Lord Duckhunter

Groupies have always existed and I doubt very much that id was asked for or produced. It's part of rock and roll, what do you want a load of One Direction type bands. Whats so unacceptable about a star receiving favours from a groupie, both know what the score is.Unless these young girls thought they were going to become the next Yoko Ono and be the star's soul mate forever?

I watched The Daily Politics yeasterday. Andrew Neil is easily the best political interviewer around and makes polictians of all parties very uncomfortable with his akward questions. He asked Boris a lot of "no win" type questions (as he does) and Boris waffled a bit (as all polictians do). When Neil pointed out he wasn't answering the questions Boris said "I have to commend you on your tough line of questioning Andrew". It was only a little thing, but it came across as natural (well natural to Boris) and natural is what the public like about their MP's. He is a toff, comes over as a toff, but it's him. Cameron is a toff, who is trying to fool people that he isn't and failing miserable. The only politicans who has managed to pull off that trick in my lifetime was Tony Blair.He went to Scotland's poshest school, then Oxford, but managed to convince people he was one of them.Anthony Charles Lynton Blair became good old Tony and managed to reinvent himself as one of the plebs.

As we've seen from the Peel quotes, this was considered a "perk" of the job. No doubt the music idustry has a lot of dark secrets, where stars have taken advantage of their fame to use and abuse groupies and young girls. The media's response is very selective. Bill Wyman was banging a 14 year old, I wouldn't want Michael jackson baby sitting my kids, and the same week the witchhunt against saville was in full flow, Townsend was being interviewed by the very same media outlets. It's not new. The killer, Jerry Lee Lewis was married to his 13 year old cousin, Elvis met Preiscilla when she was 14. If you read Bill Graham's book most of the acts he promoted in the 60's & 70's were taking advantage of girls, hell it's one of the reasons blokes got into rock and roll. I laughed at Janet Street Porters outrage on question time, ranting about "some of the things going on in dressing rooms" before adding "although perfectly legal". Just because no star would want a blow job off her with those teeth, she seemed to find it all very distasteful. I find it strange that people are so outraged that stars took advantage of young women, what will be the next great revelation, that some stars took drugs or some were **** heads?

Would you accept this defence from a normal member of the public?

Look at the fuss the lefties made when it was withdrawn from millionaires, so it's always going to remain. You make a good point though. Child benefit is a handout, the less people that rely on government handouts the better, in my opinion.

Why on earth accept a caution and be placed on the sex offenders register then? I repeat, would you be so understanding if the "offense" was committed by a normal member of the public?

Sorry, but accepting a caution is accepting guilt. How many people would accept a caution for this type of crime if they were innocent? It seems that Saville is guilty, despite not having the chance to defend himself. But Townsend is innocent despite having the chance to prove his innocence , but accepting his guilt and being placed on the sex register. This "researching for a book" defence is interesting. Do we accept that defence from anybody or just famous people?

Correct, that was the final nail in the coffin for Private Companies FSS. Would Gordon have acted in the same way, if the consequences were the same for public sector pensions? The Times got a FOE ruling to allow treasury advice given to Brown in 1997-The confidential papers revealed advisers had forewarned him it could leave a "big hole" in pension funds. Ed Balls said at the time that it was "the best thing for long-term investment in the economy."

If we had signed Billy S in the summer, people would be jumping up and down about a lack of ambition and saying he wasn't premiership quality. Lambert has the touch of a premiership player and passes the ball like one. He also strikes a great ball, the only doubt anyone had about his ability to play in the top flight is his lack of pace. Billy S, nice bloke that he appears to be, is a championship player. Jay Rod and Mayuka could become decent premiership players, Billy never will .

It's funny how Pete Townsend got to close the Olympics, despite accepting a caution for looking at kiddie porn. Are people waiting for him to die before registering their outrage?

He went to the same primary school as Ed Milliband (who as we know from his wonderful speech, is just an ordinary joe), surprised he didn't put it in his speech.

He also indicated with his arms that Lambert was climbing over the top of the defender. A poor poor decision.

Sgt Bilko-Phil Silvers fantastic NYPD Blue-Great show, fantastically written and acted, particulary Dennis Franz as Andy Sipowicz, one of the greatest portrail of a cop there's ever been. Curb Your Enthusiasm- Larry David is a genius.

I guess it's about opinions, but I dont think he's defended correctly all season. I dont think he covered Fox particulary well on Sunday and he also gave away a silly free kick from which they hit the post. Most of the season he's left Fox pretty exposed, Arsenal being a prime example. I dont think he should be dropped, but shoud have come off on Sunday, I thought he ran out of ideas and some of his crosses towards the end weren't a patch on Fox's. I struggle to see how we can get enough of the ball to play him and GR in most away games.

So lets get this stright, you could "accept this as a go forward measure" , but only if it's done nicely by Labour?

