Commenter and music expert ex-KCS has been helping me discover exactly what the judge in the Vicky Pryce trial was asked by the jury. Here are the results of our researches:
"May we borrow your wig? It might help us concentrate"
"What do you mean by the word 'evidence?'"
"Are we allowed to use a Ouija Board to help us reach a verdict?"
"Under British criminal law, is having a pointed nose a sign of guilt?"
“Can we phone a friend?”
"Can we find her guilty of being a minger?"
"Can we speculate that she didn't know what she was signing because her eyes
look in different directions?"
"Can we be excused on the grounds that we are too stupid to fart and chew gum at the same time'?"
"Pliss, vat is 'djhuri'? We no have I t’ink in my cowntry."
“How could they have been married when they weren't gay?”
“Can we vote to abort her husband?”
“If we vote to eject her from the house, will she be replaced by an obvious cross-dresser?”
“Can we lay bets on our verdict at William Hill?”
“What exactly do you mean by the word ‘majority’?”
“Are you wearing that outfit for a bet, your honour?”
“Is willingly marrying a Liberal Democrat proof of lunacy in British law?”
“Can we have some Playstations and Wiis and stuff? We is like well bored, innit.”
"Can we speculate that she didn't know what she was signing because her eyes
ReplyDeletelook in different directions?"
An ungallant remark. To employ a zoological analogy, poor old Huhne was faced with a choice between a chameleon [with their separately mobile, stereoscopic eye-balls] and an iguana [both sexes possess a "hemipenis". Without going into the gory details, this enables the female to grip the male member inside her body for as long as she wants].