In my opinion, all types of news organisation, even relatively small ones such as this website, should be concerned about any moves, however well-meant, to shackle the media. Let’s not forget that phone-hacking and other intrusions into private information are already against the law. If the law is not being enforced rigorously and severely, that should be dealt with, but how is creating a quango full of lawyers and the like going to improve the situation? There is a risk that once a regulator is established, there will be “mission creep” as, to justify its budget and existence, the regulator seeks new causes to fight, new dragons to slay. Everything we know about how such bodies operate points in this direction. Just ask anyone who has to watch those hyperactive types at the European Commission or the UK's Financial Services Authority.

Also, one issue that has not apparently been addressed at length is whether the UK should have a privacy law. Now, if such a law did exist, I would want to see it imposed not just on the media but, even more importantly, on the State, which with its databases on our financial, health and other details, has considerable information on us at its fingertips. And I would also want to see the privacy of information, such as bank accounts, to be rigorously respected and enforced. .

Justified anger

Let’s be clear, despite such reservations, that there is quite rightly anger at the behaviour of some media outlets, such as the BBC over a recent sex abuse story, and the Murdoch-owned News of the World , in the treatment of people such as the families of murder victims. Serious crimes were committed in some cases – it is possible that some journalists will go to jail. It is not just the so-called “red-top” tabloids: the broadsheet papers have sometimes fallen afoul of what might be considered good practice. For a short period, for example, the Guardian made use of data issued by Wikileaks. And Leveson's report does not even cover the role of the broadcast media, which given recent disasters at the BBC, for example, seems downright anomalous.

It is precisely at times when there is a lot of anger about that it is important for lawmakers to keep a cool head. It is not as if the UK is some sort of libertarian anarchy. Bear in mind that this country already has some of the toughest libel laws in the world – arguably, a protection that only the rich and well-connected can afford. We have laws of contempt to prevent the prejudice to fair jury trials. The rich and famous, meanwhile, have used court injunctions to prevent details emerging, although not always successfully, as the Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs discovered. The UK’s recently introduced Freedom of Information Act, while an improvement on what went on before, is still a relatively clunky instrument in obtaining facts from public bodies. Above all, the UK doesn’t have anything remotely resembling the US First Amendment protection of free speech. A pity.

I hope readers forgive me for writing in defence of my own industry rather than banking or finance on this occasion. But in mitigation, I repeat the point that if we want an honest banking industry, then it needs constructive criticism and scrutiny from a vigorous media. Lord Leveson’s call for statutory regulation is in my view potentially dangerous.

But the media also needs to get its house in order. Perhaps more journalists will, in future, be careful about calling thoughtlessly for ever more regulation of other business sectors such as banking now that they can see the downsides when such demands are directed at themselves.