? Charlotte Church claims she was offered £100,000 or 'favourable coverage' in News International titles if she sang at Rupert Murdoch's wedding to Wendi Deng
? Joanna Yeates's landlord Chris Jefferies says he will 'never fully recover' from the vilification by the press
? Former army intelligence officer Ian Hurst alleges corruption at the highest level at the Met police
? Anne Diamond says she felt 'emotionally blackmailed' by the Sun after the funeral of her baby son
? Paul Staines, AKA blogger Guido Fawkes, has been summoned to appear on Thursday after published a leaked draft of Alastair Campbell's testimony
7.05pm: We are now winding up the blog for today. Please join us tomorrow from 10am when the inquiry will hear evidence from Guardian journalist Nick Davies, former News of the World features editor Paul McMullan and ex-Daily Star reporter Richard Peppiatt.
6.49pm: News International has issued a statement in response to Charlotte Church's claim that the Sun "probably" got the story about her pregnancy from a hacked phone.
A News International spokesperson said:
"We are not aware of any evidence to support this claim."
It has not commented on her other claims.
6.36pm: We now have video of Charlotte Church telling the inquiry she was advised to waive a £100,000 fee to perform at Rupert Murdoch's wedding to Wendi Deng.
5.18pm: The written witness statements from today's Leveson inquiry have been made public:
Charlotte Church's written evidence
Anne Diamond's written evidence
Ian Hurst's written evidence
Chris Jefferies' written evidence
Jane Winter's written evidence
5.11pm: Here's a round up of the day's events at the Leveson inquiry into press standards.
? Charlotte Church claims she was offered £100,000 or 'favourable coverage' in News International titles if she sang at Rupert Murdoch's wedding to Wendi Deng.
? The singer tells how photographers cut holes in hedges near her home to track her every move and followed her to school.
? She says she hadn't a holiday since she was 16 where the press haven't found her. She says everyone sells stories about her, from concierges to restaurants to airlines.
? Chris Jefferies tells how he was portrayed as a "creepy oddball", a "pervert' and a "peeping Tom". He says he will "never fully recover" from the libellous coverage and some will still think he is a "weird" character who is "best avoided".
? Anne Diamond says she felt "emotionally blackmailed" after the Sun rang to say they had a photo of the funeral of her son who died in a cot death.
? Paul Staines who runs the Guido Fawkes blog has been summoned to appear before Leveson on Thursday
? Former army intelligence officer Ian Hurst alleges corruption at the highest level at the Met police. He says his computer was hacked and the police took years to notify him that his security had been compromised even though he was working in a very sensitive area, acting as a "handler" to IRA spies.
? Northern Ireland human rights charity boss Jane Winter says the hacking of Hurst's computer compromised her too.
4.54pm: And finally Richard Desmond and Paul Ashford on Paul Dacre:
Richard Desmond:
Mr Dacre is absolutely wrong.... [about health of tabloids dependent on stories about private lives].
Paul Ashford
...About everything. There are people who delight in having their private lives covered.
4.53pm: Ashford says that scoops don't necessarily add significantly to newspaper circulation.
It's a very very rare story in a modern newspaper that will sell a 100,000 or 200,000 more copies. A very good story might sell 5,000 more than a medium story.
4.51pm: Express Newspapers editorial director Paul Ashford on the front-page apology to the McCanns over a string of libellous articles:
But when the whole truth came out we felt bad about it anyway, we just wanted to do the best we could to put things right.
4.50pm: Paul Ashford, the editorial director at Northern & Shell, says that there is no point in fining errant newspapers:
I think the sanction of obliging a paper to put a correction or apology in their own pages is quite a strong sanction to have. The existing ones would do. Certainly the idea of fines. It's not a money matter really. You don't make a financial calculation when you're running stories.
4.41pm: Hugh Whittow, editor of the Daily Express, is also speakingat the joint Lord and Commons committee on privacy and injunctions.
He is being asked about the Christopher Jefferies case. The Leveson inquiry heard earlier today how the Bristol landlord accepted damages from newspapers which had libellously protrayed him as a "sexual voyeur", a "pervert", and "nutty".
Whittow says:
I think the case of Mr Jefferies was a libel action. Of course it was contravened. We made mistake we held our hands up, we paid damages and we apologised in the newspaper.
We had an inquest. We talked to our lawyers. It's a very very strict regime ? the newsdesk get the story and the reporter reports to the newsdesk, we always report to the lawyer.
On this occasion it slipped through the net. We do take considerable care. Newspapers are turned around in 8 or 10 hours. They were reprimanded internally.
Yes [reprimanded himself]. But we were by no means the worst offenders. We put our hands up and said we're very sorry and moved on.
4.38pm: The Express proprietor Richard Desmond tells the Lords he is "not proud" that the PCC has taken him to task over the years but says he is "pleased" to have pulled out of the "old boy's club".
Last week the Leveson inquiry heard how he paid out £550,000 to Gerry and Kate McCann for a string of libellous articles including one in the Daily Star claiming they had sold their missing child to pay off debts.
We're not proud that we've had seven cases in two years, but there has only been seven.
I think this PCC is an old boys' club and it's certainly been very ineffective and I'm very pleased at what we did last January, that we pulled out.
4.36pm: Richard Desmond tells the committee that the behaviour of the press is down to the ethics and conduct of those that are putting newspapers to bed at 10pm or 11pm, not the PCC.
It's fine sitting in a room talking about the ombudsman and Ofcom. These newspapers are living things. They're going to press at 10pm, 11pm. You have to have responsible people working for you that understand the editors' code.
You can put any rule you want in there but if you have a guy who works at a bank as a crook he's gonna steal.
We'd like to think people at Express Group are good people, responsible people who report the facts.
At the end of the day it's midnight and we're all asleep and there has to be a code throughout the companies so people can understand what to do, what not to do. That's what we do.
4.34pm: While Leveson continued, Josh Halliday has been keeping an eye on the joint Commons and Lords committee which is investigating privacy and injunctions.
Here are the best bits:
Paul Ashford, Northern and Shell's editorial director on the PCC:
What underlies the PCC is sound, you'd have to reconstitute it. A lot of the present people I would not recommend having on it ... they are editors and very close to the industry. I imagine something more like Ofcom, they're detached, they're not programming people, they're not biased, they don't have a tight remit, they advise ... and they discipline when they need to.
I don't think backing by statutory power is needed because you have the law already. You have people regularly invoking the law.
4.32pm: Richard Desmond and his editorial director are taking questions at a joint Commons and Lords committee.
4.28pm: Desmond says the Daily Mail sells its papers through promotions such as cottages.
For him to think invading people's privacy or ruining people's lives is a good thing to do ?
