DaveR

I'm kind of 'meh' about Jonathan Ross, but then I'm not a fan of chat shows and not interested in celebrities, so that's a pretty favourable rating. I'm still not covinced that ?6 million p.a. was a genuine market rate way back when, and it will be interesting to see what offers he gets now - don't expect figures to be published, because I suspect it will be a lot less. I think the original deal dated from a time when the BBC, despite not having the commercial pressure of the ITV stations, was pushing the market pay for 'talent' ever higher just because they had the dosh and wanted to win the ratings war - not really the best use of public money. More generally, there's a clear difference between people who make money on a royalty basis, and others. Dan Brown, J K Rowling, Spice Girls, Nickelback? Millions of people freely bought the books/albums, so as much as anyone 'deserves' the dosh, they do. Footballers, on the other hand, benefit from a completely dysfunctional market fuelled by a combination of debt, public subsidy (in Spain and Italy), ego driven patronage and the incurable madness of fans.

Having Aspergers would be extremely unlikely to prevent a prosecution in the UK, so why should we expect the US to be different? In fact, he is campaigning to be tried in the UK, so he is clearly fit to be tried. He showed them up, committed a number of crimes (it seems), and doesn't want to do the time.

I still find it hard to sympathise with this guy He hacked into US government computer systems, presumably knowing that it was a crime, and that if he was caught it would be the US authorities who would be after him. He was caught, and they are, and now he says 'actually I should be tried in the UK, and anyway I'm ill'. Like I said before, I'm no fan of the US justice system, but I guess most people (including Gary McKinnon) have an idea that it is v. tough. Nobody forced him to hack into US computers - he chose to do it, and thereby exposed himself to US justice.

Any time between 9 months and 2 is likely to be a challenge - too big for a bassinet or to sit comfortably on your lap, way too small to sit on a seat and amuse themselves. If your child is a good sleeper generally then night flights are definitely the way to go, and 3-6 months is a good age. Easiest long haul flight I ever took with a baby was when my daughter was 12 days old - just me, her, and every female between 30 and 90 looking at us all dewy eyed. She slept, I just watched movies and fed her every couple of hours.

Apologies for a lengthy post, but below is the specimen direction on self-defence issued to judges. It is pretty full, and includes elements about the difficulty of judging what is reasonable etc. In my experience juries have no difficulty, having usually seen both assailant and victim, in coming to the 'right' decision. "If you think that D was or may have been acting in lawful self-defence, he is entitled to be found not guilty. Because the prosecution must prove D's guilt, it is for the prosecution to prove that D was not acting in lawful self-defence, not for D to establish that he was; and you must consider the matter of self-defence in the light of the situation which D honestly believed he faced. You must first ask whether D honestly believed that it was necessary to use force to defend himself at all. (Add, as appropriate) This would not be the case if D [was the aggressor][acted in revenge][knew that he did not need to resort to violence]. If you are sure that D did not honestly believe that it was necessary to use force to defend himself, he cannot have been acting in lawful self-defence, and you need consider this matter no further. But what if you think that D did honestly believe or may honestly have believed that it was necessary to use force to defend himself? You must then decide whether the type and amount of force D used was reasonable. Obviously, a person who is under attack may react on the spur of the moment, and he cannot be expected to work out exactly how much force he needs to use to defend himself. On the other hand, if he goes over the top and uses force out of all proportion to the [anticipated] attack on him, or more force than is really necessary to defend himself, the force used would not be reasonable. So you must take into account both the nature of the attack on D and what he then did. (Here refer briefly to any features of the evidence which may have a bearing on these issues, eg the speed of the attack, the number of attackers, whether or not he/they had and/or used any weapon(s), and the nature of D's response.) If you are sure that the force D used was unreasonable, then D cannot have been acting in lawful self-defence; but if you think that the force D used was or may have been reasonable, he is entitled to be acquitted. Notes 1. This direction may need further adapting, depending upon the facts of the case, and will need to be adapted if the case involves the defence of another person (as to which see R v Duffy 50 Cr App R 68 and R v Chisam 47 Cr App R 130) or the defence of property (as to which see Archbold (2003) 19-187). 2. Whether the plea is self-defence or defence of another, if the defendant may have been honestly mistaken as to the facts, he must be judged according to his mistaken belief of the facts: that is so whether the mistake was, on an objective view a reasonable mistake or not: see R v Williams 78 Cr App R 276; R v Beckford 85 Cr App R 378 and R v Oatridge 94 Cr App R 367. In the latter case the court emphasised that in cases where a defendant was not under actual or threatened attack, but honestly believed that he was, then the jury should be directed to consider whether the degree of force used by the defendant was commensurate with the degree of risk which he believed to be created by the attack under which he believed himself to be. 3. Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so, is not conclusive. It is simply a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether it was necessary for the defendant to use force and whether the force used was reasonable. It is not necessary that the defendant should demonstrate by his actions that he does not want to fight: see R v Bird 81 Cr App R 110. Where necessary, an appropriate direction should be given. 4. As to whether a defendant is entitled to rely, in a defence of self-defence, upon a mistake of fact induced by voluntary intoxication: see Archbold (2003) 17-18. 5. As to use of excessive force: see R v Clegg [1995] 2 WLR 80, HL. 6. Whether or not the amount of force used was reasonable is a purely objective question: see DPP v Armstrong-Braun [1999] Crim LR 416. 7. For the availability of self-defence where the defendant sought the confrontation: see R v Balogun [2000] 1 Archbold News 3.

