Entrapment - who is more dodgy?

Following on the heels of the flawed friend who, in concert with the Mail on Sunday, set up and publish the foolish words of Lord (I can see the wood for the) Triesman we no find ourselves with another 'scoop' thanks to a setting up of Sarah Ferguson (AKA Duchess of York) by the News of the World.

What is so amazingly hypocritical is that the Fascist, in typical style, publish and bemoan the damage that the ennobled gentleman's entrapment, thanks to the efforts of both the Mail and Melissa Jacobs,has done to the World Cup bid. The same hypocrisy appeared on the radio this morning when we were treated to some editorial wisdom as he said that he didn't think it would be fair to tarnish either the Royal Family or York himself. What both represent is the greatest display in hypocrisy or a sorry display of the paucity on intellectual wit (you can choose).

I am becoming just a little tired of all these exposures being made on my behalf and in my best interests. A chance sentence being picked up and reported is one thing, but the wearing of a wire (as Jacobs did) or the use of secret cameras (NOW) speaks of entrapment and, regardless of my personal views, makes me a part of something which surely breaches civil liberties.

I recall film footage of soldiers beating some youths being released [in the public interest'. Of course the fact that it sold newspapers had nothing to do with the fact they published, did it? These hacks must assume that we are as stupid as they are duplicitous - the bottom line is that they pay large sums of money to create news that sells newspapers. If this were not the case then Ferguson would have merely received a call from the editor of the News of the World and told that she was in danger of damaging her ex and of damaging her own situation too! The same for the footage which was released - had they been concerned then it would have been a simple task to ensure the right people were handed the film so that they could act accordingly.

What price integrity? Well if you're Melissa Jacobs, it's apparently £75,000!

What is 'public interest'? It seems to me that all things are interesting but not all things are helpful and are, in fact, harmful. Harmful to the focus of the 'news', harmful to the reader and harmful to the organisation and/or nation to which they belong. News? Nah, it's tantamount to treason as I see it (at times).

The Triesman affair certainly has no profit for the English FA as it attempts to recover from the damage done to its bid to host the World Cup. It won't have done Triesman any good as his loose words and the revelation that he'd had a relationship with Jacobs as well (but at least this implies consistent lapses of morality I suppose) and the losing of his post was also (I assume) financially damaging too! In short, this wasn't a really popular story. So many people have asked me why they had to publish it (as if I know) - my response is purely and simply that, like the oldest profession, there's money in it even if there's no morality.

And this is where I think the whole issue grates for me. These hypocrites push themselves and their tawdry little rags to the fore claiming to be working in the 'public interest' - well it most obviously isn't and those who have any integrity perhaps should consider make=ing a stand by hitting the newspapers where it hurts - on the newsstands. If we don't buy their newspapers then we send a stark message to the press:

I have not commissioned you to infringe civil liberties and destro lives for the sake of a front page 'exclusive' exposé.

You are not publishing this stuff for me, or any member of the public, and this is a 'not in my name' moment.

If you sleep with dogs you get fleas.

If you read the wrong papers then you are part of the mechanism that fuels these abuses.