Wolfie

That one's as old as Pen, Gyps. Almost.

True. I hope Vorderman's tolerance of long queues in anticipation of Neil's expertise on the opposite sex proves as effective as her maths.

Good on ya', Pen. You can fulfil precisely what you preach by looking in the mirror every few minutes.

Despite resembling an 80s Barry Manilow/Nick Kershaw-hybrid in her youth, Vorders is ageing well, rather like a good bottle of claret. That arse could take more of a pounding than I could ever deliver.

Scuttle away.

Give me the choice of watching a BBC munter or Sky tart deliver an identical piece of news written by journalists attending the same press event, and I will opt for the legs and cleavage every time. Sex sells – and at 6am my eyes and ears are more likely to engage with a beddable beauty than BBC beast. Any red-blooded male who says otherwise is lying. My answer is as shallow as it is honest, and I feel no shame in my admission whatsoever.

Thanks for the salary lesson, Dross. You obviously knew how much I value the opinion of someone earning near-minimum wage who spends much of their waking hours scheduling shifts for burger-flippers and attempting to win over drunk, neck-tattooed chavs with free French fries.

What we do know is her taxpayer-funded salary is above six-figures but short of £150k. Let's fairly guesstimate £125k. If she wishes to add conviction to her plight, in which she felt strongly enough to be published in The Guardian (for which she will have been paid), perhaps she could contribute a proportion of her six-figure salary to attracting more working-classes to the BBC. This would help eliminate the overpowering whiff of hypocrisy in her passionate appearance in the leading left-wing press. Until such time I'll assume her to be yet another BBC presenter earning approximately 6-7 times the national average complaining about not getting paid enough.

A double-entry, Punkers. Not altogether unfamiliar, eh?

Please forgive me for failing to be more direct with my question-asking, Führer.

While I don't concur police by your sweeping generalisation are a bunch of 'backward testosterone driven middle aged men who regard the public as the enemy', I do see your point regarding Richard being nailed to a tree had anything incriminating been found. But this is the précis I was making earlier vis-a-vis a loophole in the law which can be utilised if you have: i) contacts, and ii) enough money. You mention Savile and Smith in your previous post, and such methods of concealment worked just fine for them during their lifetimes. I reiterate experienced CID detectives wouldn't have taken such risk without initial justification. On this occasion I think we can agree to disagree, as we'll get nowhere. That is not to say your opinion is however most welcome.

Absolute cockrot. Most police I've met or know conduct themselves with utmost professionalism. To suggest they were aiming for retribution against someone they had no evidence pinned against in the wake of Savile/Smith is absurd. I acknowledge those of the degree of experience investigating the suspicions surrounding Sir Cliff knew every trick in the book, but I vehemently believe there was a reason why those very suspicions came to light in the first place. No CID detectives of that standard of investigative background would have taken it upon themselves to raid his property without prior conviction. The very fact they tipped off the press suggests their credence, which eventually led to material being sent to the CPS.

Good point, though you knew very well the one I was trying to make.

True – but this very action reflects their confidence in the investigation at the time. Would you have allowed your children to have spent a week in Sir Cliff's house in leafy Berkshire?

I can't argue with the facts you present. But experienced officers from the Criminal Investigation Department, under the command of a Chief Superintendent, do not very publicly exercise their powers of authority without good reason. Those carrying out the 22-month investigation raided his home twice – which resulted in a police file of evidence being submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service. Something insinuates a possible loophole in UK law – perhaps borne from 'Sir' Cliff being in the fortunate position to afford the best possible legal team – which may have prevented him from suffering further public embarrassment. Besides, how can police raid the home of a very famous person, to conduct their criminal investigations, quietly? The news would have leaked sooner or later. Perhaps he's completely innocent, but there is seldom smoke without fire.

They make a lovely couple, and I'll wager their son will be brought up to be the well-mannered sort who'll push in the stools of others.

Speaking of which, where's Gyps?

Thank you explaining yourself to me. I don't wage war on others without reason. Arseholes, for example, hates dogs and advocates their mistreatment. IKTC is bigoted in a thoroughly misinformed and worrying manner. And there's Neil, in whom your index finger may well have been inserted on numerous occasions. Normally, I'd have sat back and happily watched the clique tear you a new sphincter. But when you took it upon yourself to disclose to others you are a GP, and started using medical terminology in an attempt to intimidate, you superciliously assumed others would sit back in awe of your portrayed superiority. Quite simply, claiming such status, and bringing your professional life with you to CC, if one exists at all, has made you utterly ripe for ridicule. Sadly, for you, you didn't see it coming because you naively underestimated the modus operandi of this site. Idiot.

I'm beginning to feel guilty for bickering with you, 'doctor', when I might have chosen to avoid your confrontation with others altogether. Not only has one portraying themself in a profession worthy of such respect made light of those suffering with AS, I calculate your comment to have been posted between 8.30-9.30am. Most odd, don't you think, for a practising GP? I can just imagine you at that time in the morning, sitting in your surgery office leather chair, perusing your computer screen's daily schedule with seasoned experience, stethoscope swathed around your neck, a waiting room brimming with coughing patients outside your door, quickly logging on to Cunts Corner to post a sneaky 150-word nomination about Oxfam. While you have taken the unusual step of presumptuously (and arrogantly) deciding to impress upon us your education and career as a GP, I think it is more likely you still spend 90% of your hours in the college library with your face buried in a book, aspiring to build such a career. Fraud.

Perhaps I ought to have said 'disorder' instead of illness, though I do appreciate the feedback of someone cantankerous enough to pick me up on this. You knew precisely what I meant.

Take a deep breath. Relax. Close your eyes and imagine you are one of your patients about to receive a prostate examination. I am merely attempting to have a discussion. Of course a prescription can be misdiagnosed – if the identification of the nature of an illness is incorrect in the first instance. Which aspect of my original question did you fail to grasp?

Let me get this straight. Are you claiming no GP has ever diagnosed the wrong illness?

To be fair, he was probably typing with one hand while writing his own Viagra prescription with the other.

Is this how you react towards your patients when they challenge you?

Get you with your FEV1s, HbA1cs and GPWSIs! Haven't you got misdiagnosed prescriptions to contemplate instead? That said, you've probably necked half a bottle of claret to numb the legacy of the half-dozen prostate examinations you've given today.