'Sloppy' justice system set criminal free to stab an ainnocent manI think that "ainnocent" could reasonably described as "sloppy" when emanating from a major news organisation; but, no matter. They will probably change it quickly and before you get to the title link.
One cannot rationally “debate” with those who systematically lie about their real aims and views, nor can one “debate” those who use terror tactics and thuggery against ethnic minorities, trade unionists and anyone who disagrees with them.Oh, really? You stupid man.
Mere words are not enough to defeat them – they must also be physically confronted and excluded from public space.I detest the BNP but I detest you equally Mr Bhattacharyya. You are a fascist.
"If we arranged for Monsanto to create a unique, sterile, food crop (wheat, for example) with a unique genotype, we could pay Afghan farmers the going rate for opium to grow this instead. Money and food is passed to the Afghan economy and the drug barons are hit where it hurts money - their wallets."The above seems to me to be a good idea.
The title link goes to the site where I got this which aims "to become the largest collection of lawyer jokes and cartoons". It is not there yet.
"The level of trust in official statistics is currently very low in Britain, a fact recognised by Government through the introduction of the legislation, with cross-party support and support from the devolved Administrations, to establish the new Authority. A recent survey released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on 17 March 2008 found that only one in five people think figures are compiled without political interference. The UK came 27th out of 27 in a recent survey within European countries of trust in their Governments’ statistics."Oh, yes? You lying little snoopers. See the title link and give them no information at all, ever.
"Fortune-tellers, mediums and spiritual healers marched on the home of the British prime minister at Downing Street on Friday to protest against new laws they fear will lead to them being "persecuted and prosecuted".Excuse me, what genuine mediums?
Organizers say that replacing the Fraudulent Mediums Act of 1951 with new consumer protection rules will remove key legal protection for "genuine" mediums."
"With the changes expected to come into force next month, spiritualists have faced a barrage of headlines gleefully suggesting that they should have seen it coming.And why not?
But many don't see the funny side. They say the new rules will shift the responsibility of proving they are not frauds from prosecutors and onto them."
"By repealing the Act, the onus will go round the other way and we will have to prove we are genuine," McEntee-Taylor told Reuters. "No other religion has to do that."Churches may be equally fraudulent and may obtain huge amounts of money from gullible people but, generally, this is by way of voluntary contributions. Psychics charge fees. Welcome to the real world, guys. If you want to be paid for "professional services" (be it prostitution or legal advice) you have to deliver something of value.
"I feel you have wasted my time for several months. I am extremely disappointed because contrary to your fine words you have allowed the bean counters to prevail. I am not very impressed with you or your firm at the moment and I do not think the tone of your emails enhances the position."More extraordinary were his exchanges with Mr Crampin in the court below. The extracts cited in the Court of Appeal judgment are quite lengthy and I recommend reading the full CA judgment. It will be an entertaining read even if you are not a lawyer.
"MR CRAMPIN: Having had an unsuccessful discussion or negotiation with Addleshaws, your lordship expressed yourself in strong – intemperate, almost -- anguish.Oh, it gets better; or, worse, depending upon your point of view.
MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Nonsense. I don't know what part of the country you come from, Mr Crampin, but it's about time you grew up. If you think that's intemperate, then you are on another planet from me. If you thought it was intemperate, then you should have seen the correspondence which didn't trouble Mr Twigden.
MR CRAMPIN: I'm endeavouring to make a submission, not to engage with your Lordship in badinage of that kind. The question that a fair-minded person –
MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH: I'm challenging you, Mr Crampin, on your analysis, when you suggest that my correspondence was intemperate. I don't accept that."
"The government believes that these extra resources can complete all 85 inquests by May 2007."I love the Dalek-like reference to human beings as resources!
"We wish to pay tribute to the coroner Andrew Walker, for his unrelenting quest for the truth, his objectivity in considering all the evidence and his humanity in the way he dealt with us, the family.Well, you can see why the government does not like him!
He is, indeed, a fine and wise coroner."
