Labour takes a jump to the left with Corbyn landslide

LABOUR LEADERSHIP RESULT

Jeremy CORBYN	251,417	59.5%
Andy BURNHAM	80,462	19%
Yvette COOPER	71,928	17%
Liz KENDALL	18,857	4.5%
Turnout	422,664	76.3%

LABOUR made its most radical shift in decades as the landslide election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader marked the end of the New Labour era.

Mr Corbyn enjoyed an overwhelming victory in the first round of the ballot, taking 251,417 votes (59.5%) to finish well ahead of early favourite Andy Burnham (19%) and another former government minister, Yvette Cooper (17%).

The Blairite candidate Liz Kendall limped home in last place with just 18,857 votes (4.5%).

Already, though, Mr Corbyn has faced some internal opposition.

Within minutes of the result, shadow Health Secretary Jamie Reed had resigned, while - only a little later - Ms Cooper, former leader Ed Miliband and another shadow minister Rachel Reeves all confirmed they would not serve in a Corbyn Cabinet.

Of course, none of this is an unexpected turn of events or even a complete disaster for the new leader - bemused former Deputy PM Lord Prescott even pondered "who?" when asked about Mr Reed live on the BBC.

Nevertheless, even these minor enough ructions demonstrate amply the extent of the work which Mr Corbyn faces to keep his party united.

In fairness to the 66-year-old Islington North MP, he did offer a few olive branches in his opening speech to those on other wings of the party to himself and his many grassroots supporters.

He joked amicably about his differences of opinion with fellow candidate Ms Kendall and their sharing of late-night trains heading home from hustings meetings.

There was also a conspicuous absence of any mention of his views on the UK membership of NATO or the renewal of the nuclear deterrent Trident.

He did, however, attack the media directly, describing parts of it as "abusive" and "intrusive".

Notably, his newly-elected deputy, Tom Watson, is perhaps best remembered for taking on the News of the World over phone-hacking allegations in the last Parliament.

It is fair to say then that neither Mr Corbyn nor Mr Watson will be doing any Blair-style cosying-up to the likes of Rupert Murdoch's Sun newspaper or Paul Dacre's Daily Mail.

This will undoubtedly work against Mr Corbyn - he will be seen as fair game by the right-wing media which will dig for dirt and shriek hysterically at every perceived misstep.

But, at the same time, this is something which Mr Corbyn appears willing to accept as he moves Labour in an entirely different direction.

Indeed, he is aware that far greater damage will come opposition on his own side as he shifts Labour away from so-called austerity-lite policies and towards the renationalisation of the railways and major utilities.

Additionally, the road to national electoral success is mathematically difficult anyway, to say the least.

For, even if an anti-austerity Corbyn-led party won back the votes of every supporter of the Scottish Nationalists, the rump Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, there would still be a Conservative majority.

Boundary changes, due in this Parliament, will also favour the Tories - and so, while it is an uncomfortable proposition, Labour simply must do better against the Conservatives in Middle England to win.

Yes, there are the many - mainly younger - non-voters who could be swept up by Mr Corbyn before the next general election.

All the available evidence suggests, though, that the Conservative-dominated over-65s demographic will continue to out-vote their younger counterparts.

The worry then is that Labour has thrown a Corbyn-shaped comfort blanket around itself, and will do no better in 2020 than it did in May this year.

Perhaps a more pertinent worry for democracy generally, though, is that Mr Corbyn may not even be afforded the opportunity to make his case if the internal party disputes force him out.

This would be despite his huge mandate in having won almost 60% of the total vote, and having won in each of the three sections - comprising of party members, registered supporters and affiliated supporters.

Rightly, right now, there is scepticism over whether Mr Corbyn has a widespread enough appeal to win an election against the Conservatives.

But at least the election of Mr Corbyn will decisively end a previously accepted view that the two main parties were just the same.

Mr Corbyn is ready to give British politics a shake - indeed, it might never be quite the same again.

Coulson guilty, Cameron guilty by association

PHONE-HACKING VERDICT 

(2) = facing two charges

Defendant	Charge(s)	Verdict
Andy Coulson	conspiracy to hack phones conspiring to commit misconduct in public office(2)	Guilty No verdict returned
Rebekah Brooks	conspiracy to hack phones conspiracy to pervert the course of justice(2) conspiring to commit misconduct in public office(2)	Cleared  of all charges
Charlie Brooks	conspiracy to pervert the course of justice	Cleared
Clive Goodman	conspiring to commit misconduct in public office(2)	No verdict returned
Cheryl Carter	conspiracy to pervert the course of justice	Cleared
Mark Hanna	conspiracy to pervert the course of justice	Cleared
Stuart Kuttner	conspiracy to hack phones	Cleared

 
PRIME MINISTER David Cameron apologised today after his former Director of Communications, Andy Coulson, was found guilty of conspiracy to hack phones while editor at the News of the World.

Coulson, who was editor of the newspaper between 2003 and 2007, was convicted by the jury of eight women and three men at the Old Bailey.

However, his predecessor at the now-defunct paper, the flame-haired Rebekah Brooks, was cleared of all of the charges against her.

