h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's interesting to me that the same home news pages say that Estelle Morris has resigned from her job as education secretary because of probes by journalists into her private life. I thought she was taking the rap for the Exam results mess.

She could have toughed out the A levels thing-it is already old news in parliament and as IDS dropped a *huge* clanger with his 'worthless A Levels' remark.

I do think that the failure of the literacy standards was probably the last straw, but whatever the reason, it was remarkably brave and honest act for a politician.

I also have to say that as far as the other non-story goes, I have to agree with Malcolm Rifkind (agreeing with that git? I'm going potty. )who sad last night that there was a clear dividing line between 'The public is interested' and 'the public interest', and this story crosses the boundary very clearly.

I think the BBC are right not to name him. In terms of whether or not it is news, personally I agree with Malcolm Rifkind and Blues Shark too. However, I am one of the public who is interested. I have been completely obsessed with this story since it first started and can't wait to see how it plays out.

I use the same Tescos as Malcolm Rifkind you know!

Are we allowed to post anagrams of his name?

Whose name?

On a more serious note.

What if he is in fact innocent?
His carreer is already over in TV I suspect?

I despise the hypocritical tabloids personally

I'll give you a clue: the first letter of his name isn't A, E, V, K, Z or P.

"I despise the hypocritical tabloids personally "
Well of course you do, that's why they're there, to provide a centralised 'despisation' target for the nation. Otherwise people might start thinking politicians are not totally wonderous beings.

I hear a conspiracy theory approaching ...

This post has been removed.

I get the feeling that it's very hard for any celebrity or someone in a high profile case (eg Soham girls)to have a fair hearing, because of the way the media presents the cases. Even if the accused is found not guilty there's still an air of 'no smoke without fire' or 'there just wasn't good enough evidence to prove him/her guilty'.

Which is generally why there are laws about not naming sex offenders before they are found guilty.

Shame some newspapers don't follow the law whilst being very preachy in other aspects...

There's a good deal I'd like to say about Britain's vile and despicable tabloid press, but I'd get moderated. They have an awful lot to answer for, and they are rarely made to answer.

I have no idea how other countries' press behaves, but our gutter press makes me ashamed to be British.

On the subject of sailing close to the wind, I see that we have our first moderation.
Do we actually know that this is the same person who attacked Ulrika Jonsson? She hasn't said a word about his identity, but everyone seems to already be convinced.

I understood the police were investigating her claims... or am I just confused? It's entirely possible.

They have only had one reported case, which they are investigating. Jonsson has made no statement to the police, and neither have any of the however many women the newspapers are claiming have made allegations against him. Jonsson has also said that she does not intend to report the crime to the police.
At least, that was the situation as of last night.

We don't *know* that anybody attacked anybody. We know that Ulrika Jonnson alleges in her autobiography that she was attacked by somebody she hasn't named, and has refused to name. We know that another woman has made allegations that she was attacked and the police are investigating her allegations. And we know that the press, following an inadvertant (allegedly) slip by a Channel 5 reporter, have named somebody who they allege, or at least hint, is the man who attacked both these women. We also know that a third woman made allegations which were apparently connected but that they have been withdrawn. At least that's what I think we know - I too may be confused.

Much as it pains me to say it, I agree with Malcolm Rifkind as quoted above - the public interest is not the same as the public are interested. It's a mess, and now that the media has muddied the waters as they so often do, there can never be a proper resolution to this - any court case will be contaminated by the press reports, and those people publicly named will forever be associated with this affair, regardless of guilt. Whatever the shortcomings of our legal system, it HAS to be better than trial by media.

Has the third woman's allegation actually been withdrawn?! In my view, that would seem to strengthen the defendants case slightly.

Yes it has - if you take a look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2356231.stm you'll find a reference to the police receiving an allegation of indecent assault which was later withdrawn.