<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Life and Thought Slightly Caught</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress</link>
	<description>The peculiar views of Marius Brill</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:46:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Big meals in &#8216;memory loss link&#8217; in elderly by Health Research Canada</title>
		<link>http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/novelist/howtoforget/forgetfulness/big-meals-in-memory-loss-link-in-elderly/#comment-25082</link>
		<dc:creator>Health Research Canada</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:46:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/?p=1730#comment-25082</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m constantly amazed the more I read how important diet is to preventing Alzhemier&#039;s.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m constantly amazed the more I read how important diet is to preventing Alzhemier&#8217;s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cancer and Hypnosis? by Candida Abrahamson</title>
		<link>http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/novelist/howtoforget/3sleight/cancer-and-hypnotism/#comment-23376</link>
		<dc:creator>Candida Abrahamson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:17:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/?p=892#comment-23376</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I fully hear--and understand--your skepticism--it just sounds &#039;too wierd&#039; in this day and age, right? But I just finished a fairly extensive review of the literature, and the proof does happen to be in the pudding. [I get good results with my own cancer patients, as well, but nothing&#039;s double-blinded there, so I won&#039;t pass that on.] The scientific literature is rife with studies that prove hypnosis can help cancer-related pain and nausea, improve anxiety and depression, and help sleep. There are even some wilder claims, but I won&#039;t try to sell those to you! If you&#039;re interested in a survey of the lit, take a look at the post I did on the topic at http://wp.me/p22afJ-Hl. Just try to keep your mind open--and see what you think. Best regards.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I fully hear&#8211;and understand&#8211;your skepticism&#8211;it just sounds &#8216;too wierd&#8217; in this day and age, right? But I just finished a fairly extensive review of the literature, and the proof does happen to be in the pudding. [I get good results with my own cancer patients, as well, but nothing's double-blinded there, so I won't pass that on.] The scientific literature is rife with studies that prove hypnosis can help cancer-related pain and nausea, improve anxiety and depression, and help sleep. There are even some wilder claims, but I won&#8217;t try to sell those to you! If you&#8217;re interested in a survey of the lit, take a look at the post I did on the topic at <a href="http://wp.me/p22afJ-Hl" rel="nofollow">http://wp.me/p22afJ-Hl</a>. Just try to keep your mind open&#8211;and see what you think. Best regards.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Did yer ear about that Psychic? by marius</title>
		<link>http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/novelist/howtoforget/3sleight/did-yer-ear-about-that-psychic/#comment-17235</link>
		<dc:creator>marius</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:41:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/?p=1250#comment-17235</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There has been some debate about ear pieces for psychics so here&#039;s Sally showing she uses an ear-piece in her left ear (and not as part of her right side microphone set up) - very clear about 5:39 in this documentary.

&lt;iframe width=&quot;640&quot; height=&quot;480&quot; src=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/embed/NPrIKuY9L2I&quot; frameborder=&quot;0&quot; allowfullscreen&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There has been some debate about ear pieces for psychics so here&#8217;s Sally showing she uses an ear-piece in her left ear (and not as part of her right side microphone set up) &#8211; very clear about 5:39 in this documentary.</p>
<p><iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NPrIKuY9L2I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on &#8220;Page-turning Tension&#8221; by marius</title>
		<link>http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/life/page-turning-tension/#comment-16461</link>
		<dc:creator>marius</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Sep 2011 12:08:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/?p=1216#comment-16461</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi - thanks for reviewing and for telling me about the book, I&#039;m really pleased you enjoyed it (and didn&#039;t forget to tell me) - will, no doubt be stealing your review to post here very soon... Which one is it?
Best
Marius]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi &#8211; thanks for reviewing and for telling me about the book, I&#8217;m really pleased you enjoyed it (and didn&#8217;t forget to tell me) &#8211; will, no doubt be stealing your review to post here very soon&#8230; Which one is it?<br />
Best<br />
Marius</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on &#8220;Page-turning Tension&#8221; by Maya</title>
		<link>http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/life/page-turning-tension/#comment-16453</link>
		<dc:creator>Maya</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Sep 2011 10:17:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/?p=1216#comment-16453</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I *loved* this novel! 
