Daily Mail Readers Rejoice

I have been reading about the pointlessness of blogging.

Ben Elton's book Blind Faith demonstrates that blogging is not only a waste of time but harmful to the souls we do not have.

Read any readers's maudlin piece of tosh in response to almost any Daily Mail article to become 100% convinced of this.

All Daily Mail readers are of course 100% right 100% of the time.

Happy Christmas

The Law Lords Mess It Up Again: Pre-Nuptial Agreements

The eagerly awaited decision of the Privy Council in MacLeod v MacLeod was published on the internet today.

When I say "eagerly awaited" I mean by family lawyers. It was the first opportunity for some time that the law lords have had to consider the validity of pre-nuptial/pre-marital agreements. Some lawyers had speculated that they might grasp the nettle and make them enforceable. They did not. Paragraph 31 is as follows:

The Board takes the view that it is not open to them to reverse the long standing rule that ante-nuptial agreements are contrary to public policy and thus not valid or binding in the contractual sense. The Board has been referred to the position in other parts of the common law world. It is clear that they all adopted the rule established in the 19th century cases. It is also clear that most of them have changed that rule, and provided for ante-nuptial agreements to be valid in certain circumstances. But with the exception of certain of the United States of America, including Florida, this has been done by legislation rather than judicial decision. There is an enormous difference in principle and in practice between an agreement providing for a present state of affairs which has developed between a married couple and an agreement made before the parties have committed themselves to the rights and responsibilities of the married state purporting to govern what may happen in an uncertain and unhoped for future. Hence where legislation does provide for such agreements to be valid, it gives careful thought to the necessary safeguards.

Thus it remains for parliament to address this issue but with no liklihood that parliament will do so in the foreseeable future.

Do they remain influential?

The Privy Council referred to Crossley v Crossley where it was said that a pre-nup could be a factor of "magnetic importance" but there is no explicit endorsement or condemnation. Thus we do not know whether that approach survives.

Lawyers have plenty of room therefore to argue it both ways as to what the law lords impliedy meant about the Crossley decision.

This has happened before. Hand the law lords a landmark case in family law and they bugger it up by introducing further confusion rather than giving clear guidance. The reference is, of course, to White v White. There are now many Court of Appeal decisions relating to how the delphic utterances in that case regarding, for instance, the yardstick of equality and the disapproval of sex discrimination apply in completely different circumstances to a family run farming partnership.

They did change the law, however; in relation to post-marital but pre-separation agreements. See later post.

Graham Calvert's Last Bet?

I suppose it was inevitable that this case would reach the Court of Appeal. After all, Mr Calvert is a big gambler.

He may yet enter the ultimate casino, the House of Lords. This is the UK equivalent of the US Supreme Court. If he loses there, he has one further roll of the dice in the European Court of Justice. Watch this space!

What is it about?

Mr Calvert was a compulsive gambler (also a greyhound trainer) and William Hill (a big bookmaker in the UK) accepted his bets.

Mr Calvert said they should not have done so. He had made them fully aware that he was a danger to himself and they should have refused his bets.

Mr Calvert failed to establish a general duty of care on the part of bookmakers "to protect problem gamblers from the consequences of their compulsive problems."

This was not appealed.

He had won below on the basis of something "John" said to him:

Mr Calvert succeeded before the judge on his narrower case that, on the particular facts, William Hill, through John, assumed responsibility to do what John said in the telephone conversation they would do, and that William Hill were in breach of that duty in failing to implement the agreement. The judge found that William Hill had assumed this responsibility and that they were accordingly in breach of duty.

BUT he did not win any compensation.

This was an entirely pyrrhic victory then and this was because Mr Calvert would "probably have ruined himself anyway by betting with one or more of that bookmaker's competitors."

The Appeal

Mr Calvert lost.

Comment

Well, what did he expect? Oh, I forgot, he is a compulsive gambler. Exacttly the kind of client lawyers need in hard times?

Foreign Surrogacy: The Complexity and the Costs

If you are contemplating (as a UK resident) entering into a foreign surrogacy arrangement, you should read the case in the title link.

Everyone in this case is a good guy. Yet, difficulties arose. As Mr Justice Headley said in opening his judgment:

Although the outcome of this case was in the end happy for all those involved, it provides a cautionary tale for any who contemplate parenthood by entering into a foreign surrogacy agreement.

Very difficult issues arose and the following indicates them sufficiently for this post:

It will be readily apparent that many pitfalls confront the couple who consider commissioning a foreign surrogacy. First, the quality of the information currently available is variable and may, in what it omits, actually be misleading. Secondly, potentially difficult conflict of law issues arise which may (as in this case) have wholly unintended and unforeseen consequences as for example in payments made. Thirdly, serious immigration problems may arise having regard to the effect of Sections 27-29 of the 1990 Act, at least as understood by me. Children born to foreign surrogate mothers, especially to married women, may have no rights of entry nor may the law confer complementary rights on the commissioning couple. Fourthly, Section 30 is available only to a married couple, others may encounter even more significant difficulties in securing parental status to children born to a surrogate mother, and that is of importance since the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 will by Section 54 open up parental orders to unmarried and same sex couples. Lastly, even if all other pitfalls are avoided, rights may depend both upon the unswerving commitment of the surrogate mother (and her husband if she has one) to supporting the surrogacy through to completion by Section 30 order and upon their honesty in not taking advantage of their absolute veto.

So, everyone is agreed that it is in the best interests of the child/children but the parents have to go to the High Court for approval. Read this case before you decide whether you are wealthy enough.

STOP PRESS: Miners Scam Lawyers Jim Beresford and Doug Smith Struck Off

Well, thank goodness for that! I felt dirty all of the time these obnoxious people could say that they were a member of the same profession as me. I have only just received the good news and refer you to The Times report for further information. Here is Jim Beresford:

What a nice smile!

A Preserved Daily Joke: The Stripper and The Teacher

A man walks into a supermarket and notices a beautiful woman staring at him.

She stares for quite some time, so finally the man asked "Do I know you?"

The woman answers "I think your the father of one of my kids".

The man thinks for a minute then realises this kid she is talking about must be the result of the one and only time he ever cheated on his wife.

So he says to the woman: "Are you the stripper that was at my best friend's bachelor party about 5 years ago? You know, the one I had sex with on the pool table while your friend spanked my bare ass with a whip?"

The woman looks at him horrified and says "No, I'm your son's teacher".

The British Soldier in Afghanistan

"it's not worth losing your life, it's not worth losing your legs..."

"... all for £19,000 a year..."

The Ruinous Cost of Divorce in England

A lot of women if they can seek to have financial disputes on divorce determined in England. Perhaps, they fail to take account of the "ruinous costs" that can be incurred in this jurisdiction.

Mr Justice Munby has had yet another go at the level of costs sometimes spent in financial disputes in England. I say "yet another go" because Munby J does seem to get more than his fair share of this type of case.