“This is another of that hideous form of litigation called the boundary dispute, a form of litigation which is best not pursued.It is rare for permission to appeal applications to be reported. I hope this one is; if only for those words. They form a sensible basis for advising any client wishing to litigate a neighbour dispute.
"Just how much is this stupid piece of land worth? What you are arguing over is a few rhododendron bushes.
"If you live in St Georges Hill, you've got money to throw away, presumably. But why throw it away like this? You're all potty.
"Disputes of this kind are a most hateful form of litigation; go away and sort it out."
"The judge found that adverse possession must have been manifest to the owner.Of such points are Court of Appeal decisions worthy and, even so, to get this far, someone had to be so oblivious to costs that he was willing to fund leading counsel to review the papers. The question remains, in the words of Lord Justice Ward:
“But he failed to give weight to the fact that the presence of the bushes was such to make much of the fence not observable.”
"Just how much is this stupid piece of land worth?"I will just add this. One neighbour dispute I was involved in lasted years. Both parties were well off and retired. It ended one day when one of the parties dropped down dead of a heart attack. Needless to say, they were having one of their verbal arguments outside their houses as to who could park where in their private road. My client wanted me to continue proceedings against the widow. I declined the instructions.
"Ms Moore [for the Secretary for Defence] submitted that it was impossible to afford to soldiers who were on active service outside their bases the benefits of the Human Rights Act. If the Act was to apply, it had to apply in all aspects. The circumstances of any particular case will determine whether an Article is breached. I am concerned with Article 2. This reads, so far as material:-He then referred to the difficulty of imposing human rights obligations in battle conditions and went on:
"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection." ..."
"But the soldier does not lose all protection simply because he is in hostile territory carrying out dangerous operations. Thus, for example, to send a soldier out on patrol or, indeed, into battle with defective equipment could constitute a breach of Article 2. If I may take a historical illustration, the failures of the commissariat and the failures to provide any adequate medical attention in the Crimean War would whereas the Charge of the Light Brigade would not be regarded as a possible breach of Article 2. So the protection of Article 2 is capable of extending to a member of the armed forces wherever he or she may be; whether it does will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. ..."
"It was common ground that the circumstances of Private Smith's death gave rise to concerns that there may have been a failure by the army to provide an adequate system to protect his life. Thus the Middleton approach to the inquest, namely that in deciding how the deceased met his death, the coroner should consider in what circumstances death resulted, should prevail. On the last day of the inquest, the coroner asked for argument whether the evidence justified a finding that there was even arguably a breach of Article 2. He decided that no such finding was justified. It seems he thought that a conclusion on this was needed since it would dictate the contents and form of the verdict he would announce.He then referred to the European Court of Human Rights key decisions and in particular quoted from Jordan in the House of Lords:
In my view, he was wrong to entertain the argument. The procedural obligation under Article 2 was to hold the necessary inquiry and to find the necessary facts. If those facts showed that there was no breach of the substantive obligation and that nothing different need be done in the future to protect life, that should be indicated by the verdict. The family needed to know what were the conclusions on the important issues. Thus the inquest is not the means whereby a substantive breach of Article 2 is to be established – indeed, as will become apparent, a verdict which appeared to determine this would be likely to be contrary to Rule 42(b) of the Coroners Rules 1984. It is to decide by what means and in what circumstances the deceased met his death. ..."
"The investigation must also be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances and to the identification and punishment of those responsible. This is not an obligation of result, but of means. The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the person or persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard."He concluded that a coroner must be entitled to conduct an effective investigation in compliance with the above.
