SIGN THE PETITION. IMPLEMENT LEVESON. SUPPORT THE VICTIMS.

Posted: November 29, 2012 at 4:43 pm

Hacked Off and victims of press abuse have launched a petition calling for Leveson’s recommendations to be implemented in full. The petition was publicly launched by Gerry McCann and Christopher Jefferies 24 hours after Lord Justice Leveson published his report. Add your voice to this once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring justice to the victims of press misconduct and create a media that truly is in the public interest, taking it from media barons and giving it back to journalists. Sign the petition and share this page with your friends.

The press have hacked, lied, intimidated and intruded. But they’ve been caught, and they’ve been investigated, and Lord Justice Leveson has recommended legally-backed regulation, independent of politicians and the press, to hold them to account. The victims of press abuse support his recommendations. This time, we will see the real media reform that we need.

What do we mean by this time? Leveson’s Inquiry isn’t the first into the culture, ethics and practice of the media. 1947, 1953, 1962, 1969, 1977, 1990 and 1993 all saw similar, government-ordered inquiries after newspapers had been seen to be acting outside of the public interest.

Why didn’t the public hear about this? The tabloids love to report an injustice, but not when they’re the ones in the dock. The Inquiries went unreported, because the papers wouldn’t frame and shame themselves.

But 2012 has something that 1947, 1953, 1962, 1969, 1977, 1990 and 1993 didn’t have. The Internet. The media barons may have millions of newspapers landing on doorsteps every day, but the public have Facebook, Twitter and blogs. The tabloids have the megaphone, but if enough of us shout loudly enough then we can drown them out. Add your voice. Sign the petition and share it with your friends now.

331 comments

  1. Robert Willis - reply

    Self regulation does not and never has worked other than in the interest of those regulating themselves, Most important to keep Parliament well away from any controls that restrict press freedom. What is the point of spending so much money on Leveson and then discounting its findings?

    • Peter Rowland - reply

      No sign of contrition for causing the death of innocent people and wrecking innocent lives from the press, only self interest in pursuing their own interests. This is the eighth time self regulation has not worked, what is the guarantee that more self regulation will work. Leverson does not give parliament any direct control over the press so we should implement his ideas.

    • Mike Robinson - reply

      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
      I have been screwed over by the NoW at one point in my life, but I certainly don’t want the state involved in censoring what I read.
      You just cannot keep Parliament away from legislation…. it is a contradiction in terms.
      If you don’t want MP’s and the State deciding what you can read — or who is fit to write what you read — as they try to dictate so many other aspects of life in which they have little competence or experience, keep well away from legislation.
      It is a poisoned chalice.

      • Paul Newbould - reply

        Yeah, let’s just give them another, another, another, another, just one more, very last, cross my fingers and hope to die, “pass Rebecca another biscuit Rupert”, last, last chance. Again!

      • denise dunford - reply

        I am astounded that the response to this site is so poor. I expected to be one of millions of signatures. Is this an indication of a nation that lives off the fodder of celebrity gossip and silly stories to divert us from the real issues? What has happened to this country? It makes me very depressed. Whilst Milly Dowler’s parents have to cope each day with the torment that hacks put them through we can sleep at night knowing Joey Essex turned up at the Old Bailey to support his girlfriend whose stepfather was convicted of robbery.For all those people who have been subjected to those who lack a moral compass
        I pray the Levison Enquiry will do some good, but somehow I believe this weak, self serving government will fudge over the issue. Already Cameron is trying to sidetrack us with the old chestnut of marriage “something I really believe in”. Well here is something I really believe in and it is common decency. There are some brilliant investigative journalists out ther but there are more than a few who need to re-evaluate what they contribute to society.

    • marilyn mccarthy - reply

      cameron won’t help to nail his cronies,too busy nailing working class people

      • Ray raver - reply

        Has the labour leader said he will implement the recommendations if elected?

    • Liz McCornick - reply

      Historically newspaper barons colluding with the political party of the day have been able to influence and control what information should be released to the public. It is not until the Freedom of Information Act comes into play that the true facts are then released. Read the history books! It has always been the case.

      See through the ‘red herrings’ Cameron is trying to introduce and demand that the Levison recommendations be implemented in full.

      There ARE still some good investigative journalism whose tenacity has exposed and challenged the rubbish we are being fed through certain papers and media.

      We do appear to be living in a shallow society which enjoys sensationalism, revels in the misery of others and is full of envy and greed. The public must recognise it has a part to play and this is its chance to wake up and support those who are begging for a good and fair society before it is too late!

      • Jean Currie - reply

        I totally agree. the press do not normally protect freedom of expression . In fact they are currently much more likely to supress it. Nor do they normally disclose injustice. Their main aim appears to be to promote the philosophyof their owners, using tame politicians and publishing lurid distorting ” stories” in an attempt to boost circulation.

    • Rosie Evans - reply

      The point of spending so much money on an an enquiry and then discounting its findings is to give the government breathing space so that when they decide to do nothing the furore will have died down and nobody will mind.

    • Brian - reply

      One of the major findings of Levenson was the level of cosying up politicians did to the media, this was and is done to gain influence, if we give them legislative control of the media they wont need to cosy up anymore they will have all the influence they need I fear politicians more than newspaper barons. If you implement the simple security measures of changing your pin and password regularly as recommended by all phone operators and internet suppliers you protect yourself and don’t need the government to do it for you.

      • Chrissie - reply

        Brian, Leveson law is not just about phone hacking victims. What about the pure speculation, exaggeration of facts, deliberate untruths, self opinionated journalists who have an agenda of their own and set out to destroy someone who they don’t agree with?
        I was a victim many years ago, long before phone hacking scandal, the national press destroyed a perfectly good story which had appeared in local press. Nationals sensationalize it to sell more newspapers, then that story was picked up by The National Enquirer in USA without,my knowledge. It was only when I was contacted by a USA tv station that I found out it had even appeared in foreign media.
        The UK press made money out of my story, I got not one penny. I couldn’t afford to sue them in courts or to deal with International laws either.
        Leveson law would have given me a fair chance to get an apology and the correct story printed.I was eventually able to get a UK tv documentary made which put the record straight that was after I had a nervous breakdown thanks to UK press.

      • Ray raver - reply

        So it was Millie’s fault for not changing her PIN? Shame on you!

    • Shane Carter - reply

      How right you are about self regulation: it has not worked with the press. The Press
      Complaints’ Commission has been nothing more than a toothless tiger.

      Parliamentarians used to enjoy self regulation espousing the virtues of it at every turn. No wonder, they did not want us to know what they were claiming in expenses. The expenses’ scandal has put paid to self regulation in Parliament and resulted in statutory structures being put in place.

  2. Nigel Price - reply

    Leveson should be implemented in full. Period

    • Pam Gurney - reply

      I wholeheartedly agree. What was the point of the Inquiry if David Cameron can just u-turn in his own sweet way and put a clause into this? Self regulation has never and will never work with the press of the 2000s. We need them to be held accountable for the lies and strife they cause people such as the McCanns/Dowlers/Jones’ all families who have suffered such tragic losses and yet the press have sown seeds of doubt as to their own morality. Dreadful state of affairs.

    • Alan Miller - reply

      I agree Leveson should be implemented in full. I deplore the scare tactics currently employed by Cameron and his misguided followers. We vote a parliament in and we can vote them out.

      • Alan Miller - reply

        What moderation am I to wait for?? What have I said that you should wish to silence me? LEVESON SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN FULL. Full stop.

  3. Rebecca Doyle - reply

    Too many innocent lives have been destroyed. Its time for change.

  4. Ian Cairns - reply

    Cameron going back on his word. There’s a surprise.

    • Patricia Williams - reply

      Sounds as though Cameron is taking advice from Rebecca !

    • Dr M Rassa - reply

      When you have not a majority and mandate to run the country, you do nothing
      other than telling lye and misslead the country and betrayal.
      you should not be surprise on Mr Cameron reaction.

    • Stuart Dewar - reply

      Either

      a) Cameron meant what he said and, after due consideration (or, at least, as ‘due’ as consideration can get in a day) actually does think Leveson is “bonkers”,

      or

      b) he always knew where his Rubicon was, Leveson was a mere vanity screen and Cameron was never going to fail to ensure his friends got what they wanted.

  5. Toby Reeves - reply

    This is no Rubicon, we need to see through the straw man, give an independent regulator real teeth and make sure the power of the press is accountable for its actions and misdeeds

  6. Pingback: Petition to Implement the Leveson Report - Media Reform

  7. Ian sharpe - reply

    Back Leveson.

  8. Karen MacLean - reply

    Listen to Levison. You know it’s the right move. Sign the petition and protect the innocent.

    • Pam Gurney - reply

      Spot on. The innocent victims need support big time!

  9. Maria Busby - reply

    Keep fighting

  10. Ann Sinnott - reply

    Leveson’s recommendations should be implemented in full. The public, including celebrities, need protection from the gutter press, not apologies after the event. If the gutter press reforms and a revamped PCC really has teeth, the underpinning legislation need never be activated. Press fears about that legislation and future incoming administrations, and the uses to which that legislation may be put, may have some foundation but are outweighed by a pressing need to curb the worst excesses of the gutter press.

    • patricia neep - reply

      I totally agree that self regulation has had many chances to regulate itself. It now needs thebacking of the law to ensure it keeps to its own agreement

  11. Danny Harris - reply

    Leveson has to be implemented. If not Cameron will have further eroded his credibility as his arguments hardly stand close inspection

    • Mike Harrison - reply

      We already have more than enough laws limiting the powers and freedom of the press . The problems arise not because of the lack of legal options but as a result of the way the legal establishment operates . Their main motivation is , and always has been a mixture of an inbuilt conservatism ( Not with a large C ) which wants to maintain the status quo and the energetic pursuit of MONEY .

      The results are that that the only way important stories emerge is by brave and determined whistleblowers and journos actually breaking the law and risking prison . The other result is the plethora of super injunctions obtained by the rich , powerful and famous , eagerly abetted by their highly paid lawyers that still mean that we do not get the press we deserve .

      Far from campaigning for MORE legal regulation of the press we should be screaming from the rooftops for LESS .

      • jane - reply

        Less regulation so the likes of Murdoch can continue their corrupt deals with politicians & police, can illegally hack people’s phones, hack dead children’s phones & delete messages, while the parents live in agony?

        The press has proved that they are a pack of mongrels with the chief mongrel, that wizened foreigner Turdoch who should be languishing in gaol.

    • vincent taylor - reply

      We have a few high profile, but not neccessarily worthy individuals, who have maximised their case by having an unfortunate few who are never in the public eye and have had no wish to be so. Of course my sympathies are with the unfortunates few who now seem to have been exploited by high profile individuals to strenthen their case. those in thepublic eye have been only too eager to grasp publicity when it worked in their favour but having achieved their obective they have done an “about face”.
      Mistakes are made by everyone and every organisation but to shackle the press is going too far too far. I for one thank the press and journalists for ferreting out the misdemeanors and criminal actions of those in power,or celebrity. Perhaps our journalists could be wary of giving free publicity for those clambering onto the gravy train in future.

  12. marie - reply

    I am disgusted that Cameron has flat out rejected the recommendations! He doesn’t have valid reasons and it is a betrayal.

