Tuesday 20 May 2014

THE MILLION POUND QUESTION: WHO IS ROLF'S LAWYER?

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEYQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuknews%2F1424473%2FThe-million-pound-question-is-who-can-stump-Chris.html&ei=aRR7U5eZHMiUOO2pgdAG&usg=AFQjCNH8CRnzCkUVh9nVAz4_FzAvWHPpMg&sig2=F88EFG1gHTvD74vuEfsBBQ


Home»
News»
UK News


The million pound question is: who can stump Chris?

Quizzer becomes the quizzed - and fails final round, writes Sean O'Neill

12:00AM GMT 13 Mar 2003


Christopher Tarrant, 56, a radio DJ and television presenter from Surrey - married with six children - won through to the hotseat at the Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? trial yesterday.


Better known as Chris - only his mother still calls him Christopher - he presents Britain's most popular quiz show and has given the nation the catchphrase "Is that your final answer?"


Chris has been in showbusiness for 31 years, finds it hard to stop talking and is definitely more used to asking the questions than answering them.


But at Southwark Crown Court the quizmaster was to be quizzed by four of the finest that the English Bar has to offer. If he didn't know the answer there would be no opportunity to phone a friend or ask the jury.


The £1 million question on everyone's lips was - which of the four eminent barristers (if any) would leave this professional talker lost for words?


Would it be:

A: Nicholas Hilliard, senior Treasury counsel, the prosecutor, who has been painstakingly building up, layer by layer, a picture of the extraordinary events at Elstree Studios during the recording of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? on Sept 10, 2001.

B: Sonia Woodley, QC, the tall, headmistress-like counsel for Major Charles Ingram - a woman whose disapproval one would not wish to incur.

C: Adrian Redgrave, QC, for Diana Ingram, a stern-faced man who uses words economically and quietly but with firm authority.

D: David Aubrey, QC, a broad-chested, red-haired Welshman who represents Tecwen Whittock and can be quite withering in cross-examination - the day before, he questioned a television executive on whether he had frisked Ingram's "private parts".

The audience was small, but intensely interested. None more so than the three people in the glass-fronted dock - the Ingrams and Whittock - all of whom had previously faced Chris in the Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? studio.

On this occasion Whittock, who won £1,000, Mrs Ingram, who collected £32,000, and Ingram, winner of the disputed £1 million at the centre of the trial, faced Chris across a courtroom.

The presenter, wearing a dark suit and a red shirt with no tie, appeared tense as he took his seat in the witness box. His first answers were little more than "yes" or "that's correct".

As on Chris's quiz show, those early questions were pretty straightforward. They came from Mr Hilliard who is, after all, on the same side as Chris.

It was Chris who had allegedly been deceived into signing a cheque for £1 million and Mr Hilliard's job to prove that the deception was criminal.

The presenter's mood lightened visibly and he was soon ready for Miss Woodley's questions. He batted one away rather curtly but quickly found humour a better method.

Asked if he had hugged an emotional Ingram after his big win, Chris quipped: "In a manly way."

The austere Mr Redgrave fared little better. He recalled a question about the name of the gang in West Side Story that rivalled the Jets - did Chris remember it?

Chris replied instantly: "The Sharks."

Mr Redgrave: "That is the answer, but . . ."

Chris: "Have I won?"

The jury liked the jokes, so they flowed readily. Mr Redgrave asked about the "daft questions" at the beginning of each edition of the quiz.

Chris: "Because they are at a fairly low level of general knowledge we tend to speed through them."

Mr Redgrave: "A fairly low level? Has anyone ever got that first question wrong?"

Chris: "It happened in America."

Mr Aubrey was next to try his hand and combined his questions with flattery for the programme and its presenter. It was he who finally stumped Chris with a question wholly unrelated to the case.

"Tell me," said Mr Aubrey, "why do they call it the Green Room?"

"I can't remember," Chris confessed.

But the question did not go unanswered. Judge Geoffrey Rivlin piped up from the bench that, because his wife is a musician, he knew the answer. "I'll tell you later," he informed Mr Aubrey - provoking a theatrical groan from the courtroom that forced him to relent.

The Green Room, said the judge, is so called because all such facilities used to be decorated with "a strange green paint which was very cheap" and also because it was where performers gathered just before going on stage "when they all turn green".