Reviewed it here and on Amazon - if you read reviews (it&#039;s a good review) :)
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11088378-how-to-forget]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I *loved* this novel!<br />
Reviewed it here and on Amazon &#8211; if you read reviews (it&#8217;s a good review) <img src='http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11088378-how-to-forget" rel="nofollow">http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11088378-how-to-forget</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Witch Hunt by Matthew Harris</title>
		<link>http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/features/witch-hunt/#comment-8263</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Harris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:54:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/?p=933#comment-8263</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, the fight for truth and decency. The Guardian was indeed caught breaking Parliamentary rules in its pursuit of Jonathan Aitken. They could say in their defence that they were pursuing an important story about a Government minister who&#039;d been accused of breaking the law. That is obviously a serious news story, involving matters in which there is a clear public interest. But if the Guardian had broken the same rules in pursuit of a story about a bit of soft-news gossip, then they wouldn&#039;t be able to offer the same defence and would be more likely to be criticised for having broken the rules. 

I note that News of the World has not defended its hacking of Milly Dowler&#039;s phone. They have not come out and said that it was a legitimate practice in pursuit of an important story. I&#039;m not sure what that story would have been. To me, it is clear that they were pursuing ever private details of a human-interest story - and that&#039;s not News.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, the fight for truth and decency. The Guardian was indeed caught breaking Parliamentary rules in its pursuit of Jonathan Aitken. They could say in their defence that they were pursuing an important story about a Government minister who&#8217;d been accused of breaking the law. That is obviously a serious news story, involving matters in which there is a clear public interest. But if the Guardian had broken the same rules in pursuit of a story about a bit of soft-news gossip, then they wouldn&#8217;t be able to offer the same defence and would be more likely to be criticised for having broken the rules. </p>
<p>I note that News of the World has not defended its hacking of Milly Dowler&#8217;s phone. They have not come out and said that it was a legitimate practice in pursuit of an important story. I&#8217;m not sure what that story would have been. To me, it is clear that they were pursuing ever private details of a human-interest story &#8211; and that&#8217;s not News.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Witch Hunt by marius</title>
		<link>http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/features/witch-hunt/#comment-8261</link>
		<dc:creator>marius</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:20:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/?p=933#comment-8261</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[via What the papers won’t say &#124; The Spectator
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7075673/what-the-papers-wont-say.thtml

&quot;This should have been one of the great stories of all time. It has almost everything — royalty, police corruption, Downing Street complicity, celebrities by the cartload, Fleet Street at its most evil and disgusting. One day, I guess, it will be turned into a brilliant film, and there will be a compulsive book as well.

The truth is that very few newspapers can declare themselves entirely innocent of buying illegal information from private detectives. A 2006 report by the Information Commissioner gave a snapshot into the affairs of one such ‘detective’, caught in so-called ‘Operation Motorman’. The commissioner’s report found that 305 journalists had been identified ‘as customers driving the illegal trade in confidential personal information’. It named each newspaper group, the number of offences and the number of guilty journalists (see above). But, as the commission observed, coverage of this scandal ‘even in the broadsheets, at the time of publication, was limited’. The same reticence has been seen, until now, over the voicemail-hacking scandal.

By minimising these stories, media groups are coming dangerously close to making a very significant statement: they are essentially part of the same bent system as News International and complicit in its criminality. At heart this is a story about the failure of the British system, which relies on a series of checks and balances to prevent high-level corruption. Each one of them has failed: parliament because MPs feel intimidated by the power of newspapers to expose and destroy them; and opposition, because Ed Miliband lacked the moral imagination to escape the News International mindset — until he was forced to confront it all by the sheer horror of the Milly Dowler episode.