In the title link case, KSO v MJO (8th December, 2008) he says:

Something must be done about the problems highlighted by this and by too many similar cases. We simply cannot go on as we are. The expenditure of costs on the scale exemplified by this and by too many other such cases is a scandal which must somehow be brought under control.

The way in which the litigation had been conducted had the following consequence:

The denouement was, in hindsight, perhaps not altogether surprising. The litigation simply collapsed under the unsustainable burden of paying costs which had long since become wholly disproportionate to anything at stake and which, by the time the parties arrived at the FDR, had swallowed up a grotesquely large proportion of the never very substantial assets. On 26 November 2008 I received the news that the husband had earlier that day been declared bankrupt on his own petition.

More poignantly Munby J explained:

The picture is deeply dispiriting. And it is not as if it is only the adults who suffer from the consequences of such folly. The luckless children do as well. The present case is a sobering, and for me deeply saddening, example. If, instead of spending – squandering – over £430,000 in costs, the wife and the husband had been able to resolve their differences at a more modest and, dare I say it, more seemly level of costs, there might very well have been enough left in the matrimonial 'pot' to house the wife and children and to enable the children to remain at their school, whilst still leaving something more than a mere consolation prize over for the husband. As it is, it is hard to see much being left from the wreck, not least after the trustee in bankruptcy has had his costs, expenses and remuneration. It is difficult not to be reminded at this point of Jarndyce v Jarndyce (see the Appendix). And the wife and the husband – and for this purpose I refer to them as the mother and the father, for that is what they are – are faced now with the wretched and thankless task of trying to explain to their daughters how it has all come to this.

Warring parents rarely take account of the effects of their battles on their children. Munby J has said these wise words now and he has said them before but I detect that he is becoming dispirited by the fact that parents, husbands and wives who presumably once loved one another, seem not to be getting the message.

Links to previous relevant cases can be found in paragraphs 77-79 of Munby J's judgment.

QUIZ QUESTION: In which case did the wife and her legal team get it so wrong that she had to pay the husband's legal costs to an extent that really wasted her whole application?

Baby P and the Witches of Salem Part 2: More About Sharon Shoesmith

Yesterday I posted the first part of this comment series. I barely got to the point of the title.

The point is that we should not be hunting down and burning the foot soldiers. I will get to that point in Part 3.

Yesterday I focused on Haringey's Head of Children's Services and her shameful belief that she could save her hide by employing media consultants. Well, they sacked her anyway. An intelligent person should have foreseen that inevitable outcome and would, out of mere pragmatism, have gone before they were axed. Her strategy has simply humiliated her further and made future rehabilitation less likely.

Sharon Shoesmith seems to have perceived herself as being in a similar position to the Chief Executive of a private sector company that fails and fails catastrophically.

She read the newspapers and discovered that catastrophic failure and breach of duty seemed to result in lottery style payments on termination of office. She discovered that the bigger the failure the bigger the payment might be. She discovered that if they toughed it out for the longest possible time the employer would pay even more. They would pay almost anything to get rid of the problem.

What she forgot was that she is not a private sector CEO. She presumably also forgot to employ expensive lawyers to make sure her original agreement contained CEO type compensation provisions on termination of employment.

What she failed to remember was that she was a public sector employee and was therefore expected to perform a public service.

The public may resent payoff's to private sector CEOs but this is nothing to the bitterness they feel if someone responsible for protecting children cynically decides that whatever tragedy may have occurred under their watch their own financial interests are more important.

Baby P and the Witches of Salem

I have refrained from posting about Baby P until now.

Of course, Haringey Social Services are crap. Almost all of our social services departments in England are crap. I hold no brief for the inadequate provision we make for children or their protection in this country. See previous posts.

BUT the media hysteria and their love of finding people not only to blame but to demonise is now beyond a joke. Well, there is an exception.

Sharon Shoesmith (Haringey's Head of Children's Services) hardly covered herself in glory by spending £19k on media training presumably designed to pad her bottom from the impending storm. She is also, but this is simply my impression, not particularly children friendly in appearance:

Politicians in Haringey have resigned. That was honourable. That the operational head of children's services should fall on her sword was immediately obvious to the whole population of the planet except, perhaps, just one. She seemed to think that the marketing guys could save her.

Perhaps, we should require potential heads of department at local authorities to sit a basic intelligence test. Possibly also, they could be asked to take an "emotional intelligence" test (whatever that it is). Almost certainly, a basic humanity test should be mandatory.

Local Authorities are very good at setting tests or performance targets or whatever so this should not be difficult. However, these are tests that would apply to them and not others. Oh, it might take a little longer then!

I forgot to mention: they would be required to pass the tests! Oh, and they should not be allowed to set the pass mark.

The caveat I started out to put forward is that we should not conduct a witch hunt of the troops on the ground. In my experience (as a lawyer in care cases - a period of my life that is, thankfully, over) social services personnel begin as idealists but quickly become corrupted into judgmental harridans - or the male equivalent - I incapable of not absorbing the departmental assumption of infallibility.

Don't worry about the Pope. He is an intelligent man and I doubt very much whether he really believes that he is infallible. He is probably too intelligent to believe in a divine being (whether called God, Allah or the Spaghetti Monster). Social Services (is it genuinely a coincidence that they managed to choose a description that abbreviates to SS?) really do believe that they are infallible.

I have now entirely forgotten why these people do not deserve to be persecuted (sorry, I might have meant prosecuted).

Oh, it is lack of money. We get the Social Services we deserve and are prepared to pay for.

BLOXORZ

This is a nice little puzzle game. Click anywhere to try it.

Bloxorz Get the block to fall into the square hole.

Play this free game now!!

The Doctors' Chat Joke

Doctors Chat: Joke of the Day 12th November 2008 - I'm keeping this one.

A British doctor, a German doctor and an American doctor were chatting.

The British doctor said, "Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man put it in another and have him looking for work in six weeks."

Then the German doctor bragged, "That's nothing, we can take a lung out of one person, put it in another and have him looking for work in four weeks."

The American doctor, not to be outdone, says, "You guys are way behind. We took a man with no brain out of Texas, put him in the White House, and almost immediately afterwards half the country was looking for work."

Professor William Friedrich: The Expert

Mr Justice Eady is in the news because of Paul Dacre's attack on his alleged monopoly of newspaper privacy cases; in particular, his recent decision in favour of Max Mosley.

Mr Dacre (editor of The Daily Mail - hardly a newspaper I would normally wish to be associated with) accused Mr Justice Eady of "singlehandedly using human rights laws to curb the press’s freedom to expose the moral shortcomings of those in high places."

I will post about this but that is not for today.

In the course of researching such a post, I came across the extraordinary decision of his in Lillie & Another v Newcastle. The judgment is so long that it had to be published in two parts but you can access the second part from the first.

It is a masterly judgment and concerns a travesty of justice inflicted on two nursery school workers by Newcastle City Council who decided that they were guilty of sexual abuse involving 2-3 year olds. To avoid the serious misreporting originally involved, there was also at least one four year old.

