Leveson enquiry

The purpose of the Leveson inquiry was to investigate into the roles and relationships between the press and police, specifically during the time of the phone-hacking scandal, which took place on 13 July 2011. Lord Justice Leveson was appointed as Chairman of the Inquiry, and he was assisted by a panel of six independent assessors that helped him examine the  culture, practices and ethics of the press and, in particular, the relationship of the press with the public, police and politicians. 

The Leveson inquiry was set up after a major event of illegal phone hacking took place by the  Priminister that was running at that time, and aimed to draw recommendations, if any, for the future, with particular regards to press regulation, governance and other systems of oversight.

The main issues and debates related to this inquiry are:

• Lack of public confidence due to lack of legal backup; does not solve the problem of a publisher who refuses to sign up; unclear if it can operate as an alternative to courts, meaning wealthy individuals can still sue for libel or take privacy actions
• Would require legislation giving politicians new powers over the press, which could be hard to pass; risk of Commons or Lords throwing in further amendments that could impact freedom of press (given how many politicians have had run-ins with the media)
• License gives the government the availability to be able to take away from the press's power, could hinder a journalists freedom

Personally, I think that the press shouldn't have the right to invade people's privacy, unless the news which they have found out is something that deems a person dangerous to any other human being, or if, say in a politicians place, they had been lying to the general public. For example, if a celebrity that many people idolises had been found out to be a pedophile or murderer, I think it's fine for the press to report this as that 'idol' no longer deserves the admiration based on a fake persona. On the other hand, say if a celebrity was walking to the shops, or had had argument with their management/spouse, the media shouldn't really have a right to invade this persons privacy as, quite frankly, it doesn't have anything to do with anybody else. In conclusion, I don't think that the press is regulated heavily enough, examples of when this is true is when topless pictures of the duchess of Cambridge emerged when she was simply trying to enjoy a holiday, and stories on the breaking up or divorcing of many celebrities that still get printed regularly on magazines and newspapers today.