Margot

Sky Roberts and his wife have declared that their 'broken hearts have been lifted' at the news of Andrew's arrest. They ignore the fact that this arrest is on suspected charges of shared confidential information, not on the Giuffre allegations. They had earlier claimed that an email from Maxwell referring to the famous photo showed that Virginia was a 'truth teller' and that Andrew should face criminal charges. However, there are at least two problems with this line of argument. First, the two unsealed emails referring to the photo have largely been cherry-picked and presented part only of the facts. On the Maxwell email, little if any mention has been made of the fact that Maxwell had also said that she imagined that Virginia wanted to show the photo to friends and family, but that she had ' never asked her to give (Andrew) a massage.' The email from Andrew's Private Secretary is even more explicit: the publication of the photo cannot be taken as evidence of sex or proof of Virginia's allegations. It is seldom quoted. "You have published a photo. They did not have sex. They may have met in New York but I categorically state that PA did not grope [ ] and []. Nor did they have sex. There was no orgy in Little Saint James. " The second problem is that it is arguably Virginia's relatives themselves who are primarily responsible for the legitimate doubts that arise about their sister's reliability as a witness. A Times article on 4 September 2025 ('V G's publishers agree last -minute edits to her memoir'), quoted them as saying about the memoir that " Giuffre would not have supported the book's publication because it misrepresented her relationship with her husband.' Robert Giuffre was now described not as the good husband portrayed in the memoir who had helped to rescue her from the clutches of Epstein, but as an abuser himself - ' violent, abusive, and "emotionally and physically controlling"'. Yet the fact is that Robert Giuffre, who has yet to comment, had been granted a restraining order against his wife, and was also given custody of their children. The Times published extracts from Virginia's so-called "diary", largely from her point of view. If I remember rightly, Virginia's relatives also expressed doubts about her depiction of her father in the memoir as someone who abused her as a young child and who later accepted a payment from Epstein. These parallel stories, together with other inconsistencies in Virginia's account, are like two parallel and conflicting realities. We are expected to hold all of them together in our heads, and many people do. However, they cannot all be true. Could this be why it sometimes seems as if Andrew has been treated as Guilty Until Proved Innocent in the court of public opinion? Could it also be why we tend to hear only one side of this story, with those presenting a different point of view labelled as trolls?

Arguably, the opposite is the case. The disabled groups who claim that legalising assisted dying would give the terminally ill the impression that they have 'no choice' actually deny them the right of genuine, rational and personal choice. They are in effect prioritising their own views of the way the terminally ill are conditioned to think, instead of listening to what so many people with terminal illnesses have themselves told us. Namely that they have the intelligence and the judgment to make their own decisions about when and how to die if their suffering becomes unbearable. Isn't there a measure of ageism in denying mortally ill people at the end of life the right to choose because they are allegedly incapable of arriving at a free choice? When we have seen so many - dare I say - powerful -terminally ill people demonstrating the opposite?

“We’re talking about coercion almost on a state level.” @thelizcarr argues that legalising assisted dying risks giving disabled, terminally ill and elderly people who ‘feel like they are a burden’ the impression that they have ‘no choice’ but to end their lives. @AndrewMarr9

'The atmosphere in the room was productive - even friendly,' says Lyse Doucet. She adds that deep divisions remain. To me, it sounds like a step forward - the opening of dialogue. Equal communication. With any luck, they may gradually come to a compromise, without loss of face on either side. Or face Armageddon. #R4Today

@SaulStaniforth Pity this Labour Government - expected to provide more support for the poorest and more support for the differentials of some with better pay and pensions. At a time of heightened economic pressure.

Resident drs want a deal to restore their pay after a decade of Tory cuts. Wes Streeting says the BMA is trying to fleece #BBCBreakfast viewers Streeting is supposed to be an MP for the party of organised labour. In reality hes your typical right wing anti trade union politician

Sure, Peter Capaldi, Brits don't approve of swearing as a negotiating tactic. And nor do the Europeans. But could it possibly be that it makes more sense to some other nations that have been involved in conflicts with the US? Explaining some of Trump's undoubted successes so far? Be honest. #bbclaurak

Honestly - and why do people forget about the 'peace dividend' - and not just in this country either? Isn't that also something to do with the use of language, folk? #bbclaurak

Are the Lib Dems suggesting that the Iran War is irrelevant to the state of the economy - depending of how you 'counter-act' the pressures? #bbclaurak

Why isn't anyone on this programme commenting on the fact that while Iran is adamant that it does not intend to develop atomic weapons, these negotiations have allegedly broken down according to the Americans because - and I quote from a report in The Times - "the US has not yet heard an “affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon”. " Why is the emphasis almost exclusively on Trump's language from some of the panellists? #bbclaurak

' A distinction between what he says and how he says it - and then what he does ' Doesn't that apply more generally? True though, in a sense - after Suez 1956, the lesson learnt seemed to be that the UK should be careful about getting at loggerheads with America. The one exception was Harold Wilson. #bbclaurak

Odd that just as Artemis revealed the isolation of that tiny blue dot against the vast black grimness of galactic space, humans spent the best of their time on earth tearing one another apart and threatening Armageddon.

The creation of the Common Market was intended, in part - in Chancellor Adenauer's words- to be a response to Suez 1956: a recognition that individual European states could no longer compete with global powers. Almost seventy years after Suez 1956, is the European Union any more of a global power?

JUST IN: 🇫🇷 France says charging tolls to cross the Strait of Hormuz violates freedom of navigation.

Isn't it time to acknowledge that Anthony Eden was right in thinking that oil was the critical feature for Britain ( and Europe) in the Suez crisis? The thumb on the jugular vein? In the years that followed, the Suez Canal was closed for eight years during an energy crisis, European dependance on Russian oil proved problematic, and now, almost seventy years later, the Strait of Hormuz has in effect been closed. In 1956, it wasn't just the US that allied with Russia in the UN General Assembly to force a cease-fire to what had been up to that point a successful Anglo-French military campaign: the Labour Party also opposed it. Now, in 2026, is a Labour Government discovering the economic shocks that can flow from an oil crisis? #R4Today

Uncomfortable as it may be, isn't it odd - how the Trump-style ultra negotiating tactics seem to work ? "On Times Radio: Sarah Jones, policing minister, said President Trump’s threats to destroy Iranian civilisation were “unacceptable and wrong”. "

Quote - Reuters "Appearing unburdened after the successful rescue, Trump used ​harsh language on Sunday to threaten Tehran if it did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz for oil flows vital to the world economy."

Trump's foul language an extreme negotiating strategy when Iran shows no inclination to end its stranglehold on the world economy? #R4Today

An interesting turn of phrase in the Prince Harry v. Associated Newspapers trial. One barrister telling another that, in the absence of clear evidence, this other barrister had repeatedly asked him to "infer" or "extrapolate" from what was known, in a way that came "perilously close to reversing the burden of proof." So, was this top barrister raising what may not be an un-lawyerly question: at what point does inference and extrapolation tilt the "innocent until proved guilty" burden of proof into its reverse - "guilty until proved innocent"?