"On the 13th August 2003 Jason George Smith was on active service when found suffering with heatstroke at the Al Amarah stadium where he was stationed. He was taken to a medical centre at Abu Naji Camp where he died. Jason George Smith's death was caused by a serious failure to recognise and take appropriate steps to address the difficulty that he had in adjusting to the climate."He went on to summarise the MOD attack and to further conclude:
"While there was a somewhat faint argument that the word 'failure' was undesirable, the real attack by Ms Moore was directed at the adjective 'serious'. It is obvious that there is some tension between the prohibition contained in Rule 42(b) and the need for an Article 2 inquest to identify those responsible and shortcomings so that they can be remedied for the future to avoid similar deaths. Section 8(3)(d) of the 1988 Act, which requires a jury if the continuance or possible recurrence of the circumstances in which the death occurred is prejudicial to the health or safety of members of the public, creates its own tension since there must be examination of and findings in relation to any shortcomings which led to the death and which may need to be addressed."In a final (itself robust) attack Mr Justice Collins stated clearly that a coroner is entitled to be robust (trenchant, perhaps, or even, severe) when making his findings:
"Ms Moore submits that a verdict which speaks of a failure is in danger of transgressing Rule 42(b) and the addition of the adjective serious crosses the line. It is, she says, not neutral but pejorative. But the coroner was recording the evidence of witnesses and concluding that that evidence was accepted. Ms Moore accepts that he would have been entitled to record that acts or omissions existed which were directly relevant to the cause of death. To identify them would have had much the same effect as describing them as failures. The prohibition is against framing a verdict in such a way as to appear to determine any question of civil liability. The word determine is important; a finding that there was a failure to act in a particular way does not appear to determine a question of civil liability. It no doubt will assist a potential claimant, but it is the evidence which is elicited which will in the end be material, not the verdict of the coroner or the jury. No doubt, assertions that there has been a breach of a duty of care or that there was negligence should be avoided, but I do not think that findings of fact, however robustly stated, can be forbidden."Thus the MOD and its silly minister Des Browne were swatted down and effectively held up to ridicule for their breaches of human rights and their pathetic attempt to defend them.
"The claimant alleges that on Sunday 19 February 2006 she was at RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire. There she was accosted by several American military personnel. Airman First Class Frank Macdonald took the lead and controlled the incident. She was hand-cuffed and detained face-down on the ground. She repeatedly said to the American personnel that the Ministry of Defence Police Agency based at RAF Croughton should be called to deal with the incident pursuant to Third Air Force Instructions 31-209 of 15 February 2004. Following that request two Ministry of Defence Agency officers arrived, PC Athawse and PC Woodhouse. They instructed the American airmen to remove the handcuffs and said that they would now deal with the situation. However, it is alleged that Airman First Class Macdonald would not allow this and pushed one of the officers away. Neither of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency officers insisted that they should assume control. They allowed the American military personnel to continue the search of the claimant. During the course of that search she alleges that she sustained pressure to the carotid nerve of her neck as a result of the activities of Airman First Class Macdonald, which caused facial palsy from which she suffered for a period of six weeks. She suffered bruising, a cut to her right hand and abrasions from the tight fixing of the handcuffs.Lord Justice Moses went on to hold that Ms Percy was treated with inexplicable discourtesy by the magistrates and that they were wrong in failing to issue summonses against the Ministry of Defence Police Agency and Airman First Class Frank MacDonald of the US Air Force. He ordered them to issue the summonses.
Whilst this serious assault is alleged to have taken place, PC Athawse and PC Woodhouse stood by. Neither of them intervened to stop the assault. The claimant was then issued with a section 69 notice for aggravated trespass, contrary to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, by one of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency officers."
"THE CLAIMANT: Could I just add that this could have been settled without going down this road.Why did she only get £412?
LORD JUSTICE MOSES: I know. I do not know what they are playing at. We will order costs against the Corby Magistrates' Court in the sum of £412.
THE CLAIMANT: Thank you."
"An obscure Tory backbencher has made himself the member least likely to catch the Speaker’s eye in the Commons. Douglas Carswell has become the first MP to call publicly on Michael Martin to resign.At last, even if only a little one, an MP speaks up.
The Harwich MP says a new Speaker is the only way to regain public confidence in the Commons. “Speaker Martin must step down,” says Carswell. “Perhaps not immediately, but he needs to set a date for his departure now. MPs need to choose a Speaker who understands there is a problem with Westminster politics”. The question now is: are any other MPs brave enough to line up alongside Carswell?"
