Sometimes you read headlines and can't help but think "WTF?" A couple of these were around today:

"MoD admit human rights breach" [as it appeared on the website link, rather than on the page itself]. I mean, surely a "breach" is a bit of an understatement in regards to this abuse of a human being which resulted in his death. A "breach" is when you step over the line. This is well and trying smashing right through it.

"'Too many women' dying from cancer". You don't say. Any death from cancer is too many. But also, what about the men that die from cancer? Is there just about the right number of men dying from cancer, or do men simply not count as people?

When you read these headlines, you just have to ask what the hell was going through the mind of the person who wrote it?

UPDATE: This one has appeared as the BBCs main headline today:

"T5 chaos 'not BA's finest hour'". Well duh. Anything that can be described as "chaos" is hardly going to be any organisations "finest hour", is it? Idiots. Way to go stating the bloody obvious.

So David Cameron has been caught breaking traffic laws whilst cycling to Parliament. Again.

But really, so what? Can any of us claim that we have never ever broken a traffic law in our life? Can any motorist claim to have never driven over the speed limit? Can any cyclist claim to have never edged over the line at a red light? Can any pedestrian claim to have never crossed the road when the green man wasn't showing? No. And anyone who claims so is blatantly lying.

There are far more important issues than Cameron breaking a few minor road traffic laws, things we have all done in one way or another. Quite why or how this can be considered above the early release of even more criminals or the issues of embryonic fertilisation, I don't know.

So Prince Harry, third in line to the throne, is fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, Helmand Province. And? This makes bugger all difference. Who cares? It's not like he's ever expected to become King Henry IX. He's the "spare", as they say.

He's supposed to be making a proper army career, not just doing it as work experience. If he were to be prevented from going to the front line, this would be impossible. That he was not sent to Iraq was probably a good thing, on balance, considering the heat of the fighting there. But Afghanistan, on the other hand, isn't as dangerous to the other soldiers.

The media blackout over Harry's trip was good. If it had been common knowledge that he was there from the start, that would have made it dangerous for his fellow soldiers. That is was broken by foreign media, however, was bad. They should be ashamed of themselves.

However, the massive amount of reports over Harry's tour of duty now that it has been broken is massively unnecessary. There is no need for an extended BBC News. It's really not important enough. Were they to be focusing on the entire situation in Afghanistan, yes. But not when the entire focus is on Harry himself.

Consider the evidence: first they publish Janet Street Porter's absurd diatribe against blogs, in which she asks us all to "Blog Off". And now they've redesigned their website - and cut all the links to articles. As Matt Wardman writes:

So why have they done this? It seems absurd to delete all the links to pages that have ever been made by anyone anywhere across the internet. Surely the whole point of having a web presence is so that people can link to you? Why else would anyone bother?! And, surely, any web developer worth his pay cheque would be able to maintain the original links as active? The only conclusions that can realistically be drawn is that either the Independent hates blogs or are idiots. Or both.

The thing is, the Indy's new website isn't even pretty. In fact it's down-right ugly. It is cluttered, confusing, and what the hell is with that mustard yellow colour scheme?!

The Independent: Blog haters.

Except that is all he seems to do. Lots of press releases, but no vision. Education is supposedly his "passion" and health his "priority", yet what has he done?

Brown is presidential. He runs the government by mobile phone. He has shown in his few months in the job that he is as controlling as he ever was whilst at the Treasury. He can't allow any authority out of his hands - even to his Cabinet.

Gordon isn't going to stop governing by press release. It is the only way he knows how to. He might want people to believe that he isn't, but that fact won't change. Government by press release is here to stay for as long as Gordon Brown is.