Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Can I therefore sue my parents, in particular my mother for stress during birth?
Im sure this was a stressful time for me and I had no say in the matter. I dont remember any warning signs saying ' Caution you are about to be squeezed through a very small gap'

Aha Marc, but you have forgotten what it was like and are therefore not deemed to be suffering - good thing that we have no memory of our birth or we'd likely be traumatised for life (nightmares, claustrophobia, etc). And for that, you could sue.

Sorry, I'll take my lawyer hat off now.

Driver, "How is it that we put man on the moon before we figured out it would be a good idea to put wheels on luggage?"

Simple misapplication of genius, I fear. Which accounts for at least one-third of world history.

I once had an intelligent thought. Kept it in a box for years in case I ever needed it, but now I can't find the damn box.

Damm!!!

Who was the first person to look at a cow and say, "I think I'll squeeze
these pink dangly things here, and drink whatever comes out?"

If quizzes are quizzical, what are tests?

Driver, I just had an unprintable thought there.

The same person who decided to smash the Cochineal beetle into little pieces to make his food go pink.

st
You sing it i'll play it.

Sorry, Driver, I'm too embarrassed.

at last !!!!

Do illiterate people get the full effect of Alphabet Soup?

Did you ever notice that when you blow in a dog's face, he gets mad at
you, but when you take him on a car ride, he sticks his head out the window?

dogs? sorry thought you were talking about some of my old girlfriends. I didnt blow thrm they blew me. You can see how I got confused.

"Quote of the week".
I sometimes think I have a different script to the rest of the world. I have now had it confirmed that if I am insane then the guy quoted below has gone way past insanity into the dreamy hills and fluffy clouded skies at the other side.
Below is from the court case of a blind and deaf man being prosecuted for driving a car while being guided by his friend who was banned from driving. The defence lawyer simply couldn't recognise sanity if it had big flashing lights on it!

Defence solicitor Timothy Gascoyne invited the bench to acquit his client of dangerous driving.

In his closing submissions, the lawyer told the court: "The question is not whether his driving was dangerous, but whether being blind makes it dangerous.''

From the same case;

Prosecutor Peter Love asked Pc Austin if he had noticed anything about Aziz. Pc Austin replied: "I did - he didn't have any eyes, Your Worships.''

You really couldn't make this up!! Even in their pomp, Monty Python would never have come up with a sketch as ridiculous and off the wall as this, and this remember, is real life. A real and educated human being is trying to argue that a deaf man with no eyes, leg tremors and bouts of serious depression, driving a car in a built up area, while being guided by a banned driver, is not dangerous!! And you thought your job was difficult!!!

alan, 'kin brilliant!! :))

Talking of lawyers, allegedly from a real case:
(Q, for the defence, cross examining the pathologist, A)

Q:Before you started the autopsy did you check his pulse?
A: No
Q: Breathing?
A: No
Q: So was it possible that he was still alive?
A:No, his brain was in a jar on my desk.
Q:But was it still possible that he was alive
A:I suppose that he could possibly have still been alive and practising law somewhere.


In one version I read, the judge apparently fined the pathologist for contempt.

no, not too soon at all, alan. :)) i wondered how long it would take .

Feel free to pass it around.
I've sent it to that solicitor in the earlier article. He will believe it is real and be phoning the BBC threatening to sue.

Having read the bit about "In his closing submissions, the lawyer told the court: "The question is not whether his driving was dangerous, but whether being blind makes it dangerous,'' " again, I can see why this would keep lawyers in fees.

At law school we read cases involving issues that were structurally similar to the one above the whole time, but not usually quite as stupid.

What bothers me about the issue is not that these words could emerge from a lawyer's mouth, but that 12 members of the public were then asked to deliberate thereon and decide upon somebody's guilt or innocence.