Perhaps a word of caution about the reliability of news reports in the media might be relevant.

I've only once been an eye (and ear)-witness to an event which was written up in a national newspaper the following day. What the paper reported bore no relation to what I saw and heard. This might have been due to a difference in perception, but I don't think so - the event took place in a fairly enclosed space, and I was there throughout it. However, the (erroneous) account of said event happened to chime perfectly with the political orientation of that particular newspaper. Ho hum!

And I've only once been stopped on the street by a TV crew doing random vox-pop interviews. On that occasion, the man in charge of the show told me exactly what he wanted me to say before the camera rolled. He was not pleased when I refused to say it, because it happened to be untrue.   Presumably he went on stopping people until he found somebody willing to say what he wanted. Double ho hum!

These experiences (and similar ones reported by friends whom I trust) make me wary of news stories like the one which sparked off this thread. I believe that vigilance in the defence of our civil liberties is a good thing. But I also believe the protection of public figures from assassination is a good thing (even if the public figures in question are not particularly nice, there are better ways of making the point).

When all the evidence is presented, the jury can decide - till then, let us not rush to judgement.

Wassail!