As I often say, being an editor requires knowing where to draw the line. Censorship is an extremely difficult tightrope to walk and it's not always easy to know what should be cut.

All of which brings me to the question of whether we were right to edit a photograph of a stag which was displaying his manhood rather too graphically.

Late last night, just before deadline, a sub-editor informed me that he was in the process of replacing a picture of the aforementioned stag from the South Durham edition (Page 10) on grounds of decency.

He pointed out that the stag, standing before a flock of deer at Raby Castle in County Durham, was exposing himself a little too prominently.

The sensitive sub-editor, conscious that he works for a family newspaper, had replaced it was a "less offensive" picture of another stag who wasn't being such an exhibitionist.

I could have over-ruled the decision on the grounds that it's just nature at work. What would David Attenborough have thought of us censoring a wild animal in such a way?

The debate has taken a new twist this morning.

A newsroom colleague has questioned whether the offending appendage is indeed a penis - or the leg of a deer in the background.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I'm pretty sure it's the former.

Either way, it's a proud boast for any self-respecting stag: "I've got one as big as your leg."