    • dewibach - reply

      re4ason? Most of the papers support the tories. Most of the papers dont want press regulation. Its and easy equation to solve, isn’t it!

    • vincent taylor - reply

      Nonesense!
      We have a few high profile, but not neccessarily worthy individuals, who have maximised their case by having an unfortunate few who are never in the public eye and have had no wish to be so. Of course my sympathies are with the unfortunates few who now seem to have been exploited by high profile individuals to strengthen their case. Those in thepublic eye have been only too eager to grasp publicity when it worked in their favour but having achieved their obective they have done an “about face”.
      Mistakes are made by everyone and every organisation but to shackle the press is going too far too far. I for one thank the press and journalists for ferreting out the misdemeanors and criminal actions of those in power,or celebrity. Perhaps our journalists could be wary of giving free publicity for those clambering onto the gravy train in future.

  13. Brian jones - reply

    Self-regulation has never worked. We need change. I have written to my MP as follows:

    Given the decades of failed self-regulation of the press and the disgraceful litany of outrageous behaviour of several news organisations, do you believe that the press should again be given the opportunity to regulate themselves, or do you support fully the commendations of the Leveson enquiry?

    Your response, or lack of response, will determine my vote at the next opportunity. This issue is that important.

    Yours sincerely,

    Brian Jones

  14. Bob Johnson - reply

    Cameron is more concerned with having press backing at the next election than doing the right thing. I hope his fawning to the tabloid press is remembered when people enter the ballot box next time.

  15. Alexander Howie - reply

    How many chances does the press industry need to get its house in order? No more! Don’t allow this self-interest group to weasel its way out of independent regulation. This is not about freedom of the press. It’s about making the press behave responsibility and not to intrude upon and destroy people’s lives for a
    cheap headline and a quick buck.

  16. Adrian Bedford - reply

    Leveson should be implemented in full. The notion now being peddled by much of the press – that underpinning legislation is somehow the slippery slope towards state regulation, perhaps by some future hard line British Government – is bizarre in the extreme. As a retired British diplomat, I once lived and worked in several countries where the press was state controlled, ranging from Apartheid era South Africa to Communist post war Vietnam to the Islamic Republic of Iran. If the United Kingdom was ever unfortunate enough to have a Government even approaching the views these totalitarian regimes held about the press, then the existance – or otherwise – of underpinning legislation would be irrelevant. Hardline regimes regulate the press full stop. They don’t spend time looking for legal excuses to do so.

  17. Dr Karl Brennan - reply

    Millions of pounds, thousands of hours, hundreds of testimonies, one line: “wary about crossing the Rubicon…”.  Game over……really??

    The press considers itself above regulation, as if it is the only guardian of free speech.  No matter how reckless the press, the Rubicon argument, if believed, will ensure that the press remains untouchable, free to be even more extreme, even more destructive.

    The last seventy years has demonstrated that the press is incapable of meaningful self-regulation.  The Leveson Report offers an opportunity and a mechanism to remedy that.  It must be taken.

  18. Dougie - reply

    All media outlets are free…….. they chose not to use that freedom when Savile was know by many organisations to be a child sex offender decades ago similarly Cyril Smith. Yet they chose to smear the Macanns the Liverpool 96 etc … We will still have a free press, it will still be accountable to the court of law. Regulation exists in most areas of our lives why not the press?

  19. Glen Jeffery - reply

    Introduce without delay

  20. Brian - reply

    The government is showing us that when it comes choosing between the interests of the press barons and the interest of their victims only money talks, not justice.

  21. David Clyne - reply

    The report should be implemented in full. In addition street photographers should be liccensed and regulated.

  22. Clare - reply

    This could well be Cameron’s downfall..his cowardly response to sensible and reasoned proposals by Leveson will come back to haunt him

  23. mmurphy & m todd - reply

    nationalise all mass media,profits to state: access according to % vote, except for racist-fascist parties

  24. Mr Victor Brown - reply

    Why is it that D. Cameron cares more about doing what the press wants, than what the Leveson Inquiry, the victims and the public, that he is meant to represent, want? ‘All in this together’ – balls DC needs the press on his side to cling on to power and to hell with what’s right!

  25. Nicholas Garrett - reply

    Law is required the press have had their chance. Peoples lives need protecting against falsehood

  26. Graham richards - reply

    Leveson must be fully implemented,the press can never be trusted again,without control the will revert to type in short order

  27. Jim - reply

    Much of the British press are rotten to the core and have been for 30 years. They routinely lie and distort the political and social agendas, undermine democracy, trivialise and dumb down the news for profit, show contempt for the law, bully without shame or any concern for people’s well-being and intrude into people’s private lives without any credible justification, and hide cravenly behind a right to the gift of free speech when they abuse this gift every day. Enough is enough, they need to be brought into line. They have failed to control themselves, because these turkeys will never vote for Christmas. Carefully judged independent regulation, with escalating punishment for breaches of existing law and impinging on people’s human rights, is not the same as suppressing free speech

  28. Malcolm Grant - reply

    Cameron’s decision not to follow Leveson’s recommendations was to be expected once the media pressure was put on. No surprise at all. A betrayal of the victims of press misbehaviour by a weak prime minister.

  29. Walter - reply

    Happy to sign the petition here, but there is a new petition on the official government petitions website – http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42523 – which I find a lot more useful. If 100000 people sign up to that one, there has to be a debate about it in Parliament.

    (I am not involved with setting up either petition, just not at all surprised that Rebekah Brooks riding partner wants to help her profession out… And no, I am not indicating that Mrs Brooks is in a profession (not even the oldest) and am not implying that her partner was riding anything but a horse. But somebody get shafted, and it is typically those the press identifies as “fair prey”.)

  30. Stephen Johnson - reply

    Email to my MP
    The body that replaces the Press complaints commission has to be truly independent and forceful. Lord Leveson has shown how this should be done.
    I can’t say how disappointed I will be with David Cameron and his party if he blocks it.
    We need a press that the public respects. We need politicians that the public respects.
    ‘All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing’
    What are you going to do?

  31. Paul Harrison - reply

    You have my full support

  32. Margaret laval - reply

    Back the report, honour promise

  33. Bob Gleeson - reply

    Free Press is not a right – it is a responsibility. Apply Leveson in full Mr Cameron!

  34. Peter Woodhouse - reply

    Leveson has carefully constructed and arrangement which dislocates press control from the government. A mirror objection, but much more relevant from the the signatories of this petition would be “why are the press objecting to Leveson” Could it be because the owners wish to interfere with editorial policy? Which is the greater threat, Murdoch et al or HMG to our lives.? I vote for my MP so far no one who owns a newspaper has asked me so to do. QED

  35. John Wainwright - reply

    Implement Leveson in full now!

  36. Clive - reply

    Cameron has the opportunity to distance himself from Rebecca Brooks et al…. What a surprise he hasn’t.

  37. N H Sands - reply

    Cameron, do the honourable thing

  38. Ian McDonald - reply

    I suffered under the press when they accused me of hitting a councillor. Later I got a written apology but never in the paper. The reporter had been inventing stories to promote their career.

  39. Jean Hartford-Davis - reply

    I believe in free speech, however not when it contains untruths and malicious gossip.

  40. Dave Holden - reply

    After stating if it was not bonkers he would implement the Leveson Report. Well its certainly not bonkers. Implement the report in full. He can still enjoy his “country suppers” with Rebecca.

  41. N H Sands - reply

    I used to be a committed tory voter, but no longer if you follow your present line.

  42. michael mcmurrough - reply

    They have destroyed enough lives.
    Aided by cameron, murdochs monkey.

  43. Charles Campbell - reply

    Time for the corrupt relationship between politicians and press barons to be broken.
    Politicians routinely betray the interests of the citizen in so many ways, allowing corporate interests excessive influence. Implementing Leveson is a small start in rectifying this treacherous behaviour.

  44. David Webb - reply

    I believe that the British press has repeatedly demonstrated that it is unable to discriminate between the public interest and what the public is interested in. I believe that their arguments that these issues can be left to the market are self serving and specious. The press has had ample opportunity to regulate itself and has dismally failed to do so. I do not believe that the introduction of a statutory based independent regulator would be the first step towards a fascist state, or that a press ombudsman would be any less independent of government than any of the e xisting ones. The press must be stopped from hounding innocent members of the public for the prurient interest of their readership.

  45. John Harry - reply

    ‘Self regulation’ means no regulation at all; it’s always swamped by self interest, and that simply will not do any more. We NEED independent regulation to force the papers to publish news, not scandals and scuttlebutt, and we need it NOW!

  46. Cakvin Mathias - reply

    Now be FAIR. How can anyone expect Mr. Cameron to implement Leveson in full, when he needs the press on side to have any chance of winning the next election.

    What’s more important:-

    Keeping your word and changing the way the gutter press have to operate.

    or

    Bending over backwards to accommodate the press in the hope good press coverage.

  47. Steven Mahoney - reply

    Cameron’s only concern is to ensure press support for him and his cronies at the next election. Responsible journalism has nothing to fear from Leveson

  48. James Maxwell - reply

    The opposers of Leveson are the enemies of responsible Democracy

  49. Tony Gray - reply

    Why am I not surprised by this government, implement fully now

  50. Andy Matthews - reply

    Let’s explain what true censorship is. Its building an argument based on propaganda and then silencing anyone who speaks against your version of “the truth”

    I would usually go within 200 yards of The Sun comments forum but today I wanted to see how they portrayed the Leveson report. Just to confirm my belief they would twist it to their own end. The propaganda part of censorship. They did – writing a ridiculously biased story based purely on self-interest. In the comments one particular reader (Glen Thomas – who I have now found has a strange habit of popping up in debates like this always supporting The Sun) was spouting ill-informed lies and shouting down all those who spoke against him. So I replied to him. What I did not know was that all Sun-comments are pre-moderated – and guess what – mine somehow didn’t make the cut. No explanation given. So rather than just leave it in the internet ether – I have copied and pasted it below. As part of my argument that censorship is already in place in the British Media. Its just they do all the censoring. There is no free press. Only press in chains to those who own the publishing groups.

    —COPY—
    Glen Thomas Is a perfect example of those people who try to belittle others and pretend they know more just so they can spread a lie. How can you have the sheer front to start your message with “Have you any idea what the outcome of the Leveson was” and then lie with the line “Leveson has said that the press must be state-controlled”. Are you a total idiot or did you think nobody would call you on it? You also say you have read it – well if you have you are a bare faced liar. The report doesn’t come close to saying that. ANYWHERE.

    Leveson is extremely clear; The media must be regulated by an independent panel with statutory powers. He suggests OFCOM could perform this role but he makes NO reference to a definitive overseeing body. That is to be decided. In effect it is an open question and yet you produce a complete lie out of it by giving your own answer without any evidence to back it up – no references to where in the document it is said – or where you read it.. Come on son – lets call your bluff and see if you have actually read the whole thing – not just the cover note summary. Tell me on which page and subsection the words “state control” appear. Also tell me where exactly the document refers to a statutory underpinning of an INDEPENDENT panel. The first one will take you forever (since you made it up), the second one is in there, and if, as you claim, you have read it, you should have no problem finding all references. In fact the second one appears on several separate pages and if, as you say, you have read it you can rifle them off for us. If not you are either going to be outed as a liar, or guess what? You are actually going to have to read it – and good God it’s intense. I started a read through last night and my brain is still only half way to understanding it all. Guess what Glenny-boy – someone called your bluff.