A new kind of lifeline had been invented: Ask The Judge.

13 comments:

Zoompad said...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=15&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CIABEBYwDg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flaw%2Fguardian-law-blog%2F2012%2Foct%2F10%2Fjustin-lee-collins-lenient-sentence&ei=FRp7U67_GIqs7QbtsoDwAQ&usg=AFQjCNEdZo3xsQ5A8tug9QaNSdccQr1MdQ&sig2=0wL1tG05RowZXfNpiKuuZA

So, why is Woods, who posted offensive "jokes" on Facebook, facing 12 weeks in prison? Convicted under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The maximum penalty in this case was six months' imprisonment, Woods pleaded guilty and therefore received a discounted sentence. Although convicted under different statutes, this does not explain the disparity in sentencing, particularly bearing in mind the maximum penalties available in both cases.

Wainwright continued:


"It's difficult to comment further on [Collins's] sentence without having heard the full evidence and mitigation. I agree, it's difficult to reconcile the two cases although Woods was sentenced in the magistrates' court, where they are often perceived to be more enamoured with prison as a solution."

We know that Collins's barrister Sonia Woodley QC asked the judge to take mitigating factors into consideration and impose a financial penalty, claiming her client was on the verge of a nervous breakdown while he was with Larke. However, Plumstead said he did not think a fine "met the bill." He said: "I have not sought your means, but they are likely to be more substantial than most people ... [A community sentence] is a deprivation of your liberty and a compulsion upon you to do unpaid work for others. This will be humble work for someone who lives a prominent public life and is intended to make you pause and think about what you have done."

The aim of community sentences is to change the behaviour of the offender so they don't commit crime in the future, and to make amends to the victim of the crime or the local community. The victim in this case, Larke, welcomed the verdict. Perhaps the judge was convinced that imprisoning Collins was not appropriate, having heard evidence from his ex-wife that his behaviour was out of character.

On the face of it though, Collins escaped lightly. Meanwhile, 19-year-old Woods, will spend 12 weeks in a young offenders' institution for what his lawyer described as "one moment of drunken stupidity". His "jokes" were abhorrent, but are we moving towards an era of justice in which words are more severely punished than serial abuse?

Zoompad said...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cps.gov.uk%2Flegal%2Fp_to_r%2Frape_and_sexual_offences%2Fbad_character%2F&ei=5h17U9KWOMncOtCcgbAF&usg=AFQjCNE-46ujRCGDEcUQV2HFZ7lNZPgiXw&sig2=m_rCBqImzjeq64s0-gYk3A

Rape and Sexual Offences: Chapter 14: Bad Character

Contents:
What is bad character
Non defendants Practical issues

Defendants Practical considerations





Please see separate Legal Guidance on Bad Character
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 sets out the statutory framework for admitting evidence of bad character.
The use of evidence of the defendant's bad character may be particularly relevant to prosecutions for rape or other serious sexual offence.
The Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 Part 35 sets out the procedure to be followed. Different rules apply to defendants and non defendants.

What is bad character?

It is important to establish whether evidence satisfies the criteria for evidence of bad character or not. If it is, then the statutory rules apply but otherwise the general rules of evidence i.e. relevance will continue to apply.

The Act defines evidence of bad character as evidence of or a disposition towards misconduct on his part, other than evidence which:
Has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged;
or Is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution or that offence (section 98)

Misconduct is defined as:
Commission of an offence;
or Other reprehensible behaviour (section 112)

Commission of an offence includes:
Previous convictions
Foreign convictions
Evidence relating to offences for which a person has been charged
Acquittals
- R v Z (2000) AC 483
- R v Smith reported in R Edwards and others [2005] EWCA Crim 3244

Reprehensible behaviour is undefined but:
It will be for the judge to decide whether it is reprehensible behaviour as this relates to an issue of admissibility.
"As a matter of ordinary language, the word "reprehensible" carries with it some element of culpability or blameworthiness" (R v Renda [2005] EWCA Crim 2826).
Top of page


Non defendants

Non defendants will include victims and prosecution witnesses. The Prosecutors Pledge requires prosecutors to "Protect victims from unwarranted or irrelevant attacks on their character and may seek the court's intervention where cross examination is considered to be inappropriate or oppressive."

