leveson press can and can't say. leveson became law just over a decade ago.ct that that pre leveson the sun would have published his name to begin with i >>i >> i suspect m >> i suspect it may well have done and although leveson isn't actually law, it was had the effect of becoming law . yes. and effect of becoming law. yes. and it's become more and more draconian. and what we've seen is a continuing wave of judge created privacy law. very little of our privacy laws are actually made have been made in parliament. most of them have been created by a succession of judges who have gone along with demands for ever greater privacy. >> yeah , i mean, when you look >> yeah, i mean, when you look at the charge sheet, if we can call it that, the four separate allegations that have been published in the sun newspaper , published in the sun newspaper, the met have judged that there were no criminal proceedings to take. why one could argue yes , take. why one could argue yes, he's a public figure of great responsibility. you know, the man that commentates on the queens f

so, the government reacted by setting up the leveson inquiry. people in the uk, told to sit in front of a microphone, while the world watched online, and talk about what really goes on in their newsrooms. newspaper executives denied any knowledge of illegal activity. we have only seen unsubstantiated allegations and i have seen no evidence to show me that phone hacking has ever taken place at trinity mirror. did you see this sort of thing going on, mr morgan? - no. are you sure about that? 100%. at the end of the day, nothing really changed. i think from the point of view of the public perception, the phone hacking saga all ended at some unspecified point after the leveson inquiry. in reality, it wasn't over, because lawyers on behalf of all sorts of victims were suing through the courts and uncovering all sorts of new evidence. across the next three years, mirror group repeatedly refused to make any admission of guilt over hacking. tonight, trinity mirror have repeated the statement it has made many times over the last year, that its journalist

do you remember leveson story. remember the types back in the early 20s when anything goes? their names were were you were straight out. you were you were straight out. you were you were receiving end of were on the receiving end of more than more than more than one, more than one of them. i mean, just think them. so i mean, ijust think right now we don't know. but in the next 24 hours, i think either the will been either the bbc will have been judged have handled this very either the bbc will have been judg

. —— pre-leveson — worse than what is happening now. —— pre—leveson. deal with but _ is nothing like what we had to deal with. but there was another point made _ with. but there was another point made about other potential victims... made about other potential victims- - -— made about other potential victims... ~ ., .. .. .. made about other potential victims... ., .. .. .. .. victims... we have got to move on, paul victims... we have got to move on, paul. we victims... we have got to move on, paul- we are _ victims... we have got to move on, paul. we are out _ victims. .. we have got to move on, paul. we are out of— victims... we have got to move on, paul. we are out of time, _ victims... we have got to move on, paul. we are out of time, but - victims... we have got to move on, paul. we are out of time, but you i paul. we are out of time, but you have been excellent this morning. if i may say so. great points from our listeners and viewers and our guests, thank you. prime minister's questions from 12 — the deputies stepping in again today. dowden v ra

leveson ba.2 and the like will make report will make the tabloid industry impossible, which will pleasend of guy and actually i should imagine rupert will sell up at that. >> and that's very interesting, isn't it, stephen because the hacked off group and the left, which or the representative for this purposes, i don't this evening's purposes, i don't often to grant , but i often talk to hugh grant, but i mean, you not know come out. >> he's a bit privileged . >> he's a bit privileged. >> he's a bit privileged. >> the sun their main source of opprobrium is for the sun rather than for the bbc or. well, no, i don't think so. >> i think there's been a fair bit of mud slung all over the place. but kelvin makes it. i mean, he's absolutely the man who was there in the belly of the beast. but look, 30 years ago, you could have kept it quiet because social media wasn't anything it is now. wasn't anything like it is now. nowadays, everybody in the dog knew they were knew within 25 minutes they were talking those memes were talking about those memes were floating around all over the place. know th

my own view is that privacy law has gone too far since the leveson inquiry .a time when inquiry. there was a time when people accused of such offences were identified before they were charged or even though charges might subsequently be emerging and were given an opportunity to defend themselves in public as well as facing accusations in public. that is a much harder position to achieve now . on the position to achieve now. on the whole, we take the view that if there is any possibility of criminal proceedings in the future , we do not name the future, we do not name the accused until such time as charges are brought . and we're a charges are brought. and we're a very long way from that stage. so it's difficult because privacy law makes it difficult and i have enormous sympathy for the bbc. i have enormous sympathy also for the sun. i'm one of those strange things, a genuine liberal. i actually think we need our great national broadcaster. i also think we need great popular news newspapers. so that's an unusual position perhaps, but i genuinely believe it. i t

post the leveson inquiry, the burden of proof is so high there's no way on earth they'll be able to runwithout the absolute proof in front of them. and that includes, saying includes, they're saying the bank the bank statements and now the photographic evidence also photographic evidence and also the there's an the video evidence. there's an almighty going on. and the video evidence. there's an almig isy going on. and the video evidence. there's an almig is the going on. and the video evidence. there's an almig is the dayjoing on. and the video evidence. there's an almig is the day annually and the video evidence. there's an almig is the day annually where today is the day annually where they announce the bbc presenters wages, which will be kind of over shadowed by this. but i think the two conversations join up because next conversation up because the next conversation is if £35,000, as is claimed, is being sent to a young person via a bbc presenter, that's our money. that's taxpayers money. it's the licence fee payers money. i think the public have a right to say not only are these wa