Completely agree that all of the contributors have been good.

To give 1 example, "force and coercion aren't always physical." Completely agree. Point well made.

However, IMO worth bearing in mind that, amidst all the Lawyer-driven "victim" stiff, I have not seen a single allegation relating to coercion. To give 1 example, worth remembering what Virginia Giuffre said in her own book in relation to how she met Epstein. She was working for Donald J Trump at the time, as a Receptionist. And was publicly reading a book on how to be a masseuse.

Having some experience in representing the scandalised super-rich, would also mention this. It is very easy for an insanely rich person to use Lawyers to coerce people into only saying what they want them to say. Because people who have spare £millions can scare people who do not.

Meanwhile, the Headlines today beggar belief. The main story is Man (Andrew) is moving from House A owned by his Brother, to House B owned by his brother, while repairs are carried out to House C, owned by his Brother. All of which was agreed, and reported on, months ago. When it was mildly relevant. That and Police are (supposedly) investigating whether a Man in his 50s had consensual sex with a Woman in her mid-20s. 15 years ago. Which might have been paid for by a man who is not able to be questioned, on account of being dead.

What a colossal waste of time.

The World is always changing.

The internet gave us all an enormous opportunity to learn and to converse.

Then, sadly, people started yelling and causing stress. So people stopped conversing with everyone except like-minded people. Which is rather sad.

I enjoy discourse with people who disagree with me. Particularly when (as on here) people do so with reasoned arguments. I learn from people with different points of view. As should everybody

The Royal Family has had a huge problem for Decades in relation to the whole "heir and a spare" thing.

Ever since George VI was promoted (unready) to the top job at the last minute the 2nd in lines have been car crashes. Andrew doesn't look that out of place with Margaret and Harry. Spend years training for a job, then heir has kids, and there is nothing to fall back on.

My wife met Mandelson recently. She has no interest at all in Politics-and didn't have a clue who he was
The Mandelson thing is rather more important than Andrew in various respects. I'll forgive a sad man looking for a shag quicker than selling info on the sly.

For all the fuss about Epstein's Parties-and he did seem to have most of the World's elite at them-fact remains the only people getting heat are Bungalow Andrew, a Gay Man and 2 Women (Fergie and G. Maxwell).

The Billionaires seem strangely missing...

That's the good bit about debate. Because different people see things different ways. In my career, I had the dubious pleasure of advising both for and against many paedophiles. They are not just 1 group of people to be lumped into the same box. Life is more complicated than that.

Was Epstein a paedophile? We will never know. Not least because, while he was charged with various offences involving 14-yr-olds (in 2008), those cases were dropped.

The next point to make is that what constitutes either a "paedo" or a "sex trafficker" varies. Not only from Country to Country, but also from State to State.

The US (unlike the UK) has different rules relating to the legal age of consent, both for the act itself, and again for the age someone can charge for it. And, in some States, what me might term "pimping" has a lot wider definition.

To put that in a context that might resonate with Poker Players, what might meet the legal definitions in, say, Nevada, is 21. So any porn involving people who have not been proved to be over 21 is illegal. And anybody viewing UK porn in, say, Las Vegas is likely to be viewed as, technically, a paedophile.

In this instance, various legal arrangements in Florida became illegal once 17-20 year-olds were flown elsewhere.

The idea that there is something inherently wrong with trading trips to Buck House in return for cash or favours is faintly amusing. It's why we have a Royal Family. Why else do you think that Intellectual pygmy Andrew was a Trade Envoy for years? Why else is Trump (or various mass murderers) invited to Buck House?

Epstein's specialties were 2 fold.

1. Giving specialised financial and tax advice to the mega-rich; and
2. Being a supremely gifted networker. Long before Andrew. And to people infinitely wealthier. Which is, of course why the American Left just shout about Trump and Musk, while the American Right shout about Clinton and Gates.

Whereas, of course, the 1 thing both sides can agree on is finger-pointing at foreigners. And our Press love selling papers with lurid details dressed up as outrage. Always have. Always will.

Having said all that, the Maitliss interview was funny. I suspected Andrew was the man who put "genital" in "congenital idiot". What I didn't know is that there was no-one capable of stopping him making such a public fool out of himself.

We live in an increasingly mad World.

L am no particular fan of the Royal Family. I have never met Andrew. Various friends of mine have, and were generally pretty unimpressed.

But this pile-on is ridiculous. What exactly is he supposed to have done wrong? Entitled rich middle-aged man partakes of some beautiful 20-something women? Ooh, he must be really unique there. Not.

I can see various American Lawyers circling. Trying to get rich. Since when is a 26 year old woman choosing to fly halfway round the World to shag a man she has never previously met, in return for large amounts of cash, a "victim" ?

The World has gone mad. If a 26 year old woman gives it away, she is still in danger of being derided as a slag (for reasons that escape me, women are never "players"). If they charge £200 they are derided as a prostitute. Charge £20,000? A "victim".

