MichaelWolkind

great question. have an upvote from me. My humour is always deniable. I remember a policeman who pleaded guilty to misuse of the police computer and he had researched Abul Hamzah and family. Now he was to go to Belmarsh where Hamzah was. I mitigated that the time there would be particularly hard as this case was bound to be publicized as any mention of that gentleman is a hook for the Press and they will keep one eye on the story. that was probably a 5 on my Outrageous Scale. Deniable cos of course I certainly didnt mean what I appeared to say., did I.

he thinks he is a superhero but given that he is now feeding me dolly questions instead of getting on with his work, it's debatable

yes and yes. scary development

Thank you for raising this important point, which has troubled scholars over the years. it's vital for you to remember, Arrietta, that even witnesses with false teeth can still tell the truth

a colleague and friend, sadly now passed on, was co-defending in a cut throat murder. My man accused of paying for a contract killing, the other defendant meant to have carried it out. Smith cross-examined my client about his police interview where he didn't answer questions but muttered just one word at the police, "prick". Smith criticized him heavily for that. My closing speech began something like "let us look at Mr Smith's prick. It's only a small thing. He tries to erect an argument" .... etc etc. Of course when it was his turn he tried to act outraged but in the robing room we collapsed laughing. providing barristers dont tell anecdotes, offer boom boom moments, then there is plenty of room for fun