The Lion Man, The Credit Crunch And Sarah Palin

Nothing beats worrying about the global financial crisis than watching a couple of episodes of The Lion Man. I, at least find it immensely calming and the theme tune (accompanying the above and below videos) puts aside worries about bankruptcy for at least its duration.



The only other video to have this calming effect is the following. I will explain why after you view it.



At least McCain lost. That is nothing against him but the USA did not get her.

Well you might say, at least she has been inoculated against witchcraft:



But McCain has said she has a future. She has said she intends to run for President.

BE AFRAID. BE VERY AFRAID. THE USA HAS PREVIOUS ON ELECTING STUPID PEOPLE TO THEIR HIGHEST OFFICE.

Politician Denies Plotting And Geraldine Has A Bright Idea!

Jack Straw denies plotting. Erm, isn't that what politicians do? From the cradle to the grave? And, with a further "erm", don't they always deny it?

Geraldine Smith said:

“All this leadership challenge is absolute nonsense. Who are these spineless individuals who are talking about getting rid of the Prime Minister?”

She should know. She is Labour MP for Morecambe and Lundesdale. Now I confess I have never heard of Lundesdale, but I did once holiday in Morecambe. I also liked Eric Morcambe. So, she must be right then.

On the other hand, I was only about 12 when I holidayed in Morecambe so I did not have much choice in the matter. Until now, I had always thought it was spelt "Morecombe".

Dear Geraldine also said that all the plotters should be reshuffled out of the cabinet.

I think that is a good idea. We would then be virtually politician and government free. The whole cabinet would be sacked and there would be no-one mad enough to replace them. Even Gordon, on his own, cannot introduce enough new and stupid laws to seriously inconvenience the rest of us.

And here is the man himself:

I do not plot! I have never plotted! Not even when I was a student radical! In fact, I was never a student radical! Don't you dare print that! The last sentence! No, I mean the one before the one before that! And I never took drugs of any kind! Not even aspirin! So there! No, I am most certainly not a figure of fun and I never use exclamation marks when I am speaking!

Would you Adam & Eve It?

I liked today's joke so I am putting it in this post so that it can still be available when it changes (as it does daily making the site worth a visit even if I have not posted - scroll down the right sidebar):

A little girl asked her mother, "How did the human race come about?"

The Mother answered, "God made Adam and Eve; they had children and, so all mankind was made."

A few days later, the little girl asked her father the same question. The father answered, "Many years ago there were monkeys, and we developed from them."

The confused girl returns to her mother and says, "Mom, how is it possible that you told me that the human race was created by God , and Papa says we developed from monkeys?"

The Mother answers, "Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about the origin of my side of the family, and your father told you about his side."

Given the images, it must be a bit of a toss up which story the child would be better off believing. The monkey looks more intelligent to me. But then, Adam & Eve are simply daffy and in love, which always makes people appear stupider than they in fact are.

What's wrong with Lawyer jokes?

Answer: Lawyers don't think they're funny, and nobody else thinks they're jokes.

Sample jokes from Law Laughs:

The Scrupulous Businessman

A businessman was trying to choose a lawyer, but was being very careful about it. He scheduled appointments to interview three lawyers.

At the first lawyer's office, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the businessman said, "Okay, let's get down to business. I have an important question for you, and I want you to think carefully before answering. How much is two plus two?"

The lawyer raised his eyebrows. "two plus two is four." The businessman thanked him for his time, and proceeded to his next appointment.

The second lawyer, who was also a CPA, seemed a bit more particular than the first lawyer. After an initial discussion, the businessman again announced that he had a very important question, and asked, "How much is two plus two?"

The second lawyer went over to a computer, and entered figures into a spreadsheet. "According to my calculations, two plus two is approximately four." The businessman thanked him for his time, and proceeded to his next appointment.

The third lawyer sat behind a big mahogany desk, and smoked a cigar. He seemed rather self-important as compared to the other two, but at the same time appeared to be much more successful. The businessman again announced, "I would like you to answer a very important question for me, before I decide whether I should use your services. How much is two plus two?"

The lawyer pulled the shades, locked the door to his office, and asked in a hushed voice, "How much do you want it to be?"