I would consider him immoral certainly. I think he's living in the past. His paper sells copies by putting £50 notes in and by vouchers from Marks & Spencers; that's how he sells papers, he's fooling himself.
4.26pm: Desmond says "self-regulation is the way forward with a professional guy like Lord Hunt [the new chairman of the PCC] who is not trying to score points, take it out of editors' hands".
4.25pm: Richard Desmond says he knew the News of the World was hacking.
You knew that News of the World were hacking because the guy had been in prison. We always heard internally about the Mail on Sunday, about the Mirror, about the People, and these were the very people that were sitting there hanging us out to dry. I find the whole thing very hypocritical.
4.23pm: We are now switching to the House of Lords where Richard Desmond, owner of the Daily Express is appearing before a joint Commons and Lords committee.
4.18pm: The inquiry has now ended for the day.
4.15pm: Leveson has decided not to publish Alastair Campbell's witness statement.
He says yesterday evening he was minded to deprive this [Paul Staines'] website of the oxygen of publicity, but he has changed his mind after the suggestion he can make an order under section 19 that will require the statement to be removed from the blogger's website.
Staines will be summoned to attend to explain himself on Thursday afternoon.
4.13pm: Associated Newspapers QC Jonathan Caplan says the publisher objects to the final draft being officially published ahead of Campbell's appearance on Wednesday.
Caplan points out that others are not "behaving so responsibly" and publishing witness statements.
4.12pm: Leveson is now returning to the question of blogger Paul Staines, AKA Guido Fawkes, and the leaked Alastair Campbell witness transcript.
Leveson notes that the version on the website is not the final statement.
Once again, Leveson says he does not want to give "oxygen" to "a failure to accurately reflect what the witness has to say".
4.09pm: Leveson is quizzing Diamond about the the language of the code of practice governing broadcasters.
She says it has "evolved over the years" and there's nothing to stop it being continued to be "debated and discussed".
Leveson is inviting her to compare it to the PCC editors' code of practice.
She tells Leveson that she has no experience of being an editor, but repeats her view that the press's decisions turn on the "values" of the editor or proprietor.
4.03pm: Diamond says journalism is not rotten, just a handful of journalists.
I wish we could achieve the same in the press. I know a lot of fine journalists who do a very good job. We've been hearing in the past few weeks about a handful of journalists who have been doing an appalling job.
4.02pm: For those who missed Charlotte Church's revelations about Rupert Murdoch's wedding, her written statement is now available as a PDF here.
Anne Diamond's written statement is also on the Leveson website now.
3.58pm: The inquiry has now returned to the issue of Diamond's decision to join forces with the Sun to raise funds for cot death research.
She said this was "a brilliant example" of the power of popular journalism.
They raised a couple of hundred thousand pounds in a matter of weeks.
She remembers that in its heyday the News of the World harnessed its reach to raise money for good causes and raise awareness about issues.
The tabloid and popular press is nothing to be ashamed of in this country. It can be a terrific force for good.
This is why, she says, she is still content to write for the Sun.
3.57pm: Leveson goes on to test Diamond's argument, asking her how the Dawn French article differs from the coverage of her son's funeral. The press had argued then that everything was also in the public domain, he points out.
Diamond says within the realms of taste and decency there were "huge questions to be asked" of the papers who covered the funeral.
It had happened in a public place, the photographer had made himself visible but there was still no public interest in covering it and it was an invasion of privacy, says Diamond.
3.55pm: Diamond says she was asked to write an article by the Daily Mail about Dawn French's weight loss. She hesitated but went ahead because she believed that the comedian was a "national treasure"; Diamond had also suffered her own weight issues.
She said she was careful not to write about anything that was invasive of French's privacy and only referred to what was in the public domain.
3.50pm: Diamond says even celebrities are entitled to privacy.
Every human being deserves some time in their life to be private.
She says editors have too much control over the values of their papers.
It comes down to his values and I think that's wrong: it should come down to an agreed set of values.
3.49pm: Diamond says the invasion of privacy comes second to commercialism.
All you are to newspapers is fodder. They are in the newspaper business to sell newspapers and make profit. The argument that you need us therefore you are beholden to us falls down when you point out that, for instance, when you're on breakfast TV you're going out to many millions of people.
3.49pm: Diamond says it is wrong for newspapers to say that regulation will stifle investigative journalism.
3.47pm: Diamond tells Leveson that the decisions to invade someone's privacy are down to the "ethics" of the proprietor.
Over the past 20 or 30 years I'm not sure some of the proprietors have the right values.
She says the same sort of decision-making goes on in TV, but people get fired and fined when they get it wrong.
These same dilemmas are held in broadcast up and down the land every day. In TV you have a code of conduct. You know if you go out of line in the BBC or ITV. We've always had the IBA, the ITC and now Ofcom ? they will come down on you like a ton of bricks, and very fast too.
3.42pm: Diamond says she has found reporters rooting through bins at her home. She claims some of them have gone on to become well-known names in journalism.
Now, she says, she has "an industrial-sized shredder" to get rid of all private documents.
3.41pm: Diamond explains how the other papers all did "spoilers" and accused her of doing a deal with the Sun despite her request to the press to stay away from the funeral. The other papers inferrred from the Sun's front page that the couple had co-operated with the paper.
3.39pm: The Sun's deputy editor rang the following day to say it had had an "incredible reaction" from readers who were moved to action on cot death.
Our first reaction was 'no way' and he said 'we are going to do it anyway' and it would look very badly if we didn't [get involved].
I felt emotionally blackmailed by the people who had just trampled all over our dignity and our child's grave.
In the end Diamond did agree to join forces with the Sun to raise funds for cot death research, says Diamond.
3.38pm: Diamond says the editor of the Sun phoned her husband telling him they had "an incredibly strong picture" of the funeral and asked him whether it was OK to use it.
Her husband said no, but the paper used it anyway.
3.36pm: The hearing is now shown a front page of the Sun from the following day which splashed on the photo.
"We had written to every editor begging them to stay away," says Diamond.
Leveson takes some time studying the exhibit.
I felt the Sun was justifying use of this picture with those words ["Anne's plea"].
3.35pm: She remembers a few months before that another person in the public eye, Eric Clapton, also lost a child. "That funeral became a circus," says Diamond; she was determined that this should not befall her family.
She requested that the papers stay away and they did "apart from one photographer who stood on the public highway with a very very long lens ? the sort of lens they only used to use on Princess Diana at the time."
3.32pm: Diamond goes on to describe what happened at the funeral parlour.
There are photographs that speak louder than words, says Diamond, but not this one.
That photograph was taken a few days after her baby Sebastian had died and she and her husband were visiting the parlour for the first time since the postmortem.
We were possibly at our most private and we were long-lensed at that point.
3.30pm: The inquiry has resumed. The hearing has now been given a reason for the recent break.
Diamond is now talking about the cot death of her baby son Sebastian in 1999.
Within an hour of finding out he had died, the media were on her doorstep.
She says her husband had phoned the police and, however it happened, they were besieged with reporters and photographers at the front door.
Our front door was very quickly filled up with hundreds of press. And there was one incident when a female reporter tried to rush the door. She rang the door and she had a big bouquet of flowers and when the chain had to be removed to open the door, she rushed in.
3.24pm: Ian Hurst's written statement to the Leveson inquiry has just been published.
In it Hurst alleges that "computer hacking was not confined to the News of the World".
I am also absolutely certain that there were strong links between certain newspapers and former and current officers of the Metropolitan Police Service.
3.23pm: The inquiry has just broken unexpectedly for five minutes after a handwritten note was handed to QC David Barr.
3.20pm: Diamond claims that when she bought a new house, a newspaper went to an estate agent and got full details.
"They printed it in full across one page in the Today newspaper," says Diamond.
It wasn't just a dreadful invasion of privacy of my new home, it was a burglar's charter.
3.18pm: Diamond recalls an occasion when the Sun had to pull a story and stop the printing presses running after a complaint.
We were warned 'they will not forgive you for doing that'. I think it simply incurred more wrath from the Sun ? Several days later Mr Murdoch went ahead and had it written in the Today newspaper instead.
3.16pm: She then got a phone call from a reporter from the Sun who said: "I have just had lunch with your nanny. We've bought her up."
A distraught Diamond rang her husband for advice and he told her to talk to the nanny, who was still in the house. The nanny was in tears and agreed to renege on the deal.
The Sun told her it had enough and ran the story anyway.
"We both felt abused," says Diamond.
3.14pm: Diamond tells of the lengths she had to go to to avoid the press after giving birth.
She claims a Sun reporter was caught impersonating a doctor when she was giving birth to her first son in 1986.
She tells how she and her husband Mike Hollingsworth left the hospital in the back of a laundry van to avoid the press just a few hours after she had given birth.
She then recalls what happened when she decided to sever links with her former nanny.
"She was a lovely girl, in the end we realised we weren't quite right for each other."
Diamond says that at some point the nanny had been approached by one of the reporters camped outside Diamond's house who had offered her more than her annual salary for her story.
At some point she met a journalist from the Sun and she would get £30,000 to explain what "life was like with the Diamonds".
3.13pm: Diamond tells how the News of the World branded her "a liar" after she denied an early-stage pregnancy in a bid to kill the story.
She tells of an incident when she was barely eight weeks pregnant and she felt nervous she was going to lose the baby.
She went for a consultation to Harley Street but within an hour she was phoned by a News of the World journalist.
To confirm would be to tell the world before I'd even told my parents ? I chose to deny. They ran the story anyway that I was pregnant.
They called me a liar from that point onwards.
3.11pm: Chris Jefferies' written statement to the inquiry has now been published.
3.10pm: Diamond says she believes the apology should have been on the front page.
She is asked if she believes apologies are good on page 2, which is the currently practice of some papers.
I'd say anyone in print journalism knows that page 2 is not a very prominent page. Page 3 is, page 1 is, but not page 2.
3.07pm: Diamond is now talking about an article titled "Anne Diamond killed my father" in the Sun. It had "raked up a seven-year-old tragedy" and linked it tenuously to her.
It made it look like I was a calculating cold-blooded murder.
Her complaint to the then Press Council was upheld, but was published on page 23 of the paper.
3.05pm: Diamond recells how she had once met Rupert Murdoch. She told him that his papers ruin people's lives and asked him how did he felt about that. "How could he sleep at night?" sahe says.
She tells the inquiry:
I seem to remember Murdoch brushing it aside ... and I was frustrated that I hadn't got my point across.
He pulled together his newspaper editors and possibly indicated to them that I was a person to be targeted.
From that moment onwards there were consistently negative stories about me in Mr Murdoch's newspapers.
She said her suspicion seemed to be confirmed recently by Murdoch's former butler, Philip Townsend, who said that Rupert Murdoch's reaction, which she took to be indifferent, "was different at the time".
3.03pm: Diamond tells how she was catapulted to fame in 1983 when on Britain's first breakfast TV station, TV-am.
3.00pm: Anne Diamond is now taking the stand.
2.59pm: Church concludes:
I feel strangely strong because I've survived it all and I don't know how because at times it really messes with your mind. In a way I think it's made me stronger but professionally because I've been made a caricature for so long and that really isn't me, the person I am or the way I live my life ? I think that has had a massive impact on my career. I find it really difficult to be taken seriously because my credibility has been knocked for so many years.
2.57pm: Church has just launched an attack on Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre and other editors. She said if they are not "whiter than white" their misdeeds deserve to be reported in the press rather than her private life.
The hearing has been told that Church has read a speech that Dacre recently gave to the Society of Editors.
I don't want to single out Paul Dacre at all. Just in terms of editors and people who are high up in tabloid papers ? he [Dacre] said that there were many journalists who were exposing the misdeeds of the rich, the powerful and the pompous.
It just struck me that Mr Dacre themselves and other editors are probably rich, definitely powerful; I'm not sure about pompous, but if they were subjected to the investigative journalism, maybe they would come out whiter than white, but if they weren't then their misdeeds are much more in the public interest as rich and powerful people than me as a TV presenter/singer or my friends.
2.51pm: Church says the PCC is not worth complaining to.
There is a massive problem to deal with and they just don't deal with the problems, they don't deal with it at all.
2.50pm: There's a massive financial implication just in submitting a complaint, Church says.
The damage is done once it's in print. It's been disseminated all over the internet or other publications It just feels a little pointless.
2.48pm: Earlier this month, the People newspaper suggested Church was going to get married with a splash headline "Marryoke". The paper had not contacted her.
She contacted the newspaper to say it was untrue and defamatory and there are ongoing legal proceedings.
Counsel for the inquiry Carine Patry Hoskins says it has been contacted by the publisher and says:
The People have now published a correction and an apology ? on 2 of yesterday's edition.
Church says she has seen this but it isn't good enough. She was seeking an apology on agreed terms on how it was written, and how there were quotes from her partners when it was totally made up.
2.45pm: A recent article claimed Church was drunk in a pub. It was "a complete fabrication".
The photograph to illustrate the article, she said, was from 2007 and a radio show she was doing with Chris Moyles.
It was a massively out of date photo.They phoned my publicist very late on Friday and asked what the nature of my relationship was ? they didn't give much away and therefore neither did we.
Within 36 hours it was picked up by 71 outlets and reported as fact.
2.44pm: The rest of the press picked up the story and the New York Post's headline was "Voice of an angel spews venom".
Church says her record company deemed it necessary to hire police guards.
