The Official Rules of Drinking Pro Evolution Soccer (or Drinking Pro Evo)

(NB This is for the Playstation version of Pro Evolution Soccer. It should be easy enough to transfer to other versions)

1.1 Matches are decided over two legs, with away goals, and penalty shoot outs if necessary.

1.2 Both players pick a random team by holding the Square button while looking at each other and counting to three, letting go of Square at the same time ON three.

1.3 When two teams are selected, the strips must be selected to be as similar as possible (eg two predominantly white strips, if possible).

1.4 The lineups must be the default selections, and remain so over the two legs, with no substitutions, or tactical adjustments permitted.

2.1 During Gameplay, before the start of each half, at the final whistle, and any stoppage in play, a drink must be consumed. A player may not continue until his/her drink is consumed, and returned to it's resting surface.

2.2 The game cannot be paused for any reason. If a player pauses for any reason, they must immediately consume two fingers of drink (or any other pre-approved unit), while the game continues to be played by their opponent.

2.2.1 If a player's drink is depleted, he/she must restock while the game continues in their absence. Any opportunities to drink that an absent player missed must be honoured with two fingers of drink (or any other pre-approved unit).

2.3 Any time a player concedes a goal, they must consume two fingers of drink (or any other pre-approved unit).

3.1 The winner after two legs has to be presented with the winner's trophy, which is a shot (ideally in a miniature trophy), concocted by the losing player, of any combination of alcoholic beverages, and edible solids.

3.2 The victory must be captured in visual record for historical posterity.

4.1 The match is replayed with different teams, selected at random (holding L1 and Square and counting to three, cf rule 1.2), and continued ad nauseam ad infinitum.

Quentin Letts is one of the better writers in the Mail, which, i know isn't actually saying much. His snide gossipy columns on the day-to-days inside the Palace of Westminster are some of the closest things I have encountered to intelligent right wing opinion. Today, he was writing a sketch about the Westminster village having some websites blocked, including a joke site that compared Tony and Cherie Blair to a horse's arse. However, the Mail Online sub editors obviously feared the wrath of their dictator boss, Paul Dacre, because the wrote the address of the website with spaces in it, so it wouldn't be picked up as a link. Heaven forfend that the Mail should be seen to be responsible for a traffic spike to http://www.filthyjokes.freeserve.co.uk/.

Homophobe Iris Robinson reveals she attempted suicide over her own infidelities

Tonight Iris Robinson, wife of DUP leader Peter, admitted that she attempted suicide (H/T Centre Right, Conservative Home) at one stage last year after she had engaged in an extra-marital affair. This is the MP who famously declared that homosexuality was worse than child sexual abuse, and she of the expenses fiddling.

She had already declared her intention to stand down between Christmas and New Years - a notoriously slow time for regional news (ever notice how the rolling news channels focus heavily on international events in this period?), and now she buries this disclosure under the UDA's decommissioning announcement. She has certainly shown incredible cowardice in the public face of this episode of her political life - something you could hardly accuse her of previously. She's going now, but will hardly be missed.

Ian Hislop, Alan Rusbridger, and Colin Myler as witnesses for the Commons Media select committee

Ian Hislop, the editor of the Private Eye, Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, Colin Myler, current editor of the News of the World (NOTW), as well as his newspaper's lawyer, Tom Crone, were before the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee today, in their capacity as witnesses in the Committees ongoing investigation into Press Standards, Libel and Privacy.

The NOTW representatives were interviewed first, and then separately Hislop and Rusbridger were interviewed as a pair. I found Myler to be the most reasonable sounding editor of the right-wing press that I have seen so far, and certainly his answers seemed closer to reality than Mail or Express editors'.

On a seperate note, relating to the fact I was questioned multiple times on a previous visit by Westminister officials, the last two times I went to the Palace of Westminster, my trip was largely uneventful in this regard. I will excuse that one time and suggest that there was heightened tension due to the fact that it was Budget Day.

Myler was speaking under a cloud of the impending libel case brought by Max Mosley, meaning some of what he said may jeopardise the trial, which may explain the presence of Crone, although it is also possible that the Committee called upon him specifically to get the lawyers points of view, although his contributions were minimal.

