Yusuf Rahim
Oh no, not another fucking Peaceful I hear you say. Well not quite, this one used to have a different name……..Levi Bellfield.
Oh yes Levi has converted to the Peaceful faith, changed his name, prays 5 times a day, reads the Koran and eats all that shitty Peaceful food.
Of course there’s a reason for this. There are 3 gangs in HMP Frankland…..the whiteys, the blackies and the Peacefuls. The whiteys and the blackies won’t accept rapists and child murderers so you have to become a Peaceful to survive.
Just when you thought a piece of shit like Bellfield couldn’t get any lower he manages to pull it out of the bag. What a cunt eh?
Nominated by: Freddie the Frog
Nice try, Les.
You are certainly value for money, if nothing else bar a occupational fantasist and probably someone who makes a living corralling the errant trollies in the local Asda car park.
By the way, did you meet with the late Elgan Edwards on the May BHM? Did Doris Stokes join the discussion?
You ask “Would you believe it”. As you ask, I find the concept of you speaking with Elgan Edwards via seance on a Bank Holiday Monday marginally more plausible than your explanation.
You are one funny man.
Please don’t stop posting.
10
Were that it was all a fantasy, Paul. I can’t claim that 100% of what I’ve purported over the last two years on isac is true, but it must be high-90’s(%).
However, I’d rather be a fantasist-barrister who in fact corrals errant trollies in Asda by day and has séances with dead Recorders by night… than an angry, hen-pecked bully who goes round shouting at cyclists, arguing with neighbours over hedge disputes, insulting parents in school car parks and when not so engaged and enraged seeks adulation telling people about it on obscure websites… day in, day out, year in, year out. And on and on with the same lame quips.
That must be tough.
0
Les,
You lose the argument then just resort to your modus operandi, i.e. cheap, throwaway ad hominems. No Barrister worth his sort would be ruffled by some lower order Civil Engineer on an Internet forum.If you were what you purport to be, you would run rings around us all, but you don’t. In my line of business, I work with QCs and they are seriously clever people. I just don’t sense the same aura of expertise and superior mindset with you just verbosity and pomposity and a failure to read what was actually posted. No offence, old chap. I just know when I am being spun one of Hans Christian Anderson’s finest.
My lavishly stocked bait box has clearly reeled in a large and plump fish. You have been caught, banged to rights by your own juicy whoppers by some observant posters on here who don’t pretend to be something they ain’t.
Ps “Big John” Rogers was the QC for the defence in the 1991 John Perry case, which you insist is completely identical to this new case you are working on as the Defence QC.
What must be tough is being a serial liar and thinking that people believe your fantasies.
I did think.you were amusing but tedium is starting to creep in after your last post.
6
No Paul, you’re not keeping up with my fantasies very well; I’m acting for the prosecution in this case (as I explicitly stated: I hate prosecution work).
You won’t hear about it, mainly because:
☛I have modified the specific details (for obvious reasons¹). Top marks picking up on John Perry btw – and yes, I really did meet him in 2011!
☛much effort is being made to keep it out of public scrutiny (but not by me on this occasion²)
No, DA, I’m not trolling; that’ll be Paul with his “bait box”. I am however a bit bored. Did I mention I hate prosecution work?
¹ or perhaps, as it seems, not
² this is quite a lot more common than is widely realised. Relatively few cases make it beyond local news. Quite often the best service a defence team can provide is to keep it that way.
I’m going to give you a friendly heads up. Some of the team would like to ban you over and over again. I find your posts slightly interesting compared to the rest. Be careful of the path you choose to go down – DA
0
Les,
Re-read your post. You didn’t state specifically you were acting as either Defence or Prosecution for the Filipina bride case; the Defence/Prosecution waffle was part of a general preamble. I (apparently) incorrectly assumed you were acting as Defence.
Your written account is sloppy, which you now rely upon. More evidence that you are not what you purport to be – Barristers don’t do sloppy – they are trained to use words precisely, like fine instruments. I really do not believe that this new ‘Filipina bride murder’ case will never see light of day. There will be dozens of people involved in this from flatfoots to undertakers, to clean-up companies. And you can guarantee not a leak from anyone? On the balance of probability, even a Barrister like yourgoodself would consider this to be a coincidence with such a slim likelihood that its veracity should be challenged.
If anything, my Wife (who does not henpeck me – your strange world again) and her GP expertise helps me spot when people are not, how should we say, the full turnip. More often than not, I am not wrong either. Not bad for a non-medic.
3
… and I thought I was bored.
Paul: in your comment at 3:08 you say
Permit me to draw to your attention the relevant comment I made yesterday in which I explicitly said:
et seq
Can you read? Are you tired?? I think you got it right with your “getting tedious” comment above, and respectfully suggest you stop “digging”; you appear to be overdoing this a bit.
