KEEP SALM & CENSOR ON ? First Minister’s report on Leveson will censor anyone with an opinion - facebook, twitter & blogs also targeted in ex-judge’s bill

First Minister Alex Salmond wants regulator with power to censor anyone with adverse opinion. THE PROSPECT of Soviet style total media censorship coming to Scotland has taken a significant leap forward with the conclusions of Lord McCluskey’s Expert Group on the Leveson Report in Scotland, prepared for First Minister Alex Salmond who wants to appoint a regulator with powers to sanction anyone who produces news or comment in print form or on the internet.

The now widely criticised report, prepared by the former Solicitor General in consultation with a number of others including lawyers such as Peter Watson of Levy Mcrae (who count among their clients former Lord Advocate now Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC, née McPhilomy and former Glasgow City Council Boss & Cocaine addict Steven Purcell)  and who also recently represented Mr Salmond personally in a failed complaint against the Daily Mail newspaper, aims to silence anyone in Scotland with an opinion that does not match those who want to keep criticism & scandal out of the limelight.

The Daily Record reports : Leveson: Press freedom under threat as Alex Salmond's draconian Bill threatens to censor anyone with an opinion

16 Mar 2013

SCOTLAND'S First Minister wants to appoint a regulator with powers to sanction anyone who produces news, comment or celebrity gossip – in print or digital.

ALEX SALMOND yesterday stood accused of plotting a draconian law that will have a chilling impact on freedom of speech and cost thousands of jobs.

The First Minister wants to appoint a regulator with powers to sanction ANYONE who produces news, comment or celebrity gossip – in print or digital.

Salmond hired an expert group headed by Lord John McCluskey to work out how Lord Leveson’s plan to regulate the press could be adopted in Scotland. But their report – branded Loch Leveson – said the powers of the regulator in Scotland should be beefed up to cover the web and ­publications other than newspapers.

They also recommended legislation to cover Twitter and Facebook.

Unlike the English system, Loch Leveson will regulate opinion pieces and even what they call scandalous gossip about celebrity.

In theory, bloggers such as ­schoolgirl Martha Payne, who complained about her school dinners, could be hauled before the regulator and fined.Even a local church magazine could fall foul of what Tory leader Ruth Davidson described as “the most draconian press controls in the western world”. The Bill would make it compulsory for every newspaper to fund the new system. Experts say it would cost £1.5million a year – mainly in fees to lawyers. It could signal the death of scores of local newspapers and cost thousands of jobs.

Sink this attack on democracy 

The Leveson inquiry into press ethics was held in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal at Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World. But the Scottish move goes even further than the controversial ­recommendations made last year by Lord Justice Leveson. Scotland would face tighter control of its print media than the rest of the UK, where Leveson recommended a voluntary system of self-regulation.

All written news material in ­Scotland – from the biggest national newspapers and magazines to the smallest church newsletter – would be affected. In a further departure from the Leveson recommendations, the rules would apply to all internet news media.

The report even suggests they could be extended to social networking websites like Twitter. That means anyone commenting on Facebook or posting on a website about celebrities or current affairs could fall foul of the regulator.

McCluskey’s committee said a two-tier system should be created by law. The first level would be a UK regulator set up by the press. The second tier would be a Scottish “recognition body” to ensure the regulator complied with the ­principles laid down by Leveson.

Crucially, the report suggests Government ministers would have the power to appoint the head of the recognition body – opening the door to ­state interference with the press for the first time in centuries.

Salmond was last night accused of attempting to shackle the press. Critics fear they could be used to muzzle newspapers in the run up to next year’s referendum.

Former journalist Davidson said: “With the First Minister now saying he will consider the expert group’s findings, there’s a real danger the threat of legislation will be kept hanging over the heads of editors as the ­referendum approaches.

“Even more astonishing is the proposal for the regulator to be responsible for news comment on the internet and for the newspaper industry to provide all the funds.

“It cannot be right that an industry already in crisis should be expected to pay for the regulation of the very thing that’s killing it off.

“We are, however, pleased that the expert group has recognised there’s no specific need for a Scotland-only regulator and a single regulator can operate across the whole UK as at present.”

McCluskey’s panel included David Sinclair, director of communications at Victim Support Scotland, legal academics Neil Walker and Peter Watson and journalist Ruth Wishart.

