If it bleeds, it leads

Drummer Lee Rigby of 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, aged 25. 
May he Rest In Peace.

THE OLD adage "if it bleeds, it leads" was in full evidence in the media coverage of the tragic killing of Royal Fusiliers Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich on Wednesday.

Almost all of the national newspapers carried the horrifying image on their front pages of one of the perpetrators Michael Adebolajo, clutching a meat cleaver in his bloodied hands.

The evening bulletin of the ITV news, broadcast at 6.30pm, showed an exclusive video which the attacker had forced a member of the public to film.

And, of course, the rolling news went into an inevitable overdrive. There were the ubiquitous live blogs on the websites of the BBC, the Guardian, the Telegraph and elsewhere.

Meanwhile, BBC political editor Nick Robinson landed himself in hot water by describing the suspect as being "of Muslim descent", whatever that means.

At first, Robinson defended his description as having been taken directly from a quote by a Whitehall source - but, later on his blog, he gave a full apology "for using a phrase that, on reflection, was both liable to be misinterpreted and to cause offence".

ITV was also on the defensive after it had received hundreds of complaints for its broadcast of the aforementioned video - but it defended its decision as "editorially justified".

"We carefully considered showing this footage ahead of broadcast and made the decision to do so on a public interest basis as the material is integral to understanding the horrific incident that took place yesterday," said an ITV News spokesman.

"It was editorially justified to show such footage in the aftermath of such a shocking attack, and we prefaced it on ITV News at 6.30pm and News at Ten with appropriate warnings to make viewers aware in advance of the graphic images about to be shown."

Sky News executives opted not to show it on the grounds of taste and that it could be a potential platform for terrorists, but the BBC did join ITV in showing the clip on its later bulletins.

Now, the issue for the print media with breaking news events is that, by the time they publish the following day, the images are already very much in the public domain.

Even if the broadcasters had chosen to be more cautious and not shown the video, the chilling material could easily be found on Twitter and other social media outlets.

It is therefore not difficult to agree with Media Guardian commentator Roy Greenslade that the newspapers would have "looked completely daft to ignore what was already in the public domain".

After all, to do so would be tantamount to self-censorship, and again I agree with Greenslade when he states that editors "cannot edit in order to ensure they protect us from the feeble-minded".

As for those who suggest all that newspapers or broadcasters are interested in is their sales or ratings - well, there is always the option not to buy the paper and always an off-button on the television remote.

At the same time, though, it is important that newspaper chiefs show some respect for the victim and his family in their editorial decisions.

The Sun, The Daily Star, The Telegraph and The Times all took the curious (and, in my view, incorrect) decision to include Mr Rigby's stricken body on their front page.

In his column, Greenslade again defends the newspapers on the basis that they "needed to convey the brutality of a murder that appeared to have been carried out as an act of terrorism" - but it comes across as a breach of privacy to me.

Indeed, ITV has since sensibly edited the video on its website to obscure Mr Rigby's body.

Nevertheless, it was the Guardian with perhaps the most harrowing front cover. Its editors chose a full-page close-up photo of Adebolajo with his words "You people will never be safe" running alongside.

If that is not the dissemination of irrational fear - so often railed against within that very newspaper - then I do not quite know what is. 

Of course, it is not just the media which has stirred up the reaction to Mr Rigby's death.

While the action can accurately be described as terrorism, the repetition of the phrase over and over again by media commentators and politicians has served little purpose than to stir up more tension.

Similarly, the actions of Home Secretary Theresa May calling an emergency COBRA meeting and Prime Minister David Cameron cutting short his holiday both smack of politicians wanting to be seen as decisive, regardless of the consequences.

Instead, they have arguably made the situation worse and played right into the hands of bone-headed extremists like the English Defence League, which has already sadly caused some damage. 

Would the numbskulls have acted in the same manner if the media and politicians had have reacted differently? Very possibly so. 

But, have the media and politicians treated the matter as sensitively as they could have? Almost certainly not. 

After all, there were some very good news stories related to this horrific incident which almost immediately restored my faith in humankind. 

Witness the bravery of the mother and daughter who tended to Mr Rigby just yards from the knife and meat cleaver-wielding terrorists.

Or, how about giving more coverage to Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, the cub scout leader who confronted the terrorists just seconds after their attack, asking them to hand over their weapons?

"It is only you versus many people, you are going to lose," said Mrs Loyau-Kennett to the terrorists at the scene - if only the Guardian had used those words on its front page instead.