THE BLUE MEN: AKA THE CYBERMEN
CORONER ANDREW WALKER"In January Ryanair refused to withdraw an advert of a woman dressed as a schoolgirl, despite the authority’s ruling that it breached advertising rules on social responsibility and decency. Ryanair accused the authority of censorship, saying that it was run by “unelected, self-appointed dimwits”.Ryanair has history!
The authority also upheld a complaint that Ryanair had published misleading information about the effect of aviation on climate change. A Ryanair spokesman said that ASA stood for “Absolutely Stupid Asses”.
Ryanair lost £20 million in February after closing its website to comply with an OFT ruling that it should advertise prices inclusive of taxes and charges."
"We suspect that Ryanair's main intention, as evidenced by their solicitors' letters demanding that the site be shut down as long ago as 2004, is to censor the content of this site. However, they have been successful in gaining control of the domain name ryanair.org.uk, having complained on the grounds that it infringed their trademark. This effectively censored the content, until they attempted to gain control of our current domain name, ryanaircampaign.org, and were unsuccessful, resulting in a lot of publicity. Neither judgement had anything to do with the content of this site.There is also an interesting video on YouTube:
We accepted the judgement (by Nominet) about our original domain name (from which we have never earned a penny, nor in any way attempted to pass ourselves off as Ryanair) and moved to the current domain name specifically to avoid the trademark issue. Search engine ratings inevitably plummeted, and the campaign was effectively over, but Ryanair could not resist snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They made an incompetent complaint about ryanaircampaign.org, the ruling in which not only gave us publicity, but seems to be a precedent in the interests of free speech."
"We must summarise the facts of this bizarre and unpleasant story. The victim was a student. She went to college in 1999 where she met the appellant. They became very good friends, and in 2002 a sexual relationship began. Consensual intercourse took place, usually in hotel rooms booked by the appellant. After a few months the complainant started to receive threatening text messages and telephone calls. These messages continued throughout her student days, first at college, and later when she went to university. Something of their intimidating nature can be captured in comments like "we are going to kidnap you"; "we are going to convert you"; "we are going to kill you". The complainant confided in the defendant. At first she believed that the messages came from Muslim students at college. However when she left college and went on to university, the messages continued, and she continued to share these worries with the appellant. He was responsible for all the messages, but purported to give her every reassurance that he, together with his friends, would be able to protect her."It gets weirder:
"In due course a text message to the complainant stated that PC Ken had died, and that PC Bob had taken over the investigation. PC Bob was as fictitious as PC Ken. All the messages were coming from the appellant. Some correspondence followed, until PC Bob fell out of the picture. The appellant told her that PC Bob had accepted bribes and had been sentenced to a substantial term of imprisonment. Thereafter, yet another fictitious police office, PC Thomas, was created. The complainant received a message from PC Thomas that he had taken over the investigation. The process continued as before. The complainant was to provide statements by text. When she failed to do so, she was told that the perpetrators would be getting away scot free.The 8 year sentence was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. I really have nothing to add. I am not a criminal law specialist. View the title link if you are interested.
The complainant had no idea that the appellant was responsible for this entire process. She was concerned about their ongoing relationship, and during the last two or three years tried to break it off. Whenever she sought to do so, she would receive text messages from the different police officers, telling her that the appellant had tried to kill himself and that she should do her duty and take care of him. She was told that she should sleep with the appellant, and that she would be liable to a fine if she did not. She received something like fifty such demands over a four year period. On each occasion she complied with them and had intercourse with the appellant in a hotel room. But for the messages from the fictitious police officers, she would not have done so."
"The allegation made by the claimants is clear. It sets out a report from the Sunday Times dated 10 June 2007. The report states that:-It was, of course, Tony Blair who "intervened in the public interest" and to whose cheek the slap in that last sentence is directed.
