The increasing reliance on 'summary justice' from the UK government and police is far from a good thing. The job of the police is to detect and prevent crime, not to punish it. The result is that many people who would have had their cases dismissed by a court of law end up paying unnecessary fines. It's only in patently absurd cases such as this one that people stop and take notice.

In a bid for tourism for the lake district, a rap video has been made interpreting (which is the least offensive word I can think of) William Wordsworth's classic poem. It features a rapping squirrel called MC Nuts and if that isn't quite enticing enough. He looks like some kind of deer-kangaroo hybrid. If you want to take the easy way out, here is the YouTube video for it (although it's worth using the link just so you can see it on an actual tourism website).

This isn't a new story, but the appeal to the Georgian Supreme Court was recently rejected, and I don't think this story can be told too much, if just because it's superbly ridiculous.

This article covers it very well, but is a little bit wordy so in short:

At a New Year's high school party a 17 year old senior received a fully consensual blowjob from a 15 year old girl (there was quite literally a videotape to show consent). She never made any complaint to the police, but after a 17 year old girl got hammered and had sex with him (among others) without remembering what happened in the morning, she feared rape and the police became involved.  The boy was cleared of all rape charges but, as the 15 year old was below Georgia's age of consent, he was convicted of 'aggravated child molestation' which carried a mandatory 10 years imprisonment without parole. The forewoman of the jury later stated that part of the decision was based upon their own erroneous beliefs, such as that their decision had to be unanimous and that they had no choice but to obey the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit of the law.

Without going into the catalogue of failures that allowed this charge to reach a jury in the first place, this is a notable accusation at the concept of jury trials altogether. The idea that 12 people with no concept of the law should be (in most cases) the final arbitrator of people is laudable, especially if jail time is the expected punishment for those found guilty. If someone is to be tried under the law, it seems only logical that they are judged by someone who understands the complexities of the rules being invoked. Nobody in their right mind would let 12 random people choose their medical treatment. Why should this guy be in prison until he's 27 because a jury couldn't figure out that a law designed to protect minors from paedophiles wasn't meant to be used to police teenagers fooling around?*

</rant>

My favourite part:
"At the time that Genarlow’s trial was underway, just down the hall in the same courthouse, Douglas County Judge Robert James Baker was hearing the case of Alexander High School English teacher and cheering coach Kari McCarley. The 27-year-old was found guilty of having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male student who attended the school where she worked. She was sentenced to three years probation and 90 days in jail. "

*Yes I see the upside. Judicial independence and all that. But juries do tend to be a hindrance more than a benefit.

This was an advert for the beer 'Stella Artois' that I thoroughly enjoyed for being completely ludicrously surreal. (Also in Quicktime if you prefer).

Reassuringly elephants indeed. So who else has a favourite advert then?