There is something hugely opportunistic about the way the State has committed a mass of tax-funded resources to prosecute some journos who hacked into mobile phone messages. It's not that phone hacking is in itself wrong or immoral - oh no - for GCHQ and the NSA do it all the time, for the public good, you understand. It's only when it's done other than by the State that it's wrong. For you and I, it probably matters little whether our phones are hacked by the Murdoch press or the security services, for this is the 21st century and if you use digital comms technology of any sort you have to expect that it's not going to be private.
So why then does the State, as the Mail claims, spend £40m and take 195 plods away from tracking jihadists, jailing Turkish heroin gangs or finding teen gang knife thugs to build a case against the very press on which the political class relies so heavily?
Of course the 'Hacked Off' sleb pressure group has also made full use of its media savvyness. Instead of Hugh Grant, whose jaded and dissipated looks have matched with age the sweat-smell of a ten-dollar black crack whore that he now wears for life, they wheel out a teen cutie with big teeth in true Hollywood wannabe style. How repulsive and tacky was that bit of exploitation and manipulation - in fact it disgusts me more than the possibility that journos hacked Millie Dowler's phone in the first place.
Equally loathsome is the political pretence that none of them have ever fawned and crawled at the feet of Rupert Murdoch, for this is really all about an assault on Murdoch's news organisations. The State would prefer to have, say, three or four State-funded media organisations undertaking a pretence of competition rather than a truly independent voice with its own satellites. That's why it's happy to spend so much of our money and take so many plods away from stuff that actually matters.
You may not like Murdoch, and he may not be the world's greatest human being, but be glad he's there.