"Bandar (Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz of al-Saud) went into Number 10 and said 'get it stopped' [words omitted]. Bandar suggested to Powell he knew the SFO were looking at the Swiss accounts?if they didn't stop it, the Typhoon contract was going to be stopped and intelligence and diplomatic relations would be pulled." ..."
"The Director, in his first witness statement, states that the reason why he discontinued the investigation was that to continue:-
"would risk an immediate cessation of co-operation in relation to national and international security which might have devastating effects on the UK's national security interest ? both locally in the UK and in the wider international field in the Middle East?a compelling case had been made out that the UK's national security and innocent lives would be put in serious jeopardy if the SFO's investigation continued." He says:-
"It was this feature of the case which I felt left me with no choice but to halt the investigation."
The defendant in name, although in reality the Government, contends that the Director was entitled to surrender to the threat. The law is powerless to resist the specific and, as it turns out, successful attempt by a foreign government to pervert the course of justice in the United Kingdom, by causing the investigation to be halted. The court must, so it is argued, accept that whilst the threats and their consequences are "a matter of regret", they are a "part of life".
So bleak a picture of the impotence of the law invites at least dismay, if not outrage. The danger of so heated a reaction is that it generates steam; this obscures the search for legal principle. The challenge, triggered by this application, is to identify a legal principle which may be deployed in defence of so blatant a threat. However abject the surrender to that threat, if there is no identifiable legal principle by which the threat may be resisted, then the court must itself acquiesce in the capitulation. ..."
"The principle we have identified is that submission to a threat is lawful only when it is demonstrated to a court that there was no alternative course open to the decision-maker. This principle seems to us to have two particular virtues.
Firstly, by restricting the circumstances in which submission may be endorsed as lawful, the rule of law may be protected. If one on whom the duty of independent decision is imposed may invoke a wide range of circumstances in which he may surrender his will to the dictates of another, the rule of law is undermined.
Secondly, as this case demonstrates, too ready a submission may give rise to the suspicion that the threat was not the real ground for the decision at all; rather it was a useful pretext. It is obvious, in the present case, that the decision to halt the investigation suited the objectives of the executive. Stopping the investigation avoided uncomfortable consequences, both commercial and diplomatic. Whilst we have accepted the evidence as to the grounds of this decision, in future cases, absent a principle of necessity, it would be all too tempting to use a threat as a ground for a convenient conclusion. We fear for the reputation of the administration of justice if it can be perverted by a threat. Let it be accepted, as the defendant's grounds assert, that this was an exceptional case; how does it look if on the one occasion in recent memory, a threat is made to the administration of justice, the law buckles?..."
"The court has a responsibility to secure the rule of law. The Director was required to satisfy the court that all that could reasonably be done had been done to resist the threat. He has failed to do so. He submitted too readily because he, like the executive, concentrated on the effects which were feared should the threat be carried out and not on how the threat might be resisted. No-one, whether within this country or outside is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice. It is the failure of Government and the defendant to bear that essential principle in mind that justifies the intervention of this court. We shall hear further argument as to the nature of such intervention. But we intervene in fulfilment of our responsibility to protect the independence of the Director and of our criminal justice system from threat. On 11 December 2006, the Prime Minister said that this was the clearest case for intervention in the public interest he had seen. We agree."
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects a person's right to privacy. There are exceptions. For a more detailed explanation try this site."A relevant consideration here is whether there is a public interest in revealing the material which is powerful enough to override Mr Mosley's prima facie right to be protected in respect of the intrusive and demeaning nature of the photographs. I have little difficulty in answering that question in the negative. The only reason why these pictures are of interest is because they are mildly salacious and provide an opportunity to have a snigger at the expense of the participants. Insofar as the public was ever entitled to know about Mr Mosley's sexual tastes at all, the matter has already been done to death since the original coverage in the News of the World. There is no legitimate element of public interest which would be served by the additional disclosure of the edited footage, at this stage, on the Respondent's website."A clear case then that The News of the World breached Mr Mosley's Article 8 rights and had no public interest defence. They should therefore be restrained from further publication of the video. Well, no, actually.
