HEY, have you heard? There’s loads of revelations flying around that the News of the World has been hacking into phones.

The Guardian, on Monday, made the allegations that Milly Dowler’s mobile phone messages were intercepted by the newspaper in 2002 after she was brutally murdered by Levi Bellfield.

Since then the media and, in some cases the public, has gone screwball for bringing the News of the World down.

It’s difficult for me to understand why, when there’s such public disquiet, nothing – ultimately – ever really changes. After all, we have the power to go and march or not buy the newspaper or refuse to visit shops that advertise in the newspaper. No one will do this.

Where was the outrage when Chris Jefferies, wrongly accused of killing Jo Yeates last year by the newspapers, took the Sun and the Mirror to court yesterday for contempt?

Whilst I would never condone what is being alleged, and, if true, is a shocking way to get stories, I can’t help but feel the current uproar will do nothing in the grand scheme of things.

You’ve got to question the roles of the paper and the police. How are private investigators able to this sort of thing? Why didn’t the Press Complaints Commission act in a stronger way back in 2006? And why are News International and certain politicians said to be so cosy together?

Ford pulled their advertising last night, gaining the company many more column inches in other newspapers than the advert in the News of the World ever would. Someone at Ford is probably being patted on the back and being given a new Mondeo as we speak.

Do you remember “Squidgygate”? Tesco advertise in the News of the World, will you be boycotting them?

Where was public outcry in 2006 when Andy Hayman was in charge of the inquiry into the News of the World phone hacking. Now he’s being called back to give evidence again. What happened the first time? Why weren't these things uncovered years after Milly's phone was suspected of being hacked?

Andy subsequently left the police to work for News International as a columnist.

And we know that police officers took cash from journalists to provide information for stories. Where was your uproar then? Were sweeping reforms brought in to the police force?

In 2003 Rebekah Brooks told MPs: "We have paid the police for information in the past."

It’s really a chicken and egg problem. You’re being told all of these things by the media yet one media outlet vilifies the other for doing something that is indefensible. The Mirror, Daily Mail and The Observer have all been caught up to dirty tricks to get stories.

I mentioned Chris Jefferies earlier, yet there is no backlash against the Mirror and the Sun. The same newspapers this morning calling it a SCANDAL.

Yesterday it emerged that News International had given the Metropolitan police details of payments made by News of the World to senior police officers between 2003 and 2007. Andy Coulson was the editor back then and was well-defended by David Cameron when he left as his director of communications.

I can’t help but feel a few thousand angry people won’t change anything when the vast majority of the population is happy with apathy.

Did you get angry when Ryan Giggs paid out for a superinjunction? The News of the World paid out £2 million to suppress evidence in court actions brought by two confirmed victims of phone hacking.

Hugh Grant admitted this week that he knew what the News of the World was up to when former features writer Paul McMullan told him about it over drinks in Dover. Lets all boycott “About a Boy” and “Love Actually” for him not mentioning it on Newsnight.

And hey, what about those fat-cat bankers? They’re making a fortune and still paying themselves bonuses most people can only dream of earning in years of hard work. Are we still boycotting banks or marching on Downing Street demanding change? Most people are stuck on a pay freeze but today we learn food prices are going up and up and are higher than they were this time last year. Are we all striking for a fairer deal?

What about the war? There was a stutter of annoyance that we didn’t really need to go to war because we weren’t under threat and now we’re more concerned with raising money for people whose arms have been blown off then we are questioning government on why we ever went and why we’re still there.

And I don’t remember the same kind of uproar when the phone hacking scandal first came to light in 2006. But of course that was Prince William. It’s different when you’re in the public eye.

And then more celebrities came forward claiming that feared they too had been hacked - John Prescott, Alex Ferguson, Tessa Jowell, Boris Johnson, Max Clifford and Sienna Miller. Even Chris Tarrant.

MPs fiddling expenses - that was big news last year. More than half of them had to pay something back. Yet we still elected some of them straight back into their seats. Don’t get me started on voting apathy.

Lacklustre procedures were put into place by the government and when we discover another MP has fraudulently claimed we get frustrated. But there are no demonstrations. There is no lobbying for more stringent measures.

These days the public have become so desensitised we just nod sadly and move on. The same will happen here. In a year’s time someone will probably get caught hacking a phone. You’ll have a flash of annoyance and it will be gone.

I imagine we’re probably all too busy being annoyed that we’d forgotten we vilified Hugh Grant for having sex with a prostitute in 1995. Now we’re cheering him on for leading the call for newspaper reform.