Mrs Brooks's husband, Charlie Brooks, was cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, as was her long-standing personal secretary Cheryl Carter and News International's head of security Mark Hanna.

The last of the seven defendants, former News of the World managing editor Stuart Kuttner, was cleared of conspiring to hack voicemails.

The trial, which lasted 138 days, was one of the longest and most expensive in British legal history - but, with justice served in the courts, attention soon turned to Downing Street.

Mr Cameron, who hired Coulson only weeks after he resigned from the News of the World, had earlier promised to apologise if Coulson was found guilty.

And, today, Mr Cameron had to make that apology, stating that he was "extremely sorry" that he had made "the wrong decision" despite the assurances he had received.

Of course, the apology is all well and good - although, frankly, anything less would have surely been an abdication of responsibility. Nevertheless, doubts will remain over Mr Cameron's judgement.

After all, the PM had gone against the advice of some his own colleagues in making the appointment.

It was no surprise then to see Labour leader Ed Miliband look to make some easy political capital out of the verdict.

"David Cameron brought a criminal into the heart of Downing Street," declared Mr Miliband.

But the Tories can point out that Labour also once had a close association with the News of the World, such was the power of the Rupert Murdoch-owned weekly.

As a matter of fact, it was revealed during the trial that former Prime Minister Tony Blair had sent a series of text messages to Mrs Brooks signed with a "T" and a kiss.

And, this was not the only close relationship exposed in the deliberations at the Old Bailey.

It emerged, quite sensationally, that Coulson and Mrs Brooks had indulged in a long-term affair between 1998 and 2007 while Mrs Brooks was married to her ex-husband, actor Ross Kemp.

The jury ruled today, though, that while Coulson definitely knew that phone-hacking was going on at his newspaper, it could not be said that Mrs Brooks did.

So, while her embarrassment may be quite considerable - at least, in the eyes of the law, she cannot be considered a criminal.

In spite of this, few tears will be shed among phone-hacking victims for Mrs Brooks.

They will argue that the pain they suffered through the invasion of their privacy by Coulson and others at the News of the World far outweighs her embarrassment.

And, while welcoming Coulson's conviction and the damages they have received in their own civil cases, the phone-hacking victims could easily argue that they are still without an overriding resolution.

That, of course, was meant to emerge from the Leveson Inquiry into "the culture, practices and ethics of the press", which concluded that some kind of statutory regulation was required.

Political wrangling and some reasonable worries about state control of the press resulted in outright statutory regulation being replaced by a Royal Charter.

But, while Murdoch has been able to start up a new weekly paper on a Sunday, none of his publications has yet signed up to the Charter.

Nor have the newspapers from the Mail group, the Telegraph group or the Trinity Mirror stable.

Indeed, despite the Coulson verdict today, not much seems to have changed at all.

Nothing to fear?

NEWSPAPERS have nothing to fear from the regulatory Royal charter drawn up by the three main parties at Westminster according to shadow culture secretary, Harriet Harman.

So why, then, is there still so much resistance from the Fourth Estate to the proposal almost a year on from the published report following the Leveson Inquiry?

Leading the charge against, Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre has claimed that the row last week between his paper and Labour leader Ed Miliband showed exactly why politicians should not be involved in press regulation.

Mr Dacre wrote in his own newspaper and in the Guardian: "Some have argued that last week's brouhaha shows the need for statutory press regulation. I would argue the opposite.

"The febrile heat, hatred, irrationality and prejudice provoked by last week's row reveals why politicians must not be allowed anywhere near press regulation."

Indeed, it could be added, perhaps slightly flippantly, that the consensus between the political parties is the perfect reason why the charter should be rejected.

Moreover, this is hardly a lone crusade by the Mail. Inevitably, the Murdoch-owned pair - the Sun and the Times - are against the plans... but then so is the left-wing daily, the Mirror.

The Telegraph and the Express are also opposed - and so, quite clearly, is the editor of Private Eye, Ian Hislop following his rant on the latest episode of Have I Got News For You.

The only notable outsiders are the Guardian, which is tentatively in support of the Royal charter, and the Independent, which wrote in an editorial: "To ignore the Royal charter would mock the very democracy the press claims to guard."

And the biggest problem for the press is that this is one of those seemingly rare occasions where the politicians are actually carrying out the will of the majority of the British public.

After all, it must be remembered exactly the context in which the whole debate on the future of the press began.

It began, of course, with the shocking revelations in July 2011 that the now-defunct News of the World had hacked the phone of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler.

Many other complainants had already come forward. The majority at first, like Hugh Grant and JK Rowling, were already in the public eye.

However, after the Dowler revelations, others then became aware that they had also been victims - and many of them, like the falsely-accused Christopher Jefferies, were categorically not.

Ever since, unsurprisingly, the tide of opinion has been against the newspaper industry. On this matter, it had effectively lost the moral high ground.

Yes, the newspapers can point out that the likes of Mr Grant and Mr Jefferies gained recourse in the courts within the existing legal framework - and, in suggesting statutory regulation, this was something which Sir Brian Leveson seemed to disregard far too easily.

