Would you Adam & Eve It?

I liked today's joke so I am putting it in this post so that it can still be available when it changes (as it does daily making the site worth a visit even if I have not posted - scroll down the right sidebar):

A little girl asked her mother, "How did the human race come about?"

The Mother answered, "God made Adam and Eve; they had children and, so all mankind was made."

A few days later, the little girl asked her father the same question. The father answered, "Many years ago there were monkeys, and we developed from them."

The confused girl returns to her mother and says, "Mom, how is it possible that you told me that the human race was created by God , and Papa says we developed from monkeys?"

The Mother answers, "Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about the origin of my side of the family, and your father told you about his side."

Given the images, it must be a bit of a toss up which story the child would be better off believing. The monkey looks more intelligent to me. But then, Adam & Eve are simply daffy and in love, which always makes people appear stupider than they in fact are.

Part-Time Employment Judge Behaves "Scandalously"

The Claimant in this case was represented by his wife who is a solicitor. See the title link. She is also a part-time employment judge. It was a claim before an employment tribunal.

Many of you may think that she should not have taken the case. If a lawyer acting for himself has a fool for a client then maybe a husband who instructs his wife to act for him has a fool for a lawyer.

It gets worse. Although the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the husband's appeal against the employment judge's decision to strike out his claim it did not disturb the finding that Ms Singleton was guilty of scandalous and unreasonable conduct.

He did not disturb the finding that Ms Singleton had fabricated an attendance note downplaying her and her husband's attempts to "blackmail" the defendants by threatening to put in the public domain documents that could show the defendants were guilty of defrauding the revenue in order to achieve a better settlement figure than the husband might be entitled to.

Well, the allegations are now in the public domain so the defendants will probably be investigated by the revenue anyway. However, the fraud allegations cannot be used against the defendants by the husband in the tribunal proceedings.

The successful appeal may still be a Pyrrhic victory for the husband, at least in respect of global family finances:

In light of the findings against Ms Singleton of scandalous and unreasonable conduct, which I have upheld, and in the light of the fact that she holds a position as a part time Chairman I direct that the decision and reasons of the Employment Tribunal and this judgment shall be referred to the President of Tribunals for him to consider what, if any, further action to take in respect of those matters.

It is difficult to be certain who Ms Singleton is (there are 9 female solicitors of that surname registered with the Law Society) but it may be the Ms Singleton who works for Eatons, the firm that instructed Counsel on the appeal. She lists employment law as an area of expertise. Her Law Society listing is here. If I have leapt to the wrong conclusion I will of course immediately delete or amend this post upon being notified of that fact.

The Great British Menu 2008: Exemplary Sportsmanship

THE JUDGES

I admit that I was addicted to The Great British Menu. What attracted me was not, however, the cooking.

I loved the cooking. I wish the winners would come around to my house and cook me the winning dishes.

Something impressed me more than the cooking.

These chefs were engaged in a heavy competitive exercise. It was just as competitive as a high level sport.

Yet, they HELPED each other. If one of them experienced a difficulty, THERE WAS ALWAYS SOMEONE WHO WOULD HELP THEM.

These guys are to be applauded for their humanity and sportsmanship.

We cannot now refer to cricket as a game that is conducted with an exemplary reference to a moral code but we can say that our chefs represent a league of true gentlemen.

They played hard and they never cheated. If an opponent fell, they helped him up. They did not want to win by fair means or foul. They only wanted to win fairly.

I applaud all of them.

"Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult," Says Teenager And Gets Arrested

Seems scientology is running scared if it has to seek a police prosecution of a juvenile for echoing the views expressed by Mr Justice Latey in a 1984 case in which he aid scientology was a "corrupt, sinister and dangerous" cult.

How can you be prosecuted for echoing the views of a judge in court?

Scientology is not recognised as a religion in England and Wales so what is it?

That must be a matter of opinion.

If so, the description "cult" must be among the range of reasonable opinions that can be held.

The above seems to me a complete defence although I hasten to add that I am a civil litigator and not a criminal defence lawyer. I hope one of the latter will offer to take this case pro bono.

