George Entwistle has resigned as Director-General of the BBC.

Why?

He wasn’t personally responsible for the output of any news programmes which the BBC has broadcast. And nor should he have been. It is not the Director-General’s job to second guess every jot and tittle of the BBC’s output.

The BBC (or more particularly Newsnight) has now been damned for not broadcasting allegations of sexual abuse (in the Jimmy Savile case) and now for broadcasting such allegations (against a Senior Tory.)

What message does this send to the BBC news outlets? Keep your head down. Which I believe is precisely the point. No-one in government likes the BBC poking its nose into their business. This is true for governments of either stamp. It was Greg Dyke of the BBC, not anyone in government, who resigned over the David Kelly affair.

And so again. How come in all this saga has the only person to go been at the BBC?

And do you see any other news organisations beating themselves up over mistakes they have made (News International I’m thinking of you) as the BBC does?

David Cameron (aka Mr Irresponsible) said on ITV’s This Morning last week that he didn’t want a witch hunt (of people who happen to be gay.) I agree that witch hunts are unedifying. But a witch hunt of the BBC has been exactly what has occurred since the Savile allegations broke.

When he appointed Andy Coulson to his staff at Number Ten Cameron himself made a much greater error than any George Entwistle might have. This put Mr Cameron in the frame of a scandal that reached into the heart of British society as it involved the possible (nay, probable) suborning of the police by news editors and journalists – possibly the most egregious of activities in a democracy. I have yet to see Mr Cameron resign over his association with that.

To the BBC I say; stop going along with the news agenda of those who have it in for you. To those who attack it I say; you may not miss it when it’s gone, but plenty will.

Now that the steaming cess-pit that was the News of the World has been exposed – at least in part – the ramifications are widening, not least for our non-elected Prime Minister.

I listened to Mr Irresponsible’s speech today and his answers to the subsequent questions. This may or may not turn out to be David Cameron’s Iraq or Black Wednesday but it was certainly his Ed Miliband moment.

I lost count of the number of times he repeated the phrases “€œsecond chance” (must have been around twenty repetitions) and “€œresigned all over again” (ten? fifteen?) Was it he who came up with these formulations or one of his scriptwriters? Whatever, he stuck to them like a limpet. Or a comfort blanket.

Before that, though, he said we the public look to the police to protect us, to politicians to represent us and to the press to inform us and that all of them have been let down. I’€™ll repeat that. All of them have been let down. The police, politicians and the press have been let down?

In such a carefully crafted speech can this have been a slip? (Freudian or otherwise?)

Or does it betray Mr Cameron’s true attitudes? I think the latter part of his performance argues for him still not seeing where he has erred.

Second chance…. second chance…. second chance.

Resigned all over again…. resigned all over again.

These phrases were clearly designed to put Mr Cameron in a positive light. Yes it is entirely worthy to give someone a second chance. I wonder, though, how far David Cameron’s enthusiasm to rehabilitate others would go. Will he now be employing any ex-€“burglars do you think? Former fraudsters? Rapists? Murderers? Licence-fee dodgers? Others who have had to resign from their jobs for underhand, dodgy or illegal activities? Tax evaders? Oh wait a minute! He’€™s probably done that last one.

However, “€œresigned all over again”€ can have had no other meaning than that Andy Coulson had already been punished for his misdemeanours, indeed had been overpunished. That phrase (despicably, to my mind) tries to cast Mr Coulson as the victim, something which he is very far from. It is there purely to attempt to exculpate: whether Mr Coulson or Mr Cameron I’€™m not sure. And let’s not forget there was no punishment. Mr Coulson walked into a – presumably well paid – job with Mr Cameron. And, moreover, precisely because of his former job and its connections.

There is also the more pressing question of police entanglement with News International’€™s operatives (including the apparent payment of money to serving police officers for information.) Is it any surprise that initial investigations into News of the World’s reporters’€™ activities were tardy and incomplete? The police are there to uphold the law, not to provide juicy tit-bits to journalists; certainly not to benefit from such provision (beyond any help it may have in securing further information from the public.) Press releases and press conferences are fine; underhand undercounter payments for exclusive access are not.