Myler opened with a brief statement about how the industry as a whole is suffering at present, with the fall in advertising revenue, and the rise in digital culture, and now the privacy rulings are putting further pressure on the newspapers.

He described how he was surprised he got sued by Mosley, because of his position as the elected head of the FIA, and its 100m+ members. He said that the Mosley story was legitimate, because one "can't divorce" the fact that he is a public figure, and his activities in soliciting prostitutes. The costs for the privacy case (and there is an impending libel case), he said were £60,000 damages plus £900,000 in legal costs, and he saw no noticable enhancement in sales. When asked why he would run the story, he simply replied because it was a "very good story," and pointed out the fact that all other news outlets ran with it.
Paul Dacre and Peter Hill both declared they wouldn't have ran the story, he is told, because they are 'family newspapers'. Myler refutes this claim, stating he also runs a family publication, and that people are intelligent and discretionary enough to decide what they buy - "that's why we have the best press in the world."
He informs the panel that Mosley had been made aware that he was potentially being tailed, but he still chose to go to the apartment, and was therefore taking a calculated risk when he met the women.

Politics: Daily Express editor before the Media Committee

Peter Hill was the witness at this morning's meeting of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and he came armed with a positive entourage of suited and booted assistants, ready to hand him hand-written notes from the public gallery, should he need them (he didn't, but they thought he did). Stuttering his way through the interview, he was quizzed relentlessly on the Madeleine McCann story, but was adamant that his errors in that situation were committed across the industry, and if anyone was to blame, it was the inadequacy of the Portuguese police. He also repeated intimated that libel lawyers (in particularly from Carter-ruck, whom he mentioned by name) were fishing for cases.

He are some paraphrased quotes from his cross examination. Again, I make no assertions of their accuracy, but I do try to present them in as fair a manner as possible.

PH: I was surprised the McCanns only sued the Daily Express. There were headlines on this story across the globe, and the Portuguese police's case was a complete travesty and the media repeated the police's leaks. They had grounds to sue, but they could have sued anyone.

PH: We were not milking the story more than anyone else. The story was on the TV and in the newspapers every single day. I have personally apologised to the McCanns for the mistakes, and we insisted on printing that apology on the front page, which we didn't have to do.

There were 38 headlines that they complained about, but I could also point to over eighty headlines that were positive towards them. The story changed dramatically when they became the suspects. Portugal is a fully fledged member of the European Community, and a functioning democracy. How were we to know that their police were so incompetent.

The McCanns had a PR machine, which they built up brilliantly, and they were right to do so, to increase the chances of finding Madeleine.

We didn't publish the offending material maliciously, because as far as we knew at the time, the revelations were true. There was an insatiable clamour for information, centred on what happened to Madeleine. Everyone you would have spoken to at the time was asking what happened to Madeleine. We followed every lead, in a genuine effort to help find her, and had teams of reporters all over Europe and sent some to North Africa.

There was a new story every day, that why there were headlines every day, both sides were leaking stories. It was not the case that we needed a Maddie story, so we made one up.

He is asked about fact checking in the case.

That's a good question. When Kate and Gerry McCann were given aguido status, the Portuguese police were unable to comment officially, so they resorted to leaks to Portuguese papers. We did our best to check up on stories, but we could get no comment. When Kate and Gerry became suspects, their PR team stopped returning our calls.

Newspapers operate at high speed, sometimes it's not possible to check each story.

He is asked if he felt justified at the time for published the 38 stories that were complained about, in particular a story about a corpse hidden in a hire car.

These stories came from the Portuguese police, we had every reason to believe that it was true.

He is asked was this a unique case, or merely the tip of the iceberg of press behaviour.

This was a unique case in every sense of that word. The world has seen nothing like this since the Lindbergh baby in the 1930s, and the longevity of the story was a factor. There was the mystery of the disappearance, the fact that they courted publicity as much as they could. The media had a genuine wish to find Maddie. Then this perfectly respectable couple was accused of kidnapping their daughter by the police. It is nonsense to pretend that this is a common occurrence.

He is if the suspicion of the McCanns originated largely from the newspapers.

The suspicion of the McCanns was not from the newspapers, it was from the Portuguese police. We were reporting what the police were saying, and the alternative for the British press was not to report anything. This would not be an ideal situation when the rest of the world was reporting freely.