Zoompad said...

Introducing evidence of bad character or questioning upon it now requires the permission of the court (section 100(4)) and the evidence is only admissible if:
It is important explanatory evidence (section 100(1)(a)) (i.e. evidence without which the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case (section 100(2)(a)) or,
It has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which-
- Is in issue in the proceedings, and
- Is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole (section 100(1)(b)), or
- All parties to the proceedings agree (section 100(1)(c)).

Practical issues

Neither the prosecution nor a court can properly decide whether the character of a witness is admissible unless the issues in the case are identified. To this end a proper defence statement should be filed.

Top of page


Defendants

The bad character of a defendant is admissible only through one of the gateways in section 101 of the Act. Once admitted the evidence can be used for any purpose for which it is relevant - R v Highton, Van Nguyen and Carp [2005]EWCA Crim 1985.

The gateways include:
Agreement - section 101(1)(a);
Adduced by defendant or given in an answer to a question asked by him in cross examination - section 101(1)(b);
Important explanatory evidence section 101(1)(c);
Relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution - section 101(1)(d);
Substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant - section101(1)(e);
Evidence to correct a false impression - section 101(1)(f);
Defendant has made an attack on another person's character - section 101(1)(g);

Zoompad said...

The prosecution are most likely to rely on the following gateways.

Important explanatory evidence - the test is the same as for non defendants i.e. evidence without which the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case section 102.

Relevant to an important matter in issue - this is likely to be the gateway most useful to prosecutors. A propensity to commit offences and or be untruthful is likely to be such an important matter in issue and is specifically provided for in the Act:
Propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged section 103(1)(a)
- MAY be proved if: Convicted of an offence of the same description section 103(2)(a)
Convicted of an offence of the same category section 103(2)(b)

Propensity to be untruthful section 103(1)(b)

The relevant considerations in relation to establishing propensity were set out in R v Hanson Gilmore and P [2005] EWCA Crim 824
Consider each individual conviction and not rely on the name of the offence or the record as a whole;
A single previous conviction will often not show propensity
Three questions to be considered:
- Does the history of convictions establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged?
- Does the propensity make it more likely that the defendant committed the offence charged?
- Is it unjust to rely on the convictions of the same description or category; and, in any event, will the proceedings be unfair if they are admitted?

Attack on character - An attack on character can be made by:
Adducing evidence (section 106(1)(a));
Asking questions in cross examination (section 106(1)(b);
Imputation about the other person on being questioned under caution or on being charged (section 106(1)(c));
- E.g. calling rape complainant a 'slag' in interview (Ball [2005] EWCA Crim 2826 (reported with Renda and others)).

Practical considerations

When dealing with multiple victims the evidence of one victim will generally amount to bad character evidence in relation to the counts against another victim. This evidence will be cross admissible but only if relevant to an important matter in issue. It will need to meet any of the criteria or gateways in section 101(1).

The question of cross admissibility was discussed by the Court of Appeal in R v Chopra [2007] 1 Cr App R 16. The Court in its judgement concentrated on the issue of propensity and this approach led to an assumption that a jury would need to be sure in relation to one count before relying on that count in relation to making a decision on the next count. In subsequent cases the Court of Appeal extended their deliberations to the wider remit of section 101(1)(d) thereby making it clear that it does not apply only to propensity.

The situation was clarified in the case of Freeman and Crawford [2009] Crim L.R. 104.Where admissibility relies on propensity the jury must be sure on one count before relying on it in relation to the next count. However where the evidence is relevant and admissible as evidence to support the truth of other allegations the Court of Appeal held the approach to be too restrictive. The jury, it was explained, is entitled to have regard to the evidence on any other count, or any bad character evidence, if it is admissible and relevant.

Zoompad said...

The prosecution are most likely to rely on the following gateways.

Important explanatory evidence - the test is the same as for non defendants i.e. evidence without which the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case section 102.

