Max Mosley has branded the Government’s decision not to implement Leveson part two a “disgrace”.
It was disclosed that the privacy campaigner published a campaign leaflet linking non-white immigrants with diseases such as tuberculosis, VD and leprosy.
The pamphlet, supporting a candidate for his father Sir Oswald Mosley’s Union Movement in a 1961 by-election, was unearthed by the Daily Mail in archives in Manchester.
The Mail said its discovery raised questions over evidence which Mr Mosley gave under oath in a High Court trial when he successfully sued the News Of The World in 2008.
In a statement, Mr Mosley said: “The massive coverage in the Daily Mail for a second day concerning events 55 to 60 years ago is another extraordinary attempt to attack and intimidate me.
“I will not be deterred from pursuing what is right and nor should those who have campaigned for part two of the Leveson Inquiry.
“The Government’s decision today on this is a disgrace.”
#Leveson2 ditched by government. Predictable, spineless and a total betrayal of every promise made to victims of phone-hacking.
— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) March 1, 2018
The second part of the Leveson Inquiry was due to look into unlawful conduct within media organisations as well as relations between police and the press.
Culture Secretary Matt Hancock told the House of Commons that reopening the “costly and time-consuming” inquiry – which reported on press regulation and ethics in 2012 – was not “the right way forward”.
Mr Hancock also announced the Government would not put into effect a controversial measure which would have required media organisations to sign up to a state-backed regulator or risk having to pay legal costs in both sides of a libel case, even if they won.
Mr Mosley added: “There are also serious questions about the relationships between senior police officers, top newspaper executives and certain politicians.
“Those are not necessarily criminal but need to be made public so that much-needed reforms can take place.
“Powerful press interests should not have significant influence over our police and it’s time to end their unhealthy power over government.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here