    As for state-control, the report did not specify how the panel should be made up, in effect it left the door open for the public to VOTE people onto the panel. We have just had those crappy PCC elections – why not have the panel nominated and voted for by the public? Straight away your argument for state-control is gone. If the public voted for the panel then how could the state control it in any way? That is the killer fact that lays lie to Cameron’s claim. The report leaves the door open for the public to control the panel. God wouldn’t that be scary? Democracy choosing who sits on it? The papers and Cameron would be left in tears – the Rubicon would be crossed not to give the state powers – but to give them to the public. What then for those who cry foul? How will they convince us all that the worst thing that could happen is for a democratically elected panel of voted members to have the power. No state control – people control.

    Of course we must not deal with those who claim this is about wanting a free press? Read the article above? Its virtual propaganda! It includes three quotes from people opposed to this measure – and none from the many who are in favour. We have a quote from Simon Weston (Falklands Legend) a fact that means he is a hero but doesn’t mean his words are true. Its opinion and, as I have already stated, badly informed opinion. He again mentions state-control and as I will point out yet again there is no mention in the report of that. It’s a lie perpetuated and I don’t care how brave the man is it doesn’t mean he is always right. My best guess is someone told him that and he is repeating it parrot fashion. Why no comment from the parents of Milly Dowler (press victim) or Sarah Payne (another victim). Why no comments from the man falsely accused of raping and killing a woman because of lazy journalism. I am surprised the writers of this didn’t take a shovel and try to dig up Douglas Bader (British Hero) for a quote. As for Ms Kelly – she works for the paper! Would you ask someone for an unbiased opinion about football if they played for Man Utd? It is a joke they even included her. Oh and there is an Admiral too! Well if this was about boats that would carry some weight I suppose.

    Statutory regulation IS NOT STATE CONTROL unless the regulators are the state itself. That is the damn definition of the term. If the regulators are independent (as Leveson does mandate) then it cannot follow that an independent panel can be controlled by the state – work it out you idiots – if it did that it wouldn’t be independent. I think some of you think the STAT in statutory control comes from state! It comes from control by STATUTE. The state does create statutes but they have no part in enforcing them. The Home Secretary doesn’t work down the local court deciding who goes to prison and who doesn’t. A statute is laid down and that statute is administered by the legal system. Which is clearly independent from the legislators. It has to be. If it wasn’t the world would condemn us the same way it is now condemning Egypt. In short the state creates laws – but panels independent of the state administer them. Leveson’s idea is not more radical that the Home Secretary making a law and a judge and jury deciding if it is broken or not. Is that state-control? No. And its a system we gave to the rest of the world. So long as there is separation between the lawmakers and the law-enforcers the system works. The same here – politicians can set down a law – but they cannot be involved in its enforcement. There is no crossing of any Rubicon – we already use this system anyway! It has been good enough for Britain for the last few centuries so why not now? If a politician can make a law and a judge and jury can enforce it – why not a politician make a law and an independent panel enforce it?

    Leveson is clear that the panel must be independent. If that means elected representatives then so be it. Just stop repeating this banal lie about state control when it doesn’t exist on any single page of the report – and it cannot exist on any single page of the draft statute because it would cause uproar.

    We live by the law of this land – all of us. If we break it we must be punished. A murderer cannot decide his own sentence just because he “does a lot of good” exposing others who break the law. No matter how powerful the press can be as a source of exposure of Government wrongs that cannot and should not mean they are beyond the law.

    And for those of you screaming about cover-ups and how stories wouldn’t be told without a free press? Please. I have visited China and Russia where the state definitely does control the press – and let me tell you those very same stories get out via other means. Even a heavily controlled press cannot stop the truth emerging in an internet age. The truth always outs – in Egypt it outed, in Iraq it outed, in Russia and China and Syria it outed. There are people in all those countries better informed that those who live in the UK and bury their heads in the sand by reading toilet paper like The Sun. And we are talking countries where there is/has been heavy state control of the press.

    The idea that the newspapers need no laws to break stories is a lie recanted again and again by people who pretend to be informed but actually just read the front page of The Sun and take it as the truth. If anyone here wants to challenge me on the finding of Leveson (especially you Glen “I have read it and you are all idiots” Thomas – come on. Take me on front and centre. I do warn you though – I have actually read it and I am rereading it and taking notes so that I do fully understand it. If you don’t do the same – I will expose you and make you look stupid. So spend the next few hours reading and note-taking relevant sections so you don’t look stupid when I make references to sub texts. I don’t accept two hour gaps between comments while you use Adobe Reader to try and search the text for answers, or for you to google away so you can pretend to be in the know.
    —PASTE—

  51. Steve Procter - reply

    I support the need for an independent press regulatory body with statutory backing to ensure that the freedom of the press is guaranteed and not subject to Government pressure.

    Cameron will be rightly criticised by the nation if he does not accept the recommendations in full of the independent review which he commissioned under the leadership of an experienced and independent judge

  52. Tom Watters - reply

    Cameron must back the victims not his media friends.

  53. Robin - reply

    Leveson’s proposals are fair , balanced and workable

  54. Phillip Lester - reply

    Mr Cameron. Fulfill your moral obligation to the people of this country and give us the robust yet decent newspaper industry we deserve. There is no defence for failing to implement Lord Leveson’s conclusions. None at all.

  55. Stephen Cook - reply

    If Cameron didn’t want to do anything about the press, why did we have a year long inquiry headed up by a learned judge. Its the typical hypocrisy of another leader scared of the media.

  56. Liz Mccutcheon - reply

    What is wrong with David Cameron? The press have proven they cannot be trusted to self regulate and have lost that right. What was the point of the Levenson process if the recommendations were not going to be implemented. Full implementation – nothing less!

  57. M D Hall - reply

    Mr Cameron Carry out In Full The Levison Enquiry

    • M D Hall - reply

      Implement fully leverson and stop being big headed

  58. Kevin - reply

    Has to implemented or surely it was a waste of time and money. nothing to do with restricting freedom of speach

  59. Mike Emery - reply

    Yet another Cameron promise broken. He forgets that he is in power as a representative of the whole electorate, not the Press Barons. Especially as some of the Press owners are not even British. Shame, shame ,shame. He should hang his head in shame! The press needs restraining and Leveson did his job as requested but unfortunately for Cameron didn’t come up with the result he expected.

  60. Richard North - reply

    How many more time do the Press have to say “sorry” then not do anything? They’ve had lots of chances to reform what they do – now its time for the man in the street to strike back

  61. John Noble - reply

    Past failures in self regulation by the press demonstrate that a statutory underpinning is essential

  62. Dale - reply

    All the major parties should support this and implement it asap. Stop trying to score political points.

  63. Robert Macaulay - reply

    Cameron, the posh boy, knows much better than us plebs, especially when it comes to taking care of chums like Coulson and Wade.

  64. Dr Graham Cambray - reply

    I think David Cameron must now, without doubt, be acknowledged to be the weakest prime minister in the last 70 years. Forget the coalition – he does not even appear to lead his own party – rather, he is led by it. A spineless, empty man whose word clearly means less than nothing.

  65. Nigel Wootton - reply

    We do not have a free press. It is a press run by rich men for their own commercial & political gain. Power without accountability. It’s time to make them accountable to the British people.

  66. Vicky Parsons - reply

    Jouralists. If we’re not respected and believed there is very little point in writing anything. We have to have some boundaries, and this is the best way to do it.

  67. john - reply

    What has Rebecca Brooks got on Cameron that he has retreated so far?

  68. Sid Peru - reply

    The press are already throwing up the chaff to divert public opinion. Only people power will solve this. Now’s your time Glegg, to redeem yourself, force the lying corrupt b’stards into a general election

  69. Les Burrows - reply

    The press establishment line seems to be that the ends justify the means, and how dare our elected Parliament even think of interfering with their ‘freedom’ to follow that path. Disgraceful. Now I notice that they are trotting out yet another bit of obfuscation – that the public aren’t interested in the issue of how the press behave. Really? I don’t think so. Sign the petition. Show these shadowy dissembling figures that the public see through their sophistries. The real truth is that powerful people want total control over how they treat anybody they choose to target, but scream like mad when the spotlight is thrown on them, and it is they, through their own actions, who have undermined the principle of free speech. And they are clearly collectively incapable of learning any lessons from the damage they have done.

  70. Sylvia Elias - reply

    Isn’t it appalling to learn that our Prime Minister appears to consider that tragic families such as the Dowlers and the McCanns must suffer their distress, anguish, privacy and dignity to be made hostages to an unregulated press whose salaciousness, greed and clamour forever more attention grasping “Headlines! Headlines! Headlines!” Knows no bounds. Shame on you Mr Cameron!

  71. Malcolm Harrison - reply

    Must be implemented

  72. Tom Ricketts - reply

    Why be surprised that Cameron wants to ignore the Leveson recommendations? The Tories have always lied to get elected or look after their rich friends. This is just ‘business as usual’ for them.

  73. Mr Howard B Nicholas - reply

    It is time that the press was positively controlled .

  74. Nigel Holden - reply

    Press freedom does not mean the licence to print downright lies,

  75. Bob Corke - reply

    No more excuses, Lib Dems must pull the plug on this shambles of a Government.

  76. Nick Fellows - reply

    KEEP YOUR WORD MR CAMERON

  77. William hall - reply

    The press has already proved they can’t self regulate and unless there is some real recourse to deal with this nothing will change and the previous infringements will continue

    • dave - reply

      happy for you to change the wording “if you sign” to “if you also sign”.

  78. john pitcher - reply

    Implement a statute defining public interest, not interesting to the nosey public. Implement an independent regulator with no politicians, lords or media in it. Free press doesn’t equal uncontrolled illegally operating press. Change it now don’t funk it for your old school buddies Mr Cameron.

  79. Melvyn Frost - reply

    The only way newspapers (which are really a thing of the past is if there is a law to prevent their lies and illegal activities

  80. George Johnston - reply

    If you decide NOT to sign this petition, having listened to David Cameron’s whimpering rejection of Leveson’s report, please think again; you will suffer upon the victims of News Corp’s self-gratifying, self-indulgent, corporate, sadistic abuse of those they assume to be lesser mortals, the opinions of a group of Etonian freaks who find, under the leadership of David Cameron, a platform on which they may further parade their puerile vacuity as protectors’ of freedom of the press. I’ve had enough: I’m away to bed. Keep signing!

  81. Steve Johnson - reply

    A free press is the cornerstone of any democracy, further regulation is a mistake and a further affront to free speech. The recommendations from the Leveson circus should not be implemented. Phone hacking is/was illegal. Enforcing the existing laws is the answer, not further press regulation.

  82. Thomas Holloway - reply

    Fully behind you!

  83. Chris - reply

    The Express argued today that Leveson would create an untouchable elite, beyond scrutiny. Have they no sense of irony?

