±«Óãtv

Well, as you can see there has been an extraordinary response here on the PM blog to this extraordinary experiment in radio feedback. After 24 extraordinary hours there has been an extraordinary zero responses to this extraordinary report on this extraordinary commission.
As David Coleman might have said - "Extraordinary!"

Will the the last person to comment on the PM Blog please turn out the lights?

The ±«Óãtv news channel and the ±«Óãtv 1 evening news have shown an interview with one of Amie Whitehouse's teachers, from when Amie was at drama school, saying that Aime's mother was warned that Amie could never be happy at the academic school that [it was planned] she would transfer to.

Should the PM Privacy Commission be circulated round the ±«Óãtv News editors?

Amy Winehouse. Apologies.

The PM Privacy Commission was a great idea in my view. It was thorough and examined the issue of privacy and the freedom of the press from all important angles. The extract of a report published by the Information Commissioner in 2006 (page 32) is revealing: hacking stories involving other newspapers may yet emerge!

Conflicts between rights (including that of privacy) and the will of the majority inform many political disputes and theories. Taxation. Berlin on liberty. Etc. Any right may seem impossible to exercise unless the majority allow and even succour it.
But if we are clearer now about vital personal rights we seem less clear about the value of majorities' political rights.
We seem to be encouraging people across the Arab world to fight against vicious dictators. Holding the coats of people who are bound to die, faced by superior firepower, seems to me to be disreputable of us. At home it is commonplace to hold that our politicians are a law to themselves (expenses, unelected political formations in power (the Lords, the Coalition)). Yet we want the poorly armed to go up against the weaponry of Gaddafi and Assad. Want? We are in fact egging them on and our support probably makes the difference between endless daily slaughter there and all sides taking paths to peace.

Other people's heroic deaths a continent away in its name. Here, severe doubts as to its efficacy. So isn't it 'rule by the majority' that we need to examine now? If we sort ourselves out over it we may encourage fewer people to die in unequal fights in its name and ours.

Their thinking we have sophisticated weaponry that only kills bad people and is all conquering (despite Vietnam and Afghanistan n times) merely makes their deaths even more poignant and our burden of guilt even heavier.