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.

Leveson leaves Cameron in a spot of bother

PRIME MINISTER David Cameron faced accusations of betrayal yesterday after he rejected Lord Justice Leveson's call to set up a press regulation body underpinned by law.

Lord Leveson wrote in his report that the press had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people" for many decades. He also described some of the behaviour of the Fourth Estate as "outrageous".

"There have been too many times when, chasing the story, parts of the press have acted as if its own code, which it wrote, simply did not exist," the judge added.

However, Mr Cameron, speaking in the Commons shortly after the 2400-page document was published, said he had "serious concerns and misgivings" over bringing in laws to underpin any new body.

The Conservative leader added: "We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and the free press."

Unsurprisingly, that has not gone down too well with Hacked Off, the campaign which represents all victims of press intrusion, both the rich and famous as well as ordinary members of the public.

Actor Steve Coogan was one of the first to speak out. "By rejecting Leveson's call for statutory regulation, [Mr] Cameron has hung the victims of crime out to dry," he said.

"He has passed on the opportunity to make history. He has revealed there isn't an ounce of substance in his body, that he has one eye on courting the press for elections in years to come, and doesn't know the meaning of conviction."

Gerry McCann, father of Madeleine, and Christopher Jefferies - who was subjected to all sorts of lurid and untrue allegations about the murder of his tenant Jo Yeates - have refused in protest to meet with Culture Secretary Maria Miller.

And the stand-off leaves the ball, as Lord Leveson himself, said in the Prime Minister's court. The only problem is that Mr Cameron does not seem keen to play.

That position very much put him at odds with his coalition partner. Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg revealed himself to be perhaps the least liberal Liberal leader in history by fully backing the recommendations.

Meanwhile, Labour leader Ed Miliband eyed the latest bandwagon to jump on by taking the same stance.

For, while it is ultimately difficult to tell Mr Cameron's exact motives, and it could all be to do with elections, Mr Coogan and the others might just be wrong on this one.

After all, the Prime Minister is hardly making a populist move, on the face of it.

Yougov polling for the Media Standards Trust shows that 79% of the public agree with the statement: "There should be an independent body, established by law, which deals with complaints and decides what sanctions there should be if journalists break agreed codes of conduct."

However, the situation is not quite as clear as that. Another poll by the firm for The Sun newspaper found that only 24% of people agreed that there should be "a regulatory body set up through law by Parliament, with rules agreed by MPs".

Against that, 42% think that the body should be "set up through legally binding contracts by the media industry, with rules agreed by newspaper owners".

Peter Kellner, head of Yougov, explained this apparent contradiction by the framing of the two questions: "In short, we don’t like the idea of politicians curbing the freedom of speech. But neither do we want editors and publishers remaining in charge of regulation."

Kellner added: "Ideally, we would like a new law to force the media to behave better – but don’t want MPs making that law.

"The trouble with that, of course, is that law-making is the central function of MPs. More than anything else, that is what we elect them to do."

Meanwhile, even Lord Leveson has said that “press freedom in Britain, hard won over 300 years ago” should not be jeopardised, and that all of the press served the country "very well for the vast majority of the time".

But, quite how the judge squares those sentiments with the need for new legislation remains unclear.

The simple fact is that existing laws dealing with phone-hacking, libel, harassment, and invasion of privacy were not enforced.

Of course, in many cases, completely appropriate existing law has been implemented. Just this week, former News International boss Rebekah Brooks and ex-News of the World editor Andy Coulson appeared in court accused of making payments to public officials for information.

They, and others formerly in News International, have also been charged with phone hacking.

Additionally, Mr Coogan, Mr Jefferies, the McCanns and many others have all been successful in libel suits against the press.

Understandably, victory in the courts rarely fully compensates the initial feeling of mistreatment by the press. It does, however, show that there is already a procedure in place to keep the press in check.

Even the broadcast media, which is independently regulated by Ofcom and the BBC Trust, slips up from time to time, as recent events have shown.

The fact remains that there will always be some downright nasty people, and therefore some downright nasty journalists, willing to push the boundaries too far.

It is a shame that the industry seems to attract more than a proportional share of those sorts but the vast majority are good eggs including almost all of them in the local press which is seldom in trouble.

Moreover, it must be pointed out that not all the figures in the media opposing statutory regulation are exactly Mr Cameron fans.

Private Eye editor Ian Hislop spends most of his lifetime mocking the Prime Minister but wonders, like myself, why we cannot just enforce the laws we "already have against phone hacking, harassment, libel, bribery etc".

Of course, ultimately, it may be the case that MPs from Labour, the Lib Dems, the Scottish Nationalists, and some Tories, will begin the legislative process by winning a vote, expected to be held at the end of January.

Even if the vote were non-binding, Mr Cameron would then be under extreme pressure not to set the wheels in motion for the introduction of statutory regulation.

Now, another law on the statute book would be a blow for the free press of this country and investigative journalism, in particular.

Nevertheless, the effect has already been exaggerated in some quarters - after all, we would hardly be living in North Korea.