2.41pm: The interviewer, Jasper Gerard, had asked her a lot of questions. She thought she had done really well. She was still used to interviews asking her about her favourite colour.
She recalls she had criticised a TV show for "demeaning" the firefighters by making them present an award for best soap.
This was turned into criticism of the firefighters as "celebrities".
I'd flown back from New York. The record company had set up the interview with me, that's quite normal. I felt at the time that the interview was going really well, he was asking interesting questions. It felt totally different and new. When I eventually saw the piece I was totally shellshocked. No one had sat it on the interview with me so I had the Sony people saying, have you said this, what's going on? I had to defend myself for ages against things that I was alleged to have said.
When I eventually saw the piece I was just totally shellshocked. Nobody had sat in the piece, nobody was taping it from our side ? I was alleged to have said ?
One of the most denigrating claims was the one about the "celebrity" firefighters. The comment was not disparaging, it was the reverse.
Church says she asked for the tape of the interview and the Times refused to release it ? "it was a terrible experience".
2.37pm: She is now talking about an article in the Times, although counsel for the inquiry says it may have been the Sunday Times.
The article concerned the 9/11 atrocity and Church, who was 14 at the time, was spending a lot of time in New York.
Her manager had organised a visit to Ground Zero, fire stations and some benefit gigs.
2.35pm: Church says one of the worst things for her was an article that claimed she and her friends had a nickname for an overweight friend. She had never ever spoken about her friend in this way.
She didn't complain to the PCC, she tells Leveson.
The damage is already done, there are no repercussions and it doesn't help. Most of the time I didn't bother. The sporadic nature of them [her complaints to the PCC] is when I just had enough and therefore had gone to the PCC to made a complaint.
Saying nothing is best; you just have to put up and shut up and that's the way it is.
2.33pm: She is told that her first boyfriend sold stories about her and that was a sign of things to come. It happened again with a boyfriend she had when she was 19.
Church says it was terrible to think somebody like her grandmother could read intimate details of her love life.
Basically there was always paparazzi around, always journalists around trying to speak to friends, money in order to talk or give a quote. My first boyfriend sold a story on me when I was 17 and that was pretty dreadful. I remember thinking why is it OK that someone senior in a newspaper could pay an unemployed boy from Cardiff tens of thousands of pounds to reveal intimate sexual details about another 17-year-old girl from Cardiff?
2.31pm: Church was subsequently shown another file which had more information than Mulcaire's notes.
[It was] a massive black book which seemed to be full of information when I was 19, more than Glenn Mulcaire. Information about me, friends, family; criminal records, DVLA records, mobile numbers and house numbers. We were just completely taken aback.
She is asked if there were transcripts of phone calls.
This was something my dad recalled. I remember something to do with live interception of phone calls.
2.29pm: Church adds:
To find out that they were hacked and you had accused these people, you're left with a feeling of guilt. It wasn't my fault for accusing people.
When Church's new born baby Ruby was born she wanted to keep it secret for about a week. It appeared in the papers within two days and she accused her family but she now realised that could be "entirely down to hacking".
2.26pm: Church says her phone was hacked when she was just 17.
The police have told her that her phone messages were monitored and intercepted by private investigator Glenn Mulcaire.
She first found out that earlier this year when she was contacted by the police who showed her his notes.
She says:
[They had] passwords, pin numbers, phone numbers of lots of people in my life, my mother, my father, their friends, my friends, my old boyfriend's number, it was quite substantial.
The hacking related to 2003 to 2006.
2.24pm: Church tells the inquiry that the press were interested in her from the start of her career.
When I was younger, it was a commodity that I was this small girl with a big operatic voice therefore you needed to see it. As a TV presenter definitely you need the press more than as a musician. They do aid people and encourage people to watch your shows and know when they are on and so on.
If you have a show on television or a book you're signed to a company and contractually obliged to promote that product. I was obliged to do so and I didn't really have any formal training from when I was 12.
2.22pm: She says she had no guide to help her deal with the intense interest in her life.
Categorically, no. I think there is no rulebook for dealing with the tabloid press. I've tried lots of different approaches. They made up stories and used old photographs.
She described how she was made a prisoner in her own life. She shopped online to avoid going outside her house.
There were six to eight photographers outside her house throughout her pregnancy.
She agrees that interest comes with being famous, but wanted to try something different to get rid of the press ahead of the birth of her baby.
She decided to do a deal with celebrity magazine.
Whilst I'm giving birth to my first child I'm well aware there are six photographers outside my house. By signing that exclusivity deal I thought I was reducing the value of paparazzi photographs.
2.20pm: Church then reads out some of the article.
"Superstar singer Charlotte Church's mum tried to kill herself because of ?" she reads.
It was totally sensationalised, whether partially or wholly true. And I just really hated the fact that my parents who had never been in this industry ? apart from looking after me ? were being exposed and vilified in this fashion. It had a massive massive impact on my family life.
They knew how vulnerable she was and still printed this story, which was just horrific. I see no public interest at all, other than to sell papers.
It just had a massive impact on my mother's health, her mental health, her hospital treatment ? the only way they know about that was either through the hacking or the bribing of hospital staff.
They knew how vulnerable she was but still published the story, which was horrific.
2.17pm: She is now talking about the News of the World's allegations that her father had an affair headlined "Church three in a bed cocaine shock".
The NoW reported that my father was having an affair. I'm not sure whether we were given knowledge of this article being published to comment on it ?
I'm just not sure how it came about. The front-page headline had my picture behind it.
I think I've just blanked out how bad these articles were.
2.15pm: Church is now alking about a kidnap plot reported by News of the World.
A lot of this information about kidnap stuff really was kept from me to protect me and my sanity.
The News of the World deemed it acceptable to publish that there was a kidnap plot.
I asked the publication not to print in any terms where I lived, but they did.
It was really quite exact.
2.11pm: The PCC upheld Church's complaint against the Sun.
2.10pm: The Sun said it had received firm information that she was pregnant. The newspaper was told the information was private and would not be commented on; despite this the newspaper referred to her pregnancy.
2.09pm: When Church found herself pregnant with her first baby the Sun ran a story titled "Church sober shock".
It was the first trimester and it was very sensitive time.
She doesn't know if her phone was hacked but says she just can't see it came from any other route.
My family were really upset that it had come out in this way. It was my news to tell and they took that away from me.
It should have been left up to me to tell people ? the PCC complaint was upheld. But what does that mean? There was a small retraction but I just don't think that would deter another paper in the future.
2.08pm: Audio of Charlotte Church talking about press intrusion:
2.07pm: She adds:
At different times there were different levels of interest. I don't live in London so a lot of photographers would have to travel. Generally from 16 to 18 there was at least one photographer for most days and by most days I mean five out of seven days. If there was a story at the time, they would be there all the time ? maybe six to eight of them.
