![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Leveson Inquiry. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Leveson Inquiry at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It was apparent today, when the email referring to Hunt was read out to the Inquiry, that the clear 'joke' aspect (viz: the emoticon !> , which was said to denote a 'wink' ) had been lost as evidence. The Quizmaster did not mention it at all when he read out the message, and if Murdoch Jnr. had not pointed its presence out, people could have interpreted this email as evidence of corruption!! Has a specialist in Emoticons even been consulted to decipher the real meaning of these emails? How many of the other emoticons have NOT been read out? Is Leveson at all conversant with emoticons - does he for example, know the difference between LOL and IMAO? Or indeed 8:-) and @@@@:-) - the entire affair is very <*)))-{ indeed. Add in the huge number of typing errors made by NOTW journalists and the possibility of a miscarriage of justice is horrendous. The page should be cross-referenced to an emoticon glossary. 212.139.96.55 ( talk) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)twl 212.139.96.55 ( talk) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The emoticon read out by Murdoch Jnr. i.e. !) does not appear to denote a wink at all - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emoticons . Winks are written as (^_-) or (^_-) or even -☆ , but never !> . Perhaps he was a little (=_=)after 6 hours on the stand? Leveson appeared very (?_?) and just (._.)on the matter, but it could turn out to be a ●~* under the entire contention that corruption is still going on, which would be a (ー_ー)!! after so much hard work. Maybe they've been encrypting messages to each other, and the Met. haven't got the code breakers onto it yet?
The wink was probably a mistyped fullstop - the sentence was apparently "although absolutely illegal..>!". the shift key was pressed too early and turned the fullstop into a >. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.161.236 ( talk) 09:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
How about listing them alphabetically? easier to read then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.5.146 ( talk) 02:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Good point, I'll do that. I took the list from the Leveson Inquiry's document listing the victims, and that was the order they came in, but you're right, alphabetical might be better. Kaleeyed ( talk) 16:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
A rulings section would be useful I think. There have already been rulings, these are detailed on the Leveson Inquiry website. If anyone would like to step in and do this feel free, or I will contribute something at a later date. Kaleeyed ( talk) 03:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The list of witnesses is duplicated, in the lede and a section of its own. I suggest that we drop it from the introduction - in due course the most notable evidence may be referred to there but the list will grow considerably and many of them are not notable and their evidence may be brief (we should not red-link them either unless they are clearly notable). -- AJHingston ( talk) 00:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the name of the witness should not be accompanied by a link to the video of their evidence?
J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, is listed in her WP biography as a witness, but is not listed among the witnesses. In what module did she testify? As she is a very prominent author, should she not be listed among the witnesses here? American In Brazil ( talk) 19:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I just had a thought, that really there should be a Background section, just a brief opening paragraph that summarises what had happened before the Inquiry and why it was felt to be needed, how David Cameron reached the decision to open the Inquiry, etc. This is mentioned in the leader but not so much in the body of the text. Kaleeyed ( talk) 14:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
As the former Assistant Police Commissioner, John Yates, plus former Conservative Press Officer, Andy Coulson were instrumental in the whole scandal, is there any reason why they should not be mentioned this in the article? I'm not suggesting this because they were not asked to provide evidence (yet)? Zylog79 ( talk) 17:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Should there be any mention about the novel and circus moments of the inquiry, for example when an intruder managed to burst in and throw a pie at Rupert Murdoch only to be slapped down by Wendi or when an anti-war protester managed to get in the building and disrupt Tony Blair's testimony or all the acrimony in general? 68.227.100.26 ( talk) 01:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Removed section about Daily Mail's "dossier" on Sir David Bell from Criticims and Controversy section. Not about a network "within the inquiry", multiple use of verb "revealed" is inappropriate as revealed nothing not already in the public domain. Reference to "scandal" not explained - what scandal? The Mail's 11 pages have been criticised as having little substance beyond the level of some conspiracy theories, and repeating much of their commentary verbatim seems inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. It may be significant in itself that the Mail published this. In any case there is now equal space to the "controversy" and criticism of it. Meerta ( talk) 11:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
There was major copyvio from the official site, which I've had to remove without having time to write a replacement. Sorry about that. I'd prefer not to, but copyright policy comes first, and having noticed it what is such a prominent page today I could hardly sit on it. I suspect I might not have got it all. Morwen ( Talk) 12:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
So, I did a lot of work prosifying this, and trying to add a summary of the report (not easy when it's 2,000 pages long and nobody agrees what the important bits are yet). The reactions were a bit easier. I got rid of the full list of victims and schedule of testimonies, because I didn't see it added much; I've left in a summary of various people. I removed the criticism and controversies bit, which I expect might be the subject of some criticism and controversy in itself, so I'll put my case for getting rid of it upfront here. Basically, it doesn't look like any of these are going to be the basis for long-term criticism of the report.
