Why can’t we re-open Leveson One?

[Onlystayingforhalfanhour543]

In the light of the admission by News Corp that it was guilty of unlawful activities and conduct, can we not ask for Leveson One to be re-opened to re-hear the contradictory evidence given previously by News Corp officials and employees?

The original evidence clearly misled the enquiry and surely this should now be corrected before discussing Leveson Two?

A link would help OP.

Sorry, not being goady, do you mean a causal link or a news link?

Unfortunately the NGN apology wasn't an admission of anything new. David Sherborne grandstanded a bit after the settlement, and this flourish of over-reach was widely publicised, but NGN has since pushed back hard on it.

The mainstream media really muddied the waters on all this after the settlement, I believe. A lot of reporting mixed up what NGN said with what Sherborne said (and then under-reported the NGN push-back), but nothing really surprises me any more from the likes of the BBC and Guardian.

Personally I'd rather see Leveson II started. It was axed by Theresa May and Matt Hancock (then Culture Sec) on supposed costs grounds, and Lisa Nandy (current Culture Sec) is making sounds she won't resurrect Leveson II either. Genuinely I think this is a mistake.

Leveson II would look at the Met Police's relationship with the media. That's one I think would be very interesting and valuable. That could be expanded as necessary.

Meanwhile Elton John et al are suing the Mail (ANL) - and very good luck to him - and the Met and CPS are free to pursue their enquiries at any point.

And Rebekah Wade is CEO of the big daddy, News Corps.

Funny old world, as Private Eye would say.

I found the actual statement, so no longer need a link OP. Also decided that I would need to read the original report and the evidence given in order to offer any sort of informed opinion.

What I mean is, people have been focusing on Leveson Two, and discussion has also centred on the police looking at potential criminal charges arising out of Harry’s and others case against NGN, but doesn’t alleged lying to a public judicial enquiry headed by a judge potentially:

• indicate a need to set the official record straight

and

• perhaps of itself warrant enough cause to bring people who have otherwise escaped responsibility, to account?

Put more simply, I am not a lawyer, so I am interested to know if a public judicial enquiry can be re-opened or not, and whether potentially admitting lying to one brings with it any penalties?

And has the potential lying been proven sufficiently to re-open it?

Leveson II would look at the Met Police's relationship with the media. That's one I think would be very interesting and valuable. That could be expanded as necessary.
I think the relationship between the police and the media definitely needs to be looked at. It has not as far as I can see been looked into enough. Frankly the whole thing is pointless unless they put in place a proper independent press regulator. They have shown they can't be trusted to self regulate. The gutter nonsense is bringing proper journalism into disrepute.

@Onlystayingforhalfanhour543 I understand where you are coming from but I agree Levinson II is where the focus should be.