Also it is my firm belief that Kimi Raikkonen would have won a world championship at McLaren had the team kept Coulthard in the car rather than choosing to replace him with the disastrous Montoya who routinely threw away points and wasted great grid positions with his reckless, ego-driven driving.

There are so many different ways of judging success - but here are a couple of things we can definitely agree on. Coulthard’s time at Red Bull has been fantastic. And it’s great that he’s made a positive decision to move on rather than have a humiliating last couple of seasons of the sort staring Fisi and Rubinho in the face.

I’m absolutely sure we’ll see lots more of DC. I didn’t want to say I thought he was a dead cert for the BBC before he’d actually quit F1. But, now he has, I do. And I’m sure we’ll be finding a way to cover whatever kind of racing he does next, even if it’s dinghies or motocross bikes - simply because he’s our favourite driver.

Hmm, Macau GP, awesome scary track … and perfect weekend getaway for us living just an hour ferry drive away

Now, if they think that - on first viewing - I really don’t understand why McLaren or even Lewis himself didn’t think the same thing. Other than for the very reasons you outline above - ie, Lewis would never think he had done anything wrong, and the team wouldn’t dare suggest it.

I also think the track layout has something to do with it - drivers have the wrong idea on run-off areas. Hamilton should have taken to that area as an absolute last resort, but at the back of his mind he would’ve known it was there and that will have impacted on his decision to try and pass Vettel there.

Last year he was praised for not sitting behind people for long, instead making quick passes - this year he has tried the same but not had the same luck or judgement in picking the right spots to attempt these passes.

As you can guess, I’m with the majority on this one. I can even accept that Lewis was in front of Vettel at the corner if that’s what he insists on being the truth, but if he was then going too fast to take the corner then that doesn’t constitute a correct overtake in my view.

He didn’t actually overtake Vettel through the chicane, but it was all part of the same manouvere as far as I’m concerned.

It’s a shame we can’t get to see the footage sowe can decide for ourselves, but that’s just the way it is!

So he has to take a wider line but then sees the slower car ahead and occupying the chicane. The shot I saw was in-car with Hamilton and it was obvious that the wide line was no longer possible given the position of the car in front. I thought there would be a collision but Hamilton found a better way.

The pass was completed before the chicane - if Hamilton was forced to take to the tarmac run-off thereafter by other circumstances, no advantage has been taken. It all rests on whether you think he was going too fast to make the chicane, regardless of circumstances. I think he wasn’t, just about everyone else thinks he was. Big deal, I know what I saw and won’t be swayed by being in a minority.

So Lewis had to leave him braking room (DC please note) and take a wider line into the first element of the chicane. That was complicated by the fact that there was a slower car just ahead (I think it was DC, in fact). Had Lewis taken the natural outside line, he would have undoubtedly collected the rear of this car. It left him with nowhere to go except over the curbs.

Effectively, Hamilton was avoiding potential accidents. Had he stuck to his rights as the man ahead and turned in, Vettel would have collected him and we’d be saying that he should have let the STR driver have room. He cannot win, it seems.

Thanks to Bernie, we cannot look at replays but that is how I saw it at the time and that is what I have to go on, therefore. The fact that others saw it differently merely shows that witnesses to an incident will always have different stories - ask any insurance company.

Of course one can be pedantic and declare that rules are rules, Hamilton short-cut the chicane and must be penalized. But that is a part of what I’m saying - McLaren are given no leeway, others are given the benefit of the doubt.

As for the Kovalainen/Trulli incident, I must take it that we are now saying it is perfectly acceptable to force a passing driver off the track. Heikki went for the gap that Jarno left, drew level and then Trulli moved aggressively to the left, squeezing (I think bumping but it matters not a great deal) Kovalainen over the white line and on to the green. As far as I’m concerned, that’s dangerous and unfair driving.

The criticism of the McLaren team’s part in the Hamilton incident illustrates what I am saying as well. Everyone says they should have told Lewis to let Vettel through again but that is only from the benefit of hindsight. The team queried the reaction of the stewards immediately but were not given an answer until it was far too late for Hamilton to let Vettel through.

So we are saying that McLaren should recognize that they are never right in the eyes of the authorities and should have assumed automatically that they would be penalized. I can’t argue with that - it looks like a reasonable assessment of the situation and it would obviously be in McLaren’s interests to take it that they will never have a decision go in their favour. But I do not think it’s fair that McLaren receive criticism for refusing to accept that the FIA have a vendetta against them.

What I do find interesting, is that twelve months ago Alonso was the devil incarnate over the Hungary and resulting issues, whereas Hamilton came out smelling like roses. Now though, the tide seems to have shifted and people are realising that maybe, Alonso was the one shafted.