I gave up on expensive shaving gear years ago - regular soap and a decent disposable razor are the way to go. And always shave in the shower

Some airlines won't give you a bassinet for a child older than 9 or 12 months, and it will definitely be a squeeze for the majority of 14 month olds. If yours is generally a good sleeper I would ask for the bassinet, if not you have to think seriously about stumping up the cash for another seat. We've flown to the Far East with our kids every year since they were born, and 14 months is definitely a tough age. I think the key thing is what are your plans once you get there. If you're going to be staying with family or close friends, so you can really relax for a couple of days after you arrive, I wouldn't worry too much about the flight - it's only one day (one very looooong day, admittedly).

I can understand the OP being upset at how things turned out, but it's not really fair to the business in question to post on here saying 'don't go there'. On the basis of this experience there's no reason to think they won't deal perfectly well with other kids, especially those who are a bit older or who don't 'hate hairdressers'.

I think the doctor analogy is a good one, but shouldn't obscure the fact that (i) treatment of complex conditions will not always lead to agreement (or even concensus) amongst professionals and (ii) when you're deciding on treatment, cost is a factor. Insisting on at least some kind of cost-benefit analysis for proposed measure to address climate change does not make you a denier or a loon (and that includes wider environmental costs/benefits). As I observed earlier, building lots of nuclear power stations is one way of reducing our CO2 emissions and our dependence on fossil fuels, but it's not a universally popular option, to say the least.

It's also fair to say that if BA did not have a huge historical advantage in terms of routes and slots they would have gone bust years ago

d_c, I think the problem with this analysis is that the workers are actually fighting to retain more favourable employment terms than anyone else working in the industry (by some distance). At least in part because of the cost of those terms, their employer is on course to make a loss of ?600 - 750 million this year. BA cabin crew are like tube drivers with lipstick (in labour market terms) - their cause is about as just.

The idea that this isn't a political issue is misguided - it's supremely political Scientists have identified a problem that calls for action. Unfortunately, although there is a broad concensus about the problem, there is not much agreement about how to go about dealing with it (if you don't believe this, look at the rows between equally committed environmentalists about the utility of wind/wave power for one example). Decisions that involve changing laws, imposing taxes etc. are political decisions, like it or not. A decision to build nuclear power stations (rather than wind farms) to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, for example, is a political decision. It's because it is all about politics that all interested parties are madly producing propaganda. Environmentalists have long accepted that you don't get anywhere with balanced debate - you have to shout "THE WORLD IS DYING NOW AND YOU ARE KILLING IT - THROW AWAY YOUR GEORGE FOREMAN GRILL AND LIVE ON SEEDS - NOW!" and hope that you get a reaction. I'm the last person to defend New Labour but it's hardly a shock that a party + government utterly obsessed with 'presentation' should be spinning on this issue as well. It's worth adding that anyone who says deciding exactly what should be done is easy is as guilty of spinning as anyone else. Are you going to tell all the African nations that unless their people can afford hybrids they're better off not having cars? Good luck.

If he'd chased him, knocked him down, given him a kick for good measure, and sat on him until the cops arrived, I'd say well done, and I strongly suspect the cops would have done the same. He went way too far, however. I do think the sentence is on the long side tho'.

Completely impartially I am nominating Ipswich Town, UEFA Cup winners 1981 Come on you blues!

