Showing posts from March, 2007

The Michael philosophises

A classic quote from 'The Michael' on December 14th 2006, clearly in a cynical albeit rather erudite and perceptive mood.
"Asking the lawyer for advice in respect of a problem, however small or ostensibly straightforward, is neither recommended nor ever simple.Lawyers love to unnecessarily wrap issues up in complexity and obfuscation. This serves two purposes. Firstly, it helps them to present themselves as sophisticated, intelligent beings, capable of disentangling a solution from a bird's nest of a problem. This cloak of pretence and intricacy provides them with a platform on which to expand their rather under-developed and uninteresting personalities. Their high salaries allow them to afford the feckless frivolities in life that they invariably take delight in, thereby surrounding themselves with luxurious sundries to, at least for a short while, forget their own miserable existences in the vacuous wretchedness of their worthlessness.Secondly, and perhaps more i…

Boozed-up leg-rubbing, indefensible

R v Heard, Court of Appeal Criminal Division - Published March 6, 2007

This case seems to have gone to appeal on the basis of a rather fanciful and imaginative line of reasoning – one which is centred around well-settled law and in that sense should not have been given 'court-room'. The fact it went to appeal is disturbing in itself, mainly because the ‘point of law’ was simply shrouded in obfuscation and 'needed' an appeal judge to ‘set the record straight’. What a waste.

In short: a defendant who became voluntarily drunk and ‘rubbed-up’ against a police officer’s leg could not successfully rely on the defence of intoxication so as to avoid liability for sexual assault under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The defendant claimed he was so drunk he was not aware of his actions or in control of himself, so to speak.

For a section 3 offence to be made out the following are required:
- Defendant (D) intentionally touches another person, (victim) (V));
- the touching …

Microsoft’s Antitrust issues just keep on rollin’

This one has been running so long that I’m frankly pig-sick of it now. The EU clearly have been wanting to turn the thumbscrews into Microsoft for so long that they’ve forgotten their original gripe with them. Not that the EU would ever act in a vindictive, recalcitrant or vengeful way, of course. Still, it would seem that Redmond’s [rather reticent] response to the EU’s 2004 antitrust ruling has now suddenly been deemed inadequate. Again.

The problem centres around one of the requirements laid out by the EU that Microsoft must adhere to: the provision of documentation to aid software developers creating programs to be more interoperable with Windows Server products. While Microsoft were never exactly ‘swift’ in acceding to ANY of the EU’s requests, they certainly have dragged their feet the most in respect of the documentation issue.

In short, this is the ultimate court[room]-based tennis match, with a seemingly never-ending rally going between the EU and Microsoft. As soon as the form…

“He had difficulties entering into other relationships after the incident” – No kidding.

This one truly brings tears to my eyes. A Canadian court has been hearing a case involving a woman, Andrée René, who set fire to her boyfriend’s penis. The victim suffered third-degree burns and presumably a scorched ego for the rest of his life. Painfully, the victim’s lawyers’ contentions included a (possibly) euphemistic description of the aftereffects of the attack: ‘He had difficulties ‘entering’ into other ‘relationships’ after the incident’. I bet he did.

The upshot: Andrée René was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, must undergo psychological assessment and prohibited from owning guns or combustible materials for 10 years after her release. It is said that René ‘harbours deep anger towards men’. And all associated appendages, it seems.