"When it comes to privacy, however, Mr Price emphasises that, when balancing his client's Article 8 rights against the Respondent's Article 10 rights, the visual display of the edited footage serves no legitimate purpose and that its grossly intrusive nature is unnecessary and disproportionate.He also said at paragraph 32:
I was reminded of a passage in the speech of Lord Hoffmann in Campbell v. MGN Limited [2004] 2 AC 457, 475 at [60], where he referred to a hypothetical case in which there would be a public interest in the disclosure of the existence of a sexual relationship (e.g. because of corrupt favours), but where the addition of salacious details or intimate photographs would be disproportionate to any legitimate purpose and unacceptable. He observed that these would be likely to be intrusive and demeaning – even if accompanying a legitimate disclosure. Mr Price submitted that this would also be true in the present case.
I was also invited to have in mind similar observations made by Waller LJ in D v. L [2004] EMLR 1 at [23]:
"A court may restrain the publication of an improperly obtained photograph even if the taker is free to describe the information which the photographer provides or even if the information revealed by the photograph is in the public domain. It is no answer to the claim to restrain the publication of an improperly obtained photograph that the information portrayed by the photograph is already available in the public domain.""
"I am quite satisfied that Mr Mosley, even though he may have been misunderstood by some commentators, has accepted that he took part in the "S and M" session with the prostitutes. What he is denying is the link to Nazism. I do not consider that the edited footage shows, convincingly, that his denial is false. But, even if it is capable of being so construed, there is nothing to prevent the News of the World reasserting, with whatever prominence it thinks appropriate, that there was Nazi role-play. Accordingly, if there is any case for saying that Mr Mosley's denials have, in any way, misled the public, and that the record should therefore be put straight for that reason, the objective can be achieved effectively without displaying the edited footage of bottoms being spanked."It seems all to be going Mr Mosley's way so far. He may therefore have been surprised by the closely following paragraph 34:
"As Mr Millar has pointed out, if someone wishes to search on the Internet for the content of the edited footage, there are various ways to access it notwithstanding any order the Court may choose to make imposing limits on the content of the News of the World website. The Court should guard against slipping into playing the role of King Canute. Even though an order may be desirable for the protection of privacy, and may be made in accordance with the principles currently being applied by the courts, there may come a point where it would simply serve no useful purpose and would merely be characterised, in the traditional terminology, as a brutum fulmen. It is inappropriate for the Court to make vain gestures."And he may have been even more surprised by the conclusion:
"In the circumstances now prevailing, as disclosed in the evidence before me, I have come to the conclusion that the material is so widely accessible that an order in the terms sought would make very little practical difference. One may express this conclusion either by saying that Mr Mosley no longer has any reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of this now widely familiar material or that, even if he has, it has entered the public domain to the extent that there is, in practical terms, no longer anything which the law can protect. The dam has effectively burst. I have, with some reluctance, come to the conclusion that although this material is intrusive and demeaning, and despite the fact that there is no legitimate public interest in its further publication, the granting of an order against this Respondent at the present juncture would merely be a futile gesture. Anyone who wishes to access the footage can easily do so, and there is no point in barring the News of the World from showing what is already available."I have read the judgment twice and it still seems to mean that newspapers can get away with the Canute defence if they act quickly, generate enough interest and are copied widely over the internet. They are then (a) immune from attack, (b) can then get away with republication of material originally published in breach of Article 8 and (c) profit from that republication.
"In its final, amended form the plaintiff's statement of claim alleged that the words of the review, in their natural and ordinary meaning, were intended to and did in fact mean that the plaintiff did not train his staff; that he used the cheapest ingredients on the market; that he overcharged; that he served poor quality and inedible food; that he served frozen vegetables and pizza; that his restaurant was pretentious, badly managed, not worth going to and had a joyless atmosphere."That is, it was the reviewers' (there were two of them) considered opinion that this was about as bad a restaurant as you were likely to find.