2.07pm: Church also tells the inquiry how photographers tried to take pictures up her skirt.
2.06pm: Church reveals how photographers had cut a hole in a hedge near her home so they could track her every move.
My manager and said he'd found a camera and that there was something cut out of the hedge. There was really no other person in the world who would do that other than the press.
It had happened before, but not quite so dramatically.
2.04pm: Church is talking about the runup to her 16th birthday. The paper had a "countdown clock" on its website, which she found was "a little bizarre".
How did it make her feel? "Just horrible," she says. "I was a 16-year-old girl and I was really uncomfortable with it."
2.04pm: She says she was flown in on Murdoch's private jet from LA to New York.
2.03pm: Church is now talking about this sensational disclosure:
I remember being told that Rupert Murdoch had asked me to since at his wedding to Wendi Deng and it would take place on his yacht in New York. I remember being told of the offer of money or the offer of the favour ? to get good press ? and I also remember being 13 and thinking why on earth would anyone take a favour over £100,000?
Me and my mother quite resolute on this point [that] the £100,000 was the best option but being advised by my management and certain members of the record company that he was a very very powerful man; that I was in the early stages of my career and could certainly do with a favour of this magnitude.
News International has denied the allegations. It says that Church's performance was a surprise to Murdoch.
But Church claims she received a specific request from Murdoch to sing Pie Jesu.
2.01pm: She is now talking about an incident when she was 13 years old and she was asked to perform at Rupert Murdoch's wedding to Wendi Deng in New York.
The Leveson inquiry's junior counsel tells the hearing:
She was told by management there would be £100,000 or if her fee was waived she would be looked upon favouraby by Rupert Murdoch's papers.
Yes, that is correct, says.
She was convinced into taking the latter.
1.56pm: Church started life as a singer aged 11.
There was a massive amount of interest right from the start, because I didn't have any skeletons; they kind of treated me with kid gloves.
They were always at my school, but at that time it didn't feel that intrusive; it was all rather new, totally exciting and different
Is started to change when I was about 14. It got more negative and got more intrusive.
1.55pm: Church has revealed that paparazzi have made her life totally public.
She hasn't had a holiday since she was 16 without their presence and blames a network of paid tipsters as well as paparazzi for her lack of privacy.
They will follow me wherever I go, taking my children to nursery even though I've asked expressly for them not to take photographed.
It's everywhere. There's a shadow network, concierges; restaurants; the airlines; I haven't been on a holiday since I was 16 where I haven't been found and photographed.
Much of that was bought information.
1.53pm: Charlotte Church is now taking the stand. Wearing a black suit and top, she looks composed. She says however she has never given evidence before.
She's agreed to testify because she thinks the things she went through when she was younger ? from the age of 12 ? show that it is "imperative that children are protected"
I've agreed to be here today because I think that the things I went through when I was quite young, I was a minor, 12 years old, I want to show through my experiences that it's imperative that children are protected.
1.49pm: Leveson is now back. Robert Jay tells Leveson he can see arguments for both sides of the argument as to whether Alastair Campbell's statement should be published on the Leveson website.
Jay has said that Paul Staines, otherwise known as Guido Fawkes should make "appropriate immediate effects" with regards the Alastair Campbell statement.
1.17pm: Leveson is returning 15 minutes early today ? the inquiry is resuming at 1.45pm when we will hear from Charlotte Church and former breakfast host Anne Diamond.
We should also hear whether Alastair Campbell's evidence will be officially published on the Leveson website.
1.14pm: Tom Watson has just tweeted this:
Remarkable: Read Ian Hurst's testimony to #Leveson on the Guardian live feed
12.32pm: Here is a lunchtime summary of today's evidence so far:
? Chris Jefferies tells how he was portrayed as a "creepy oddball", a "pervert" and a "peeping Tom".
? He says he will "never fully recover" from the libellous coverage of his arrest.
? He says the PCC did not acknowledge a request to investigate the "scurrilous reporting".
? Jefferies says despite his vindication some people will always "retain the impression that I am a very weird character indeed who is best avoided".
? Former army intelligence officer Ian Hurst alleges corruption at the highest level at the Met police and calls on Leveson to investigate.
? He says News of the World hacked his computer using "Trojan" software that collected his emails.
? The head of British Irish Rights Watch, Jame Winter, says the hacking of Hurst's phone compromised her organisation's security because of the highly sensitive nature of their work.
12.13pm: The Leveson inquiry has broken for an extended lunch while counsel discuss "administrative issues" in relation to the Alastair Campbell evidence and whether it will be published today.
The inquiry will resume at 1.45pm, with Anne Diamond and Charlotte Church scheduled to appear.
12.11pm: Jane Winter's evidence has now concluded. It was short but reinforced the allegations Hurst made.
12.11pm: "This ripple effect is particularly chilling for an organisation such as BIRW, which handles extremely senstive information and can compromise the security of people," says Jay.
Winter's written statement says that it is not clear that her intercepted messages were being used for publication, and that is something that should be investigated.
Winter says that when she heard the documents had been compromised a lot of vulnerable witnesses would lose confidence in her charity.
From the point of view of my organisation, we really rely on trust and confidentiality ? when I first heard these documents had been compromised, my first thought was when all of the people involved in this will lose confidence in us.
That is a very chilling thought for an organisation like us ? it is a real issue for us. This could dent our reputation for confidentiality.
12.10pm: Robert Jay, counsel to the inquiry, says: "If you hack into one person's computer you see a panoply of information that may derive from third parties such as yourself."
Mr X, the hacker referred to earlier by Hurst, had documents on her, but she was not aware if her computer was hacked or not.
12.07pm: Winter says she has spoken to the Met police about hacking. Police showed her attachments of emails, not the actual content of emails themselves, Winter says.
"They were both very confidential and sensitive," she adds.
12.06pm: Lord Justice Leveson says the peace process is an "extra dimension among many other dimensions" in his own inquiry into press ethics.
Winter says she was told by Ian Hurst earlier this year that documents she had sent to him had been illegally accessed. "I was aware that his computer had been hacked, but I didn't know correspondence with me was involved," she says.
12.04pm: Jane Winter, a peace campaigner and charity worker in Northern Ireland who runs British Irish Rights Watch, is appearing now.
12.02pm: Hurst says he will provide the inquiry with more evidence. He says he he understands when Leveson points out that the inquiry will deal with the press's relationship with the police in part two.
12.02pm: Then Hurst alleges that there is corruption at the highest level of the Metropolitan Police Service.
Hurst calls on Leveson to "ask that the MPS provide you with all intelligence of police corruption including that at very highest level. It is there, it is at the highest level and out there with journalists today."
