hacked off

We have a Royal Charter that has been approved by every single party in Parliament. It is backed by the mass of public opinion. And it is based on the recommendations of a year-long, judge-led public inquiry of remarkable thoroughness. And now the people who run some of our big newspaper corporations - an industry condemned by that inquiry for 'wreaking havoc in the lives of innocent people' - say they have made a concession towards it.
The Royal Charter on the press that was approved by all parties in Parliament on 18 March will benefit the public in many ways. The Charter, which is based on the recommendations of the year-long Leveson Inquiry and has the support of many victims of press abuses, creates a framework for press self-regulation that meets basic regulatory standards.
The politicians' draft Royal Charter is supposed to be a wizard wheeze to entrench "voluntary independent self-regulation", Judge Leveson's Orwellian oxymoron, without crossing David Cameron's Rubicon into statutory regulation. Of course, it does nothing of the kind. It is state regulation by any other name.
When you've been untouchable and all powerful and have successfully fought off seven previous government attempts to put an end to press abuse, you don't give your power up lightly. So the announcement that three newspaper groups have "rejected" the Royal Charter, recently agreed by a united House of Commons, is not surprising.
This is not a story that can be understood from headlines alone, partly because in Britain the headlines have so often wildly distorted the truth. Despite what you may have read, there is no threat by British politicians to interfere with press freedom. There is, however, a powerful consensus for change.
What has been quite remarkable since the prime minister did his u-turn on press regulation is how support has moved away from the Hacked Off lobbyists, and towards those concerned that the PM's 'dab' of legislation does indeed cross the Rubicon.
There is, in fact, a very easy way to ensure that journalists don't break the law: get the police to do the job they're paid to do, rather than taking back-handers, sometimes several thousands of pounds, from reporters looking for a good story. It really is as simple as that.
A new survey has found that 90% of liberal people still don't know what their position is on the post-Leveson plan for a
Given the mixed response to the government's proposed Royal Charter, it seems that the relationship between the press and those in power has not eased. There is still considerable tension between journalists who will forever stand for the rights of press freedom, and those who feel that the industry has swayed too far the other way.
David Cameron was facing growing questions on Tuesday evening over whether his plans for a powerful new press regulator, backed