a day spent reading an introduction to the philosophy of Jacques Ranciere - timely, in a way, given the mounting hysteria over the topless Kate pics.

The whole saga is fascinating and grotesque by turns as I try to untangle the strands.

One. Why should nudity be an issue in a truly civilised, human society?

Two. How can language be so debased such as 'public interest' justifies sheer prurience?

Three. If she is just like millions of women on beaches across the world, why devote an issue to this one person?

Four. Would the editor(s) sit back and allow similar intrusions into their own privacy (or call their lawyers pronto?).

Five. Is this yet another example of what George S. Trow would define as the erosion of the middle space? i.e. we see the jamming together of intimacy and global exposure in an especially stark example.

Six. And yet, this is precisely what the British Royal Family have been complicit in for - well, how long? If you stage a wedding to the world, don't be surprised if the hungry public crave more.

Seven. And what else is Royalty now but a staged affair (hence the relevance of The King's Speech a film which simultaneously delivers the reassuring glow of British nostalgia for an international market while simultaneously implying the utterly bogus nature of the entire institution).

Eight. The Royals become yet further fodder for the Celebrity-obsessed media who feed a compliant public whose impoverished lives crave tits and titillation.

Nine. Meanwhile true obscenities are conducted in camera (military strategy, political decisions, financial scams, agreed press cover-ups) which - if splurged across double pages - would bring so many careers crashing down. (Am I alone in watching The Thick of It as documentary realism?).

So that's the issue: what if the real holders of Power made a clean breast of it?