Crumbs.

I wasn't defending your man. How often do you read a review of a wine, for example, when the journo says it was horrible?

If this is the level of debate, then I now realise why I don't spend much time on it. Try defending a villain against overwhelming evidence.

If you were a lawyer for the accused, and you chose not to defend them in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, it would not be long before you starved from lack of funds.

Anyway, goodbye, that's the last from me on this board.

Hope all of you, and Crompton, flourish.

Bishop, it's not quite as straight-forward as that. Apparently 'overwhelming' evidence might have been planted or manufactured. Moreover, there are very strict rules on what the defence may do if a defendant privately admits guilt (it seldom happens) and, although the prosecution evidence may still be tested as to reliability, no positive case of innocence may be adduced.

On esselle: I wonder why, when there are all those 'victims' ridiculed on this site that he/she chose to wonder about Cromps. Strange. Still, TTFN, esselle.

Oh grief!!!

I give in. I am not defending Crompton; I have no idea who he is, and care even less. I simply, as I have tried to make clear, look for logic but here find only lack of it, or, even, jealousy. If you don't like his stuff, or mine for that matter, don't read it, let alone write about it.

Bishop - yes, well, lawyers who are desperate enough to do that deserve to be lined up and shot. Agreed. Moreover, they do their clients a disservice because they end up with the full tariff sentence, without any discount for copping a quick plea. So far as eselle is concerned: anyone know somebody with the initilas 'SL'? Anyway, it all seems like a prank by someone either with undescended testicles or none to descend. But terrier-like and I doubt whether we have heard the last of eselle yet...Seems bright enough in geeky sort of way...