Sweeping generalisations & name calling - good arguments Kevin. Not !

If you want to get some reasoned argument on this issue I suggest you look at Tom Watson MP's article on this http://tinyurl.com/23yn4rz ( Media Standards Trust fully supports calls for independent judicial inquiry into phone-hacking allegations) ,

also check out the said Media Standards Trust website article http://tinyurl.com/2dqy9sv Why we need a judicial inquiry into the phone hacking saga ;

and for a little balance - a Conservative view of things try Christopher Montgomery's Comment is Free article : http://tinyurl.com/26e9276 = Andy Coulson affair tells the tragedy of modern Britain.

I think Tom Watson's speech to parliament rather eloquently spells out the need for further enquiry into this matter - and the Government ultimately unanimously supported his call (to support Chris Bryant MP's motion to refer it to the Standards & Privileges Committee) Mr Bryant has been to some lengths to clarify that this call for further investigation is NOT simply about Andy Coulson - who I hadn't previously mentioned either.

The full debate is shown here http://tinyurl.com/2ad6nl3 -
Privileges committee to examine MP phone-hacking claims - It's worth watching also for other MP's contributions - notably that of Nadine Dorries, who makes some rather sensible points - Nadine I think you would agree is not a Member of Parliament who is well known for being a left-wing liberal.

While I would take issue with your suggestion that Coulson is being judged guilty without evidence - surely it is the role of the Standards & Privileges Committee to examine any evidence there may be, and make any recommendations as to whether there is any need to consider whether Coulson or anyone else is guilty or not of any crime. That would presumably then be a matter for a court of law.

So I'm sorry if you're still 'bored' by it - it all seems rather intriquing to me.

Are you saying then that it's quite OK to listen to other people's voice mails if you use the default code and they haven't changed it ?

Presumably it's OK to open other peoples' mail as well then ?

And entering someone's house is perfectly justifiable if they left it unlocked ?

It was you who used the words "Phone tap" by the way.

Whilst I'd agree that William Hague has been treated very shabbily - by Paul Staines in particular (whose odious blog remains on your blog roll ) - and am not particularly impressed by the BBC's line of reporting on this, the person who raised the issue of FFion's miscarriage was William Hague himself - I hardly think that one can then go on and complete about the media making a meal of this.

One could ask what his motives were for revealing this - it clearly has no relevance either to his relationship with his advisor, or to any allegations of nepotism. I can only surmise that Mr Hague has revealed this to gain "X-Factor style" sympathy with a heart-string tugging story about his personal anguish with his wife. Either that or to try and "prove" that he can't be gay because he's trying to get a woman pregnant.

Frankly he didn't need to do any of that - there's no case to answer, and it's irrelevant whether he's gay or not - and I don't think there are many that think he is. Your article seems to be tagging on the shirt tails of the story in order to have a beef at the BBC.

The BBC's coverage of this story makes no impact whatsoever on their ability to defend the licence fee - not that that is their role. On Twitter this morning you've called for a cut in the BBC's budget in response to the coverage you mention here, and later stated how bored you are at the "phone tap" story.

The "phone tap" story - is one which is potentially an incredibly serious issue - journalists alleged to be breaking the law to gain access to private information on political adversaries of the Conservative party, with the alleged knowledge of the Editor - now a key advisor of the Prime Minister - add to this the fact that the newspaper involved is part of News International which has lent massive support to the Conservative party., and your comments on the BBC start to seem somewhat less than innocuous.

I'd humbly suggest that this is not the best time for Conservative Politicians to be making too much noise about controlling the media.

I did however like your description of William Hague as "moist charming and affable" - I thought Margaret Thatcher got rid of the wets years ago. Or should that be wet's ?