Thank you KS55. The thing is that has been explained to death and quite clearly already in this thread by different people including projectriver. It did not appear to me to be explained with equal clarity in that Mail piece, and I was wondering why. Perhaps it is just me who cannot read English properly, or is it perhaps the lawyer who goes very far in order to allow for the possibility that what we are charged with might be true? If the charges are so hard to prove (what was the term? Balance of probability?) then why is that article not reflecting that? The article gave me the impression that the PL has a good chance of winning this battle. That is not really the impression I have from this present thread. Why the discrepancy? Or am I reading the article all wrong?