This week has been like the final act/episode of a grand/soap opera (delete according to taste). First the bankers; then the politicians and finally the journalists. Three great houses of power and influence in Britain have broken our trust and fallen from grace.
And yet we need banks in a modern economy, politics in a democratic society and brave journalism if freedom is to flourish. So trust must be re-built on firmer ethical foundations and one brick at a time.
Here at Liberty, the News of the World saga has been punctuated by the sound of a thousand pennies dropping. Why do tabloid tycoons and editors seem to hate human rights so much? Is it just pure loathing of foreign nationals who must enjoy human rights too? That always seemed curious given the international nature of modern media empires. Is it a genuine belief that the rights of victims can never be reconciled with fair trials and the basic rights of suspects, defendants and convicted criminals? That seems increasingly unlikely given the naked criminality and contempt for victims of war, murder and terrorism demonstrated by this phone-hacking shame.
Or is the answer somewhat simpler?
Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights (now in the Human Rights Act) created a right to respect for private and family life for everyone in Britain. The modern criminal offence relating to phone-hacking was created as a direct response to the need to comply with Article 8. No wonder they hated our human rights so much and railed against the HRA week after week from leaders, comment pages and so-called news coverage: "Gag on our rights" (May 2011), "Asylum let-out clause" (April 2011), "Where human rights make one big wrong" (February 2011), "But isn't it time for a national cap on the number of lawyers?" (December 2010), "Axing rights would be a wonderful act" (May 2010), "Rights mess" (January 2010).
The tragedy of the House of News has no doubt further to run. The former titans arrested today and in the future will sensibly invoke their rights to lawyers and fair trials under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act. Any dangerous attempts at state censorship of the press should rightly be resisted with the help of Article 10, which guarantees free speech. But whatever happens in the future, press tirades against our modern British Bill of Rights - the Human Rights Act, which protects dignity, equal treatment and fairness for everyone - will ring rather hollow from now on.