Particulary like the last paragraph...

The relative values at work in the King case are interesting. King is an outcast, while Bill Wyman - who had a well-documented sexual relationship with an underage girl - is welcomed as a guest on The One Show. Is it because Wyman was a Rolling Stone, the epitome of supposed bad boy rock and roll hedonist cool, while King was a naff pop troubadour? Maybe his worst offences were merely those of making daft records and looking a bit too pleased with himself for a bit too long.

The Wyman angle proves to me beyond doubt that the media decide who is guilty and who isn't. A very well written piece.

And...

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/column...e/article7094203.ece

The only truly talented (and fabulously cynical) one among them was Jonathan King — who genuinely could storm the pop charts at will, under a hundred different disguises, and over a period of 40 years. The rest had at most four or five years in the sun.

Linky no worky.

he certainly gave you a good rap in the Times.

The Wyman angle is interesting as it does demonstrate the extraordinary bias against gays. Of course Wyman married so it made everything OK.

A fact I discovered not long ago when looking at my grandfather's and father's birth and marriage certicicates- I discovered that legally my strict old Grandfather was technically a pedo and got his wife up the duff when she was below the legal age with my father being born a month before they were married.

It's all in the presentation.

I've had 36 e-mails telling me about Rod Liddle's kind passing mention in the Sunday Times.