The Doctor and The Lawyer

A doctor had just bought a villa on the French Riviera, when met an old lawyer friend whom he hadn't seen in years, and they started talking. The lawyer, as it turned out, owned a nearby villa. They discussed how they came to retire to the Riviera.

"Remember that lousy office complex I bought?" asked the lawyer, "Well, it caught fire, and I retired here with the fire insurance proceeds. What are you doing here?"

The doctor replied, "Remember that real estate I had in Mississippi? Well, the river overflowed, and here I am with the flood insurance proceeds. It's amazing that we both ended up here in pretty much the same way."

"It sure is," the lawyer replied, looking puzzled, "but I'm confused about one thing - how do you start a flood?"

And One Final Short Joke

The trouble with the legal profession is that 98% of its members give the rest a bad name.

Note

I love lawyer jokes but some other lawyers do get chippy about them. Tough. Live with it! Chaucer and Shakespeare probably did not start the tradition of having a go at lawyers but they certainly carried it on and no lawyer today is going to stop it.

I will put a link to the above site in my sidebar shortly.

You might also try The Red Squirrel Lawyer Joke on my current homepage but be warned that I am rewriting my homepage and this link may become invalid when I update it and I may forget to update this link.

Boris Johnson: The Clown and The Politician - Spot The Difference

Boris on Have I Got News For You:



Boris the politician:



Shallow? I do not care. All politicians are toads. A funny politician at least provides amusement. That is better than the nothing that the other ones offer.

Lawyer Jokes: Litigants In Person

Ok, I feel that I have had an unfair share of persistent litigants in person over the past few years and may, in consequence, be more amused (in a rather long suffering and grudging way) than you will be:

The title link goes to the site where I got this which aims "to become the largest collection of lawyer jokes and cartoons". It is not there yet.

Will The Real Cherie Blair Please Stand Up?

Mrs Blair is well known for believing almost anything at all and has been labelled "bonkers" in the national press; without complaining that the statement is either defamatory or inaccurate. No doubt, she would not want to dignify such allegations by denying them.

Is this her, however? Is this how she believes herself to be? Maybe with enough magic crystals she does see herself like this or hopes to be like this. On the other hand, she may regard this as a defamatory picture:


Or she may not:

Impeccably Logical Challenge To Dawkins

I love this site. It is a totally logical refutation of Dawkin's theories. In fact, it proves beyond any doubt that Professor Dawkins does not himself exist at all. Just go to the title link and you too can share the experience of being cleansed by the pure and unadulterated logic of this wonderful shaman.

Ryanair Disregards the Law, Again

The Times reports today that Ryanair is facing prosecution and a substantial fine on a reference to the Office of Fair Trading by the Advertising Standards Authority. See the title link.

The following extract perhaps indicates Ryanair's attidude:

"In January Ryanair refused to withdraw an advert of a woman dressed as a schoolgirl, despite the authority’s ruling that it breached advertising rules on social responsibility and decency. Ryanair accused the authority of censorship, saying that it was run by “unelected, self-appointed dimwits”.

The authority also upheld a complaint that Ryanair had published misleading information about the effect of aviation on climate change. A Ryanair spokesman said that ASA stood for “Absolutely Stupid Asses”.

Ryanair lost £20 million in February after closing its website to comply with an OFT ruling that it should advertise prices inclusive of taxes and charges."

Ryanair has history!

The best site to visit, if you contemplate flying with them, is Ryanair Campaign. Ryanair has made repeated attacks on this site so it clearly worries them. The site comments:

"We suspect that Ryanair's main intention, as evidenced by their solicitors' letters demanding that the site be shut down as long ago as 2004, is to censor the content of this site. However, they have been successful in gaining control of the domain name ryanair.org.uk, having complained on the grounds that it infringed their trademark. This effectively censored the content, until they attempted to gain control of our current domain name, ryanaircampaign.org, and were unsuccessful, resulting in a lot of publicity. Neither judgement had anything to do with the content of this site.

