all this "it doesn't matter if politicians took drugs 20 years ago" stuff - quite right - doesn't seem to chime with the media/legal attitude towards sex offences from 20-40 years ago.

That is very different from someone who did 35 miles an hour or smoked a joint.

And those are still crimes.

Having sex with someone of the same gender who is over 16 is now totally legal.

Which is why the authorities bend over backwards to make them claim to have been a week under 16.

The Cameron story on the front of the Mail today is a classic non-story and doesnt deserve the front page, it`s not been a particularly low news week.
We buy as many varied papers as possible here to get an increased view on things, but the headline on this one today doesnt even encourage me to read another story about what people did before they were famous.
The problem page, once again, answers the submitted problems with the initial question and the best bit is the baked scallops recipe.
Football results, of course, essential, but all the papers run them.


And, as you mentioned it, the ones that do 35 miles an hour ,whilst, smoking a joint don`t appear to exist. hmmmmm..A politician that allegedly did drugs at school is still spoon fed gossip to the masses.
I believe the papers should indeed keep us full of gossip and news (the chattering classes I believe we are called), but a lot of very good articles are still simply not included.
Sell, sell, sell of course, the only problem is?

They are not are they?