The title link leads to an overall summary of the case which seems reasonably accurate. There seem to be dodgy adverts on the site, however. In case you need telling, you are not the 999,999th visitor to anywhere ever at all - alright, there is, as roughly as makes no difference, a one in a million chance that you are. So do not click on anything that tells you that you are because they do not care if you are or are not. Think about it: if their page was only viewed by one in a million people who visited a third party site, why would they bother? Their total click throughs would be a number less than one. (NB: for US visitors people who click on these sites are called "mugs" in the UK or, possibly, in US terminology, "marks").

The case is also notable for the level of criticism directed at Professor William Friedrich (author of Psychological Evaluation of Sexually Abused Children and Their Families to distinguish him from any other Professors of the same name).

The Lion Man, The Credit Crunch And Sarah Palin

Nothing beats worrying about the global financial crisis than watching a couple of episodes of The Lion Man. I, at least find it immensely calming and the theme tune (accompanying the above and below videos) puts aside worries about bankruptcy for at least its duration.



The only other video to have this calming effect is the following. I will explain why after you view it.



At least McCain lost. That is nothing against him but the USA did not get her.

Well you might say, at least she has been inoculated against witchcraft:



But McCain has said she has a future. She has said she intends to run for President.

BE AFRAID. BE VERY AFRAID. THE USA HAS PREVIOUS ON ELECTING STUPID PEOPLE TO THEIR HIGHEST OFFICE.

Peter And Katy

Yuk. What a pair.

De Menezes: The Met Is In Difficulty

The killing of M de Menezes is notorious. I will not recite the facts again.

It is dangerous to report snippets.

It is dangerous to report anything that you have not personally heard.

Lastly, I have no wish to prejudice any investigation.

However, the following small extract from The Times' report is disturbing:

The officer, known as Ken, ... told the jury “there was no identification from grey team [the surveillance team] at any time.”

I say no more.

Jonathan Ross Gets Away With It

Oh, well. A £1.3m loss out of £18m will really teach him. It's probably a tax deductible loss.

His contempt for the rest of humanity shows him to be a spineless git.

The BBC are utterly spineless as well but what do you expect?

The only way either of them will learn anything is if the rest of us DO NOT WATCH OR LISTEN TO JONATHAN ROSS SHOWS.

Walsall Social Services Condemned. Who Is The Guilty Man?

This is another case where a local authority gets it straight through the heart from the Court of Appeal but there may be little publicity because, although Court of Appeal decisions are delivered in open court, the press show little interest and do not attend.

This does not stop the press running stories complaining about our "secret" family justice system!

Before we get to this particular bad boy/girl social services department it is worth noting Lord Justice Wall's comment that "there are of course, as is always the case, no press in court, even though this court sits in public." In other words, if the press do not attend and do not report the cases they can, their complaints about secrecy ring a little hollow. This is, of course, my inference so it is my fault alone if I have misinterpreted Lord Justice Wall.

Well, what have "Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council Social Services Department" (as they are referred to in the judgment, but not on their own website) done wrong?

For the specifics I am going to leave you to consult the title link. It is the strength of the comments made by the Court of Appeal that are of more general interest:

"The lamentable, totally lamentable, state of affairs in this case is that the local authority have utterly neglected their duty in a way which is worthy of the highest condemnation and that is what I give it."

"On 5 March this year the court ordered the local authority to file a statement by the Young Adults and Disability Team by 14 March. For the second time this local authority cocked a snook at the order of the court. For the third time the court ordered on 25 March that that statement be served by 4 April. For the third time the local authority simply ignored it. In the result the matter was sent to the county court and, as I have already recited, HHJ Mitchell accepted the undertaking from the team manager of the local authority to file their pathway plan etc by 4pm on 4 July and heigh ho, what a surprise, for the fourth time the local authority metaphorically raised two fingers in the air to the court and ignored everything the court has ordered. This is a disgraceful state of affairs. If time had permitted it, I would have directed the director of the Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council Social Services Department personally to attend this court and proffer his explanation and his apology. Instead, I will direct that he writes to this court and to the Wolverhampton Court, giving both his explanation for his disgraceful failure of duty and to proffer his sincere apologies. He is fortunate not to be facing a summons for contempt."

"To make matters abundantly plain, and to demonstrate to the local authority that this is an order which we expect to be obeyed, this order will be endorsed with a penal notice and the director is to be given the assurance by those who represent him today that his contemptuous disregard of this order could lead to an application to commit him and, without prejudging that matter, my preliminary view is that it stands a good prospect of success and he should be advised accordingly."

"It invariably happens in these cases that we never have before us the people who are actually responsible for what has gone on. Some wretched social worker who has just been handed the papers over a few days before is usually put forward as a sacrificial lamb, as a victim to this court's anger and legitimate wrath, and that is what has happened in this case."

Who is the Guilty Man?

These are about the strongest comments I have come across, certainly since Brighton and Hove Social Services were condemned.

I cannot be certain who the director is because there is no-one on Walsall's website who is described as their director of social services.

There is a Mr David Martin:


but he is described as "Executive director for social care and inclusion". I certainly would not want to finger the wrong man.

How Not To Tell A Joke

The Times maintains a list of the top ten gaffes in various areas. Reading these will fill an idle moment or two. The title link takes you to one such list, but it links to all or most of the other lists so that is the only link I am posting here.

Here is a truncated example of the most famous and possibly the biggest gaffe of all time:

In the early 90s Ratners was one of Britain’s biggest jewellers...

When asked to speak at a dinner held by the Institute of Directors, [Gerald Ratner said:]...

"We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say, 'How can you sell this for such a low price?' I say, because it's total crap."

If you compare this with the original you may feel that The Times's sub-editor did not do all that he or she could or should have done.

The questions are:

1. What, of importance, does my version sacrifice?; and
2. Is my version punchier?

Here is the full text of The Times version:

Gerald Ratner (1991)

Ratners

In the early 90s Ratners was one of Britain’s biggest jewellers. You won't find a Ratners on the high street anymore though, and all because of a notorious gaffe made by Gerald Ratner, the company's boss.

When asked to speak at a dinner held by the Institute of Directors, he made the decision to lighten up his speech with a few jokes at the expense of his business. He joked that his Ratners High Street chain 'sold a pair of earrings for under a pound, which is cheaper than a prawn sandwich from Marks & Spencer, but probably wouldn't last as long'.

He didn't stop there adding: "We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say, 'How can you sell this for such a low price?' I say, because it's total crap."

He lost his job and the firm quickly changed its name (to Signet in case you were wondering).

His faux pas has since been immortalised in the phrase "Doing a Ratner", which means making a massive error of judgment. Fame of a sort.

My view is that almost all of the extra information in the above can and will be readily inferred by a reader of the truncated version.

The only exception is the actual name of the new company.