We accepted the judgement (by Nominet) about our original domain name (from which we have never earned a penny, nor in any way attempted to pass ourselves off as Ryanair) and moved to the current domain name specifically to avoid the trademark issue. Search engine ratings inevitably plummeted, and the campaign was effectively over, but Ryanair could not resist snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They made an incompetent complaint about ryanaircampaign.org, the ruling in which not only gave us publicity, but seems to be a precedent in the interests of free speech."

There is also an interesting video on YouTube:



There are also over 400 comments on this video at YouTube so you might wish to go there.

From the above, one might easily conclude that Ryanair has complete contempt for both regulatory authorities and the law. Perhaps it operates on the basis that the only penalty it will face is a financial one and that is so rich that it can afford any penalty that might be imposed. This leads to a further "perhaps". Maybe, the authorities should take this into account when deciding the level of any fine that should be imposed. If money is all they care about (rather than respect for the law or customer service) then (another "perhaps" - they are notoriously litigious) only a "massive" fine will do the trick.

Not Very Good, Fellas!

I love this case. It is a Northern Ireland Court of Appeal decision but ought to be followed here. See the title link.

It is important for, well, restaurant reviewers. However, it is important also for anyone who wants to express an opinion. That includes, for instance, book, film and theatre critics. It also includes bloggers and anyone else who posts over the internet. So read it.

The allegedly offending article appeared as long ago as 26th August 2000 in The Irish News. The first hearing did not start until 29th January 2007 and the appeal judgment is dated 10th March 2008. It is not pleasant to have to comment that the courts in England & Wales are sometimes no quicker in bringing about a final resolution to cases. In fact, this case has not been finally concluded because it has been sent back for the first court to apply the correct law. I imagine the parties will, now, however, settle.

A succinct summary of the review is at paragraph 8 of the judgment of Lord Chief Justice Kerr:

"In its final, amended form the plaintiff's statement of claim alleged that the words of the review, in their natural and ordinary meaning, were intended to and did in fact mean that the plaintiff did not train his staff; that he used the cheapest ingredients on the market; that he overcharged; that he served poor quality and inedible food; that he served frozen vegetables and pizza; that his restaurant was pretentious, badly managed, not worth going to and had a joyless atmosphere."

That is, it was the reviewers' (there were two of them) considered opinion that this was about as bad a restaurant as you were likely to find.

Should I identify the restaurant? Well, I already have by providing a link to the judgment. In fairness, however, it should be mentioned that this review is over 7 years' old. Alright, it is Goodfellas in West Belfast.

The judge below had simply got it wrong. The CA held at paragraph 31 that:

"Of greater consequence, however, was the judge's acceptance that all of this material was factual in nature. In fairness to him, it had been portrayed by the defendant as such but, as I have already observed, much of it was plainly comment and other statements might reasonably have been regarded as opinions or inferences drawn from facts rather than unvarnished imputations of fact. Thus, for example, the statements that the reviewers were happy to order cola but did not enjoy it; that the cola was flat, warm and watery; that the squid rings were translucent grey in appearance; that they did not taste like squid; that the starters were of poor quality; that the sauce on the chicken Marsala was very sweet and a bad accompaniment for the savoury food; that the spaghetti dish had overcooked pasta, a lot of sauce and unattractive looking seafood in the sauce; that the reviewers did not enjoy their main courses; that the chips were pale, greasy and undercooked; and that the reviewers were unimpressed by the poor standard of their dining experience were all matters of comment and not statements of fact. They should have been identified as such by the judge and he should have directed the jury that they should so regard them."

Bloggers and contributors to websites should not yet celebrate. The following case presents a dire warning to porkie pie merchants who think of the internet as affording them protection:

Gentoo v Hanratty

I will post on this shortly. Do remember that this a lawyer's promise.

Euthanasia For Snake Smuggler

I link to Gary Slapper's weird cases but this one deserves a post of its own:

"Facing a criminal charge in Brisbane District Court, Australia, in 2006, Katsuhide Naito, a Japanese man, also gave an unusual excuse. He told the court that his otherwise criminal conduct should be seen sympathetically in the context that he committed the offence only in order “to acquire a champion Australian cattle dog”.

