In the news

Trousers thread >>>>>>

Use a lighter, don't pull it.

Paul Ryan's suits are fucking awful

Most American 'sack' suits are awful, which is why the best dressed Americans go to Savile Row and have proper ones made.

...and they have a go at our teeth.

American's suits...

Who's he/she?

Suit's of Americans'.

Interesting.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/putney-bridge-world-war-two-bomb-discovered-in-thames-on-boat-race-route-a3504871.html

Teenage asylum seeker brutally attacked in Croydon

I see @Oliver Schick has been busy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39459831

I have sleeper cells in a couple of other cities, too. You should hear about them soon.

I have sleeper cells in a couple of other cities, too. You should hear about them soon.

QFMI5 and reported...

We'll be checking their dead letter drops, and woe betide if there's a messed-up subjunctive somewhere.

messed-up subjunctive

It is important that this become my next band name.

Again? They did find one like 10 years ago there.

Could someone explain this to me:

Decorator cleared of killing Czech man in London street attack

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/03/decorator-cleared-killing-czech-man-zdenek-makar-london-street-attack?

Not guilty of manslaughter, nor murder.

Reading this;

“He swung the improvised weapon and struck Mr Makar to the left side of his head, catching him behind the ear and knocking him to the ground where he then struck him at least twice more.”

As Makar lay dying in the street, Sculley stood over him and allegedly said: “Look what you made me do.”

What the fuck? he killed, yet not guilty?!? especially this;

claiming he did not intend to kill him and was acting in self-defence.

Self-defence?!

I want to read the case notes to see the arguments and how the judge directed the jury.

This version of the story makes it feel more open to jury interpretation
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/decorator-cleared-of-beating-czech-man-zdenek-makar-to-death-with-a-bike-chain-in-poplar-a3506121.html

Still doesn't feel right, though.

Edit to add - I also wonder if the Crown shouldn't have added GBH as a fall-back. You don't have to foresee the gravity of the harm to be found guilty of basic GBH, just be guilty of inflicting it.

Having sat on a jury for a murder trial recently, while legally I cannot discuss what was said in the deliberation room, I will quote Albert Einstein "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

internet scenes

But manslaughter was the backup option, surely.

From the articles it looks like he got into an altercation with the victim in the chicken shop, then him and his mates followed the victim out of the shop and into an alleyway. Then he beat him to death with a bike chain.

Yes, I know, and I don't know why he wasn't found guilty of it. That's why I want to know how the jury was directed. I can see how they might have cleared him of voluntary manslaughter, but I don't understand why he'd also be clear of involuntary manslaughter. But I don't know all the facts of the case.

scum in entirely unsurprising irony vacuum.

Good to see the ULEZ data announced: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39488291

But HOW THE FUCK are taxis exempt?!