"That is one of the reasons that prosecution and defence Summing Ups are not usually transcribed and cannot be used as the basis for an Appeal in the English courts ? they are often wildly speculative." Sorry HAL, that's just not right. The whole of the proceedings are recorded and there is no rule preventing a defendant seeking to rely on something said in a speech to support an appeal. It will very rarely happen because the expectation would be that an objection would be raised at the time and the judge would remedy the situation. There's also plenty of appeal judgments which restrict what prosecution and defence can say in closing speeches, including preventing speculation. The example of 'speculation' you give is an interesting one. There's no direct witness evidence, but there is evidence that the victim had her throat cut, that she was exually assaulted, and that all three assailants had physical contact with her. There is also certain evidence about where in the room, and where on the body of the victim contact was made. There is also the general inference that can be drawn that the victim would have had to have been restrained. Is it speculation to advance the prosecution argument, or inference? I guess that was the issue in the trial, and the court were willing to draw the inferences.

Ipswich East Kilbride Huntingdon Cambridge Camden Town Golders Green Highbury Cambridge Milazzo, Sicily Islington Finsbury Park Spitalfields Whitechapel East Dulwich

Embrace it. It's great trotting out all that stuff I used ti hate as a kid - "I want, never gets" is a particular favourite. On the other hand, getting in from work and falling asleep in an armchair in front of the TV just like my stepdad used to) sends a slightly worrying message.

HAL, you have some slightly odd ideas about the way criminal trials work. Prosecutors present evidence and invite the tribunal of fact to draw inferences from the evidence to reach conclusions. Defendants do the same, tho' generally (but not exclusively) the evidence comes from their own testimony. I'd be surprised if Italy, or any jurisdiction, "allows" a defendant to lie, in the sense that there is no perjury type offence, but the fact that someone is not believed is not the same as their evidence being deliberately and demonstrably false. In practice, a tiny number of people are prosecuted for giving false evidence in their own defence, and that is a sensible position. Otherwise, an innocent defendant may not give evidence because they fear that if they are not believed they may face additional punishment for 'lying'. It would be odd if the prosecution were able to advance very different cases in two trials concerning the same events - I'm not sure if that happened in this case. In the UK all 3 would have been tried together.

If you eat rice more than once or twice a week, get a rice cooker (ignore *Bob*, follow the rest of the rice-eating world) If not, give it a rinse, equal volume of rice and water, up to the boil, lid on, turn it right down and wait for 15 minutes or so. When there are little holes in the surface of the rice, turn it off and leave it for 10 minutes or so (lid on).

The italian and english systems of criminal justice are poles apart, but in this case, just on the bare facts, knox and sollecito were squarely in the frame i.e. victim dead in the house she shared with knox, sollecito also had access, no evidence/faked evidence of an intruder, some forensic evidence tying both of them to the scene, admission + lies. btw those success figures for appeals are (I suspect) where leave has been given i.e. the Court of Appeal think there is some merit in it. That would generally have been after an appellant has had advice that an appeal is a runner. In those circumstances not so surprising that the % are high. Successful appeals represent a very small proportion of total convictions.

"I always the clue to be in the title: Sports Personality" Missing words? The personality bit has always been a misnomer, only truly wheeled out in years when no Brit had actually won anything at all.

Is it a poor list? Depends on whether you're talking charisma or achievement Captain of an Ashes winning test team, GP champion driver, a few other world champs in various sports Even Murray won 6 tournaments in 2009, the miserable b*gger. Anyway, I'm voting for....that bloke, you know....the famous one....no, it's gone.

"I also don?t like the fact that a single retailer is given the monopoly over the wedding gifts. I?m pretty sure it violates some sort of EU directives on cartel behaviour or antitrust legislation." WARNING - PEDANTRY A cartel, by definition, involves more than one business. On the other hand, there is 'abuse of dominance', prohibited by Chapter II Competion Act and Article 82 of the EC treaty. But I suspect the retialer in question just has a huge range of wedding listy type stuff spanning an agreeable lower-upper middle class price bracket.

Por old *Bob*...always the bridesmaid

?50 is plenty, ?75 generous, unless it's one of your own kids getting married, or maybe a sibling. A mate got invited to a wedding and was moaning to another guy about the excessive cost of stuff on the list (Selfridges, I think). The other guy, who is stinking rich, had also been invited and it emerged that he had been referred to another, even more expensive list (Harrods or some such). It turned out the happy couple had set up two lists and the card you got in your invite depended on how much they thought you would stump up. Nice.