Mr Pee view of this entire débâcle that its importance has been and remain grossly over-inflated, but I do wonder what any eventual outcome could possibly be in terms of fundamental change to the ways in which the media function. The extent to which individual thrusts of the inquiry continue to generate fresh ones for investigation is increasingly such that the possibility that it might come to outlast Leveson himself (even were it to contiune thereafter with his name still attached thereto) is becoming ever more of a probability and there seems less and less likelihoos of an end to it; the inquiry has already uncovered far more questionable activities and relationships in far more places than was at first envisaged and it is perhaps noteworthy that the terms of its general remit have hardly needed to be widened to enable this. A few more years of this with no possible end in sight and the general public view that the media, police and politicians can no more be trusted than can the relationships between them will, I believe, have established itself to the point of permanent unshakeability; might the risk nevertheless be that of general public acceptance of the fact of inherent and inevitable corrupt practice on the part of the media, police and politicians to the point of a kind of tacit assumption that members of these professions will almost always act in ways that were once thought to be untenable, unacceptable and
"Never yodel while eating peas."
... Acton has some good quotable sentences. I like: ""Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity."
Other good ones on wiki -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Da...st_Baron_Acton
It's not just the old Actonian one about power corrupting (true as it was and remains); whilst the inquiry and those observing its progress and development are concentrating on the activities and relationships of a single large media empire, what they also serve to illustrate is that similar activites and relationships are just as likely to exist within and across far smaller media outlets - in other words, if you don't trust the Murdoch moguls, their relationships with government, the police et al or the content of their publications, why would you trust the owners of the local paper?
By the way, I hadn't realised that God had retired so am grateful to you for alerting me to fact; do you suppose, however, that anyone has thought to tell either the about-to-retire Archbishop of Canterbury or the law firm seeking a court ruling today to enable it to pension off one of its employees because he has attained the age of 65?...
See also Adam Curtis's blog item:
RUPERT MURDOCH - A PORTRAIT OF SATAN
Just a passing observation. What has come over that usually mild-mannered young reporter Ross Hawkins? Suddenly he is shouting and emphasisng the strangest words. Has he been injected/infected with Pestonitis bacteria?
Many thanks for posting Adam Curtis's piece. A fascinating precis of RM's rise albeit saying little positive - all bad? - and with some arguable conclusions, were we really 'outraged' at Murdoch's fight with the print unions?
Should anyone here feel like 'signing':
http://www.avaaz.org/en/fire_jeremy_...241710&v=13862