HUGH Grant is that rare being, an actor who does not mind resting. He relishes his time away from the movie cameras and press dictaphones. Alas, he has not been enjoying much down time lately.

With a universally lauded performance as a delicious old ham in Paddington 2, and his appearance in the forthcoming BBC drama, A Very English Scandal, Mr Grant is toastier property now than he has been for many a year.

In a A Very English Scandal, he plays Jeremy Thorpe, the former leader of the Liberal Party who stood trial for conspiracy to murder his alleged lover, Norman Scott. Mr Thorpe and three others were acquitted. From the trailers it looks set to be a riveting watch, with Scott’s appearance in the witness box at the Old Bailey a highlight. “I will talk,” proclaims Ben Whishaw, playing Scott. “I will be heard and I will be seen.”

The Bridge: Is it time to call a halt on this tide of misogynist TV crime?

Noble sentiments, but how often will their like be heard in future if Mr Grant ever succeeds in that other role he savours, that of campaigner for stricter press regulation? It was in his capacity, as director of the lobby group Hacked Off, that he had a busy day in Parliament this week. His aim: to drum up support for curbs on the press.

One proposed amendment to the Data Protection Bill, debated yesterday, would have resulted in newspapers being forced to pay all the legal costs of actions against them, even if they won the cases, unless they had signed up to a state regulator. Another amendment, this one tabled by former Labour leader Ed Miliband, would have ushered in a new Leveson Inquiry into press standards.

The former amendment was dropped while the latter was defeated 304 votes to 295.

Given the closeness of the vote on Leveson this will likely not be the last word on the subject for a while. More is the pity. Rarely has Westminster seemed such a bubble as yesterday afternoon. It seems incredible that at a time when the demands on politicians have never been greater that MPs and peers should be once again devoting time to this subject. Brexit, Iran, Syria, the never ending crisis in the NHS, child poverty increasing, potholes: you name it, it is of more pressing concern to the public than yet more gazing at the navel of press regulation.

Matt Hancock: great day for press freedom as Leveson Pt 2 move defeated

No matter that seven years have passed since David Cameron set up Leveson. Forget that £50 million has been spent already. Ignore the fact that arrests and prosecutions have taken place. Shun the reality that post-Leveson reforms, including the setting up of a new independent regulator, are now bedded in and working well.

Let us all return instead to the task that certain individuals have set for themselves. Chief among these high profile campaigners for more regulation are Mr Grant; Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader; and ex-motor racing chief Max Mosley, who has donated £540,000 towards the running of Mr Watson’s office.

When it comes to Mr Grant and Mr Mosley, a cynic might ask, Mrs Merton-style, what it is about a free press that first attracted the scandal hit actor and ex-racing boss to the notion of neutering it? But this is not about the past. Those campaigning for more regulation insist they are acting for the weak against the strong, now and in the future.

Now, at this point in any discussion of the press it is customary for a journalist to fire up the Elgar and start waxing lyrical about ancient freedoms, the fight against tyranny, and their part in it. There are few sights more comical than the media getting on its high horse. We put words together for a living. We take pictures. We produce newspapers. We do not cure the sick, teach the young, mend the roads, or anything else of obvious practical use. But that said, and for all the trade’s flaws, when it comes to serving the public I would put more trust in journalism than in most other professions.

Messrs Grant and Mosley like to accuse the press of wallowing in the past, of not fitting in with modern demands for openness and accountability. But it is they who are hopelessly out of touch with the times and the industry they seek to regulate. Post-Leveson there has been a revolution in the media, with readers as likely to get their news from Facebook as from a newspaper. If campaigners want to overhaul institutions that are slow to act on complaints, if they act at all, why don’t they take on the social media giants? Or is their legal firepower too intimidating?

The Bridge: Is it time to call a halt on this tide of misogynist TV crime?

Between the establishment of the Independent Press Standards Organisation and the arrival of social media, newspapers have never been so open to scrutiny and accountable for their actions. If serious wrongdoing occurs the existing law is able to deal with it. Phone hacking was and is a criminal offence and was dealt with as such. Far from suffering from a lack of oversight, the UK media is already one of the most heavily regulated in the world. By further hemming in the press, campaigners make it less likely that causes and cases will be taken up and wrongdoing exposed.

Moreover, those who complain that the media is being allowed to run amok have clearly never been in any newspaper office when a complaint has been received. It is a serious matter. Getting something wrong, or breaking the industry’s code of conduct, can be grounds for dismissal. Without wishing to be pompous about it, there is the judgment of peers to be reckoned with, too. It is not like decades ago when newsrooms were packed with staff; there is no hiding place for chancers in papers today.

On the subject of the strong against the weak, it should be remembered that Norman Scott had gone to the press before with complaints that he was being silenced. But no one was prepared to take on Mr Thorpe and his powerful friends. That only ceased when the local press picked up the story, and Private Eye and the Sunday Express followed.

We do not want to go back to the time when chaps of a certain order took care of business with a quiet word here and there, a time when the press knew its place and did what it was told. Those days have gone. Good riddance.