I'm not. Yes, I know that's socially irresponsible, and I know Peter and Martin have all our interests at heart, but I don't feel upset at the news. There was a time - there may well be still a time - when an awful lot of people here assumed their phone-calls were being monitored, their emails intercepted, their movements tracked at every turn. You didn't have to be a criminal or a terrorist - it was enough if the authorities thought you might, um, bear watching. Have criminal tendencies. And now that you and I have access to Google Earth for free, which can let us see into our neighbour's back garden, imagine what the security boys can do with their professional, paid-for-by-you-and-me equipment. That little nick on the back of your thumb? Right now somebody is probably studying that through a satellite spy-camera. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, there were those who were highly insulted if they thought their phone-calls weren't being tapped. Whaddyamean, I'm not important enough?
So there is a delicious kind of irony at Hain and Hurst/Ingram going all puff-cheeked about News International taking a look at what they were up to. Is that because H and H had important information to conceal and we hadn't/haven't? If that's the case, what were they doing spying on us in the first place?
Chomp. That's the sound of the biter being bitten. Put on your party hat - it's schadenfreude time.