The Man is a fool. A liar. And not someone who lives by values that I agree with.

All of this is just a smokescreen to divert attention away from the people who are still rich and powerful. Presidents. And ex-Presidents. Republicans. And Democrats.

Rant over

I'm one of those woolly liberals, so of course I think such punishments are both barbaric and wrong.

However, for balance, I believe it is for every Country (or, in this case, region) to make its own Laws. And people have to make their own judgment calls about whether to break Laws.

There's lots of Laws in this country (never mind Sharia or Trump Law) that I profoundly disagree with. There's lot to be said for trying to change repressive Laws. But if people choose to live in Aceh (as opposed to pretty much everywhere else in Indonesia-it is the only state to practice Sharia Law) then people need to modify their behaviours.

The big problem with so-called deterrents is, simply, that they do not work. Because very few Criminals seem to be able to factor in the risk of getting caught, and risk/reward. Typical example is Armed Robbery. I recall 4 men getting 14 years inside each for robbing a petrol station. For £200-between the 4 of them.

Against that, certain Arab States will say that there are not many 1-handed pickpockets

You said recently that "AI has its dark side". Something that I find interesting.

I decided to retire about 10 years ago. And have done no Law since. But I recently asked a good friend how AI has changed Law. And his reply shocked me. In 2 major ways.

Firstly, it is having a devastating effect on job security. Literally thousands of mid-level Solicitors are going. The only survivors are proving to be the very best and the Minimum waged. Not in all fields (never needed a brain to do Conveyancing). But things like Litigation are being transformed. Knowledge is no longer relevant.

Secondly, forget the notion that AI is some sort of higher, non-judgmental power. The reverse is true. Suppose you want AI to draft legal proceedings. No-one just asks AI to draft proceedings. The instruction is "do it in the style of me" (having supplied AI with 2-3 previous draft pleadings) or "do it in the style of Boris Johnson, or Jeremy Corbyn or Donald Trump". And AI regularly tells BOTH sides they are likely to win

This isn't just confined to Law. So (for example) the Daily Express (or Mirror) have got rid of nearly all their journalists. And just churn out the same recycled AI ad nauseam. So (for example) every Friday the Express repeats the same article showing the best 30 seconds for the Right on Question Time. And every single week the Left (apparently) get "skewered"

The World is changing. And not in a good way.

Heard some fascinating stories about the Teekster from someone called Ronnie de Beauloux (yes, really) a while back. Recall a certain Vladimir Putin being in 1

Playing less poker these days. Used to love playing live, particularly in Vegas, but the Diabetes means there are days when my energy levels plummet without warning.

Still playing on Sky, but probably only about twice a week. The Sky exclusive MTTs appear to have just the same old faces. It always had a massive problem attracting new players. It should have been able to entice various players from other i-poker skins, but it just hasn't happened. It really needed an agreement with Grosvenor for one another's live qualifiers.

[that]

23:50 on 31/12/96 for me. Having spent years struggling to give up, just told myself I was going to enjoy not smoking even more than I had smoking (because I genuinely enjoyed it).

Found it easy. Having previously failed countless times. Just what worked for me.

Thought I would share a joke my Dad used to tell. Which started in the Great War, and was told by him and various mates during WW2. I was reminded of it by the spectacularly stupid comments of the draft-dodging toddler today...

Soldier has been in the trenches for weeks on end. It all gets too much, and trench fever gets him. He throws down his gun, and runs away from the front line. Then he hears a voice-saying "Where do you think you are going, you horrible little man"

He replied "Sorry Sgt Major, I got trench fever, and..."

"It's not Sgt Major-this is Colonel X, your Commanding Officer"

"F.ck me. I didn't know I'd run that far..."

I do not believe any 1 country, or trading entity, has the power to decide what is best for the entire World.

From a UK/European perspective, the biggest threats appear to be coming from Washington DC and Florida. Perhaps Denmark might suggest a trade of the 2 areas It might be nice to briefly imagine a world without the dementia-crazed toddler. But the World is not like that.

Trump is (appropriately) full of hot air. But he is exactly the sort of crazed loon who might believe that the World does not need to exist if it hasn't got him in it.

Seriously-what was America thinking when it voted in a man who will be 80 this year? I'm 63. I couldn't run a bath...

Or the enut job

I don't see the Govt (of every type) doing anything about gambling when it suits them.

Take the National Lottery, for example. Zero safeguards in relation to lottery tickets and scratch cards. Even changed the Law for several years to catch 16 year olds. Shops and Pubs have all sorts of rules top abide by-but pretty much none for scratch card gamblers.

For the vast majority of gamblers, drinkers etc, they are merely choosing to spend some of their own money for enjoyment. And, unless harm is being caused, it should be absolutely no-one else's business.

Here's a simple idea. Not perfect-but a start. Just monitor anyone spending more than £100 a month from a bank account on gambling

Hi enut.

Almost impossible to say the effect of this on crime figures, both in the short and longer-term.

In the short-term, there are clearly effects on certain types of crime. Low level theft and drug dealing are clearly 2 offences where delay causes massive problems. But it is the longer-term that frightens me. Many of the most serious crimes are the result of long-term escalation. A mass murderer may start by hurting animals at a young age. A wife murderer normally has a campaign of escalating abuse, with Police called multiple times.

Most of the Courts have already gone. When I started out in Law, I was (and still am) living in North East Essex. The 2 nearest Criminal Courts were Harwich and Colchester. The nearest Civil Courts were Clacton and Colchester. 3 of those 4 have shut, been sold, and the money not reinvested. The nearest Criminal Court is 20 miles away (Colchester Mags). The nearest Civil Court is Chelmsford-45 miles away. Nearest Crown Court also 45 miles away. No Employment Tribunal in Essex-good luck finding Bury St Edmunds. More Courts in Essex (and England) have shut in the last 40 years than are now open. Same goes for Police Stations.

People struggle to get to Court, particularly witnesses and jurors. Judges have no local knowledge. A friend told me that in Suffolk matters are so bad that Ipswich Crown Court are transferrig hundreds of cases to Cambridge. Delay rewards the Guilty and penalises the Innocent.

[Start]

As per usual there is a load of complete nonsense being written about this topic. Some of it is because the usual news outlets don't actually employ many journalists, and most of the few that still exist just trot out their Party line.

There are also people trying to hide their vested interests behind rampant bollo. From Tories pretending it wasn't their underinvestment that caused the problem, to Criminal Barristers banging on about the "right" to trial by jury, conveniently omitting to mention the massive difference to their potential pay.

I'm a former Solicitor (and, before that, a Barrister-at-Law). I have no vested interest. So here is my version of the reality of this situation.

There are 3 categories of Criminal Offences. Known as (1) Summary-only; (2) Indictment-only; and (3) Either-Way Offences.

The vast majority are (1)-no right to a Jury for those. Only a very few of the most serious offences are (2), which must be heard by a Jury. (3) are the key to change-these offences may carry big prison sentences, but typically do not.

Large amounts of Courts have shut. Because they were not making a "profit". Causing a massive logjam. Currently, if someone were to be formally charged with Rape today, the logjam means the actual Case will not Start until early 2030. That has massive implications. To give 2 obvious examples, large amounts of people will either be in Prison for 4 years for something they didn't do, or large amounts of the Guilty ones will be on the Streets for the next 4 years. Secondly, a considerable number of Guilty people will be found Not Guilty, because Witnesses will die/get dementia, and memories will fade or become less convincing. That's before factoring the marginal cases dropped and/or plea bargains agreed to due to time pressures

It always used to be a close call when advising people facing "either way" offences. On the 1 hand, Juries are more likely to acquit than Judges-simply because they haven't heard the same stories a thousand times before. On the other, people convicted by Juries get harsher Sentences than those convicted by Judges. However, it is now the case that severe delays mean it is more often in the Accused's interest to opt for a Jury Trial. That in turn causes a ripple effect on future cases.

The change is necessary. The Debate should be whether it is a Temporary or Permanent change

Long retired now. But I still find Law interesting. Thought I would give some brief thoughts on the BBC and Panorama/Trump.

1. People seem to have polarised opinions about both the BBC and the Donald. Neither of which are all good or all bad-despite what people would have you believe

2. The BBC desperately tries to be independent. Unlike almost all of its rivals, who just want to push their own narrow agendas to the exclusion of everything else. When was the last time GB News or the Mail. or the Mirror, gave a balanced, reasoned opinion?

3. Doesn't mean that the BBC always succeeds, or that there are not people within it with their own biases. That Panorama mash-up was terrible. Unlike various other things that its critics try to lump in with it

4. The timing of the Trump threats are very deliberate. This happened 13 months ago. The time limit for an English Defamation action is 1 year. An English Company, funded by the British Taxpayer, broadcast a potentially Defamatory programme in the UK (not America) 13 months ago. The timing is deliberate-designed to prevent any action being heard where it should have been-here. What is known in the trade as "forum shopping"

5. I don't claim to be a Floridan Law expert. But the Donald faces 2 massive hurdles:-

(1) He needs to show reputational damage (in England, that is "lowered in the estimation of right-thinking people"). For most of us, that would be easy. But this is the most marmite character in history. His fans follow him regardless. Likewise his detractors. This is a man who won the votes of the US electorate, twice, regardless of massive bad publicity-far, far bigger than anything the BBC may have done. His reputation seems remarkably resilient

(2) In Floridan Law Defamation needs to include "malice". Trying to prove that someone defames deliberately, rather than stupidly, is a minefield

6. Why is this action not in the UK? Simple. Damages would be in the tens of thousands, not hundreds of millions. And Defamation actions in England stop if the Claimant dies. This sort of action in England would likely outlast a man who is 80 next June