Obviously it’d be far worse if Roman Polanski had sex with you when you were 13, then admitted to it, and then ran off to France for 30 years so he couldn’t be sentenced.

Which is why the girl at the centre of the rape case, Samantha Geimer, has announced that she wants Roman Polanski’s charges dropped. Then maybe people will concentrate on the more attractive people she’s slept with, like a plastic heron or that mouse with the gigantic ear grafted onto its back.

There’s a growing chance that Roman Polanski will be returning to America in the next couple of weeks. He hasn’t been there for 30 years – since he admitted to having sex with a 13-year-old girl and legged it to France before anyone could sentence him – and we’re sure he’ll be surprised at how it’s changed.

The cars look different, for a start, and the TVs are bigger. And he’s bound to notice the crowds of furious people who scream “RAPIST GO HOME!” all the time and constantly push mounds of dogmuck through the letterbox of wherever he’s staying, too. Yes, America sure has changed.

But that’s assuming that Roman Polanski will be returning to America. It all depends on the outcome of his quest to have his charges dropped. Based on a documentary that uncovered several alleged wrongdoings on the part of the deputy district attorney at the time, Roman Polanski seems certain that his charges should all be dismissed, allowing him to return to America. Besides, it’s not as if Roman Polanski is going to have sex with any more children, is it? He’s 75 years old now, so chances are he can only get an erection these days with the aid of a bowl of pharmaceuticals and an intricate system of pulleys and winches.

However, Roman Polanski’s plans might be stumped by the LA superior court’s demand that he come to America first to ask for his charges to be dropped – an obvious ploy to get him out into the open so he can be arrested.

But one person who’s had enough of all this legal nonsense is Samantha Geimer, the woman who Roman Polanski is alleged to have had sex with. She’s decided to ask for the charges against Polanski to be dropped so she can get on with her life. BBC News reports:

Samantha Geimer said the continued publication of details “causes harm to me, my husband and children”. Ms Geimer, 45, said in her written declaration to the court: “If Polanski cannot stand before the court to make this request, I, as the victim, can and I, as the victim do… I have urged that this matter come to a formal legal end. I have urged that the district attorney and the court dismiss these charges,” she added.

You know that you’re onto a good thing, don’t you, when even the girl you were accused of raping 30 years ago wants your charges dropped. It’s unknown whether or not Samantha Geimer’s request will be heeded by the courts, but we’re sure that Roman Polanski will be grateful for her efforts nonetheless.

Maybe with her help, Roman Polanski can shake off his tag of ‘alleged child-rapist’ and live freely with his new tag of ‘man who merely admitted having sex with a child although that’s been neither proven nor disproven.’ It almost brings a tear to the eye, doesn’t it?

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

Why? Because he’s not going to jail. Not that Josh Brolin was ever going to go to jail in the first place or anything, but it might have been a possibility after he was arrested and charged with interfering with a police officer during a barroom brawl in Louisiana last summer.

But now prosecutors have dropped the charges against Josh Brolin, so this entire story is basically pointless. Josh Brolin didn’t do something and he won’t be punished for it. Hooray.

Josh Brolin and Vinnie Jones have got a lot in common. It might not seem it – one’s a critically-lauded actor who many claim is among the finest of his generation and the other one’s only allowed in films if he promises to shut up and punch as much stuff as he can in them – but they are.

They’re both enjoying second flushes of fame, for a start – Josh Brolin was originally a child star and Vinnie Jones used to kick footballers for a living – and they both seem pretty handy and allegedly being involved in bar fights and then getting away without charge.

Vinnie Jones, you’ll remember, was arrested last month after allegedly charging at a bloke and hitting him in the face with a glass before getting off without charge, and now Josh Brolin seems to be enjoying a similar – if less terrifyingly berserk-sounding – fate.

Back in the summer Josh Brolin, his W castmate Jeffrey Wright and five members of the movie’s crew were arrested in a Louisiana bar after allegedly being involved in some sort of fracas. During the chaos both Brolin and Wright apparently had pepper spray squirted into their eyes, with Wright also ending up on the wrong side of a police taser.

Now, however, prosecutors have decided to drop the charges against Josh Brolin, Jeffrey Wright and the crewmembers within 60 days, meaning that everyone’s in the clear and Wright gets to release a statement about it all. People reports:

“These arrests should never have happened. Thankfully the prosecution was able to see that and dismiss all charges. Unfortunately, there are no winners here, but I remain hopeful that Shreveport officials will be encouraged to dig at the root causes of certain police incidents down there. An old-fashioned refusal of service led to our arrest that night, and there’s no room for that in America in 2009.”

