Editors voice concern at regulator

“The quality of some newspapers is awful. Whilst press intrusion is totally out of order, editors also need to make sure they printing the truth instead of "never let the facts get in the way of a good story" which most seem to use.”

“@Graham

Old Telegraph comment which I think is quite apt:

"Tony Blair has often spoken of the need to overthrow, or at least recast, the "liberal consensus" which has dominated the politics and institutions of Great Britain since the 1960s. He was at it again last Monday, criticising the "1960s revolution" for not putting enough emphasis on the responsibilities which ought to be inseparable from rights. He identified - as he has done many times before - the failure of some individuals to take up the responsibilities that citizenship imposed upon them as one of most significant causes of Britain's social problems.

Tony Blair referred admiringly to John Stuart Mill in his speech, as the man who - in opposition to the "liberal" view of rights without responsibilities - "articulated the modern concept that with freedom comes responsibility". In reality, of course, John Stuart Mill was the archetypal liberal. To Mill, liberalism required ensuring that state interference with individual choice and discretion was reduced to its absolute minimum: it meant allowing individuals to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.

Nineteenth-century liberals were therefore extremely reluctant to allow any governmental interference in contracts between individuals. They opposed "social" legislation of all kinds, believing that it was up to every able-bodied citizen to "stand on his own two feet", to decide how he should behave, to exercise his own judgment and to take responsibility for the consequences. They decried what we would now call state "nannying" and interference in individuals' conduct because they thought it would inevitably diminish the incentive to act responsibly.

That view of liberalism is the opposite of what the Prime Minister and others refer to as the "liberal consensus". And for all of the speeches from the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet (such as David Blunkett) attacking the contemporary "liberal consensus", Tony Blair's Government has in fact been spectacularly active in promoting the perversion of the 19th-century liberal ideal.

Far from encouraging personal responsibility, New Labour has presided over ever-greater state intervention in the lives of citizens. There are now thousands of laws and regulations governing individual behaviour - many of them introduced by New Labour. Teachers, doctors, policemen, managers and indeed anyone else with nominal responsibility for anything have become so minutely regulated by Government-imposed rules that almost all opportunity to exercise discretion, and judgment, has been taken away from them."

Full article: http://tinyurl.com/cjnqkmd”

“Sean Gabb puts in politely:

"We already have too many controls in this country on what can be published. These are generally used to keep wrongdoing by the rich and powerful from the public eye – that, or to keep us from knowing the truth about the caring, sharing, multi-cultural paradise that is modern England. The effect of more control will be to block future exposure of fraud and bribe-taking by Members of Parliament. Oh – and there is the matter of those ruling class salaries and pensions. I don't know about you, but the great army in modern England of looters in suits – with their low-grade intellects and first-class connections, and their £400,000 salaries at my expense, and their endless public moralising about how everyone else should be made to live – they really get on my..."”

“"With freedom comes responsibility"

Get a life Graham!”

“The 'press barons' are hypocrites - whilst touting the idea that they are defending free speech, they conveniently forget that with freedom comes responsibility. In a typically machiavellian twist, they make this issue out to be about political power over the media, when in fact it's exactly the opposite that is in play

To further their commercial success, they have endorsed unjustified means to gain information, and sanctioned breaking the law; they rarely publish in the name of disclosure, it's all about power and influence - put simply, to sell more papers and enhance their own political aspirations - not that they are prepared to be accountable at the poll booth, they would rather be puppetmasters and pull the strings, than expose their influence to public scrutiny.

The press watchdog should be strong, and completely independent - composed of neither political or media personnel...”