(Black) diamonds are forever?

So, I'm sat at the computer desk working, SB's gone to take shrublette to school and do a bit of shopping. She comes back, and she's collected the parcel from the post office that we both thought was Making Money and thus the likely cause of a minor argument. Oh no. The nutbag only went and ordered us the matching rings we'd looked at last month.

I can has 1.00CT SOLITAIRE BLACK DIAMOND RING 18K WHITE GOLD. First time I've tried to wear a ring properly, I guess it'll take some getting used to. It is rather nice though.

see also.

Lunchtime linkage: Bloggerheads has a new server

One of the advantages of having an image in your sidebar hosted at Tim Ireland's site is that when it comes back up, the image reappears to tell you. Bloggerheads itself has a holding page, he needs to reconfigure the database, but he's got a blogger hosted temporary site all about The Alisher Usmanov Affair and today he's specifically requesting a response from Fasthosts:

To ensure we broadcast as clear a picture as possible, Clive and I need to deal with this matter by addressing the parties/issues involved in the following order:

- Fasthosts
- Schillings
- Alisher Usmanov
- UK libel law

Today, we begin with Fasthosts.

The Fasthosts issue is a contractual/specific libel case one, that I'm not involved in, I have however removed them from my potential list of companies to rent a server from (I am looking) in the meantime, pending their response. The libel law is where my obvious interest lies, the law can, and should be, reformed, and this may be the cause celebre to get it done, we shall see. in the meantime, Chris Applegate asks:

I figured an article that doesn’t mention the allegations specifically but still discusses them is better than no article at all. But in the light of reading all the blog coverage of this now, I have my doubts: Am I right, or have I cowardly compromised? Your thoughts are welcome.

Personally, I think he was correct to be cautious. Craig Murray, by all accounts, thinks he has a solid case and welcomes the opportunity to test it in court, Schillings/Usmanov seem to want to quash the story but not actually sue (that's my big issue with the law as is, money can suppress a story by threat of legal action). But those not party to the evidence itself need to be circumspect--I have reason to believe Craig may be correct, but I have no plans on going to court over his story. Giving coverage to the action, but not the details of the story itself, seems to me to be a valid compromise.

So what was that Prince Charles allegation again?

Thanks to Dave and Steve in the comments to the previous post, the comedy genius of Stewart and Colbert cover an old royal scandal (video link), and demonstrate the stupidity of the libel laws in a different way.

Incidentally, if anyone does want to go into detail about the specifics of the allegation in the comments? LJ's policies assert that you're responsible for what you post, so, y'know, your risk, not mine...