Evidently

We do not convict people on the basis of what the Police think (I would never even have been charged on that basis, so ponder that one), but on the basis of what the Crown can prove beyond reasonable doubt. The same goes for parole. But release after such a short time seems unduly lenient even for the offences of which John Worboys was convicted.

And if there was insufficient evidence to charge him with any of a further 75, just as it was apparently not in the public interest to charge those whose freely admitted electoral fraud had made the difference between a hung Parliament and a majority Government in 2015, then how the hell could there have been sufficient evidence, or could it have been in the public interest, to have charged me? There was not, and it was not. There is not, and it is not.

A conviction in my case is absolutely impossible, by universal agreement. The whole thing is a scandalous waste of public money, likewise. As a thought experiment, what if I were to be convicted? Worboys's tariff was eight years, and, not counting remand, he has not served even that. Exactly what, if any, sentence could my enemies realistically hope to see handed down to me? Exactly what, if any, sentence could they realistically hope to see me serve in actual fact?

Come on, Carl Marshall. Salvage your political ambitions, and drop this whole business. Salvage your personal reputation, and drop this whole business. Salvage your self-respect, and drop this whole business. I would bear no grudge against you. Against other people, of course. But not against you.