Looks like this is a happy ending all round, then – not only have Josh Brolin’s charges been dropped but all this publicity has probably made W a lot more money, too. Maybe getting tasered in the street by overzealous policemen is an effective new way to market your movie – if so, someone should probably pass the memo to Tom Cruise. But, you know, give us time to get through police school first.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

So imagine what the forthcoming Spider-Man 4 and Spider-Man 5 movies would be like without Kirsten Dust’s anemic wailing and egg-based dance routines. You’re imagining they’d be quite good, aren’t you. Well, you’re in luck, because Spider-Man director Sam Raimi is giving off the impression that Kirsten Dunst won’t feature in either of the two new movies.

Actually, we should be a bit more accurate – Sam Raimi implied that Kirsten Dunst’s character Mary-Jane wouldn’t be in the new Spider-Man movies. He also hinted that one of the new Spider-Man villains could be a vicious scaly reptilian humanoid, though, so if that doesn’t warrant a callback for Kirsten Dunst then nothing will.

Remember when the Spider-Man movies were good? Remember when the thought of another Spider-Man sequel seemed like a good thing, rather than something you’d happily drown yourself in cattle guts to avoid? We do too, just about.

We don’t any more, obviously – the musical numbers, eggy dancing, evil haircuts, 19-hour running time and bad sand of Spider-Man 3 has made us fear 2011’s Spider-Man 4 with all the dread we’d usually reserve for an exam or a jail rape.

But luckily, Spider-Man director Sam Raimi has sensed our fear and he wants to calm us all down the best way he can – by implying that the services of Kirsten Dunst probably won’t be required for Spider-Man 4. Or Spider-Man 5, for that matter. Raimi told MTV:

“Kirsten, I’d love to work with her again,” Raimi explained to us this week, making it sound as if current plans to include Dunst for “Spider-Man 4” and “Spider-Man 5” are still up in the air. “I hope she’ll be written into it. I couldn’t imagine making one without her, and I think she’s an important part of the movies.” Nevertheless, Raimi admitted that the very nature of an episodic series requires that characters come and go.

Do you hear that? Kirsten Dunst might not be starring in any more Spider-Man movies. But then if that’s the case, who’s going to upside down kiss Spider-Man? And who’s going to provide the emotional core? And who’ll sing in the movies twice despite having a voice like an asthmatic 80-year-old? And who’ll be a shadowy reminder that age, unhealthy lifestyles and ill-advised romances with dirty indie stars can obliterate your once-good looks completely in a matter of years? Actually, come to think of it, no, we’re alright without any Kirsten Dunst in our Spider-Man thanks.

Actually, that’s a lie. We do want Kirsten Dunst in the new Spider-Man sequels. That’s partly because without her we won’t get the creeping sensation that she thinks she’s bigger than Spider-Man or the constant whining about how hard acting is.

But mainly it’s because, if Kirsten Dunst isn’t hired for Spider-Man 4 and Spider-Man 5, it’ll only give her more time to make more films like Marie Antoinette. And that’s worse.

Marginally.

Recently a 15-second clip of Imagine was used in a weird creationist documentary by the man who played the teacher in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, and it caused Yoko Ono to hit the roof. Yoko sued the makers of the movie for copyright infringement, but it looks like she’s been unsuccessful.

Yoko Ono has now dropped the lawsuit against the movie, presumably because the use of Imagine was covered under ‘fair use’ rules. So it looks like it’s one-nil to the creationists! You see, they’re always right! Apart from, you know, all their basic religious tenants and stuff! But still! Party time!

There’s just something about Imagine by John Lennon that has caused it to remain in the public consciousness for so long. Maybe it’s the fact that the lyrics seem to have been copied from a motivational fridge magnet, or the way that the piano sounds like it’s being played by a depressed man trying to gently headbutt himself into unconsciousness. We just don’t know.

But still, the song’s power to invoke a furore is still there – not so long ago a school banned Imagine in case the students all decided to gang up and, um, imagine they didn’t have any stuff. Or something. And now Imagine is back in the news, and it’s all the fault of the sodding creationists.

In a documentary called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed from earlier this year – in which the actor Ben Stein asks why scientists aren’t allowed to believe that God magicked everything together a couple of hundred years ago anymore – a 15-second clip of Imagine was used.

This made Yoko Ono flip out. She hit Premise Media – the makers of the movie – with a copyright infringement lawsuit as hard as she could, either because she didn’t agree with the principles of the film the song was used in or because someone didn’t offer her a wheelbarrow full of cash for a song that she didn’t even write anyway first. Again, we just don’t know.

But, whatever the reason, Yoko Ono has decided to drop the lawsuit anyway, probably in the spirit of peace or something. The Wall Street Journal reports:

Executives at Premise Media Corp. acknowledged all along that they didn’t seek permission to use the song. But they argued that under “fair use” rules, they didn’t need to, since the film used only a brief portion of the song, to comment on. Anthony Falzone, a Stanford law professor who represents Premise, said he welcomed the plaintiffs’ decision to drop their lawsuits.

