From the title you'd get the impression nothing John or Paul did or thought or said in the last few yrs. of the Beatles mattered. Stupid hyped up article. I'm going to read it but with a heck of a lot of cynism about the author. Would anyone read it if the headline was 'George Harrisons relatively minor rule in the Beatles break-up. If Paul and John hadn't got fed up of each other and all the other problems weren't there and they, John and Paul, wanted to carry on then they'd have carried on and George would have just had to like it or leave.
Jesus! I've read it and it's awful. Why exactly was George responsible for splitting the Beatles? I don't think the author even refers to that in the article even though that's what it's supposed to be about. Just another rehash of old stories given a pathetically self-interested attention grabbing headline.