I think the Mail is the best - and often the nastiest - paper in Britain.
I also think Paul Dacre is the best Editor in Britain.
The Mail has been the only paper to carry coverage of my successful application to Europe - successful in that the court has agreed it is worth examining, not that they have yet found in my favour.

Dacre is worried about a privacy law creeping in and I agree, we need to protect the freedom of the press. The Mail, again, was the only paper to expose the ludicrous Satanic abuse scare and is one of very few which has dared comment on the Jersey farce.

If any paper ever picks up the cause of exposing false allegations and the epidemic of invention in the area of sex abuse, it will be the Mail.

But when he says "any distress caused to innocent parties is regrettable" I don't think he really believes it. He is too intelligent not to know that the only thing that really matters to the media is "Is it a good story?".

Would he think all the papers should carry a story (they would) if someone accused Dacre of molesting them 30 years ago when they were a child? And would he say those papers should not encourage the inevitable dozens of other claims that would follow the publicity? And, if he was then wrongly convicted as a result, would he say that he should not deserve to be treated with fairness?

I suspect, if this happened to him (it will happen to more and more innocent people until someone exposes it), he would radically change his position. By which time, of course, it would be too late.

I like to think the press could regulate itself, if it has the will, but I do think there has to be limits on freedom. For example, do we want them to be able to break into our homes and plant mini cameras to capture our most intimate moments? Do we want anyone to be able to slander us without them having to face any consequences? It would be impossible to live with total freedom, because that would mean no rules and no privacy, and no protection for any of us.

For every paper that behaves decently, I'm sure there's another which has no principles whatsoever.

I suggest that you all read Ben Elton's most recent novel - where the state has in fact installed cameras into everyone's home - and where each community can watch each others most intimate moments.

A bit like Big Brother for everyone.

Of course it wont happen ? or will it. Because the "if you have nothing to hide brigade" are wanting it more and more.

A camera in every room.

These days a 4 camera system is quite cheap to install - and with Wifi you could broadcast your life to your street - area

I saw that in an old Sci-Fi movie. Can't remember it's name. It wasn't very good, but was probably made in the 1970s.

btw ... just to be pedantic ... "novel" and "in fact" don't really go together, as novels are generally fiction.

Two excellent commentaries in the Guardian on the Dacre rant, by Polly Toynbee and Geoffrey Robertson.

Not so sure about the Mail being the best..but certainly the most interesting in presentation and diversity of articles.

In the end though, it's still a tabloid and promotes sensationlism.

Interesting your comments on Dacre and a false allegation. Give me enough information about a person's past and location it would be so easy to make a false sexual allegation about any person and if they were found innocent in the end, they would still find there life destroyed in most cases.

There needs to be a time limit on such allegations.

I have a long time friend who has more or less admitted to me that he jumped on the bandwagon about a Catholic priest already charged and convicted and jailed. He claimed to authorities that he had only just got brave enough to come forward..no extra charges were laid but the ultimate prize..he received compensation from the Catholic Church.