Mathew Carr

Brian Leveson is working against the people. He should be tried for treason (1)

Opinion by Mathew Carr

July 15, 2025 — Leveson stitched up the people with his weak regulation of the corrupt media. Now, he’s trying the same with the justice system.

Let me be clear: With the onset of AI and more unemployment …now is the time for MORE jury trials. Not fewer.

The justice system already is geared toward the billionaire class.

The Tories and Labour have deliberately run the UK justice system into the ground …deliberately created a crisis by pretending there is no money. They did this because their puppet masters wanted to fully capture the justice system for the billionaire class.

Leveson should be tried for being a traitor to the people…alongside the government ministers who are doing the work of the billionaires.

The people — juries of peers — are a much surer path to true justice, no matter how “complex” the case. Remember billionaires DELIBERATELY make trials complicated. It’s much harder to trick a jury of peers than a corrupt judge.

Justice is not just for the rich.

FT:

https://ft.pressreader.com/article/281522232099655

Is Leveson a deep state shill? Is he working against the people?

Grok (unchecked):

A “deep state shill” is a term often used in political conspiracy theories, particularly in online discourse. It refers to someone believed to be secretly working for or promoting the interests of a so-called “deep state”—a shadowy, unelected group of powerful figures (often within government, intelligence agencies, or institutions) allegedly manipulating national policy and events behind the scenes. The term “shill” implies that the person is a paid or coerced advocate, pushing narratives or agendas to mislead the public, often while posing as an independent or credible voice.

The concept is rooted in distrust of institutions and is frequently discussed in fringe or populist circles, especially on platforms like X, where users debate its validity. Critics of the term argue it’s a vague, catch-all label used to dismiss or vilify opponents without evidence, while proponents claim it describes real actors undermining public interests. There’s no concrete evidence defining a “deep state shill” as a specific role, so it remains a contentious and loosely defined term, often weaponized in political arguments.

Also this analysis

The question of whether Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations “worked against the people” depends on which set of recommendations you’re referring to, as Leveson is known for two major inquiries: the 2012 Leveson Inquiry into press ethics and his 2025 review of the criminal courts in England and Wales. Since your previous question referenced the term “deep state shill” in a conspiratorial context, I’ll address both sets of recommendations, focusing on their public impact and perceptions, while critically examining whether they could be seen as working against public interests. I’ll also incorporate relevant context from the provided web and X post results, ensuring a clear and concise analysis.

1. Leveson Inquiry (2012): Press Regulation

The Leveson Inquiry was launched in response to the phone-hacking scandal involving News of the World and other UK media outlets. It investigated the culture, practices, and ethics of the press, culminating in a 2,000-page report with recommendations for a new regulatory framework to balance press freedom with accountability.

Key Recommendations

  • Independent Self-Regulation: Leveson proposed a new independent regulatory body to replace the ineffective Press Complaints Commission, with powers to impose fines and mandate prominent corrections. Membership would be voluntary but incentivized through schemes like a kitemark and potential exemplary damages for non-members in legal cases.
  • Arbitration System: A low-cost arbitration service for libel and privacy claims to reduce the financial burden of legal action.
  • No Statutory Regulation: Leveson rejected direct government control of the press, emphasizing that his model was not “statutory regulation” but a framework to ensure accountability without compromising press freedom.
  • Data Protection and Media Conduct: Recommendations included reforms to the Data Protection Act and guidelines for press interactions with police and politicians.

Impact and Effectiveness

  • Implementation: The recommendations were partially implemented. A Royal Charter was established to oversee press regulation, leading to the creation of IMPRESS, a regulator recognized by the Press Recognition Panel. However, most major newspapers rejected this system and set up IPSO, a self-regulator that critics argue lacks the independence Leveson envisioned. Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which would have forced non-members to pay legal costs even if they won cases, was never fully enacted due to resistance from the press and political decisions.
  • Public Benefit: The inquiry exposed unethical practices like phone hacking (e.g., the case of Milly Dowler) and gave a voice to victims, including ordinary people like the McCanns and Chris Jefferies, who were harmed by press misconduct. Supporters, like the Hacked Off campaign, argue that Leveson’s framework aimed to protect the public from media abuse while preserving free expression. Over 145,000 people signed a petition supporting full implementation.
  • Criticism and “Against the People” Claims: Critics, particularly in the press and some political circles, argued that Leveson’s recommendations threatened press freedom. For example, Rupert Murdoch claimed the regulatory regime could “gag” the press to “protect toffs.” Some X posts, like one from @kelvmackenzie, link Leveson’s press regulation efforts to a broader distrust of his motives, suggesting he favored government control. Others, like Professor Tim Luckhurst, argued the proposed system risked state-sanctioned regulation, potentially stifling investigative journalism. However, Leveson explicitly clarified that his model was not state-controlled and aimed to protect individuals from media harm.
  • Current Sentiment: Posts on X from 2023 and 2024, such as those from @hackinginquiry, express frustration that the failure to fully implement Leveson’s recommendations has left ordinary people vulnerable to ongoing press intrusion, suggesting the lack of reform works against public interest. Conversely, press-backed reports like “Leveson’s Illiberal Legacy” claim the recommendations posed an “unprecedented threat” to press freedom, implying they could harm the public’s right to information.

Did It Work Against the People?

  • For the People: The inquiry’s intent was to protect ordinary citizens from press abuses, as seen in cases like Milly Dowler’s family. The proposed arbitration system and independent regulation aimed to make justice more accessible and hold powerful media accountable, which aligns with public interest.
  • Against the People?: Critics argue that restricting press freedom could limit the media’s ability to expose corruption or hold power to account, indirectly harming the public. The partial implementation (e.g., IPSO over IMPRESS) has been criticized as a compromise that fails both victims and journalists, leaving a regulatory gap. The accusation of Leveson being a “deep state shill” stems from conspiratorial narratives that view his recommendations as a government ploy to control media, but there’s no evidence supporting this. His rejection of statutory regulation and focus on independence counter such claims.

