Most newspapers thought that, given the paucity of evidence against her, Italian judges were right to acquit Amanda Knox of murdering the British student Meredith Kercher. Not the Daily Mail. "Freed to make a fortune" was its front-page headline and a story inside elaborated on how Knox can look forward to "Hollywood millions and a new life as a professional martyr to injustice". The Mail had scarcely a sympathetic word for a woman in her twenties who spent four years in jail, and expected 26 in all, for a crime she didn't commit.
Why does Knox deserve a fatwa from the Mail and its "editor" Ayatollah Paul Dacre? First, she is American. Second, she is said to have an adventurous approach to sex. Third, after the murder, she was filmed kissing her Italian boyfriend (allegedly her accomplice), thus failing to conform to behavioural norms prescribed by the British press. Fourth, by getting herself acquitted, she has deprived our newspapers of a gift they enjoy only once in a generation: a truly evil, female murderer from a white middle-class background. Unforgivable, really.
Man in the Mirror
Newspapers have one thing to celebrate, however. Rio Ferdinand, the England footballer and former captain, lost his privacy action against the Sunday Mirror over a story about his sex life. But their right to print any old tittle-tattle hasn't been restored. Mr Justice Nicol drew a line in exactly the place it ought to be drawn. Ferdinand, he noted, had given interviews and published an autobiography which stated that, after a wild past, he would now "leave that sort of thing behind" and establish "a stable family life" with his partner (later his wife) and their children. Nicol concluded that "he projected an image of himself and . . . there was a public interest in demonstrating . . . that the image was false".
This appears to mean that married politicians, who rarely fail to drag happy family pictures into their election literature, are fair game. It also appears to confirm that the former Formula One boss Max Mosley, "exposed" by the News of the World for sadomasochistic practices, was entitled to privacy because he had not previously publicised his personal life. Journalists will try to muddy this distinction, but Nicol could hardly have made it clearer.
On the eve of their annual conference, the most exciting policy proposal the Conservatives could manage was to have more of us killed. Ours are among the safest motorways in Europe, killing just 132 people a year. Does it not occur to the Tories - and to their Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond, surely the most dangerous man in Britain - that the low casualty rate is a reason for keeping the speed limit as it is, not for increasing it to 80mph? When four people died in a rail crash at Hatfield, Hertfordshire, in 2000, the entire rail network came to a near-standstill for weeks. If 132 passengers were killed in a plane crash, would anybody support a reduction in airline safety measures?
According to the Institute of Advanced Motorists, each road death costs the nation £1.79m in health care and lost output, and nobody denies that a higher speed limit would increase deaths by between 5 and 10 per cent. But Hammond apparently regards the present low mortality rate as evidence of national inefficiency and believes we all need to travel more quickly, and die in greater numbers, to kick-start growth. As this appears to be the Tories' only policy for economic stimulus, perhaps we shall end up with a compulsory minimum speed of 100mph. Like soldiers going over the top in the First World War, we shall tear up the M1 knowing that our slaughter is for the national good.
On and Ofsted
I wonder if Michael Wilshaw, shortly to be anointed as head of Ofsted, will turn out as Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, expects. Wilshaw is head of Mossbourne Community Academy in Hackney, east London, a school famed for its academic excellence and disciplinarian ethos, which includes grey blazers, Latin lessons and Saturday-morning detentions.
The Tories have a history of disappointment in what they imagine to be kindred souls. Michael Howard, as home secretary, chose an ex-army officer, David Ramsbotham, to serve as chief inspector of prisons. Ramsbotham later declared himself "appalled" by penal conditions and said at least a third of the inmates should be released. Kenneth Baker, as education secretary, appointed the literature don Brian Cox, an editor of the Black Papers, which began the fight against "the excesses of progressive education", to lead a committee on teaching English. He turned out to be a softie on grammar. I once interviewed Wilshaw, and thought him of sturdily independent mind. I hope he has some unpleasant surprises for Gove, who looks far too pleased with himself.
Fears of immigrants taking British jobs by working indecently hard are nothing new. Researching my socialist history of cricket, I came across the following letter, originally published in the Daily Mail in 1896 when K S Ranjitsinhji became the first non-white man to play for England: "The success of an Indian cricketer in England has stirred up the . . . natives . . . four other Indian cricketers . . . are coming to England . . . So where will be our Graces and Stoddarts [then the star English-born players] if our cricket field is invaded by Indians who devote 16 hours a day to specialising with bat and ball?"
Peter Wilby was editor of the New Statesman from 1998-2005