³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

I was glad to hear Mr Goldsmith make the point that there is a big distinction between "The Public Interest" and "Interesting to the Public". Too often we hear the phrase "It's in the Public's Interest" from newspapers when they spread their latest bit of gossip, when what they actually mean is "This'll interest folks and so sell us more copies". For example, we have the current headlines about Ryan Giggs, his wife, his brother, his brothers' wife, etc. It may be interesting to the public (who like their gossip), but I would say that apart from maybe the original story, not of it is actually in "the Public Interest" and only exists to sell copy, irrespective of whatever harm it may be doing to the individuals involved.

I've been picking away at the transcript during today, between tasks, and haven't got to the end yet. And mostly I agree with what Mr Goldsmith has to say (so far as I've read).

However, as an editor (or professional pedant, if you will, I did rather lose the place when I read as mixed a metaphor as you're likely to meet outside of sports commentaries:

"...and I just think it's a non sequitur, which is a bit of a red herring, which has been flagged up by newspapers and I think it's a weak argument."

Unfair perhaps - but it did make me smile!

And don't think I missed the irony of that dropped bracket...

;o)

I don't now if this is the correct place to comment on the PM item about benign sexism, bit here goes. I thought the piece was a joke. It epitomized feminist sociology at its worst trying to bend research to fit an ideology that men and women are the same. I'm a woman, I don't feel inferior to men but, as a biologist, I know that males and females are different and each sex has strengths that complement each other. Men are stronger physically than women and if one wants to carry my shopping he's welcome.

4. wc: So how come men die younger? Is it because women's shoping bags are SO heavy? (:-)

Can I infer that the injunction partially raised to enable Z.G. to take part in the investigation will enable his privacy to be protected ad infinitum on strength of the hackers mental state?

It has been suggested on other pogrammes that the hurried judges when woken in the early hours to sign hurried injunctions always consider the children ...........seems the Child Catcher has done a very thorough job in this court!