Their report was hurriedly published yesterday after the collapse of talks at Westminster to find a common way forward for the UK.

McCluskey said a UK-wide ­regulator could still be set up if a deal can be reached between David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.

But while Leveson recommended a “carrot-and-sticks” approach to get newspapers to sign up to a voluntary regulator, McCluskey’s panel said they had “little confidence” this would encourage publishers to sign up.

They said: “We have reached the view that there is no practical ­alternative to making it compulsory for all news-related publishers to be subject to the new system of ­regulation,”

Salmond praised the “extremely thorough” report, saying: “It is for the parliaments in London and in ­Scotland to establish a recognition process.

“It is for the press to bring forward a voluntary regulatory body compliant with Leveson principles. I hope this is still possible.”

But Scots Labour leader Johann Lamont said: “We agreed with the First Minister that this group should look solely at the technicalities of implementing Leveson in Scots law.

“We did not agree to the Leveson recommendations being rewritten or built upon.”

The McCluskey report was commissioned by Alex Salmond to look at how the recommendations of the Leveson report could be implemented in Scotland. The findings go further than those of Lord Justice Leveson last year.

McCluskey report at a glance

All newspapers and magazine publishers would be forced to sign up to the regulator. Under the Leveson proposals, this would have been voluntary but came with incentives such as lower damages in the event of libel action.

A recognition body would be set up – appointed by ministers – to ensure the regulator was sticking to the rules. They would have the power to overrule the regulator.

The regulator could have the power to censure newspapers, magazines and websites, including gossip sites. Leveson made no recommendations on policing the internet or ruling on celebrity gossip.

McCluskey’s group said further regulation of  social media may also be required, opening the door to Facebook posts and Twitter being scrutinised.

Major publishers would have to meet the cost for setting up and running the regulator but websites – many of which generate millions of pounds for their owners – are likely to be exempt from paying.

Analysis - by media lawyer Campbell Deane

WHEN Alex Salmond announced an expert group to advise on the most appropriate means of regulating the newspaper industry, the writing was on the wall.

He wasn’t asking the group whether there was a need to implement Leveson’s proposals in Scotland. He was asking them how to achieve it.

That decision was astonishingly short-sighted. We have not had a Millie Dowler or Madeleine McCann in Scotland. We have not even come close.

We have had no phone- hacking scandal. Journalists as a rule in Scotland have behaved. These were London-centric issues for which the Scottish newspaper industry was being punished without guilt.

And yet Salmond’s panel of experts recommend the Scottish Parliament creates a regulator to prevent serious abuses of the kind which don’t occur in Scotland. Not content with implementing Leveson’s recommendations, the panel have chosen to go further by bringing under regulation all publishers of news-related material.

This country prides itself on free speech yet the panel recommended implementing proposals that could mean gossiping about the rich and famous online with your friends would get you into trouble.

By its nature, comment allows people to express their views. That should not be restricted.

At a time when newspapers are struggling for their very existence, they will be asked to fund complaints based on comment and gossip which have nothing to do with them.

They will put a financial burden on the Scottish industry that may push some newspapers over the edge.

How the loss of indigenous Scottish titles will benefit Scotland is beyond me.

Scottish Government ‘to consider’ draconian censorship of all media as proposed in Lord McCluskey’s report on Leveson press regulation

THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT have today published the report by their own expert group headed by 86 year old Lord McCluskey on the recommendations made by Lord justice Leveson into press practices and how these could be applied in Scotland. However, the terms of the former Solicitor General’s report go much wider than the original Leveson recommendations, with Lord McCluskey also advocating regulation of twitter, facebook and all forms of media carring ‘news’.

Lord McCluskey’s report can be viewed online here : Expert Group on the Leveson Report in Scotland

The Scottish Government’s Press Release : Scottish Government to consider McCluskey report

First Minister Alex Salmond today thanked the expert group led by former Solicitor General Lord McCluskey considering how the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson into press practices could be applied in Scotland as it published its report.

The expert group, which was appointed by the First Minister in December, has made a series of recommendations on how a system of self-regulation of the press could be established and recognised in Scotland in a report distributed to all parties this morning.

