Indeed, our website has been running hot with the opinions of readers. Is it not enough, some ask, that he was found to have engaged in corrupt conduct? Can he/we not move on?

The difficulty for anyone cast with such a tag as Mr Oxley has been by ICAC is the denial of natural justice. Mr Oxley and former underling John Gilbert have not been recommended for prosecution so are left in limbo when it comes to their reputations and in getting on with their lives. It is bittersweet that they will not have their day in court, where the higher burden of proof - beyond reasonable doubt - applies. (ICAC makes its findings on the balance of probabilities.)

This is why Mr Oxley is so strenuous in appealing to the court of public opinion through his book - and the Mercury has been happy to oblige because his legacy, and most importantly what we would learn for the future, is a matter that should be vigorously debated.

But here is where our empathy for his plight tails off.

As much as his book is understandably a strident self-defence, it really is a work of hagiography; breathtaking in how it sweeps aside the fact that councils are public instrumentalities, not solely economic enterprises. In the book, Mr Oxley in effect unashamedly declares he cannot be bothered with the due process of planning law and that he worked actively around it to push the city's development. At times this may have brought a benefit to the city, but he does not see how it violates, in the least, the spirit of democratic government.

Yesterday we reported that he was damning of the city's present administration because development opportunities were drying up. It is true that business interests are dissatisfied with the lack of progress on development matters. But then it is hardly surprising, given the corruption scandal, that the pendulum has swung the other way.