By Nick Assinder BBC News Online political correspondent

In a much anticipated ruling, the Press Complaints Commission has decided the prime minister did not try to muscle in on the Queen Mother's lying-in-state.

After a bitter row between three publications and Downing Street, the PCC has declared there is no evidence that Tony Blair "did anything wrong or sought for himself a greater role in proceedings".

So that clears that up then. Except, of course, it doesn't.

Blair led Commons tributes

It was never alleged that the prime minister had personally intervened to boost his role in the lying-in-state.

What was claimed was that officials had been in touch with the Palace of Westminster authorities - Black Rod in this instance - to win the prime minister an enhanced role.

Full circle

Downing Street is happy to confirm there were contacts between civil servants and Black Rod over the arrangements for the occasion.

But spokesmen have always insisted that they, too, did nothing to try and boost Mr Blair's part in the proceedings.

And on that, the PCC simply states: "Regardless of what investigations we mount into this, the PCC will never be in a position fully to ascertain the facts and this issue will remain largely a matter of interpretation."

So we are right back where we started from before Mr Blair brought in the PCC.

Allegations over the Queen Mother's funeral

Downing Street continues to insist the prime minister was deeply offended by the suggestion that he would attempt to hijack such an occasion.

And spokesmen vehemently deny claims that officials attempted to have his role enhanced, either at his request or off their own bat.

No apology

Meanwhile, the journalist at the centre of the allegations, the Spectator's Peter Oborne, stands by his story and claims No 10 has backed down.

It is being suggested that, in an attempt to bully newspapers into dropping the story, Downing Street went off half cocked by calling in the PCC.

And, it has to be said, that is how it looks.

There has not been, and neither will there be, an apology from the journalist. Indeed, Mr Oborne insists he has been vindicated.

And, whether the story is right or wrong, the allegations are now being repeated with impunity.

It is also being pointed out that, if the prime minister had been that offended and confident of his ground, why did he not sue for libel.

As the PCC states, it is all ultimately down to a matter of interpretation.

Or, to put it another way, who do you believe?

The spin doctors in Downing Street, or a journalist?