Mr Salmond said the thorough report from Lord McCluskey and his colleagues was “an important contribution” to the process of implementing Leveson in Scotland, as he indicated the Scottish Government would now consider the report’s findings carefully while continuing the cross-party efforts to reach a suitable way forward in Scotland.

The Scottish Government is committed to cross-party talks on implementing the Leveson recommendations and will continue to work toward a consensus on the way forward in Scotland.  The First Minister confirmed today that ministers would report to Parliament after the Easter recess on the progress of these talks.

The First Minister said: “Lord McCluskey and his group have reported at an opportune time.While there is a huge amount of uncertainty and division surrounding how Westminster is going to take forward the Leveson recommendations, I am hopeful that in Scotland all parties in the Parliament can continue to work together to find an acceptable way forward.Lord McCluskey’s group has delivered an extremely thorough piece of work looking at how the proposals made by Lord Justice Leveson could be applied in the context of Scots law, including draft legislation. We will now take the time to consider all of their suggestions in full and discuss the proposals with the other political parties and other stakeholders.”

Mr Salmond continued : "The report is admirably clear. It is for the Parliaments in London and in Scotland to establish a recognition process. It is for the press to bring forward a voluntary regulatory body compliant with Leveson principles. I hope that this is still possible.The Scottish Government indicated at the time of Leveson’s report that we wanted to implement his key proposals of a voluntary self-regulatory system set up by the press with statutory underpinning.

“Since Leveson reported, all parties in the Parliament have taken part in a cross-party effort that has seen the leaders hold talks with Hacked Off, the Media Standards Trust and representatives of the press with a commitment to meet with the UK Government after their position becomes clearer.These efforts will continue and the Scottish Government will report back to Parliament after Easter on the progress of these talks. I would like to put on record my sincere thanks to Lord McCluskey, David Sinclair, Professor Neil Walker, Peter Watson and Ruth Wishart for their efforts in producing this diligent report.”

Ex-judge McCluskey to head Salmond’s Leveson group, Cayman Islands & Ex Lord Advocate Angiolini’s lawyer among ‘usual suspects’ to consider Leveson media muzzle for Scotland

Less than stellar First Minister Alex Salmond appoints Peter Watson of Levy McRae to Leveson ‘expert group’. A LAWYER who has represented controversial clients including shamed former Glasgow City Council Boss & Cocaine addict Steven Purcell, & former Lord Advocate Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC (née McPhilomy) and whose law firm has been accused by some newspapers of attempting to silence press reports over scandals involving the seedy private lives of some of its prominent public figure clients, has been appointed by struggling First Minister Alex Salmond to an ‘expert group’ charged with considering the proposals to regulate (or muzzle – Ed) the press, put forward by Lord Leveson.

PETER WATSON, of Glasgow law firm Levy McRae, the same law firm with personal connections to Scotland’s much derided and five-years-in-the-job-too-long Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who worked at the law firm for several years was named today in a Press Release issued by the Scottish Government as being appointed along with David Sinclair, Ruth Wishart, Professor Neil Walker to the First Minister’s ‘expert group’ which will be headed by retired judge Lord McCluskley (aged 83).

Glasgow based Levy McRae have hit the headlines in recent years over their representation of characters such as former Lord Advocate, now Dame Elish Angiolini who took on Levy McRae to sue anti abuse campaigner Robert Green and recently, after the England based journalist Mr Green had been jailed for six months for handing out leaflets in Aberdeen, Levy McRae went back into court to silence further calls for an investigation into claims of historical abuse in the case of Hollie Greig, a downs syndrome victim who has alleged she was abused by several individuals in the Aberdeen area.

Documents presented to the court by Levy McRae, whose offices Angiolini (nee McPhilomy) told the court she resided at, also name a number of websites which it is claimed are linked to the campaign to out alleged child abusers. The Court interlocutor, which is a public document, can be viewed and downloaded here : Interlocutor Elish Angiolini v Robert Green re Hollie Greig case. Levy McRae were also identified by the Press Complaints Commission as being the authors of a complaint submitted to the PCC against Scots law title “The Firm”, who were forced to retract statements made regarding Angiolini’s alleged involvement in the abuse case.

Troubled law firm Levy McRae also featured in a recent report where one of it’s other partners, Legal Defence Union boss Bill Macreath (60) of Troon, is facing accusations of professional misconduct & inadequate service as a result of a Law Society of Scotland investigation.

