The Royal Charter vs Leveson’s Self-Regulation Recommendations

In a speech on Monday, Dr Gerry McCann again reiterated the victims of press abuses’ view that full implementation of Leveson was the “minimum acceptable compromise.”

Hacked Off has considered the extent to which the Royal Charter gives effect to Leveson’s recommendations about the self-regulatory body.

We have found that, of the 30 recommendations laying down what a self-regulator must do or must meet, only 5 are adequately represented in David Cameron’s Royal Charter, with 23 breached or caveated and 2 unclear.

Click here to see the full comparison between Leveson’s recommendations on a self-regulator and the proposals in the Royal Charter.

Click here to read the top 5 reasons that the Royal Charter falls way short of Leveson’s recommendations.

Click here to see the Royal Charter in full.


We rely on people like you to make a difference.

Give now to support the campaign for a free and accountable press.



Join the discussion and tell us your opinion.

Jenny Fawcettreply
February 12, 2013 at 4:18 pm

Just as expected. Politicians are too frightened about how the press can undermine their election chances. After many other inquiries’ proposals have been ignored, I never thought that this would work either. All a waste of taxpayers money. We need an independent group who can take out private prosecutions on behalf of the victims, against the perpetrators in the press.

Allison McCullochreply
February 13, 2013 at 12:43 pm
– In reply to: Jenny Fawcett

Deeply disappointed so far and quite frankly worried that David Cameron is ignoring public opinion. Also, is it any wonder that the general public in the main distrusts politicians, which in turn affects our national well-being. Additionally, this collusion between the Government and the press is corrosive to our reputation abroad.

Margaret Watsonreply
February 14, 2013 at 10:25 am

I often wonder what politician’s would do if they lost a much loved child at the hands of a violent offender then for some ill-informed campaigning journalist for violent offenders to abuse his or her privileged unjustly malign the good name and reputation of their much loved child?

Would they still be of the opinion that the dead cannot be hurt therefore you cannot defile the good name and reputation of the deceased victims of crime? I think not especially if they have concrete evidence that proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the journalist who disseminated malicious falsehoods about their much child in the clear knowledge that families of murdered victims have no legal right of redress under UK or Scottish defamation legislation. This despicable situation must not go unchallenged by politicians of all political persuasions.

Wm F Seabrookreply
March 14, 2013 at 2:22 pm

On the BBC News it has been suggested that if David Cameron is defeated in Monday’s debate on a Royal Charter, he can face the press and say ‘at least I did my best’. The inference is that he more concerned by the way he is judged by the media than the public. Maybe the press have a little more influence on policy than they are prepared to admit.

Rebecca Dittmanreply
March 16, 2013 at 10:07 am

As Napoleon Bonaparte put it so succinctly “Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets..”. David Cameron’s Royal Charter is the white flag to show who still really has power in our country.

MPs do battle ahead of press vote | eJumoreply
March 17, 2013 at 8:56 am

[…] actor Hugh Grant, writing in the Observer, said the campaign had “reluctantly accepted that a royal charter could be the way to give backing to the new […]

Leave a reply