I recall a post in which you commeneted on how you took notice of the female barristers. It is ok for you to acknowledge pulchritude, you say. Just thought I'd remark that I agree.
Charmingly put. :o)
I have a relative who is a clerk in holy orders. In many churches, the priest stands on a step above the bride and groom when performing the marriage service. He has remarked on a number of occasions that he has had to avert his eyes as the bride has chosen a low cut dress which reveals next week's washing.
Any ex parte consultations in your cases, bystander? You know, an opportunity for those buxom barristresses to air your judicial briefs... Those are the only legal double-entendres that come to mind immediately.
I wouldn't worry about this gentleman's sentiment spreading to Britain; the colonies still maintain some standards of propriety that have been completely dispensed with in Pommieland.
I admire your flint-hearted determination to administer justice. De mammaries non curat lex: The law is not concerned with Bristols.
Such is the benefits of sitting in a lower court. I take it the more formal, robed attire of higher courts would deprive senior judges of such sights.
I was in Bristol a few weeks ago and I was disappointed to find that rather then being, as it should be, twinned with Brest, the city is jumelée with Bordeaux.
Fred S -
You missed "You can put it in the hands of your solicitor, but will it stand up in court?"
On a not... unrelated matter, who can spot the phrase in this article which has been translated into NewSpeak from "Only 10% of convicted sex offenders are stupid enough to get caught and convicted a second time."?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
5130560.stm
Well said Roger. In the current climate, bystanders' confession is probably enough to get him on the sex offenders' register and a high level community penalty involving attendance on a course designed to address his offending behaviour. Being an intelligent chap, he'll know better than to admit to voyerism (an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003) again.
My husband drew my attention today to a marginal story in the London Times (page 39), that suggests that in some cases it is the rest of the court which is at risk, and which we both thought you might enjoy.
***
Hard Evidence
Former Judge Donald D. Thompson, 59, is on trial for indecent exposure for allegedly using a noisy penis pump on himself while court was in session. Jurors have been laughing nervously while lawyers have demonstrated the device.
***
It seems that even learned Judges are not immune to the advertisements which plague the spam boxes of our emails...
Fee
This is simply another sign of the increasing cleavage between law and justice.
He'll get off on M/H issues..... Severe trauma and distress caused due to having a small penis, or he could claim Koro syndrome ... recognised as a genuine mental illness in some parts of the world.
Just think of something else.
Like two airships coming out of a tunnel.
Former Judge Donald D. Thompson, 59, is on trial for indecent exposure for allegedly using a noisy penis pump . . .
Caliandris, the word "noisy" had me in stitches. Of course, the durn fool should have repaired that hole in the muffler. But that's the slovenly way judges do things in Oklahoma.
Like this?
http://thelawwestofealingbroadwa...tly-in-
usa.html
What?????
Couldn't they wait?
If you have a bench of three is there the potential for a menage a trois?
I bet I'd get Algernon Bufton Tufton in his ginger tweed suit.
Or his neighbour Penelope Smythe. In the same suit.
Or both.
.. and don't forget the lady barrister who discarded her briefs and became a solicitor.
The old ones are the best.
Commenting by HaloScan