Scottish Government Press Release : Leveson findings - expert panel appointed

A five-person panel has been appointed to consider the recommendations of the Leveson Report in Scotland. The expert group, to be chaired by former Solicitor General and Senator of the College of Justice Lord McCluskey, features Scots legal experts and representatives of journalism and those affected by malpractice:

Lord McCluskey of Church Hill LLD, former Solicitor General for Scotland and Senator of the College of Justice (chair)
David Sinclair, Director of Communications at Victim Support Scotland, former President of the National Union of Journalists and former assistant editor of The Herald
Professor Neil Walker FBA, FRSE, Regius Professor of Public Law and the Law of Nature and Nations at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh
Peter Watson, Senior Partner of Levy & McRae and Visiting Professor at the School of Law, University of Strathclyde
Ruth Wishart, independent media production professional, former assistant editor of the Sunday Mail, Scotsman and Sunday Standard

The panel is tasked with considering the findings and certain recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson – particularly how statutory underpinning of a new independent system of self-regulation of the press could work in Scotland.  The terms of reference are set out below.

Panel members are invited to provide advice and recommendations to the Scottish Government within three months.

First Minister Alex Salmond said: “Press regulation is a devolved responsibility, there have been victims of press malpractice in Scotland and Scotland has its own unique legal system. It is therefore unarguable that we in Scotland need to make our own response to the recommendations made by Lord Justice Leveson in his report – particularly on the proposal for statutory underpinning in Scots law of a new, independent self-regulation system for the press. This expert panel will offer advice on the most appropriate way to approach such statutory underpinning in Scotland, bearing in mind our legal system, developments elsewhere in the United Kingdom and experience internationally.  What happens thereafter will be a matter for the Parliament.”

Stressing the range of expertise within the panel, Mr Salmond added: “What is critically important is that this panel is representative of the broad spectrum of interests that need to be taken into account. It is a balanced panel that features experts in Scots law, respected journalists, legal practitioners and someone with a background in supporting those affected by crime and malpractice. This group of experts is independent and non-political and is chaired by a former Court of Session judge. I am grateful to each of them for bringing their knowledge, expertise and commitment to this issue and look forward to receiving their recommendations.”

Background

The terms of reference of the expert group are as follows: To consider the findings and recommendations made in the Part 1 of the Report of the Leveson Inquiry in respect of Press Regulation, and, accepting the main principles on which those recommendations are made, including in particular the need for statutory underpinning of a newly created, genuinely independent and effective system of Self-Regulation, to offer advice and recommendations as to the most appropriate means of achieving such statutory underpinning in Scotland, in the context of —

the Scottish legal system;
any other existing provisions in law that relate to publication by the Press in the UK;
any developments in Press Regulation elsewhere in the United Kingdom arising out of the Leveson Inquiry;
experience in regulation of the press outside of the United Kingdom, that might inform consideration of the recommendations made and the mechanisms suggested in the Part 1 Report of the Leveson Inquiry,

and to provide such advice and recommendations to the Scottish Government within 3 months.

Lord McCluskey (Chair)

John Herbert McCluskey, Baron McCluskey was Solicitor General for Scotland from 1974 to 1979. During this period he worked on the then Labour government's proposals for devolution. Lord McCluskey became a member of the Judiciary in 1984 and presided for 16 years as a High Court judge over some of the country's most famous criminal cases. He retired in 2000.  In 2011 he chaired the Independent Review Group examining the relationship of the High Court of Justiciary and the United Kingdom Supreme Court, whose recommendations were accepted both by the Scottish Parliament and the UK Government.  Lord McCluskey was for many years chair of the judges for the Bank of Scotland Press Awards and also Vice President of the West of Scotland Press Fund (the Journalists’ Charity).

David Sinclair

David Sinclair has been head of Communications at Victims Support Scotland since 2006, he is a former assistant editor of The Herald, having worked there from 1975 – 2006 and was President of the National Union of Journalists in 1990-91.