Aside from that, this case should not proceed to trial and the kid should have had his rights protected by the police not been persecuted by them in order to help out the scientologists.

In God's Name: UK Fundamentalist Stephen Green And His Cult

Dispatches tonight broadcast a documentary about fundamentalist Christians in the UK.

Stephen Green was the prime target so his website is the title link. Never let it be said that I do not give my opponents a fair chance to reply even in the form of getting their revenge in first.

Today at least, his website heads up with a reference to Jeremiah 46. Presumably, he endorses this chapter of the bible. I do not suggest he endorses my citation of the St James' version (which qualifies as literature). I am afraid he will have to live with that.

Now, this is a chapter of the bible quite as warlike as some things in the koran. I am puzzled therefore why Mr Green describes Islam as a religion created by the anti-christ. I am also puzzled why he cites a passage "against the gentiles" when he is one.

I set out below some quotations from the Dispatches programme. Some are reported speech because I could not type fast enough.

Unidentified speaker to schoolchildren:

People turned into a pillar of salt

He sent snakes to bite them… This really really happened.

The Headmaster of the school they run:

Using the bible to teach science really really helps.

Refuses to answer questions concerning school teaching that earth is 4-6000 years old.

Andrea the campaigning barrister:

4,000 years.

Islam is a false religion.

Mostly dodged questions.

Other unidentified (but same person):

I have tasted the goodness of God.

I don’t want you to barbecue forever.

The Sayings of Stephen Green:

I don't like it. (On being interviewed).

No I have not met anyone who stopped being gay because of our leaflet. (On the effectiveness of his mission to suppress homosexuality).

The judgment that is looming is the menace of islam – if that is not the judgment of God I don’t know what is. (On a competitor faith).

God has honoured us by visiting financial ruin on the producers and the theatres. (On Jerry Springer the Opera).

The bird pooh was a message from god telling me not to participate in the interview. (On bird pooh falling on his revered person).

Dead Embryos

This is a simple matter.

Should we use them to save lives?

The answer to the question is yes.

Attempt By MPs To Block Disclosure Of Expenses Fails Miserably

Corporate Officer of the House of Commons
Appellant

- and -

The Information Commissioner
Heather Brooke
Ben Leapman
Jonathan Michael Ungoed-Thomas
Respondents

"ACA" below = Additional Costs Allowance, an allowance payable to Members of Parliament (MPs) who represent constituencies outside London or outer London.

This is the appeal to the High Court to protect MPs from having to make proper and full disclosure of certain expenses paid to them out of tax payers money.

I have been following this story and relevant previous posts are:

7th May, 2008:
Speaker Martin: Update, Update, Update, Update!

13th April, 2008:
Speaker Martin: Update, Update, Update!

1st April,2008:
Speaker Martin: Update, Update!

22nd February, 2008:
Buffoon Dressed In A Little Brief Authority

The following are extracts from the decision. They speak for themselves. You can read the full judgment by clicking on the case title above.

Key Extract:

Once legislation which applies to Parliament has been enacted, MPs cannot and could not reasonably expect to contract out of compliance with it, or exempt themselves, or be exempted from its ambit. Such actions would themselves contravene the Bill of Rights, and it is inconceivable that MPs could expect to conduct their affairs on the basis that recently enacted legislation did not apply to them, or that the House, for its own purposes, was permitted to suspend or dispense with such legislation without expressly amending or repealing it. Any such expectation would be wholly unreasonable.

Key Extract:

Even if (which we do not accept) MPs were justified in anticipating that the details of their claims for ACA would not normally be disclosed, once it emerged, as the Tribunal has found, that the operation of the ACA system was deeply flawed, public scrutiny of the details of individual claims were inevitable. In such circumstances it would have been unreasonable for MPs to expect anything else.

Key Extract:

Having closely examined the privacy issue, not only as it related to the MPs claiming ACA, but also to anyone living with them, the Tribunal concluded that "the ACA system is so deeply flawed, the shortfall in accountability is so substantial, and the necessity of full disclosure so convincingly established, that only the most pressing privacy needs should in our view be permitted to prevail". It may be that the system will be revised, and subject to much more robust checking to ensure, for example, that the addresses to which ACA relates do in fact exist, and that the claims for them are within the scheme and not excessive. If so, the case for specific disclosure of such addresses may be rather less powerful. As it seems to us, all the necessary elements to the decision making process were properly recognised and carefully balanced by the Tribunal. No basis has been shown to justify interference.

Further:

Speaker Michael Martin is said to be considering a further appeal and has sacked lawyers who have advised that his case will not succeed.

QUIZ QUESTIONS:

What is it that he and other MPs are so desperate to hide?

What are the legal fees so far for this doomed litigation? Clue: six figures should be your starting point.

Do they not realise that their desperation is deeply unattractive to the public?

Do they fail to understand that the desperation suggests that they trying to hide their corruption?

What's wrong with Lawyer jokes?

Answer: Lawyers don't think they're funny, and nobody else thinks they're jokes.

Sample jokes from Law Laughs:

The Scrupulous Businessman

A businessman was trying to choose a lawyer, but was being very careful about it. He scheduled appointments to interview three lawyers.

At the first lawyer's office, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the businessman said, "Okay, let's get down to business. I have an important question for you, and I want you to think carefully before answering. How much is two plus two?"

The lawyer raised his eyebrows. "two plus two is four." The businessman thanked him for his time, and proceeded to his next appointment.

The second lawyer, who was also a CPA, seemed a bit more particular than the first lawyer. After an initial discussion, the businessman again announced that he had a very important question, and asked, "How much is two plus two?"

The second lawyer went over to a computer, and entered figures into a spreadsheet. "According to my calculations, two plus two is approximately four." The businessman thanked him for his time, and proceeded to his next appointment.

The third lawyer sat behind a big mahogany desk, and smoked a cigar. He seemed rather self-important as compared to the other two, but at the same time appeared to be much more successful. The businessman again announced, "I would like you to answer a very important question for me, before I decide whether I should use your services. How much is two plus two?"

The lawyer pulled the shades, locked the door to his office, and asked in a hushed voice, "How much do you want it to be?"

The Doctor and The Lawyer

A doctor had just bought a villa on the French Riviera, when met an old lawyer friend whom he hadn't seen in years, and they started talking. The lawyer, as it turned out, owned a nearby villa. They discussed how they came to retire to the Riviera.

"Remember that lousy office complex I bought?" asked the lawyer, "Well, it caught fire, and I retired here with the fire insurance proceeds. What are you doing here?"

The doctor replied, "Remember that real estate I had in Mississippi? Well, the river overflowed, and here I am with the flood insurance proceeds. It's amazing that we both ended up here in pretty much the same way."

"It sure is," the lawyer replied, looking puzzled, "but I'm confused about one thing - how do you start a flood?"

And One Final Short Joke

The trouble with the legal profession is that 98% of its members give the rest a bad name.

Note

I love lawyer jokes but some other lawyers do get chippy about them. Tough. Live with it! Chaucer and Shakespeare probably did not start the tradition of having a go at lawyers but they certainly carried it on and no lawyer today is going to stop it.

I will put a link to the above site in my sidebar shortly.

You might also try The Red Squirrel Lawyer Joke on my current homepage but be warned that I am rewriting my homepage and this link may become invalid when I update it and I may forget to update this link.

Snake Man Escapes By Slithering Out Of Jail In Vienna

The title link is to a Reuters news item. It begins:

"A man has escaped from his Austrian jail cell by squeezing through a food hatch in the door..."

Let us hope the Snake Man is not now in Austria teaching his techniques to Josef Fritzl. Also, please not to the new Austrian Axe Man.

WHAT IS AUSTRIA COMING TO?

This is a selection of articles in The Times. I am a blogger not a newspaper so do not expect "balannce" in the selection. Articles are selected on the basis that I find them interesting; just as the link above to India Knight's opinion was chosen by me as the most interesting link.

Austria: ‘We have to ask what’s going wrong’

Experts reveal that one in six girls in Austria abused at home

Austria fights back against 'Land of Dungeons' tag

Death And God And Burma

The randomness of death demonstrates irrefutably the meaninglessness of life and the non-existence of god.

That is two conclusions drawn from one assertion of fact so I suppose you will want a little convincing.

GOD THE GAMES MASTER

That death is random is not demonstrated by the current loss of life in Burma. A rational god might well have decided that the lives lost were justified by the provocation they would provide for international intervention and the reform of a corrupt government. He would not be a very pleasant god to believe in. He would be using the earth as a kind of game site where he could inflict decisions about climate change and just see how the Sims reacted. Oh gosh! We play games like that.

Let us look at it two ways.

IF DEATH IS NOT RANDOM

If death is not random then someone decides who dies and when. Think about it! It is a very unattractive proposition. It does not fit at all with a belief in a good god. It only fits with a belief in God the Games master (see above). Wholly innocent people die. Babies die. Very good people die early.

IF DEATH IS RANDOM

A good god could have devised a world where death is random. Could he? If so, he could have devised a world where death was not random but merit related. He did not.

The following FAQ's may assist:

IS RANDOM DEATH ESSENTIAL TO FREE WILL?

The answer is: not really. The only reason for killing people in your game is to score points. You simply need to set up a different scoring system. One that begins: Not Sending Massive Flood – BONUS – 10 Trillion Points.

IS GOD GOING TO STRIKE ME DOWN FOR POSTING THIS?

No, he probably does not exist.

If (contrary to all probabilities) he does exist then I really do not know. Maybe he likes to play with Sims like me in the game.

SHOULD YOU LIKE GOD?

None of the versions I have seen out there seem particularly attractive. If you can find a likable version of god, please let me know.

SHOULD I KILL SOMEONE BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN GOD?

I personally believe this to be a bad idea,

Everyone is entitled to their own view, however.

God Kills 50,000!

Nothing new then.

Really quite a small take in Burma.

God kills about 56.5 million people a year or roughly 155,000 every day.

It amazes me that otherwise intelligent people want to believe in this Ultimate Terminator.

As for Intelligent Design, I could do a better job in my lunch break.

What, for instance, is the point of locusts?

Ok, I know, you need them to inflict plagues.

John Hemming MP: A Nutter Reverses Progress For Fathers In The Family Courts

This is the extraordinary case of RP v Nottingham City Council. It is a child care case and, as previous posts make clear, I do not believe that these are always handled correctly. That is not the focus here.

John Hemming MP has engaged in a totally misjudged and ill-considered attack on the professional integrity of solicitors, barristers, social workers and experts. Lord Justice Thorpe has administered a thoroughly justified rebuke. In my view the Court of Appeal judgment calls into question Mr Hemming's fitness to be an MP. The conclusion of Lord Justice Thorpe was:

"As to Mr. Hemming, my judgment is that his self-imposed role as a critic of the family justice system is gravely damaged, and speaking for myself I will not be persuaded to take seriously any criticism made by him in the future unless it is corroborated by reliable, independent evidence."

Hemming's allegations included:

• the Official Solicitor lied and fabricated a letter


• the solicitor instructed by the OS fabricated attendance notes


• the expert was in the pay of the local authority and therefore did not give a true opinion

The second of Lord Justice Thorpe's reasons for setting out in some considerable detail the facts of this matter was:

"to record Mr. Hemming's quite extraordinary reaction to SC's file. After Mr. Peter Jackson QC had taken us through the references to SC's discussions with RP about the role of the Official Solicitor (perhaps not, in fairness to Mr. Jackson, in quite the same degree of detail as I have done) we invited Mr. Hemming to reply on RP's behalf. I confess that, no doubt with considerable naivety, I had expected a recognition on his part that, whatever RP's perspective of the Official Solicitor and his role, the record made by SC would be respected, and that Mr. Hemming would acknowledge that, to some extent at least, RP's recollection had plainly failed her.

Not a bit of it. So astonished was I by Mr. Hemming's response that I asked the transcribers to make me a CD Rom of the exchanges which occurred, so that my note of them could be supplemented by the record. In a nutshell, Mr. Hemming's response was that the evidence contained in SC's file had been made up: in a word, fabricated."