"Of greater consequence, however, was the judge's acceptance that all of this material was factual in nature. In fairness to him, it had been portrayed by the defendant as such but, as I have already observed, much of it was plainly comment and other statements might reasonably have been regarded as opinions or inferences drawn from facts rather than unvarnished imputations of fact. Thus, for example, the statements that the reviewers were happy to order cola but did not enjoy it; that the cola was flat, warm and watery; that the squid rings were translucent grey in appearance; that they did not taste like squid; that the starters were of poor quality; that the sauce on the chicken Marsala was very sweet and a bad accompaniment for the savoury food; that the spaghetti dish had overcooked pasta, a lot of sauce and unattractive looking seafood in the sauce; that the reviewers did not enjoy their main courses; that the chips were pale, greasy and undercooked; and that the reviewers were unimpressed by the poor standard of their dining experience were all matters of comment and not statements of fact. They should have been identified as such by the judge and he should have directed the jury that they should so regard them."Bloggers and contributors to websites should not yet celebrate. The following case presents a dire warning to porkie pie merchants who think of the internet as affording them protection:
"His epiphany came when he went hiking through the Cascade Mountains in Washington state. He said: “It was a beautiful afternoon and suddenly the remarkable beauty of creation around me was so overwhelming, I felt, ‘I cannot resist this another moment’.”If that is the foundation for his mere assertions, can we really expect a rigorous intellectual argument, or can we only expect a bunch of improbable declamations?
Collins believes that science cannot be used to refute the existence of God because it is confined to the “natural” world. In this light he believes miracles are a real possibility. “If one is willing to accept the existence of God or some supernatural force outside nature then it is not a logical problem to admit that, occasionally, a supernatural force might stage an invasion,” he says."
NOT WANG HUI*“A tiny number of Tibet independence elements sought to disrupt the relay of the Olympic Games sacred flame through London.” the official said. “We strongly condemn this vile behaviour.”Well, that makes it ok to lie about it then. On the other hand, given the population of China (see the title link) - 1,319,175,345 at 18:17 GMT+1, the protest clearly was "tiny".
"Facing a criminal charge in Brisbane District Court, Australia, in 2006, Katsuhide Naito, a Japanese man, also gave an unusual excuse. He told the court that his otherwise criminal conduct should be seen sympathetically in the context that he committed the offence only in order “to acquire a champion Australian cattle dog”.
Naito had contravened laws about bringing living matter into Australia. He had aimed to swap his organic contraband for the cattle dog. He might have been treated leniently had he tried to smuggle a ladybird or four-leaf clover. But the authorities who searched his bag were not impressed to find 39 live snakes, lizards and turtles.
The Brisbane judge declared that the wrongdoing was very serious. He ruled that the proper court order was one for euthanasia and stuffing. Mr Naito might well have fainted with shock at that point but the judge explained it was the reptiles that should be given the treatment and then donated them to the Queensland Museum. Naito himself was spared and given a three-month prison sentence."
SOPHIE LANCASTER"Sophie, 20, was booted in the face and left in a coma as she tried to protect Robert Maltby, 21, during the “totally unprovoked” attack in a park.
The couple were so badly beaten that medics and police could not tell which was which as they lay side by side unconscious in a pool of blood."
DAVID MORLEY"Mr Whitehead described lying on the pavement and putting his hands around his head while he was kicked and punched in the ribs and head.
He told the court one of his assailants "seemed to be getting enjoyment" out of it and was smiling or laughing.
He described looking over to see Mr Morley sat against hoardings near the bench.
"A girl ran up and kicked his head like a football. There was only the girl when I saw him. She went over to David. She pulled her foot back and was kicking him like a football very hard to the head two or three times.""
"In the case of fishnet tights versus office decorum, the jury was most certainly out yesterday.
A law firm's decision to ban women wearing fishnets to work has left lawyers as neatly divided as a divorcing millionaire's fortune.
The unidentified firm has decreed that female lawyers in fishnets distract male colleagues and look unprofessional".