Frankly, though, it is hard to see the new law being anything other than a law which asks for other existing laws already to be enforced.

In other words - just like the 16-month-long, £5m Leveson Inquiry, it will probably be a bit of a waste of time.

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.

The Sun plays safe on Sunday debut

THE SUN ON SUNDAY celebrated a successful launch this weekend, pulling in 3.26 million punters for its debut edition.

It was certainly an impressive start for Rupert Murdoch's new tabloid, easily outselling its nearest rival, the Mail on Sunday, which managed its usual 1.9 million.

Meanwhile, the Sunday Mirror on 1.7 million, the People on 780,266, and the Daily Star Sunday with 640,406 were left trailing in its wake.

And so, Mr Murdoch was undoubtedly pleased with the newspaper's performance.

Having earlier said he would be "very happy" with the sale of two million copies, he tweeted: "Amazing! The Sun confirmed sale of 3,260,000 copies. Thanks all readers and advertisers. Sorry if sold out - more next time."

Already, there can be no doubt that the Sun on Sunday has shaken up the weekend market. In true Murdoch-style, it has arrived in a blaze of publicity and sparked a price war by retailing at just 50p.

The Daily Star Sunday tried to compete by doing likewise while Trinity Mirror - owner of the Sunday Mirror and the People - opted for an unconvincing strategy by reducing prices in only some areas of the country.

Nothing could match the novelty of the Sun on Sunday, though - even if the newspaper actually had a familiar look to it.

For a start, it was not the News of the World - that had become famous, and indeed infamous, for salacious 'kiss and tells', sensationalist undercover investigations and, eventually, its illegal practices.

Instead, it was more like a copy of the Sun in midweek. Leading with a big celebrity interview from Amanda Holden, the Sun on Sunday otherwise relied heavily on columnists such as Katie Price aka Jordan and political commentator Toby Young.

A full-page editorial - with the headline "A new Sun rises today" generally appealed to the readers' better nature, stating that, in the past, it had been "a tremendous force for good".

It added: "A newspaper which holds the powerful to account must do the same with itself. You will be able to trust our journalists to abide by the values of decency as they gather news." 

Nevertheless, this first edition was hardly hard-hitting stuff and, as such, it has generally received a lukewarm review from media commentators such as Roy Greenslade.

Of course, the opinion of the Guardian columnist will not have caused the staff on the Sun to lose much sleep but it is fair to say that the newspaper has had better days than on Monday.

The Leveson inquiry into media ethics has now moved on to cover the relationship between press and police following its coverage of the phone hacking allegations.

On a dramatic day, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sue Akers, said evidence suggested a "culture of illegal payments" at the Sun.

DAC Akers also claimed that payments allegedly made by the Sun to public officials, including the police, were authorised at a senior level.

Meanwhile, outside of the inquiry, singer Charlotte Church was the latest celebrity to agree damages with Mr Murdoch's company News International.

Ms Church said she was "sickened and disgusted" after a court found that her phone had been hacked and the newspaper had gained access to her medical records.

Certainly, then, it would have been more interesting if this bad day had come straight before the launch of the new newspaper.

But, even if it had, it still remains likely that the curiosity of some members of the British public would have no doubt got the better of them following Mr Murdoch's multi-million pound campaign.

Rightly or wrongly, many readers will consider the Sun on Sunday to be a fresh start for the News International stable.

They will be pleased that it stayed away from trouble whilst also providing a big celebrity splash, exclusive columnists, and a 28-page football pullout.

From a journalism purist's perspective, this new newspaper may not quite have the same week-to-week impact as the News of the World - but nor will it be half the trouble of its predecessor.

For that reason alone, it looks as if the Sun on Sunday is here to stay for some time yet, regardless of what the inquiries say.

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.

Murdoch empire starts to fall apart

THE PHONE-hacking scandal has moved onto a new level in the last two weeks with arrests, resignations, apologies and recriminations.

Since my last post 12 days ago, the 168-year-old News of the World officially closed on 7 July and Rupert Murdoch withdrew his bid for full control of BSkyB on 13 July.

On 15 July, 11 days after it was revealed Millie Dowler's phone had been hacked, Rebekah Brooks - the chief executive of News International - eventually fell on her sword.

Two days later, on Sunday, she was arrested by the Metropolitan Police on suspicion of phone-hacking and making illicit payments to police officers. She was released on bail until October.

Just hours on from that, the country's most senior police officer, Met Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson then resigned.

Stephenson had received criticism for hiring former News of the World executive editor Neil Wallis as an advisor and for using a luxury health spa owned by a company for which Wallis also worked.

But the Commissioner departed with a stinging criticism of his own in the direction of Prime Minister David Cameron for the PM's ill-judged appointment of former News of the World editor Andy Coulson as his director of communications.

It is worth noting here that Coulson had been arrested on 8 July for conspiring to intercept communications. On 14 July, Wallis was arrested under suspicion of committing the same offence.

