I find this a damn sight less “creepy” than ALAC’s latest shock jock ads showing in pre-watershed prime time. Including the charming one with ends with a drunk woman being lead into an alley by a man who turns to leer at the camera… and just as this image fades to black, she starts screaming.

Implied rape – A-OK?

Interesting how he keeps on the unforced error. So PJs highest forms of insult are to call someone intellectually disabled or to accuse them of being gay. When he thinks about women he couples hatred (despises) with what he desires.

Some psychologist is going to have his/her next porsche paid for by PJ quite soon I reckon.

Wonder how his feminist gender studies “girlfriend” appreciates his misogyny, latent homophobia and self loathing – although I guess these are a set of core competencies for a male in the progressive left?

April 25th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
gotta go drink some wine. Latter.

Then:

April 26th, 2008 at 3:24 am
I h8 miself and I am gay1

WTF? Is this Phillip John’s idea of chardonnay socialism?

I h8 miself and I am gay1

Surely any feminist should be defending a womans right to do what she wants with her own body… especially when it contributes to vehicular safety in this manner

well well, so feminist ideologues tell porkies to support their prejudices.

who knew?

Contracts offered and accepted are as encouraging as a Asian street stall

I take your point about taking pleas in mitigation too far. It is very important to keep an eye on your client while making the plea because of just that situation. Undoes anything the client may have told one earlier! Unfortunately there are some lawyers who are only too happy to believe everything their client tells them, although in my experience they usually aren’t specialist defence lawyers, simply general practitioners who occasionally appear in court. But it certainly doesn’t help.

An excellent contribution to the discussion – thank you.

I doubt you’ll ever convince Phillip John/Roger Nome about your points. He’s self-declared a vested interest: his girlfriend lectures in gender studies. But I believe most moderate-thinking folk, like you, would watch the video and conclude that it’s a harmless exercise in humour. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for your other point that “the defence bar seems to be considered to be just as much responsible for crimes as the people who commit them“: I think the negative public perception may arise from the pleadings in mitigation. Not to tar all defence lawyers with the same brush, but I can think of a recent example reported in the local press where a defence lawyer was busily assuring the judge that his client was deeply remorseful. The truth was otherwise: his “client” was reportedly smirking and grinning throughout the court proceeding. Naturally, it’s the defence lawyer’s duty to put the best case forward for the client, but when that “best case” stretches beyond the point of credibility and into fantasy land, I think that’s when defence lawyers generate the negative public sentiment. Again, not to tar all of them with the same brush.