Phone hacking victims have reacted angrily after David Cameron said he had "serious concerns" about the proposal of a new press law.
Hugh Grant tweeted that the "buzzword was betrayal" among non-celebrity victims of hacking as they listened to the Prime Minister discuss his misgivings over Leveson's proposals.
The actor, who joined Twitter on Wednesday under the name @Hackedoffhugh, posted:
Meanwhile 7/7 survivor John Tulloch told the Guardian he was "disgusted with the prime minister" over his reaction to the announcement.
Tulloch, an academic from south Wales whose phone was hacked after his face became synonymous with surviving the 7/7 bombings, told the Guardian:
"Cameron has undoubtably sided with the [press] barons and that's outrageous,"
"To wriggle away from backing the recommendations for a statutory basis for an independent commission when there's been absolute bending over backwards by Leveson to take everyone with him [in his recommendations] is not good enough," he said.
Chris Jefferies, the landlord wrongly arrested for the murder of Joanna Yeates, told ITV News it would be a "disaster" if Cameron failed to implement the proposals.
Mr Jefferies won substantial libel damages from eight newspapers following their coverage of his arrest in connection with the architect's disappearance in 2010. He was later released without charge.
Retired teacher Jefferies, 67, told ITV News he would feel "let down" if the Prime Minister decided to side-step recommendations on legislation.
"I would certainly feel let down," he said. "I would think it would be a disaster.
He said he wanted to tell the Prime Minister he was "very much mistaken" over his approach to statutory underpinning of press regulation.
He added: "I think he should listen not only to the voices of those that have been the victims of the press, but that he should listen to the voices of the National Union of Journalists who are in favour of some sort of statutory underpinning of this regulation.
"And that he should listen to all those MPs who are of the same view. In fact, it is probably true to say that there is a majority in Parliament that is opposed to the point of view to which the Prime Minister has chosen to entertain."
Millie Dowler's lawyer, Mark Lewis, who also represents a number of other phone hacking victims, said they were disappointed over Cameron's stance.
He said his clients felt "let down" by the Prime Minister, telling a Hacked Off press conference: "People feel that they've been let down because they were looking for an independent inquiry which was looking at the politicians as well as the press.
"The politicians were in on this and somebody independent was coming along and made recommendations and cautious optimism lasted for about 45 minutes and then the prime minister spoke and said well he's not actually going to implement a report that he instigated."
Former TV presenter Anne Diamond said Leveson had come up with "a really good workable solution", and told BBC Radio 4's PM: "It is appalling that apparently the PM isn't taking that much notice of it, and is going to kick it into the long grass.
Madeleine McCann's mother Kate said she hoped the PM and other party leaders would "embrace the report and act swiftly to ensure activation of Lord Leveson's recommendations within an acceptable and clearly defined time-scale".
Former Formula 1 boss Max Mosley, who successfully sued the News Of The World for privacy damages over claims that he was involved in a "sick Nazi orgy", said it would be "astonishing" if the government did not implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations.
He said: "It would make the situation much better than it is now and what he has done is more or less give the press what the Hunt-Black proposals would want, but underpinning with a statutory to make sure there's no backsliding and no cheating."
Prior to the recommendations being published by Leveson, former minister Peter Lilley provoked outrage after saying phone hacking victims should not have a say in the future of press regulation.
He told the BBC: "I think it’s wrong in principle to say that victims of wrongdoing should have the right to rewrite our laws to deal with offences far beyond anything they suffered, especially when the offences they suffered were covered by law and don’t need any independent regulator.
“So I think this idea of creating victims, giving them the right to draw up statutes is wrong in principle and we shouldn’t go down that route."