Inquiry chief ducks debate over planned press changes Lord Leveson: "I have said all I can say on the topic." Lord Leveson has urged the UK parliament to remember the public interest and the victims of media harassment - not just the self-interest of the press - in Britain's increasingly fraught spat over proposed new press regulation. In a long-awaited appearance at a Commons committee on Thursday, Lord Leveson tried his best under intense questioning not to take sides. "I am firmly of the view that it would be quite wrong for me to comment on what is now a politically contentious issue," he told the committee. This is your problem, not mine. However he took a swipe at some commentators, including Rupert Murdoch, for misrepresenting his proposals. Leveson submitted his report on the British press in November last year - the culmination of a long inquiry into media ethics and culture, triggered by the phone hacking scandal and focusing on some of the media's most damaging missteps. He proposed a new model for independent regulation of the press, which has been the subject of intense argument ever since, and has been translated into two competing 'royal charters', one written by politicians, the other by the industry. Lord Leveson repeatedly refused to compare the proposals with his own recommendations. "The response and answer is in my report which I hope is not bonkers," he said, adding that he had gone into "exceptionally tedious detail." At one point he took the committee through an entire volume of his report, listing the number of pages in each chapter. "It's all, with the greatest respect, there," he said, arguing it would be inappropriate for a working judge to go any further. However he let slip some hints as to his views. He said the concept of a royal charter that would "recognise" the new regulator had never been suggested to him, and he had never considered it. However, "if (my) recommendations are implemented through the mechanism of a royal charter then so be it," he said. He pointed out that he had never recommended statutory regulation of the press, and it was frustrating when people said he had. Freedom of the press was a "fundamental" concern, he said. I do not believe the independent self-regulatory regime I proposed in any sense impacts the freedom of the press to publish what it wants. (The solution) has got to work for you. It's got to work for the public as well. It's got to work for those who feel - legitimately in my judgement - they have been abused by the press. The press behaviour canvassed in his report needed a bigger response than just application of the criminal law, he said. He also argued that the new balance of arbitration and libel damages that he had proposed would be "cheap and quick," and would not impose big new costs on small local newspapers. Lord Leveson said his only regrets were a few typos and "minor factual errors" in the report, for which he intended to publish a correction. Some had hoped his long-awaited appearance on Thursday at a Commons committee would be a circuit-breaker for the debate over whether proposed new regulation is a necessary leash on tabloid excesses, or a disastrous end to free speech. Earlier this year the UK parliament passed a plan for a new regulatory body to review press complaints, governed by a royal charter, which would be ostensibly independent but could be altered by a two-thirds majority of parliament. In response the industry put up a (more independent) rival regulatory system, considered - and rejected - by the Privy Council this week. Culture Secretary Maria Miller told the Commons the newspaper's proposal "falls short of government policy." The pressure on the government to reconsider has been intense this week, from almost all quarters of the media. Rupert Murdoch tweeted in his inimitable style that "print media (are) about to be gagged to protect toffs." When this comment was put to him, Lord Leveson told the committee that "I certainly am very frustrated by representations of my report which are not accurate," adding that his comment applied to Mr Murdoch. Stig Abell, The Sun's new managing editor, tweeted on Wednesday "What is the one subject that unites most Parliamentarians? Wait for it. Anger and disdain for the press. Columnist Fleet Street Fox wrote in the Daily Mirror, ironically, "let's have a regulator that meets with the approval of politicians and is verified by them, too," arguing that it would "solve nothing." David Banks in the New Statesman wrote that the plan for regulation "accepts the principle that Parliament should have a hand in defining journalism. For many that is a line that should not be crossed. Labour MP Tom Harris wrote in the Telegraph that the state's definition of decency should not be forced on a free press - and he was dismayed that his own party disagreed. Some I would normally consider to be on the sensible wing of the party, airily decreed that politicians had been the media's victims for long enough. The boot was on the other foot. Payback time. And in its leader, the Telegraph wrote that "our politicians are proposing to bring back statutory press control for the first time in more than 300 years." Hacked Off has called this "sham anguish," saying the royal charter implements Leveson's recommendations. Sir Leveson also refused to comment on the debate in his appearance on Wednesday at a House of Lords committee. He said his conclusions were "my very best shot. I have said all I can say on the topic. The only moment of tabloid excitement at Leveson's appearance at the House of Lords was when he said he had picked up an Australian technique of "hot tubbing." This turned out to be a reference to hearing from more than one witness at a time.