I just think it’s worth pointing out that illegal techniques in journalism aren’t universally unacceptable.

So, say that it is very time sensitive and not breaking the law would result in significant harm to others, that would be an acceptable situation. But breaking in just because “he’s a nasty sort and up to no good” is wrong.

Exceptional circumstances call for exceptional measures. But almost all of the time that isn’t the case.

That’s partly the point I was making. NotW has not once used phone-hacking ‘appropriately’, if I can put it that way. What some of its journalists have done is absolutely disgusting and totally indefensible.

What I’m getting at is illegal activity, like phone-hacking, can be justified in journalism, so let’s not completely condemn these techniques.

Let’s condemn (and indeed prosecute) those who have used them without any regard for public interest or ethics.

The problem we have here with the NOTW ‘hackings’ is their editorial team’s judgement on what’s in the public interest and what’s not. New allegations emerged last night saying that NOTW journos also hacked the phones of 7/7 victims families, isn’t that going too far? how is that “the same” as the corrupt politician case you present?

In other news… I like your blog’s theme; really neat layout!

There’s a greater good here. What would be more unethical, breaking the law to expose wrongdoing, or not acting and allowing it to continue? I’d say it’s better to break the law. You may disagree.

It’s worth clarifying that I’m not asking for the law to change.

We all have some protection in the public interest defence, not just journalists.

Inevitably, though, it’ll mostly be journalists who’ll need to use it. Then it’s up to judge and jury to decide if they were indeed acting in the public interest or not.

Why should a journalist be carved off into their own little space where it’s OK to flout the law in the public interest?

With regard to your post on “Is AV really a step towards proportional representation?”. I just wanted to say that I think it’s more that people think it will make it easier for people in the future to say, “Shall get adopt a PR system?” if AV were implemented. However, if we stick with FPtP, there’s worry that they [No to AVers] will argue that it’s because we are happy with it and that we should stick with it, leaving less openness to holding a referendum or recommending another voting system.

The Yes to AVers who argue this just want a chance to improve the fairness of our voting system, no matter who is voted in for. If the people don’t want a particular party in power, well, they ought not vote for them after all! But if most people want someone you don’t, I guess you just have to suck it up and just hope for the best in the meantime at least.

I most probably said what you already know, but I thought I’d highlight why people link it so greatly to PR. Hope you’ll be voting in the referendum, whichever way you do xx

Sorry if this wasted your time though!