It is important that the individual is protected against the might of newspapers. For example, if one looks at mass circulation, the damage that can be done to a person is severe in terms of his or her reputation and standing with his or her neighbours, friends and so on. The newspapers have resources to fight these cases if they wish. I do not accept for one moment the notion that there should be a significantly lower burden of proof required for somebody in public life. Why should there be a lower burden of proof? I have a very simple principle – print the truth or pay the price. I would like that enshrined in the legislation being brought forward. Should they be allowed print lies and get away with it because somebody is in a position in public life? There is also the notion that items are published because it is in the public interest and the public has a right to know. Does the public have the right to know that the Queen has a plastic toaster? What public interest does that serve? It is of no public interest whatsoever. It is major intrusiveness and, as far as I am concerned, it is intolerable.