That leaves the prime minister. He finally woke up to the kind of company he has been keeping on Tuesday when during his Afghanistan visit he declared the Milly Dowler revelations ‘truly dreadful’. David Cameron has repeatedly displayed an inability to make a distinction between right and wrong. The press ought to have stepped into the breach. Unfortunately, we in Fleet Street have forgotten that the ultimate vindication of journalism is not to intrude into, and destroy, private lives. Nor is it the dance around power, money and social status. It is the fight for truth and decency.&quot; - PETER OBORNE]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>via What the papers won’t say | The Spectator<br />
<a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7075673/what-the-papers-wont-say.thtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7075673/what-the-papers-wont-say.thtml</a></p>
<p>&#8220;This should have been one of the great stories of all time. It has almost everything — royalty, police corruption, Downing Street complicity, celebrities by the cartload, Fleet Street at its most evil and disgusting. One day, I guess, it will be turned into a brilliant film, and there will be a compulsive book as well.</p>
<p>The truth is that very few newspapers can declare themselves entirely innocent of buying illegal information from private detectives. A 2006 report by the Information Commissioner gave a snapshot into the affairs of one such ‘detective’, caught in so-called ‘Operation Motorman’. The commissioner’s report found that 305 journalists had been identified ‘as customers driving the illegal trade in confidential personal information’. It named each newspaper group, the number of offences and the number of guilty journalists (see above). But, as the commission observed, coverage of this scandal ‘even in the broadsheets, at the time of publication, was limited’. The same reticence has been seen, until now, over the voicemail-hacking scandal.</p>
<p>By minimising these stories, media groups are coming dangerously close to making a very significant statement: they are essentially part of the same bent system as News International and complicit in its criminality. At heart this is a story about the failure of the British system, which relies on a series of checks and balances to prevent high-level corruption. Each one of them has failed: parliament because MPs feel intimidated by the power of newspapers to expose and destroy them; and opposition, because Ed Miliband lacked the moral imagination to escape the News International mindset — until he was forced to confront it all by the sheer horror of the Milly Dowler episode.</p>
<p>That leaves the prime minister. He finally woke up to the kind of company he has been keeping on Tuesday when during his Afghanistan visit he declared the Milly Dowler revelations ‘truly dreadful’. David Cameron has repeatedly displayed an inability to make a distinction between right and wrong. The press ought to have stepped into the breach. Unfortunately, we in Fleet Street have forgotten that the ultimate vindication of journalism is not to intrude into, and destroy, private lives. Nor is it the dance around power, money and social status. It is the fight for truth and decency.&#8221; &#8211; PETER OBORNE</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Witch Hunt by marius</title>
		<link>http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/features/witch-hunt/#comment-8254</link>
		<dc:creator>marius</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:23:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/?p=933#comment-8254</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Apparently there have been scientific studies (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/science/16goss.html) which found that gossip is an essential part of social life, healthy psychology, communication and the binding of society.  I believe gossip does have an integral role to play in the communities and the society we are now in.  In a way we are even doing it here in this conversation. When we meet, we share news about the people we know, and we have currency in knowing juicy stories about them.  To gel societies as large as the ones that exist today, gossip about certain celebrities (and we must think about why these are people we &#039;celebrate&#039;) may play an essential part.  But the death of NoW will do little to dent the amount of gossip, only the &#039;juciness&#039;.
But you are absolutely right. I cannot, could not, condone either the ethos of titillation or the hysteria that a NoW created in its death or its lifetime. 
I do wonder though, had the Times or the Telegraph or, saints preserve us, The Guardian, been caught using similar tactics, wouldn&#039;t they have rigourously defended their actions as Public Interest?  And wouldn&#039;t we have believed them mainly because they had form, they have the &#039;serious&#039; background to do it - even though it is illegal. The NoW&#039;s tawdry reputation meant it had no public trust that the information garnered in this way would have been used responsibly.
Live by the sword die by the &#039;s_&#039; word.