THE Go Snow is already hitting Medway's salt mountain.

Just days after telling councillors there was enough for 19 days, and that they had increased stocks by more than 50 per cent compared with a year ago, the hunt is on for fresh stocks.

It could have something to do with the shock announcement yesterday by Gravesham council that the weather was so bad Father Christmas had cancelled his visit to Gravesend.

Can you imagine the grief experienced by children who had been so good in anticipation of the Jolly Red Giant's visit?

Can you imagine the explanations from mums and dads?

"Yes dear! You have been a good boy. There's still a few days to Christmas and I am sure that he will have found a way to visit you by then."

"But Daddy, why couldn't he get here today? After all, he flies everywhere on his sledge."

"Father Christmas decided to use an open-topped bus instead. It was very cold on top."

"Boo-hoo! Father Christmas shouldn't worry about the cold on the top deck! After all he races everywhere on his sledge and it's got no roof..."

"He was being kind to Rudolph, Donner, Blitzen and the others. After all they had a very busy time visiting the Dockside Outlet Centre in Chatham Maritime, and need to rest before Christmas Eve...."

Further floods of tears.

***

Meanwhile, further unfortunate problems in the snow.

The Highways Agency website has an apology on screen at present.

It can't cope with demand.

You'd think when there was snow 12 months ago, some of the lessons would be learned.

Seems not.

***

WHAT on earth are the Liberal Democrats doing?

As their numbers shrink year on year they seem to make more and more questionable calls.

The latest is their decision to oppose city status - but only at this time.

They enjoyed stirring the pot with cries of money wasted (as though not spending £25,000 will save the council's taxpayers a fortune).

The truth is they are trying to find votes.

With their MPs stabled with the Conservatives, they have real grounds for fearing the electorate's long knives will be out of scabbards in May.

The only person with whom I agreed was their ex-Leader, Cllr Maureen Ruparel.

The Conservatives have further distanced themselves from beleagured pensioner, Nick Brice, following his unfortunate trip into red light land.

The Tory had been stripped of his Conservative membership.

He had been caught by police with a young lady in his company car. The trouble was she apparently decided to get in while he was thinking it was a mistake to keep touring round the prozzie prowl zone.

He is defiant, convinced he still has a future in the Conservative Party until his blemish after 50 years membership, refusing to resign but increasingly isolated from party, power and influence.

How he managed to gain admission to the by-election count sporting a large blue rosette should give cause for concern to those responsible for election security. Because someone smuggled him in.

That's beside the point.

He had guts to face the Standards Committee where two of the three members and the senior officer were all women, and admit he had made a mistake.

It will take an even braver man to stand up in the former church where council debates now take place in front of the public to admit he was in the wrong, and to defy increasingly angry, vitriolic calls for him to go.

He doesn't have to - but every meeting he attends will become increasingly painful for him and for his family.

There have been some harsh lessons for Cllr Nick Brice to learn.

One would appear to be that if you resort to prostitutes, don't get caught.

Another is that if you are going to get away with it, don't object to those who consider your behaviour is beyond the norm.

Cllr Brice was once a member of the Children's Committee. He (along with the other 54 councillors) therefore has a duty to protect and care for children - some of whom prostitute themselves.

A year ago he was caught by the police with a prostitute in his car. He accepted a police caution, paid £200 to attend a police-run kerb-crawlers convention in Medway, the council and his employers (the hooker hopped into his company car) were told, he lost his job months before he was to retire, he was reported to the Standards Committee and - after half a century's membership - he was thrown out of the Conservative Party.

This week he told the committee he had done his homework very carefully (a trait for which he was noted as audit committee chairman).

He had done wrong, but he had not got a conviction, and therefore whatever anyone thought, he couldn't be disciplined by the Standards committee.

With regret, they said, they agreed.

But in a cleverly worded statement the committee - two independent members and (by rote) a Labour councillor - damned him.

In 164 words they regretted failing to find he breached the code of conduct.

His behaviour was - and I paraphrase what they said - totally unacceptable. He should resign from the council having brought himself and it into disrepute. He acted improperly and without integrity, breached the principles of public life, lacked judgement, and should be banned from representing the council or sitting on any committee for whatever reason.

"We think the law should be altered to cover actions such as this when carried out by a councillor in any capacity," said Tony Dance, the independent chairman.

"We will be writing to the Secretary of State to bring this to his attention."

I fail to understand how that equates with Cllr Brice's comments after the meeting that the committee had vindicated him.