Naito had contravened laws about bringing living matter into Australia. He had aimed to swap his organic contraband for the cattle dog. He might have been treated leniently had he tried to smuggle a ladybird or four-leaf clover. But the authorities who searched his bag were not impressed to find 39 live snakes, lizards and turtles.

The Brisbane judge declared that the wrongdoing was very serious. He ruled that the proper court order was one for euthanasia and stuffing. Mr Naito might well have fainted with shock at that point but the judge explained it was the reptiles that should be given the treatment and then donated them to the Queensland Museum. Naito himself was spared and given a three-month prison sentence."

The 100th Post

I have now managed 100 posts without any (or much) feedback. This may be a record. Well, at least, most people would have given up by now.

Statistics

The first post was on 24th January 2007.

That is 437 days ago.

The average number of posts per day is therefore 0.228833.

It looks better if you use a 5 day working week, take off bank holidays, 5 weeks annual leave and weekends. My average then is 2.7297534 posts per day.

I just thought you might be interested. Even if you do not exist.

Muslim Humour

NOT A PROPHET

I was wrong. There is some. Here are some links I found:

Islamic Humour

The Muslim Has a Sense of Humour

Islam and the Sense of Humour

Now, stop pillorying Muslims for lack of a sense of humour.

Ants' World: Nice Lemmings Type Game

They forgot the apostrophe but Ants' World is an amusing free game that will appeal to fans of Lemmings.

Professor Gary Slapper's Weird Cases

Professor Slapper's column in The Times is always fun. Here are some recent additions with short extracts:

Assault by Handshake

Having just lost a criminal case in which she defended her husband, Kathy Brewer Rentas, an American media litigation lawyer, has been charged with assault for allegedly shaking the prosecutor's hand so vigorously that she injured the woman's shoulder.

There is a comment at the end of Professor Slapper's article concerning barristers not shaking hands with each other. I am a solicitor and was always told that I should not shake hands with a barrister (or he/she would decline to shake my hand) because I might be passing him or her a bribe. In fact, all of the many barristers I have instructed have been only too happy (indeed, eager) to shake my hand. Reflecting on this, as occasioned by Professor Slapper's article, I do wonder whether I have been deficient in the provision of bribes.

Judges at War

The hearing has involved a jaw-dropping sequence of testimony in which senior judges have accused each other of being “volatile” and “schizoid”, of lying, having hotel sex with court employees, and of threatening behaviour.

And these are the people who criticise me for forgetting to turn off my mobile telephone? Ok, it was playing Bob Marley's "No Woman, No Cry". Ok, it was an Employment Tribunal. Ok, no-one told me off. In fact, everyone had a quiet smile or, at most, a minor titter. I fumbled hopelessly but eventually succeeded in turning the thing off. That would appear to be the difference between here and America. Our judges stand on ceremony when it is really necessary but not when it is simply a matter of their "personal dignity."

Is this a Person?

Courts sometimes have to make difficult decisions about whether something is in a legal category. Is, for instance, a sawn-off piano leg an offensive weapon? Sometimes even human categories can be a challenge. Is a woman married if, after she and her partner have said “I do” at their wedding, she stops the ring going fully on her finger and runs out shouting that she’s changed her mind? An Australian court in 1953 said yes, and that, wait for it, Mrs Quick was married to Mr Quick.

But new ground was broken recently when the Supreme Court of Austria was asked to rule that Matthew Hiasl Pan is a person. That sounds easy enough for even an inexperienced lawyer. But the challenge was that Matthew is a chimpanzee.

World's Most Litigious Men

Omorotu Francis Ayovuare, a Nigerian-born surveyor, is apparently Britain’s most litigious man. By 2003, he had clocked up 82 race discrimination claims, and won only two of them. In the US, Billy Roy Tyler from Nebraska claims to be the “greatest writ-writer in the world”. He has sued everyone from his neighbour to the Governor. In the 1990s, he issued proceedings in 113 federal cases during one two-year period.

But both have been trumped by Taso Hadijiev, 74, and his brother Asen, 75, from Malka Arda in Bulgaria. They began suing each other in 1968 in a dispute about a land inheritance from their parents. They are still at it, and have now litigated over 200 times.