But all my harping on about Public Interest is for naught anyway, you may be right that there will be no more new legislation because - what I didn&#039;t realise until now was that - the draconian law is already in place.  Unlike transgressing the Data Protection Act, breaking the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act has NO PUBLIC INTEREST DEFENCE (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/08/ripa-phone-hacking-law)
How on earth did we allow this one to slip through?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apparently there have been scientific studies (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/science/16goss.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/science/16goss.html</a>) which found that gossip is an essential part of social life, healthy psychology, communication and the binding of society.  I believe gossip does have an integral role to play in the communities and the society we are now in.  In a way we are even doing it here in this conversation. When we meet, we share news about the people we know, and we have currency in knowing juicy stories about them.  To gel societies as large as the ones that exist today, gossip about certain celebrities (and we must think about why these are people we &#8216;celebrate&#8217;) may play an essential part.  But the death of NoW will do little to dent the amount of gossip, only the &#8216;juciness&#8217;.<br />
But you are absolutely right. I cannot, could not, condone either the ethos of titillation or the hysteria that a NoW created in its death or its lifetime.<br />
I do wonder though, had the Times or the Telegraph or, saints preserve us, The Guardian, been caught using similar tactics, wouldn&#8217;t they have rigourously defended their actions as Public Interest?  And wouldn&#8217;t we have believed them mainly because they had form, they have the &#8216;serious&#8217; background to do it &#8211; even though it is illegal. The NoW&#8217;s tawdry reputation meant it had no public trust that the information garnered in this way would have been used responsibly.<br />
Live by the sword die by the &#8216;s_&#8217; word.<br />
But all my harping on about Public Interest is for naught anyway, you may be right that there will be no more new legislation because &#8211; what I didn&#8217;t realise until now was that &#8211; the draconian law is already in place.  Unlike transgressing the Data Protection Act, breaking the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act has NO PUBLIC INTEREST DEFENCE (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/08/ripa-phone-hacking-law" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/08/ripa-phone-hacking-law</a>)<br />
How on earth did we allow this one to slip through?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Witch Hunt by Matthew Harris</title>
		<link>http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/features/witch-hunt/#comment-8252</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Harris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:20:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/?p=933#comment-8252</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sure. I hear what you say. Yes, hysteria is a bad thing - like the hysteria publishing the names and photos of convicted sex offenders in the News of the World, with the atmosphere becoming such that a paediatrician was attacked by a mob that thought that she was a paedophile (and that did really happen). So, in the same way that I wouldn&#039;t feel too much sympathy if there was a witch hunt targeting loan sharks, pornographers or ambulance-chasers, so I find it hard to shed too many tears for the tabloids. 

I think that the newspapers should have the right to carry out many of the practices that have been condemned. I just wish that there was nobody within the industry except a lunatic fringe that wanted to exercise that right in pursuit not of hard news stories, but of gossip and human interest.

A publication that thinks that news of the  the birth of the Beckhams&#039; daughter is the most important story in the world today is not a newspaper and should not be treated as such. Such publications should be given a different name and treated as being a different category of thing from those newspapers that actually publish, you know, news. That&#039;s what it comes down to - so-called newspapers that are actually just gossip sheets.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sure. I hear what you say. Yes, hysteria is a bad thing &#8211; like the hysteria publishing the names and photos of convicted sex offenders in the News of the World, with the atmosphere becoming such that a paediatrician was attacked by a mob that thought that she was a paedophile (and that did really happen). So, in the same way that I wouldn&#8217;t feel too much sympathy if there was a witch hunt targeting loan sharks, pornographers or ambulance-chasers, so I find it hard to shed too many tears for the tabloids. </p>
<p>I think that the newspapers should have the right to carry out many of the practices that have been condemned. I just wish that there was nobody within the industry except a lunatic fringe that wanted to exercise that right in pursuit not of hard news stories, but of gossip and human interest.</p>
<p>A publication that thinks that news of the  the birth of the Beckhams&#8217; daughter is the most important story in the world today is not a newspaper and should not be treated as such. Such publications should be given a different name and treated as being a different category of thing from those newspapers that actually publish, you know, news. That&#8217;s what it comes down to &#8211; so-called newspapers that are actually just gossip sheets.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Witch Hunt by marius</title>
		<link>http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/features/witch-hunt/#comment-8228</link>
		<dc:creator>marius</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jul 2011 11:33:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mariusbrill.com/wordpress/?p=933#comment-8228</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you Matt – for a really well informed rebuttal. You have pointed out that the law they have broken is not the Data Protection Act but the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. An act that came in after my life in news… not that I ever did anything which contrevenes it anyway.
So I demure to your superior research/knowledge in this matter and will admit that the law has been broken and no doubt there will be jail time for those for whom &#039;answer machine accessing&#039; can be proven.
In fact I will admit ignorance to a number of things in the preceding blog, including a hastily reseached, Wikipedia misled, reference to Macarthy and the Committee on Un-American Activities.
But my ignorance, I’m afraid, proves my point.
If we lose the ability to fact-find for ourselves and only hear the official line, we will be stuck getting our information from these on-line bloggers and self-satisfied columnists who merely express opinion and speculation.