Did you seriously not read my last comment? You’ve worn out my patience, I’m not sticking up for you anymore. – DA
0
Jesus wept.
You firstly used the word ‘currently’ to describe a prosecution case and then the words ‘quite recently’ to describe the fabricated Kitty Kat case.
Seemingly two different cases given they occurred at different phases in time. Or not, as you now argue.
A complete lack of precision and continuity, old chap. I would rather be represented by Tommy Cooper.
2
Les is the gift that can’t stop giving.
DNFTT. Good advice that I now shall take. Sorry DA.
Over and out on this thread.
2
Rather begs the question of what a soi-disant barrister, the friend in court of a bunch of loathsome scumbags, is doing when provoking abuse on this obscure website, using multiple identities? Especially as around 90% of its posts bear no relation to the thread’s topic, and look very much like a Manx-immigrant ‘when-I’ bragging to a rapidly-emptying bar about the horrible bastards he knows..
The choice is between fantasist and troll, as far as I can see. Fantasist would be the lesser crime.
6
I suspect our friend Les is a lowly paralegal and dreams of being a top QC.
5
Crikey – this website really is important to you two, isn’t it!
Tedious, I agree, Paul, but not so tedious as to preclude a 200-word mini rant, eh! You seem fascinated by the John Perry case, which is a bit strange.
I’ve nothing to add, so back to my paralegal work with my Asda trollies.
2
“Crikey – this website really is important to you two, isn’t it!”
Fuck me, the dictionary definition of ‘Irony’!!! Remind us, how many times have you been banned and have changed your name to keep coming back to a website that means fuck-all to you??? Have a word with yourself!!!
‘Black coffee with two sugars, barista”.
5
What is important to me is not so much the site per se as being able to follow the thoughts of posters on a variety of topics without being constantly interrupted by a egomaniacal Walter Mitty clown apparently trying to take the piss. Its random output calls into question the sanctity of free speech. Perhaps that is its intention!
Or perhaps it truly has “nothing to add,” for once. That will be right…
He’s just trolling for attention – DA
4
No particular fascination with the Perry case, Les. What is fascinating is someone who insists there is an identical, recent case where he is acting as the Defence Barrister, but due to his super efforts there is no media coverage of the crime or the court case. Well waddya know?
What is strange is someone who insists on here that they are a Barrister but provides all evidence (I bet you liked that one) to the absolute contrary.
Case dismissed m’lud. Well as far as I am concerned, at least until the next episode of Jackanory.
3
You say in this new case a man fed his partner to a cat. I think that would be very rare but maybe.
But what we’ve got to believe as well is that the woman in the Perry case was Filipina and the the woman in your purported case was also Filipina.
You say you succeeded keeping it out of the papers. But the indictment ‘that you wilfully fed your partner to your cat’ must have been taken up in the national press. Like it did in the Perry case. They are always looking for a sensational stories like that.
I know Geoffrey Dhamer ate his victims. How long would that take? Dunno. But a damn sight shorter than a cat could consume a human body I would venture.
I say that to return to my first point. It must be very very rare for a victim to be disposed of this way. In films you often hear perpetrators say ‘we must get rid of the body as soon as we can’. Now feeding it piecemeal to a cat is not a very quick way of going about things. I cant actually believe it happened in the Perry case. But from the reports it did.
But it to have happened (feeding a corpse to a cat) and them both to be Filipina women seems well incredible.
3
It’s a well known fact that CS’s great-great-grandfather knew Prince Albert Victor Edward, aka Jack The Ripper.
3
I bet Shakin’ Stevens’ Father delivered milk to his house on his milkround in the 1970s as well.
Don’t disrespect the Shakey. He is the God of denim – DA
1
I love Shakey, DA, and would never disrespect him.
He is responsible for one of the very best Christmas songs ever, IMHO.
The video looks like it cost £20 to make. – DA
1
£20 was a lot of money back then!
4
Another heap of shit that should have seen the gallows. Why the fucking hell do we seem to think cunts like him deserve any fucking rights after what they do? He should have a trial and if found guilty hanged.
7
If I boiled him in piss, then doused him in petrol and then set light to him, it wouldn’t be enough for this peice of shit.
4
Back to levi belfield. He is king of the Cunts.
Wheel clamper, Bouncer, Bailiff, A pikey, absent father, police Grass, rapist, murderer and child killer. Now his a peaceful.
Sweet jesus on a rubber cross the man is a 24ct Stinking Hells fishy Cunt. I’d pay good money to torture him.
A face made for punching…..
3