Hurst says the MPS "has let society down they should be making a full disclosure".
12.01pm: Hurst then reads a statement that was made during the filming of the Panorama programme:
Andy Coulson was the editor [of the News of the World] and he is fucking big pals with a lot of powerful people including police officers.
Hurst then declares to the inquiry:
That is exactly what you are dealing with here ladies and gentlemen ? corruption.
11.57am: In April 2009 when Mr X was arrested, documents showed that the security of his wife, who is a nurse, had been compromised. Mr X had documents including her CV, her pin numbers, documents concerned with her telephone, address, and phone records.
"There's copious amount of knowledge that the police had," says Hurst.
11.56am: Hurst tells how the police knew from 2007 that his computer had been hacked.
In February 2007 documents were recovered from a hard drive involved in a separate investigation. At that stage this person's phone records had been obtained and News of the World had paid £850 for that.
Because the subject of those phone records and I were linked, the police were aware in 2007 that directly and unambiguously that I and muy family's security had been compromised.
That information was then leaked to a journalist and used in a book in 2008.
11.52am: Documents seized in 2007 by the police show the security on his computer had been compromised and information had been obtained from it.
The Metropolitan police did not tell Hurst of the hacking of his computer until October 2011.
11.51am: The inquiry hears that the hackers were not interested in Hurst's private life, but his work in the intelligence community in northern Ireland.
They were looking to obtain a commercial advantage as well, claims Hurst.
He adds they were also trying to obtain information on an IRA informer.
11.50am: Hurst indicates he has this week received fresh information about the source of the Trojan, but this information is disallowed from the inquiry because it is not in his written statement.
For clarity he confirms that he does not believe Mr X was the source of the Trojan, which he says leaves "fragments" on the hard drive even after it self-destructs.
"It is not an interpretation ? people tell you porkie pies and you try and separate the wood from the trees. You do that by evidence, not conjecture," says Hurst.
11.47am: He does not accept that the email came from Mr X, but from a newspaper contact.
11.46am: Hurst says the Trojan was programmed to be on the hard drive for three months and then it self-destructed.
11.45am: The hacker admitted that he placed it [the Trojan] on Hurst's hard drive.
"We know there was a Trojan on the hard drive and I have seen the evidence."
Hurst sent him an email with an attachment which he opened and that was it.
He said he thinks he sent it from a bogus email address.
11.44am: Hurst says:
We had a meeting. I had known Mr X for number of years, we had a drink and in a relaxed atmosphere he made it clear these events took place a long time ago ? there was nothing personal, it was professional, which I accepted.
He outlined the majority of people involved in the conspiracy. He was keen to leave out one or two for his own personal reasons and he more or less charted the events from the middle of June 2006, he states for a three-month period, and all documents he could access via Trojan - emails, hard drive, social media.
He didn't say this, but the Trojan would have allowed [him see through the cam], the webcam, so he could have actually seen me or the kids at the desk.
11.42am: Hurst says:
I was aware that there was probably gaps in knowledge by the BBC. The reality was that we needed to confront him ? I needed to extract that information to put together the jigsaw puzzle.
11.42am: During the making of the documentary he confronted Mr X and met him in a local hotel.
X said he was not surprised that you had made contact. He had heard a few days earlier that Panorama "were sniffing around".
11.38am: The private investigator had employed a private detective who specialised in computer viruses to do the computer hacking job.
This individual was known to Hurst as he had served in the intelligence forces in northern Ireland for three years.
11.37am: He tells how his computer was hacked by a "Trojan horse". He says the military Trojans would have been quite sophisticated because they would have contained in a "micro-dot" or a "full stop" but the newspaper Trojans were not so sophisticated because they required someone to open an attachement.
11.36am: He had been shown a seven-page fax by the BBC. This contained material from July 2006 which was "not only material from his computer" but also "one particular extract from an email and other material that hadn't been directly related" to his computer.
"It was a precis of information they had collected and forwarded to Dublin [to the News of the World headquarters in Ireland]."
11.33am: The Panorama team covertly filmed one of the computer hackers involved. The film was shot over two-and-a-half hours and this was cut to about one minute.
He told the BBC that he believed one of his computers was hacked by the News of the World.
11.32am: He went to live in France in 1994 but has maintained links with his previous work.
He goes on to discuss the Panorama documentary about the phone and computer hacking row that was engulfing the News of the World. It was broadcast in March 2011 and contained an interview with Hurst.
Here is Roy Greenslade's coverage of the programme at the time.
11.32am: His statement is redacted because of a gagging order ? an injunction brought by the Crown against him in 1999.
He says his job was to recruit, develop and exploit agents in republican paramilitary organisations.
11.31am: Hurst was a "handler" in northern Ireland and acted as one of the British army's contacts for IRA spies.
He served in covert units between 1980 and 1991 in northern Ireland.
11.26am: Leveson is now back. Ian Hurst, the former British army intelligence officer, is the next witness.
11.14am: The inquiry has now taken a five-minute break.
11.13am: Jefferies finishes his evidence by saying:
I very much hope that as a result of the present inquiry, it will be possible to put in a place arrangements whereby it will be very difficult indeed for newspapers to in the future behave in the way they did in my case.
11.12am: Jefferies says the libel actions completely cleared him of any involvement in the murder and also of any improper behaviour in his past.
However he says he "will never fully recover from the events" and the "incalculable" effect will "be difficult ever to escape".
He tells Leveson:
The smears were so extensive, it's true to say there will always be people who don't know me, who will retain the impression that I am some sort of very weird character indeed who is best avoided.
11.10am: Jefferies says the bias against him was not confined to tabloid newspapers.
He doesn't identify the paper, but cites one broadsheet that ignored reader protests about the coverage of his arrest.
I am aware that quite a large number of people complained about a newspaper. None of those letters were published in that broadsheet and there was no response to those letters even when one of their columnists brought them to the attention to the editor.
11.09am: Jefferies says the apologies in the newspapers were printed "on page 2 towards the top of the page". He received no communication from the editors of the papers that made payouts.
11.08am: Jefferies wrote to the PCC complaining about the "scurrilous reporting of an innocent man". In a lengthy written appeal for action he said:
In the coverage of my case there was flagrant lawlessness. Newspapers searching for sensation and increased sales will take almost any risk.
He tells Leveson he didn't receive an acknowledgement from the PCC.
? 11.55am UPDATE: The PCC has responded to Jefferies's comment as follows:
That is regrettable and we will be writing to him to explain the position.
We contacted him (via his representatives) on a number of occasions since he first came to attention, including the letter requesting his comments to which he has referred. We are still considering all of the circumstances of his case, with a view to making use of it for the purposes of reform. The PCC proactively made itself available to Mr Jefferies, including after the end of the libel trial. We are actively considering the points he has made to us.
