Before anyone scuttles off and reaches for a libel lawyer, or puts together some Parliamentary Question about me, that's the title of an old King Crimson song, albeit a pretty prophetic one.

The Independent on Sunday had an interesting leader this week: it asked, pointedly, whether Labour's motion on Cachia Caruana was one of political expediency or of genuine conviction that he had been naughty and deserved the censure of the highest organ of the State. On this latter point, I'll remind you that Parliament is not the highest organ of the State, it rests on one leg of the tripod of democracy, even, in some contexts, on one leg of the quadruped, if you include us lot in the media.

The fact that Labour's motion, as it has now become apparent, is based on a fundamental misreading of the situation (in fact, as Caruana Galizia points out in her blog, some Labour exponents don't even know that the Government got us IN to the PfP and not out, twerps that they are) leads me to the conclusion that, with the House about to reconvene after the Spring Break, it was time to dangle some juicy morsel or other in front of their hero, Franco Debono.

So eager are Labour for an election, so disappointed were they when Debono didn't give it to them, that they're madly piping pretty tunes, hoping to entice him into another session of Government-baiting.

Cheap shot, or what?

I think so, though the Independent's closing line, posing the question whether it was Debono who was the rat and Labour the Pied Piper or the other way round, was illustrative of the dilemma on which some media commentators (the ones who don't lionise Debono in the interests of their own agendas, of course) find themselves impaled.

Talking of the Independent, and commentary, the current editor's predecessor appears to be carrying on with his usual style. He penned, as is his wont, a lengthy piece about the current situation, which I tried to plough through but, it being a fine Sunday morning, couldn't.

One line struck me, though: "That [referring to what he calls the tiredness of the PN] explains the nasty and scurrilous attacks on Labour...".

He fails, for obvious reasons, to give us chapter and verse on these attacks. He can't, because when you analyse media commentary and the social media, you see that it is as plain as day that the nasty and scurrilous attacks come from the (so-called) left and are aimed at media commentators who don't toe Labour's line. Yes, Labour is attacked, and attacked hard, but that's the name of the game and all Labour's repeating of the mantra does is get people like Noel Grima to repeat it.

Come on, chapter and verse please, you can comment here, while reading the comments below and understanding the provenance of the attacks to which you refer.