Relevant to an important matter in issue - this is likely to be the gateway most useful to prosecutors. A propensity to commit offences and or be untruthful is likely to be such an important matter in issue and is specifically provided for in the Act:
Propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged section 103(1)(a)
- MAY be proved if: Convicted of an offence of the same description section 103(2)(a)
Convicted of an offence of the same category section 103(2)(b)

Propensity to be untruthful section 103(1)(b)

The relevant considerations in relation to establishing propensity were set out in R v Hanson Gilmore and P [2005] EWCA Crim 824
Consider each individual conviction and not rely on the name of the offence or the record as a whole;
A single previous conviction will often not show propensity
Three questions to be considered:
- Does the history of convictions establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged?
- Does the propensity make it more likely that the defendant committed the offence charged?
- Is it unjust to rely on the convictions of the same description or category; and, in any event, will the proceedings be unfair if they are admitted?

Attack on character - An attack on character can be made by:
Adducing evidence (section 106(1)(a));
Asking questions in cross examination (section 106(1)(b);
Imputation about the other person on being questioned under caution or on being charged (section 106(1)(c));
- E.g. calling rape complainant a 'slag' in interview (Ball [2005] EWCA Crim 2826 (reported with Renda and others)).

Practical considerations

When dealing with multiple victims the evidence of one victim will generally amount to bad character evidence in relation to the counts against another victim. This evidence will be cross admissible but only if relevant to an important matter in issue. It will need to meet any of the criteria or gateways in section 101(1).

The question of cross admissibility was discussed by the Court of Appeal in R v Chopra [2007] 1 Cr App R 16. The Court in its judgement concentrated on the issue of propensity and this approach led to an assumption that a jury would need to be sure in relation to one count before relying on that count in relation to making a decision on the next count. In subsequent cases the Court of Appeal extended their deliberations to the wider remit of section 101(1)(d) thereby making it clear that it does not apply only to propensity.

The situation was clarified in the case of Freeman and Crawford [2009] Crim L.R. 104.Where admissibility relies on propensity the jury must be sure on one count before relying on it in relation to the next count. However where the evidence is relevant and admissible as evidence to support the truth of other allegations the Court of Appeal held the approach to be too restrictive. The jury, it was explained, is entitled to have regard to the evidence on any other count, or any bad character evidence, if it is admissible and relevant.

Zoompad said...

In my opinion, thats too many words.

If you really want to know what someone is like, it's not really that hard to find out, as people leave clues everywhere to their true nature.

Wicked people try to cover their tracks, but with the Lords help anyone with a mind to do it can find out the truth.

The problem is, a lot of people working in the legal profession have a lot to hide, and they don't care about the Lord, or true justice, only money is their god.

Zoompad said...

In my lifetime I have been physically and mentally raped.

I have been slandered over and over again by paedophile gangsters who have tried to cover up Pindown institutional child abuse by blackening my character, people connected to MI5, people wo considr themselves to be above the law.

In my opinion, the mental anguish I have been put through by those wicked liars is even more than the horrible ordeal of having my body physically violated.

Anonymous said...

plans to sexualise children with perversion planned in 1932
read this

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=97859

Zoompad said...

THANKS

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=97859

Current Sexualization of Children Predicted in 1932 Novel

By wmw_admin on May 20, 2014



Kit Daniels — Prison Planet May 16, 2014

The current trend to “sexualize” young children, that is to expose children to sexual issues as early as kindergarten, shares striking similarities to the dystopian novel Brave New World in which children are encouraged to start exploring sex at a young age.

In the latest example of the trend, a couple of YouTube film makers produced a video in which they described homosexuality to children as young as five and asked for their opinions on the subject.
The film makers defended the video by stating that the “raw opinions of children” offer “incredibly valuable insight on our current society,” but the youngest of these kids likely had no clue about the subject until it was explained by the producers.

Zoompad said...

In a similar incident, a Kansas father of a 13-year-old girl became infuriated after discovering a poster hanging up at her school which listed several recreational sex acts, such as anal sex for example.
The school’s spokesperson referred to it as “district approved curriculum,” but the father disagreed.



“This has nothing to do with abstinence or sexual reproduction,” he said.



But Chicago public schools even went further than that by requiring mandatory sexual education in kindergarten classes.



As if these incidents weren’t concerning enough already, just compare them to Brave New World, a 1932 novel written by Aldous Huxley which anticipates a future society that is centrally controlled by a powerful government through the use of various techniques such as the sexualization of children.