Before Brooks' arrest on 17 July, News International used their own newspapers and others to print a full-page apology.

The apology took the form of a letter from Murdoch in which he wrote: "The News of the World was in the business of holding others to account. It failed when it came to itself.

"We are sorry for the serious wrongdoing which occurred. We are deeply sorry for the hurt suffered by individuals affected. We regret not acting faster to sort things out."

However, in the next line, Murdoch added: "I realise that simply apologising is not enough." Even the 80-year-old Australian media mogul appears to think he is a busted flush in Britain.

That so much was evident by spiking of the BSkyB bid, although Murdoch and News International took it upon themselves to give the government and Parliament perhaps one last run around.

First, Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt looked less than impressive in referring the bid to the Competition Commission shortly after Murdoch confirmed he was happy to do this.

And then Murdoch pre-empted a special debate in the House of Commons on the bid by withdrawing it before proceedings started anyway.

Nevertheless, the debate went ahead and the MPs acted as if a millstones had been removed from their necks and spoke against Murdoch and News International without fear of reprisal.

These were quite extraordinary moments with members on all sides of the House lining up to pour scorn on the man who has indirectly controlled British politics since the rise of Margaret Thatcher in 1979.

The British political system may remain far from perfect, to say the least, but it seems now to be free of the clutches of Murdoch at last.

Even former Prime Minister Gordon Brown was in the chamber for only the second time since his general election defeat last May.

And the former Labour leader used his rare appearance to lay into News International.

He accused NI of "law-breaking on an industrial scale" and claimed it had "descended from the gutter to the sewers".

Mr Cameron had pointed out earlier at Prime Minister's Questions that, despite there being questions over his relationship to Coulson, he had at least set up an independent inquiry which his predecessor Mr Brown had failed to do.

However, Mr Brown attempted to defend himself saying his moves to set up a judicial review were blocked by senior civil servants.

Meanwhile, his successor Ed Miliband has had his strongest few weeks since gaining the Labour leadership last September.

Mr Miliband was written off as a weak performer after mixed May election results.

But, in this scandal, he has been judged to have set the agenda, giving his personal poll ratings a much-needed boost to the heady heights of -28 'approval'. Mr Cameron remains ahead of Mr Miliband on -13, though.

And, of course, the Labour leader has not emerged entirely squeaky clean from the scandal himself after confirmation he had also attended events in Brooks' lair.

I guess the mere fact that Mr Miliband was even present as Leader of the Opposition just goes to show how deep Murdoch and the other top brass at News International had their claws into British politics.

Ah, Murdoch and Brooks - back to them, inevitably.

Inevitable because they will provide the next development of this fascinating story when they appear before a House of Commons Select Committee tomorrow.

There, we will see if Parliament really will show its teeth having been freed from the leash of the Murdoch empire.

So much for the "summer of rage"

AS THE late September sunshine gives way to the darkening nights and the chilly autumn winds, it seems a good time to reflect.

Back in February, there were dire warnings from the police of mass protests from the general public in a "summer of rage" faced with a deepening recession.

Superintendent David Hartshorn wrote in the Guardian that established activists "would be good at motivating people" who would not normally protest.

Supt Hartshorn added: "Obviously the downturn in the economy, unemployment, repossessions changes that... Suddenly there is the opportunity to for people to mass protest.

"We've got G20 coming and I think that is being advertised on some of the sites as the highlight of what they see as a 'summer of rage'."

But, if nothing else, the aftermath of the G20 meeting in April centred on the tactics of the police, not the protestors.

While there were undoubtedly a few numpties in the crowd, who put out a window and looted the Royal Bank of Scotland, the decision of the police to employ kettling tactics on a 'peace camp' was rightly condemned for being excessive.

Worse followed in the days which followed after footage emerged of an apparently innocent man, Ian Tomlinson, being knocked to the ground by an officer. He died of a heart attack.

There was also video footage of officers failing to display ID numbers on their uniform, despite this being a requirement under Met Police rules.

Just a few weeks after the G20 controversy, the MPs were then involved in a huge scandal regarding their expenses.

The story unfolded in daily instalments, brought to us by the Daily Telegraph.

While the vast majority of us suspected that politicians were bending the rules as much as they could, I am sure I was not alone in being stunned by the extent of their cheek.

Flipping homes, avoiding Capital Gains Tax, and claiming for anything from swimming pools and moats to trouser presses, dog food and - of course - soft-core pornography. It was quite astonishing stuff.

But, again, the public response was markedly restrained.

There were some letters from disgusted of Tunbridge Wells in the newspapers and a kicking at the ballot box for the major parties in the European elections which caused a chaotic reshuffle in the government.

But nothing more than that - it would seem that the mass unemployed, now at 2.47 million, have largely suffered in silence.

For the rest of the summer, there have been the traditional moans about exams getting easier and MPs having too much time off - nothing out of the ordinary, though.

If anything, the police warnings in February just go to show how easy it is nowadays to put out a scaremongering story in the current society.