  84. Chris Robinson - reply

    Who is running this country? Us through our elected government or antediluvian despots? This is the 21st century not the Victorian era

  85. Richard Filer - reply

    If the press report the truth, they have no need to fear legislation!

  86. Bernie Bradnum - reply

    if we only had self regulation of 30mph speeding without the police force and a law statute to back it up…would everyone stick to the 30mph speed limit? My best guess is No they would not.

  87. Emily Wilson - reply

    support leveson

  88. Andrew Payne - reply

    The Sun supports Cameron’s failure to act on Leveson. We can’t go on with the same old failed system that has let us down so badly but Cameron wants to let the press off once again despite all the promises and warm words. That’s the only reason I need to sign this petition – the Sun’s response says it all!

  89. J Burgeen - reply

    I haven’t purchased newspapers for years , things need to change

  90. Graham Brown - reply

    If anyone wanted clear evidence that the PM has been got at by the press barons, his U-turn on implementing Leveson’s fair and justifiable recommendations makes the case. He has U-turned on so many of his previous promises, I must say I am not surprised but I AM saddened that I voted Conservative in 2010 believing Cameron was honest. Won’t happen again.

  91. Melvin Thompson - reply

    Don’t say the press STILL control the politicians!!!!

  92. Murray Barratt - reply

    Make the press accountable for its actions, put those at the top of the industry back in their place, to represent and inform the public.

  93. Chris - reply

    The only reason all these evils weren’t suppressed in the first place was that The Guardian pressed on with it’s investigation in the face of menaces from the press-baron controlled Press Complaints Commission, who now want to “sort it out.” Hypocrites.

  94. Gracie - reply

    Lord Justice Leveson conducted this Inquiry over 18 months and took further months to reach his conclusions. Cameron was handed this report and within hours was rubbishing the thousands of words which he could not possibly have read and going back on his word and refusing to implement it. This says a lot about Cameron, he is unfit to be prime minister – he should go.

  95. steve black - reply

    Cameron has been really poor as priminister he has really let us all down .. this is the end of Cameron and if nic cleg lets him get away with this it will be the end of him also .. i know were my vote is going and its not labour

  96. ralph kirk - reply

    Turkeys don’t vote for xmas so the gutter press (tabloids) and the party that they mostly support won’t either. Does Cameron believe in anything other than staying in office?

  97. nick a - reply

    The advocates of self-regulation say it’s fine if newspapers sign up for 5 years, and that they can cross the bridge of a subsequent opt-out (like the Daily Express’s from the current feeble regime) when it arises. But the argument against legislation is that a future government might use the framework to control the press (as if they couldn’t use new legislation). Why is a 5-and-a-bit year perspective not necessary for the self-regulating policy but a long term perspective the killer for the Leveson recommendations?

  98. Derek Allen - reply

    Why are the BBC and ITV regulated successfully? Their journalism is independent and world class. Why do the press think they are different? It is quite clearly an ‘establishment’ stitch up.

  99. paul graham - reply

    david i love you, l.o.l. all my love rebbeca.

  100. James de la Mare - reply

    If Cameron sets up an Inquiry by an eminent member of the judiciary, then he should be absolutely and utterly clear that he is expected to abide by the recommendations of the Inquiry unless there is the most compelling reason not to. In this case there is no such compelling reason for over-riding the recommendations. Reasons such as commercial considerations or the protection of the establishment are not compelling reasons. Indeed they may be the very best of reasons why Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations should be accepted in full and implemented properly as soon as they practicably can be.

  101. Andy Morritt - reply

    Don’t fall for the “freedom of the press” propaganda. Remember the vast majority of victims were abused to generate sensationalist and salacious headlines in order to sell newspapers and make money. It had nothing to do with real and credible investigative journalism.

  102. Susan Jones - reply

    Lets clean this up NOW!

  103. jamie boyle - reply

    Publically ask Cameron for a meeting with the victims of hacking. Ask for the meeting to be in front of the TV cameras.

    Cameron is then put into corner. He will look bad if he refuses or he agrees and is forced to answer real questions from the victims.

    You have Cameron over a barrel, so don’t stop. You will get laws to clean up the press.

    A good question to ask would be about press ownership. Much of what has gone on is by Murdochs press. Ask why Murdoch cannot be forced to sell his papers because he has fails the fit and proper test of ownership.

  104. Murdoch pulling cameron's strings? - reply

    I wonder if Murdoch has informed Cameron as to what he can and cannot allow to come out the enquiry.

  105. Anthony Guyan. - reply

    This cannot be left to self regulation as it has been seen not to work and has caused all of this present grief.

  106. Tim Ward - reply

    No, I will not sign your petition. The causal disreguard for free speech in this country is becoming down right frighting.

  107. Tony - reply

    KINDLY DO THE NEEDFUL AND IMPLEMENT IN FULL…………….
    For crying out loud this is the moment to call time on apalling treatment of innocent people

  108. Chris Green - reply

    As well as organising this petition, are Hacked Off able to organise and publicize a nationwide general boycott of the offending newspapers and media outlets that caused the problems in the first place. Hit them where it hurts – the purse!!

  109. Patrick Flood - reply

    Same old Cameron same old Tories, looking after the powerful and the rich and letting victims down. No surprise really…. Make every signature count SIGN THE PETITION

  110. Chris Cooper - reply

    Cameron (& his cronies) is so afraid of losing the support of his newspaper owning friends he is prepared ignore the common sense of Leveson.

  111. Steve hardeman - reply

    Anyone in any doubt whether or not to sign should look at the universal praise heaped on David Cameron in Fridays papers. If we don’t sign, the press will again have used their unbridled power to change the minds of our weak politicians and they will be further emboldened in the belief that they are untouchable. Sign the petition, strike a blow for the little guy

  112. Dawn timperley - reply

    Please sign this petition

  113. William Gadsby - reply

    Not for the first time, “Big Society” seems to mean “big cover-up”.

  114. Harry Gettins - reply

    The prime minister should do the right thing and show support for the victims first and not the press.

  115. K..Capewell - reply

    The report should be imposed in full

  116. alun roberts - reply

    Cameron STILL cosying up to the press for supposed political advantage but his willingness to kick victims in the teeth shows us where his morals really lie.

  117. Damon Alexander - reply

    Sections of the British Press are a disgrace and only implementing the Leveson report will hold them to account.

  118. Simon Nolan - reply

    1947, 1953, 1962, 1969, 1977, 1990, 1993, 2012. Someone once said that the definition of madness is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome. Another example of shrill lobbying by industry overcomes the wishes of the public.

  119. Lewis - reply

    We live in a time of great cuts that are being made allegedly in our best interests, but are singularly failing to get us out of recession. We live in a time where we are making education at Universities too expensive for many to further themselves and not funding over 19s in further education. We live in a time where opportunities to tax the wealthy on frivolous things have been highlighted with real world monetary benefits, but ignored in budgets. We should not accept to live in a world where expensive enquiries held to measure a level of illegal activity by our press are being ignored lest they should upset paymasters. It is our responsibility to stand up to injustices wherever they exist. Failing to value and undertake the findings of the Leveson inquiry is an acceptance that the behaviour of the media over these instances of illegal invasion of privacy and lack of respect is the norm. It is not and should not be!

  120. Keith Wilson - reply

    Whose Bonkers!? A man decides to have an inquiry, hand picks another man to run it, then introduces the notion that the handpicked man may produce a bonkers report, uses £5m+ of other people’s money to pay for it all then in the face of public opinion decides the recommendations of the report are indeed bonkers! What a bloody cheek.

  121. Debbie - reply

    When has the excuse about what future changes might bring been reason to not do something now, on that basis we should stop all new legislation! The logic is lame at best and smacks of protection your friends and yourself at worst.

    David Cameron listen to the victims not the powerful perpetrators!

  122. Phil Anderson - reply

    Cameron’s rejection is simply determined by politics. He knows that if he rejects Leverson almost all the Press will give him enthusiastic support at the next election. He is simply one more politician crawling to placate the right wing owners of nearly all our papers. Principle has nothing to do with it.

  123. Chris Ley - reply

    Cameron stands isolated among political leaders and showing himself to be the weak poodle of the press many suspected

  124. George Kirkham - reply

    After what happened to the Mcganns and Dowlers ( who are not celebrities ) and did not put themselves into the public eye clearly the press cannot be trusted to self regulate. Why if visual media is regulated should the dying print media not be regulated!!!!

  125. Trevor Jones - reply

    Such unrestraind behaviour needs to be dealt with.

  126. Pav - reply

    We need a press subject to democratic control – not a “democracy” controlled by the press!

  127. Paul Buckler - reply

    We must act on the Leveson Report.The public should not be used a fodder just to sell news papers.

  128. Steven Day - reply

    Cameron has betrayed the public to suck up to certain newspapers.

  129. Rob - reply

    You are all engaging in a very dangerous game. The British Press is a fantastically independent institution that is a beacon in the world of global news. By implementing all of the proposals in this inquiry, you run the risk of losing that admirable independence. I am not supporting all of the dirty, illegal tricks and abhorrent acts of privacy intrusion, but, you are endangering the very thing that makes the press so vital to society, its freedom. Stop this ridiculous petition now.

  130. Terry Wise - reply

    This enquirery has cost many millions of pounds involved lots of people taken a long while to come up with a deliberation, all for what? Cameron wants to ignore recomendations, nothing to do with “A free press ” more to look after what is a Tory press, he desperatly needs their backing in the next election……….

  131. N M J Evans - reply

    If David Cameron were to implement Leveson in full he must be calculating that he would face a very rough ride from the Press at the next election. In that event, hopefully there will be some voices that will remind the electorate of the circumstances that dictated the need for the Leveson recommendations.
    N M J Evans

  132. DAMIEN WALSH - reply

    The politicians, in bed with their masters, again. Too afraid to represent the people who elected them in case their names and private lives appear in the press. They risk losing out on lucrative directorships and/or consultancys within the press industry unless they tow their masters’ line. Welcome to UK 2012 a once great nation now without a backbone. A judicial review was called for by David Cameron and thecoalition government – why will they not accept its recommendations? If you disagree with the governments stand then sign the petition and let your voice be heard.

  133. Terence Weldon - reply

    We all support and want to protect the freedom of the press – but no freedom is unrestricted. Others need to be protected too, from the victims of the press. The reason that press freedom matters, is that they should be free to report on matters “of public interest” – but that is not the same as all the salacious gossip the public is interested in.

    The “public interest” includes the public right to freedom from invasion of privacy, and a reasonable expectation that journalists should respect the law.

    The commission has showed clearly that repeated promises by the press to self- regulate have been unable to protect that public interest. The findings must be implemented in full.

    (and kudos to Clegg for showing some spine for once, in standing up to Cameron)

  134. alun roberts - reply

    Cameron is STILL cosying up to the press. My goodness, doesn’t he need them on his side, even if it only on this one issue where the press itself is so self serving? Let the victims, to whom he promised so much, go whistle in the wind. We need a decent, not morally reprehensible press. History and recent events prove that legislation is vital.

