Speeches by Wright.

“We have to be conscious of our remit, which is not to stray too far from the levels of abuse and intimidation, which nobody will argue are appropriate, however evasive the politician may have been in an interview. You have mentioned social media, and one of the consequences of political exchanges being on social media …”

“The specific question, I think, is about the connection between the headline and the content of the piece. I suppose the question might be whether you consider that the headline ought to reflect the proper balance of the piece that is underneath it. Or is the headline written with different rules entirely, or no rules …”

“Because we are focused on visiting of MPs’ home addresses at this point, I will ask this. You have been very clear that, in your view, there is a public interest justification only in the most exceptional circumstances. There is obviously a good basis for that because, as you fully appreciate, the effect on members of …”

“That was not quite the question I asked. If the justification for going is to get a response you cannot get any other way, surely, we have to consider how often that tactic ever succeeds in order to consider whether it is justifiable?”

“It seems to us that people increasingly find it acceptable to abuse public figures. If it seems that way to you too, why do you think that is?”

“I am sure we will. Professor Fenwick, you will obviously have views on that question. In many cases, the distinction between abuse on the one hand and legitimate political criticism on the other is very difficult to make. Do you have any observations on how we reach a decision about where that line should be drawn and …”

“Thank you. Elisabeth’s point—she will correct me if I have misunderstood it—is that where that line is drawn has moved in many people’s minds, and it has moved largely because of the nature of social media debate. Do you have any sympathy with that view, and should that be the case? Should we accept that the line has m…”

“Thank you very much. Professor Ramanna, can I ask for your thoughts on, first, the acceptability of abuse of public figures, and secondly, the line between what is abuse and what is legitimate political commentary or criticism? Professor Karthik Ramanna: Sure—I am happy to comment on both issues. I agree with my fellow…”

“Just a quick question: I am interested in your view of how important it is to teach complexity in decision making. One of the things that strikes me is that it is much easier to think ill of a politician if you think it is a simple choice: they could have done the right thing or the wrong thing, and they chose, in my v…”

“We have to be conscious of our remit, which is not to stray too far from the levels of abuse and intimidation, which nobody will argue are appropriate, however evasive the politician may have been in an interview. You have mentioned social media, and one of the consequences of political exchanges being on social media …”

“The specific question, I think, is about the connection between the headline and the content of the piece. I suppose the question might be whether you consider that the headline ought to reflect the proper balance of the piece that is underneath it. Or is the headline written with different rules entirely, or no rules …”

“Because we are focused on visiting of MPs’ home addresses at this point, I will ask this. You have been very clear that, in your view, there is a public interest justification only in the most exceptional circumstances. There is obviously a good basis for that because, as you fully appreciate, the effect on members of …”

“That was not quite the question I asked. If the justification for going is to get a response you cannot get any other way, surely, we have to consider how often that tactic ever succeeds in order to consider whether it is justifiable?”

“Yes, but they are doing it because they have decided that the consequences of not doing it to them and their family is too serious not to give in, are they not?”

“I think that is a fair point, but you can always write that the Cabinet Minister has refused to respond. Does that not do enough?”

“It seems to us that people increasingly find it acceptable to abuse public figures. If it seems that way to you too, why do you think that is?”

“I am sure we will. Professor Fenwick, you will obviously have views on that question. In many cases, the distinction between abuse on the one hand and legitimate political criticism on the other is very difficult to make. Do you have any observations on how we reach a decision about where that line should be drawn and …”

“Thank you. Elisabeth’s point—she will correct me if I have misunderstood it—is that where that line is drawn has moved in many people’s minds, and it has moved largely because of the nature of social media debate. Do you have any sympathy with that view, and should that be the case? Should we accept that the line has m…”

“Thank you very much. Professor Ramanna, can I ask for your thoughts on, first, the acceptability of abuse of public figures, and secondly, the line between what is abuse and what is legitimate political commentary or criticism? Professor Karthik Ramanna: Sure—I am happy to comment on both issues. I agree with my fellow…”

“The policy of successive UK Governments has been that the United Kingdom will recognise the state of Palestine when it is conducive to the peace process and the ultimate realisation of the two-state solution. Up to this point, I have accepted the argument that the Minister and his predecessors have made that that momen…”