There were five of these things. Firstly, there was the issue regarding Leveson attending Freud's parties. This was the subject of a brief flurry of coverage in the papers, but is a bit WP:BLPy and turned out to be a non-issue.
Unless I am missing something, the Alex Owens thing is entirely irrelevant to Leveson itself, it is merely part of the controversy that Leveson is investigating. I can't see what this was doing here at all, as opposed to our many other articles about the hacking scandal.
Next, there was the Paul Staines/Alistair Campbell thing, which appears to be a routine political dispute, and nothing to do with the inquiry or the report itself: this was just the weapon of choice that week.
Next, Michael Gove's criticism about "chilling effects". This was not of the Inquiry itself, but was hypothetical criticism about what the Inquiry might report. Now that it has reported this is hardly relevant: if Michael Gove has a position different from the Tory front-bench line on it we can certainly put that in, but that's yet to become clear.
Finally, there was the Daily Mail's hatchet job on David Bell. This is quite WP:BLPy material, and I think we'd want another newspaper agreeing with their criticism of him before we cover it. All we have is newspapers rebutting it, I believe.
Remember, we're in the awkward position here where newspapers have to be looked at with extreme skepticism as sources, because they are participants in this debate, and they are not shy about expressing their corporate opinions as editorials and slanting their news pages.
Certainly I wouldn't be opposed to having a criticism section, I'm just not sure that paragraphs summarising random mud thrown at the inquiry during its process is the way to build one. Which of these criticisms actually holds water and people will be bringing up now that it's over, we'll see. Peter Preston just wrote an article criticising the actual content (beyond merely rejecting its findings) that I think we can cite. Morwen ( Talk) 02:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/05/leveson_wikipedia_prankster/
Now that we know the true nature of Leveson's source, can we insert a note in the lead about it all being a big hoax? Hcobb ( talk) 15:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should make some mention of this incident in which incorrect text was copy/pasted from The Independent directly into the Leveson report. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 21:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Do we owe it to Britain to read the entire report and note which parts are Wikied, rather than reality? Hcobb ( talk) 14:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
ok, so here's the paragraph concerned:
The Leveson report incorrectly listed a "Brett Straub" as one of the founders of The Independent. The name originated from an erroneous edit by an anonymous contributor to Wikipedia, and its inclusion suggested that part of the report relating to that newspaper had been cut and pasted from the website. [1] [2] The Brett Straub issue was also humorously referenced in broadcasts of BBC entertainment TV programme Have I Got News for You (series 44 episode 8, originally broadcast on 7 December 2012), and the extended edition Have I Got a Bit More News for You (series 44 episode 8, originally broadcast on 10 December 2012). The Economist also commented, "The Leveson report... is a mixture of the mediocre, the clever and the dangerous. Parts of it are a scissors-and-paste job culled from Wikipedia". [3]
I did actually remove the Have I Got News for You stuff a couple of days ago, but it seems to be back again. Lots of topics are satirised on that show, and if we add mention of it here does that mean we have to include information on every other subject that is covered by the programme in the relevant Wikipedia article? There is place for a mention of Straub in an expanded version of this, or perhaps even at The Independent article itself, but as the paragraph stands now, WP:UNDUE is a definite issue. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 11:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't really understand how adding a bit of information about this fails WP:UNDUE. It was newsworthy (three different mainstream news outlets have been sourced) and reliable sources are the determining factor under WP:UNDUE, not what the general public (or us, as editors, for that matter) may or may not think about it in relation to other things. That's higher quality reliable sourcing than some entire articles. It doesn't make any sense to me to simply scrub it out. I can understand the reflex in the circumstances (the objective being to maintain the article's quality, naturally) but policy is not a blunt instrument. Rather than fighting a meta battle would it not be more productive to consider the actual content being put in the article and, if it's unacceptable, propose something better?