Professor Neil Walker

Neil Walker - LLB, PhD, LLD (Honoris Causa) (Uppsala), FBA, FRSE - is Regius Professor of Public Law and the Law of Nature and Nations at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh His main area of expertise is constitutional theory. He has published extensively on the constitutional dimension of legal order at sub-state, state, supranational and international levels. Previously he taught public law at Edinburgh for ten years (1986-96), was Professor of Legal and Constitutional Theory at the University of Aberdeen (1996-2000), and, most recently, was Professor of European Law at the European University Institute in Florence (2000-8), where he was also the first Dean of Studies (2002-5). In December 2008 Professor Walker was asked by the Scottish Government to conduct an independent review of final appellate jurisdiction in the Scottish legal system.

Peter Watson

Peter is Senior Partner and Head of Litigation at Levy & McRae.  Under his leadership, Levy & McRae has built up a worldwide reputation in areas of expertise such as media law, licensing, aviation, international claims, public inquiries, employment law and tax and revenue investigations.  He is also a part-time Sheriff and Visiting Professor at the School of Law, University of Strathclyde, and is a former President of the Society of Media Lawyers, Chairman of the Association of Mediators and a Member of the Criminal Rules Council.

Ruth Wishart

Ruth Wishart is a journalist and broadcaster with extensive experience of the Scottish media. She has been  a columnist with the Daily Record, columnist and Assistant Editor of the Sunday Mail, columnist and Assistant Editor of the Sunday Standard, and  Senior Assistant Editor of the Scotsman. Currently she writes a column for Herald Society, and contributes regularly to The Scotsman. She has also presented radio series for Radio Scotland and Radio 4. With Deborah Orr and Paul Flynn she recently interviewed a range of journalists, the transcripts of which were used for Enquirer, the National Theatre of Scotland's response to the issues covered in the Leveson Inquiry.

COCAINE SCANDAL IN GLASGOW : HOW THE NEWSPAPERS SAW LEVY MCRAE & PETER WATSON

PR, politics and the press: A conflict of interest but no barrier to the truth

EDITORIAL COMMENT Published on 21 Mar 2010

The shockwaves emanating from the controversial departure of Glasgow City Council leader Steven Purcell have shaken the foundations of Glasgow’s political and business establishment.

The initial facts were bad enough: allegations of drug-taking, cover-ups, incoherent ramblings, paranoia, a stay at a clinic specialising in the treatment of drink and drug problems, and finally Mr Purcell’s retreat from Scotland, reportedly for up to a year.

Since Mr Purcell’s departure, speculation has grown ever more fevered, encompassing suggestions of a network of powerful figures working behind the scenes to influence the workings of the city. The suggestion that this so-called network includes leading figures from the media is now threatening to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the Scottish press.

There have been hints that some Scottish newspapers have pulled their punches on the controversy because editors have been too close to Mr Purcell or, worse, they have been cowed into submission by Peter Watson and PR firm Media House. These suggestions have involved the Herald & Times Group, publishers of this newspaper, The Herald and the Evening Times. Other newspapers have also been referred to. We believe our readers should learn the facts here rather than read assumptions in the pages of other publications.

Glasgow is a large city but its political and business centre is small. Personal and business relationships meld together, contacts extend and overlap, boundaries blur. Business dinners become social occasions, colleagues become friends. Such social networking goes on in every city in the world. It only becomes a problem when a conflict of interest arises.

We believe our readers should learn the facts here rather than read assumptions in other publications

For the Herald & Times Group that conflict of interest arose when solicitors Levy & McRae, the firm we employ to ensure the legality of our editorial content, was engaged to act on behalf of Steven Purcell in the early stages of the controversy. The Herald broke the news of Mr Purcell’s resignation as council leader in a story by Paul Hutcheon on Tuesday, March 2.

Peter Watson, of Levy & McRae, and Jack Irvine, of Media House, acted for Mr Purcell as the crisis unfolded. In the most recent documents lodged with Companies House, Mr Watson is listed as one of four shareholders of Media House, along with Mr Irvine and two other individuals. Mr Watson has told us that he holds the shares as a representative of a trust for Mr Irvine’s children.

Mr Watson and Mr Irvine denied reports that Glasgow City Council’s PR department planned to issue a statement referring to Steven Purcell’s “chemical dependency”. When released, the official statement referred only to Mr Purcell’s “stress” and “exhaustion”.