Police farce

THE farcical attempt to politicise the police fell flat on its face yesterday after the average turnout in the first Police and Crime Commissioner elections was revealed to be under 15%.

None of the 41 constabularies in England and Wales saw more than 20% of the electorate attend to the polls, an historically low outcome which has prompted the Electoral Commission to launch an investigation.

Perhaps the most abiding memory of this ludicrous episode in British political history will be the sight of a ballot box in Gloucestershire being tipped upside down - only for it to be completely empty.

Meanwhile, the highest turnout came in Humberside where the most high-profile candidate - former Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Prescott - was standing.

It all ended disastrously for the peer, however, and his political career was effectively ended after he was beaten by his Conservative opponent Matthew Grove.

Mr Grove acknowledged that the Police Commissioners elections had failed to capture the attention of the public at large but vowed to be a "visible, active, loud voice on behalf of the community".

And yet, in spite of almost total indifference across the country, Home Secretary Theresa May and Prime Minister David Cameron somehow defended the legitimacy of the mandate of the winning candidates.

At least, those - like myself - who do not believe the police should be politicised will be pleased to see so many independent winners.

However, even this has been spoiled by the news that the triumphant 'independents' in Hampshire and North Wales have close links to the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats parties respectively.

Undoubtedly, the most ridiculous element of this all has been the cost of holding the election, which has been estimated to be around £100m.

It is not a figure which is well juxtaposed with the cuts the frontline policing, especially considering just how little information was available about the election.

An additional factor was that the motivation to go out and vote on a cold, grey November day could hardly be described as overwhelming.

Indeed, frankly, the mood of many of the election's detractors was summed up by the spoilt ballot papers, one of which read: "The answer is never 'more politicians'."

And yet, these new - and barely recognised - Police Commissioners will take up their roles next week on a career politician's salary of £65000 per annum minimum. 

Now, the defenders of the appointments have argued that the people in these positions will make the police more accountable to the public than ever before. 

However, the Police Authorities - which the commissioners have replaced - were not as unaccountable as they have been made out. 

For a start, approximately half of the members were usually local councillors who were subject, of course, to a democratic mandate from their own wards - a mandate which would usually be higher than the turnout which transpired on Thursday. 

Meanwhile, in order to prevent the committees from being too political, the other half of the panel was usually made up of non-politicians who lived in the area, at least one of whom was a local magistrate. 

The most powerful member was the Chair of the Authority - however, again, this was usually a non-politician and not chosen on a party political basis, as proven by Ann Barnes. 

Ms Barnes was the former chair of Kent Police Authority, and won standing as an independent. Sadly, the vast majority of the new commissioners do represent a particular political standpoint. 

Worse still, the feeling now persists that, once this commissioner role gets established as the norm, then it will be difficult to remove - and all this, in spite of their complete lack of legitimacy. 

Basically, this whole thing has ended up just being yet another policy which the government of the day has foisted, with impunity, upon the general public. 

To some, this may have been direct democracy in action. But, without an engaged electorate, it is barely democracy at all - and could be more accurately described as a complete waste of time. Sigh...
 

At least, meanwhile, there were some 'proper' parliamentary elections - but, here again, it was the same sorry story for the coalition government.

Labour comfortably held Cardiff South and Penarth and Manchester Central with increased majorities, and gained Corby from the Conservatives.

Candidate Andy Sawford pulled off a notable swing of 12% as Labour won a seat directly from the Tories in a by-election for the first time in 15 years.

And yet, despite the historical significance, the actual result was not a surprise and was largely in line with some polling done by Lord Ashcroft and Populus in the constituency.

Clearly, the nature of Louise Mensch's departure - to move to New York City for family reasons after just two years as an MP - had a further drag on the Conservative vote.

But, while to the Tories the result is just a case of the mid-term blues, from the perspective of Labour leader Ed Miliband, Mr Sawford's victory represents real hope for the chances of his party winning back power in the next general election in 2015.

There is, of course, no such hope for the Lib Dems, whose place in the coalition has caused them by-election embarrassment before.

Corby was another nightmare for leader Nick Clegg as candidate Jill Hope suffered another lost deposit for the party, finishing well behind Nigel Farage's UK Independence Party in third.

With UKIP also about level-pegging with the Lib Dems in the police elections, Mr Farage has some justification in referring to his party as the "third force in British politics".

Importantly, we are now just closer to the next general election than the last one, and so these are worrying times for the Lib Dems whose vulnerable position could leave them with just a rump of MPs in 2015.