Huxley's Brave New World. Click to enlarge

In the book, the central planners encourage the populace to explore recreational sex starting from early childhood. The intent is to remove romantic relationships by cheapening sex in order to ensure that the citizens have complete allegiance to the state and not with each other through personal connections such as families.



This is further aided by the elimination of natural reproduction in favor of “creating” children in “hatcheries and conditioning centers” so that the World State in the novel can permanently limit the population to two billion people who are conditioned from birth to completely obey the government.



“The society described in Brave New World is a world-state, in which war has been eliminated and where the first aim of the rulers is at all costs to keep their subjects from making trouble,” Huxley wrote in his later essay Brave New World Revisited. “This they achieve by (among other methods) legaliz­ing a degree of sexual freedom (made possible by the abolition of the family) that practically guarantees the Brave New Worlders against any form of destruc­tive (or creative) emotional tension.”



“In 1984 the lust for power is satisfied by inflicting pain; in Brave New World, by inflicting a hardly less humiliating pleasure.”



He also added that children are also highly suscepti­ble to propaganda, a fact that really highlights the danger of exposing young kids to sex.



“They are ignorant of the world and its ways, and therefore completely unsuspecting,” he wrote. “Their critical faculties are undeveloped.”



“The youngest of them have not yet reached the age of reason and the older ones lack the experience on which their new-found rationality can effectively work.”
With all that said, it should be no surprise that the current sexualization of children is occurring mainly in the public educational system, which has a built-in bias towards large, powerful government.
Additionally, families in real life are also being frowned upon just like in Brave New World, such as the notable example in which MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry stated that your children are not yours – they belong to the community.



“We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families,” she said, adding that kids belong “to whole communities” instead.



Now although the current sexualization of children and the attacks on families in our society haven’t quite reached the extremes presented in the novel, the similarities between these current trends and Brave New World are alarming nonetheless, and its not entirely far-fetched to believe that our future society will inch even further towards Huxley’s complete predictions.

Zoompad said...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMelissa_Harris-Perry&ei=ZH58U9q4O66A7Qa95YAg&usg=AFQjCNH05zAJ3fklbwmntM1FOH4G-hkepg&sig2=08nfeX7XAETUHnmbKF7IGw&bvm=bv.67229260,d.ZGU

Melissa Victoria Harris-Perry (born October 2, 1973; formerly known as Melissa Victoria Harris-Lacewell) is an American writer, professor, television host, and political commentator with a focus on African-American politics. Harris-Perry hosts the Melissa Harris-Perry weekend news and opinion television show on MSNBC. She is also a regular fill-in host on The Rachel Maddow Show as well as a professor of political science at Tulane University, where she is the founding director of the Anna Julia Cooper Project on Gender, Race, and Politics in the South. Prior to this, she taught at Princeton University and the University of Chicago. She is also a regular columnist for the magazine The Nation, and the author of Sister Citizen: Shame, Stereotypes, and Black Women in America.

Zoompad said...

Early life[edit]

Harris-Perry was born in Seattle but grew up in Chesterfield County, Virginia, one of the counties adjoining the independent city of Richmond, Virginia attending Thomas Dale High School. Her father was the first dean of African-American Affairs at the University of Virginia.[2] Her mother, Diana Gray, taught at a community college and was working on her doctorate when they met. She went on to work for nonprofit organizations that provided such services as day-care centers, health care for people in rural communities and access to reproductive care for poor women.[3]

Harris-Perry graduated from Wake Forest University with a bachelor's degree in English and received a PhD in political science from Duke University. She also received an honorary doctorate from Meadville Lombard Theological School and studied theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York.[4][5]

Career[edit]

Harris-Perry was associate professor at the Center for African American Studies at Princeton University and left in 2011 after being denied a full professorship because of “questions about her work and an assessment of where she is” in her career, according to the Center's director at the time, Eddie S. Glaude Jr.[6] Currently she is Professor of Political Science at Tulane University. MSNBC announced on January 5, 2012 that Harris-Perry would host her own weekend show, which began airing on February 18, 2012.[7] In 2014 Harris-Perry will become Presidential Chair Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Wake Forest University[8].

