Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

One law for some numpty from Chorley…

who got 12 weeks in chokey for making a very nasty joke on Twitter.

TV personality Justin Lee Collins has been sentenced to 140 hours of unpaid work for harassing his former partner Anna Larke.

Collins, 38, of Kew, south-west London, was convicted at St Albans Crown Court of harassment causing fear of violence between January and July 2011.

The court heard Collins had waged a “campaign of abuse”, keeping a dossier of Ms Larke’s past sexual experiences.

* * *

Justice John Plumstead ordered Collins to carry out the unpaid work within 18 months and told him to pay £3,500 in prosecution costs.

* * *

Sentencing Collins, Judge Plumstead said it had not been a “run-of-the-mill case of domestic violence”.

* * *

The jury heard Collins subjected the video games public relations worker, from Pirton near Hitchin, in Hertfordshire, to sustained emotional and domestic abuse during their seven-month relationship.

The court was told that Collins made her sleep facing him, throw away DVDs because they featured actors she found attractive and made death threats against her.

The entertainer and presenter had denied the charge, claiming Ms Larke was a compulsive liar.

The verdict was returned after nearly 12 hours of deliberation over three days.

The couple lived together in Kew from January to July last year and had a deeply troubled relationship as Ms Larke tried to overcome alcoholism.

Collins did not show any emotion as the verdict was announced.

Well, the two crimes don’t exactly compare but one is obviously more serious than the other. One is a vicious and sustained exploitation of a clearly vulnerable woman.

So let’s turn to something that is really just about causing offense.

They weren’t prosecuted. And indeed Ross has a chat show and Brand is in Hollywood.


  1. PeterA5145 says:

    Not that I think either should have been jailed, or anything like it, but surely glorifying in the deaths of British soldiers is more offensive than making a bad-taste joke about April Jones. Yet that only resulted in community service.

  2. Twenty_Rothmans says:

    Mrs 20 forces me to use the same bed as her.
    She monitors my emails and physical mail to see if the former Mrs 20 attempts to contact me (even though it’s just in a friendly way, seeing that we split twelve years ago and she is happily married and is settled on the other side of the globe).
    Mrs 20 tells me that I stink because I smoke (and forces me to go outside to do so).
    Mrs 20 forbids me from watching films containing women I might find attractive (mainly on redtube).
    Mrs 20 has threatened to kill me several times when I have been tied up in late meetings, and has thrown an ashtray (outdoors, natch), a plate and several mugs at me.

    “Det Insp Justine Jenkins, who led the investigation, said: “No-one should endure this sort of violent behaviour from anyone, least of all from someone with whom they have an intimate relationship.”

    Well come on babes, get your warrant out for the lads.

    As for the Chorley type, anyone who was watching the b3ta feed at the time of several children going missing in the past would have seen far worse – let alone what goes on on certain other places.

    If you have a wall, chances are that someone will drunkenly piss on it. This wall is now, it seems, all of cyberspace. Quite why that drunk should be locked up is, to me, mysterious.

  3. Penseivat says:

    Ahmed received a non-custodial sentence because it was an Asian making derogatory comments about white people who died in the service of their country. If you turn that around, half the courts in the country would be in flames within 12 hours if the (white) offender walked. The decision to prosecute someone in this country is made by the CPS – Crown Prosecution Service/Criminal Protection Society/Couldn’t Prosecute Satan (choose any one from three) – and this depends on who you are. The debate over Chris Huhne drags on. Why? Because he’s an MP which may have affect on the political status quo (possibly directed by various politicians), Ross and Brand have got awat with wit because they are ‘famous personalities’ and Collins more or less got away with it because his mediocre talent will now be tainted by this court decision and he will revert to his rightful place in society, asking people if they want fries with that? Compare each of the above with an ordinary bloke in the street. In the first case, the hearing would have taken place within weeks; in the second, they would be required to sign the sexual offences register and in the third, well, how can you improve on a career in a fast food restaurant?

  4. RAB says:

    Once in another lifetime I was Assistant Listings Officer of the Crown Court in Bristol. I would have had Huhne’s case in court on a wet Wednesday afternoon within 10 minutes of a trial collapsing, and expect it not to last till Friday. Yet this “trial” has been kicked into touch for over a year. Why? Well I think we know why don’t we folks?

    Then we get this…

    Now why we are not allowed to know what she has been arrested for is beyond my Legal understanding. But hat tip to Anna Raccoon for a nod in the right direction.

    Are they seriously going to charge a Judge with “Perverting the course of Justice” just to protect an asswipe like Huhne?

  5. NickM says:

    Huhne has already been protected beyond comprehension. Partially because he’s a shit and partially because speeding up to 12 points on his liscense and an automatic ban would undermine the Green credentials which are are big part of his schtick.

    Anyway, good on Anna for that! It needs to get out. Wider than the Pacific.

  6. JuliaM says:

    “Well, the two crimes don’t exactly compare…”

    Au contraire! She could have prevented the crime of abuse by regaining her self-respect and leaving him, and those offended by the idiot on BookFarce could have used the ‘off’ button or switched to looking at pictures of kittens, or something.