He is asked if sales were different when Maddie was on the front page

There was certainly an increase in circulation by many thousands, as would be the case with any story that was of such interest, and it was the same with the BBC. It is the job of the news to report on stories of interest to readers.

-well it is as long as it's the truth.

There was no reason to believe that we were not telling the truth. This was the only show around at the time, we were getting thousands of messages from people wanting to know more about the story - messages, not just hits on our website.

He is asked if he ever sought new stories from the police.

Of course not, I completely reject that we sought out stories, that is not the way people work.

He is asked why, if he felt justified, did he not fight the libel case

We in the UK don't have a libel law where it is a defence to say that you thought the story was true.

It is

Well, only in stories where it is in the public interest, which is a very narrowly defined field.

You don't believe that the McCann story was in the public interest?

No. It interested the public, but it was not in the public interest. This was a matter that involved a family, meaning it was not in the public interest. We have the most Draconian libel laws in the world and we have claimants from all over the world, and lawyers make it their business to alert people of potential libels, and to fight for people in the courts. We did libel the McCanns because under the law, we lied about them.

We were never sued by the McCanns, we were contacted by Carter-Ruck about a potential action. We thought it would be unthinkable in their situation to drag the McCann's through the courts, so we settled this matter as well as possible.

We have not revisited the McCann story much since the settlement, because nothing new has happened

He is asked how people can expect the press to behave if there were no libel laws, considering the way they behave now.

In the US, the First Amendment wouldn't allow these libel suits, because it entrenches a freedom of the press. In the UK, we don't have a free press, and a free press is vital for a democracy. In order to have a free press, it must be free to make mistakes.

He is asked what type of reporting restrictions are placed on aguidos

There are restrictions in Portuguese law, but these were largely ignored by the Portuguese press.

Do you know what the restrictions were?

No

I find that surprising considering the amount of times you reported their stories.

Well I don't know

I think that speaks for itself

He is asked if anyone was reprimanded for the story

Myself, because I was responsible.

But did you offer to resign, considering Piers Morgan, and others have done before.

Certainly not. If every editor offered to resign after a libel case, there would be no more editors.

Is that all this is, just a libel case?

If I have to resign, then every other editor has to resign, and the head of the BBC and the board of directors have to resign. I have never seen anyone in the Government resign. Did Jacqui Smith resign for the expenses scandal. Did Gordon Brown resign for destroying the economy? I apologised for my error, which is more than politicians ever do.

Yes, but they didn't accuse parents of killing their child, as you did, because you didn't have the professionalism to check your stories.

If I was breaking the law, then everyone was breaking the law

That's your defence?

Everyone was breaking the law, and we were making a genuine attempt to find Maddie. You are trying to present this as a one-sided thing - the story kept changing.

Why didn't the McCanns come to the PCC? If they had, I would have thought very carefully about stopping the stories.

'We'd think about it' doesn't bring much comfort for people accused of killing their daughter

We didn't say that, or try to make people believe that.

He is asked about a story that was almost single-handedly the Daily Express, as opposed to an industry-wide error - a conspiracy theory surrounding Princess Diana's death.

As far as I am concerned, the inquest was pretty much the end of the story. We had reason to believe that the official reports were not true. Our readers were interested in the story, and I don't print stories I believe to be untrue.

The Express was alone on the Diana story, almost to the point of obsession.

It's not a crime to have an obsession. We do try to sell newspapers, we don't go out of our way to print boring stories that would drive our readers away.

He is asked what he thinks of the Reynolds Defence, as compared to a statutory solution to the issue of libel.

Well, the main question is 'is the story in the public interest?' But who decides what is in the public interest? That could be a borderline issue - some things certainly are, for example MP's expenses, or people who set themselves up as arbiters of morals, judges, or public servants, but some things are borderline, for example, are the activities of sects always in the public interest? There is not always a difference between what interests the public, and what is in the public interest.

It would be difficult for a statute to establish a defence for journalists, since every case is different.

Should the subjects of stories get prior notification?

No, not always, because they would probably obtain an injunction, and the story would be lost, but we usually go to the other side to ask for comment. Injunctions can be granted for the flimsiest reasons, because the judges are not qualified - especially in 'Saturday Night Injunctions'.

