Watching a recording of the Murdochs' Select Committee appearance, I was all set to blog about Parliament finding its teeth. I was going to say that this is particularly fascinating for students of Anglo-Australian cultural relations and those of us who find that cultural interactions are most interesting at the cutting edge where different cultures meet (here we have an Australian-American media magnate - a former leading light of Oxford University Labour Club - whose father was a knight and whose mother is a dame, appearing before a Select Committee of the mother country's Parliament, with his Austramerican-accented son - it doesn't get more interesting than that). I was also going to say that Tom Watson needs to be choosier with his use of the phrase "found guilty of", as Select Committees (and civil suits for breach of privacy) don't find anyone "guilty" (or "not guilty") of anything.
Then I decided to try to Google the man with glasses who is sat behind the Messrs Murdoch - who is that? I've seen him somewhere before. It surely can't be as boring as his simply being an MP who is not on the committee? Hang on, is it Lord Wilson, yes of course it is, that explains it - and this led me to discover that someone calling himself Jonnie Marbles had attempted to attack Rupert Murdoch with a custard pie. For goodness sake, why? If you're going to be funny, then be funny, or don't bother. Splatting someone with a custard pie is about as unfunny and uninteresting as this Marbles guy's previous failed attempt to become famous on the Fourth Plinth in Trafalgar Square.
It's so easy to be cynical and anti-system, isn't it, especially when your name is actually Jonathan May-Bowles and you are presumably, therefore, a Trot Sloane from what I imagine might be a deeply privileged background? As for the suggestion that he is "a comedian and activist", then, as Peter Cook might have put it, "neither am I." Oh, it's just too annoying. Some things are just silly (and ugly) rather than being either clever or funny. After all, why allow people to have their say in front of Parliament, when you can instead attack them with a custard pie? Why get to the truth forensically, when you can instead throw food at octogenerians?