I completely understand your point about scale, the stationary cupboard, the publicity courting film star, and the understanding that it might be okay for Paul Foot to have overstepped the law to uncover corruption because the end seems justified, but it’s not okay to access the messages of dead bombing victims. Presumably the Public Interest defence is there precisely to judge these things.
But is it really beyond the realms of imagination that the messages on Milly Dowler’s phone could have revealed police incompetence or found facts that they overlooked? What if they’re determination that it was a family member who did this influenced them to overlook a fact that a phone hacking hack found?
In fact we know that they did overlook Levi Bellfield several times and he was free to strike again had he chosen to. If the NoW had pressured police to take the heat off her relatives and search wider, and they’d caught him sooner, would the phone hacking seemed okay? The end justified the means.
What if the messages of the relatives of the 7/7 bomb victims had revealed that victims were alive for much longer than was claimed by the emergency services and faults with the services’ response was exposed? What if that informed the inquiry so speed of response rules were put in place for the next time something like that happens and lives were saved? Would it then have been all right to have accessed their phones?
Ends seem to often justify means in these Public Interest stories.
People caught up in news stories are precisely the way we can assess the competence and fitness of the police and emergency services our tax money is spent on. The more that these things can be brought into the light the better we can make them.
In some ways, the ‘done in the Public Interest’ defence around news story subjects is MORE justifiable than used to defend the interest in the activities of celebrities’ knickers.
What I cannot stand is the hysteria because it involves the dead, whether children or soldiers or tube travellers. It offends our taste but just as these people also fall under the scalpel of forensics, so should the people dealing with them be brought out of the shadows, especially when so many of us prefer to turn our heads from the horror.
I wish I could share your optimism for the freedom of the press but I never knew a politician who didn&#039;t grab an opportunity when they saw it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you Matt – for a really well informed rebuttal. You have pointed out that the law they have broken is not the Data Protection Act but the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. An act that came in after my life in news… not that I ever did anything which contrevenes it anyway.<br />
So I demure to your superior research/knowledge in this matter and will admit that the law has been broken and no doubt there will be jail time for those for whom &#8216;answer machine accessing&#8217; can be proven.<br />
In fact I will admit ignorance to a number of things in the preceding blog, including a hastily reseached, Wikipedia misled, reference to Macarthy and the Committee on Un-American Activities.<br />
But my ignorance, I’m afraid, proves my point.<br />
If we lose the ability to fact-find for ourselves and only hear the official line, we will be stuck getting our information from these on-line bloggers and self-satisfied columnists who merely express opinion and speculation.<br />
I completely understand your point about scale, the stationary cupboard, the publicity courting film star, and the understanding that it might be okay for Paul Foot to have overstepped the law to uncover corruption because the end seems justified, but it’s not okay to access the messages of dead bombing victims. Presumably the Public Interest defence is there precisely to judge these things.<br />
But is it really beyond the realms of imagination that the messages on Milly Dowler’s phone could have revealed police incompetence or found facts that they overlooked? What if they’re determination that it was a family member who did this influenced them to overlook a fact that a phone hacking hack found?<br />
In fact we know that they did overlook Levi Bellfield several times and he was free to strike again had he chosen to. If the NoW had pressured police to take the heat off her relatives and search wider, and they’d caught him sooner, would the phone hacking seemed okay? The end justified the means.<br />
What if the messages of the relatives of the 7/7 bomb victims had revealed that victims were alive for much longer than was claimed by the emergency services and faults with the services’ response was exposed? What if that informed the inquiry so speed of response rules were put in place for the next time something like that happens and lives were saved? Would it then have been all right to have accessed their phones?<br />
Ends seem to often justify means in these Public Interest stories.<br />
People caught up in news stories are precisely the way we can assess the competence and fitness of the police and emergency services our tax money is spent on. The more that these things can be brought into the light the better we can make them.<br />
In some ways, the ‘done in the Public Interest’ defence around news story subjects is MORE justifiable than used to defend the interest in the activities of celebrities’ knickers.<br />
What I cannot stand is the hysteria because it involves the dead, whether children or soldiers or tube travellers. It offends our taste but just as these people also fall under the scalpel of forensics, so should the people dealing with them be brought out of the shadows, especially when so many of us prefer to turn our heads from the horror.<br />
I wish I could share your optimism for the freedom of the press but I never knew a politician who didn&#8217;t grab an opportunity when they saw it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
