carries a column by Dominic Lawson questioning the jailing of old men for historical sex offences, you can start thinking that the tide may be turning. Is it good use of tax monies to be persecuting, let alone prosecuting, men in their 90s? I wondered about all those Nazis years ago. Should we have a cut off point?

Is our police force best used chasing up evidence and trawling for victims, spending hours on interviews and paperwork, urging people to complain about offences from decades ago, whether true or false?

Millions of pounds. Years of police work. Reams of paper. Months of court time. Millions of prison costs.

Is it worth it? Might budgets be better used? Hospitals? Schools? Lower taxes?

Very difficult questions. Like - do we need Trident which will cost c£35 billion to replace?

And which cost us about £10 billion to acquire - about the same amount that the British Exchequer spents paying Northern Ireland's net deficit, every year.

Maintenance costs for Trident are c£3 billion a year - and the system has never (or rarely) been used.


Schools, hospitals, cancer research, better policing - instead?

I'm told Trident was never used - and is unlikely to be(?).

The fear that 'rougue states' may be developing them is costing us dear.


Deterrent reasoning....

I think 90's far too old. You're lucky if you live that long, but deaths only just round the corner and a good number of people that age are losing their marbles. If you were senile or for some other reason kept forgetting or imagining things, very confused would you be fit to stand trial?

Dementia is "no excuse" in the strange British judicial system. Just because the criminal can't remember it, doesn't mean it never happened, the judge would say. Fair enough if there is evidence that it did. But when the only "evidence" is someone else saying it, you start looking around for Alice and The Red Queen.