Symphonious

This is either a joke or the most biased reporting I’ve ever come across. If it’s a joke it’s not funny and if it’s biased reporting it’s so overly biased as to be obvious and thus much less effective.

Not that I don’t think Blair’s labour party deserve to be voted out but comparing them to Hilter’s Nazi party is way over the top.

For the record, the article appeared on the front page of Google News.

Firmly in the “what were they thinking?” category: two menu were arrested and charged with animal cruelty. What did they do? Kill a live mouse (each) by chewing it.

The management of the Exchange Hotel where the incident occurred as part of an organized promotion claim “they knew nothing about it”. I’m the sure the expense claim for a holiday weekend on the Gold Coast (which was to be the prize) wouldn’t require any explanation….

David Starkoff points out this case regarding the provision of adult entertainment on Good Friday. David points out how “ironic (apt, perhaps?)” it is that the Common Prayer Book is pivotal in the final decision. However interesting it may be that:

the Almanac annexed to the Common Prayer Book has been regarded as part of the common law, and in consequence would have been received into Australia as part of the common law (Halsbury, 3rd Edition Vol 15 para 611 and Vol 37 para 133)

from my exclusively non-lawyer stand point I would have to pick the following excerpt as the highlight of the document:

[8] The evidence of the Liquor Licensing Officer, P G Davis, was that he attended the premises of the Crazy Horse Nightclub at about 1.30am on 29 March 2002 “which was Good Friday last year”. He gave evidence that between then and about 1.50am he observed two females performing a dance routine on the stage which involved them stripping totally naked and exposing their genitalia towards the audience.

[9] It was contended before the magistrate, and again in the District Court, that the dancing in question did not constitute adult entertainment within s 103E of the Act because it was not “of an explicit sexual nature”.

Firstly I appreciate how much thought and preparation must have gone into the polite yet extremely accurate description of the “two females”. Secondly I am extremely impressed by the defense attorney’s ability to not only argue that two females stripping totally naked and exposing their genitalia to the audience was not “of an explicit sexual nature” but to (presumably) do it with a straight face. Of course, if he couldn’t keep a straight face I’d love to get a video of that court sitting.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the appeal was dismissed with costs.