Another Turbulent Coroner

David Masters, the Wiltshire coroner, today joins the list of heroic coroners (headed by Andrew Walker) who are prepared to say to government and the military:

"UP WITH THIS WE WILL NOT PUT"

Samples from the coroner's findings as reported in today's London Times:

"The system in place failed the captain and crew of that aircraft and this should never be allowed to happen again."

"The stance taken by the US is difficult to comprehend."

"I just wonder, as an aside, what if the boot had been on the other foot - if a US aircraft had come down with the loss of 10 lives and the only eye-witnesses had been British forces?”

10 British servicemen died when their Hercules transport exploded. The details are readily available elsewhere.

Both the UK and US are criticised but the RAF stands indicted for "serious systemic failures."

My focus is on the independence of coroners to say things the government does not like.

Will David Masters suffer the same fate as Andrew Walker?

The problem is that coroners are far more easily removed (or, transferred sideways - ha, ha) than judges if the government does not like what they say. See the reference to Andrew Walker above and here.

OPINION:

The UK government's record is disgraceful. If they can can get rid of a judicial officer whose decisions they do not like then they will.

PROPOSITION:

Coroners need equal protection from arbitrary government interference as do judges.

Terrorist Mark Haddock Hides His Face

Mark Haddock (an alleged murderer but only in prison for GBH* with intent) has won the right to hide his face, at least for the time being.

No-one can publish his picture; that is, a picture of his new face. Obviously, we can still publish his old face:
Well, let us hope that this attempt to hide from his former friends in a terrorist organisation works better than the last one:

This is not a man deserving of the sympathy of the court or of its protection. However, the protection is limited - see the title link.

If you want to know who Mark Haddock is you might start with his wiki entry.

Haddock was an insider in the UVF* and latterly a Special Branch Informer. It has been said:

There would have been more people in the cemeteries of Northern Ireland if we hadn't run people like Mark Haddock

But is that true? Others think that he put a lot of bodies there himself.

*GBH = Grievous Bodily Harm (for when you get away with murder)
*UVF = Ulster Voluntary Force (a Protestant paramilitary organisation)

The Banking Crisis For Dummies: Really Complicated Investment Vehicles

Really Complicated Investment Vehicles ("RCIVs") are the cause of the current "credit crunch" or "international banking crisis".

It is simple:

1. The sacked heads of UK banks were not themselves capable of creating or understanding RCIVs.

2. In fact, no-one was.

3. There were no RCIVs capable of real world risk assessment (a "RWRA") by someone outside the elite group of their creators ("the inner cabal").

4. The inner cabal consists of people in banking who can devise RCIVs that are inexplicable.

5. The inner cabal know that they cannot conduct an RWRA on a RCIV. But they also know that no-one else can either.

6. However, with a little finesse the inner cabal have been able, by complex but essentially meaningless explanations, to persuade their bosses and customers that their particular RCIV was a sure fire money maker ("an SFMM").

7. The inner cabal knew that there was no RCIV that RWRA would show to be a SFMM.

8. However, they also knew that their bosses and customers did not know this.

9. So, they could sell them both a pup and earn huge bonuses whilst the bubble expanded and did not pop.

10. The bubble popped.

QED.

Now that you understand that, you also understand how the inner cabal did it.

They simply flummoxed everyone with the use of acronyms and persuading bosses and customers alike that they were too stupid to understand what they were doing and so should simply trust them with their money.

A more serious approach to this question can be found at the title link.

British Ambassador To The Philippines Interrogated About Sexual Abuse Of Maid: Perhaps, Not

The above is not a very funny sketch. I did not laugh at all but ...

In China View (the title link) it is reported:

"It was revolting. It was disgusting and an insensitive and racist attempt to satirize a scene of exploitation," said Risa Hontiveros, a Philippine lawmaker, demanding an apology from the BBC.

She said that "by making a horrible scene of exploitation an object of ridicule, the show trivializes an act of abuse commonly experienced by [Filipino] workers abroad."

Oh, come off it!

You can also visit The Times story and find that:

"... [a] petition has been set up by a group called the Philippine Foundation, which is calling for the re-education of the BBC."

Oh, go on, pull the other one,

The Re-education of the BBC!

This is the suppression of free speech red in tooth and claw.

Isn't "re-education" a Chinese communist concept meaning, in essence: do as we say, think what we tell you and become our slave OR WE WILL TORTURE YOU TO DEATH?

I apologise immediately for the capital letters: an Internet solecism, I know. But just this once we need them.

And what we do not need is a shameful, spineless, cowardly and, unfortunately, typical response from our political leaders:

"...the British Embassy in Manila distanced itself from the broadcaster by saying the organisation has editorial independence and the views expressed and portrayed by the network “are completely independent” from the Government.

It said Filipinos in Britain “are an important part of British society, making invaluable contributions to our scientific and service sectors, and enriching UK culture”.

Oh, well that's all right then!

ONE QUESTION ONLY:

Is free speech of any importance to any supposedly democratic government anywhere in the world?

The Royal Bank Of Scotland: Disgraceful Scrooge

The Royal Bank of Scotland disciplined an employee because she was let down by a childminder and could not work on 22nd December because she had to look after her 5 year old and her 15 month old baby.

Timetable:

8th December - Mrs Harrison notified by childminder of her unavailability for the 22nd.

12th December - notifies employer that she has tried everything but cannot find a substitute.

20th December - Royal Bank of Scotland says words to the effect "Work, or else".

The Royal Bank of Scotland is then as good as its word; no doubt having carefully thought through its consequences for employee relations, customer relations and its public image.

It not only does not pay Mrs Harrison for the day...

it also disciplines her for her unavoidable absence...

it then resists her complaint to the Employment Tribunal...

it is then puzzled as to why it loses...

and it is then crass enough to take the matter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. See the title link...

where, as a moron in a hurry could have predicted, it again loses.

I think we should have a quiz.

QUIZ TIME:

1. Do you approve of RBS's behaviour?

2. Would it make any difference to your opinion if RBS's actions were actually unlawful? (See the title link for the legal decision).

3. If you had a choice, would you work for:

(a) The Royal Bank of Scotland; or,
(b) Another Bank; or,
(c) Someone else; or,
(d) Anyone else as long as it was not the RBS.

4. If you could not find another job, would you prefer to be unemployed rather than take a job with RBS?

5. Do you want to be a customer of RBS?

COMMENT:

Luckily, I am not a customer of RBS and so do not need to change banks but I would if I was.

The credit crunch has nothing to do with this. It started well before that was even on the horizon.

It has to do with greed and stupidity.

Ladd v Marshall Still Rules After Over 50 Years: Time to Abandon It?

Ladd v Marshall (see the title link) is the most important decision governing appeals in England and Wales.

It is also a decision, essentially, of Lord Denning. That alone would make it worth reading. Although a 1954 decision it is only much more recently available over the internet.