Also, I'll think you'll find policy is, de jure, optional ;).- Rushyo Talk 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've got a few posts hanging (three or four) which haven't been replied to yet, but Jimthing has now inserted the Brett Straub section as a sub-section, divorcing it from the "Reaction" section (should be renamed "Reactions and Responses"? I think I'm going to leave it to others now, for various reasons, but just to say I think that the Talk page sections "Novelties" and "today's update" are relevant here. I do think the inquiry is more important than this. (This is an understatement.) Meerta ( talk) 00:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Since there are no reliable online sources to support this (and believe me, I've just checked) then I think the Have I Got News for You part of Straub's entry can sensibly go. If we took this to WP:GAN or WP:FAC they would certainly want it referenced or removed, and that's the basis on which I've made this momentous decision. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 18:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
For new readers of this, the whole issue has been resolved, by moving the section to a more appropriate page, and leaving a smaller comment under Reaction. (search "Leveson Inquiry" in the Dispute Resolution archives for resolution history.) Jimthing ( talk) 06:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
References
2nd part of Inquiry: does this need some further info of some kind? While it is under an embargo due to the police investigation and any subsequent court actions, it still seems rather bare. Unrelated to the Report for that 2nd part, one thing that should perhaps be mentioned is the proceedings that have been taken forward against certain individuals (eg. Coulson, Brooks, et al). Thoughts or additions welcomed. Jimthing ( talk) 23:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a story being reported about a conversation between Downing Street and the Daily Telegraph which may have a bearing on this topic, so I've taken the liberty of preparing a short paragraph on the issue. This doesn't really belong in reaction, but may need to be included depending on how events unfold:
On 12 December 2012 it was reported that during a telephone call to The Daily Telegraph Prime Minister David Cameron's spokesman, Craig Oliver had warned the newspaper against running a critical story on MPs expenses claimed by Culture Secretary Maria Miller because of her role in enacting proposals in the Leveson report. Downing Street denied that any threats were made. [1]
Your thoughts and comments on this are welcome. Cheers Paul MacDermott ( talk) 17:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
References
I'm not currently living in the UK, and don't know developments, but reading this article, it looks as if it needs update (at least to the extent of changing present to past tense). Pincrete ( talk) 11:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Leveson Inquiry. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Leveson Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Leveson Inquiry. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Leveson Inquiry at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It was apparent today, when the email referring to Hunt was read out to the Inquiry, that the clear 'joke' aspect (viz: the emoticon !> , which was said to denote a 'wink' ) had been lost as evidence. The Quizmaster did not mention it at all when he read out the message, and if Murdoch Jnr. had not pointed its presence out, people could have interpreted this email as evidence of corruption!! Has a specialist in Emoticons even been consulted to decipher the real meaning of these emails? How many of the other emoticons have NOT been read out? Is Leveson at all conversant with emoticons - does he for example, know the difference between LOL and IMAO? Or indeed 8:-) and @@@@:-) - the entire affair is very <*)))-{ indeed. Add in the huge number of typing errors made by NOTW journalists and the possibility of a miscarriage of justice is horrendous. The page should be cross-referenced to an emoticon glossary. 212.139.96.55 ( talk) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)twl 212.139.96.55 ( talk) 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The emoticon read out by Murdoch Jnr. i.e. !) does not appear to denote a wink at all - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emoticons . Winks are written as (^_-) or (^_-) or even -☆ , but never !> . Perhaps he was a little (=_=)after 6 hours on the stand? Leveson appeared very (?_?) and just (._.)on the matter, but it could turn out to be a ●~* under the entire contention that corruption is still going on, which would be a (ー_ー)!! after so much hard work. Maybe they've been encrypting messages to each other, and the Met. haven't got the code breakers onto it yet?
The wink was probably a mistyped fullstop - the sentence was apparently "although absolutely illegal..>!". the shift key was pressed too early and turned the fullstop into a >. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.161.236 ( talk) 09:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
How about listing them alphabetically? easier to read then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.5.146 ( talk) 02:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Good point, I'll do that. I took the list from the Leveson Inquiry's document listing the victims, and that was the order they came in, but you're right, alphabetical might be better. Kaleeyed ( talk) 16:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
A rulings section would be useful I think. There have already been rulings, these are detailed on the Leveson Inquiry website. If anyone would like to step in and do this feel free, or I will contribute something at a later date. Kaleeyed ( talk) 03:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The list of witnesses is duplicated, in the lede and a section of its own. I suggest that we drop it from the introduction - in due course the most notable evidence may be referred to there but the list will grow considerably and many of them are not notable and their evidence may be brief (we should not red-link them either unless they are clearly notable). -- AJHingston ( talk) 00:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the name of the witness should not be accompanied by a link to the video of their evidence?