  135. Lawrie Marshall - reply

    Freedom of the Press is terribly important. But with freedom comes responsibility. The Press has proved itself to be utterly irresponsible, and David Cameron’s stance on this important issue leads me to question his motives. Given that Leveson’s detailed recommendations clearly avoid political regulation of the Press, DC’s position is frankly ludicrous. This is almost a visceral issue; DC needs to decide if he will align himself with the Press, or with the People. If he aligns with the Press, then the Conservative Party has lost me (and probably many others), at least whilst he remains at the top. This is supposed to be a democracy. Please act on Leveson, in full, no punches pulled.

  136. Lynne Hackett - reply

    The press have consistently abused their power and now some form of legal control is necessary. I do not believe that the types of reform Levenson has recommended will lead to a shackled press – if they have evidence, they can still print. But it will stop wilful speculation about people’s private lives and personalities, and the judgement of individuals without verification. Terrible stories of abuse of many people have arisen from this enquiry – and I expect there are many, many more untold stories. Cameron I feel is defending his powerful and rich friends in the Media – after all he courted these people for his own gain in the election – he wasn’t alone in this but it is disturbing to see revealed the extent of collusion between senior politicians and what I have long regarded as a tainted and partisan press.

  137. Terry Peck - reply

    Cameron has clearly demonstrated which side of the fence he sits on. His stance flies in the face of reason and common sense, not to mention the electorate at large. This man is clearly spawn of the devil.

  138. ann williams - reply

    the press have shown they can’t be trusted to regulate themselves – there has to be a legal penalty as a last resort. Ordinary people can’t afford to sue them

  139. Deepak - reply

    No excuses please, there was no point of an enquiry if there was no attention to fulfil its recommendations.Mr Cameron, your election win is not a mandate to ignore public demands!

  140. Russell Cox - reply

    Mr Cameron should implement the Leveson Report in full.

    When the Press hounds ordinary people with impunity and does not follow its own self regulation then the Leveson proposals are essential in protecting the public from the worst excesses of the Press.

    An important part of the new arrangements must be an effective public interest defence. We must ensure that scandals e.g. MPs expenses, the cosy relationships between the Government and the media continue to be exposed in the future. The public interest defence should be such that journalists can be confident of its protection and will be able to pursue the bad guys as they do now.

  141. Brian Riley - reply

    Leveson must be implemented in full. Without some statutory threat some press elements will inevitably rampage again.

  142. alan yates - reply

    this report was instigated by the prime minister using the best brains in our society’ and at great cost to the tax payer.
    why does he now reject the honesty, truth, and integrity of this report.
    i am alright jack, i will soon be president of europe sounds like his reply
    bring on ukip

  143. Rob Heggie - reply

    The press does not care about the public interest, their aim is to sell newspapers and thus increase advertising revenue and to these ends will stoop to anything.

  144. marion dovey - reply

    Why have a lengthy expert enquiry then veto it?

  145. John Cribb - reply

    It is important to maintain a free press but equally important to control malicious practices that may not actually transgress a law. I believe the Leveson recommendations have got the balance about right. If media ownership can also be controlled that will be a bonus.

  146. Patrick Haseldine - reply

    Message for David Cameron: “You’re bonkers if you don’t implement the Leveson recommendations in FULL!”

  147. Gordon Watkins. - reply

    We now wonder why Cameron set up the enquirey and decided to ignore it he must have wasted.millions of pounds.

  148. Gordon Mitchell - reply

    Leveson’s recommendations must be implemented and it is high time that some politicians stopped being in the pockets of the press. Why spend so much on the inquiry and then not implement its findings? Its like ordering an expensive meal at a Michelin starred restaurant and then not eating it!

  149. David Horgan - reply

    I fully agree with the Leverson recommendations and they should be implemented in full. I am so frustrated by the Governments refusal to just get on and deal with this, a view that is shared by all my friends and colleagues. The Tories will do themselves no good by taking this approach.

  150. Gordon Watkins. - reply

    Cameron set up the leveson enquiry and now does not want to implement it I wonder how much it cost.I think it should be implemented in full.

  151. Fiona dick - reply

    It’s no greater regulation than tv channels already have so what’s the problem

  152. Steve Middleton - reply

    Cameron must try,,,ok I know its difficult, develop a backbone.

  153. David Callam - reply

    Most people in Britain get their news from television or radio, all of which – including those owned by Murdoch – are licensed and regulated.
    What is consistently the most trusted source for news? It’s television and radio. Who breaks the really important stories in this country? Mostly it’s television and radio.
    Do we need a free press? No. The press is in terminal decline. Local newspapers are becoming rarer by the week. And national papers will soon follow suit, unless they continue to be subsidised by rich egotists who see them as a way of exerting undue influence on government.
    Legislate and be damned Mr Cameron; you have far more to fear from an angry electorate than you have from your pal Rupert and his cronies.

  154. Gordon - reply

    Cameron’s only interest is in political gain. He doesn’t care a jot moral and social justice

    • Gordon - reply

      Please amend to “about moral or social justice”

  155. Simon Rose - reply

    ‘Freedom of the press’, as far as the mass circulation papers go, means freedom to attract readers with sensational and often inaccurate stories and freedom to promote their owner’s political views. Do the BBC, ITV and other TV channels lack freedom? They are certainly very limited in what they broadcast, but this has nothing to do with Ofcom and everything to do with money.

  156. Jonathan Moses - reply

    Expert enquiry. Expert recommendations.

  157. Bob Whitehouse - reply

    The media have had their chance to change but have failed. Legislation is required to regulate them. Once again Cameron has shown no back bone in accepting all Leverson’s recommendations . What a wimp of a PM we have. Bowing to his loyal Tory friends. We do not need gutter press in this Country. It’s cost about 40 million pounds for leverson which Cameron set up and now he’ completely refusing to accept the recommendations .

  158. david simpson - reply

    Leveson should be implemented in full but Cameron will kick it into the long grass. I have written to my MP Nick Boles but it will like talking to a brick wall as he dare not oppose his boss. He is the ultimate Tory toady

  159. Roy Pearson-Brown - reply

    Everyone is entitled to privacy, snooping just to sell papers is not in anyone’s interest!

  160. Michael - reply

    If Mr Cameron doesn’t implement the report in full then what was the point of the Leverson Enquiry in the first place. Eight months work at what cost just for Mr Cameron to reject it. He never
    ever listens to anyone. We should listen to Leverson and not Cameron. He has totally lost his way. Look at the by elections. The Conservatives have no chance of being re-elected. Good
    riddence

  161. Dickie - reply

    I’ve signed the petition. I’m hoping that it’s only open to UK IP addresses otherwise it will seem a bit illegitimate. Can somebody clarify that?

  162. JIm Hastie - reply

    You don’t appoint a trusted High Court judge to make recommendations and then ignore the central one! Mr Cameron, bring the legislation forward NOW.

  163. Chas - reply

    I used to love and trust newspapers 30 years ago. Still consider some journalists as professionals. Sadly too few good, honourable ones left. We must now enter the last chance saloon and drag all the newspapers out. We must implement Levison, not a perfect answer but the press brought this on themselves

  164. Bob Andrews - reply

    I don’t understand the press hysteria! As long as they keep to what they promise when they sign the contract to ‘behave’ themselves, why would any other body need to intervene. The implication of the hysteria being shown, is that they know they intend to go back on their promises. And anyway no current editors or politicians should be allowed anywhere near the new organisation to take the place of the PCC. Lets have a full-blown debate in Parliament when we reach 100,000 by lunchtime tomorrow!! And bring the new system in by may next year!

  165. David Wright - reply

    What is the point of commissioning an inquiry and then ignoring the findings. This inquiry cost us tax payers much more than we can afford and yet still Cameron ignores the recommendations. Stop wasting our money and ignoring our demands. You work for us, now start doing your job boy.

  166. Jan Russell - reply

    About time this government listens to the people who elected them. Implement the Leveson recommendations, simple.

  167. Dr Brian Stonebridge - reply

    The Leveson proposal is a brilliant resolution of a seemingly insoluble problem.

  168. Mark Russell - reply

    Don’t cave in to Murdoch!

  169. Brian Wilson - reply

    Leveson didn’t ask for much. Full implementation is the minimum that’s required Mr Cameron.

  170. richard snell - reply

    I agree with prof Tulloch. How cameron had the effrontory to pontificate in the house on the day 2 of his cronies were charged in court with offences related to this enquiry I do not know

  171. Peter Rose - reply

    Leveson was measured in his report and statement on television. He summarised the problem and came up with a solution backed by evidence.We don’t want a regulator ruled by the Press or politicians- It has to be independant- perhaps backed by judges, but certainly backed by legislation which does not have to remove the freedom of the press TO TELL THE TRUTH. Llibels and made up nonsense would result in fines which would be immediate and rather like a small claims court- simple to exercise and at no cost to complainant if proved correct.

  172. W. Hichens - reply

    What is proposed is not censorship or that printing the truth will
    attract action, legal or otherwise

  173. Mick - reply

    Maybe we should be asking why Cameron wont back it, maybe there should be a huge vote of no confidence, after all they are supposed to be acting on our behalf. the press have had far to many chances to self regulate, gut press is very apt, impliment all the recomendations and stop this pantomime, but sure as eggs are eggs you can bet the’ll be loop holes big enough to get a prime minister through sideways, AHHHHHHHHHHH

    Mick

  174. anthony fallon - reply

    you just cant trust a politition, specially a tory! he said NHs safe in our hands, watch this space!

  175. David Burke - reply

    Modern professional politicians are not interested in the good of the people, just in their own self-interest so why does it surprise us that they are looking after their press friends who help to get them elected.

  176. Caroline nku - reply

    The prime minister and his cronies don’t care about the Victims. The inquiry would be a farce if the Recommendations are not implemented. If he really cares about what the Dowler, McCann to name a few- family went through, he will for once, listen to the people.

  177. DAMIEN WALSH - reply

    why has my comment not been accepted? what moderation, by whom?

  178. Theresa Williams - reply

    The suggestion of an erosion in the freedom of speech, should the Leveson findings be implemented in full, is completely devoid of intellectual content. It just doesn’t stack up.The PM is playing to the gallery of the populist press because he called for an inquiry and now he doesn’t like the findings of the inquiry. Weak leadership…shallow!!

  179. arthur francis - reply

    IMPLEMENT LEVESON RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL

  180. Margaret Whittaker - reply

    Cameron the party is over its time for you to leave

  181. J.Kessling - reply

    Inquiry result sound sensible and fair deserves full implementation otherwise murky behaviour and shady deals will again prevail

  182. T Kus - reply

    Be silent on this issue if you wish but only you are sure that the press will never intrude in your life!
    The Leveson recommendations and in fact the whole “independent” inquiry they are based on are worthless if politicians can ignore them at will.

  183. Carol Russell - reply

    In what way exactly is David Cameron a better judge in this matter than Lord Leveson?

  184. Barrie Allen - reply

    I’m a Tory voter, but believe that Cameron has made a catastrophic error of judgement which will hit him at the next election.

  185. Kate - reply

    After 7 attempts at self-regulation which have all failed, isn’t it interesting that it is only the press (and those with a vested interest in it) who are bleating on about how implementing the Leveson recommendations pose a threat to ‘freedom of the press’. Statutory underpinning, to my understanding, will have no affect on ‘freedom of the press’ but will have an affect on their freedom to print false and salacious lies about people – and yet they continue to throw the ‘press freedom’ red herring at us in the hope that we’ll all back off. It seems that it’s worked with Mr Cameron who must pander to his buddies as he wants support for his next election…but sorry guys – it seems that an increasing number of the general population don’t agree.

