Whilst most people felt a kind of quiet satisfaction (aside from crowds in New York who went a bit mental) over the slaying of terror mastermind, Osama Bin Laden, there were one or two dissenting voices.
Mainly among lawyers, who remain convinced that the Saudi born villain still had a great deal left to offer, mainly in terms of a financial gravy train.
"Them Navy SEALS were wrong to plug him in the nut like what they did," lawyer Archibald Leech, of Leech, Leech and Grant, a firm of solicitors based in Salford declared. "It's just a missed opportunity. We could have had him on trial for years, and I could have really coined it in. It could have been a life changing defence appointment, but no. Them cunts out of the Navy SEALS had to go and top the fucker. Typical overreaction. I can't say for sure that I'd have got the case, but because them there Yanks had itchy trigger fingers, I suppose I'll never know. Looks like it's back to defending carjackers, drug dealers and mad mental violent bastards for me. But that's life I suppose."
Barrister Horatio Rumple of the Old Bailey quipped:
"I suppose Leech has a case of sorts. But he'd never have been appointed to defend Bin Laden. On the grounds, basically, that he's a pisshead, a compulsive liar, an avaricious scumbag and a cocaine addict. Just like the rest of us money grubbing parasites really."
More as we get it.