?

Watching the coverage today, it looked to me like Cameron and his cronies were just after clearance of being in cahoots with News International, because that's all he seemed intent on pointing out, with the weasly Jeremy Hunt looking particularly smug.

Unfortunately for Cameron and his hideous mates, I think its now apparent that the public are getting to see how knee deep with the gutter press the Tories truly are....It will be the final nail in his coffin.

Independent regulatory body to be set up by the press but they can't sit on it, legislation would only apply to the underpinning of this body and how it is answerable (presumably to prevent de-clawing over several years so we end up with another useless PCC) - not directly to the press - Leveson was specific that no direct controlling legislation to apply to the press itself. Included in the underpinning would actually be legislation to protect the freedom of the press.

If the press or elements decide not to comply then they will not be eligable to the arbitration section - this (carrott) will help prevent the sometimes huge legal bills the press can run up defending itself from libel. If you're not in the arbitration scheme then there is the (stick) threat of huge legal costs that could be un recoverable even in legal victory for a newspaper. Word from many editors is that they like the arbitration idea - big step forward.

The conclusions in a nutshell are that there should be an independent body - without any editors etc sitting on it (they can't be trusted to mark their own homework apparantly), that the body should be underpinned by legislation, that no legislation should be applied to press freedom apart from to protect it. There will be an arbitration scheme saving the press pretty impressive legal costs, or if someone decides to go it alone then they should expect massive legal bills every time they have to fend off a libel challenge.

On other topics, David Cameron and that other pratt who was the Culture Secretary are "clean" and the police are pretty much all angels, only a couple of bad apples etc. I guess he is a Judge and he doesn't want to upset his establishment too much.

I think the proposals sound reasonable. A truly independent body that can impose fines up to 1 million quid, a carrott or stick to induce press engagement and potentially settle libel cases with reduced legal costs for all, and legislation to make sure the independent body stays that way and is accountable so it hopefully remains effective. Add to that legal protection for a free press - which we all want and need.

Cameron, of course will do whatever the editors tell him. Without press support he's deader than the dead sea scrolls and Boris will be tory leader by the next election.

They are worried about where it may all end up in 20 or 30 years time.

Just think of other significant legislative changes that have occurred. For example, the change in retail opening hours. The significant change there was in allowing supermarkets to open on a Sundays, something that hadn't been allowed since supermarkets were first introduced to the UK, if memory serves. Within a matter of what, 20 years? We now have 24 hour shopping.

Another one would be allowing lawyers or gambling services to advertise. We're swamped now with irritating phone sales for PPI and every day we're bombarded by gambling ads. Both were significant changes in law because neither had been allowed to advertise up to that point and now we are swamped.

I think Cameron is right to be concerned. I also respect him for saying so because he will know that (a) he took the risk of things turning out against his preference when he commissioned the inquiry in the first place, and (b) he is flying in the face of the populist vote. Yet on this matter I think he has it right.

I'm sure it was the press which uncovered the expenses scandal (although I don't think it was the press which uncovered the phone hacking scandal, but I may be wrong there). The politicians are bound not to like the press at present for the expenses scandal reason alone. Yet if we legislate to regulate the press, who is to say that in 20 years' time the law will not have changed to the extent where the politicians are in fact in complete control of the press? We don't know that, we can't say. Is it worth the risk? I don't think it is. I would rather take the risk of more scandal and apply the laws already in place (and which are already being put to good use in regard to the phone hacking scandal) than open the can of worms that is legislative regulation of the press.

What a good day. Leveson reports and is spot on. And five people are charged re Operation Elveden. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20541126 Or, as Dave used to say to Rebekah: "LOL".

What a good day. Leveson reports and is spot on. And five people are charged re Operation Elveden. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20541126 Or, as Dave used to say to Rebekah: "LOL".

Leveson specifically said that no regulation should apply to the press itself - apart from to confirm it's freedom. Legislation is only proposed to apply to the regulatory body. The PCC was a hopeless waste of time, this has to be avoided. I presume the legislation will be to make the regulatory body perform it's function consistantly and effectively.
However, I'm sure the newspapers will already be printing lies and mistruths for tomorrows headlines about how they simply won't stand for politicians legislating what they can and cannot print, this isn't Nazi Germany, Communist Russia etc...etc...etc. they will be fighting for our freedoms and we won't even have to thank them for it etc...etc..etc.