The core of the decision as follows:

The principles to be applied are the same as those always applied when fresh evidence is sought to be introduced. In order to justify the reception of fresh evidence or a new trial, three conditions mast be fulfilled: first, it must be shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial: second, the evidence most be such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, though it need not be decisive: thirdly, the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, or in other words, it must be apparently credible, though it need not be incontrovertible.

Bailii does not seem to add numbers to the paragraphs of old decisions but the above is about half way down.

The problem with Ladd v Marshall is that it can be used as a lazy excuse by the Court of Appeal to turn a blind eye to otherwise exculpatory evidence.

QUESTIONS:

Should we forget this decision and allow our appeal courts to simply decide whether someone was really guilty or not?

After all, if someone is not guilty why should he/she be kept in prison simply because his incompetent legal team failed to find evidence that they could have done if they had been competent?

Lack of Blogs

With apologies to my non-existent readers, I have been updating both my own site and the firm's site. I have also been on holiday and trying to do my day job. I will try harder!

I am, however, getting the hang of the new design skills I need.

For the firm's site these include javascript, php, mysql etc.

It's it a bit tough when the main job is as a litigator.

BAA Are Not Very Good: Sheep Vindicated

OK, the fact that BAA have been criticised by the Competition Commission for relentlessly poor service (as if we had been "stuck in a time warp for the past two decades”) and that they may be forced to sell a few airports, does not vindicate all sheep in every country worldwide. See title link.

Nor, really, does it even vindicate the old sheep website that ran from www.baa.com (an out of date and unmaintained version is still available at www.baa.net).

It might give my old client Tom Bourke and his co-defendant Michael Lawrie a bit of a laugh, though.

Spot the difference:

An Airport

A Sheep

Try this summary of BAA's case: Shafting Sheep

There are other reports. Try entering "baa" and "bourke" into a search engine.

I swear I do not make a habbit of representing sheep.

No WMD Cllaim: Breaking News

Go to The Times link immediately.

Coming Soon: Website Update

Really, really, really. By the end of August the main site will be revamped. Oh well, I am good at making promises!

Samuel Edwin Ashby: The Abusive Aussie Vet

Apparently, Mr Ashby felt that it was a defence, to a charge that his multiple abuse of staff and customers at four different pharmacies was professional misconduct, that he was just a typical Aussie loudmouth. Err, no, mate.

This case is, in the real sense of the word, a tragedy. Mr Ashby has been destroyed by a fatal flaw in his own character. He clearly believes himself to be a wonderful pharmacist and that those he was compelled to work with were, simply, his inferiors. Even if he was right, it is that belief that has lead to his downfall.

If you read this case you will find the sad conclusion:

MR ASHBY: I have no money. I cannot pay anything. I have nothing left.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: That does not stop the court from making a costs order, but you say you have got no means?

MR ASHBY: No. I have nothing left.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: Anything else you want to add in relation to that?

MR ASHBY: No.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: There will be an order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs in the sum of £14,482.82.

MR BRADLEY: I am grateful.

Mr Ashby was not a King, or even a high ranking politician, so this tragedy is not properly to be described as Shakesperian, but it has the essential elements of such tragedy; just on a smaller, perhaps more human, scale.

Politician Denies Plotting And Geraldine Has A Bright Idea!

Jack Straw denies plotting. Erm, isn't that what politicians do? From the cradle to the grave? And, with a further "erm", don't they always deny it?

Geraldine Smith said:

“All this leadership challenge is absolute nonsense. Who are these spineless individuals who are talking about getting rid of the Prime Minister?”

She should know. She is Labour MP for Morecambe and Lundesdale. Now I confess I have never heard of Lundesdale, but I did once holiday in Morecambe. I also liked Eric Morcambe. So, she must be right then.

On the other hand, I was only about 12 when I holidayed in Morecambe so I did not have much choice in the matter. Until now, I had always thought it was spelt "Morecombe".

Dear Geraldine also said that all the plotters should be reshuffled out of the cabinet.

I think that is a good idea. We would then be virtually politician and government free. The whole cabinet would be sacked and there would be no-one mad enough to replace them. Even Gordon, on his own, cannot introduce enough new and stupid laws to seriously inconvenience the rest of us.

And here is the man himself:

I do not plot! I have never plotted! Not even when I was a student radical! In fact, I was never a student radical! Don't you dare print that! The last sentence! No, I mean the one before the one before that! And I never took drugs of any kind! Not even aspirin! So there! No, I am most certainly not a figure of fun and I never use exclamation marks when I am speaking!

The Mosley Sado-Masochism Trial Not A "Landmark" Decision, says Judge

Mr Justice Eady said at the end of his judgment in the Mosley case:

It is perhaps worth adding that there is nothing "landmark" about this decision. It is simply the application to rather unusual facts of recently developed but established principles. Nor can it seriously be suggested that the case is likely to inhibit serious investigative journalism into crime or wrongdoing, where the public interest is more genuinely engaged.

This is correct but does not mention that it is Mr Justice Eady himself who has played a leading role in developing the law in this area.

Well, he made Mr Mosley smile:

£60,000 should be a welcome addition to his budget for any future activities of his.

It has to be said that The News Of The World did not cover itself in glory. Their pursuit of this story was cynical and had nothing to do with the "public interest" defence they ran at trial.

The case is therefore a real test for believers, like me, in freedom of speech. I confess Eady J's judgment gives me pause for thought and makes me question the boundaries of free speech where the privacy of an individual is involved. You will need to read the judgment to answer the following questions in an informed manner. See the title link.

QUIZ QUESTIONS:

(1) Was Max morally entitled to victory?

(2) Was Max legally entitled to victory?

(3) Does Max deserve £60,000?

(4) If not, what amount should he have been awarded?

(5) Are the News of the World reporters, involved in this case, mired in slime?

Jeremy Kyle Is Not Dead! (Hint For US Readers: He Is A Springer Emulator)

I had a few days off recently and I watched the Jeremy Kyle Show.

It is about as ghastly as these trailer trash daytime reality shows get. He is pontificating and self-righteous. He has no hesitation in launching into a moral crusade against his generally not spectacularly intelligent guests. Yet, he is one of those making money out of them and, in my opinion, exploiting them.

They are silly to expose themselves to this but then, I suppose, silly people do this kind of thing. It seems that fame is enough reward to volunteer to place themselves in the modern equivalent of the stocks.

I can see no "public interest" that is served by Mr Kyle's show. Making a buck on the back of other peoples' stupidity does not strike me as an honourable way of making a living.

That is, of course, just my opinion, Mr Kyle. You are entitled to hold, and may hold, a similarly low opinion of litigation solicitors such as myself.

It is, perhaps, unfair to compare Mr Kyle's lack of physical courage to his apparent lack of moral courage but the Daily Mail reported today that a witness said he was "shaking like a leaf" following his car crash, and you may wish to read this.

The question is not whether Jeremy Kyle should die. Clearly, he should not. The question is whether shows like his should be killed off. I do not believe in censorship. I do believe in free speech. I am compelled, with regret, to answer that question "NO."