  186. eddie - reply

    So Cameron has come out. In the pockets of the press. He will get lots of LOL texts now. What a cowardly hypocrite

  187. E J Houghton - reply

    Innocent people need to be protected from the gutter press.
    No-one’s picture or portrait should be reproduced in print without written permission from the person photographed.
    Compensation for unauthorised publication to begin at £1million.

  188. M. R. Porter - reply

    Now we have television & the internet, the newspaper industry is no longer capable of delivering news fast enough. As the press no longer is the main delivery mechanism for news, it should not enjoy any special protection.

  189. Claire Cuddihy - reply

    Too much hurt has been caused and lives ruined (not to mention the amount of money spent) to let this report go to waste. Please, if you’ve got an ounce of integrity, implement the recommendations.

  190. Peter Barclay - reply

    Clean the filth up!

  191. M. Hopkins - reply

    The Government has no credibility in making this decision. The relationship between politicians and individuals involved with this matter make their independance and objectivity highly dubious.

  192. Ruby Hernandez - reply

    David Cameron, has betrayed everyone of us, stand together and give your whole hearted support for the hacked off campaign,it’s impossible to trust Cameron,he is still in the
    Pocket of the Murdoch’s,all he cares about are his links to Rebekah Brooks & Co
    I can only hope it comes to pass that the real truth of Cameron’s links dealings comes to light..

  193. Kevin - reply

    Does the government pay attention to independent petitions ?
    There’s also one on direct.gov that’s only at about 3,000 names.

  194. N Ahmad - reply

    Leveson report recommendations,unfortunately, have become a necessity.

  195. Beverley Mills - reply

    Why are the press being asked to set up an independent regulatory body .How can that be independent?

  196. Paul - reply

    History has demonstrated that self regulation an no regulation are the same thing. Now is the time to act to stop many more lives being ruined by gutter press scribblers.

  197. Philip tether - reply

    No, no, no. The desire to control and fetter the press is authoritarian and dangerous. Keep the state out out of any form of press control and regulation. There are already legal remedies for all the problems encountered. If these proposals had been in place The telegraph would never have blown the MPs expenses story.

  198. Doreen Stevenson - reply

    Why waste money on an enquiry if you are going to ignore the results??

  199. mike baker - reply

    would have expected nothing different from Tories too much self interest.

  200. Bill Erskine - reply

    I demand legislation !

  201. adejare - reply

    Who would be surprised at Cameron’s attitude? He cannot be trusted with morality.

  202. Michael Keen - reply

    Trust Leveson.

  203. Wendy Rochefort - reply

    Leveson will not prevent free speech, it will promote honest free speech.

    Unlike Cameron who’s about-turn can only be to protect his own interests and those of his crones

  204. Michael Keen - reply

    Don’t let Cameron “back-slide” on his original promise to implement Leveson.

  205. Colin Ward - reply

    Cameron warned against a “Slippery Slope”—he’s quite an expert on “Slippery” actually

  206. Frank Malton - reply

    This is about the press and there excess. They’ve had there chance. This is about protecting the ordinary citizen. I want a free press also, implementing Leveson, wont change that.

  207. Alisom Ball - reply

    Ensuring that innocent people do not have their lives and griefs intruded upon is not a curtailing of free speech, Mr Cameron.

  208. Charles Lawson - reply

    Back Leveson!

  209. Ilan - NW London - reply

    I am a Tory through and through. Labour mismanaged the economy, raided our pensions and played the biggest political role in the country’s dire predicament. However, Cameron’s last minute backtracking is disappointing and embarrassing. UK banks failed to self-regulate and look at the layers of government control that have been imposed since. Press self-regulation has not worked – it has taken an unacceptable toll on peoples’ lives and our press’ credibility.

    This isn’t a question of ‘conservative’ ideology, but humanist ethics. I’m sorry Dave, but enough is enough.

  210. Gordon Ferguson - reply

    Has to be implemented in full

  211. Michele McCabe - reply

    Cameron is a cop-out, as expected.

  212. Matt - reply

    Go on Dave, you know you want to!

  213. ANTHONY MILTON - reply

    CAMERON AS USUAL IS WRONG. MAKE HIM PAY OUT OF HIS OWN MONEY, ALONG WITH OSBORNE, HAGUE AND HAMMOND, ONLY IN IT TO SAVE HIS FRIENDS THE BROOKS [HUSBAND AND WIFE].

  214. david l evans hafod llanddew brecon ld3 9sy - reply

    i agree that the leveston report should be implemented in full

  215. F.C. Washer - reply

    Once more, “Yesterday’s Boy” Cameron has shown the shallowness of his leadership. Today a petition, soon a general election!

  216. Richard Priday - reply

    What did you expect from Cameron

  217. Kelly - reply

    Support Leveson’s recommendations.

  218. John - reply

    Implement Leveson now or lose hundreds of thousands of votes

  219. Iain Macnee - reply

    Leveson report must not be allowed to be watered down by clever political side-stepping and trickery.

  220. Donald Brodie - reply

    Cameron keep to your promise. Leveson’s report is very reasonable & you promised to comply with such a report.

  221. Steven Vincent - reply

    Everyone here says ‘Leveson must be implemented’, indeed the petition title starts ‘Leveson has announced his recommendations. The victims of press abuses want them implemented…’. I have a number of problems with this:
    1) Leveson gave underlying principles of a new regulatory system for the press but not one line of his report gives ANY detail as to what that would entail – indeed he says “It’s now over to the politicians”. Therefore you must see that there is enormous scope for those said politicians to ‘gold plate’ (that is putting it politely) the statutory underpinning Leveson recommends.
    2) Why should we take Leveson at his word? Afterall, he basically said the police and politicians were blameless in this. Does anyone seriously believe that? The police were and are corrupt and after hearing the evidence he did – hundreds of meetings between officers and press at all levels, back handers, tip-offs (add the smear campaign run in the aftermath of Hilsborough) – to come to the conclusion he did suggests protection of the establishment was a key objective. Ditto for the politicians.
    3) The role of Ofcom – this is a body which has been instructed to investigate companies involved in broadcast media issues AT THE ORDER of government. The option will be there for the government of the day to instruct it to do so of press companies if the Leveson recommendations are implemented in full as people here suggest.
    4) Why should the victims dictate the legislative response to these matters? In no other area – including those much worse than press intrusion, such as murder, rape, child abuse – is this the case. And I would bet my house that the politicians calling for Leveson to be implemented ‘in full’ “for the victims” would give short shrift to the families of murderers calling for a return of the death penalty or of children sexually abused who called for castration of the perpetrators.
    This last point – politicians so readily backing these recommendations – really should ring alarm bells with everyone on here who has signed this petition.

    • Nigel - reply

      On your last point (and I accept that Leveson has, to a greater extent than most recognise – done more than he should have done to protect the establishment), “why should victims dictate the legislative response to these matters”, the simple response to that is that they aren’t. The plight of the victims is a public issue, and no-one is being coerced into signing this petition, or expressing the opinion that our press is seriously out of control and its institutional abuses need to be addressed. If anyone is “dictating the legislative response” (wouldn’t that be something) it is the body of people in this country expressing their outrage at the state of our press, and the revelations concerning the victims have been the catalyst to that reaction. I rather resent the notion that the many thousand voting here are not regarded by you as independent or significant voices in their own right.

      Furthermore, with regard to your slightly hysterical points about the death penalty and the castration of children, you might want to consider that the formula you are offering quite simply states that politicians should never listen to the public – about anything – ever – something which, on reflection, might perhaps cause you some difficulties if you believe in democracy.

    • Bob Andrews - reply

      After such a negative ‘essay’ presumably your answer is – do nothing! carry on chaps!!
      With ‘friends like you’ who needs enemies! You have offered absolutely nothing as an alternative!

    • david simpson - reply

      Why waste your time posting on here if you disagree, you obviously will not sign the petition so go away

  222. Will Menzies - reply

    Millie’s Law. Enact it now.

  223. Thomas burt - reply

    I would welcome a change

  224. Bob Corke - reply

    They’ve imposed independent Commissioners on the police. The press should be similarly treated.

  225. Chris Dalziel - reply

    The enquiry was called for and it’s completely disgraceful to ignore the outcome. The press have a track record of shocking means to get a story. Please share the petition with your friends and ask them if it can be signed!

  226. Sean Copley - reply

    Why should we implement the Leveson recommendations? The moment we start down that road we are headed for censorship, the tool of the dictator.

  227. Wayne Bellamy - reply

    Why pay for an enquiry if you are not going to adopt the recommendations it makes?

  228. John - reply

    I received a copy of the Sun in the Northern General Hospital the morning after the Hilsborough disaster. I’d had a rough night, imagine how I and the rest of the ward felt on reading that headline. Every Liverpool fan in the crowd was smeared by the allegations in that paper.
    Don’t let it happen again .

  229. Karin - reply

    Cameron – get real – act on the findings

  230. Alex - reply

    Freedom of the press does not mean irresponsible, ill informed and unaccountable behaviour that damages people’s lives and impinges on their individual freedom and integrity.

  231. Michael Mason - reply

    The basic problem here is that newspapers are for profit. No issue with that, but on past, bitter experience for some, self regulation goes out of the window because the “regulators” are too near to the (financial) action.
    Good and brave investigative journalism has served the country well and must continue. However a culture must be created where emerging professional journalists can operate within a code of ethical standards, within a “College” where (poor) conduct can be challenged and the ultimate sanction of removal from a register can be taken. But there has to be a “Firewall” between the industry and those responsible for scrutinizing and ensuring excellent professional standards. In my opinion there is nothing to fear from this approach that would see those in society needing to be bought to book still having their collars felt as a result of good journalism

  232. roger975tiger@gmail.com - reply

    Leveson recommendations should be implemented in full Mr Cameron

  233. SIR DANIEL GRIMALDI FRSA - reply

    The corruption scandal and dishonesty within the British press police and politics poses a serious canker deeply rooted in British society that has destroyed the lives of many and not just the rich and famous, but also those who can never through lack of privilege and wealth get justice through the courts against a vicious media due to inter alia a dysfunctional legal system. Lord Justice Leveson has proffered proposals that are welcome indeed, but his exhoneration of the police in all this is for many a bitter pill to swallow given their close ties to certain media personalities for pecuniary gain. It is no wonder that they get their wires crossed and prove that they are not the voice of reason or the bastions of truth. The public have been ill served for decades by the duplicity and hubris of those like David Cameron who just want to preserve the status quo.

    • SIR DANIEL GRIMALDI FRSA - reply

      David Cameron having used public money like an eccentric wastrel has betrayed the British public by treating the Leveson report as a take it or leave it option. He wants to leave the press to wallow in its old wicked ways in the delusional precept that self regulation of the press is a satisfactory arrangement when a robust independent regulatory process underpinned and enshrined in law would act as a bulwark against those political and media elements that wish to behave like enemies of progress. If self regulation was any good the dishonesty duplicity, hubris and breaches of Human Rights and Civil Rights that the press, the media and the police with their culture of denial indulge in would have been the exception rather than the norm. I support fully what Actor Hugh Grant has stated about the Leveson report and find it totally abhorent the bizarre and strange quirks from the Tories that now wish to undermine the cogency of Lord Leveson’s recommendations to promote the same old stale arguments to preserve the status quo.