    But no. This is ‘No responsibility Britain’, where if it feels good, do it, and if it feels bad, run to the police…

  7. Mr Ecks says:

    Even as this country is pushed into tyranny, legal theatre is still important. The ruling classes can’t just say (not yey anyway) “Mr Huhne is a member of the ruling class and as such does not have to obey the laws designed for wretched plebs like yourselves”. So they took months trying to find some precident to get him out from his own mess and couldn’t. Now other moves are afoot….

  8. Twenty_Rothmans says:

    precisely my point. Mrs 20 can be difficult to live with, but I am not chained to a radiator – well, not yet, anyway.

    “You didn’t go easy on her because she’s an alky”
    oh, sorry, ‘had alcohol issues’
    Maybe he was just pissed (snork) off at tripping over vodka bottles.

    Standard response from Battershe Wimmin’s Refuge:
    “This is a real victory blah blah”
    No it isn’t, you cretin with a Bachelor of Andrex in Sociology! She wouldn’t go to you in the first place and piss off out of there. Unless you serve vodka these days, in which case I might drop around.

  9. Paul Marks says:

    It would be nice to live in a country where there was freedom of speech and the rule of law.

    Britain fails on both counts.

    The United States has freedom of speech – but a terrible lack of clear principles of law.

    Does anyone know of a country that has both freedom of speech and the rule of law?

  10. Julie near Chicago says:

    Cheer up, Paul, we’re trying to correct our primitive clinging to free speech. :>)

  11. NickM says:

    Well, I hope my sister’s in-law aren’t reading because then you would be chained to a radiator ;-)

    20 and Julia I think you misunderstand me. Yes, abusive relationships are difficult* But in a sense that was not my point. I am not talking so mch about that but what the miscreants here did or didn’t do. Not about their victims (or indeed their “victims”**). Yes, I’m sure Ms Larke should have told JLC to go fuck himself, packed her bags and never darkened his towels again. But this is not an ideal world and none of us always measure up to such lofty ideals. Anyway, again not quite my point. I can best illustrate it with an example:

    If you walk through the wrong-side of town with a pack of twenties showing in your back-pocket does that make those that will inevitably roll-you any less culpable of theft? No. It doesn’t. At the risk of sounding almost provocative here it’s not to far off the “she was asking for it dressed like that” rape defence so beloved of Ayatollahs and Jimmy Saville.

    Julie, Lolz :-)

    *Consider some of JLC’s actions. The DVDs and sleep facing me and the notebook of previous partners. It’s all saying you are mine but also, I am yours. It’s a psych game.
    **The outraged mob in the case of the Tweets of Doom against God’s newest angel. Personally I thought it was very Diana-ish. Or Motoonish. Ludicrous grief and outrage over something not directly concerning the members of the mob. An attempt to claim what is not exactly theirs.

  12. Twenty_Rothmans says:

    “Well, I hope my sister’s in-law aren’t reading because then you would be chained to a radiator ;-)”

    Sounds like fun.

    I have 8″ on Mrs 20 and she still scares the hell out of me. I whimper like a broken dog when she goes at me. She has deduced that she can get this >< close and get away with it. Ultimately, just where that line is drawn is my decision, and mine alone.

    Why should somebody else judge where that line is? I’m all grown up now. Going by the JLC sentence, Mrs 20 would have been shot by a firing squad, burned at the stake, dunked and beheaded – and that was just last night.

    Unless there is some sort of retardation going on here, Miss Larke did have free will. Apparently, she had a family. Apparently, she had a job. And according to the photographs, she had a pair of legs and a matching pair of arms, with hands at the end. With the aid of these assets, I am certain that she could have decamped as soon as the reign of (not very) terror commenced.

    In any event, JLC deserves a George Medal for going anywhere near the pulchritudinous Miss Larke in the first place. And asking her to lie face to face – hey, that’s taking one for the team.

  13. Mr Ed says:

    Eight months for wearing a T-shirt with a slogan on it. It should have been ‘fewer’ rather than ‘less’, but that was not the issue.

  14. NickM says:

    Erm…. “pulchritude” refers to beauty. As in, “I wouldn’t mind getting my hands on that Halle Berry – she’s right pulchritudinous she is”. So God knows what you meant about “taking one for the team”. As to the rest of it… God knows what you meant. Did you obtain the plate-throwing hand of Mrs 20 because you went on a quest.

    I hope folks grok the ref.

  15. JuliaM says:

    “20 and Julia I think you misunderstand me. Yes, abusive relationships are difficult* But in a sense that was not my point.”

    No, it might not have been, but the two are indeed connected, whether you like it or not.

    And on the subject of walking around with a rolled up wad in your pocket in the wrong part of town, note all the police public campaigns warning us about that sort of foolishness. Note the complete absence of campaigns warning ladies against behaviour that might lead to unpleasant consequences.

    See the disconnect?

    “I hope folks grok the ref.”


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: