What annoyed you (in the news) today?

Doesn't that imply anyone who takes out fully comp insurance is hedging against being a selfish moron? Isn't it the point that you insure against your own mistakes? If they don't pay out then, maybe they won't pay out when I dunno you scrape your car going through one of those traffic calming width reducer things....

None, as no libel has been committed. The press is simply reporting the facts, namely that the police have made a statement saying that he has been charged. Actually, the Police initial statement didn't name him, as I understand it. They just said that "...a man aged .... has been charged with". It was his own letter to the party that 'outed' him - along with the prior deletion of this social media accounts etc. - and hence the press are reporting that. 

If he is found not guilty, it will create as big headlines as the initial charges. That will be his vindication. Not sure what else one might or could expect. The press can't apologies or repay him for reporting that he announced his resignation due to charges of rape brought by the PSNI. 

Not being named before being found guilty is the system in NL and Belgium. As suggested, it does stop speculation in the press about individuals who might be innocent. One thinks of the guy in Bristol, Christopher Someone, whom the gutter press tried and found guilty before the police found the actual culprit.

In the Jill Dando case, having arrested the local weirdo, the press baying for blood, the police concentrated on constructing a flimsy case where had they been under less pressure they might gave spent time finding the murderer.

If there were signs leading up to it saying road ahead closed and you still tried to go through it maybe. You usually seem to be covered for stupidity though. I guess an accident is an accident a deliberate is not an accident, so might be a bit borderline, you would be sensible to say you didn't see the signs rather than I saw them and ignored them. I don't know what the guy in question said.

On the second point: possibly. Its probably very difficult to prevent leaks in such high profile cases, though not necessarily impossible. But on the general point: it would have come out when it came to trial, regardless. We have a system - arguably rightly so - where Crown Court cases are public. So at some point it is inevitable. Also, he has a defence to prepare, and probably further interviews with the police I would expect. That is going to be time consuming, and increasingly difficult to keep secret for such a public figure.

Also entirely possible that the party's rules require senior leadership to declare to the party chairman if they are about to be charged with a serious offence.  Speculation on my part, but not exactly unlikely. And even if it didn't, it would likely be viewed that trying to hang onto his leadership position while fighting such a serious charge was not good for the party, on several fronts, including 'distraction' from the job he is meant to be doing. 

It would probably have been considered pretty poor political "optics" for him to have carried on regardless and then have it come out when the case was filed for hearing. I would imagine the party would have considered that to have been a bit of a betrayal. 

Politically, its difficult to see that he had any choice, whatever the merits of the actual case. 

Life?

Golf