11.07am: Jefferies says the director of the PCC, Stephen Abell, wrote to his solicitor indicating that it would wish to examine how the problems arose and how they could be prevented.
11.06am: Jefferies also gave an interview to ITV which can be seen here. He gave it to ITV because he used to teach the reporter.
11.01am: Leveson says "it was worse than that" ? it was "damaging" and "false".
10.59am: Jefferies says:
It is incontestable that the whole slanting of the coverage was as sensational as it was exploitative, as titillating to appeal in every possible way to people's voyeuristic instincts.
10.57am: Jefferies did give one interview. It was with Brian Cathcart for the Financial Times, published on 8 October.
He said Cathcart did a good job of "distilling" his experience.
10.57am: Legal proceedings are never speedy, says Jefferies, and it took three months for his case to come to court. Jay says "that is pretty fast".
Some of the newspapers admitted liability and agreed to pay damages.
10.56am: Jefferies then launched libel proceedings against eight newspapers ? the Sun, the Daily Express, Daily Mail, The Daily Mirror, the Scotsman, the Daily Record and the Sunday Mirror.
Here's a link to the Guardian's story at the time.
10.53am: On 4 March, the police lifted Jefferies's bail conditions.
Jefferies said the period preceding was hell:
It was the most difficult period I have spent living this hole-in-corner existence with my life in effect being in abeyance.
10.52am: A statement by Yeates's boyfriend Greg Riordan was more or less ignored by the press in relation to Jefferies.
10.50am: The third article which attracted contempt proceedings was on the Daily Mirror on New Year's Day. It was headlined: "Was killer waiting in Jo's flat?"
Jefferies says it suggested that because he was the the landlord and had keys to the flat he must have been waiting there for Yeates's return.
10.47am: An article in the Daily Mirror on 31 December 2010 which was the subject of contempt of court proceedings was headlined "Jo suspect is peeping tom".
"It appears to be linking you to an old murder and paedophile crimes," Robert Jay the counsel for the inquiry notes.
10.41am: A Sun article titled "The strange Mr Jefferies" referred to him as "WEIRD 'Strange talk, strange walk'; POSH 'Loved culture, poetry'; LEWD 'Made sexual remarks'; CREEPY 'Loner with blue rinse hair'". It also branded him a "creepy oddball".
Another article was headlined "Murder police quiz nutty professor".
10.40am: There were more than 40 articles cited in Jefferies' evidence.
Three of the articles were held in contempt of court including the Sun, which reported "Jo suspect scared kids - obsessed by death", and an article in the Daily Mirror asking "Was killer waiting in Jo's flat?".
10.34am: The inquiry hears how the press protrayed Jefferies as some sort of sexual deviant.
It was certainly suggested that there may well have been some sort of sexual motive for the murder of Joanna Yeates and ... it was suggested in some of the articles that I was gay.
So that created a bit of a problem as far as that line goes. There was another suggestion that I was a bisexual. The press were trying to have it every possible way.
The impact of these photographs was that I was instantly recognisable. It would be fair to say that I had a distinctive appearance and it was a result of the entire world knowing what I looked like. It was suggested to me that I ought to change my appearance so I wouldn't be recognised and harassed by the media.
10.34am: Sources often had very spurious links to him.
One of them just happened to live in a flat that he had owned.
Somebody who was not on the staff of the establishment where I was teaching ? had at one time lived in one of the flats in the building where I live. He had sold that flat to somebody else, who sold it to another person, it was that person who I eventually bought the flat. There was a very considerable gap [between buying the flat from the person].
10.32am: Jefferies says reporters were so good at hunting him down, they were like private detectives.
The efforts which some members of the press went to to contact some of these people was extraordinary and worthy of private detectives, I would have thought.
A number of those who were contacted by the press refused to make any statements. Very many of the comments contained in the articles published are not attributed ? only a handful are attributed. I haven't been in contact with any of those whose names have been attached to supposed quotations.
10.29am: Jefferies says he felt he was under "house arrest" after his release from custody, besieged by press.
I was very strongly advised not to go out. If it had have been apparent where I was staying those friends would have been beseiged by reporters and photographers.
In effect for a period after I was released I was effectively under house arrest and went from friends to friends, rather as if I was a recusant priest at the time of the Reformation going from safe house to safe house.
10.28am: During the time Jefferies was in custody he was not aware of the reporting by the press.
When he was released, his solicitor outlined in "general terms" what the press coverage had been.
They suggested that it might be good for his "psychological health" that he didn't read the coverage.
10.28am: At this point the press were also talking to his neighbours, but at that point they had not got in contact with any former pupils or relatives.
10.27am: Jefferies is asked whether there was any interest by the press before the arrest.
Jefferies says the press were interested in the second statement he had given to the police.
They had a "garbled version" of this statement, Jefferies says.
10.26am: The inquiry is now setting the scene for Jefferies testimony. It was 17 December last year when Joanne Yeates disappeared. Jefferies was arrested at 7am on 30 December and released on police bail on 1 January 2011.
10.24am: Jefferies, who is well spoken and composed, is now running through his career. He is now retired, and owns three flats in Bristol.
10.22am: Jefferies, a former schoolteacher, won a case against two papers for contempt in their coverage; the Sun was fined £18,000, and the Daily Mirror £50,000.
10.19am: It must be singularly unpleasant to relive the events that you lived through, Leveson tells Jefferies.
10.18am: Chris Jefferies is now taking the stand.
10.17am: Dan Sabbagh, our head of media, tweets:
Brilliant. Paul Staines who is opposed press regulation, is now summoned to Leveson. Statutory regulation right there.
10.14am: Here are profiles of today's witnesses:
Christopher Jefferies
This time last year Christopher Jefferies was an anonymous former English teacher from Bristol. His life was turned upside down over a manic fortnight of tabloid intrusion in December, after he was arrested and later released without charge over the murder of the architect Joanna Yeates. His public "character assassination", as Jefferies' solicitor later described it, led to Britain's tabloid press appearing in the dock over charges of libel and contempt of court. Eight titles ? the Sun, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, Daily Record, Daily Mail, Daily Star, Scotsman and Daily Express ? agreed to pay Jefferies substantial libel damages, thought to total six figures, in July. The Sun and Daily Mirror were separately fined £18,000 and £50,000 respectively for contempt of court.
Ian Hurst
Hurst is a former British army intelligence officer who worked in Northern Ireland. His computer was allegedly hacked by the News of the World, which was supposedly searching for details of an IRA informer. Hurst claims that a private investigator confirmed to him that he placed a Trojan virus on his hard drive to obtain emails over a three-month period for the News of the World. This is now the subject of a Scotland Yard investigation. The BBC's Panorama filmed Hurst being shown copies of information allegedly obtained from his computer. The programme claimed the investigator was commissioned by Alex Marunchak, a former News of the World journalist who was a senior figure at the paper. Hurst is suing the owner of the defunct paper, Rupert Murdoch's News International, in the high court.