Without wishing to upset anyone, I think there are two different "stories" here. In my mind there is a big difference in being a bona fide paedo praying on girls or boys who are clearly underage and taking advantage of your status and banging groupies without checking their age. Richard Manuael used to send the road crew out to take polaroids of the girls queuing up so he could decide which ones to allow into the dressing room. I'm sure he didn't also require the roadies to check id's as well. I've no doubt that nearly every single pop star must have used and absued a girl under the age of consent without realising. It appears nowadays if you sleep with a girl who is 15 and 11months old, you're a peado whether you knew her age or not. Glitter was clearly a peado, the jurys out with saville, but if you're going to start calling Peel a peado, then it's going to add a whole load of 60's and 70's rock and roll stars into that bag.

You also need to look at lallana's covering of Fox. Towards the end they were outnumbering us down that flank.

I thought Fox and Fonte did well at the back, but Jos is a liability. Maybe he'll be better against West Ham and their long ball, but he looks out of his depth at present. MS and Davis did well. I thought Punch & lallana flattered to deceive, I would have taken both off instead of RL. Also thought Guly did really well. It's ok people saying with GR we would have won, but they were missing 2 class players. Really needed the second goal in the first half when they were poor.

What was Saville's response to the above accusations?

Someone tweeted yesterday that his quote he wasn't "born to lead" (unlike Cameron), was a bit strange considering the last 2 in the Labour leadership election was him and his brother.

Saville was never convicted of a crime and is now dead, so can not defend himself. Not knowing one way or the other, I'd rather stick to the innocent until proved guilty camp, if that's ok with some of the witchhfinder generals on here. Innocent until proven guilty is the solid foundations that underpin a civilised justice system and it should apply to the dead as well as the living. Why is it that the media and popular culture fawn over the memory of Michael Jackson, yet trash this guy. Maybe it's down to the multi million pound Jackson brand that can afford it's teams of highly paid lawyers, as oppossed to some sad werido with no family. What about Pete Townsend, who now seems to be a national treasure.Perhaps Jimmy was touching up these nippers because he was reseaching a book. I'm not playing down what happened to these children (if it did), but I find it strange that the girl who alledged Glitters involvement didn't come forward when Glitter was convicted previously.

If it's all about money and value for money, why dont we just hive the head of state off to the highest bidder. If Alan Sugar bid more than her maj, then we'll get better value for money under King Al. Of course it wouldn't really be fair and create the feeling of "one nation", but the only difference that I can see it making is that King Al's first born would have to bid when old Sugar popped his clogs and so wouldn't be a shoe in for the top job. It would also cut down on the hangers on as I'm sure King Al's children would have proper jobs and not ponse about at tax payers expense.

His bit about Cameron writting a cheque for £40,000 to millionaires was pure class warfare that his father would be proud of. It also showed Labours attitude to tax and income. Their attitude is that this was governement money that was given back to the wealthy, when in fact it's their money and the Govenment has just decided to take less of it. It's also complete and utter ******s.Saying "millionaires" was disingenuous. Andrew Neil monstered Douglas Alexander on this popint when he repeated it on the Daily Politics. He said to Alxander "is Ed Milliband going to receive a £40,000 tax break" to which the reply was "of course not", Neil then said "well he's a millionaire, so whys he not getting it" to which the reply was "but he doesn't earn a million a year", Neil replied "exactly, so why did he claim millionaires , there's a massive difference between people worth a million and people earning a million a year, as you well know".

The problem with politicans today is that you can't disagree with anything they say. They all speak in terms that are so wholly there's no counter arguement. "We have/need a plan for growth", "we are on the side of hard working families", "we want the richest to pay their fair share", "we face difficult choices" What I found so fascinating about politics in the past has been lost in a mush of bland sound bites. There is no great divides and no great ideological debates, it is just one party of middle class wets slightly to the left argueing with another party of middle class wets slightly to the right. Politicans are led by focus groups instead of leading the public. Party conferences are now stage managed to aviod frightening the floating voters. It's all very sad, no wonder the turnout at elections is so poor.

On Talksport last night they said that if you took the calender year of 2012, then Everton would be third in the table behind Man Utd, Man City,and just above Arsenal . Notice anything about those teams? If Fulham, Stoke, Sunderland & WBA had our fixtures, how many points do you think they'd have. Yet none of those teams are expected to face a relegation battle. Look at Swansea, in September they have lost to Villa, Everton and Stoke, and drawn with Sunderland.In the same period we had Arsenal and Everton away and Man Utd at home. Only Villa was really winnable, which we did (the same shiete Villa that Swansea lost to). Norwich have let 5 in against Liverpool and Fulham and are yet to face any of the Manchester clubs or Arsenal.Readings fixyures have been easier than ours, yet they are yet to win. If we were in a mini league with Swansea, Norwich, QPR, Reading,do their back 4 look any better than ours? I'd back our fire power to outscore them every time. To come out of Sept out of the bottom 3 is a bonus as far as I'm concerned.