They warned that a story in The Scotsman newspaper revealing details of the deleted reference to “chemical dependency” could be a breach of the Data Protection Act and be referred to the Information Comissioner. The media was also warned that inquiring into Mr Purcell’s health might breach his right to a private life under the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Sunday Herald’s analysis of the Steven Purcell controversy on March 7 included an article criticising the tactics of Mr Watson and Mr Irvine. To avoid a further conflict of interest, the article was not scrutinised for legal problems by a full-time employee of Levy & McRae but by a QC acting as an independent adviser, although still under the overall umbrella of the Levy & McRae contract with the Herald & Times Group.

After the story’s publication, the Sunday Herald was contacted separately by both Peter Watson and Jack Irvine. We will not reveal the details of private telephone calls with Peter Watson but the results of those calls could be seen in last week’s Sunday Herald. We printed a correction of one factual inaccuracy: we had said Mr Watson and Mr Irvine had left Scotland to go “on holiday” around the same time as Mr Purcell had left the country. In fact Mr Watson and Mr Irvine had both left on business trips to the Cayman Islands. We also printed a letter from Mr Watson complaining about our coverage. We agreed to print the letter to fulfil our duty to offer a right of reply.

In response to separate complaints from Mr Irvine we offered the same factual correction and the same opportunity to submit a letter for publication, subject to our normal editing procedures. He refused both offers.

In an article in industry magazine PRWeek on March 10, Mr Irvine revealed he had lodged a complaint with the Sunday Herald. He said he had asked for an apology and that he would refer the matter to the Press Complaints Commission if his request was refused.

Mr Irvine has now submitted a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission against the Sunday Herald article. He has complained on two counts:

1: By stating that he and Mr Watson had gone on holiday the Sunday Herald implied that he had left Mr Purcell “in the lurch”.

2: The Sunday Herald launched a “vicious attack” on the methods he and Mr Watson had employed without giving either the right to comment or reply before publication, allegedly in breach of the Editor’s Code of Practice.

Mr Irvine referred to previous “problems” he had experienced with the Sunday Herald, including discussions this newspaper had had with Mr Watson over a story concerning another Media House client earlier this year.

Mr Irvine claims to the Press Complaints Commission that the Sunday Herald’s article on the Steven Purcell tactics was “heavily influenced by spite, bad blood and malice”. The Sunday Herald will defend itself against Mr Irvine’s accusations through the normal channels.

There have been other references in the media to the friendship between Steven Purcell and leading newspaper editors, including Herald & Times editor-in-chief Donald Martin. Mr Martin met Mr Purcell and prominent figures in the Glasgow business community on a fairly regular basis and both were part of a network dubbed “Team Glasgow”.

Mr Martin told the Sunday Herald: “I was glad to play a role in Team Glasgow along with other individuals who believed in co-operating for the good of the city. Our aim was to encourage actions which would help the city. As a newspaper editor it is an important part of my job to make contacts in the political, business and other spheres and I also believe it is part of my job to work for the good of Glasgow and indeed Scotland. There is no conflict between that aim and my commitment to publishing the facts of stories which are important to the lives of our readers.

‘‘The Herald broke the news of Steven Purcell’s resignation and has continued to inform our readers of the major developments in this story. We remain committed to uncovering the full facts surrounding Mr Purcell’s departure, many of which remain obscured. We will work to uncover the truth, no matter how long it may take. There is no evidence of a ‘conspiracy of silence’. Indeed, the facts render such an allegation ridiculous.”

There remains the question of a conflict of interest regarding Peter Watson in his roles as legal adviser to the Herald & Times Group and as a listed shareholder in Media House. Levy & McRae’s website offers a service described as “reputation management”. It states: “With a low profile, we aim to keep our clients off the front page and take swift, effective action where required. Being networked at the highest levels and having access to major decision-makers is key to our success.”

One media organisation asked the Herald & Times Group last week if such a statement could be reconciled with the aims of our newspapers.

Herald & Times managing director Tim Blott said he was extremely concerned at the conflict of interest which had arisen in the Steven Purcell case. He said: “We are taking this problem very seriously and are assessing our relationship with our legal advisers this week. We certainly need to be assured that there is no potential for similar conflicts of interest in future and we are making our position very clear to Levy & McRae.”

