Having listened intently to the ensuing debate since yesterday morning, it seems to me that there is a real desire to have this discussion and some fantastic points, suggestions and comments are being made. However in constructing the campaign we appear to have put up a barrier for some in the form of some of the language used.

Where the Bill of Rights was concerned the word “demanded” was used in conjunction with the word “believe” as we had based the initial list of so called “rights” on public posts written over the years by journalists and bloggers and by feedback from the research. However this did not mean that we “know” that these are demanded by *all*. That is one of the things this campaign and the resulting debate is aiming to establish.

Secondly the title the “Bill of Rights” seems to have got some peoples’ backs up. Leaving aside whether we would be having such a fascinating conversation if softer language had been used we do not want this to be, as Will Sturgeon says in his comment on PRWeek, just a publicity stunt and this week’s bandwagon. So if people will help us we are offering to tear it up and start again. What should this be called? What should be in it? Should it represent both sides of this debate? Alternatively forget about this campaign and someone else take up the standard – CIPR, PRCA? What matters most is surely that having got this discussion started we don’t miss this opportunity.

30/1/10 Update we have added answers to many of the frequently asked questions and comments that people have raised in connection with the animation here, and the bill of rights here.