...and in other news, the Daily Mail does a hatchet job on an Olympian athlete in order to fill a page up on its web site, readers comments indicate that a majority of readers now view The Mail Online simply to see how bad it is.

Story summed up as "We signed a monthly lease on this rental property and the landlord has given us six months to quit - Waaaah!"

[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2556333/Families-plea-Murray-theyre-evicted-make-way-hotel.html[/url

There'll be no foie gras on the menu then.

If it's Albert "devising" the menu, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find foie.

No chance.



[urlhttp://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/andy-murray-takes-foie-gras-off-the-menu-of-his-fivestar-18-million-hotel-8678643.html[/url

Hurrumph.

Foie Gras is no more or less evil than any other farming method, and it's bloody lovely! (twice a year, couldn't eat it frequently)

I suspect that many who consider the production of foie gras to be atrocious still eat eggs, say, that are battery produced.

My early vote for this as the Most Bizarre Claim 2014, and the Biggest Thread Drift 2014 simultaneously. (Unless they stuff the goose somewhere I don't know about).

It wasn't Standee who brought the conversation around to fine dining and, then, to foie gras.

And I'd make him right: anyone who imagines that gavage on, say, a really decent farm, is somehow worse than battery and factory farming – with the millions of animals that go through that process – is bonkers.

He said "than ANY OTHER FARMING METHOD". And you say he's right.

Wanna read it again?

Anyway, back to the plot. Is it right that DLT should face retrial after the last multi-charge fiasco? Or is it fair enough that he gets another session of gavage?

There are times when I can see the argument that there should be a retrial but this surely isn't one of them; a jury has had to sit through weeks of all the details and has acquitted on nearly all charges, and not found sufficient evidence to convict either absolutely or by majority on the remaining two. Given his acquittal on the large majority of charges, which should never have been brought, his age, and the huge impact the charges of which he was innocent have already caused on his life, I don't see the justice in letting the CPS have a second crack. Surely he's been punished enough already, even while not found guilty of any wrongdoing?

Okay – it's probably slightly more cruel than growing mung beans – although those beans have feelings too: you can hear them scream if you listen carefully as they're ripped from the ground.

Meh. I was the first and only person ever to point out on these very boards that these so called vegetarians are nothing more than sizeist. They are in fact happy to murder billions of life-forms by boiling their veg, (ripped from the ground, as you rightly point out, without anaesthetic) just as long as the lifeforms are microscopic and can't be seen. If bacteria were the size of hamsters, would they do it? No they wouldn't. Bleedin' 'ypocrites, the lot on 'em.

Its all becoming a bit of joke - Seems to me that the CPS are determined to get one of their very ropey cases to actually stick, so to stop people from questioning whether all these cases are worth the taxpayer's expense.

What I'm most intrigued to see, is what actual sentence DLT will get if found guilty for what is, basically, feeling a woman's boob without consent - If common sense is applied, it will be a small fine. Anything more will just be a knee jerk reaction to all the media circus that has been created with all these cases.

With that in mind, is all this expense really worth such a minor offence??

This is very true, two minor assault charges that would no doubt result in a Magistrates case, a fine, a disciplinary case at his place of work and possibly dismissal if it wasn't the first time.

Its obvious that the CPS have dug a very deep hole for themselves now, if these two charges do not stick then questions need to be asked of the director's recent statement to the effect that historical sex abuse allegations will be persued and prosecuted to a different level of proof than that of, say, a robbery with no witness or physical or forensic evidence.

It's small but dangerous step from historical to hysterical.

Before I start I am amazed that there is to be a retrial. BUT. Given that we have no idea what the jury were thinking during the first trial other than the questions that were asked of the judge during deliberation it might not be such a surprise. They did ask if they should find a person guilty as they believed the accuser. I don't have a link I only know from following the reporters at the trail on twitter.