Calling for a Dimmo ? First Minister Salmond seeks Judge-led quango style post-Leveson group to look at ethics in Scottish media

First Minister Alex Salmond will need a judge without a dodgy background to chair his media ethics effort. ON THE DAY Lord Leveson’s Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press was published, absurdly accusing the UK media of creating havoc with the public interest, Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond has outlined his plans for meddling with free speech in the media & published criticism north of the border, with the announcement he is looking for a Court of Session judge to lead a five ‘non-politician’ implementation group who will ‘take forward’ the issue of press ethics in Scotland.

It has been rumoured this evening Mr Salmond’s advisers have drawn up a short list of currently serving and retired judges, a list which include the names of Lord Nimmo Smith (who recently chaired the ‘inquiry’ into problems at Rangers Football Club) and also none other than recently retired Lord President, Lord Hamilton.

Stocking fillers for the five ‘non-politician' roles are rumoured to include several controversial figures and former law officers already given positions by Mr Salmond (A former Lord Advocate, perhaps ? – Ed)

A Scottish Parliament insider commented earlier today : “Perhaps Mr Salmond’s new media muzzling quango may be able to investigate his own party’s dark media ethics.”

Leveson: Salmond suggests post-Leveson inquiry group

First Minister Alex Salmond has outlined plans for an independent group to take forward the issue of press ethics in Scotland.

His call came as Lord Justice Leveson recommended a new and tougher watchdog in his report on the issue  report on the issue .

But Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats said Mr Salmond was not fit to lead such reforms.

They said his relationship with News Corporation meant he should step aside from the process.

Mr Salmond pointed to Lord Justice Leveson's finding that the first minister "cannot be criticised", over his involvement surrounding the controversial proposed takeover of BSkyB by News Corporation.

During first minister's questions at Holyrood, Mr Salmond suggested the post-Leveson group should be non-political and chaired by a current or recent Court of Session judge.

The first minister appeared as a witness at the nine month-long Leveson Inquiry, which was prompted by the phone-hacking scandal at the former News of the World newspaper, owned by News Corporation.

Mr Salmond, who said he was "positive" about the findings of the inquiry, invited all the Scottish Parliament's political parties to meet him and give their views, adding: "I believe it's important to achieve cross-party agreement in Scotland on the best way forward."

The first minister, speaking in the context of Holyrood being responsible for the regulation of the printed media in Scotland, added: "I propose the establishment of an independent implementation group, chaired by a current or recent court of session judge, with five non-politician members.

"The purpose of this group would consider how best to implement the Leveson proposals in the context of Scots law and devolved responsibilities of this parliament."

During his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, Mr Salmond was quizzed about his contact with media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his willingness to lobby the former culture minister Jeremy Hunt over the planned BSkyB takeover.

In his report, Lord Justice Leveson concluded Mr Salmond could not be criticised for his role in lobbying for the takeover of broadcaster BSkyB by Mr Murdoch's News Corporation.
   
What did Lord Justice Leveson say?

All of the press served the country "very well for the vast majority of the time"

The press must create a new and tough regulator backed by legislation to ensure it was effective

This cannot be characterised as statutory regulation

Legally-binding arbitration process needed to force newspapers to deal effectively with complaints

Some "troubling evidence" in relation to the actions of some police officers - but no proof of widespread corruption (Hear no …. See no …. Speak no …- Ed)

Over last 30 years all political parties have had too close a relationship with the press which has not been in the public interest

Former Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt was not biased in his handling of News Corp's BSkyB bid but failed to supervise his special adviser properly (Haha – Ed)

However, the judge's report said that, had Mr Salmond been successful in persuading UK ministers, his actions would have rendered any final deal "unlawful".

The inquiry also said there was no evidence of a specific deal between Mr Salmond and the Murdochs to trade newspaper support for help with the bid.

But Lord Justice Leveson said the first minister was seeking political support from The Sun in the same conversation as he was repeating an offer to assist with the bid.

The report added that there was clearly "mutual respect" and admiration between Mr Salmond and Mr Murdoch.

It said Mr Murdoch, the owner of The Sun and The Times, appreciated he was dealing with a politician of "considerable skill, resource and intelligence".

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie insisted Mr Salmond was the most heavily criticised in the report and, therefore, his role in spearheading a cross-party group of leaders was in doubt.

He said the first minister had been accused by Lord Justice Leveson of "seeking to entice the UK government to act unlawfully over the BSkyB bid".