  234. Mike Leake - reply

    First time in my life I have signed a petition. £40m for the answer from a top judge to be ignored by an arrogant ‘know’s who his mates are’ once again illustrates the contempt Cameroon (sic) has for citizens of his country. The pompousity astounds me, where is respect even for his own office?

  235. Clive Rider - reply

    The press need have no fear of Levison’s implementation. All it has to do is to start telling the truth and behaving with honesty. Is that too much to ask? Probably…

  236. charles merrett - reply

    Back Leveson

  237. David Soutter - reply

    Who funds Hacked Off ??

  238. Dr. N. Allison - reply

    Implement Leveson

  239. Alison - reply

    Steven, I was starting to think I was the only one with mis givings about regulating the press. We need good, investigative journalism without fear and this is the first step to censorship.

    • Martin Colclough - reply

      Alison says we need “…investigative journalism without fear”. yhe UK does nned this but it has not got such jorunalism in 2012. Instead it has the Murdoch dominated tabloids along with the narrow xenophobia of the Express and the Mail. In broadsheets it has more quality but most of these seem prepared to ignore voluntary codes when they feel it is in the interesrs of thir owners. Leveson is not a vehicle for Press censorship the report recomends a New voluntary code of conduct drawn up by Newspaper editors BUT with statutory body capable of enforcing adherence to the code if a Paper in futrue chooses to ignore its rules -as occurs many times with the current Press Comission Code.
      Why is Ministerial powers on e.g detention without trial or even charges under control orders felt by this Govt. to be acceptable but Parl regualtion of Press adherence to rules not so?

  240. Roger Speck - reply

    Totally disgusted with Cameron after committing our money not to impliment the findings of the enquiry

  241. Colin Brown - reply

    Camerson’s refusal to sign shows clearly how the Tories are still in the pockets of the press barons. Leveson’s recommendations should be adopted in full without delay.

  242. CrankyAcid - reply

    Steven Vincent is right. The Police have got off lightly and so have the public.

    Lowlife jurno’s respond to one thing, money. The money is in sales and the sales go up when the public sees a ‘good’ bit of gossip. Think back to the death of Diana. All the wailing and shouting about paps on motorbikes yet those making the greatest fuss were the same ones buying anything with her picture on it. You get the press you deserve.

    There are laws that have been broken and enforcing them, with stiff financial and custodial penalties, is all that is required. This hasn’t worked for one reason, the police haven’t enforced it because they had their own agenda. Leveson hasn’t addressed this enough to make a blanket support like this possible.

    I am not anti police, I’m certainly no fan of Cameron, and I definately am not condoning the truly awful treatment of innocents by the media but restrictions on a free press, however arms length from politicians it appears, is a truly dangerous path to follow. For once ‘slippery slope’ could be a real possibility. Just because we are currently enjoying a relatively free and democratic State does not guarantee this will be the case forever.

    All that is needed is strong enforcement of existing laws and an agreed right to redress for those abused. If you find yourself front page ‘news’ unfairly then your redress should be full front page apology and explanation (not small on page 13), adequate financial compensation and arrest of those responsible if their information or motivation was illegal. If this is all Leveson is about then it has my support but it is not clear that it is.

    Remember, millions of people have given their lives over the centuries to create and preserve this freedom.

  243. John Malet-Bates - reply

    ‘Dave’ Cameron spends too much time on tv and making statements in Parliament and elsewhere that display erroneous knee-jerk reaction to issues from which he could well stand back for a while as prime ministers wisely did before the intrusive telly era. We seldom hear from ministers, most often from ‘Dave’. Is the office of Prime Minister now irreparably devalued by constant exposure and ill-advised reactions as from this man ? His reported statement on Leveson has come rather too quickly for a matter that should be most carefully delivered to an interested public – and press. It smacks of a position of party (not just the Conservatives by the way) that knows it will need press barons’ support come the election. If there is a problem reference Human Rights legislation, all the more reason to wait, assess properly, maybe EVEN revert to L.J.Leveson to sort it out. But without press manipulation of its chosen aspects from the inquiry report.

  244. Paul Healy - reply

    Seems the worst has come from Even the “Responsible” Press see vile two page cartoon in today’s Independent on Sunday,This could have come from the worst of the Murdoch titles.
    The Press cannot be trusted to self regulate,legislation is essential

  245. Andrew Ackroyd - reply

    Not implementing the report would be like giving prisoners keys to the Jail. The press barons have shown they only seek money and can never be trusted, so they should be policed by a completely independent body, one that has teeth and isn’t afraid to use them.

  246. paul matthams - reply

    We now know where Cameron’s priorities lie so everybody please sign this petition.

    • Margaret Gregory - reply

      Why was this report set up at extortionate cost to the tax payer, if it is not going to be implemented in full. The Prime Minister said that as long as it was not “bonkers” he would go ahead with the recommendations,so he must think it is bonkers. The victims in the said cases have suffered real trauma and grief, some after loss of Family members,which does not bear thinking about,but their wishes and feelings are not being taken into account.
      This Government needs to come down to grass roots level,and appreciate that the people of this Country pay their wages and the idea is they also represent all of us.Mr Cameron is too close to the Press Barons and their cohorts,and we all wonder what he has to be afraid of !!!!!!
      It is shameful and shambolic,just like all the Coalition Government,omnishambles at its worst.
      Maybe he should get on Rebeka’s horse and ride off into the sun set .

  247. Anthony Brooks - reply

    The Leveson report must be implemented in full. The press cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. It is now up to the Government who have a duty of care and must legislate to protect the population from the ravages of irresponsible journalism.

  248. Donald Stewart - reply

    The press have already shown that it incapable of self-regulation only legislation will provide the teeth needed to curb irresponsible journalism

  249. Brian Carthy - reply

    I am disgusted with Cameron.

  250. Mrs G Wood - reply

    Please implement Leveson

    • Mrs G Wood - reply

      Please ensure that the findings of the Leveson enquiry are implemented

  251. Jamie Johnston - reply

    We must implement something tangible from Leveson otherwise it is just a very costly white wash.

  252. Nicci - reply

    congratulations and thankyou

  253. John Gill - reply

    This is without doubt one of the most important issues to arise surrounding our democracy since the fight against totalitarianism during the last century. Freedom of the Press remains one of the single most important principles of a free and open democracy.

    It has become clear however; that the biggest threat to the Freedom of the Press and therefore to our democracy at this moment in time is not the regulation of the press by an independent authority backed up by legislation. Nor is it journalistic ethics as such.
    The danger comes from a small band of unelected people who hold a massive amount of power who, when judged by their actions, often use them in a dangerously undemocratic manner.

    I am of course talking about the editors and owners of the newspapers, those individuals who are making the most noise about the evils of regulation right now because they so obviously have the most to lose from it.

    These are the people who dictate what is contained in the papers the public read; who set the agenda and who allow or even encourage journalistic fact to meld with biased comment in whatever way best suites their political agenda. These are the individuals who hold the power over the journalists themselves, who set the standards expected in the ‘real’ world of journalism and decide what news is important and what is not by their own biased standards. And in the end these are the people responsible for the poison flowing so visible through our press and our body politic.

    So when we talk of the regulation of the press, we should not be involving ourselves in the simple black and white argument of regulation versus non-regulation, saving journalism versus the right to privacy, we should be looking far more closely at the subtitles involved in this complicated issue. Instead we should look to rescuing the positive elements of journalism that are so desirable in a modern, liberal representative democracy whilst saying ‘no’ to the dangerous control exercised over the ethics of journalism as represented by the editors and owners.

    To that end, regulation of the press, whilst a very dangerous step, is necessary, indeed essential. Not to prevent good journalism but to protect both the public and the ethical journalist from the tyranny of the editor, the owner and their shared political agendas.
    Regulation of the press should not be about regulation of journalism, but regulation of the dangerous biases in journalism represented by financial and political considerations unconnected with reporting the news in a fair and balanced manner.

    As with all attempts to stem change throughout history, the editors, owners and their apologists claim that whilst theirs’ is an imperfect system, it remains too important to lose and cannot be changed for the better. And this is where they are so wrong. Freedom of the Press is indeed too important to lose to anybody however; the fact it is an imperfect system demands change and the essential argument is who should be the architect of that change; the corrupting editors and owners or the people themselves, through their elected representatives, other elements of civil society and indeed their own commercial choices?

    I know who I would trust…

  254. spratley David - reply

    English living in Paris I agree
    David Spratley

    • spratley David - reply

      I agree David

  255. Steve Ward - reply

    Yet again Cameron is failing to address the problem, maybe it’s because he is a part of the problem. How can he fail so many people by not fully implementing the report. What he is saying is, the report has been a waste of time & money. Shame on him!!

  256. kanapathiar satkunam - reply

    I totally agree that there should be control over the press and other media
    regarding publications which affects innocent people and particularly
    VICTIMS.
    thanks

  257. dave white - reply

    Give the British Press their freedom ????? They had their freedom and look what they did with it !!!!!

  258. Harry Crawford - reply

    Implement the Leveson recommendations in full

  259. Annie - reply

    I too am disgusted but more than that people need to be fully aware of what this government is doing to marginalise the sick and disabled through lies spread by the press leading to campaigns against scroungers eg welfare claimants and hate crime directed towards the disabled.

  260. R HOWLETT - reply

    Could the fact that Cameron is reluctant to implement the recommendations have anything to do with donations given to the Tory Party?

  261. ethel merrett - reply

    Press incapable of regulating thrmselves – back Leveson

  262. Referee - reply

    @Steven Vincent
    “And I would bet my house that the politicians calling for Leveson to be implemented ‘in full’ “for the victims” would give short shrift to the families of murderers calling for a return of the death penalty”
    Why would the families of murderers be calling for a return of the death penalty? Rather than ringing alarm bells, some of your confused thinking on here reassures me that in signing the petition I have done the right thing.

  263. Barry Coulthard - reply

    Press freedom.What about the freedom of innocent people to live their lives free of lies and scandal?Come on Cameron don’t be a wimp implement the report in full.

  264. Rosemary - reply

    The Press was instumental in killing Princess Diana, and yet 15 years later they are still persecuting innocent people. Celebrity or personal tragedy does not give the Press/Media the right to intrude into people’s lives or to act outside the rules/laws of our culture. The Press/Media has a duty to give balanced reporting and this has not been happening. Had the Press learned from Princess Diana and how her life was tragically ended we would not be in this position today, but they just went on and perpetrated more wrongdoing. The Press/Media has therefore shown that as an industry it is unable to self-regulate, and must face the consequences. My solution is never to buy a newspaper, if more people did this the Newspapers would be regulated by the readers.
    I challenge everyone to not buy a Newspaper on 5th December 2012 to make their protest directly to those Barons who perpetrated this wrongdoing.

