Both knees, it is fair to say, have been jerking away at news that a second former senior police officer has been arrested on suspicion of leaking information to the media.
In conversation, tweets and online comments, I have raised concerns that these developments have a sinister look to them. It is as if authority in post-Leveson Britain is intent on achieving the cherished dream of imposing a system of news flow dictated by what it chooses to publish.
Administration by press release: the sort of thing George Orwell dreamed up for fiction.
What, I have asked, are these officers supposed to have done wrong? How far did they supposedly stray beyond answering a journalist's questions honestly, providing useful background information to help explain or clarify this or that aspect of a police operation or matter?
No money is alleged - "at this stage" in the useful having-it-both-ways phrase of the Independent Police Complaints Commission - to have exchanged hands. There is, therefore, no present suggestion of bribery and corruption.
There is an important qualification to make. I do not know what lies behind the arrests. I have to wait for such detail to become available; my initial alarm could turn out to be unfounded. There may be some genuinely grave question of sensitive information, damaging to national security or putting in jeopardy an important investigation, reaching the public domain.
Certainly, the IPCC official to whom I spoke was at pains to describe a process that has, after an investigation of seven or eight months, reached the point of suspicion that a criminal offence or offences may have been committed.
In subsequent stages of the inquiry, the official said, it would be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether charges should be brought and, if so, for a jury to determine guilt or innocence.
She also said the IPPC was fully aware the arrests would "lead to the sort of reaction we have seen" - namely concern and criticism - and added that while she could shed no real light on the nature of the allegations, it was important to bear in mind that those commenting on the matter were doing so without full knowledge. In other words, "they" - be it a Times editorial writer or a tinpot blog - do not know what the evidence is, "we" do.
So for my part, I repeat that events may show the IPPC actions to be fully justified.
But it is, in my view, the commission's fault if the impression is given to those who care, and I do not pretend there will be too much public concern since only lip service is paid to the notion of a free press, that legitimate journalistic inquiry, and the ability of officials to respond to it, is under grave attack.
There was no reticence when a Sun journalist and a former policeman were due to be charged in a case where money did allegedly change hands. A CPS statement made pointed reference to the accusation including "information about the tragic death of a 15-year-old girl".
But we can leave aside individual cases for now and consider the certain impact of the trawl currently being made by the law enforcement authorities.
It is that every public official in the land will be extremely reluctant ever to talk to a journalist again for fear of being accused of misconduct in public office with dawn raids on their homes and careers wrecked or put on hold.
What a far cry this would be from the days when a respected chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, John Alderson, decreed that every member of his force down to constable could, subject to sensible safeguards, speak to the media.
It is inconceivable that this could happen today. "What's the time?", addressed by a reporter to a desk sergeant, is likely to be receive the response: "You'd better ask the press bureau that, but don't say I said so."
Some press offices and press officers do, or try to do, a good and honest job. I was impressed by the person with whom I dealt at the IPCC. Some see their roles, or are instructed to act, as if a truer title would be suppress officer. Very, very often, a press office can do little more than read out, or charge callers a rip-off telephone fee to hear, a bare-bones statement with no ability or authority to clarify anything that is unclear.
And while I was a long way from getting those knees jerking in condemnation of Lord Justice Leveson's report, this state of affairs does seem consistent with the culture encouraged by his belief that all contact between police officers and, for that matter, government ministers should be formalised. It does not take great insight to see that this can lead only to less information, not more, being available via the media to the public.
Fair-minded readers of my occasional media commentary cannot claim I am part of some industry campaign to undermine attempts to improve press standards in the UK. I have readily acknowledged that changes are necessary. I have deplored illegal actions such as phone-hacking and the bribing of police officers. There ought to be a public interest defence of such conduct, but that would do nothing to legitimise snooping on war widows or even celebrities.
You will have to look hard for any defence from me of media excesses and idiocy even if I continue to believe there is not a trade or profession that would have survived Leveson-style scrutiny without appearing in need of sweeping reform.
But it does worry me that an atmosphere has been created, to the delight of a whole army of people who loathe newspapers and would cheerfully control all media, in which journalism and journalists are routinely trashed and the important job of reporting and analysing the news has been diminished.
The press has brought much of this on itself, but that is not a complete answer to my concerns. And in one important sense, Leveson is too late anyway. As Nick Cohen put it so admirably, he is effectively seeking regulation of a corpse.
I have another worry. It is my fear that journalists and perhaps also public officials facing prosecution in relation to their conduct have little real prospect of fair trials. It is possible to detect anti-press sentiment on the part of the judiciary and lawyers but even that is insignificant when compared to the punitive mood of juries.
No one is above the law and those guilty of crime must face the consequences. But I have grave doubts that justice, and in particular natural justice and a sense of proportion, will prevail.
There has been wholesale demonisation of named individuals and so much exaggerated indignation that I suspect no tabloid journalist can hope for better than tabloid justice.
As the headline of a previous Salut! article on Leveson asked: "Are you, or have you ever been, a journalist?" If the answer to the latter-day McCarthys is yes, perhaps you should plead guilty and get it over with.
* To read my earlier articles on Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry and related matters, copy the following - leveson site:http://www.francesalut.com/ - and put it into a Google search box.