so, if he didn't do it...?

So, Tory MP Andrew Bridgen was yesterday 'released' from suspicion of having committed a sexual assault on a 29 year old woman who was reportedly connected to the Lib Dems in a report I read last week. Scotland Yard said that they have now dropped the case and no further enquiry or action is envisaged.

Is that it then? Did he do it but the police judged that, it being his word against hers, there would be no chance of a successful prosecution?

Perhaps the millionaire MP paid her to drop the charges?

Perhaps she sobered up and realised what she had done and admitted that her claims were false?

This wasn't a page 17 column 5 two-inches of 'newsprint' story, but front page in every newspaper and on the broadcast media and now it seems it has completely been dropped. Surely that cannot be right.  If it's a cover-up we should be told about it. If she lied to police in order to get this guy arrested then she should be named and prosecuted for at the very least wasting police time.

I don't give a stuff about the individuals involved in this case, the political parties involved etc., but the principle that an accused can be named in the media when the accusation is made but then, if the allegation is subsequently proved to be false, the accuser is niether named nor charged with any crime, must br wrong. It cannot be right in a fair society that reputations, relationships, marriages and public standing can be ruined by false allegation, without there being some jeopardy for the accuser.

I realise that women often find it difficult to make such accusations and that it can be a very intrusive and difficult process taking a case to prosecution, but if the accusation is false, motivated by malice or drink or perhaps some financial reward, then the perpetrator must face some kind of punnishment that goes at least some way towards matching the massive damage that can be sustained by the accused in such a case.

There have been a number of cases of teachers having their careers, marriages, lives ruined by false accusations by female students.  The law should be changed in this area so that justice can not only be done, but be seen to be done.

Can America please find a credible candidate?

On the one hand you have Clinton. yes he had his pecadilloes, but on a world stage he was - and still is - pure class. Understanding the world outside of the US and understanding the needs of the many in America and not just the few who have 'made it'. Obama is the same but better, more a man of the people and more welcomed by the international community as a just and reliable friend, a man who takes decisions and makes policy on the basis of fairness rather than small-minded and usually big-business ethics (or lack thereof).

We Brits have many many faults, that's a given, but we have welcomed Obama, believed in him, because we recognise his innate fairness, even-handedness, humility and belief in doing what's best for everyone, not just the 'fuck you' brigade. Not just the 'I'm alright jack' fraternity. Not the 'I've upped my income, up yours' suits. And I'm what you might call a conservative in the UK by the way.

But all nations and economies need strong and credible opponents to ensure that they are kept honest. To ensure that they continue to do the right things. To call them to account when required. Absolute power corrupts and all that.

With all due respect, Sarah Louise Palin on a Harley as a potential leader of the free world is a terrifying joke. Please, America, get your act together. We need you to, not just for the UK, but for the world and its future.

Oh the torment

I'm just so cut up about poor Natashia's torment about her 8-year affair with her brother in law Ryan Giggs as reported in the News of the Screws today.  Don't get me wrong, I think that Giggs is largely to blame and I have not read the gory details but I have to admit to being completely baffled by this and other recent so-called 'scandals'. Not just Giggs, but businessmen, bankers, slebs, film stars.. WHAT is wrong with these people? Both sides.

It seems clear to me that some women go into these relationships with a clear view that they will then sell their story to a tabloid. Some may take 8 years to come to that realisation and some will only act when the thing turns sour in order to gain some revenge. What I cannot understand is the sheer 'transactional' nature of the relationship if it ends up in the paper. Sure relationships fail, people fall out of love, but what sort of a society have we created when that failure leads to the threat of exposure and financial and reputational gain or loss?

From a completely Machiavellian viewpoint, if you earn £100,000 a week, can't you just 'provide' a couple of week's wages to induce memory loss? (I don't expect to win many admirers for that comment but be practical).

If the man involved is a predator using his status and wealth, and if he derives his wealth from the media and profile then he deserves what he gets. End of.

But don't the women involved realise that what they're doing is tantamount to blackmail? Or worse, that their actions are labeling them as members of the oldest profession?

The whole thing stinks to high heaven but the really sobering thing is that we, the public have created the environment in which this sort of behaviour is welcomed, demanded, lapped up.

And I'm spending time writing about it. shit.

Is Murray turning into Henman? And do we prefer it if he is?

Have to whisper this I think, but is Andy Murray tuning into the new Henman as far as British tennis is concerned? I'm not an expert on much, if anything, but it seems to me that Andy is becoming the perennial 'nearly man' just as 'Tiger Tim' (has there ever been a sillier moniker?) did in years past?

He's clearly a better player in today's non-serve-and-volley game - a shame on both counts in my view - but is he really any nearer to winning a slam? Yes he's been to semis and to finals, but he's not really been close to winning the title (if that can be said of a two-horse race, and I think in his case it can). And whilst all of the top players say that 'it's only a matter of time' for Andy, time is not waiting for him and others seem to be either moving ahead of him, or coming up fast and overtaking him. Many top players also said the same about Tim.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love him to win (love it), and it is a shame for him that he is in an era when Rafa and Roger and Novak are playing stunning tennis, but it seems to me that whilst he has 99.9% of what it takes, it's the last 0.1% that delivers greatness. And if you think my comparison is silly, only Pete Sampras won more matches at Wimbledon than Henman during Tim's prime years.

I hope I'm wrong, but on the other hand I'm not sure what we Brits would make of a true tennis winner. There'd be mass confusion in Britain.  The Scots would certainly claim him as all Scottish (quite rightly) and the English would then probably find a way to knock him down. We seem to prefer our winners really to be valiant losers if at all possible.  We certainly would not want a Brit to be winning easily.  That would be very poor form. But hey, we don't need to worry on that score do we?

all tied up in language

An American tweeter whom I follow described a recent European championship game which ended in a 2-1 win for Germany over Austria stating that Austria played well enough for the game to have been a tie. I gently (and with humour) pointed out that if it had finished 1-1 it would have been a 'draw', and not a tie as far as we on this side of the pond are concerned. He, typically, took my comment in good faith with a smile but it got me thinking. Nothing new to see differences in the same language depending upon where one lives, but actually, if you think about it, the game was a tie.  A cup tie. If it had finished with scores level it would have been a draw and if it had been in a knockout competition, this would have meant that both teams would then have gone forward into the 'draw' for the next round. And the replay, given added importance, would then have been an even greater 'draw' for the fans to watch. Then one of the teams would need to have won the replay in order to win the 'tie' and progress into the next round of the competition. So they would have won the 'tie' and gone on into the draw for the next round, arguably 'drawing' even bigger crowds as the competition increases.

In test cricket, you can play a match for five whole days and end up with neither team winning - and the result could either be a draw or a tie, but not both. A draw would be if they ran out of time for one team to win.  A tie would be if both teams finished on the same scores, in this case it would be a tie rather than a draw. And, perhaps surprisingly to many on the other side of the pond, whilst the draw could certainly provide a more exiting game than if one team had won, a 'tie' almost certainly would be much more exciting than either a win or a draw.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on winners, losers and drawers, although the latter tends to be where one keeps one's socks.