The Leveson Inquiry…

…is explained here.

It consists of four "modules":

• Module 1: The relationship between the press and the public and looks at phone-hacking and other potentially illegal behaviour
• Module 2: The relationships between the press and police and the extent to which that has operated in the public interest
• Module 3: The relationship between press and politicians
• Module 4: Recommendations for a more effective policy and regulation that supports the integrity and freedom of the press while encouraging the highest ethical standards.

Confusingly, the terms of reference are in two parts; with no obvious mapping between the parts and the modules. Apparently, 'Cast Iron' Dave expects Part 1 of the inquiry to be completed within one year. It seems it's 'too soon' to provide an estimate for the inquiry's cost. Personally, I can't remember starting a project without an estimate for the cost. But then I'm either using my own money or persuading someone who takes a close interest to part with theirs. I don't suppose Lord Justice Leveson comes cheap; nor his six assessors nor his five counsels for the inquiry. It's a pretty nice website too.

So, I will make a submission to the inquiry, giving the following answers free, gratis, and for nothing:

• Module 1: The press writes anything that might interest readers and the public buys the papers. Or the canny ones read them on the web. Or the cannier still find out what's really happening from blogs. The press has hacked phones and has potentially engaged in sundry other potential crimes (allegedly).
• Module 2: The police treat phone hacking in much the same way as other crimes, such as burglary. That is, they might go through the motions. They'll tip the wink to the press if they come across anything juicy, in return for a spot of corporate entertainment, or a good word in an editorial. The public is not particularly interested.
• Module 3: Politicians will do anything to get a favourable mention from the press. The press will do anything to expose the hypocrisy of politicians (not a lot of effort is required there), which is its most useful function.
• Module 4: The press has very little integrity to support. 'Effective policy and regulation' and 'highest ethical standards' is code for stopping the press from snooping on politicians. Don't fall for it. We don't need any more laws or regulations; we've too many to enforce anyway and the police will always excuse laxity by saying they're too busy enforcing the laws on the curvature of suggestive fruit and vegetables, or something.

Finally, Leveson has granted himself the right to hold parts of the inquiry in private, at his discretion. Please, your honour, do so for the never-ending stream of people famous for being famous whining about being caught screwing someone they shouldn't. The papers made you rich and famous, but it's you who make yourself embarrassed. I don't care what the European Convention says, there's no natural right to privacy. In a state of nature, if someone turns up at your cave and tries to steal the deer you've just killed, you have the right to assail him with your cudgel. If you're spied behind the bushes with your neighbour's wife, that's just too bad.