The Findings of the Leveson Enquiry

Does the Leveson Inquiry have any teeth? Or is it just a metaphorical gummy shark? Reading the phone hacking coverage in the Guardian, it seems increasingly clear that there may be more of an agenda behind the process and the findings. They report that there is a 17 page section of the 85 page report that one side of the political divide (The Conservatives) refused to support. One quote even suggested that Tom Watson MP was so hell-bent on making the headline that "Rupert…is not fit to run a major company" that the entire committee was divided basically down the middle. Some points ring true from my cursory investigation in all this. 1. News Corporation did act improperly or, at least, did not act decisively enough in dealing with rogue criminal behaviour. Rupert admitted this much in his response this morning. 2. The management of News Corp have not admitted to sponsoring the behaviour from the outset. And really, as if they would. To do so would attract serious criminal punishment for those responsible and, even worse for the Murdochs, negative press. 3. Having said that, there is plenty of evidence that a great deal of dodgy dealings were afoot within the organisation, and it is arguable that the upper echelons of management knew about it. How much they knew, we may never know. 4. Partisan or not, there is no doubt that the report has landed some major blows to the Murdochs. Not a knockout blow as such, but one hard enough to leave them winded for a brief moment. How much of this was a response to the outrage that the phone hacking scandal caused is a matter for debate, and you can bet than within certain media circles, it will be a hot discussion topic. It appears to me that this may very well be the case - that outrage, in part dictated the findings of the enquiry. There's no doubt that the hacking the phones of celebrities and the parents of a murdered school girl is bad practice, and the outrage at the invasion of privacy of these people is well deserved. But should this be allowed to taint the view of an inquiry? What's more, if those who have been called to testify to the enquiry have misled parliament, what teeth does it have to call them into account? What powers does it have? Could this set a new precedent, considering that the House of Commons has not imposed a fine on an individual for contempt since 1666? It's one thing to point the finger at the Murdochs for publishing the rubbish they do. I also think that the "Great British Public", to borrow a phrase from Nick Park, should take a long hard look at themselves. Anyone who has ever bought a copy of News Of The World during the period it was a NewsCorp paper in effect contributed to the notion that scandal was what the people want, and if it becomes lucrative through increased sales and revenue, then why not keep going with it? Up the ante, make more money, and on and on it goes… It will be very interesting to see where this goes in the coming weeks...