Again, you're entitled to express your views, but we need to identify what they are rather than necessarily being evidence. 05555, five lines down, you say:
"It is hard not to draw the conclusion that ultimately this scandal was allowed to play out because of the failure of politicians to act in the public interest. Unlike newspaper groups, News International behaved like the ultimate floating voter, but with menace. This helped create a zero-sum political game, where narrow personal or party interests took precedence over anything else."
The failure of politicians to act in the public interest, are you alleging there any form of collusion with News International or are you merely identifying an omission, which is, in your view, surprising?