Now this says quite a lot to me. Its an indication that the prosecution may have a case. I know no more than that. I am aware of the "culture" at the material time. But equally I am also aware of the law as it stood at the material time. So sexual touching was as bad then as it is now. Did he do it? I don't know, but I think to a certain extent its not for us, the CPS or a judge to decide, but for a jury. I suspect the make up of a jury will be a big deciding factor. A few men and women who are of retirement age may well swing it one way or the other. Rightly or wrongly.

Equally there appears to have been further allegations. Witch hunt or genuine? Police damned if the do and damned if they don't. Its a difficult one.

Some crone from the CPS was on earlier trying to defend these cases and stated that just because they are celebrities they shouldn't be treated any differently. I'd suggest that is exactly what they are doing.

You do have to wonder whether a non-celeb would face court, at least for a second time on these sort of charges. Also, given the fact that its been fairly well publicised that he was tried and "got off" last time, how are you going to find a jury member that isn't either biased against him completely, or determined to find him innocent? I'd have a hard time going into a trial against any 70s DJ without wanting to find them guilty of something.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with there being no statute of limitations on rape and child abuse.

But I have a massive problem with lives being ruined over allegations of a bit of groping from 30 years ago.

Since the Savile scandal, has there been an increase in the reporting of sex crimes by ordinary men, or is it just famous and probably rich men who were committing these crimes?

If the reporting of historical sex crimes against ordinary men hasn't risen, why is that? Is the thought of justice not enough to inspire women to right a wrong, does it also need a compensation claim to be worthy of reporting?

My general feeling is that most of the guys who are accused of being serial lechers, or having way too roving hands, of screwing everything and anything they could get their hands on, I think most of the reports are genuine. I think that DLT has probably groped hundreds of women. I think about 80% of these women were mildly offended by what he'd done, 10% were actually happy to have the attention of a famous guy and 10% spent a few hours with him in his hotel room later that night.

I think that the groping that some of these guys are accused of was a crime, is a crime, and should always be a crime. But it is not a crime that should be outside a statute of limitations.

We took that step quite some time ago.

On a note that's not unconnected, nice to see the [iDaily Mail[/i proving, once again, what a hypocritical piece of filth it is.

Attempting to smear people (and I dislike Harman personally) while at the same time continuing to profit from sexualising underage girls.

A private High Court hearing was held yesterday in which lawyers for 140 alleged victims of Jimmy Savile are attempting to set up a compensation scheme to claim from the £4million estate which has been mainly left to charity the reports on local radio yesterday were that "victims" could expect something in the region of £60,000 each and the lawyers group were appealing for any more "victims" to come forward and place their claims.

So yes, it needs a compensation scheme to attract "victims".

There were comments from random West Yorkshire citizens that compensation should consist of counseling rather than hard cash as some of the stories from the lawyers indicate that all these years later the "victims" are still suffering mental issues from the alleged abuse, counseling and medical treatment would seem to be the thing they all require most rather than £60,000 surely ?

Thread drift alert.

In 1987 in an ordinary West Yorks high school if a teacher spanked a boy on the , in front of a changing room full of kids, would he have been at risk of arrest/dismissal if the kid had pursued a complaint? Or were teachers still allowed to do that?

The reason that I ask was because that happened to me. I know that I thought he had no right to hit me like that, and I was fuming and seriously considering punching him in the face because I figured there was nothing he could do about it.

I quickly came to the conclusion that I really didn't need the fall out from being a kid who smacked a teacher so just got over it. But I am interested to know if he was allowed to discipline me like that.

I had thought that at that time, 1987, that teachers were not allowed to spank their pupils. I may be wrong but I am sure they aren't allowed to do that but maybe your teacher just didn't give a chuff about it. He certainly should not have done it front of others as that is out of order.

Sometimes its necessary to answer allegations almost irrespective of the morality of the accuser. The MP's expenses scandal first broke in the Telegraph when a former owner of the paper was serving time for fraud!

Even if its only the Mail, Harman needs to either answer the accusations or deny that they are factually accurate and sue.