How not to respond to a bad review: Writing a letter to the reviewer, calling them 'bitter and unfulfilled' and inventing childish names. Like Chris de Burgh just has. Hasn't the stumpy peddler of mediocrity got enough money not to give a tinker's cuss what anyone thinks of him? Also, does he not realise that this very act shows him to be 'bitter and unfulfilled' himself? Why else would a multi-million selling artist need the validation of a newspaper critic? Is it because he knows he's NBG? Finally, referring to the reviewer, Peter Crawley, as 'Creepy Crawley' is a bit rich coming from one of the most sinister-looking creatures in the pop business.

Normally I have no interest in the comings and goings of Jack Tweed, but I found myself reading The Snu the other day and puzzling over a detail of the report of his arrest. Tweed has been charged with rape, but his co-accused has not. The paper described the sexual activity involved as a "roasting". Now, I have no practical experience of said manoeuvre, but my understanding of it is that it involves two gentlemen partaking equally of a lady's pleasures, one at each end. Not being a lawyer, I don't know how this works, but if it was rape, shouldn't both men have been charged? Can anyone explain to me why Tweed has been and his mate hasn't?