No government is bound by the actions of its predecessor.
Just re-read what I wrote....Applying the law is not proposed as a counter argument, but as something that should be done (and should have been done) anyway. I do think that a little time should be taken for some sort of Lab/Con consensus to be developed so that any solution survives any change in government. I'd also look for safeguards to ensure genuine press freedom/public interest defence. In my view also, any regulation will bear heavily on those who would not offend anyway, so discouraging possible investigative journalism. In addition, those determined to lie, cheat , threaten will still find ways.
Also , on here,lawyers come in for a certain amount of criticism but suddenly, one of them , Leveson, is the hero of the moment.
Murdoch got away with murder for years because Thatcher/Blair/Cameron were in hock to him. That's what's got to stop. Newspaper editors/proprietors thinking it's they who run the country. "Freedom of the press" sounds good, but after what they've done with that freedom I think a few small restrictions are called for. People like Paul Dacre thinking they can stalk people 24/7 whose views they disagree with in order to try and get some dirt on them and discredit them has to stop. Dacre is known to be a bully in journalistic circles. Whatever you say about Grant and Coogan, the same certainly doesn't apply to J K Rowling's children!
Edited by Trojan, 01 December 2012 - 05:12 PM.