ONE of the great things about living in a democracy, so they tell us, is that we can all enjoy the benefits of freedom of expression.

But levels of information, how much we can say and the accuracy of what we hear or are told is an altogether different matter.

Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff is sometimes a head-swimming task - ask any journalist.

So it's interesting that over the fast couple of weeks we've had all sorts of bits of information that we've tried to dissect, some of it information certain people (the council) would rather we didn't talk about, some of it information that certain people (the council) haven't told people they perhaps should have, and some of it misinformation that has laid the blame, unfairly, at the door of certain people who don't deserve it (you've guessed it, the council).

Allow me to clarify.

The information we shouldn't be talking about (so I'll whisper it quietly), revolves around the out-of-court settlement between the council and the organisers of the cancelled Summerbreeze music festival two years ago.

Now we already know that a settlement has been reached - that's the bit the powers-that-be don't mind us knowing - but what they don't like is that we also know the reasons why that settlement was reached (because the amounts mentioned would be roughly equivalent to the cost of defending any court action - sounds reasonable), or that we have put the figures in the public domain. Our argument Is that this is, after all, public money that is being played with. And is being paid out to someone the council say they would have a strong legal case against, who they claim actually owes them money, and is money that is given 'without any liability'. So it's a no blame not-our-fault and not-your-fault, let's draw a line under the whole matter and get on with things sort of settlement. Which is all well and good if we're talking about arguing the toss over that tenner you reckon you gave to your friend as a loan, they claim they've already paid back but after a bit of argy-bargy you agree to forget it and go for a pint.

But instead we're talking about several thousand pounds out of public funds. Naturally enough, those elected representatives charged with looking after our interests want to know more and feel those findings should be in the public domain. Yet they're told that any public discussion may breach part of the court order and therefore be held in Contempt of Court. The same goes for newspapers, apparently, which is a sham given that we've already printed the figures concerned - twice. Because we thought you'd like to know, because we believe it's the right of a tree press to tell you how your money is being spent.

Then there's the information about the High Street hostel that residents say they knew nothing about until they read about it In this newspaper. A couple of weeks later it opens and there's a bit of bother and everyone's getting a bit excited.

The council have been party to this, although they're not the operators, but presumably were consulted and apparently are one of the partner organisations referring tenants. Even the ward councillors knew nothing about the hostel until they read about it in this newspaper - and they, like the residents, would like to know why there wasn't better consultation. So would we.

Then there's the question of the Music Co-op. Now this one's complicated because the council haven't, contrary to some interpretations, given the go-ahead for anything yet, and, certainly haven't authorised any demolition of the Co-op.

What they have done is talk in encouraging terms to a developer who wants to build on land next door to the Co-op (not on the Co-op, please note), but the Co-op are worried that in the future the development may expand, and may, at that point swallow them up.

The council have moved to reassure them, by saying they value the work they are doing and would be keen to see the provision of these services continue. Which doesn't exactly guarantee the Co-op's future on this site. Which means the profile-raising campaign continues.

With all these examples, the devil is in the detail and what is not said, or can't be said, rather than what is.