But, whatever Mr Dacre and others claim, the above fact is exactly why the Prime Minister David Cameron insisted on a Royal charter, rather than a whole new set of laws.

In other words, the existing framework is generally accepted to work just fine - but there simply must be more done to make the press more accountable.

After all, none of what has actually been proposed would have prevented the Mail from publishing slurs about Mr Miliband's dead father or, more importantly, stories like the Telegraph uncovering the MPs' expenses scandal.

Happily, the draft proposals also include a vital opt-out for local and regional newspapers which even Sir Brian found to be rarely in the wrong.

And all of it is far superior to the rejected newspaper industry's alternative charter - which was frankly little more than a rehash of the failed and discredited Press Complaints Commission.

Quite predictably, there have already been howls of anguish that the proposed Royal charter is the end of the 'free press' as we know it.

This is a pretty bizarre assessment considering that much of the national media is so 'free' that it rests in the hands of just a few wealthy men...

And, sadly for journalism, the cliché that you should not believe everything you read in the papers is particularly true of the reporting of the Royal charter.

The proposals will be put to the Privy Council for final agreement on 30 October.

Cameron brokers long-awaited press regulation deal

PRIME MINISTER David Cameron has finally thrashed out a "historic" deal with his deputy Nick Clegg and Labour leader Ed Miliband over a new press watchdog this week.

The regulator will be established by royal charter, meaning there will be no need to pass statute in the Houses of Parliament.

Importantly, the charter can only be amended if there is a two-thirds majority in both the Commons and the Lords. This is unlike other charters which are altered by the Queen on the advice of Privy Council, which comprises of government ministers of the day.

So, almost two years since the News of the World phone-hacking story broke and over 100 days on since Lord Leveson published his £5m report, why has it taken so long just to get to this point?

Well, the main problem was that Mr Cameron was opposed to any statutory underpinning of regulation as suggested by Lord Leveson.

This contrasted with Mr Clegg and Mr Miliband who both thought that the judge's recommendations should be enforced in their entirety.

The schism caused a protracted period of political wrangling, which left the newspaper industry in limbo - and the gridlock reached its peak last Thursday when Mr Cameron called a halt to the cross-party talks.

Instead, the PM had planned to force a Commons vote on a royal charter on Monday evening - but, ultimately, the parties and victims campaign group Hacked Off were able to make a deal in the early hours of the same day.

Incredibly, though, the talks did not include a single member of the press.

Now, at this point, it must be accepted that the newspaper industry has caused a lot of damage over the years. Indeed, Lord Leveson himself stated it had "wreaked havoc in the lives of innocent people".

But to exclude the whole industry from discussions over its future regulation seemed a pointless thing to do - especially when it ended up being some members of the press who actually could be said to have forced the breakthrough.

Alan Rusbridger, Chris Blackhurst and Lionel Barber - editors of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times, respectively - broke ranks with other media titles by suggesting the way forward was to accept the idea of a charter.

In the end, the trio's proposal formed the basis for what politicians agreed on.

The politicians, bless'em, all seem rather pleased with themselves with Mr Cameron describing it as a "neat solution". However, there has already been dissent in the ranks of the Fourth Estate.

For, while some of the aforementioned newspapers have cautiously welcomed the plans, others remain virulently opposed to any external interference.

Associated Newspapers, owners of the Daily Mail, News International - representing the Sun and the Times - as well as the Telegraph Media Group are all exploring the possibility of setting up their own body.

The Mail branded the deal "a grim day for all who value freedom" and, like the Times, accused Mr Cameron of threatening press freedom for the first time since newspapers were licensed 300 years ago.

Tim Jotischky, deputy editor of the Telegraph, tweeted late on Monday: "We can never lecture a Mugabe or a Putin on freedom of expression again. Quite an achievement for Hacked Off et al."

Meanwhile, magazines Private Eye and the Spectator have already rejected signing up to the new regulator.

Spectator editor Fraser Nelson said: "Press regulation is too important an issue to be answered by some tawdry deal cooked up at two in the morning in Ed Miliband's office.

"The result is unacceptable, state licensing of the media, something we haven't had in this country for 300 years."

Eye editor and Have I Got News For You panellist Ian Hislop agreed, adding: "You can't really say this is a considered and thoughtful process when, in the middle of the night, two bits are added to other bills.

"This doesn't really look like thoughtful considered legislation which has been worked through."

Moreover, some of the other implications of the new regulator - such as the extent to which the new regulator monitors online content - are unclear. Will bloggers be affected at all, for example?

The local press, which was hitherto seldom in trouble, also fears a "crippling" rush of compensation claims under the new system of arbitration for small-scale complaints.

All in all, then, the situation still remains a rather messy one - but, despite the rushed nature of the deal, it is difficult from a media perspective not to disagree with Indy editor Mr Blackhurst.

He said: "I don't think it's too bad. It could've been a lot worse, it could've been better. I think we have to recognise the mess the industry got into. The industry did some bad things and our existing regulator just wasn't up to the task."

Only time will tell if the new one is.

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.