Fired For Not Smoking

The company laid off three non-smokers and said it would not be hiring any more people who don’t smoke. "Smokers have always been our best employees. Non-smokers interfere with corporate peace,” Jensen said. "They just complained all the time about smoking, and I don't like grumblers.”

Every day across the world, people are told they are no longer wanted by their employers for all sorts of reasons. They’re too old, too young, too aggressive, absent from work after serial booze binges. But being sacked for refusing to smoke is not something heavily indexed in the law reports.

Battle Of The Trial Lawyers (reminiscent of a Monty Python Sketch)

The AAJ, however, has thought twice and has issued proceedings in Minneapolis in order to force TheATLA to drop the name, arguing that the existence of the old name was confusing AAJ members and infringing a trademark. The claim also demands that AAJ is awarded any money that TheATLA collects in membership dues, and —you guessed it — treble damages and attorneys' fees. The lawyers who argue the case will no doubt be very good: a trial lawyer whose client is composed of 56,000 other trial lawyers can expect some professional feedback.

Christmas In Court

The jolliness of Christmas works in almost all venues except courts. Courts can’t do jollity. Just before Christmas in 2000, at Luton magistrates’ court, a sullen convicted man was about to be sentenced for a property crime when the courtroom suddenly rang out to the tune Santa Claus is Coming to Town.

The magistrate awkwardly opened his jacket and began fiddling with his musical novelty Santa Claus tie. The courtroom was aghast. The man in the dock stood slack-jawed. The magistrate’s tie then burst into We Wish You a Merry Christmas before stopping, at which point the defendant was jailed for four months.

See my comment on mobile telephone usage above.

The Speeding Wheelchair

In England and Wales, we issue more than 1.5 million speeding tickets each year. The offence has a long history. The first person in Britain to be fined for speeding was the pioneer of the petrol-engine car, Walter Arnold. On January 27, 1896, when there were only 20 cars in Britain, Mr Arnold was driving through Paddock Wood in Kent at 8mph — four times the 2mph limit imposed for built-up areas by the Locomotive Act 1865.

Suing Your School

No law school can keep everyone happy. Sir John Mortimer, QC, creator of Rumpole of the Bailey, complained that as a student he found the law syllabus “enormously dull” and “spent as little time at it as possible”. But to actually sue your law school is entirely another matter. In 1965, a student brought a claim against the University of London alleging negligence against the law examiners, but was unable to persuade the Court of Appeal that he deserved better marks. The student represented himself but got the law wrong in arguing his case.

Justice By Coin Toss

Judicial coin flipping, though, isn’t unprecedented in America. “Is your client a gambling man?” Judge Alan Friess asked the lawyer of Jeffrey Jones at Manhattan Criminal Court in 1982. Jones had pleaded guilty to theft but had objected to a proposed 30-day jail sentence, saying 20 days would be fairer. The judge then asked a District Attorney for a 25 cent coin and ordered the defendant to flip it and call. Jones called tails, won, and got his 20 days.

20 Weird Cases In Brief

The Blurb:

"A meticulous collector of amusing and curious anecdotes from the world of law, Professor Gary Slapper's Case Notes column has long been a staple of The Times' Law section. His collection of legal oddities is on display in a new column, Weird Cases. As a taster, we asked him to select 20 of his favourite bizarre disputes, prosecutions and lawsuits from the archive."

Samples:

2. In 2005, a Brazilian woman sued her partner for failing to give her orgasms. The 31-year old woman from Jundiai asserted in her case that her 38-year old partner routinely ended sexual intercourse after he reached an orgasm. After a promising start the action ended in something of an anticlimax for the claimant when her case was rejected.

6. In 2005, Marina Bai, a Russian astrologer, sued NASA for £165 million for “disrupting the balance of the universe”. She claimed that the space agency’s Deep Impact space probe, which was due to hit a comet later that year to harvest material from the explosion, was a “terrorist act”. A Moscow court accepted Russian jurisdiction to hear the claim but it was eventually rejected.

8. In 2006, a young man from Jiaxing, near Shanghai, found himself in legal trouble after failing to take advice before putting his soul up for sale on an online auction site. The posting was eventually removed by the auctioneer and the seller was told that the advert would be reinstated only if he could produce written permission to sell his soul from “a higher authority”.