  265. Ian Pyper - reply

    If the press don’t want to implement the Leveson Enquiry and David Cameron doesn’t want to see it implemented, then I’d say that they’re two reasons to push for it to happen! Cameron instigated the enquiry and should stand 100% behind its findings – I’m suspicious of his motives if he doesn’t agree to it!

  266. Chrissie - reply

    These are just ideas from someone who has had to deal with the rat pack before phone hacking scandal.
    Personal opinion on what could be done to protect PUBLIC (not Public servants in course of their day to day job i.e. Politicians, Police, Civil Servants etc. but their personal lives must come under the title of being a member of the Public), from press intrusion.
    What is really necessary is to stop deliberate untruths, speculation and exaggeration of the truth before any story goes into public domain not just the redress after the damage has been done.
    1. Set up a 24hr telephone hotline at all regional levels, one in every county, direct to a media lawyer or judge willing to take part in a funded scheme paid for by the media barons and legal aid scheme, so the public has direct contact to get an immediate stop on press intrusion at private homes, places of work, on constant telephone calls etc.etc.
    Police called by lawyer/judge to remove the media using law of harassment if they do not leave voluntarily. All media removed, including tv cameras, photographers and reporters if this is what person beimg harassed wants.
    2. This gives person/people being harassed time to think and to decide if they want to give the media a story, details of their personal lives etc. Media should carry calling cards to give to person so they can be contacted when person ready to do so.
    3. The media should accept that it is the publics choice if they want the media to have a story or not. It is the publics right to decide which media outlet, specific newspaper, tv broadcaster gets the story or not. It is not the medias choice for them to decide they are going to cover the story like it or not.
    4. If media decide they will write the story/news item without permission from person involved then they pay the consequences for their actions through the courts or by a cheaper redress system, which must be set in stone via the law of the land. Human rights law, defamation laws, libel laws, harassment laws could all be included.
    5. If media decides the story is too important to leave it for a few days due to pressure of 24hr news then they have to make a declaration to the lawyer/judge as to what the urgency was and if it was unreasonable to allow the public to make them wait for accurate details for their story.
    6. Ofcom must be involved because otherwise the broadcasters have an advantage over the print media/online newspapers. Broadcasters would not come under the same rules as set out for print media unless Ofcom is involved.

  267. Reg Barritt - reply

    It makes me extremely angry to read the article posted below as found on the Oldham Chronicle’s website (and a number of other local papers with vested interest)this week. Why?

    When I submitted to the Leveson Inquiry a summary of the failures of the local press and LA media that I have encountered I was told in reply that consideration of this matter was not part of the remit of this inquiry, and I was not called before the enquiry and the matters I raised were not investigated in any way.

    That being the case, and appreciating there are some serious matters at the national level that had to be addressed (such as the way the Millie Dowler issue was dealt with) you will understand my jaundiced view of the time spent by Lord Leveson doing little more as far as I judge it than fawning over the sometimes fatuous problems of various celebrities who oft and habitually seek publicity and controversy as oxygen to their careers while at the same time the inquiry has neglected the many serious local press failings in dealing with those making serious local representations over serious local issues in face of a somewhat local closed shop of interest between an LA and the local press.

    Whatever Lord Leveson has achieved it has largely failed me and the many like me who week in week out find that genuine fair representation on these serious local matters as submitted to our papers fails to get coverage or is subject of biased and prejudicial treatment. how on earth can he comment on the worthiness of the loacl press when he has not investigated it?

    The comment posted below on that Oldham Chronicle website supports the point I am making and further serves to bring into serious question any satisfaction Lord Leveson’s report expresses with the behaviour of local press.

    Of course Leveson praises local newspapers, they haven’t the clout to carry out investigative work into cheating politicians, celebrities and – judges. Local press don’t rock the boat with scandal but often have a cosy relationship with local dignitaries and exist by reporting trivia and local issues without any worry of comebacks. I only hope Cameron sticks to his word and doesn’t bring in a statute law regulating the press or we’ll all be stuffed by ‘expenses’ cheating politicians.

    By Road Rocket @ 29/11/2012 19:15:28

    Reg Barritt

    99 HARTINGTON STREET

    CHESTER CH4 7BP

    01244 680850

    Leveson praises local newspapers

    OLDHAM CHRONICLE

    Date published: 29 November 2012

    Lord Justice Leveson has praised local newspapers in his report into the industry, saying they were not affected by the issues surrounding ethics which were raised.

    In his inquiry report published today, he singled out the local press for praise saying its contribution to local life was “truly without parallel”.

    Lord Justice Leveson said that while complaints about accuracy and other issues were made about regional titles, the criticisms of the press culture raised at the inquiry did not affect them.

    He also called for urgent action by the government to help safeguard regional newspapers after highlighting the declines in revenues they have faced.

    The judge highlighted the struggle for survival faced by many local titles, saying “their demise would be a huge setback for communities”.

    His report said: “In relation to regional and local newspapers, I do not make a specific recommendation but I suggest that the Government should look urgently as what action it might be able take to help safeguard the ongoing viability of this much valued and important part of the British press.

    “It is clear to me that local, high-quality and trusted newspapers are good for our communities, our identity and our democracy and play an important social role.”

    He said there was “no simple solution” to the issue but this did not make it any less urgent.

    The judge added that the model of regulation proposed in his report ”should not provide an added burden to the regional and local press”.

    In his executive summary he said: “As to the commercial problems facing newspapers, I must make a special point about Britain’s regional newspapers. In one sense, they are less affected by the global availability of the biggest news stories but their contribution to local life is truly without parallel.

    “Supported by advertisements (and, in particular, local property, employment, motor and personal), this source of income is increasingly migrating to the internet; local councils are producing local newsletters and therefore making less use of their local papers.

  268. Glynis Gawley - reply

    Can some one explain what “freedom of the press”means and why it is such a sacred idea?
    I thought the only person who had this freedom was the one who owned the printing press. With new forms of mass communication this freedom will be for all of us who own a computer. Even more need to regulate those who have little regard for their fellow human beings.

  269. Michael McCarthy - reply

    We also need to examine the ownership of the press. It’s not acceptable for big media corporations and wealthy proprietors to be empowered to propagate right-wing attitudes merely because they have accumulated large piles of wealth and corresponding political opinions.

    A democratic solution would be to require all large media operations to be transformed into co-ops. Let the readers decide the political line of their newspaper of choice by buying a £1 share and casting a one-person-one-vote ballot.

    A diverse press needs to be created and sustained by constantly redistributing pooled advertising revenues with a view to maximising diversity.

    So long as the press is driven by the profit motive and circulation wars, it will fail to serve the public interest.

  270. Geoff Badham - reply

    It amazes me the number of people that think the press is “free” (and that we have freedom of speech). There is no doubt that the press are their own worst enemies (even if a minority of them seek to ‘break the rules’, which is an irrelevant fact), and let’s face it they are bound to transgress again given the track record. The simple truth is that unlike most civilised countries we do not currently have a Constitution (or Bill of Rights) that provides for press freedom Or freedom of speech. That’s why we’re compelled to enshrine such things in Statute and why it’s therefore absolutely right & proper in this case. The press should want this more than anyone and should be embarrased that they haven’t been fighting for such formal rights before now. However, given their lack of intelligence and attention to detail palbable in their actions, it doesn’t really surprise me. All democratically-minded people should sign this petition.

  271. David Bentley - reply

    Why again waste public money if the Leveson Report was not going to be fully implemented

  272. Paul Watson - reply

    Fool me once..shame on you…fool me twice shame on me…fool me five times (three royal commissions and two judicial enquires)…tell you what why don’t we let them have another go. They must think we’re idiots, I’m afraid anyone who supports a watering down of the Leveson recommendations is an absolute disgrace and should not be returned at the next election

  273. John bashford - reply

    It is this government all over look after there friends the press and the rich and make every the public suffer.

  274. John Russell - reply

    If this goes through without and legal obligations it will be another example of this government ignoring the findings of there own enquires and the wishes of the public in favour of a few vested interests.

  275. Stephen Brady - reply

    The press should Never self-regulate again. We need an Independent agency to monitor, adding powers to them to recommend procecution to the The Crown Procecution Service. Dependent on the offence terms in Prison should be available, this shouldn’t be rushed as new laws which are rushed tend to be flawed.
    Stephen Brady

  276. Karen Manley - reply

    The Government authorised the Leveson inquiry and should now implement its recommendations. Nothing else is acceptable.

  277. N Ahmad - reply

    I have already expressed my opinion. You will find it in the list.

  278. Brian - reply

    I’ll wager a pound to a penny that many of the people signing the petition will purchase murdoch’s filth tomorrow.

    • Brian - reply

      They will never learn, so don’t buy the papers that print this rubbish

  279. Allister - reply

    Holding truth to power – sure. Holding lies to the powerless . . Sorry but no more

  280. Dennis Drinkwater - reply

    The Ptress , the media and the Conservatives are determined to ignore the majority of the vocal public who are angry that Leveson should be implemented in full.

  281. Edward Davies - reply

    Is “Freedom of the Press” such a good thing when Rupert Murdoch and his ilk are “the Press”?

  282. Edward Davies - reply

    PM Cameron said he would implement Leveson’s recommendations unless they were “bonkers”.
    So Cameron thinks Leveson’s “regulation underpinned by statute” recommendation, is “bonkers” then.

  283. Bob - reply

    DO PEOPLE STILL BUY NEWSPAPERS???

    A dying industry if you ask me…

  284. Kevin Edwards - reply

    Legal underpinning of an independent regulatory process seems to work well in Ireland and is accepted without the (same) media screaming about any loss of press freedom, breaches of Human Rights and Civil Rights, etc. If its good enough for the Irish then why not us? David Cameron’s stance is impossible to justify and I can only think, as other have said, that he is in the pocket of the media barons. Fortunately, he is a weak and rather pathetic PM who will surely cave in if the public pressure is strong enough. I’m very happy to sign the petition and hope many more will do the same.

  285. Adrian Conway - reply

    Mr Cameron has told Newspaper editors the clock is ticking. Mr Cameron, the clock stopped ticking a long time ago. It is time for action. I’m sure the editors were trembling when they left No10. Or perhaps they were shaking with laughter.
    Leveson should be adopted in full.

  286. John Bartlett - reply

    I believe in the freedom of speach. However it is the way the information is obtained is the route of the problem. We have seen the effect of whistle blowers, leaked documents etc. Those facts existed but to break other leislation to obtain data is out of order. If it is for the reasons of state security or solving crime then under those conditions, Yes. But to listen to private conversation to write/pre- judge people in the interest of selling New Papers, wait for a court action and make more money out of sales than the fine/ court costs then No.

  287. Harry Dangerfield - reply

    I note that sections of the press are saying that the petition contains names like “Mickey Mouse” and “Donald Duck”. Who would most benefit from discrediting the petition like that?

  288. Seymour Butts - reply

    Your petition is a farce. Anyone can sign up using all manner of false names and false e-mail addresses with no verification process to show the name and address are genuine. By not having a proper verification process the credibility of the petition is severely undermined.

  289. cod hacks - reply

    certainly like your website however you need to test the spelling on several of your posts. Several of them are rife with spelling issues and I to find it very bothersome to tell the reality then again I’ll certainly come again again.

Leave a comment