Re: [OT] *** the police (again)

On 26/7/05 22:47, in article
bitbucket-34136F.22475626072005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Martin"
<bitbucket@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> And look what happened to The Mirror's editor. Fired over some dodgy
>>> photos to teach him (and the readership) a lesson.
>>
>> Hum. Problem was any moron could see within 2 seconds that they were fakes.
>> Either that or my piss stream is remarkable different to the norm and I'm of
>> to see a urologist sharpish. If you're gonna to run a good story, don't
>> stuff it up with crap evidence.
>
> Apart from Piers Moron :-)

He was desperate to get the story out, for good reason. It would shaft
Blair. Have to say he did a good job, and much as I loath the man (never
meet him, just hated him on TV) he has balls as an editor.

> And if *any moron* can see that they are fakes, how come the CPS can't
> prosecute the government employees that created the images?

<laughs> I'd love to be in court hearing evidence for that!

Mi'Lord as any man can testify, the droplets of urine show in the photograph
are patently to large and irregular to come from a human penis. May I
produce exhibits A and B.

A is a standard issue army water bottle, 1litre, for the drinking of.

B is a standard issue male penis, not for the drinking of.

Allow me to demonstrate as I simulate the "urine" stream from A. Notice the
similarity in droplet size and stream flow. I've filled the tank with
coffee, I'll now demonstrate B. Notice the continuous high pressure stream
and smaller droplet size.

Would the court like to examine the exhibits?

.