Not Saussure

May 16, 2007

How the other half loves

Filed under: Law — notsaussure @ 5:36 pm

Still trying to work this one out. Young man on trial for possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply, on the basis of joint enterprise. That is, the police had seen him and a friend parked up in his car, searched the two men and found his friend — who pleaded guilty — with a pocket full of wraps of cocaine and heroin. Prosecution want to argue that the two were in it together, primarily on the basis that the young man was less than frank when the police interviewed him and that there were a few suspicious indications when they searched his home. Certainly I can see why they were suspicious of him but, really, there wasn’t enough to convict him of more than being a bit of an idiot with some dodgy friends who probably (and no more than probably) himself uses a bit of the hard stuff for recreational purposes now and again.

There definitely wasn’t enough evidence there to get anywhere near the criminal standard of proof required to establish that even knew his chum had anything illegal in his pocket, let alone to establish they were engaged in a joint enterprise, and it didn’t take the jury long to find him not guilty.

Anyway, one of the things that roused the police’s and CPS’s suspicions was that he’d got a roll of cling-film in his bedroom, rather than, as one might expect, in his kitchen. It wasn’t, though, the same type of cling-film that his friend had used to make his wraps (the forensic science people had checked) so that didn’t really get anyone anywhere. Nevertheless, there’s an obvious inference — not, I would argue,one that’s germane to the charge on the indictment, which was being part of a joint enterprise to possess heroin and crack cocaine with intent to supply on such-and-such a date with so-and-so, rather than at some point in recent months having made up a wrap of something illegal, or having re-wrapped his own personal supply, of which there was, literally, nothing more than a trace or two (though there obviously had both some cocaine and some heroin in the room at some point) or something equally vague — but an obvious inference, nevertheless, and one worth chucking in.

It was given more weight by his obviously less-than-frank answer about why he’d got a roll of cling-film in his bedroom he gave during questioning by the police; wrapping the remains of a Chinese take-away, it seems. He’d clearly been given advice on this point — on the lines of ‘C’mon…’ — because learned counsel for the defence asked him about this point before the prosecution had a chance to have fun with it.

‘No. It wasn’t for wrapping Chinese food. I was embarrassed to tell the police at the time, but it was for the purposes of oral sex. ‘

Silence in court as everyone tried to take in the implications. Learned counsel — young, female and very attractive learned counsel — took a deep breath and tried to carry on as if nothing had happened, but the learned judge wanted to make sure he’d heard properly, since he’d just been complaining the defendant was mumbling, so his honour was finding it difficult to take notes.

Did I hear your client aright, Miss …. . He appeared to say he had the cling-film in his bedroom ‘for the purposes of oral sex’?Yes. Your honour heard correctly.

You could see his honour was dying to explore the implications of this one, but clearly decided it might be — err — injudicious so to do, so no one else did, either.

But, other than the obvious — which seems to me even less probable than the Chinese take-away explanation — can anyone give a rational explanation of what this chap thought we were supposed to imagine he and his girl-friend were doing with the cling-film? I’ve racked my brains, and other than his girl-friend mummifying parts of him, just in case, I’m stymied.



  1. There’s another purpose for clingfilm, demonstrated in the film Snatch.

    For anyone who hasn’t heard of the film – where have you been? The Minoan civilization?

    Comment by jameshigham — May 16, 2007 @ 6:40 pm

  2. I have seen trailers of Japanese “snuff” movies where they wrap a girl in cling film.

    It couldn’t have been joint enterprise, anyway, as Cannabis is Class C…

    Comment by jailhouselawyer — May 16, 2007 @ 7:13 pm

  3. I’m not sure I wish to know that, sir. Kindly leave the stage…

    Comment by notsaussure — May 16, 2007 @ 7:48 pm

  4. I had to hear a rather graphic explanation of how one should use cling-film when performing oral sex on females. This lesson was part of a mandatory college orientation course. There were quite a lot of us in an auditorium, listening to some stupid woman explaining how to add plastic to every possible sexual activity. This happened at an (allegedly) Catholic college too.

    So this guy’s latest explanation is entirely believable.