Elsewhere, as mentioned previously, Labour held the other two urban seats in Cardiff and Manchester without a problem.

But, considering the by-elections were caused by the sitting Labour MPs resigning to enter - and win - in the Police elections, it seemed appropriate that turnout in those two elections was also pitiful.

In Cardiff South and Penarth, only just slightly more than a quarter of the electorate bothered to vote.

However, that was nothing as compared to Manchester Central where only 18.2% turned up. It was the lowest turnout in a parliamentary by-election since the Second World War.

Apathy reigns - but, considering the politicians we do actually have, is it really any surprise?


RESULTS

BY ELECTIONS

CARDIFF SOUTH and PENARTH	LAB hold
Stephen Doughty Labour	9,193	47.3%	(+8.4%)
Craig Williams Conservative	3,859	19.9%	(-8.4%)
Bablin Molik Lib Dems	2,103	10.8%	(-11.5%)
Luke Nicholas Plaid Cymru	1,854	9.5%	(+5.3%)
Simon Zeigler UKIP	1,179	6.1%	(+3.5%)
Others	1,248	6.4%

Total votes: 19,436 Turnout: 25.3% Majority: 5,334

CORBY	LAB GAIN	from Con
Andy Sawford Labour	17,267	48.4%	(+9.8%)
Christine Emmett Conservative	9,476	26.6%	(-15.6%)
Margot Parker UKIP	5,108	14.3%
Jill Hope Lib Dems	1,770	4.9%	(-9.5%)
Others	2,044	5.8%

Total votes: 35,665 Turnout: 44.8% Majority: 7,791

MANCHESTER CENTRAL	LAB hold
Lucy Powell Labour	11,507	69.1%	(+16.4%)
Marc Ramsbottom Lib Dems	1,571	9.4%	(-17.2%)
Matthew Septhon Conservative	754	4.5%	(-7.3%)
Chris Cassidy UKIP	749	4.5%	(-3.0%)
Others	2,067	12.5%

Total votes: 16,648 Turnout: 18.2% Majority: 9,936

POLICE COMMISSIONER  ELECTIONS	Commissioners	% of total	% of 1st Pref
LABOUR	13	32%	32%
CONSERVATIVE	16	39%	28%
INDEPENDENTS	12	29%	23%
UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY	0	0%	7%
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS	0	0%	7%

England			Turnout
AVON and SOMERSET	Sue Mountstevens	IND	TBC
BEDFORDSHIRE	Oliver Martins	LAB	17.7%
CAMBRIDGESHIRE	Sir Graham Bright	CON	14.7%
CHESHIRE	John Dwyer	CON	13.7%
CLEVELAND	Barry Coppinger	LAB	14.7%
CUMBRIA	Richard Rhodes	CON	15.6%
DERBYSHIRE	Alan Charles	LAB	14.3%
DEVON and CORNWALL	Tony Hogg	CON	15.1%
DORSET	Martyn Underhill	IND	16.3%
DURHAM	Ron Hogg	LAB	14.4%
ESSEX	Nicholas Alston	CON	12.8%
GLOUCESTERSHIRE	Martin Surl	IND	15.9%
GREATER MANCHESTER	Tony Lloyd	LAB	13.5%
HAMPSHIRE	Simon Hayes	IND	14.5%
HERTFORDSHIRE	David Lloyd	CON	14.1%
HUMBERSIDE	Matthew Grove	CON	19.1%
KENT	Ann Barnes	IND	15.9%
LANCASHIRE	Clive Grunshaw	LAB	15.0%
LEICESTERSHIRE	Clive Loader	CON	15.9%
LINCOLNSHIRE	Alan Hardwick	IND	15.2%
MERSEYSIDE	Jane Kennedy	LAB	12.4%
NORFOLK	Stephen Bett	IND	14.5%
NORTH YORKSHIRE	Julia Mulligan	CON	13.2%
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE	Adam Simmonds	CON	19.5%
NORTHUMBRIA	Vera Baird	LAB	16.4%
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE	Paddy Tipping	LAB	16.4%
SOUTH YORKSHIRE	Shaun Wright	LAB	14.5%
STAFFORDSHIRE	Matthew Ellis	CON	11.6%
SUFFOLK	Tim Passmore	CON	15.4%
SURREY	Kevin Hurley	IND	15.3%
SUSSEX	Katy Bourne	CON	15.3%
THAMES VALLEY	Anthony Stansfeld	CON	12.8%
WARWICKSHIRE	Ron Ball	IND	15.2%
WEST MERCIA	Bill Longmore	IND	14.5%
WEST MIDLANDS	Bob Jones	LAB	11.9%
WEST YORKSHIRE	Mark Burns-Williamson	LAB	13.3%
WILTSHIRE	Angus Macpherson	CON	15.8%
Wales
DYFED-POWYS	Christopher Salmon	CON	16.3%
GWENT	Ian Johnston	IND	13.9%
NORTH WALES	Winston Roddick	IND	14.8%
SOUTH WALES	Alun Michael	LAB	14.6%

Paedogeddon gets out of hand

BUMBLING BBC boss George Entwistle apologised today after a Newsnight report wrongly implicated a Conservative peer in the ongoing child sex abuse scandal.

The report, which was broadcast on Friday 2 November, featured an interview with victim Steve Messham who identified former Tory treasurer Lord McAlpine as his alleged abuser.

It has since emerged, however, that Lord McAlpine was a victim himself - of mistaken identity, after Mr Messham realised his error having been shown a different photograph of the peer.

Mr Messham has apologised to Lord McAlpine but the peer is understandably more angry with the BBC for letting the botched report go ahead.

Lord McAlpine's solicitor Andrew Reid has confirmed the peer will take legal action, and it is almost certain that he will win his case.

For, while he was not actually named in the report, he does not have to be in order to pursue a successful writ for defamation.

All that Lord McAlpine will need to prove is that he could reasonably be expected to be identified by the report, which has happened, and that it has harmed his reputation.

It is another blow for former Newsnight editor Mr Entwistle who has only been in the top job at the BBC for 54 days. Already he looks way out his depth, and he has been constantly one step behind throughout this saga.

Astonishingly, Mr Entwistle has said that he was only aware of the episode of Newsnight after it had been broadcast.

And that really is quite unbelievable following the recent controversies which have dogged the Corporation's flagship news review show.

Newsnight has been on the ropes for weeks now and it is already under investigation for its reporting, or lack of reporting, of abuse by former presenter Jimmy Savile.

On that occasion, the BBC effectively did the opposite to what has happened now to Lord McAlpine, dropping a report last year into Savile, only for ITV's Exposure documentary to pick up the story from freelance journalist Mark Williams-Thomas last month.

Yes, some time ago, there was actually some legitimate journalism going on. How and why Savile had got away with what he had done for years was still a story worth telling, particularly from the victim's perspective, despite the perpetrator's death last year.

Quite why Newsnight editor Peter Rippon felt it necessary to drop the report due to an apparent clash with a planned Christmas tribute to Savile remains unclear. It was, in my view, a truly proper piece of journalism, and it should have been screened.

However, the media has now largely moved from Savile, and it is now gorging itself in its own inimitable, sensationalist style, making it difficult to decipher the hard facts from the hearsay.

This was no less in evidence than in the Thursday edition of ITV's daytime television show This Morning, on which Prime Minister David Cameron appeared.

Far from the expected cosy chat on the sofa, presenter Philip Schofield confronted Mr Cameron with a list of alleged paedophiles which he had found on the internet.

Schofield has since apologised for his utterly reprehensible approach but the damage to his credibility has already been done and his interview with the PM is just the latest example in how this story has now gone too far.

Of course, sections of the media getting itself in a tizz over paedophilia is nothing new - but engaging in sensationalism simply does not help the situation.

You only have to recall when the late and unlamented News of the World ran its nefarious campaign against paedophiles after the rape and murder of eight-year-old Sarah Payne.

In fairness to the News of the World, many praised its campaign for a change in the law which has proved to be very popular among the population at large.

However, the newspaper articles also, infamously, caused a mob from a Welsh estate to daub graffiti on the front door of the house of... a paediatrician, in another case of mistaken identity.

Never one to miss a trick, satirist Chris Morris brought back his mock investigation show Brass Eye which took the approach of the News of the World and applied it to broadcasters.

And now, just over a decade down the line, life is once again imitating art. You would think the likes of BBC and ITV would really be more careful but that is perhaps expecting too much.

*Update: George Entwistle has resigned as Director General of the BBC.

London's Burning

Rolling BBC News coverage

LONDON descended into a third night of looting, fires and general violent disorder as the light declined on the capital city tonight.

Fresh riots erupted on both sides of the Thames in Lewisham, Peckham, Clapham Junction and in Hackney, Chalk Farm and Camden.

The BBC news channel carried dramatic footage of a family-owned furniture store in Croydon being incinerated in a huge blaze.

And, for the first time, the violence spread today outside of London to Birmingham city centre. 

It seems that the "summer of rage", as previously predicted by Met Police chiefs, simply took two more years to arrive than they had expected.

These are the worst cases of civil disorder since the early 1980s when Britain was also in a recession.

The first sign of the disorder arrived on Saturday night in Tottenham when a protest march linked to the fatal police shooting of Mark Duggan last Thursday turned nasty.

Since then, though, there has been little pattern to the violence and the original link to Mr Duggan's death seems to have been long ago forgotten.

The rioting and looting is now completely indiscriminate with the outnumbered police largely powerless to prevent it all from happening.

Scotland Yard has confirmed 225 people have now been arrested over the three days, though only 35 have been charged. West Midlands police in Birmingham has made a further 87 arrests tonight.

But, while the police response has been wholly inadequate, the politicians cannot even claim to have reached that level.

Of course, August is usually the month in which MPs choose to take a break as they are not required to sit in the House of Commons in Westminster.

However, to borrow a phrase, there is a feeling that many of them have fiddled while London has burnt.

For instance, while parts of the capital resemble a war-zone with running battles between the police and looters, Prime Minister David Cameron was sunning himself in Italy.

And, amid this week's financial gloom and impending financial collapse, the Chancellor George Osborne has been in Los Angeles.

Meanwhile, in the interests of political balance, it must be said Labour leader Ed Miliband has also been very quiet in Devon.

At least there has now been some movement was made by the powers-that-be as Mr Cameron and London mayor Boris Johnson joined Home Secretary Theresa May in cutting short their summer break.

Tomorrow, Mr Cameron will hold an emergency cabinet meeting at 9am.

I suppose it is better late than never but, so far in the crisis, the members of the government have hardly given the impression, as they like to remind us, that "we're all in this together".

Meanwhile, some sympathy has been expressed for the youths causing the violence and the social deprivation which they face.

True, there is an argument that a whole section of society has completely forgotten, left to live an almost pointless existence permanently on benefits.

But a few hundred hooded hooligans are hardly representative even of the underclass and the real victims here anyway are the tenants and the home-owners who have been displaced and distressed.

Indeed, not every shop which has been damaged, destroyed or looted has belonged to a multi-national corporation as the furniture store owners will vouch.

Now, Charlton Athletic and West Ham United fans have also been affected by the riots. The Addicks were due to play Reading while the Hammers faced Aldershot but both matches have been postponed on police safety grounds.

The current fear is that the riots will not stop until someone is killed. And, in that respect, the Met Police has utterly failed to protect its people while the politicians have been non-existent.

On his election last year, Mr Cameron promised to build a Big Society.

Tonight, though, that vision seems more vague than ever - in fact, as most suspected all along, it is a complete pipe-dream.

Raoul Moat and the Rothbury media circus

THE MANHUNT for Raoul Moat gripped the nation this time last week as, with little else to report on, the 24-hour news channels went into overdrive.

Sky News and the BBC News Channel analysed every single emerging aspect of Northumbria Police's attempts to apprehend a man who had killed one and severely injured two others.

The level of coverage has drawn criticism from Martin Robbins on his blog post, titled Seven Questions for the Media.

In response, the excellent FleetStreetBlues blog has provided answers to each point, concluding that "the implication that journalists were too intrusive, too inquisitive and too obstructive to police is just inaccurate".

Personally, I thought the level of coverage was largely acceptable. This was a major news story - it involved one-tenth of the total police force in England and an RAF Tornado.

The nature of the manhunt, with details of locations, vehicles and letters, slowly seeping out, also suited a 24-hour news platform.

The climax to the case was utterly compelling viewing, and even though the ending was somewhat unedifying, it was also predictable.

However, my issue with the media on this case is not that the coverage was there but how it was conducted. Many of my gripes relate to the age-old problem of inaccuracy.

As a north east lad, I suppose I am at an advantage in that I know how to pronounce Ponteland (not 'Pontyland'), where Northumbria Police has its HQ. Or Seaton Delaval (not 'Seaton De-la-val'), where Moat allegedly held up a fish and chip shop.

Additionally, news presenters and reporters will presumably now be aware that the 'o' in Rothbury is pronounced like the one in hot, and not as in go.

These mispronunciations may seem a little persnickety on my part but place names are absolute basics of reporting and the continued errors were rather embarrassing.

Surely it was not too much to ask somebody local if they were getting the name of their town right.