Murdoch rides to the Sun's rescue

RUPERT MURDOCH arrived in London yesterday to launch a new Sunday tabloid and reassure staff on the Sun of their jobs.

The Australian-born proprietor of News International was in Wapping to make his big announcement and meet disconcerted staff on the Sun.

Earlier this week, five senior journalists from the paper were arrested on suspicion of bribing police and public officials as part of Operation Elveden, the investigation by Scotland Yard into newspaper corruption.

Sun reporters have also become increasingly worried that an internal News Corp investigations unit, the management and standards committee (MSC), has handed over the names of confidential sources to the police.

And so, it was against an atmosphere described as "anxious and angry" that Mr Murdoch sent an email in an attempt to heal some wounds.

He wrote: "We will build on the Sun's proud heritage by launching the Sun on Sunday very soon... We're doing everything we can to assist those who are arrested.

"All suspensions are hereby lifted until or whether charged, and they are welcome to return to work."

The reaction of the staff in Wapping to the news was positive, though this was perhaps out of relief more than anything.

A News International journalist is even reported to have said: "This is a proper fightback. Even if there are other arrests, this is a 'fuck you, here we are, we are carrying on despite everything.'"

However, others were less convinced by Mr Murdoch's statement.

Another reporter said: "This changes nothing. [There is still] a huge amount of concern across all three titles about protection of sources.

"Everyone is pleased that the suspensions have been lifted, but this is the language of the MSC. It makes no difference."

Overall, though, there is no doubt that most of the staff on the Sun will have gained a much-needed morale boost from the arrival of Mr Murdoch.

If nothing else, the upcoming launch of the Sun on Sunday shows that he is still committed to the UK newspaper industry... for now.

Nevertheless, there remain doubts over whether the whole of the Murdoch empire, namely News Corporation, will sail the same course - especially once Rupert's son, James, gains more control.

James Murdoch has made little secret of the fact that he is no fan of the printed press and it was not a surprise that he did not accompany his father on this trip.

He considers the UK newspapers to have caused him more problems than they are worth and, as a pragmatist and money man, he also thinks of them as a dying business.

The Times and the Sunday Times are loss-making while the Sun threatens to be caught in a similar mire to the one which accounted for the News of the World last July.

Of course, it has since emerged that claims of News of the World journalists deleting the voice messages on Milly Dowler's mobile phone was, on the balance of the available evidence, probably untrue.

But the very act of illegally hacking the phone of a murdered young girl, and others, was understandably enough to turn the collective stomach of the general public.

If the Sun journalists are also found guilty in this new crisis, it appears that Mr Murdoch will have short shrift for anyone involved.

For, he also wrote: "We will obey the law. Illegal activity simply cannot and will not be tolerated at any of our publications."

That appears to give Mr Murdoch, or at least his son James, a get-out clause from his apparent advances to the UK newspaper industry.

Indeed, the current BBC political presenter and former Sunday Times editor, Andrew Neil, warned: "Essentially, [Mr Murdoch] is between a rock and a hard place and he is playing for time.

"This will last until the next 12 arrests of Sun journalists or until he is forced to come down on one side.

"I am confident that the side he will come down on will be News Corporation in America. That is a multi-billion dollar business and News International is just a multi-million dollar business."

So, while on the surface, it appears Mr Murdoch may have flown in to save the Sun, this could yet be a relatively short-term fling.

That is not to say that the Sun, the Times and the Sunday Times will go the same way as the News of the World.

But, if it does all go wrong - and if James Murdoch gains any sort of control - none of the newspapers would get anywhere near as much attention from News International as they are right now.

England and Pakistan downplay their past

ENGLAND captain Andrew Strauss has been at pains to downplay the recent history between his side and Pakistan as they meet for the first time since their stormy series in the summer of 2010.

Strauss' men won both the Tests (3-1) and the One-Dayers (3-2) in that tempestuous affair but it was the revelations by the News of the World in the fourth Test at Lord's for which the series will be forever remembered.

The story emerged after the now-defunct newspaper revealed video footage showing cricket agent Mazhar Majeed telling a journalist when no-balls would be bowled.

Majeed had arranged with then-captain Salman Butt, and bowlers Mohammed Amir and Mohammed Asif, for the no-balls to be bowled at specific times. Match footage then showed that this happened exactly as he had described.

Subsequently, at the Southwark Crown Court in November last year, Butt and Asif were found guilty of conspiracy to cheat and conspiracy to accept corrupt payments. Amir had admitted both charges prior to the trial.

But, while it would be unkind to suggest that Pakistan had failed to move on since then, it would be just as untrue to suggest the 2010 series finished in the best of spirit.

Accusations started flying all over the place and the then-chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board Ijaz Butt claimed England had thrown the third One Day international.

Strauss immediately refuted the allegations and even threatened legal action if Butt did not withdraw his comments - though the England skipper did admit to playing the remaining matches "through gritted teeth". 

As this gallery on the Guardian website shows, it was not the first time there had been tensions between the two sides - and so it was no surprise that the journalists have been querying how relations are now.

Thankfully, both camps seem ready to leave the tensions where they belong - in the past.