You will note that I did not get below 8 before I ran out of my self-imposed denying ordinance that I would only disclose 3 of 20. I also excluded no. 1 so you really must visit the above link.

A Christmas Card for You

The Canadian Supreme Court look a fun bunch especially if any of the gossip in the title link is true! Go there, it's a fun site.

The Cinzano Kid

This is amusing. Click on the title to view other Leonard Rossiter clips.

Harrods and the Harrodian School

This is an old case, just made available on the internet, but perhaps typifies the litigious nature of Harrods under current management:

How many other stores can sell you an elephant? Buy your stocks and shares? Arrange a safari in Africa? Engage a Black Watch piper for Hogmanay? Insure your life? Paint your portrait? Find you a house? Clean your silver? Give messages to your friends? Find a school for your child? Decorate your home? Send you on honeymoon?

"Find a school for your child" not run a school to educate your child.

Thus Harrods sued the Harrodian school for trading on its reputation and causing it loss which would sound in damages (and probably close the school).

Harrods lost at first instance, but they appealed. Ridiculous is one of the adjectives that springs to mind.

Yet the really surprising thing is that they only lost the appeal on a 2-1 majority.

Lord Justice Millet got it right. Pay careful attention to the the laconic final sentence of the following paragraph from his judgment:

Over the years Harrods has offered a vast range of services. These include a bank (established in 1890) which carries on business under the name "The Harrods Bank", a travel agency, shoe repairs, jewellery repairs, the supply of school uniforms for more than 90 fee-paying schools, a golf school, livery stables, piano tuning, a wedding service, funeral undertakers, auctioneers estate agents and surveyors, a lending library,a post office, a theatre agency, a travel bureau, an insurance agency, house removals, dry cleaning, and opticians. In the days of the empire it fitted out children of parents living overseas for school in England, and could even be used to find a suitable school for a child; but these services have long been discontinued. It has from time to time introduced new products and services and discontinued others. It no longer supplies elephants.

And it does not and never has educated children. Some may be glad of that.

Unaccountably, to my mind, Sir Michael Kerr dissented. I can only refer you to his judgment in its totality but I cite the following:

The use of the adjectival form of their own name will become lost to the plaintiffs; but the false impression of a connection between the plaintiffs and unconnected businesses using the name "Harrodian" will proliferate. The plaintiffs' reputation will become involved with their fortunes or misfortunes, and become a hostage to them. In my view the plaintiffs have done nothing to deserve this detriment, nor the defendants this benefit.

It is not fair to judge this passage with the benefit of hindsight but it was absurd at the time and it remains absurd today.

The Harrodian School still exists (visit their site) and I cannot think that anyone associates it with the rather silly department store that shares part of its name.

I have not confirmed this with them but I do not believe that the Harrodian school has ever sold elephants or has any intention in the future of selling elephants. Elephants will not ever be available on this blog or my main site.

I will never ever compete with Harrods in any way or form. I promise you this, Mr Al Fayed. Please do not sue me.

The Death Cat

Never let it be said that I do not report miracles.

Apart from the headline article you can view a typical Daily Mail response by, well, clicking on Daily Mail. I hope that will not be too confusing for Daily Mail readers. If it is then they can click here.

A cat's affinity for dying people is hardly unusual in a nursing home.

Cats are wonderful beings and so unlike dogs and humans. Their insouciance is unsurpassed by any other creature. They have an individuality and a complete disregard for man-made law that renders them supremely admirable. Yet, they are not wholly anarchistic and will be lovable and comforting to their human companions when it suits them.

It is the "when it suits them" bit about cats that dog-lovers hate. A dog will obey orders. A dog will fetch a stick but a cat will only fetch a small rolled up ball of silver paper if it happens to be in the mood for a game. If it is not then it will toss you a disdainful look indicating that the whole idea of this game at this time is simply beneath contempt. You will then end up apologising to the cat. No-one apologises to dogs.

