The fact that it [ican[/i happen is a world away from it happening routinely.


It's easy to dismiss things as 'semantics' when you don't have an argument to support your point.

And any discussion of the legal system that attempts to avoid semantics is pretty pointless.


It really isn't irrelevant. For a start, one of those strategies is illegal.

And by definition, in every court case where a legal adviser is trying to prevent the truth from coming out there is another attempting the exact opposite.


This is just a long-winded way of saying that the legal system isn't perfect. Well done for stating the obvious.


You've a funny way of showing it.

He will be having a stint of 'coitus interuptus' very soon

I did not say it didn't happen, nor could I, as you might be surprised to know that I am not an omnipresent god. But as you seem to be challenged in the comprehension department I said that the claims that "[im'learned friends encourage defendants and witnesses to lie in court on a routine basis[/i. " and that this "happens day in, day out in every court in the land" was absolute nonsense, which indeed it emphatically is.

If you are still having trouble, the POINT is that it would be lunacy to extrapolate such astonishing claims from ONE alleged incident. You must be pretty dense if you couldn't work that out, so if the above words are still too hard, let me know an I'll try shorter words and sentences.

As for the specific point, perhaps Switalskis will be interested to read of the allegation that a member of their staff (who would inevitably have been at the meeting with counsel) by necessary inference condoned and connived with bent counsel to pervert the course of justice. It doesn't show that firm in a good light.

Another dream shattered.

I would only get upset if he had typed omniprescient
then my dream would have been shattered

Sadly I'm not that either. As my bookmaker will attest.

In the Vicky Pryce trial, the judge in directing the jury that he will accept a majority verdict, has been answering lists of questions posed by jurors, some of which seem, well, a bit nutty. One reported question was:

" whether "a juror could reach a verdict based on a reason not presented in court that has no facts or evidence to support it".

Am I missing something?

They seem like idiots, trying to overcomplicate things. Surely they would have already been directed on half of the questions they're asking?

Edit: And now the jury have been discharged after not being able to agree on a verdict!

Why on earth would a very intelligent woman believe that she could shop her husband to the press without there being serious repercussions for herself?

Indeed.

rlGuilty.rl

"Take her down, the Pryce is guilty..."

Perhaps, as punishment, they should be made to share a cell ...

Of course, some old cynics would say that we all know she'll get off with a bender, while he'll do some actual chokey.