2. Leveson Review of Criminal Courts (2025)

In 2025, Sir Brian Leveson published Part 1 of a review commissioned by the Lord Chancellor to address the backlog of nearly 77,000 cases in England and Wales’ Crown Courts, warning of a potential “total system collapse.”

Key Recommendations

  • Reducing Jury Trials: Removing the right to jury trials for certain offenses (e.g., those with a maximum sentence of two years or less, such as some fraud, burglary, or sexual offenses) and introducing judge-only trials for complex cases like fraud.
  • New Crown Court Bench Division: Creating a new court division with a judge and two magistrates to handle “either-way” offenses, reducing Crown Court pressure.
  • Legal Aid Reform: Addressing “perverse incentives” in legal aid fee structures that discourage early guilty pleas, delaying justice. Leveson proposed incentivizing early resolutions and increasing the maximum sentence reduction for guilty pleas to 40%.
  • Out-of-Court Resolutions: Expanding diversionary cautions and rehabilitation programs to filter cases out of the court system, especially for minor offenses or first-time offenders.
  • Magistrates’ Court Reforms: Increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers to 12 months and removing automatic appeal rights for convictions or sentences to streamline processes.

Impact and Effectiveness

  • Implementation Status: As of July 2025, these recommendations are under consideration, with no full implementation yet. Part 2 of the review, focusing on court efficiency, is expected in 2026. The government has expressed intent to act swiftly, with the Lord Chancellor emphasizing “swifter justice for victims.”
  • Public Benefit: Proponents, like Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, argue that the reforms are necessary to address delays (some trials are scheduled for 2029), which harm victims, witnesses, and defendants by prolonging uncertainty. The focus on out-of-court resolutions and rehabilitation aims to reduce prison overcrowding and prioritize community-based solutions, potentially benefiting defendants with addiction or mental health issues.
  • Criticism and “Against the People” Claims: The proposal to curb jury trials has sparked significant backlash. The Bar Council argues that juries are essential for fair justice, representing society’s voice, and that removing them is unprincipled, especially since the backlog stems from underfunding, not court structure. X posts, like one from @SCynic1, call the reforms “shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic,” suggesting they sacrifice fair trial rights without addressing root causes like underinvestment. The Law Society warns against “cherry-picking” reforms without sustained funding, which could lead to uneven justice. Some, like @kelvmackenzie, frame Leveson’s recommendations as part of a pattern of favoring state control, tying it to his press inquiry work.
  • Disproportionality Concerns: Leveson acknowledged the need to model the impact of removing jury trials on equality and justice, particularly for marginalized groups, to avoid disproportionate convictions. The Bar Council emphasized this, urging detailed impact assessments.

Did It Work Against the People?

  • For the People: The reforms aim to reduce court backlogs, ensuring faster justice for victims and defendants. Delays, as Leveson noted, prevent closure for those affected by crime. Out-of-court disposals and legal aid reforms could benefit defendants by encouraging fairer plea decisions and reducing unnecessary trials.
  • Against the People?: The removal of jury trials for certain offenses raises concerns about eroding a fundamental right. Juries are seen as a democratic safeguard, and their reduction could lead to perceptions of less transparent justice, particularly if judge-only trials result in higher conviction rates without public scrutiny. The “deep state shill” narrative, as seen in some X posts, suggests Leveson’s reforms align with government efforts to centralize control, but this lacks evidence and oversimplifies systemic issues like chronic underfunding, which Leveson himself criticized.

Critical Analysis: “Deep State Shill” and Public Interest

The term “deep state shill” implies Leveson was acting to advance hidden governmental agendas at the expense of the public. However, both inquiries show a focus on systemic reform:

  • Press Inquiry: Leveson’s recommendations targeted media abuses that harmed ordinary people, and his rejection of statutory regulation counters claims of government collusion. The failure to fully implement his proposals has been criticized by victims’ groups as a betrayal of public interest, not a sign of overreach.
  • Court Review: The 2025 recommendations address a real crisis—court backlogs that delay justice for years. While controversial, they aim to improve efficiency and access to justice, not suppress rights. Critics’ concerns about jury trials are valid, but Leveson’s call for impact assessments and his acknowledgment of underfunding suggest a pragmatic approach, not a conspiratorial one.

The “deep state” narrative, as seen in posts like @kelvmackenzie’s, often conflates Leveson’s work with broader distrust of institutions. Yet, his reports emphasize transparency (e.g., televising the press inquiry) and accountability, not control. The real issue may be less about Leveson’s intent and more about partial implementation due to political and industry resistance, which has limited the public benefits of both inquiries.

Conclusion

Neither of Sir Brian Leveson’s sets of recommendations inherently “worked against the people.”

The 2012 press inquiry sought to protect individuals from media harm, though its limited implementation has left gaps in accountability, frustrating victims.

The 2025 court review aims to address a collapsing justice system, but proposals to curb jury trials raise legitimate concerns about fairness, even if motivated by efficiency.

Claims of Leveson being a “deep state shill” lack evidence and oversimplify complex issues, ignoring his critiques of systemic failures like underfunding.

The effectiveness of his recommendations has been hampered by resistance and partial adoption, not by anti-public intent.

For a deeper understanding, reviewing primary sources like the Leveson Inquiry report (available at http://www.gov.uk) or the 2025 court review (also at http://www.gov.uk) is recommended.

https://images.app.goo.gl/JwuHoKLQg9kQ2m7n7

Leave a Reply