Principle

‘Have you read it then?’ asked my husband on the afternoon Lord Justice Leveson’s report was published. Of course I had not, and he only asked to annoy. But, then, nor could that strange Mr Miliband have read all 2,000 pages when he urged the world: ‘We should put our trust in Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations.’ He sounded like the sort of person who ticks the little box saying ‘I agree to the terms and conditions’ only to regret it when the flight is cancelled. Anyway, I am not going to discuss the Leveson report.

What did catch my ear, though, were some words of David Cameron in his Commons statement in response to it. He listed the ‘requirements’ of a regulatory system, such as the power to impose million-pound fines. ‘These,’ he declared, ‘are the Leveson principles.’ I thought that principle was an odd word to use of the power to fine people a million pounds.

‘I am afraid he has not been in the inside of a church for many years,’ said Samuel Johnson of the writer John Campbell, ‘but he never passes a church without pulling off his hat. This shows he has good principles.’ Pulling off his hat was not a principle, but the rule of action behind it was. Similarly, a watchdog should be able to bite, or at least bark, but the strength of bite or volume of bark are subsequent matters to be settled.

A voguish word related to principles is values. Recent years have seen much discussion of British values. It is suggested that foreigners settling here should subscribe to them. Examples given are fair play and courtesy. But I am not aware of foreign cultures where cheating or rudeness are praised.

The search for values demands that test questions be set for people wanting to become British citizens.