for a press council. The Progressive Labour Party did so on Wednesday.

It is of interest that the last time there was a serious suggestion for a press council, it came from the right wing of the United Bermuda Party Government, notably from the Hon. Clarence James, which felt The Royal Gazette was against the UBP. Most recently, Deputy Premier the Hon. Ann Cartwright DeCouto, during a House of Assembly debate, said she was in favour of a press council.

What politicians really mean when they suggest a press council is that they want to control the press and regulate what the public hears and what the public reads about the actions of politicians. The PLP confirmed that on Wednesday when it issued a statement saying the private lives of politicians should be separated from their public and political life. That, of course, is not so anywhere in the free world. Press councils are really designed to protect ordinary people in crisis situations from the prying of the more salacious tabloid press of the kind you have in Britain.

There is a basic contradiction involved when politicians and political parties suggest a press council as the PLP did on Wednesday. Press councils are not and were never intended to protect political parties or politicians from being accountable to the voters. There is a natural conflict between politicians and the media in a democratic society because the press has a duty and every right to be a diligent watchdog, within the law, of the doings of politicians.

Publication in Bermuda is bound by very stringent British laws, some of the most restrictive laws in the free world today, and these apply equally to politicians as to general members of the public. The United States recognises that scrutiny of public figures, and the accountability of politicians, should be less fettered and greater than that of ordinary members of the public and "public figure'' laws make it almost impossible to libel a politician in the United States.

Political parties in Bermuda seem often to suggest to the public that politicians should be less susceptible to scrutiny and that is a nonsense which would be wrong and out of step with democracy.

The PLP on Wednesday placed itself in total contradiction. Its parliamentarians have fought against new broadcast regulations as being an invasion of freedom. The PLP did not want a seven-second broadcasting delay button designed to prevent the broadcast of four letter words into homes. It did not want people to have to identify themselves to the broadcasting station before they spoke on the talk shows and the PLP complained loudly that the names people had to supply might somehow be revealed to the public. Then on Wednesday the PLP gave the lie to all that by suggesting a press council to control and regulate the media and complained because The Royal Gazette would not reveal the name of a letter writer.

The Royal Gazette 's Letters to the Editor policy is to allow the letter writing public as much leeway and as much freedom as we can give them within the law. It is not the newspaper's aim to cut off anyone's views if that can at all be avoided. We allow anonymous letters because Bermuda is a small society and some people require protection from vengeance. To reveal their names would be to violate their freedom.

As a man said yesterday morning about politicians: "Freedom means you have to take your licks sometimes.''