AND WHAT THE JUDGES ARE DOING:
Mr Justice Coleridge blames youth crime, child abuse, drug addiction and binge-drinking on the "meltdown" of relations between parents and children.
He warns that the collapse of the family unit is a threat to the nation as bad as terrorism, crime, drugs or global warming.
"He will say: "Almost all society's ills can be traced directly to the collapse of family life. We all know it. Examine the background of almost every child in the care system or the youth justice system and you will discover a broken family.
"Ditto the drug addict. Ditto the binge drinker. Ditto those children who are truanting or who cannot behave at school.
"Scratch the surface of these cases and you invariably find a miserable family, overseen by a dysfunctional and fractured parental relationship - or none at all."
Calling for action before it is too late, the judge will say family breakdown is as serious as global warming."
"This is a most peculiar judgment that will please nobody. It raises more questions than it answers. Having demolished every single argument advanced by Gary Brooker's legal team, Lord Justice Mummery suddenly produced an argument of his own, like a magician producing a rabbit out of a hat.He comments elsewhere that he went down 2-1 and he is right. However, the third Court of Appeal judge (Sir Paul Kennedy) did not give a reasoned decision and simply confirmed his agreement with Lord Justice Mummery.
This argument is so obscure and oblique as to defy comprehension. It had never been anticipated, either by the two legal teams concerned, or by any of the many legal commentators who have written about the original trial. It will be interesting to hear the reactions of other specialist copyright lawfirms such as Clintons or Davenport Lyons.
Nevertheless, from my point of view this case was never about money - it was about getting my name on the song to which I contributed the most commercial and essential feature [i.e. the organ tune]".
"In summary, my reason for allowing the appeal against declarations (2) and (3) is that Matthew Fisher's conduct makes it unjust that he should succeed in his claims to a joint interest in the Work or to have revoked the implied licence for the defendants to exploit it. The judge should have taken a broader approach to the application of the delay defences. In particular:I am not a specialist in copyright law but this seems like pure common sense to me.
(1) Matthew Fisher is guilty of excessive and inexcusable delay in asserting his claim to title to a joint interest in the Work. He silently stood by and acquiesced in the defendants' commercial exploitation of the Work for 38 years. His acquiescence led the defendants to act for a very long period on the basis that the entire copyright in the Work was theirs. They controlled the commercial exploitation of the Work without any reference or reward to him.
(2) His acquiescence has made it unconscionable and inequitable for him to seek to exercise control over the commercial exploitation of the copyright in the Work. The combination of a declaration of a joint interest and a declaration of revocation of the implied consent would enable him to control future commercial exploitation by means of a final injunction against the defendants. For this reason declarations (2) and (3) should be set aside.
(3) If the implied licence has become irrevocable by acquiescence Matthew Fisher cannot claim damages for infringement of copyright, or any share of the monies collected by the copyright collecting societies, or obtain any contractual right for payment of royalties in the future as the price for granting an express licence for the exploitation of the copyright in the Work. For these reasons the order for an inquiry as to damages since 31 May 2005 should be set aside."
NOT A PROPHET
PETER KING“This may sound ridiculous, but I do believe that I’ve been called to be a lawyer.” Peter King, a corporate partner at Shearman & Sterling in London, knew within two days of starting his law degree at Cambridge that he had found what he wanted to do for the rest of his life. “I don’t know why,” he says. “There was just some chemistry.”It would be overly cynical to suggest that Christian faith and being a lawyer are mutually incompatible. I think of all the lost souls slaving for the Legal Services Commission. They certainly manage to combine being lawyers with holding irrational beliefs. I do not mean that they believe in a god. They may or they may not. But they subscribe to an even more improbable belief; namely, that the UK government will one day treat them fairly. The probability that this is true is much lower than the probability that a god exists. This proves only that some lawyers suffer from delusions. If I add that I have met many very able lawyers who used to or still do legal aid work then I must accept the proposition that there exist lawyers who are good at their jobs but cleave to irrational beliefs.
