Take the Saville Inquiry, which lasted the best part of ten years and cost the taxpayer in the region of £300 million.  And we all knew the outcome - there was fault on both sides - end of story.  Then we had the Chilcott Inquiry into the Iraq war.  Can anybody tell me if it’s still going on, or have they drawn stumps?  And again, we all know the outcome - it was an illegal war, there were no weapons of mass destruction, but it removed a Middle Eastern loose cannon, and having sown the wind, we have reaped the whirlwind.

 And now we have the Leveson Inquiry.  Let’s get one thing straight that has been annoying me from the outset.  Lord Justice Leveson is not Lord Leveson, he is Sir Brian Leveson, a Lord Justice of Appeal, and no doubt a thoroughly decent man with the patience of Job. When he’s in court, he’s addressed as My Lord.  Out of court, he’s good old Sir Brian.

 That said, I have real doubts about his remit and what he hopes to achieve.  The little I have seen of the proceedings makes watching paint dry almost exciting, and the lead barrister for the Inquiry looks as if he’s spent the night before on a park bench.

I suspect Lord Justice Leveson will need the wisdom of Solomon to address the primary issue of investigative journalism, namely how far can and should a journalist go for a good story.  He is bound to get it in the neck whatever his pontifications. How can anybody, even with the wisdom of Solomon, decide when the Press and the Media are right or wrong to pursue a hot lead? He can, and no doubt, will, lay down certain rules to limit intrusive investigative journalism, but he cannot, and should not, go beyond this, and rightly not.  It is the judgment not of Solomon or Leveson, but the judgment of the editor, and he must be the final arbiter.  As with any controversial decisions, he may be held to account if his journalists overstep the mark, bu that’s why he’s in the job.

Time and space do not allow for a review of recent headline grabbing revelations that would not otherwise be in the public domain without investigative journalism.  For my part, I couldn’t give two hoots about Simon Cowell’s love life, or the number of times Ryan Giggs has played away, but I do give two hoots, and more, about MPs’ expenses, or back street abortions, or donations for favours, or genital mutilation, or cricket match fixing, or the dozens of other stories that would not have seen the light of day without investigative journalism.

So I say to Lord Justice Leveson and his rag bag camp followers, come the New Jerusalem, you’ll be out of a job, and it’s back to the coal face.

 As you will know, Terry faces allegations of racial abuse, and his legal advisers have persuaded the court to list the trial after the final of the Championships.  So the FA is faced with the prospect of Terry leading out the English team with a serious charge hanging over him, but his supporters point out that he is innocent until convicted, and to strip him of the captaincy, or worse still, to exclude him from the team altogether, would be tantamount to an admission of guilt.

It is worth remembering how Terry finds himself before the court.  After a police investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service were consulted, and after the usual navel gazing, decided to bring the charge.  There is a standard procedure adopted by the CPS before they bring a charge.  After considering the evidence, which includes any statements in denial from Terry, the CPS has to determine if there is a reasonable prospect of conviction.  That is the key to this matter, and one that should not be overlooked.

Needless to say, the test applied by the CPS does not mean that Terry will be convicted, it simply means that there is enough evidence to place before the court and, if accepted, would be sufficient to found a conviction.  As the lawyers would have it, there is a prima facie case to answer.

So if Terry is to play in the European Championships, and especially if he is to captain the team, the world and his dog will know that he stands accused of racially abusing a black player during a football match.  There are now dozens, if not hundreds, of black football players throughout Europe, and the world and his dog will hold its breath every time Terry goes into a sliding tackle on a black opponent.

And what happens if a black player, having felt the full force of one of Terry’s trademark tackles, complains that he has been racially abused?  After all, there’s no smoke without fire, and Terry is placing himself in an invidious position.

There are two options: bring the trial forward to a date before the start of the Championships.  If Terry is acquitted, end of story, and he is free to get on with the job he does best without a stain on his character.  Or, the less preferred option, exclude him from taking any part in the Championships, and possibly damage even further England’s faint hopes of putting on a good show. 

And what if he is subsequently acquitted?  The FA will finish with egg on their faces, not the first time, and Terry’s legal advisers will almost certainly seek substantial compensation for their innocent and rightly aggrieved client.

Time to rethink the whole sorry mess!