First, Strauss said: "The spot-fixing stuff is something we're desperately keen to move on from. I don't think there's any good that can come from churning it all up again."

And, in kind, his Pakistani counterpart Misbah-ul-Haq said: "I think everybody knows in both teams that we just have to forget the past. Our area of concern is to play good cricket, fair cricket, and that's what we can do."

With that issue put to bed, it is time to assess just how England might do in their first ever Test match in Pakistan's temporary 'home', the Middle East.

Yes, in 2010, a touring England side played there in two Twenty20 matches - winning one and losing the other - but it does not exactly equate to the tough five-day game.

As well as facing a journey into the unknown, England also return to the Test arena having last played competitively on 29 October. In fact, Strauss' side last played a Test match back in August.

Coming into the series, concerns have surrounded their bowling attack with Tim Bresnan ruled out due to an elbow injury and Graeme Swann picking up a leg strain.

However, it is a testament to England's depth that, in the seam department, they can call upon Steven Finn or Chris Tremlett to support Stuart Broad and James Anderson.

Meanwhile, the lesser-spotted Monty Panesar has picked up his form and may yet be considered as a second spinner in addition to Swann.

Nevertheless, the lack of practice with the bat showed in the first innings of their first three-day warm-up match against an ICC Affiliates XI.

Only Alastair Cook (76) shone as England declared on 185-8, a deficit of 96 runs. But the Affiliates then gave England the chance of the win with a sporting declaration in their second innings.

Ruthless as ever, Strauss' men took advantage as an improved batting display saw them chase down their target of 261 with three wickets remaining.

The tourists improved further in their second game with Cook (133) again hitting a big score as England gained a 60-run advantage on first innings over a Pakistan Cricket Board XI.

And the bowlers then starred in the second innings as the PCB XI collapsed to 150 all out, giving England a win by exactly 100 runs.

But, while the world number one team will enter the main event full confidence on the back of those wins, Pakistan are a team undoubtedly on the comeback trail.

Indeed, spearheaded by skipper Misbah and the exciting off-spin talent of Saeed Ajmal, the Pakistanis have won their last 10 matches - though it must be noted that these results did come against strugglers Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

After Pakistan, England also play Sri Lanka this winter in a brief jaunt with just two Tests scheduled. There, Strauss' side will face an opponent which has won just one match out of their last 17 in that form of the game.

Most recently, the Sri Lankans were bowled out for 43, their lowest-ever One Day score, on their way to losing by the massive margin of 258 runs against South Africa.

And it now seems extraordinary that, less than 12 months ago, Tillakaratne Dilshan's team were gallant runners-up in the World Cup Final.

Life after the retirement of spin king Muttiah Muralitharan has certainly proved to be difficult for them, indeed.


ENGLAND TOUR v PAKISTAN

Date		Venue
17-19 Jan	First Test: PAKISTAN 338 & 15-0 beat  ENGLAND 192 & 160 by 10 wickets	Dubai
25-28 Jan	Second Test: PAKISTAN 257 & 214 beat ENGLAND 327 & 72 by 72 runs	Abu Dhabi
3-6 Feb	Third Test: PAKISTAN 99 & 365 beat ENGLAND 141 & 252 by 71 runs	Dubai
13 Feb	First ODI: ENGLAND 260-7  beat PAKISTAN 130 (35 ovs) by 130 runs	Abu Dhabi
15 Feb	Second ODI: ENGLAND 250-4  beat PAKISTAN 230 (49 ovs) by 20 runs	Abu Dhabi
18 Feb	Third ODI: ENGLAND 226-1 (37.2) beat PAKISTAN 222 by nine wickets	Dubai
21 Feb	Fourth ODI: ENGLAND 241-6 (49.2) beat PAKISTAN 237 by four wickets	Dubai
23 Feb	First T20: PAKISTAN 144-6 beat ENGLAND 136-6 by eight runs	Dubai
25 Feb	Second T20: ENGLAND 150-7 beat PAKISTAN 112 (18.2) by 38 runs	Dubai
27 Feb	Third T20: ENGLAND 129-6 beat PAKISTAN 124-6 by five runs	Abu Dhabi

ENGLAND TOUR OF SRI LANKA

Date/time (BST)		Venue
26-30 Mar 10:00	First Test	Galle
3-7 Apr 10:00	Second Test	Colombo