J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, is listed in her WP biography as a witness, but is not listed among the witnesses. In what module did she testify? As she is a very prominent author, should she not be listed among the witnesses here? American In Brazil ( talk) 19:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I just had a thought, that really there should be a Background section, just a brief opening paragraph that summarises what had happened before the Inquiry and why it was felt to be needed, how David Cameron reached the decision to open the Inquiry, etc. This is mentioned in the leader but not so much in the body of the text. Kaleeyed ( talk) 14:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
As the former Assistant Police Commissioner, John Yates, plus former Conservative Press Officer, Andy Coulson were instrumental in the whole scandal, is there any reason why they should not be mentioned this in the article? I'm not suggesting this because they were not asked to provide evidence (yet)? Zylog79 ( talk) 17:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Should there be any mention about the novel and circus moments of the inquiry, for example when an intruder managed to burst in and throw a pie at Rupert Murdoch only to be slapped down by Wendi or when an anti-war protester managed to get in the building and disrupt Tony Blair's testimony or all the acrimony in general? 68.227.100.26 ( talk) 01:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Removed section about Daily Mail's "dossier" on Sir David Bell from Criticims and Controversy section. Not about a network "within the inquiry", multiple use of verb "revealed" is inappropriate as revealed nothing not already in the public domain. Reference to "scandal" not explained - what scandal? The Mail's 11 pages have been criticised as having little substance beyond the level of some conspiracy theories, and repeating much of their commentary verbatim seems inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. It may be significant in itself that the Mail published this. In any case there is now equal space to the "controversy" and criticism of it. Meerta ( talk) 11:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
There was major copyvio from the official site, which I've had to remove without having time to write a replacement. Sorry about that. I'd prefer not to, but copyright policy comes first, and having noticed it what is such a prominent page today I could hardly sit on it. I suspect I might not have got it all. Morwen ( Talk) 12:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
So, I did a lot of work prosifying this, and trying to add a summary of the report (not easy when it's 2,000 pages long and nobody agrees what the important bits are yet). The reactions were a bit easier. I got rid of the full list of victims and schedule of testimonies, because I didn't see it added much; I've left in a summary of various people. I removed the criticism and controversies bit, which I expect might be the subject of some criticism and controversy in itself, so I'll put my case for getting rid of it upfront here. Basically, it doesn't look like any of these are going to be the basis for long-term criticism of the report.
There were five of these things. Firstly, there was the issue regarding Leveson attending Freud's parties. This was the subject of a brief flurry of coverage in the papers, but is a bit WP:BLPy and turned out to be a non-issue.
Unless I am missing something, the Alex Owens thing is entirely irrelevant to Leveson itself, it is merely part of the controversy that Leveson is investigating. I can't see what this was doing here at all, as opposed to our many other articles about the hacking scandal.
Next, there was the Paul Staines/Alistair Campbell thing, which appears to be a routine political dispute, and nothing to do with the inquiry or the report itself: this was just the weapon of choice that week.
Next, Michael Gove's criticism about "chilling effects". This was not of the Inquiry itself, but was hypothetical criticism about what the Inquiry might report. Now that it has reported this is hardly relevant: if Michael Gove has a position different from the Tory front-bench line on it we can certainly put that in, but that's yet to become clear.
Finally, there was the Daily Mail's hatchet job on David Bell. This is quite WP:BLPy material, and I think we'd want another newspaper agreeing with their criticism of him before we cover it. All we have is newspapers rebutting it, I believe.
Remember, we're in the awkward position here where newspapers have to be looked at with extreme skepticism as sources, because they are participants in this debate, and they are not shy about expressing their corporate opinions as editorials and slanting their news pages.