Newspapers have enormous constraints nowadays, with libel laws, privacy laws, European laws, Contempt of Court laws - we are pretty much up to our ears in laws. We have a very shackled press in this country, and you should be looking to remove these shackles, not add more, as seems to be the tone of these meetings. Free press is vital to a democracy, more than anything else.

He is asked why, when Max Mosley was before the committee, the room was packed with journalists who wrote extensively on the issue, but when Paul Dacre, and himself are being interviewed, there is little press interest. Is there an unwritten code between papers to not write about each other?

No. I know that there are quite a few journalists that want to shots at myself and Mr Dacre, but it does not make good copy. I did see some reports in the odd media section.

Yes, in the odd media section

An editor has to ask is it interesting. Would the readers want to read about it?

When was the last time you wrote a story about a journalist?

I can't remember writing one.

Well I can't remember reading one

Those stories are never any interest to the general public - although I do think it is in the public interest.

Is there a truce between the proprietors of your paper and the Mail to not publish stories about each other or their families?

Proprietors are not interesting stories. I don't know what they would say to each other if they spoke, I don't even know if they do speak, so I don't think there is any truce.

He is asked is the PCC undermined by editor's presence on it.

If a matter concerns a particular editor, he is not allowed to take any part in those proceedings, he is not even allowed in the room. I think it is a false perception that the PCC is a bad system.

I don't see that the PCC is not feared by editors. It is good at amicably settling issues between the press and the public, and a lot of cases have been resolved amicably, which is surely better than a bitter legal battle? Also, there is an ombudsman who is very conscientious when carrying out his duties. 

I'm sure you'd [the committee members] would be welcome to sit in on the PCC's meetings.

But the issue is that the story has been damaging, and the offended party may not want to bring the story back into the public domain.

Well we can't turn the clocks back to retract the story

The newspapers could behave better

What can we do to make the newspapers behave better?

He is asked if the PCC Code of Conduct should be included in his journalists' contract of employment.

We expect our journalists to follow the code fully, but I don't believe it is necessary to make it an issue of contract. All journalists know the code, and how to do their job within it. 

We are becoming more careful about the reporting of children, and matters of privacy, as well as the reporting of suicides, and other things the code is helpful on, but that is not to say we don't make mistakes.

Lots of copy does not originate within our newsroom, it comes from outside sources, such as freelancers, and it can be very difficult to check these stories. It wouldn't be practical to check every story, we couldn't get the newspapers out.

What about possible amendments of the code to further child protection?

We are very careful at the Express in regard to child protection. I have rejected many photographs of celebrities, where the child was involved, or the child was obscured. This is mostly a photographic issue, rarely a matter of words. Me and my journalists are careful, and I think the code is pretty good.

He is asked whose decision it was that he leave the PCC

I didn't offer to resign, but I did consider it carefully, and discussed it with people whose opinion I trust, who said I should not resign. Their advice was that if every editor who made a mistake was to resign from the PCC, there would be no editors left on it, and I believe that there should be editors there to offer their knowledge of the newspaper industry and advice. All editors on the PCC carry out their duties as conscientiously as they could.

[He went on to discuss at length a dispute Express Newspapers had with the Newspaper Publishers Association, which I didn't fully grasp, but the upshot being that the dispute forced his newspaper group to stop being part of the PCC, I think]

He is asked about headlines that are misleading, especially on the front page.

This can happen, but at the Express, we try to qualify our headlines, but we have only a few letter in which to fit a headline in. Libel laws are concerned with misleading headlines, as they should be.

He is asked have journalistic standards fallen.

I don't accept this, and 'churnalism' is such a gimmicky word. The standards have increased, but so too have constraints. Journalists nowadays have more knowledge, and look into stories better than before.

He is asked how staff numbers have changed since he took over.

I think they are fairly similar, there may have been a small reduction, in line with the economic difficulties we are experiencing.

I have seen evidence of major reductions in staff numbers.

That is an industry-wide occurrence. Where did you get these figures?

I don't have the article to hand, but I believe I saw them in such publications as the UK Press Gazette.

The UK Press Gazette is not even there any more.

Would you have broken the Mosley story?

No, it would not have appealed to our readership.