Index 2011

FOOTBALL
Season 2010/11
08.01 FA Cup Third Round: Ronnie f*cking Radford, Immortalised
10.01 Club-by-club half-time verdict
24.01 Berbatov hits another treble
16.02 Rooney reduces Manchester United's title rivals to one
27.02 Carling Cup: Martins benefits from last-minute Arsenal mix-up
04.04 Rooney banned for hat-trick rant as Manchester United move in on title
16.04 FA Cup Semis: Manchester City and Stoke City end their long wait
03.05 Chelsea eye chance to take title lead
14.05 FA Cup Final: Toure strikes as Manchester City end their barren run
19.05 Survival Sunday calculations
24.05 Birmingham and Blackpool drop in dramatic finale
31.05 Swans soar after Sinclair hat-trick
Season 2011/12
06.08 The Championship 2011/12
13.08 The Premier League 2011/12
30.08 Manchester clubs make big early impression
20.12 All eyes on Manchester at the halfway stage
Euro 2012
25.03 All to easy for England in Cardiff
03.06 England escape with draw against Swiss
02.09 Deutschland uber alles
06.09 Narrow win edges England closer
07.10 Rooney sees red as England qualify
11.10 Scotland slump out while Irish enjoy the rub of the green
16.11 Ireland exorcise playoff hoodoo
02.12 Finals draw
FIFA
01.06 Blatter gets four more years
30.07 World Cup 2014: England draw both Euro hosts
11.11 FIFA were wrong in poppy wrangle
Copa America
01.07 Argentina hope home advantage ends 18-year wait
25.07 Suarez and Forlan fire Uruguay to victory

CRICKET
End of Ashes series 2010/11
03.01 England win Ashes series after handing out another thumping
07.01 Statistics show England dominance
05.02 Australia win the One-Dayers. No one notices.
Cricket World Cup
18.02 Group A preview
18.02 Group B preview
19.02 Full results
02.03 Record-breaker O'Brien helps incredible Ireland beat bungling England
11.03 Bangladesh defeat leaves England hopes on a knife edge
20.03 England progress against Windies as Aussie run ends
30.03 Co-hosts battle for world crown
02.04 Dhoni leads India to World Cup glory
Summer 2011
26.05 England face finalists in tough summer schedule
09.07 England scrape Sri Lanka series wins
23.08 England whitewash India to seal number one spot
04.11 Pakistan cricket scam puts ICC in the dock

FORMULA 1 2011
19.04 Hamilton halts Vettel's speedy start
31.05 Vettel streaks clear as Hamilton snaps
14.06 Senna-sational
10.07 Alonso seals Silverstone win but Red Bull retain control
29.07 BBC breaks the chain
04.08 Button excels in the wet again
13.10 Vettel completes the inevitable: stats
29.11 Team-by-team review

RUGBY WORLD CUP
08.09 Preview: Can New Zealand hold their nerve?
09.09 Complete results and fixtures
01.10 England break Scotland's brave hearts
09.10 England flop to France - Wales, Wallabies and All Blacks advance
15.10 New Zealand face yet another French test
24.10 New Zealand end 24 years of hurt

WORLD SNOOKER
15.04 Odds against Robertson and the Rocket
25.04 Selby breezes into the quarters
01.05 Trump fairytale faces Final test
01.05 Higgins holds his nerve to win fourth Crucible title

OLYMPICS/ATHLETICS/SPORTS PERSONALITY
21.04 BOA backs down in funding wrangle
18.05 Detailed torch route announced
28.07 One year to go
04.09 Mo Farah flies to join Greene with gold
22.12 Manx Missile Cavendish odds-on for SPOTY prize

NON-SPORTS COVERAGE
MEDIA
27.01 Gray and Keys over-step the line in NewsCorp's annus horribilis
01.04 Ah, tits! Daily Sport goes bust
25.05 Superinjunction farce leaves Giggs exposed
06.07 How low can the News of the World go?
19.07 Murdoch empire starts to fall apart
27.10 Private Eye still packs a punch at 50

POLITICS
May elections
21.02 AV debate divides opinion
05.05 Full results: AV referendum and English councils
05.05 Full results: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
07.05 UK rejects AV as Lib Dems crumble
Party conferences
21.09 Fighting talk from the Lib Dems has come too late
30.09 Miliband still struggling to make an impression
06.10 Cat fight overshadows Conservative conference
Other events
14.01 Miliband makes his breakthrough in Oldham
21.01 Resignation season
04.03 Barnsley Central destroys last remnants of Clegg's credibility
21.03 MPs back Libya action but confusion reigns over Resolution 1973
23.03 Osborne will not be judged on this Budget
08.08 London's burning
15.10 Fox falls on his sword
17.12 Labour relief at Feltham result

MUSIC
14.05 Eurovision: Azerbaijan surprise leaves Britain feeling Blue
20.06 Glastonbury and the Hyde Park hiatus
04.07 Glastonbury and Hyde Park: Mud, sweat and beers
26.12 Merry Christmas to the Military Wives

MISCELLANEOUS
11.02 Best foot forward
09.04 Grand National: McCain legacy continues with Ballabriggs victory
27.04 25 years on, Chernobyl continues to cast its shadow
27.04 The alternative Royal Wedding
09.06 Gannin' alang the Scotswood Road
11.11 Remembrance Day, lest we forget
31.12 Index 2011

Pakistan cricket scam puts ICC in the dock

ENGLAND captain Andrew Strauss has launched a scathing attack on the anti-corruption unit of the International Cricket Council today, labelling it a "toothless tiger".

The ICC has unsurprisingly come in for criticism after three Pakistan cricketers were found guilty of conspiring to bowl deliberate no-balls at pre-determined times in last year's Test match against England.

Former Pakistan captain Salman Butt was jailed for 30 months while Mohammed Asif and Mohammed Amir face one year and six months behind bars respectively.

