Leveson 2: why the government is reluctant

Leveson 2: why the government is reluctant

In the last 2 weeks there have been several attempts to block implementation of part 2 of the Leveson inquiry, judicial public inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press following the News International phone hacking scandal.

Part 2 of the Leveson inquiry (aka Leveson 2. Ed.) would investigate “the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within News International, other media organisations or other organisations. It will also consider the extent to which any relevant police force investigated allegations relating to News International, and whether the police received corrupt payments or were otherwise complicit in misconduct.”

The Conservative Party’s 2017 manifesto stated that Leveson 2 would be dropped entirely, a fact confirmed by Culture Secretary Matt Hancock on 1st March 2018.

However, the proponents of Leveson 2 have not given up. Yesterday the House of Lords voted in favour voted by 252 to 213 on Monday evening to back an amendment to the Data Protection Bill that called for Leveson 2 to be put back on the agenda, i.e. a full investigation into unlawful conduct by newspapers, misuse of data by social media companies and relations between the press and the police.

This overturns a decision made by MPs last week and has set up another showdown with the government.

At this point you may be wondering why the government is so keen to halt an inquiry into corporate criminality.

This is best answered in pictorial form, with no further comment being necessary.

Rupert Murdoch, Theresa May's puppeteer

Author: Steve Woods

Generic carbon-based humanoid life form.

2 thoughts on “Leveson 2: why the government is reluctant

  1. Mchael Ward

    How can I call to discuss Leveson 2 and a case which the Government is concealing from the British public? Michael Ward

    1. Steve Woods Post author

      That would, of course, depend on what you want to achieve from the discussion and the person (capacity, qualification and profession) with whom the matter was discussed.

Comments are closed.