I think Mr Kyle's shows have a tendency to corrupt those who produce them, those who present them, those who participate in them and those who watch them. In my opinion, they are worse than slash movies or and obscene movies.

However, I will (in the well known words) defend to the death the right of Mr Kyle and his ilk to do exactly what they bloody like.

Alright, Voltaire is supposed to have said:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Others say that it was actually first said by Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

So what? Who cares? It is the the first principle of freedom by which every individual should be governed. If you cannot say those words aloud and mean them then, well, you do not believe in freedom or free speech.

Legal Monkeys: The Partner

A tourist walked into a pet shop and was looking at the animals on display. While he was there, another customer walked in and said to the shopkeeper, "I'll have a trainee solicitor monkey please." The shopkeeper nodded, went over to a cage full of monkeys and took out a monkey. He fit a collar and leash, handed it to the customer, saying, "That'll be £10,000." The customer paid and walked out with his monkey.

Startled, the tourist went over to the shopkeeper and said, "That was a very expensive monkey. Most of them are only a few hundred pounds. Why did it cost so much?" The shopkeeper answered, "Ah, that monkey can do legal research and draft documents very fast, no mistakes, well worth the money."

The tourist looked at the monkeys in another cage. "they're even more expensive! £30,000! What do they do?" "Oh, they're fee earner monkeys; they can answer all legal questions, draft complicated documents from scratch, mark-up agreements, write letters and bill clients. All the difficult, really useful stuff," said the shopkeeper.

The tourist looked around for a little longer and saw a third monkey all by itself in a cage of its own, eating a banana. The price tag around its neck read £200,000. He gasped to the shopkeeper, "That one costs more than all the others put together! What on earth does it do?"

The shopkeeper replied, "Well, I haven't actually seen it do anything yet, but it says it's a partner."

There is only one joke on this site at the moment but it's a good one. Pay a visit!

Life On Mars, Sodium And Gods

There was once life on Mars and still may be. This seems a reasonable opinion to me. It is not an article of faith; Christians, please note. It is an opinion based on credible evidence. That is, it is totally different from faith.

Perhaps, we all need to learn some science:

Is This Puzzle Wrong?

"8, ?, 4, ? 1, ?, 6, ?, 2

Add some odd numbers to make the odd sequence logical (pun intended)."

This an apparently simple number sequence puzzle familiar to you from IQ tests.

I, so far, find it difficult. It may be that there is an ambiguity that needs to be resolved (see my posts on the the title link) or it may be that I am simply stupid.

You decide.

The UK's Disgraceful Treatment Of Its Iraqi Interpreters

Emulating their exemplary record (ha! ha!) in relation to the Gurkhas, the UK Government has treated its Iraqi interpreters with similar disdain. Or, as a friend commented to me 5 minutes ago, "like shit."

Her ex-husband was in the army for 22 years and was treated abysmally by the Ministry of Defence. She says that the treatment of the Gurkhas and the Iraqi interpreters is simply par for the course so far as the MOD is concerned. They use you and throw you away.

My friend has particular experience relating to the Gurkhas, who she describes as wonderful, friendly people who were prepared to lay their lives down for this country. They are also an elite force and the treatment of them by this country is therefore doubly disgraceful.

This post is simply to pay tribute to Deborah Haynes of The Times who has won an Amnesty award in relation to her reporting of the Iraqi interpreters case. Well done and well deserved. See the title link.

Bob Marley - No Reason

Well, there is no particular reason why I should upload this today. But no reason is ever needed to upload anything by Bob Marley.

MOD Settles At £3M For Iraqi Torture Victims

Well, one of the comments on this Time's story is:

"How much did the lawyers get?"

Another is:

"This beggars belief when you see the paltry sums offered to our servicemen blown to bits by "innocent Iraqis".

The law firm involved found greater rewards looking for Iraqi claimants rather than taking up the labour party & MOD injustices to our own troops.

No wonder half of them want to quit."

These comments seem a bit unfair and I pose the following questions:

1) How much compensation would these claimant's have got without the assistance of Leigh Day & Co?

2) Why should these claimants have been prevented from pursuing lawful claims because others (i.e. soldiers) may not have lawful claims because of their contractual relationship with the MOD?

3) Are there any racist connotations to these and similar comments?

The Rabbit Killers From The Planet Zog

The title link goes to a Times report. This, possibly, indicates that this is not a hoax. It has all the hallmarks of one, however.

Alright, I am an insensitive aninmal hating bastard but what on earth, in the scale of things, does it matter that there is a serial rabbit killer on the loose? There are only so many rabbits one person can kill and there are a lot too many rabbits out there.

Ok, if you kill my cat I will find you and exact serious vengeance upon you but rabbits? Cats have intelligence and individual personalities. Not like, say, dogs.

Dogs are obedient to humans. That shows serious intellectual deficiency. Most humans who own dogs are a bit intellectually challenged themselves. They crave unconditional love. They seek it from someone stupider and more needy than themselves i.e. a dog. Actualy, the dogs are a bit cleverer than their owners.

The solution is obvious: the key suspect should be the masked rabbit and I have placed his image above.

His motive is also obvious: the rabbit community needs to raise its profile and gain sympathy ahead of cats and dogs.

The Low Down On Sexy Libel Lawyers

Whether you need a libel lawyer or not, you will find the title link amusing. This is worth a visit. I cannot say any more because one of them might sue me!

The Easy Solution To The Banking Crisis

It's obvious! Suck the bankers' brains out and recondition them so that when we re-insert them bankers behave like normal human beings with human emotions and a sense of morality.

Hey! I Know You Are Visting: Leave A Comment!

Zimbio and Stat Counter indicate I have visitors. Please comment on something even if you just want to say this all a load of rubbish and I am wasting my time.

Victim Of Rapist Lottery Winner Allowed To Sue After 20 Years!

LOTTO RAPIST:

IORWORTH HOARE

This case has been to the House of Lords already and changed the law in the sense that they decided that the shorter 3 year limitation period for bringing claims for personal injury applied to intentional assaults rather than the longer 6 year period generally applicable for other torts.

That was a victory for the rape victim. Why? Because the 3 year period can be extended in exceptional circumstances but the 6 year period cannot.

Whether the period should be extended was referred back to the High Court and its decision was released on the internet today. See the title link.

Mr Justice Coulson has given the Claimant the extension and allowed her action to proceed against her rapist. Instinctively, we probably all feel that he has made the right decision. Why should the undeserving £7 million pound lottery winning rapist not compensate his victim?

Legally, I am less sure. Mr Justice Coulson has done his very best to render his decision appeal proof. I am not sure that it, in fact, is.

Here are his reasons for exercising his discretion in the Claimant's favour:

"... When considering all the circumstances of this case, I have identified a number of factors in the defendant's favour. These include, in particular, the length of the delay, the possible difficulties for the defendant on some aspects of the evidence on causation caused by that delay, and the payment of the £5,000 by the CICB. However, I have concluded that the factors in the claimant's favour are more numerous and of significantly greater weight. They lead me unhesitatingly to conclude that equity requires that the discretion under section 33 be exercised in her favour.