However, the problem arises in that their crimes were uncovered in a sting operation by a British tabloid newspaper, rather than by the sporting body's anti-corruption unit.

ICC chief Sir Ronnie Flanagan has said there is little to be worried about and claimed that illegal betting is "engaged in by a tiny number of people".

But Strauss has questioned whether the ICC has enough resources to be sure that corruption is indeed "not rampant in the world of cricket", as Sir Ronnie also suggested.

"They can't do sting operations like the News of the World. They can't infiltrate these betting networks. I'm hopeful only a minor percentage of cricketers are involved in it but the truth is we really don't know," Strauss said.

Strauss is not the only person to speak out about the ICC. One of his predecessors, Sir Ian Botham, has also criticised the governing body over their handling of the case.

Sir Ian said: "I think the ICC have just sat on their hands and pretended it's not there. Well now they have got to act."

In response, Sir Ronnie has insisted that the members of anti-corruption unit is "doing the best job they possibly can".

But that is not the issue here. The issue is that the ICC simply have not put enough money or man-power into their own investigations.

And, while the unit probably is doing the best it can, the truth is that it currently falls woefully short of being an adequate regulator.

The worst part of it is that Sir Ronnie and his team seem so relaxed that their job was effectively done by News of the World journalists, rather than themselves.

The newspaper may now have deservedly bitten the dust but it goes to show that, amid the calls for vigilante justice and the illegal phone-hacking, occasionally it served its readers well.

One thing which is for sure is that the papers in Pakistan are glad of the verdict even though a minority of fans has screamed that the case was a Western conspiracy against their team.

In fairness, the majority of Pakistan supporters is pleased to be following an improving team which is working hard to cast off its negative image by actually winning some cricket matches.

But a significant match-fixing underworld still exists, and the temptation to make a fast buck remains present, especially in the sub-continent.

Surely the ICC, which is not a poor organisation by any stretch, needs to put more money and man-power into ripping apart these shady practices once and for all.

For, cricket supporters all around the world deserve far better assurances that what they are watching is a genuine reflection of the teams' abilities - and not based upon the vagaries of the bookmakers' odds.

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.

Phone-hacking: how low can the News of the World go?

THE phone-hacking saga at the News of the World has now become an outright scandal.

Previously confined to the concerns of celebrities, it is apparent that the tapping tentacles of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, working on behalf of the News International paper, went much further.

Murdered teenager Milly Dowler was one such victim while she was missing, the Guardian reported on Monday.

Others, according to police, who may have been hacked include the parents of murdered 10-year-old schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and the father of David Foulkes who died in the 7/7 bombings.

None of these people sought fame or notoriety. Rather, it was foisted upon them by tragic circumstances.

And, even when the phone-hacking related to celebrities, there was a sense of unease. Nevertheless, many journalists argued that these public figures were fair game having courted the media so much themselves.

Now that defence definitely cannot be used and the reputation of journalism as a profession is soiled once again.

Never mind that most local reporters would not dream of doing what the News of the World (and allegedly other nationals) have done.

FleetStreetBlues hoodies, stating 'I'm a hack, not a hacker', might help some of those reporters ride the storm of the next few days but, ultimately, it is the nationals on which journalism is judged.

This has not been a good week for the self-proclaimed Fourth Estate.

These phone-hacking revelations follow on the back of an admission by top Independent columnist Johann Hari that he routinely adds what interviewees have said or written previously, passing them off as quotes from his own interview.

But, while Hari was deservedly pilloried for his astonishing revelation, it could still be laughed off by the profession as a whole - hence these amusing tweets using the hashtag #interviewbyhari.

The difference this time is that the issue primarily concerns the News of the World (circulation of 2.78m), not the Independent (185,000), and it is of course no laughing matter.

Really, this should spell the end of the line for News of the World. It will not be - but, really, there is an argument it should*.

How the newspaper can ever take a moralistic tone on any issue again is quite beyond me.

No doubt it will still fill its pages on Sunday with stories about benefit cheats and drunken louts or teenage mums along with the news of who's screwing behind whose back, of course.

The phone-hacking issue will even be raised in Parliament today in a special Emergency Debate in the House of Commons.

Prime Minister David Cameron will surely repeat his condemnation from earlier this week of the practice of phone-hacking. But even Mr Cameron does not escape this tangled web entirely.

For, in 2007, the then-Leader of the Opposition appointed former News of the World editor Andy Coulson as his senior media advisor where he remained in place until his resignation in January this year.

In fairness, Mr Cameron was presumably unaware of how critical the phone-hacking situation would get but Mr Coulson's appointment still showed a serious lack of judgement on the Conservative leader's part.

After all, Mr Coulson had previously resigned from his position on the paper after royal correspondent Clive Goodman was jailed for four months for conspiracy to access voicemail messages left for royal aides.

At the time, Mr Coulson claiming the actions were the work of Goodman alone but this is a defence which subsequently collapsed in court.

Now, having been caught out, Rupert Murdoch's News International group should be forced to come clean altogether.

