with his bizarre idea, believed to have been inspired by his computer crazy son.” Apparently, a degree in technology qualifies you for the description “computer crazy”. The same paper described Zobel on Tuesday as “a maverick judge who refuses to watch TV”, and the following day clearly saw his “bizarre decision” to post his ruling on the Internet as confirming his oddness. The Sun used the headline “Internut”, said “Judge is a disgrace” and pointed out that “Louise may have to wait up to three days more in jail before being brought to court and told in person.” The judge had “caused fury … The British press has, unsurprisingly, generally taken the side of the defendant, and, in the absence of any hard news to report, been busy vilifying American justice in general and the judge in particular. On Tuesday, the Mirror’s front page was adorned with a picture of the Statue of Liberty, and the words: “If this statue means anything to America, Louise Woodward will today be given back her LIBERTY”.

The Mail described it as a “travesty” and said that “nothing has been properly resolved”. The Times headed their report: “Verdict casts doubt on disciplinary system” and said that “there can be no absolute proof that such payments were or were not made”. The committee had been “split over the charge that mattered most”. That was presumably not the same 9-0 split that we read about in the Guardian. It was left to Simon Hoggart in – surprisingly enough – the Guardian to explain precisely what the committee had agreed: “Faced with the question of whether, apart from all his other wrongdoings, he had actually taken cash in brown envelopes, the Committee’s conclusions were – and I paraphrase – 1) Search us, squire, 2) How would we know, eh? and 3) You’re asking the wrong blokes, you are.The Louise Woodward story ran all week, as we waited for Judge Zobel’s ruling. Hardly surprising, then, that with her back to young Harry, he didn’t know where to look. Only the Times had a picture of a group of topless dancers facing their audience, though they looked rather younger than the lady in the other picture, as well as being of uncertain gender.

Equally uncertain was the verdict of the Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges on the Neil Hamilton affair. The Guardian, which Hamilton had tried unsuccessfully to sue, was still in gloating mood and headlined its story: “Nine votes to nil – he took the cash.” The words were taken (loosely) from a facing quote by Robert Sheldon, a member of the Committee, who said: “The decision neither to add nor subtract to Sir Gordon’s findings means we have accepted his words that there is compelling evidence he took cash from Mohamed Al Fayed. And that was agreed by nine votes to nil.” This was not how the other papers saw it.
“Hamilton inquiry fails to reach verdict on key issue,” said the Telegraph, which also quoted an unnamed member of the committee as describing the result as “a discreditable shambles”. The dancer in the picture they predominantly chose was facing the camera, not the two princes. The Mirror also said that Harry didn’t know where to look, “But soon he took a close interest from his front row seat”. The Express had Harry asking: “Which Spice Girl’s that, Dad?” and said that he “looked a little shy”, while the Sun also said that “the young prince was shy at first, but soon displayed typical Royal coolness.” The Telegraph described the British royals as “confronted by a group of topless dancers” but said it was an “eye-opening experience” for Harry, and asserted that “neither prep school nor family anecdotes can quite prepare a 13-year-old boy for the sight of 21 bare-breasted maidens gyrating just a few feet away.” But think back to that picture.

It showed the Princes Harry and Charles watching a topless dancer. The Mail had Charles saying to his son: “I say, Harry, what an amazing pair of ankles,” and reported that the young prince “did not know where to look”, before he eventually “settled for resolutely contemplating the ground”. One picture appeared last week in almost every paper You must have seen it. Whether they will stretch in the directions he wishes is another matter.In an article about the Royal Opera House last week, I reported the rumour that Vivien Duffield asked for cast changes when she attended the ballet She tells me this is quite untrue I regret the error..