I am reminded of the old Latin tag, “€œQuis custodiet ipsos custodes?”€ (“€œWho guards the guardians?”€) Are the Metropolitan Police in any position, now, to investigate these matters? Are they not, like the Prime Minister, utterly compromised?

Then there is the implicit protection being part of Mr Irresponsible’s team as Leader of the Opposition and then in Downing Street itself must have given to Andy Coulson. Is it any wonder the police did not pursue him too closely to begin with? When he got the job with David Cameron he must have thought he was fire-proof. No wonder he gave “assurances.”€ Assurances that were not worth the breath they were uttered with.

Please let David Cameron not get away with this catastrophic misjudgement by pretending to lance the boil the way he pretended to over the MPs expenses scandal. (The main scandal there being actually that those who could pay back their spurious or fraudulent claims have got away with it. Many members of the present UK cabinet included.)

The cosy relationship between politicians and the representatives of News International, the currying of the favour of that organisation politicians (all politicians) undertook – perhaps in the mistaken belief that an interest other than the corporation’€™s own might then be followed – the hands off treatment of that organisation’s tentacular growth, have all been large contributors to public apathy with the political process. Vote X get Murdoch. Vote Y get Murdoch. Let’€™s not vote; we’€™ll get Murdoch anyway.

A free press is indispensible to a functioning democracy. A cohort of politicians in thrall to one section of that press is not.

Today David Cameron promised Public Inquiries. Let their remits be as wide as possible and let them start as soon as possible so that they can take advantage of any information the police investigations turn up. Only under those two conditions will his credibility as PM be restored.

One steaming cess-pit down. How about The Sun next?

(Oh and are the Murdochs fit persons to be in charge of any news organisation?)

Yes, Vince Cable should not have said he’d block the Murdoch takeover of Sky but the other stuff is totally unremarkable. It is perfectly obvious to one and all that had he resigned from the government at any point up to now then the coalition would have been in deep trouble. (The same may no longer be true due to the fallout from this.)

However, the fact that he was entrapped is what bothers me. Moreover it ought to bother anyone who might have to contact an MP about a constituency matter.

This underhanded piece of agent provocateurship does a profound disservice the democratic process as it operates in the UK. (What passes for a democratic process.) Anything which undermines what little restraint or influence constituents can have on their MPs between elections is to be deplored.

I heard some journalist on the radio saying that everyone understood that if as an MP you said you were talking “off the record” then that would be adhered to. If you didn’t – and Vince hadn’t in those terms – then you were fair game. That totally ignores the fact that Cable did not think he was talking to a journalist; he thought he was talking to a constituent. There is a world of difference.

Of course he would not have said these things to a journalist. But most people say things to others they don’t necessarily mean. In some cases it’s known as being polite.

Also, things said in private may not always correspond to public utterances. An employee, for instance, may be less than enthusiastic about his/her employer when not at work – sometimes even at work – but never to the boss’s face.

We are not, here, discussing criminal behaviour (where such tactics by journalists may be justifiable in uncovering wrongdoing) but about the interaction between a representative of the people and his constituents. Cable had, I believe, not even done anything against the ministerial code of conduct as he had not yet actually made his decision about the takeover. It certainly hadn’t been announced. He was guilty only of boasting, puffing himself up; as I suspect most MPs would/do in these situations.

An MP has the right to expect that those who come to him for help as a constituent are who they say they are. Otherwise it will be difficult for him or her to do their job properly.

This journalistic sting succeeded in that it revealed Vince wasn’t too happy about aspects of the Government’s programme.

Hmmm.

Didn’t we know that already? And that other Lib Dems felt similarly?

Who potentially benefits from all this fuss about nothing?

Murdoch and News International.

That tells us a lot.