Though, if indeed they do, it is already difficult to imagine anything other than the News of the World coming out of it smelling like raw sewage.

*EDIT: Well, surprisingly, it has actually happened. This evening, News International chairman James Murdoch, son of Rupert, has announced that the last edition of the 168-year-old News of the World will be sold on Sunday. 

It is unclear at this stage whether this is simply an attempt to re-brand this part of the News International but clearly the outrage regarding the phone-hacking scandal has had an effect. 

When the advertisers started pulling out in their droves, it did not look good. Circulation among most newspapers is now so low that it is in fact the advertisers which provide the lifeline. 

Nevertheless, the News of the World - or the News of the Screws, as it became known for its salacious celebrity gossip - has been, in journalism parlance, spiked more quickly than I expected. 

Some remain skeptical that this is the end of News International's interest into producing a populist paper on a Sunday. 

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said: "All they're going to do is rebrand it". 

And Lord Prescott, who believes his phone was hacked while he was in government, added: "There's no doubt it will become the Sunday Sun". 

Perhaps, if that is Mr Murdoch's idea, someone should tell him that the Trinity Mirror-owned Newcastle Evening Chronicle group ncj media have already got there first.

Gray and Keys over-step the line in NewsCorp's annus horribilis

POOR Sian Massey.

The 25-year-old assistant referee is seemingly the biggest loser out of the furore which has called time on the SkySports careers of Andy Gray and Richard Keys.

As if running the line was not a nerve-wracking enough experience in the first place, Gray and Keys' comments have made Massey's next appearance even more unsettling.

Undoubtedly, the performance of Massey in her next match will come under even greater scrutiny - and that is not a pressure which she deserves.

Perhaps, it is this reason why Massey's next appointment is as a referee in the rather lowly surroundings of a Conference North match between Corby Town and Eastwood Town.

It was certainly wise of the referees' association, the PMGO, to withdraw Massey from Tuesday's clash between Crewe Alexandra and Bradford City in League One.

For, at that stage, this sexism row was still in full flow after further details emerged of Gray and Keys' indiscretions.

Former Scotland international Gray and broadcasting veteran Keys really only have themselves to blame.

There was nothing actually wrong with them pointing out there would be a female official in the televised top-flight clash between Wolverhampton Wanderers and Liverpool match on Saturday.

After all, it is still an unusual enough occurrence to be worthy of comment.

The duo might have even got away with a rap on the knuckles if their comments about women's understanding of the offside rule had been made in jest.

However, their tone expressed a complete lack of faith in the competency of Massey herself - and for no other reason than that she was female.

As it happened, Massey proved her detractors wrong by keeping her flag down, allowing the onside Raul Meireles to cross to Fernando Torres who gave Liverpool the lead.

But it was clear that the recriminations of Gray and Keys' assessment would last far beyond the 90 minutes at Molineux.

Gray was sacked on Tuesday from his £1.7m-a-year job after footage emerged of a separate incident which showed the former Everton and Aston Villa striker asking co-presenter Charlotte Jackson to tuck his mic into his trousers.

At this stage, it was unclear why Keys had seemingly been reprieved but the former GMTV man would soon fall on his sword.

Following a bizarre apology on TalkSport, in which he said "dark forces" were at work, Keys was also caught out by a leak from the archives which was actually far worse than anything that had gone before.

This time, the tape showed Keys talking to pundit Jamie Redknapp about a former girlfriend.

First, Keys asked: "Would you smash 'it'?" before he then went on to surmise, "That's a stupid question - if you were anywhere near 'it', you definitely smashed 'it'.

"You could have gone round there any night and found [Jamie] Redknapp hanging out the back of 'it'."

This matter will not end here. Gray has called in law firm Schillings to deal with the severance of his contract at Sky while Keys' references to "dark forces" may be related to the phone tapping scandal in the News of the World.

Even before the sexism row began, Gray had fallen out with the top brass at Rupert Murdoch's News Corp after he announced his intention to sue the News of the World over allegations his phone was tapped.

Murdoch's News Corp owns a majority shareholding in Sky and News International which produces the Sun, the Times, the Sunday Times and the News of the World.

As stated previously on this blog, the News of the World claimed that any phone tapping was the work of a rogue reporter, the jailed Royal correspondent Clive Goodman.

But, last week, former NotW editor Andy Coulson resigned as Government Director of Communications after the paper's former private investigator Glenn Mulcaire destroyed the 'rogue reporter' defence by implicating former head of news Ian Edmondson.

Edmondson was sacked and the Metropolitan Police have re-opened their investigation after confirming they have received new information.

It looks as if 2011 could turn into an annus horribilis for Murdoch's News Corp - and, certainly, Gray and Keys have spoiled any sense of celebration around SkySports' 20th birthday.

But, while it is hard to feel any sympathy for Gray or Keys, or - on a separate issue - anyone found guilty of tapping the phones of Gray and others, my thoughts go out to Massey.

For her part, Massey will understandably want to move on from the whole furore and prove herself to be a top official.

And, given her strength of character to have already come so far in the male-dominated game of football, there is a good chance she will.