On a day when a senior judge held up a pair of Calvin Klein underpants in Court, defending two counts of “intentionally exposing his genitals intending that someone would see them and would be caused alarm or distress” (See BBC Story) and BBC reporters talked about members of the public taking a keen interest in proceedings, my mind was on other matters:
Jamaican police have finally concluded that Bob Woolmer was not murdered, Paris Hilton has found God and is “done with dumb” and Katie from The Apprentice managed to get “fired for real” from her job at The Met Office – her front too warm and unsettled, clearly, for the Met Office.
A quick trip around the UK blogs reveals, perhaps, a quiet and reflective period. But then I made a trip to Geeklawyer’s blog. Martin George (Formerly known as Legal Scribbles) has decided that anonymity is not for him – prompting the “Elusive Pimpernel’, Geeklawyer, to defend his right to retain anonymity and “continue saying offensive defamatory and scurrilous things about his friends colleagues and punters. Oh and selected co-bloggers of course.” Geeklawyer also draws attention to Ruthie’s ‘new venture.’
My mind is still grappling with Lord Justice Richard’s comment in court. The BBC reports: “He was asked by David Fisher QC, defending: “In order to remove your penis when you’re wearing your Calvin Klein briefs is it necessary to use one or two hands?”
Sir Stephen replied: “If I had a pee, I would use two hands. It is the natural way of doing it.”
I shall resist further comment, analysis or critique… “Remove your penis?”
The Smoking ban
I quote this from the Sun: “Government guidance issued to local authorities ahead of the smoking ban states: “It is recommended that persons in control of smoke-free premises . . . keep a written record of any incident where an individual smokes on the premises in contravention of the legislation.” But then it adds: “Businesses should be encouraged to contact their council after any incident.”
The Sun report discusses ‘powers of forced entry’, ’snooping devices’ and Police RAIDS’. This is, of course, arrant nonsense. The Police barely have time, or the resources, to combat serious crime and the suggestion that Police will be hammering down doors to catch smokers is, in my opinion, a wonderful bit of journalistic nonsense to make smokers (like me) angry.
Smokers will simply go outside and smoke. Some may even give up. I have been telling lies to all my smoking friends about my plans to give up. I have even told some of them, as I smoke in front of them, that I have already given up – hypnosis… don’t miss it a bit.

Re: Lord Justice Richards – he is obviously not a smoker if he uses two hands.
You know… Lo-Fi… you have a point!
Curious business the whole trial.
Leaving aside the ‘giggle’ factor. Producing a set of Knickers in court with a bald unsupported assertion that they are the one ‘usually worn’ has to be the worst case of self-serving evidence I have heard of. I am surprised that prosecuting counsel did not object to it! I am even more surprise that such an eminent judge of the Court of Appeal did not know better than to try and pull a stunt like that!
What next? The defendant in a criminal trial attempting to controvert the prosecution’s evidence by producing a gun/knife quite different to the one he normally uses?
Huge parts of the evidence do appear to have been completely irrelevant. Beside which Calvin Klein briefs presumably come fitted with the necessary appertures any way.