And add to that the likes of Murdoch, the Barclay brothers and Viscount Rothermere, who won't be happy with any form of regulation with serious underpinning at all.

Because they didn't get their amendment in even with them being naughty and delaying the close of Parliament on Friday for over an hour

True.

So a "free" press really means one free from having any responsibility to behave in a reasonable manner then?

I did get annoyed this morning when watching the news.

There was an editor of the Sun squealing about free press and how control of it is bad. Clearly the man doesn't realize the hypocrisy of it being him (NI employee) kicking off about it.

As for them using a picture of Winston Churchill this morning well nothing surprises me about that rag anymore.

Yes that is exactly what the 'free press' think.

Still, it made a nice cover for the news that the [iSun[/i has admitted accessing an MP's mobile phone – in 2010.



So much of it is an utter farce. I suspect that, for most people, the idea of a free press is one that will act in the best interests of the majority. The majority of our press acts in the interests of its owners. We can see that in many, many ways.



But media is a business – why do we expect it to be any different to any other businesses, which also act in the interests of their owners and shareholders, such as Findus, with horsemeat in its beef products or the banks that mess up?



And it's quite clear looking at those examples that proper regulation is required, properly enforced. It's farcical to try to pretend that that should not be the case for the media.



To the argument that we already have laws that can deal with any problems – no, we don't. We do not have a privacy law.



And it's worth noting that regulation, underpinned by statute, works perfectly well in other countries such as Denmark.



Finally, ladies and gents, I give you what 'freedom of the press' means to [url=http://www.themediablog.co.uk/the-media-blog/2013/01/daily-mail-turns-the-creepiness-up-a-notch.htmlthe [iMail[/i[/url: publishing pap shots of an eight-year-old child leaving a gym class and calling her "a leggy beauty".

I would say unbelievable, but that seems to be Mail Online's MO.

It is quite extraordinary.



I'm far from the first to write about it, [url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/this-isnt-just-journalism-this-is-daily.htmlbut here's a piece from a few months before that was published, which shows that it's far from a one off[/url.



I've tweeted this link and a few direct questions at the [iMail[/i: for some reason, they seem to simply ignore them. Which suggests that they know full well but will not accuse me of lies etc.



For those who don't read that piece, [iMail online[/i is still, ultimately, the editorial responsibility of Paul Dacre, who is editor in chief of the entire group.

In typical Sun fashion, they use their front page to show a picture and quote from Winston Churchill







They obviously ignored the irony of Churchill editing the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_GazetteBritish Gazette[/url during the general strike

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2013/mar/19/press-regulation-cameron-murdoch-cartoonSteve Bell's take on it[/url

I doubt even press regulation could prevent the likes of the odious [url=http://web.archive.org/web/20121221195332/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2251347/Nathan-Uptons-wrong-body--hes-wrong-job.htmlRichard Littlejohn and his peurile comments on trans teacher Lucy Meadows[/url



No doubt he's proud of himself though and could possibly claim a result: [url=http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/teacher-due-begin-new-term-1767749Lucy Meadows found dead[/url



And Dacre, Rothermere and the scum writing for the rag are against any form of regulation.