Small businesses like hers have the most to gain, she believes, because it helps them to expand without having to borrow.”There is no way I could have bought all my new equipment, computers and plain paper fax, and update all my computers, in a cash-only world,” says Ms Streamer. “It has also allowed me to access a lot more clients than I could in a cash world It is a brilliant concept Bartering is like joining an exclusive club. Your name becomes known to other parties.”Without raising any extra capital, Ms Streamer obtained pounds 10,000-worth of new computer equipment, allowing her to use her savings on software to improve efficiency. “You maximise potential and profitability because you already have the staff,” adds Ms Streamer.

“New customers are coming in, but the costs are covered so you generate extra sales for nothing. I don’t know why someone didn’t do this before.”The wheel, it seems, is turning full circle. Michael Portillo’s announcement of a new royal yacht to replace Britannia has produced predictable outrage that the nation’s already-stretched resources should be used in this way. But what about the effect on the Queen’s finances?

Now that Her Majesty has accepted that she is liable for income tax, could not her use of the pounds 60m floating palace be a benefit in kind under Inland Revenue guidelines?
John Newman, tax partner with the accountants Smith & Williamson, playfully suggests that the key question is whether being Queen amounts to holding an office of the Crown. If it does, and the yacht is a perk that comes with the job, then she could face having to pay the Revenue 20 per cent of its market value every year. The provision of such supplies as water, oil and fuel would lead to further charges, though if she were to pay her own expenses that would reduce her tax liability.And what about travelling expenses? That, according to Mr Newman, depends on what Her Majesty is Queen of.

It is arguable that since she is basically Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, plus a few colonies, only travelling between such places is covered. But that still leaves the question of the use of the vessel for trade trips and journeys outside her kingdom, which are part of the Queen’s official duties, as opposed to exotic holidays.John Whiting, a tax specialist at another accountancy firm, Price Waterhouse, agrees that this is all interesting conjecture, but is “not sure if it flies”. Joining in with the light-hearted spirit of Mr Newman’s musing, he believes a lot depends on whether Her Majesty is employed by the Queen, or is the employer.But then he adds his own kicker: what if the Queen funded the yacht herself? If she were able to argue that she intended to use the craft “solely and exclusively” for her trade, she could take advantage of capital allowances on the grounds that a ship would come within the definition of plant and machinery.Nevertheless, she would probably have to act quickly. The latest Finance Bill proposes reducing the allowance on long-life assets from 25 per cent to 6 per cent – though there is a transitional period until 2010.So what is the true position? We may never know. While the rules on the use by the Prime Minister and Chancellor of Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street are set out in official papers, the Inland Revenue – understandably perhaps – is keeping mum on this one. Los Angeles – On his way home from the Santa Monica courthouse, his black Chevy Suburban shadowed by a squadron of helicopters, OJ Simpson stopped for ice cream. He jumped out, ran into Baskin-Robbins and bought a single cup of chocolate cookie dough for his waiting daughter Sydney It seemed a gesture of both defiance and futility.

He faced a unanimous jury’s decision that he was responsible for the murder of the mother of Sydney, 11, and her brother Justin, eight. Damages of $8.5m (pounds 5.3m) were awarded against him, with more to come. He had just driven away from a court- house crowd yelling “killer”. The bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson, and Nicole’s friend, Ronald Goldman, were found, savagely slashed and stabbed, at Nicole’s home on a Sunday night in June 1994.

Prosecutors said Simpson murdered his ex-wife and Goldman in a frenzy, and then began a sustained attempt at a cover-up, minutes after the killings. He was found not guilty in a criminal trial in 1995.
The civil trial jury found on a “preponderance of the evidence”, a lower standard than “beyond reasonable doubt”, that Simpson had “wilfully and wrongfully” caused Goldman’s death and committed battery, oppression, and “malice in the conduct” against Nicole.It was the fate of the two children, consigned to a man damned by public opinion, that seemed the most contradictory aspect of the case. They were asleep in Nicole’s condominium on the night she was murdered. His anger at being excluded from the family group at a dance recital by Sydney on the day of the murders was cited as a possible motive.Nicole’s parents, Louis and Juditha Brown, looked after Sydney and Justin during the criminal trial.