Mr Rennie added: "He should offer to stand aside from the cross-party work. It should be led by someone untainted by the report.

"Lord Leveson has seen right through Alex Salmond. He is justly concerned about the murky dealings between Alex Salmond and the Murdochs."

Labour Leader Johann Lamont added: "On the face of it, what Lord Leveson is recommending looks sensible.

"I am not convinced that there is need for a separate press regulation system in Scotland, but, after reading Lord Leveson's comments in his report, I am convinced that Alex Salmond is not the man to lead any form of press regulation."

And Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, added: "The Leveson Report contains some marked criticisms of the first minister and his conduct surrounding the BSkyB bid and his attempt to curry favour with The Sun newspaper.

"In light of these remarks, I think it would be wise for the first minister to take a step back from the process he announced today and allow another minister to represent the Scottish Government in the proposed cross-party talks."

While answering questions on the inquiry, Prime Minister David Cameron was asked by SNP MP Angus Robertson whether he endorsed Mr Salmond's proposals.

Mr Cameron responded: "I will look carefully at what the first minister says and the proposals that he's making in this area, adding: "I recommend that the honorable gentleman might want to have a look at what the report says about the first minister as well."

Reacting to Lord Justice Leveson's report, the first minister told BBC Scotland: "I think he's actually managed to make the distinction between state regulation, which I don't think would have been a good thing, on the one hand and the other hand self-regulation with an underpinning of the law, particularly if they give it incentives for people to take part and play the game, and that distinction's pretty successfully made in Leveson's conclusions."

On the attacks over his relationship with Rupert Murdoch, Mr Salmond added: "I think I'll accept the Leveson finding that I can't be criticised.

"He also says it's laudable for the first minister of Scotland to try and get jobs and investment for this country - that is the prime requirement."

Mr Salmond said it would be "totally irresponsible" not to have regular contact with News Corporation, which he said was Scotland's ninth biggest private sector employer, through News International and BSkyB, which supported 8,000 jobs.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Labour and Conservative leaders, Johann Lamont and Ruth Davidson, welcomed the prospect of cross-party talks.

MSPs will debate the Leveson Inquiry report next week.

Declarations of Freemasonry membership a must if Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking is to have any credibility says Scots justice campaigner

A letter from a Fife based justice campaigner published in the Scotsman newspaper and since made available to Scottish Law Reporter in its original format says there must be declarations of Masonic membership in the Leveson Inquiry into phone hacking at the News of the World and other media outlets.

Since the letter was published yesterday, details have today emerged of Lord Justice Lord Leveson, the judge appointed by Prime Minister David Cameron to investigate the hacking scandal, had attended parties at the home of Elizabeth Murdoch, the daughter of media mogul Rupert Murdoch whose newspapers are caught up in the hacking scandal. More on this can be read in today’s Independent, here : Miliband mulls MPs' demands to remove hacking-inquiry judge

Masonic link : published in the Scotsman newspaper   23 July 2011

Your Leader (21 July) on the terms of reference of the phone-hacking inquiry makes a good case for keeping a narrow focus.

But in order to do the inquiry justice heed must also be taken of the concerns of journalist Nick Davies of the Guardian, who in June revealed that one of the rogue investigators used by several newspapers, Jonathan Rees, had used his membership of the Freemasons to gain information from corrupt policemen, customs officers, tax officials and bank employees.

This claim was repeated in the House of Commons by Tom Watson MP and led to Simon Hughes MP demanding that any inquiry into phone hacking should be headed by a non-Masonic judge; if one could be found.

In April 1985, following another Masonic scandal, the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Kenneth Newman, told his officers not to join the Masons and cautioned those who were members to quit. Newman said this was necessary if his men were to enjoy the confidence of the public.

Cocking a snook at Newman in 1986 the Metropolitan Grand Lodge of London consecrated a new lodge for the exclusive use of Met officers. The lodge number 9,179 is known as the Manor of St James and is one of 1,600 Masonic lodges in London.

In my experience, freemasonry, the very antithesis of meritocracy, may go some way towards explaining the corruption and incompetence of the Met officers, as well as the cosy relationship between the Met, government and News International.

Masonic membership declarations of those taking part in the Leveson Inquiry are essential if the probe is to have the confidence of the public.

Tom Minogue, Dunfermline, Fife