Jane Winter
A peace campaigner and charity worker in Northern Ireland who runs British Irish Rights Watch, a non-governmental organisation which monitors human rights abuses on both sides of the political and religious divide.
Charlotte Church
Charlotte Church will tell the Leveson inquiry how the News of the World in 2005 printed lurid details of her father's alleged extramarital affair allegedly gleaned from voicemail messages left on the singer's phone. Through intercepted voicemail messages, the paper is alleged to have learned that Church's mother was admitted to hospital shortly before the story was published after attempting to commit suicide. Barrister David Sherborne told the Leveson inquiry that the News of the World then approached Church's mother and persuaded her to an exclusive interview about the affair, in return for not publishing further "lurid" details gleaned from alleged voicemail intercepts. "When people talk of public interest in exposing the private lives of well-known people or those close to them this, is the real, brutally real impact, which this kind of journalism has," Sherborne said.
Anne Diamond
Former breakfast TV presenter Anne Diamond insists her battle with News International began over two decades ago, when she asked Rupert Murdoch at a party how it felt to own newspapers that ruin people's lives. "You can't do that to a newspaper mogul," David Sherborne told the Leveson inquiry. Diamond is expected to tell the inquiry how she felt when the Sun published a front page picture of her holding her son's coffin at his funeral in 1991. On a separate occasion, the Sun was accused of paying the Diamond family's nanny to reveal intimate details about her alleged relationship with Diamond's husband.
10.13am: Leveson shows his displeasure with Guido Fawkes. "It wasn't how I was envisaging spending Sunday evening either," he says referring to the leak last night on Fawkes blog.
The judge say he is concerned to "deprive" Guido Fawkes of that "oxygen" of publicity.
He says he will be summoning Paul Staines to explain how he got the testimony.
I intend to issue notice under section 21 of the Inquiries Act requiring him to disclose how he came about the evidence ... and requiring him to give evidence.
10.10am: Caplan says:
The fact is that although the leak itself has been widely published the contents of Mr Campbell's statement it appears have not been widely disseminated. The content of Mr Campbell's statement make a number of points against a number of organisations and individuals.
10.10am: Jonathan Caplan, counsel for Associated Newspapers, does not want Campbell's statement to be published today.
Leveson says his view last night was that it should be published today ? two days in advance ? this is affording people 72 hours' notice in advance.
10.09am: Leveson says he does not want to give Guido Fawkes "the oxygen of additional publicity" and is minded to have the Campbell testimony published.
10.07am: Leveson says he is "concerned for the future" and has warned anyone who leaks testimony that they can be referred to the high court for "appropriate action".
He has reminded those at the hearing that section 19 of the Inquiries Act restricts the publication or disclosure whether in whole or in part ? outside the confidentiality circle which comprises Leveson, his assessors, the core inquiry team, the core participants ? any statement prior to the making of the statement orally.
10.04am: The blogger got hold of Campbell's draft statement and published it three days before he was due to appear. Normally the statement is not made available until the witness is sworn in.
I am obviously concerned about the security of the information that is available and to maintain the integrity of the inquiry as we move forward.
As a result I am intending to inquire ... into the circumstances in which this statement came to be made available for publication.
10.03am: The inquiry has now opened and Lord Justice Leveson is talking about Guido Fawkes' leak of Alastair Campbell's witness statement.
9.54am: Roy Greenslade today writes how many veteran journalists were appalled by the evidence given at the Leveson inquiry last week:
Evidence given to the Leveson inquiry last week appalled many veteran journalists. Among them was John Dale ? a former national newspaper reporter and magazine editor ? who wrote on the gentlemenranters site of "journalistic corruption and debasement" that "shamed Fleet Street."
Another hardened old hand, Jim Cassidy, was disgusted too. As the editor of two red-tops ? the Glasgow-based Sunday Mail and, briefly, theSunday Mirror ? he knows the business from the inside.
I am pleased to act as host to his passionate response to the revelations of the first week's hearings...
Do journalists cry? Do editors cry? Do photographers cry? They should. They do. They must. I advise any of the journalists due to attend court 73 of the Royal Courts of Justice over the next week to stop and take some time out at prayer room E131.
There, they can find time to reflect, pray and perhaps shed a few tears for the hurt, anguish and pain they have caused...
9.48am: At the Leveson inquiry today is Dan Sabbagh - you can follow him on @dansabbagh.
On the live blog today are Lisa O'Carroll and Josh Halliday ? you can follow them on Twitter at @lisaocarroll and @JoshHalliday.
James Robinson ? @jamesro47 ? is also in court to cover an application by Steve Coogan and former Max Clifford PR Nicola Phillips to force former private investigator Glenn Mulcaire to reveal who ordered him to hack into phones. The hearing begins at 10.30am.
We will bring you the latest as soon as it breaks.
9.43am: Lord Justice Leveson yesterday summoned Guido Fawkes blogger Paul Staines to give evidence to the inquiry after his website published evidence from Alastair Campbell three days before it was due to be publicly heard.
Evidence has not previously been made available to the public or the press until the witness is sworn in, but the leak was apparently of a draft Campbell testimony.
9.26am: Good morning and welcome to day eight at the Leveson inquiry.
The paparazzi will be centre stage again today, with singer Charlotte Church describing how she has been tailed by photographers throughout her life but particularly when she started dating rugby player Gavin Henson.
Former army intelligence officer Ian Hurst will testify on his experience on northern Ireland where he alleges he was spied on by press interested in his job as a "handler" for IRA informers.
Newspaper stories about alleged spy Freddie Scappaticci and murdered solicitor Pat Finucane are expected to be raised.
Hurst believes someone acting for a newspaper infected his computer with a Trojan virus to try and establish Scappaticci's whereabouts and to source information about Martin McGuinness.
Also taking the stand today is former breakfast TV presenter Anne Diamond; Chris Jefferies, the Bristol landlord wrongly linked to the murder of Joanne Yeates; and Jane Winter, a peace campaigner who has worked in northern Ireland.
Please note that comments have been turned off for legal reasons.
Ashlee Simpson Ashley Olsen Ashley Tisdale Audrina Patridge Avril Lavigne Ben Affleck Beyonce Beyonce Knowles Bobby Brown Brad Pitt Brandon Davis Britney Spears Brody Jenner Brooke Hogan Bruce Willis Cameron Diaz Camilla Belle Carmen Electra Carrie Underwood Chris Brown Chris Rock Christian Bale Christina Aguilera Dakota Fanning Daniel Radcliffe