Certainly I wouldn't be opposed to having a criticism section, I'm just not sure that paragraphs summarising random mud thrown at the inquiry during its process is the way to build one. Which of these criticisms actually holds water and people will be bringing up now that it's over, we'll see. Peter Preston just wrote an article criticising the actual content (beyond merely rejecting its findings) that I think we can cite. Morwen ( Talk) 02:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/05/leveson_wikipedia_prankster/
Now that we know the true nature of Leveson's source, can we insert a note in the lead about it all being a big hoax? Hcobb ( talk) 15:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should make some mention of this incident in which incorrect text was copy/pasted from The Independent directly into the Leveson report. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 21:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Do we owe it to Britain to read the entire report and note which parts are Wikied, rather than reality? Hcobb ( talk) 14:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
ok, so here's the paragraph concerned:
The Leveson report incorrectly listed a "Brett Straub" as one of the founders of The Independent. The name originated from an erroneous edit by an anonymous contributor to Wikipedia, and its inclusion suggested that part of the report relating to that newspaper had been cut and pasted from the website. [1] [2] The Brett Straub issue was also humorously referenced in broadcasts of BBC entertainment TV programme Have I Got News for You (series 44 episode 8, originally broadcast on 7 December 2012), and the extended edition Have I Got a Bit More News for You (series 44 episode 8, originally broadcast on 10 December 2012). The Economist also commented, "The Leveson report... is a mixture of the mediocre, the clever and the dangerous. Parts of it are a scissors-and-paste job culled from Wikipedia". [3]
I did actually remove the Have I Got News for You stuff a couple of days ago, but it seems to be back again. Lots of topics are satirised on that show, and if we add mention of it here does that mean we have to include information on every other subject that is covered by the programme in the relevant Wikipedia article? There is place for a mention of Straub in an expanded version of this, or perhaps even at The Independent article itself, but as the paragraph stands now, WP:UNDUE is a definite issue. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 11:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't really understand how adding a bit of information about this fails WP:UNDUE. It was newsworthy (three different mainstream news outlets have been sourced) and reliable sources are the determining factor under WP:UNDUE, not what the general public (or us, as editors, for that matter) may or may not think about it in relation to other things. That's higher quality reliable sourcing than some entire articles. It doesn't make any sense to me to simply scrub it out. I can understand the reflex in the circumstances (the objective being to maintain the article's quality, naturally) but policy is not a blunt instrument. Rather than fighting a meta battle would it not be more productive to consider the actual content being put in the article and, if it's unacceptable, propose something better?
Also, I'll think you'll find policy is, de jure, optional ;).- Rushyo Talk 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've got a few posts hanging (three or four) which haven't been replied to yet, but Jimthing has now inserted the Brett Straub section as a sub-section, divorcing it from the "Reaction" section (should be renamed "Reactions and Responses"? I think I'm going to leave it to others now, for various reasons, but just to say I think that the Talk page sections "Novelties" and "today's update" are relevant here. I do think the inquiry is more important than this. (This is an understatement.) Meerta ( talk) 00:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Since there are no reliable online sources to support this (and believe me, I've just checked) then I think the Have I Got News for You part of Straub's entry can sensibly go. If we took this to WP:GAN or WP:FAC they would certainly want it referenced or removed, and that's the basis on which I've made this momentous decision. Paul MacDermott ( talk) 18:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
For new readers of this, the whole issue has been resolved, by moving the section to a more appropriate page, and leaving a smaller comment under Reaction. (search "Leveson Inquiry" in the Dispute Resolution archives for resolution history.) Jimthing ( talk) 06:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
References
2nd part of Inquiry: does this need some further info of some kind? While it is under an embargo due to the police investigation and any subsequent court actions, it still seems rather bare. Unrelated to the Report for that 2nd part, one thing that should perhaps be mentioned is the proceedings that have been taken forward against certain individuals (eg. Coulson, Brooks, et al). Thoughts or additions welcomed. Jimthing ( talk) 23:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a story being reported about a conversation between Downing Street and the Daily Telegraph which may have a bearing on this topic, so I've taken the liberty of preparing a short paragraph on the issue. This doesn't really belong in reaction, but may need to be included depending on how events unfold:
On 12 December 2012 it was reported that during a telephone call to The Daily Telegraph Prime Minister David Cameron's spokesman, Craig Oliver had warned the newspaper against running a critical story on MPs expenses claimed by Culture Secretary Maria Miller because of her role in enacting proposals in the Leveson report. Downing Street denied that any threats were made. [1]
Your thoughts and comments on this are welcome. Cheers Paul MacDermott ( talk) 17:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
References
I'm not currently living in the UK, and don't know developments, but reading this article, it looks as if it needs update (at least to the extent of changing present to past tense). Pincrete ( talk) 11:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Leveson Inquiry. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Leveson Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)