Harris-Perry apologized for a "photos of the year" segment that aired on her program on December 28, 2013. Harris-Perry and a panel of comedians had made several jokes about a family picture featuring former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's family, including his adopted black grandson.[9][10][11]

Criticism[edit]

Harris-Perry has been both lauded and criticized by numerous political commentators for statements she has made on her program—including those related to collective parenting, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and abortion.[12][13][14]

On July 13, 2013 she criticized Edward Snowden, not for his revelations but rather the fact most in the media don't speak of his revelations but instead choose to speak of his celebrity status[15]. Ironically she did not speak of Snowden's revelations either, which drew criticisms from Abby Martin[16], Glenn Greenwald[17], comedian/podcast host Joe Rogan[18][19] for her contradictions.

Cornel West called her a "fake and a fraud"[20].

Zoompad said...

Bibliography[edit]
Harris-Lacewell, Melissa Victoria (2004). Barbershops, Bibles, and BET: Everyday Talk and Black Political Thought (First ed.). Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11405-7.
Harris-Perry, Melissa V. (2011). Sister Citizen: Shame, Stereotypes, and Black Women in America. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-16541-8.

References[edit]

1.Jump up ^ {cite news | url = http://newsone.com/2891598/melissa-harris-perry-welcomes-daughter-on-valentines-day/ | title = Congratulations! Melissa Harris-Perry Welcomes Daughter On Valentine’s Day | work = News One | date = February 15, 2014 | accessdate = February 15, 20114}
2.Jump up ^ Williams, Michael Paul (February 6, 2011). "Chesterfield native, now MSNBC commentator, speaking at VCU". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Retrieved June 19, 2011.
3.Jump up ^ Pope, John (October 2, 2011). "New Orleans transplant has a life rich in politics, pedagogy". The Times-Picayune.
4.Jump up ^ "About Melissa Harris-Perry". MelissaHarrisPerry.com. 2011. Retrieved April 8, 2011.
5.Jump up ^ Levin, Anne (October 10, 2007). "From House to Home". U.S. 1 Newspaper. Retrieved June 19, 2011.
6.Jump up ^ Plump, Wendy (February 12, 2012). "Princeton Center for African American Studies loses two high-profile figures, but gains renewed sense of purpose". The Times of Trenton. Retrieved October 8, 2012.
7.Jump up ^ Tommy Christopher (2012-01-05). "Melissa Harris-Perry To Host MSNBC Weekend Show Starting In February". Mediaite. Retrieved 2012-01-05.
8.Jump up ^ Melissa Harris-Perry to join faculty
9.Jump up ^ Peter Grier (2013-12-31). "Melissa Harris-Perry Apologizes for Romney Grandchild Jokes". CS Monitor. Retrieved 2013-12-31.
10.Jump up ^ LoGiurato, =Brett (2014-01-02). "Here's Melissa Harris-Perry's Tearful Apology For The Controversial Segment On The Romneys' Black Grandchild". San Francisco, CA: SFGate. Retrieved 2014-01-06.
11.Jump up ^ Melissa Harris-Perry (2013-12-31). "An apology from Melissa Harris-Perry". MSNBC. Retrieved 2014-01-06.
12.Jump up ^ Freedlander, David (11 April 2013). "Melissa Harris-Perry and the Firestorm Over ‘Collective’ Parenting". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 10 December 2013.
13.Jump up ^ Poor, Jeff (26 May 2013). "MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry likens Guantanamo detainees to American slaves". The Daily Caller. Retrieved 10 December 2013.
14.Jump up ^ McMurry, Evan (21 July 2013). "MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry Dons Tampon Earrings To Protest Texas Abortion Bill". Mediaite. Retrieved 10 December 2013.
15.Jump up ^ "Melissa Harris-Perry Is Tired of Having to Cover Edward Snowden—So She Wrote an Open Letter".
16.Jump up ^ "MSNBC 'Dear Snowden' Distraction".
17.Jump up ^ "Melissa Harris-Perry Scolds Edward Snowden, And Glenn Greenwald Isn't Pleased".
18.Jump up ^ "Joe Rogan and Bryan Callen destroy Melissa Harris-Perry".
19.Jump up ^ "JRE #376 - Bryan Callen".
20.Jump up ^ "Cornel West: MSNBC's Black Hosts 'Sold Their Souls' For Obama Access".

External links[edit]
Melissa Harris-Perry – Official website
Column archive at The Nation