Here, in Worthing, England, cats stroll across the road and if they see a car coming, they lie down in the middle of the road and start washing themselves. The car stops. The horn is tooted. Eventually, the cat gets up and strolls nonchalantly to the same side of the road it had come from.

It has made its point. Cats rule. Humans are merely servants or slaves to the cats' needs.

The Mad Barrister: You Must Read this Judgment

I read this judgment with incredulity.

It is the case of Stewart Dunn v Glass Systems (UK) Ltd

Mr. Dunn's antics are hilarious and it is very difficult to understand why anyone would ever instruct him.

His behaviour reminds me of the worst kind of litigant in person. The kind who get disqualified from pursuing further actions without leave of a High Court Judge.

But he is a barrister. And he is absurdly incompetent.

This is a judgment I recommend you to read. I have not the time this evening to provide selected extracts but may do so over the weekend.

The Judge's Underpants

In executing a breathtakingly brilliant strategy, worthy of the late George Carman QC, Sir Stephen Richard's leading counsel persuaded Sir Stephen to display his old briefs to the judge.

David Fisher QC asked the eminent Court of Appeal judge (all Court of Appeal judges are by definition eminent):

“In order to remove your penis when you’re wearing your Calvin Klein briefs, is it necessary to use one or two hands?”

To this the judge memorably replied:

“If I had a pee, I would use two hands. It is the natural way of doing it.”

This reply was, of course, fatal to the prosecution case that the judge had exposed his penis twice to a lady on the London underground.

Game, Set and Match!

I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service are immediately revising their training manual to include a completely rewritten version of the chapter on Resisting the Underpants Defence.

American defense lawyers have beseiged the UK solicitors actiing for Sir Stephen.

"Lawyer apologises over TB flight scare"

This is a headline from the London Times of today's date.

Cynics amongst you will want to comment that the first two words of the title must be unique so far as truthful news reports are concerned.

This reminds me of a joke repeated several times in Michael Connelly's The Lincoln Lawyer (a real page-turner):

"What's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?"

"One's a bottom-feeding shit sucker and the other one's a fish."

With minor variations this joke is available all over the internet so the ascription to Michael Connelly is hardly necessary but I still am enjoying his ingenious courtroom drama. I'm saving 50 or so pages for later.

Have a Nice Day! The Uber PM Speaks Sincerely to You

And he means that most sincerely, folks.

The Ur-Prime Minister

Hasn't the boy done well?

Forget the troubles.

10 years a PM. That counts as a good innings. You gave it to him. Fast or slow, he can take the bowling.

He chooses his time of going. Gosh, he finishes "not out".

In fact, he is not out plus seven weeks in which he has a free passs to slog them all over the field. No-one is allowed to catch his balls during this period!

Alright, Let's Mention It - The DVLA Sex Scandal

It is important not to become obsessive. I have therefore resolved not to post anything about DVLA for, at least, say, another 24 hours.

There is more than one sex scandal associated with the DVLA. For instance, the tent girl.

They like it hot in Swansea.

The DVLA at NIght: Don't Mention the Sex Scandal

Does not this look nice? (Welsh word order). It is a much nicer photograph than the one in my previous post. That was a Kafkaesque gulag.


Here it is again:

Which of the pictures truly exemplifies the way the DVLA works?

(a) The carefully laquerred self portait; or

(b) Kafka's Castle.

Do not click on the title if you dislike scandalous sex stories.

Are Police Officers Attractive?

This is a direct quote from The Times and I cannot improve upon it by further comment. It is by Jack Malvern:

Two police officers who were asked to leave a pub for exuberant kissing were criticised by a magistrate for turning a drunken row into a police matter.

Nicola Stewart and Lisa Curchun, her girlfriend, both police constables, were asked to leave by Nicola Hackett, the landlady of The Old Cock Inn, in April last year. The pair reported Ms Hackett to their colleagues, who charged her with a public order offence. Penny Williams, presiding at St Albans Magistrates Court, cleared Ms Hackett and noted that the policewomen and two companions, who acted as witnesses for the prosecution, had drunk a “fair amount of alcohol” that night.

Ms Hackett said: “I can’t have my customers made to feel uncomfortable by public displays of passion, by gay or heterosexual couples."