Those factors include in particular:

(a) The nature and seriousness of the underlying tortious wrong;
(b) The fact that one of the consequences of that wrong was the defendant's impecuniosity (because he was unable to earn money by which he could otherwise have met a judgment for damages);
(c) The fact that, prior to his lottery win, the defendant's impecuniosity meant that he was simply not worth pursuing in an action for damages. This was the principal reason for the claimant's delay and one that I consider to be reasonable on the particular facts of this case;
(d) The fact that the claimant acted promptly following the defendant's release from prison and his lottery win:
(e)The fact that the 'clinically significant' second bout of PTSD in 2004 will be capable of being fully addressed by both parties at any trial."

Do these factors fully and necessarily trump the purpose of our limitation legislation; which is to enable potential defendants to know when the risk of a claim against them has expired and they can rest easy?

Well, Mr Hoare certainly has the resources to explore this question on further appeal.

No-one, I think, is going to wish him luck. It emerged after the verdict that this little bastard had "six previous convictions for rape, attempted rape and indecent assault." A less attractive client would be difficult to envisage.

I would not touch him with a barge pole and it can hardly be defamation to describe him, quite simply, as a piece of low life scum. Hopefully, he will spend any part of his fortune that does not go in damages to the Claimant on legal fees!

And, what about his other six proved victims? They should be consulting lawyers now.

Here he is at the time:

And here he is now:

A small picture of a small man. You will need the picture as he lives under aliases.

QUIZ QUESTION: What were they thinking of when they let this man out?

Disaster For Freedom? Google Ordered To Reveal Subscriber Details

The title link reveals a disgusting invasion of privacy. I have nothing to hide and so can post this.

It is, however, simply wrong.

I am an old school long time internet user. Alright, I'm just old. I still think of the internet as properly still "the wild west" without sheriffs. I also think that that is the way it should be.

I will post further on this.

British MPs Are World's Champion Pigs: It's Official

Today, British MPs have taken a narrow lead over Members of the European Parliament to take the title of the most mendacious and greedy so-called public servants in a supposedly democratic society. See the title post.

They simply will not give up their perks no matter what public opprobrium this entails. No matter the stench; they want their money.

Mind you, it is nice to see such cross-party cooperation on an issue of public interest!

The leaders consult:

Henman Er, Sorry, Murray Loses

I just wish I had not been so sentimental as not to put a bet on three straight sets.

All Over For The Lloyds Names

They entered a market they said they did not understand. Indeed, they did have an understanding. It was, however, their own understanding and not one based on misrepresentation by Lloyds. See the title link.

Their understanding was:

If I become a Lloyds name I shall get richer than I am aleady, quicker than I have so far and at no risk to me!

That is, they believed in fools' gold.

Not many will sympathise with their plight. The decade of litigation they have engaged in has secured them nothing. It has simply been a matter of postponing the evil day.

I thought the whole concept of being a Lloyds name was based on "honour" (ie. you pay up when you lose). It was not. It was simple greed and, if you got caught, you simply wriggled and squealed like a stuck pig.

Cases That Changed English Law: The Times Archive

The Times has created a fantastic archive of cases that changed the law, with summaries by Gary Slapper and links to the origanal Times law reports. Here are the links:

• Part 1: The cases that changed Britain: 1785-1869


• Part 2: The cases that changed Britain: 1870-1916


• Part3: The cases that changed Britain: 1917-1954


• Part 4: The cases that changed Britain: 1955-1971


• Part 5: The cases that changed Britain: 1972-2006

This a wonderful resource that I would love to have had when I was a law student but everyone interested in the law, or even just in human beings or life, will find fascinating tales here.

I will put a link to this post in the sidebar shortly so that it is easy to find.

Anyway, here is a sample of what you will find:

"In 1895, The Times reported on three trials of Oscar Wilde. It was the celebrity scandal of the century. The Marquis of Queensbury, who thought his son was being corrupted by Wilde, sent a card to Wilde’s club saying: “To Oscar Wilde posing Somdomite” [sic]. Wilde sued for criminal libel. Queensbury pleaded justification, accusing Wilde of soliciting more than 12 boys. The case had many marvellous episodes, particularly when Wilde was cross-examined:

COUNSEL: Have you ever adored a young man madly?
WILDE: I have never given adoration to anybody except myself.

Wilde lost after a fatal slip in cross-examination in which he seemed to say he hadn’t kissed a boy not because he was a boy but because he was ugly. Soon after, he was arrested for indecency. Wilde was eventually convicted after a second trial — the first jury failed to agree on most of the charges — and sentenced to two years with hard labour. The case included many shocking travesties of justice. For example, it came to light that throughout the proceedings, the young men who were testifying against Wilde were each being paid £5 a week by the police, an enormous sum at the time.

Nevertheless, Wilde’s courtroom wit was bountiful. Asked by the seasoned 44-year old prosecutor Charles Gill whether he exalted youth, Wilde said he did and added, to courtroom laughter: “I should enjoy, for instance, the society of a beardless, briefless barrister quite as much as that of the most accomplished QC.”

He was asked later whether his habit of giving cigarette cases to working class youths was not strangely expensive. Wilde replied that it was “less extravagant than giving jewelled garters to ladies”."

Hamlet And The Madness Of Neighbour Disputes

A LITTLE PATCH OF LAND

Mr Ramage and Mrs Strachey were in dispute about a very small piece of land. Both required access over the disputed land to other parts of their own land. The obvious solution was to share this valueless patch of earth; but no, this was a dispute between neighbours and when neighbours fall out common sense flies out of the window.

Mr Ramage won at first instance but Mrs Strachey won in the Court of Appeal. The title link is to the Court of Appeal judgment.

As Lord Justice Sedley said (wryly understating the truth):

"In the present case a poorly drawn conveyance left in doubt the ownership of a patch of ground a fraction of an acre in size. Neither party, so far as one can tell, needed to own it in order to enjoy the use of the rest of their land, though both found its use convenient. Whichever of them held title to it, an easement of use or access should have satisfied the other's needs. But instead of reaching a compromise along these lines, war was declared. Unlike Old Caspar after Blenheim, we can now tell who won; but whether the expenditure on law and lawyers, vastly exceeding the value of the piece of land, has been worthwhile one has to doubt."

I dislike neighbour disputes because everything always gets out of hand.

I tell clients a story about an old case I was involved in. It was a dispute over a parking a parking space on a private road. It did not end up in a judgment but only because my client's opponent, in the course of one of their regular out of court altercations, dropped down dead of a heart attack. I declined instructions to continue the proceedings against the widow.

Never get involved in a neighbour dispute. It is really an area of law where the only winners will be the lawyers. That advice and my little story have never discouraged anyone.

