Published by The Times on 17th July 2013All parties in Parliament have approved a Royal Charter setting up a non-political inspection body and listing regulatory standards

Sir, You say the newspaper proprietors’ latest scheme for self-regulation is a “full response” to Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals (leading article, July 11). It is not. Instead it conforms to the “pattern of cosmetic reform” that the judge detected in previous press responses to regulatory failure.

You wonder why Hacked Off thinks the will of Parliament important. Let me explain. Leveson found that newspapers “wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people” and knowingly operated a regulator that put their interests before the public’s.

As a remedy he proposed that the press should go on regulating itself but the regulator should be subject in future to periodic inspection by an independent body to ensure it met basic standards.

All parties in Parliament have since approved a Royal Charter setting up a non-political inspection body and listing regulatory standards. They did so to protect citizens from the abuses notoriously inflicted in the past on ordinary people, many of whom arenow associated with Hacked Off.

Some proprietors, including yours, simply reject all this. Condemned by a public inquiry and urged to reform — in the most cautious way — by our elected representatives, they cling to unaccountability.

Professor Brian CathcartHacked Off