Prosecution case
Lord McCluskey (Letters, 3 April) writes at ponderous length in response to what he says were “questions about the working of regulatory mechanisms proposed in the McCluskey Report”.
That is an over-literal spin on the rhetorical questions in my short letter. However, at least the noble lord now acknowledges that “if publishers did defy the court they would be subject to the usual range of penalties, including fines and imprisonment”.
Why then did he object to your original story, in which you said that we “could see journalists prosecuted”?
Lord McCluskey wants to go beyond Leveson in a way which would restrict press freedom. I disagree with him, but I’m sure he has many supporters. I wonder, therefore, why he is so keen to shoot the messenger who fairly highlighted the report’s main conclusion and yet so unwilling to make his views clear.
Andrew Anderson
Granton Road
Edinburgh