As Lord Hoffman said in an earlier case:

"Boundary disputes are a particularly painful form of litigation. Feelings run high and disproportionate amounts of money are spent. Claims to small and valueless pieces of land are pressed with the zeal of Fortinbras's army."

The reference is to an exchange between Hamlet and a captain in Fortinbras's army (Hamlet Act IV, scene iv):

FORTINBRAS

"HAMLET
Goes it against the main of Poland, sir,
Or for some frontier?

Captain
Truly to speak, and with no addition,
We go to gain a little patch of ground
That hath in it no profit but the name.
To pay five ducats, five, I would not farm it;
Nor will it yield to Norway or the Pole
A ranker rate, should it be sold in fee.

HAMLET
Why, then the Polack never will defend it.

Captain
Yes, it is already garrison'd.

HAMLET
Two thousand souls and twenty thousand ducats
Will not debate the question of this straw:
This is the imposthume of much wealth and peace,
That inward breaks, and shows no cause without
Why the man dies. I humbly thank you, sir.

Captain
God be wi' you, sir."

This leads into Hamlet's final soliloquy which I do not hesitate to quote in full:



"How all occasions do inform against me,
And spur my dull revenge! What is a man,
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more.
Sure, he that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and god-like reason
To fust in us unused. Now, whether it be
Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple
Of thinking too precisely on the event,
A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom
And ever three parts coward, I do not know
Why yet I live to say 'This thing's to do;'
Sith I have cause and will and strength and means
To do't. Examples gross as earth exhort me:
Witness this army of such mass and charge
Led by a delicate and tender prince,
Whose spirit with divine ambition puff'd
Makes mouths at the invisible event,
Exposing what is mortal and unsure
To all that fortune, death and danger dare,
Even for an egg-shell. Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw
When honour's at the stake. How stand I then,
That have a father kill'd, a mother stain'd,
Excitements of my reason and my blood,
And let all sleep? while, to my shame, I see
The imminent death of twenty thousand men,
That, for a fantasy and trick of fame,
Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot
Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause,
Which is not tomb enough and continent
To hide the slain? O, from this time forth,
My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!"

Reflect and consider that if you wish to find quarrel in a straw then you may pay a heavy price and that that is so even if you win.

Oh No They Didn't! The Compensation Culture.

The court has not held that Jeanette Cenet (nee McGlennon), the Claimant in this personal injury case, or Mr Maguire, "the alleged eye witness", were complete scam artists as alleged by the defendant, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. I emphasise the word "not".

This was despite the judge stating:

"There was a history of involvement by the claimant and her witness in similar claims. Mr Maguire, the alleged eye witness who gave evidence on the claimant's behalf, had himself submitted claims in respect of three highway tripping accidents in 1998, 2001 and 2004. In addition, he claimed to have been an eye witness to a similar accident suffered by Mrs Barry, another resident of Chatham Road, on 12 August 2004. That accident was said to have taken place on Chatham Road within a few yards of where the claimant's accident occurred. Mrs Barry's claim had been due for trial at the same time as that of the claimant (at the direction of the Designated Civil Judge, having regard to the issue of credibility arising from Mr Maguire's involvement as a witness in both claims); however, she discontinued her action the day before trial."

Luckily, some may think, the judge was able to uphold the Council's appeal on a different ground - i.e. the area where this trip and slip occurred was not, in fact, dangerous.

Go to the title link if you think that there is no compensation culture in the UK.

QUIZ QUESTION:

Is there a compenation culture developing in the UK?

NB: I am a claimant lawyer in respect of personal injury work. There are just some cases I would not touch.

Fantasy & Science Fiction Question Time (1)

Isaac Asimov had a 30 years correspondence with Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling. Pauling read Isaac's science articles in Fantasy & Science Fiction magazine regularly and wrote Isaac whenever he found an error. Here is an interesting excerpt.
From Pauling to Isaac:

I am writing now about your article in the September 1978 issue. On page 123, you say that Amontons and Guy-Lusac observed that if a gas at the freezing point of water, 0 degree Celsius, is decreased in temperature to -1 degree Celsius, then both the volume and the pressure of the gas will decline by 1/274 of the temperature. This is wrong. What you should have said is that _ _ _ I hope you are keeping busy as ever.

What was the explanation?

House of Lords Condemns Kafkaesque UK Government

Mrs Chikwamba was ordered to go back to Zimbabwe and apply for entry clearance even although everyone accepted that the application would succeed and the requirement would have no beneficial effect for anyone. The the uk government could hardly deny that there would be serious deleterious consequences for her, her husband and her young daughter.

It was a jobsworth application of the rules that would have lead, in the words of Lord Scott of Foscote, to something that should not be allowed to happen. He said:

"...policies that involve people cannot be, and should not be allowed to become, rigid inflexible rules. The bureaucracy of which Kafka wrote cannot be allowed to take root in this country and the courts must see that it does not."

Remembering that the Court of Appeal had upheld the uk government's Kafkaesque approach, we must be very grateful that we have the House of Lords who unanimously cut through the crap. Lord Scott also thought that the lower courts (including the Court of Appeal) had approached the matter in a manner that was "clearly unreasonable and disproportionate" and was amazed that the application had got this far.

LORD BROWN OF EATON-UNDER-HEYWOOD (who has defeated my attempts to find a photograph of him) giving the lead judgment said this:

"Let me now return to the facts of the present case. This appellant came to the UK to seek asylum, met an old friend from Zimbabwe, married him and had a child. He is now settled here as a refugee and cannot return. No one apparently doubts that, in the longer term, this family will have to be allowed to live together here. Is it really to be said that effective immigration control requires that the appellant and her child must first travel back (perhaps at the taxpayer's expense) to Zimbabwe, a country to which the enforced return of failed asylum-seekers remained suspended for more than two years after the appellant's marriage and where conditions are "harsh and unpalatable", and remain there for some months obtaining entry clearance, before finally she can return (at her own expense) to the UK to resume her family life which meantime will have been gravely disrupted? Surely one has only to ask the question to recognise the right answer."

The appellate courts are clogged up with immigration appeals. Sometimes these appeals are hopeless. But sometimes, as here, it is the government decision making process that is utterly hopeless. A rational government would not pursue such matters and its Kafkaesque approach in this case should cause it shame. Fat chance!

See the title link for the full decision and backward links to the Court of Appeal decision.

But, another bloody nose for the uk government and its sychophantic, idle, gutless and anti-freeddom civil servants. Not a spine amongst any of them.

Mugabe Wins: The World Loses: MI6 Fails To Act

Every inch the politician!

There was no other outcome possible. The bloody dictator wins, as he must and always would do. Which of us would put their hand out holding a pencil and vote for anyone else knowing that it would then be chopped off? Your daughters would then be raped and murdered. Your wife would then be cut into little pieces. There is no justice.

The world is totally mad so we might as well amuse ourselves by looking at a cat:
Why haven't MI6 assassinated him yet? What are they for?