Now it’s all coming out I don’t feel vindicated at all. I don’t feel proud that I’m on the left rallying against the right-wing press. I don’t feel a sense of us and them. I just feel totally and utterly ashamed and let down. I am at that moment in a bad Hollywood film where the protagonist suddenly realises that they weren’t paranoid, that yes there is a conspiracy and they have nowhere to turn.

We can’t trust the politicians to review the press because they are up to their necks in this. We can’t trust the police to investigate News International because some of them (we don’t know who) have apparently been paid off in the past. We can’t trust the press to regulate itself because we’ve tried that and look where we are.

Everyone keeps saying ‘I don’t know’, and somehow that seems to be an OK answer. It seems perfectly reasonable for a massive organisation to print goodness knows how many stories based on information obtained from Private Investigators that were paid to hack thousands of phones without anyone knowing about it. Is that really a satisfactory state of affairs? So no one okayed what must have been numerous payments to the PIs? No one said where did that information come from? No one knew who told any of these PIs to hack phones and yet they still did it? Someone had to know something and just saying ‘I didn’t know’ isn’t good enough, it doesn’t even come close.

There is another sub-plot to all this that I think has been overlooked. We’ve had arrests in this phone hacking scandal, but when the Royal Family were hacked. Then the full uproar only happened when it was revealed that News of the World hacked Milly Dowler’s phone. Prior to that we had plenty of celebrities saying their phones were hacked and everyone seemed to turn a blind eye. Since when was the seriousness of a crime based not on the nature of the crime itself but on the victim of the crime? Why should the Royal Family, Milly Dowler and her family’s privacy be any more important than Hugh Grant’s or Jude Law’s? When was it justice for some but not for others?

I understand why the nature of the victim makes a difference to the public perception of the crime and therefore the ability of the media to drum up interest in the story. These should not be the concerns of the police though. They should investigate a crime to the full extent of the law irrespective of the victim or the perpetrator. If they had done their job properly when reports of phone hacking first surfaced then we might be talking about far fewer victims of crime here. They are not just incompetent, they are partly responsible for allowing this crime to go unpunished.

I don’t mean to be down beat. I do realise that there are some gems in the rough, The Guardian and  Nick Davies, Tom Watson, to some extent Ed Miliband and a few others, but they are spread too thin. I look to our Prime Minister and I see a man who hired a former News of the World editor, I see corruption. I look to the police and I see people resigning left right and centre, I see corruption.

This is supposed to be our chance to clean up the press, dissolve the overly close relationship between the media the politicians and the police. If this is a turning point in history I’m not so sure I trust the people at the steering wheel.

It seems like it is a crazy thing to say but the thing I love about entertainment and the media is that if you don’t like something you can just ignore it. I find a lot of pop music offensive so I don’t listen to Radio 1, I don’t think Matt Lucas has been that funny since Shooting Stars and that him and David Walliams have about two good sketches between them so I don’t watch Come Fly with Me, I don’t like being lied to or made to swallow bigoted opinions so I don’t read The Daily Mail. I’m sorry if it seems like I’m pointing out the obvious here but if you don’t like something ignore it.

I’m not saying this method can apply to all walks of life but when it come to commercial media and entertainment the best way to show your distaste for it is to not engage with it. If society has something going for it, it is that any entertainment medium will not survive if it is not liked. Ignored. Irrelevant.

The truth of the matter is Eastenders and soaps like it have been pushing the boundaries of decency for years, much like comedians (Frankie Boyle, Jimmy Carr et al) push the boundaries of what is funny. There is nothing inherently wrong with a soap tackling cot death but the more sensitive a subject these pastiches of real drama attempt to portray the more evident their hackneyed and unapologetic controversial approach becomes. So here’s a suggestion for all those fans of Eastenders; why not use this latest shock horror storyline as a bit of an eye-opener for the kind of material you have been subjecting yourselves to and either stop watching it or accept it for the crap that it is.

