I suppose it could mean more than one offence against the same person, sherrardk; but I should think you're right. They must have found out something new to make them change their minds about talking to him. But it's still only "on suspicion".
I imagine that given the high-profile nature of the investigation, the Police wanted to make sure that they had all of their ducks in a row before they brought him in for questioning.
I suppose. But if he called them up and invited them to interview him, and they said no, it suggests they were missing quite a few ducks at that stage, which have since walked into the room.
I don't know, cath. This business of the police announcing in advance that they were planning arrests, but not just yet - if it had been me (heaven forbid) I'd have spent the time since then driving a steam roller back and forth over my hard drive and then burning my house down. And then a ticket to Bangkok.
I am getting quite sick of accusers going public though. This is not justice. Go to the police and if they have a case they should make an arrest. If you are tried and then found guilty then yes, name and shame to the highest degree.
Mud sticks, so anyone with a grudge can make an accusation and get what they want. And dont say it does not happen, because it does. It was a tactic New Labour used via their spin doctors for starters.
Starr seems to be protesting his innocence too much, even claims he was abused when he was young - a common excuse paedos use when confronted with their crimes
...and what does his young girlfriend see in him? He's 69 but looks about 80
He was and still is one of the funniest comedians of this generation and had a superb singing voice. When he was being interviewed on TV and ostensibly being serious, he still made me laugh.