Wordblog

Its odd that members of parliament who approve of the police paying informers cry foul when a newspaper pays a supergrass for information that reveals their own misdeeds.

They moan about journalists who are paid more than they are, being gleeful about the revelations of the details of their expenses. Well some journalists may be paid more but the vast majority of reporters and subs subsist on low wages. MPs should get out into their constituencies more often (most have second and even third homes to go to) and meet some journalists other than political hacks.

Journalists on most publications — trade press and regionals in particular — have pretty tightly controlled expenses. Backed into a corner of their own making MPs are trying to categorise a whole craft as overpaid expense fiddlers.

And they portray the Telegraph as the wrongdoer for paying for the copies of their expenses claims, which allowed them to moonlight as property developers. Not all of them, of course.

Well, as any policeman would tell them sometimes you have to pay for the information that will bring miscreants to book.

I don’t much like chequebook journalism but have always accepted that it is sometimes necessary. Roy Greenslade makes the case well in his Standard column today as did Andrew Neil Radio 4’s Media Show at lunchtime.

Now I think I will take a walk up the hill to peer into John Gummer’s garden to see if his expenses financed mole control worked. I doubt it, they are persistent creatures. I had them in my garden once and had to learn to live with them.

Viewing this post, I find Google has put up some “mole control” ads on the page. One offers a machine to kills the pests at about £2,000.  The others  relate to the removal of facial disfigurements. Both relevant!