After nine months of public hearings, and testimony from almost 650 people, the inquiry led by Lord Justice Brian Leveson into the "culture, practices and ethics" of the British press has finally released its findings.

Its conclusion? That the culture, practices and ethics of Britain's tabloid press are abominable and need to improve in a hurry. The solution? Well, that's where things get a bit dicey.

The judicial inquiry was established in the summer of 2011 after it was revealed that reporters for Rupert Murdoch's News of the World had hacked the voicemail of murdered teenager Milly Dowler, and that messages had been deleted to free up space for new voicemails, in the hope that these might produce a new angle on the story.

Even for the British public, accustomed to seeing its tabloid press egregiously invade the privacy of politicians, celebrities and footballers' wives, this latest outrage was too much to bear.

But things would only get worse when the inquiry began. Dozens of victims stepped forward to testify about life in the tabloid fishbowl; celebrities like Hugh Grant, Sienna Miller, and J.K. Rowling, and, most disturbingly, parents of other murdered and missing children who were hounded and harassed by reporters.

There was also evidence of a far too cozy relationship between the leadership of Murdoch's News Corp. and senior officials at Scotland Yard, as well as members of David Cameron's Conservative government, including the prime minister himself, who now finds himself in the unenviable position of not wanting to go along with Judge Leveson's central recommendation

Who guards the guardians?

There is nothing new about the British press behaving badly, and nothing new about their behaviour being investigated. Leveson was the sixth inquiry since 1945.

The last, in 1990, followed several cases of outrageous invasions of privacy by the tabs, and led to the creation of the Press Complaints Commission, a self-regulating body of newspaper publishers with no real enforcement powers.

Rebekah Brooks, former chief executive at Rupert Murdoch's News International, arrives at Westminster Magistrates Court in London on Thursday, where she is facing charges linked to alleged bribery of public officials. (Kirsty Wigglesworth / Associated Press)

The government of the day put the press on notice. "I do believe the press — the popular press — is drinking in the last chance saloon," observed one government MP, while Home Secretary David Waddingston told the Commons "this is positively the last chance for the industry to establish an effective non-statutory system of regulation."

But when the Guardian newspaper first reported evidence of phone hacking in 2009, the PCC chose not to investigate the charges, and castigated the paper for making too big a deal of the story. Clearly, press self-regulation wasn't working.

But what would take its place? In his opening statement, Judge Leveson acknowledged that a free and independent press is critical to safeguarding democracy. His inquiry, he declared, comes down to "one simple question — who guards the guardians?"

All things to all people

In answering that question, the judge had several options to choose from.

The first was to make good on the threat issued in 1990 to enact some kind of statutory solution to the problem. This could take many forms, but the one apparently favoured by the British public was a law that established an independent body to regulate the press.

In a poll taken just before the release of the Leveson report, 79 per cent of those surveyed favoured legislation to create an independent press regulator that newspapers were required to sign up for, while only 9 per cent were opposed.

Not surprisingly, among those opposed were the publishers of many, but not all, of Britain's newspapers, and 76 Conservative MPs and peers who signed an anti-statute letter last week.

They have been busy conjuring up scary, and wildly misleading images of government control of the press.

Tom Mockridge, chief executive of Murdoch's News International told the BBC earlier this week that "what you don't need is that state sending people into newspaper offices to determine what is a good story and a bad story." As if that would happen.

Opponents of legislation were promoting an enhanced version of self-regulation, a kind of PCC 2.0.

But Judge Leveson was having none of that.

In his view, the press barons had already squandered their "positively last chance" to prove that self-regulation could work.

And in his report, he declared that any regulatory body that included editors would simply be another case of the industry "marking its own homework."

So there would be a legislated solution. "Guaranteed independence, long-term stability, and genuine benefits for the industry cannot be realized without legislation," he declared in a public statement upon the release of his report.

But the legislation that Leveson proposes is not the one that many observers expected.

His report tries to strike a delicate balance between those who think politicians should have nothing to do with regulating the press, and those who believe the industry can't be trusted to police itself.

In an attempt to be all things to all people, he calls his proposal "independent self-regulation." In other words, an independent regulator, established by legislation, but organized by the press itself.

The delicate balance

As a result, the proposed legislation would not actually set up the regulatory body. That press would handle that job itself.

The legislation would simply recognize the existence of this new independent self-regulatory system, and establish some guidelines for it.

Justice Brian Leveson leaves the stage to the politicians after delivering his report into Britain's perverse tabloid culture. (Dan Kitwood / Associated Press)

What's more, participation would not be mandatory, though Leveson proposes several large financial incentives to convince publishers to join in.

For example, the new regulatory body could help adjudicate, more inexpensively, libel actions brought against its members.

"This cannot reasonably or fairly be characterized as statutory regulation of the press," Judge Leveson insisted, undoubtedly knowing that this was precisely how it would be characterized.

'Bonkers'

If the good judge was hoping his idea of independent self-regulation would bring the anti-statute publishers and politicians on board, the early returns are not encouraging.

For them, legislation is legislation, and they will not be assuaged by his attempts to make the medicine more palatable.

The most important dissenting voice belongs to the prime minister.

When he established the inquiry in 2011, David Cameron pledged that he would accept its finding provided they were not "bonkers."

But mere moments after the release of the Leveson report, the prime minister declared his opposition to its central recommendation, arguing that legislation could ultimately infringe on free speech and a free press.

Still, David Cameron has a problem here. The legislative option is supported by the Labour opposition, and by Cameron's coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.

What's more, at least 40 Conservative MPs have also spoken publicly in favour of regulation by legislation.

Add all those members together, and it appears the prime minister will be on the losing end of any vote that establishes some kind of regulatory framework.

"The ball moves back into the politicians' court," Lord Justice Leveson declared at the conclusion of his public statement. "They must decide who guards the guardians." Or not.