Unfortunately, the inaccuracy did not just end with reporters getting a little tongue-tied and the geography of north east England was pulled apart at its seams.

At one stage, the BBC News Channel reported that Wrekenton was part of Newcastle even though it is south of Gateshead. The same channel also moved the border of North Tyneside so that it included the A1/A69 roundabout where PC David Rathband was shot.

Sky were no better, highlighting Birtley on a map as being to the west of Newcastle when again it is to the south of Gateshead, near Chester-le-Street.

But the big individual prize for inaccurate reporting goes to Sky's Kay Burley.

Burley repeatedly told us she was in Rothbury, "25 miles to the north east of Newcastle upon Tyne", even though that location would mean she was standing in the middle of the North Sea.

For the record, Rothbury is north-north-west of Newcastle. Again, the media fell foul of some fundamental inaccuracies - was it really too much work to ask?

Of course, Burley is not a particularly well-liked figure, her reputation having suffered further after the General Election when she was embroiled in an unseemly spat with an interviewee protesting in favour of proportional representation.

Burley was cleared this week by Ofcom of having breached impartiality rules but she provided plenty of ammunition for her detractors from her spell in Rothbury.

She veered from the completely inane - "If Moat is on the move, he could be absolutely anywhere, couldn't he?" - to the overly-dramatic, asking one resident, "Have you got enough food in to just sit this out? It could take hours."

Worst of all, as matters came to a head last Friday, she cut to an advertisement break with an unforgivably tactless line. "It's tense, it's dramatic, and it's live here on Sky" - it was as if she were introducing a top-of-the-table Premier League clash.

Little wonder that the satirical online newspaper The Daily Mash felt quite comfortable suggesting Burley should be taken down by taken down by armed police.

Elements of the media clearly attempted to create their own narrative, causing some harassment to the residents of Rothbury - probably more than the situation itself.

A low-point was reached by the BBC on Friday evening shortly after news broke of Moat having been located near the river in Rothbury and a police cordon was set up.

The cordon caused one woman, Paula, to become rather distressed as her elderly mother was effectively trapped inside her house.

She willingly gave a short, emotional interview but, as he broke off to speak to her mother on her mobile phone, the interviewer asked her to put the call on Speakerphone before taking the phone off her and doing it himself.

Attempts to script a narrative about anxiety among the Rothbury people had gone on all week but Paula's reaction was an exception.

As events between Moat and the police came to a head on Friday, the broadcasters ramped up the fear factor once more. One such exchange on Sky:
Interviewer: "This must be quite surreal for you."
Resident: "Yes", followed by a long pause.
Interviewer: "Are you frightened?"
Resident: "No, there's plenty of police about."

There was a similar interview on the radio with a resident whose house has been used by police to gain access to the area where the stand-off with Moat happened:
Interviewer: "So they screamed at you to go back in?"
Woman: "No, they just asked quite normally."
Interviewer: "And they (the police) rushed through your house?"
Woman: "No, they walked through very carefully."

The story was surely dramatic enough without the media needing to put words in the mouths of Rothbury residents.

At least the media adhered properly to the blackouts requested by the police on matters such as the hostage situation in the opening days - for that, they deserve credit.

Reporters were also right to ask questions of the police about their lack of response to the warning from Durham Prison, the length of time over which the investigation took place, and the use of Taser guns.

These were legitimate enquiries and it would be a strange world if journalists were not seeking answers to them, even though it is likely they will have to wait for the reports from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

Until then, idle speculation and misguided commentaries are likely to be the order of the coming weeks, the worst of which makes Moat out to be the victim in this saga.

Several sick Facebook groups have already sprung up with thousands of members, many ready to acclaim Moat as some kind of anti-hero. Particular credit is given to Moat for his maiming of a police officer for life.

Moat's attention-seeking 'woe is me' attitude was evident in his 49-page letter and, at times, the media encouraged the idea that he was a victim of society.

Unfortunately, the brain-dead idiots of this world have picked up on this and made him a martyr with flowers left at the Rothbury riverside and outside his front door in the west of Newcastle.

Of course, some of the cretinous oxygen-wasters would have supported him anyway but the media must take some of the blame for him becoming such a cause célèbre in death.

Moat was a violent man, and a killer, for whom no sympathy should be reserved. He may have defied the police for over a week but he failed to terrorise the residents of Rothbury.

These are the only current known facts of this depressing (though fascinating) case - and they are enough of a story without the need for additional narratives.