    Comment by August — May 16, 2007 @ 7:48 pm

  5. August, you are surely trying to wind me up here. I realise that I’m the world’s worst Catholic, but my late wife was educated by the Sisters of Mercy (a somewhat ironically named organisation, apparently) and I don’t think even she had heard of that one.

    I mean, apparently she was apparently once advised by the good sisters that, should she ever, while wearing her school uniform, ever sit on a man’s knee, not only to place a newspaper over his lap but also over her patent leather shoes, least anything he might see reflected therein could lead him into temptation, but cling-film?

    I’d always put that story down to Catholic girls’ fertile imagination, but if you tell me it is so, then it must be. Further and better particulars, though, would be greatly appreciated, so long as they are appropriate to a blog suitable for family reading.

    Comment by notsaussure — May 16, 2007 @ 7:59 pm

  6. I think I will have to pop into the nearest Max Spielmann’s and ask if they can process my roll of cling film…

    Comment by jailhouselawyer — May 16, 2007 @ 8:31 pm

  7. It’s true.

    The leftist infection pretty much destroyed that university, leaving nothing but Catholic names, under which to hide such silliness. This was essentially a safe sex class for incoming freshmen.

    Loyola University
    New Orleans, Louisiana

    In addition, they had the gay and lesbian organizations, a full compliment of socialists of every stripe, atheists in the philosophy department, and one of the Jesuits priests once let a peacenik get up and give the homily.

    If you meant particulars in regard to the actual sex act, well imagine the act, then put the cling-film between the two people. Rather like licking a lollipop with the wrapping still on.

    Definitely not Catholic doctrine!
    The Pope would excommunicate the lot of them if he knew about it.
    We’ve got to wait for marriage, but once we’re there, we are a plastic free zone!

    Next they’ll come out with a plastic diet where they’ll say you can eat anything you want, just leave the wrapper on.

    Comment by August — May 16, 2007 @ 11:33 pm

  8. Thank you, August. Crikey!
    You don’t think, perhaps, that this might have been the Brothers’ or Fathers’ sense of irony at play, do you? That is, we’re required to give you a lecture on safe sex — since if we don’t, we won’t get federal or state funding as mandated by such and such a law — but, since we’re required so to do, we’ll have a bit of fun giving you our take on it… You want to be safe… well…here’s how to be sanitised for each others’ convenience… and, as you say, you may prefer to leave the wrapper on until you get married and then safely have some real fun without all this messing about?
    Mind you, from what I’ve heard of everyday life in New Orleans, wrapping each other up in cling-film is quite possibly perfectly normal… When in New Orleans, do as do Les Neauvaux Orleanois (yes, I know that’s cod for something like comme c’est l’habitude en New Orleans. ou, peut-être, comme il faut and all that?) It appears so to be among the criminal classes where I live, after all.

    Comment by notsaussure — May 17, 2007 @ 12:02 am

  9. You are probably aware but the woman’s genitals are covered in film (latex usually) before cunnilingus to prevent herpes or other diseases being transferred to the mouth, or vice versa.

    Comment by mike — May 17, 2007 @ 9:35 am

  10. Good Grief! As no one else has I’ll have to make the joke.

    Rolling your own condoms?

    Comment by Tim Worstall — May 17, 2007 @ 12:58 pm

  11. Well, that what everyone in court was thinking, Tim. Well, certainly what I was thinking and so, she later told me, was his barrister. The prosecution were dying to cross-examine him on the subject, but the judge’s intervention was clearly intended to be the last word on the matter and he’s not the sort of chap you mess about in his own court.

    And thank you for the clarification, Mike. I was genuinely unaware of this, doubtless very wise, precaution. You have, though, inadvertently presented with a bit of a social dilemma. You see, a good friend of mine who has a somewhat active, not to say lurid, social life suffers from herpes. Should I make sure she’s aware of this ingenious and useful method of prophylaxis? I don’t know her that well, you see, and I’d feel a bit awkward asking…

    Comment by notsaussure — May 17, 2007 @ 1:48 pm

  12. Maybe his girlfriend was really rubbish at oral sex, so he provided the roll of cling-film for her to practice with.

    Comment by Larry Teabag — May 17, 2007 @ 11:29 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: