History would suggest that "royals" have been "fiddlin about" all the time and it's always been swept away and politely put to one side.

Mind you in this century any Monarchy is anachronism.

Is it any coincidence that Prince Andrew appears to have disappeared off the face of the earth in recent times?



Certainly sweeping this sort of thing under the carpet and keeping him out of the spotlight would have been the advisable thing to do, if somebody had been throwing around any dirt.



He hasn't helped himself though, with both his reputation he has garnered and the company he has kept.

If this all goes well and Prince Andrew comes out of it unscathed, there's a lookalike job for him as Neil Tennant from the Pet Shop Boys.

Check up on the boys' favourite Uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten

The Ched Evans circus rumbles on, but now apparently the alleged victim's father has asked the A-G to take down Evan's website which explains why he still maintains his innocence, and there is some suggestion of a possibility of contempt proceedings.



This raises issues much wider than just Evans, but are also relevant to the cause celebre of "remorse" and "acceptance of guilt". If you had been wrongly convicted of a criminal offence - ANY criminal offence - and after you had served your time or done your punishment, would you feel obliged to fake remorse and lie that you had done it? Or would you feel entitled to stick to your principles and maintain your innocence? IF a person - not Evans, but ANYBODY - believes they are innocent, I don't see on what basis in a free society they should be compelled to pretend acceptance of guilt, or silenced from asserting their innocence. It is of course also going to become increasingly topical, as Grayling's continued savaging of legal aid and criminal defence can only lead to a considerable increase in miscarriages of justice.

Has asked ? or has been asked by?

Completely agree.

Has asked:

Ta. Didn't realise it wasn't the family's to take down themselves.

Are you getting a bit confuddled?



Why on earth would the victim of Evans's offence put up a website proclaiming his (Evans) innocence?

I assumed it was Evan's family that had set up the website (certainly not the victim) but its his "supporters". That was the confusion.

Not exactly sexual abuse, but today all remaining assault charges against footballer [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-30833162Ravel Morrison[/url were dropped, following his defence team having obtained CCTV of the alleged assault on his then girlfriend, which showed that, er, there wasn't one, moreover she having fallen to the ground, he in fact went over and helped her up, and helped her to a car.



In November, Morrison, who is from Manchester, was cleared of threatening to throw acid in the face of his ex-girlfriend, have her killed and blow up her house. CPS also withdrew the allegation he harassed her over four years.



So he leaves court an innocent man, but must have been really put through the mill, and faced jail, ever since the allegations were first made. He was initially refused bail, and led handcuffed down to the cells. The claims he had assaulted his girlfriend and her mother were widely reported and it must have been devastating for him. Let alone the huge cost to the taxpayer that the process will have incurred. Had the CCTV not emerged, he may well have been potted, and served more time, like Evans. Whether charges are brought against the girlfriend is something CPS will now have to consider but she must have known that the original assault outside the club never happened, yet saw him remanded in custody and persisted in her story until the truth emerged.

I expect there will be all sorts of revelations now Leon Brittain has popped his clogs.

Two potential Fernbridge witnesses dead in a week?



As for Brittan, I won't be shedding any tears. He was the Home Secretary that turned the police into a goverment-sponsored paramilitary organisation during the miners' strike.



He can rot with Thatcher

Social media will be awash with conspiracy theories.

Who's the other one?

John Stingemore

Brittan was named in certain sources ages before he died. The whole 'lost' dossier episode stinks. The government don't appear to even want to start the enquiry into establishment sex abuse but they will rush through trivial matters like plain cigarette packaging.

Kitty, I mean Cliff is in the news again. There's no smoke without fire.

You are...







...and I claim my £5.

Ha ha. I actually typed that in Keith's accent!



Smoke kills in seconds, fire kills in minutes.

Laugh or burn. Take your pick.

[urlhttp://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31720761[/url



I have no particular like or dislike of Paul Gambaccini and his radio output but he does have a point in the article linked to above, which is how long is too long to hold someone on police bail especially when that action has denied them work and an ability to earn income, this applies equally to a warehouse worker who may find that his agency don't offer him anymore shifts as it does media "celebrities" who can't even work for free when under such a shadow as historic sex abuse charges.



The other concern about the article is the quote from the DPP who simply dismisses any and all accusations placed before her - its a habit that many public bodies and especially those directly controlled by a government minister have got into, that they simply brush aside any concerns with a denial, an almost arrogant denial that they simply do not recognise that there may be a problem and that they know best and should not be questioned.



The description by Gambaccini of being used as "human fly paper" on which they hoped new accusers would stick allegations is a very apt one and still continues in the media even this week - Cliff Richards anyone ?

When you have a "Justice Secretary" who has (to date) been held by the courts to have acted unlawfully NINE times, it sort of confirms the two-raised-fingers approach now endemic. Though the number of further findings is likely to fall as Grayling is doing his best to do to Judicial Review what he so successfully did to all but kill workers' rights in Tribunals, and what from Monday he will have achieved in blocking access to the civil courts to ordinary people and small businesses who won't be able to pay nor justify the ludicrous, swingeing fee hikes. Systematically dismantling a justice system that took centuries to build.

I have a dislike of him. Along with people like Esther Rantzen he spouted off about knowing all about Savile after his death while doing nothing whatsoever about it at the time.







It's a good job for Gambaccini that ridiculous, stupid whining isn't a crime or he'd be in jail for that 5hit.