Sadly, though, this decision has come slightly to late for Expelled, because Premise were forced to drop Imagine from the DVD version in case the lawsuit went Yoko Ono’s way. So anyone buying a copy of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed won’t hear Imagine by John Lennon any more. It’s been replaced by the next-best alternative – Fuck You Like An Animal by W.A.S.P.

Actually, Premise may as well have left Imagine in, because nobody’s going to actually buy Expelled on DVD anyway – evolutionists will find the subject matter too offensive to invest in, and creationists all believe that using money to buy things is essentially witchcraft, a crime punishable by drowning.

If you’re British you probably won’t have heard of Johnston and Murphy, they’re a 150-year-old American retailer who flog pale jeans and diamond jumpers to old men and lots of taupe to old women. Over the pond they call it apparel; over here we call it M&S.

Duchovny has been Johnston and Murphy’s poster boy since July of this year. Though thoughts of him sitting at his PC jizzing over the triple anal delights of Randy Rita were apparently too much for company bigwigs to bear. Their New York outlet was asked to remove all traces of Duchovny from the store windows (hopefully this just meant photos and not love excreta).

A staff source commented:

“We got the call from corporate this morning to take him down.“

This move happened last Friday, which was just a few days after Duchovny checked himself into a sex and tossing rehab clinic (how do they cure you, with constant exposure to Winehouse upskirts?). Though when Johnston and Murphy originally signed Duchovny, they had nothing but good things to say about Sir Fistalot.

Said a company spokesperson at the time:

“We are thrilled. David embodies success and confidence, along with a great sense of style, communicating the ideal image for the Johnston and Murphy brands.“

Perhaps they should have conducted more thorough research beforehand? This is not the first time Duchovny has been labelled a ’sex’ addict. He told Playgirl magazine in 1997:

“I’m not a sex addict. I have never been to those meetings. It’s hurtful to my family and if I was involved with a woman in a monogamous relationship, it would be hurtful to her.“

Too true. Of course Duchovny plays a proper sex addict in U.S. drama series Californication. This irony won’t be lost on anyone; not us, not the rest of the world’s media and not the producers of Californication who are preparing to debut the show’s second season later this month.

Duchovny should grab all this attention with his one spare hand while he can. We’re a forgiving bunch if someone cries a lot and talks us to death about a tough childhood (’We didn’t even have computers back then!!’).

Plus the next time he screws us over with another terrible X-Files movie, we’ll at least know he can’t help it.

Fancy lingerie firm Agent Provocateur has decided to ditch Lily Allen as the face of its company, it's been reported.

Although Lily Allen is said to be 'gutted' about being dropped, the news does now mean that the only times you'll ever see Lily Allen in her bra are if you stalk her with a video camera or if she's about to have sex with you. Either way, we have the number of a very good doctor we'd like you to have. 

It's no secret that Lily Allen has three nipples, each more beautiful than the last. We're joking of course – having three nipples is disgusting and wrong and we don't know how Lily Allen can even show her face in public without fear of being ducked as a witch. 

So when lingerie company Agent Provocateur named Lily Allen as its new face in November, it was really an act of charity. "Here you are Lily," we imagine a company director telling her, "we want you to cover up your three hideous nipples with these bras. And we'll pay you, too. Anything to get you to conceal those festering abominations of nature."

And for a while it worked – Lily Allen and her new skinny figure trotted around in a range of posh bras and all was right with the world. But not now, because Agent Provocateur has decided to drop Lily Allen as its face already. MTV reports:

Lily Allen has been dropped as the face of posh underwear firm Agent Provocateur, according to reports. The Sun says the warring owners of the company have decided not to use the Smile singer in ads after disagreeing on the choice. Allen is reportedly ‘gutted’ at the move after getting into svelte shape for her new job. AP said the photos may still be used in some way but she will not be the firm’s new FACE.

Still, at least Lily Allen has some career choices left open to her. There's her new TV show Lily Allen And Some People That Are Clearly More Intelligent Than Her, where Lily interviews people in a strange series of mumbles and then cackles at whatever they say to give the impression that she knows what's going on. And, with viewing figures the way they are, that's bound to keep Lily Allen in employment for at least another fortnight. 

Our point is that it's not the end of the world to be dropped from an underwear campaign because there are plenty more fish in the sea. The three-nippled bra campaign might not have worked out, but just wait until a knicker manufacturer realises that Lily's also got 24 vaginas studded up and down the inside of her legs. They'll shit a brick.

Read more:

Lily Dropped By Underwear Firm - MTV 

OK, that's not exactly right – Jamie Lynn Spears was best known for being Britney Spears' sister, then for being in a film where she played Britney Spears' sister, then for being Britney Spears' sister in a TV show about Britney Spears, then for being Kevin Federline's sister-in-law and then for her Nickelodeon TV show Zoey 101. Not that any of that means much any more, because it's been reported that Nickelodeon has dropped Zoey 101 thanks to Jamie Lynn's pregnancy. Heaven knows why, because we always thought that children's TV badly needed a teen sitcom about a schoolgirl with postnatal depression so severe that she routinely fantasises about dropping it out of a window. Or something.

A few months ago, Jamie Lynn Spears had it all going for her – she was like a younger, less berserk version of Britney Spears with her own zany TV show about teenage girls talking at each other really fast and a wonderful childhood sweetheart boyfriend who she met at church. But that was then.

Now Jamie Lynn Spears is the pregnant 16-year-old, equally berserk sister of Britney Spears with a boyfriend who's a 'lying cheating dog' who might not even be the baby's father anyway and possibly no TV show at all, let alone a zany one. It's been reported that Nickelodeon has realised that no Zoey 101 at all is better than Zoey 101 starring a sallow-faced calcium-deficient single teenage mother who keeps squirting breastmilk through her starter bra. The Sun reports:

The fourth and final season has already been filmed — with two episodes that will see the end of US schoolgirl Zoey. And a show source further revealed: "Nickelodeon bosses are still undecided whether to air season four or not. For now it looks like it has been canned."

This news will come as a blow to all kinds of people – not just infant fans of Zoey 101 who were keen to see how their hero's story ended, but also to eagle-eyed cultural commentators eager to see if Jamie Lynn Spears could manage to get through a scene without barfing everywhere or wolfing down jar after jar of picked onions to satiate her irrational pregnancy craving like some sort of vinegary witch. 

And it's unfortunate that Nickelodeon wants to can Zoey 101 completely, since the final episodes actually dealt with Zoey getting knocked up by an older boy and then watching the rest of her life fall apart as a result. Ironic really.

So what now for Jamie Lynn Spears' career? Surely her days as a child star are numbered, and she still looks about nine years old so she might not be ready for the leap into more grown-up stuff, so she's stuffed, right? Poor Jamie Lynn must be distraught – if only she'd thought to post photos of her minge around the internet instead of actually getting pregnant, she'd have had a much easier ride.

The moral here, girls, is that you should post pictures of your minges around the internet. We think.

Read more:

Axe Falls On Britney's Sister – The Sun 

Shia LaBeouf was arrested in a Chicago branch of Walgreens last month for appearing drunk and not leaving when a security guard asked him to – but all that trouble is far behind him now. Less than one minute after his hearing started earlier today, Shia LaBeouf quickly found out that Walgreens had written the court a letter wanting to drop the charges against him. Nobody knows what cause Walgreen's sudden change of heart, but it's thought that the key phrase from the letter was "Oh, how could I ever stay mad at an adorable face like yours? Ubba dubba dubba. Ubba dubba dubba. Ubba dubba dubba dubba dubba."

There's no doubting that Shia LaBeouf's face is his fortune. Made of marshmallows and kitten fluff and the innocent daydreams of children, Shia LaBeouf's face has got him out of all kinds of trouble in the past. For instance, blabbing the title of the new Indiana Jones movie could have been a sackable offence, but it took just three seconds of Shia making his eyes all big and sad and adorable for Steven Spielberg to forgive him of everything, grab him by the cheeks and go "Ubba dubba dubba" at him for upwards of 90 minutes.

And now Shia LaBeouf's inherent adorability has even beaten the law. Last month, you'll remember that Shia LaBeouf was arrested in a Chicago branch of Walgreens because he appeared to be drunk and refused to listen to the security guard's requests to leave. Hit with a misdemeanour trespassing charge, Shia politely posted bail and was released, pending a following hearing.

That hearing's just happened in a Chicago courtroom, and Shia LaBeouf has got off scot free. Not that he wasn't prepared to fight, you understand – Shia LaBeouf apparently turned up to court with two of Chicago's most expensive lawyers – but he just didn't have to.

Less than a minute into the hearing, the judge revealed that he'd received a letter from Walgreens stating that it no longer wanted to pursue the case against Shia LaBeouf and that all charges had been dropped. The judge then added that he could have informed everyone of this by the phone, but he just wanted to see if Shia was as adorable in the flesh as everyone says. Bringing his gavel down with a crack, the judge ruled that Shia LaBeouf was indeed highly adorable, then leapt over his podium, grabbed Shia by the face and went "Ubba dubba dubba dubba dubba" at him. For all we know they're both still there now.

So Shia LaBeouf is off the hook for now. The test for him now will be to see how many more terrible crimes he can commit with his adorable little face. Oh, who are we kidding? Shia LaBeouf could poison our local water supply and burn down our hospitals and we'd still forgive him. With that face? Ubba dubba dubba.

Read more:

Trespassing charge against Shia LaBeouf dropped – Chicago Tribune