#151: A Day In The Life

Both of the election beat ups were featured in the news today for all the wrong reasons. One, the Awful Woman, was bleating on about not accepting a public apology for distress, no great surprise there. There’s a lot more to that story than we’ve been made aware, there’s money going to her from somewhere, and all will be revealed, eventually. As it stands I didn't have to wait long for yet another shot of the Awful Woman, at least this time she wasn't swinging in the trees or 'running away' from media after she's invited them around for an announcement, and fully expect to see her on a season of Dancing With The Stars by years end. If there’s any justice in the world she’ll really live up to her Warhol status and now that the fifteen minutes are up, and perhaps expire by drug overdose.

The other matter dealt with an assault. I’m not going to pass any judgement on that, other than to say that the guilty plea was inevitable, and the only sensible thing to do. Why? Simple – the poor bastard didn’t have a choice.

The Awful Woman, now his Ex-Wife, comes from America, which really, explains a lot about the way she’s manipulated the media in the state. Can anyone say ‘Lewinski’? Still, all things must pass, and it’s not the first time that someone has alleged an affair with a head of state, a President or Prime Minister, or King, for that matter. Rumours abound about the propriety of a relationship between Geo. Washington and Sally Fairfax, and let’s not mention Edith Galt, about who was written the memorable by-line, “The President, Mr Wilson, spent the afternoon at the Whitehouse entering Mrs. Galt,” and who is possibly the first female President (sorry Hilary), albeit unofficially, after she took over when Woodrow Wilson became incapacitated by a stroke. We’ve also all heard the gossip surrounding a long time Prime Minister of this country, which was even reported in the diaries of a deposed leader of the opposition, and it’s now public record that Bob Hawke was ‘involved’ with his now current wife while still married to his first wife. A politician having an affair? Nothing new to see here. When someone can produce an illegitimate child, ala Warren Harding’s ‘daughter’, Elizabeth Phillips, then I might take notice. Oh, and let’s not mention the Kennedys. There’s been entire books written about the many confirmed sexual escapades of that lot.

But back to the alleged assault case. If the alleged perpetrator, well, not he’s not alleged now that he’s pleaded guilty, but if he'd pled not guilty and was found guilty he'd have lost any right to travel to the USA, where his E-Wife came from. Standard procedure for travelling to the USA when someone has any criminal conviction is that the person has to apply for an entry Visa. The consulate assesses these Visas and either says yay or nay, accordingly. In the case of a guilty plea due to serious assault the Visa is generally refused, especially if it’s fresh and the person then has to wait for five years after the discharge of any sentence, which, if the person gets a two year sentence, even suspended, or a good behaviour bond, it can run upwards of at least seven years. That’s seven years before the application would be considered. That's considered. After all there's no guarantee that the consulate will approve anything. So good luck. In this case no conviction was recorded, which means he can still travel overseas.

Courts generally frown upon anyone who pleads not guilty and is then found guilty. Pleading guilty means that you automatically get a ‘credit’ from both the court and the prosecution, a ‘credit; for not wasting the taxpayers dollar. In most cases the sentence is lighter, convictions aren’t recorded and the person can go about their business. A not guilty plea, and a protracted trial, which might be shown to be a show trial for the media’s sake, wouldn’t endear anyone to a magistrate. In that regard the telling comment was that he was allegedly 'confused' and didn't understand the nature of the relationship in question, which leads me to wonder, who really lied? The Leader of the person who wishes for their 'repuation to be restored'? It would appear that the Awful Woman didn't come clean on the alleged affair until the money was on the table. Such is the repuation that she wants 'restored'.

I also doubt that there’d be no way known that the person would have gotten the current leader of the state on a witness stand, and even if he had, I expect that any questions regarding the alleged affair would have been deemed inappropriate and disregarded. No such question need to be answered. It's a simple assault case and as such such motives aren't that important. All the court would care about is did the person assault the victim? In this case several dozen witnesses were lined up to say, yes, he did, and yes, I saw/heard it. The rest is gravy. Sanity finally prevails.