There's no need for new laws or powers to tell us what we can write
SO, REGULATION of the Press. It's a thorny old issue, isn't it?
And, let's face it, you lot don't really care, do you?
Unless you've ever been the victim of hacking, or the searing eye of national scandal, I shouldn't think most people give two hoots about whether a new press watchdog is underpinned by legislation, a Royal Charter, the Bank Of Cyprus or Barry Chuckle.
Despite the intense navel-gazing of everyone in the media bubble, I suspect the average man on the street doesn't understand – or want to understand – that the difference is between having a press overseer enshrined in law or not.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.ukView details
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
I'm not entirely sure I've got my head around all of the complexities, and this is what I do for a living.
But what I do know is that I don't want Hugh Grant and his rich chums telling us what we can and can't print.
That's same Hugh Grant who got caught in the middle of a "lewd" act with Divine Brown on Sunset Boulevard in 1995 and now, for some reason, wants to shackle what the papers can and can't report.
Now, don't get me wrong. There have been genuine examples of bad and illegal behaviour by the national press. Note the word "national" there.
There have been victims who have not sought publicity but have been thrust into the spotlight.
But with endless hacking investigations, journalists arrested and jailed, compensation paid, and a newspaper closed, these wrongdoings have been dealt with and punished under existing laws. There's no need for new laws or powers to tell us what we can write or what you can read.
The rich and powerful are already rich and powerful enough. And we certainly don't need to be lectured by a bunch of spoilt celebrities who want to keep their dirty secrets secret.