Report comment

I have never understood the argument for limitation to apply to criminal cases. Why are you innocent just because in 1970 they did not have DNA testing? I can promise you, very few people sexually assaulted forget what happened - and if they do forget then the defendant is (rightly) more likely to walk. But the suggestion that a priest should get away with raping an alter boy just because the catholic church was very good at hiding him for 20 years sounds (and is) a disgusting suggestion.

As for the Right Honourable gentleman, I felt sorry for him that he had to endure what he did, but I do not have an ounce of sympathy for him that he cannot claim his £130,000 back. I bet he laughed it off in committee saying that rich people (ie MPs on £70K+) can afford it, so why should the tax payer pay. He now knows why that is a shameful way to treat the innocent, and he has no one to blame but himself, though he has strong grounds for being rude to Cameron, Osborne and Mr Greything.