The Sun: Cancer vaccine girl dies

The Mirror: GIRL OF 14 DIES AFTER CERVICAL CANCER JAB

The Guardian: Girl, 14, dies after school cervical cancer jab: Three other pupils report dizziness and nausea: Vaccine batch quarantined as ‘precautionary measure’

The Express: Girl, 14, dies after taking cervical cancer vaccine

The Evening Chronicle: Probe On Girl Vaccine Tragedy

BBC Website: Cancer jab alert after girl dies

The Daily Mail: NHS Trust suspends cervical cancer vaccinations after girl, 14, dies within hours of jab

I could go on but I won’t. Every single one of these implies that Natalie’s death was a direct result of the vaccine. I think the Evening Chronicle is the worst with their ‘Vaccine Tragedy’. Every single news source got duped by the old post-hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, simply because it made a good story. It sickens me that a girl’s death makes for a ‘good story’ but that’s the truth of it. It fits in with the idea that they have to report both sides of the argument, this was an anecdotal story as contrast to the wealth of evidence we have that shows vaccines are safe. Except there was no story to tell, they made it up or at least fabricated an issue where one didn’t exist. It doesn’t matter that they have now reported that Natalie’s death had nothing to do with the HPV vaccine, no link should ever have been made. It is irresponsible reporting plain and simple, but the papers don’t care, they got their headline.

So for all of us, particularly Dr Richard Halvorsen over at the Daily Mail, here is a little reminder of what vaccines do for us courtesy of the NHS: Behind the Headlines website.

What are the benefits of the HPV jab?

It’s been calculated that the UK HPV vaccination programme will ultimately save 400 lives a year. Around 3,000 women a year are currently diagnosed with cervical cancer, and the disease kills more than 1,000 women a year in the UK.

Half of all sexually active women will be infected by a strain of HPV in their lifetime. These infections cause more than 99% of cervical cancer cases and a range of other cancers.

The HPV vaccine protects against two types of HPV: strains 16 and 18. Together these cause around 70% of cervical cancers.

Why the MMR vaccine should be given 

Measles, mumps and rubella are diseases that have serious complications:

• Measles causes a range of symptoms, which can include ear infection, bronchitis, convulsions (fits) and brain damage. Measles can be fatal.
• Mumps used to be the main cause of viral meningitis in children. It also causes temporary deafness, miscarriage, inflammation of the pancreas and pain and swelling in the testicles in men.
• Rubella can lead to painful joints, blood disorders and swelling of the brain (encephalitis). It damages unborn babies and may cause miscarriage if women catch the disease while pregnant. Babies born with congenital rubella syndrome may have some degree of deafness, blindness and damage to their heart or brain.

Why childhood immunisation is necessary 

Childhood immunisation is necessary to protect all children from potentially dangerous diseases. All the diseases that babies and children are vaccinated against have the potential to cause serious disabilities. Some can be fatal.

Immunisation also reduces the potential spread of diseases in the community. Childhood immunisation has had a dramatic effect on improving the health of the population in the UK and worldwide.

Childhood immunisation prevents a large variety of diseases. These include:

Tetanus

An infection found in the soil that causes severe muscle contractions and breathing difficulties.

Polio (short for poliomyelitis)

A virus that first attacks the gut (bowel) but then travels to the nervous system. Polio can cause paralysis (when you can’t move your limbs) in one or more parts of your body.

Pneumococcal infections

These can affect anyone, but young children are at an increased risk of developing serious complications such as meningitis.

Diphtheria

A highly contagious disease caused by a bacterium called Corynebacterium diphtheriae. It causes a serious throat and chest infection.

Meningitis C

Caused by the meningococcus group c bacterium. In rare cases it can lead to blood poisoning and serious types of meningitis.

Hib (full name is haemophilus influenzae type b)

A bacterium that can cause pneumonia and meningitis.

Whooping cough (pertussis) 

Causes prolonged coughing that can be very distressing. In children, complications can include brain damage.