Whilst the full judgment should be read I feel I must post the following lengthy segment:

"Over the period during which this judgment has been reserved, I have, of course, carefully considered Mr Hemming's interventions in this part of the case, and I have re-read the files. Having done so, the feeling of incredulity which I experienced on 4 March has not diminished.

In my judgment, SC's files demonstrate overwhelmingly four clear facts. They are; (1) that RP was fully aware that SC had doubts about her ability to provide instructions; (2) that RP was fully aware that the Official Solicitor was being approached to act on her behalf; (3) that she was fully aware that the Official Solicitor had been appointed, and was representing her; and (4) that she was fully aware of his role in the proceedings. In short, RP's assertion that she did not know the Official Solicitor was acting for her is manifestly unsustainable.

Mr. Hemming's response on RP's behalf is that this cannot be so because the file has been interfered with. I have, of course, considered that response with care. It is a profoundly serious allegation. However, it is one for which, in my judgment, there is absolutely no evidence. The only query is the mistaken date on the typed attendance note.

I find it not only unacceptable but shocking, that a man in Mr Hemming's position should feel able to make so serious an allegation without any evidence to support it. In my judgment, it is irresponsible and an abuse of his position. Unfortunately, as other aspects of this judgment will make clear, it is not the only part of the case in which Mr Hemming has been willing to scatter unfounded allegations of professional impropriety and malpractice without any evidence to support them.

I can simply see no reason why the file should not be taken at face value as accurately reflecting what occurred. The file simply reflects and records the actions of a solicitor doing her best to represent a disadvantaged client. I can see absolutely no reason why SC should have made false entries on the file and no reason why she should not have forwarded the Official Solicitor's letter of 11 December and the explanatory leaflet to her client. I ask myself the very simple question: why should she behave in this manifestly unprofessional way? In the crude phrase: what was in it for her? The answer to the second question is, of course, nothing."

Mr John Hemming MP has done nothing but damage the cause he espouses.

His behaviour in this case was utterly deplorable.

In an earlier age, not long ago, well, only decades ago, an MP in his position would have done the honourable thing and resigned.

Speaker Michael Martin: Update, Update, Update, Update!

The "Update, Update!" take is wearing thin as an associative reference to the Speaker's "Order, Order!" said in his own spectacularly unauthoritative manner (particularly as regards labour politicians). I promise to change it next time Michael Martin behaves in a stupid manner that I can bother to comment upon.

He is at it again. See the title link.The Daily Mail reports today:

"House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin launched a High Court bid today to block an "unlawfully intrusive" decision to force disclosure of MPs' expenses".

It also reports:

"The decision to challenge the Tribunal angered many MPs and freedom of information campaigners, not least because of its cost.

Westminster's anti-sleaze chief, Sir Christopher Kelly, described the move as "unfortunate" and said it suggested MPs have something to hide".

Speaker Martin appears to have a genious for only one thing: damaging himself and damaging everyone else who has ever been associated with him; including both his wife and every other member of parliament of whatever party.

THE QUIZ QUESTION FOR TODAY CAN ONLY BE:

Is Michael Martin the worst Speaker in history?

Previous Posts:

13th April, 2008:
Speaker Martin: Update, Update, Update!

1st April,2008:
Speaker Martin: Update, Update!

22nd February, 2008:
Buffoon Dressed In A Little Brief Authority

Mr Loophole Does It Again!

Those of you who are not criminal defence lawyers may raise the odd eyebrow at his successes but Nick Freeman has clearly earned his self-bestowed title of "Mr Loophole". Well, apparently, it is a registered trade mark. No doubt, this is to prevent unfair competition with such an otherwise likable man who is a stalwart of his local community.


His latest coup is to have successfully defended Andrew Flintoff against a speeding charge (87 mph in a 50 mph zone) because the notice was sent two days late.


I entirely agree that the defence, although technical, was entirely justified. The Crown Prosecution Service must be held strictly to statutory requirements for a successful prosecution.

I am not sure all of the non-lawyers who do not read this site anyway will necessarily agree.

That, however, is a matter for Parliament.

I do think legal aid criminal lawyers should be learning a few tricks from Mr Freeman. Surely, these defences ought to be available to all and not just the rich and famous who can afford Mr Freeman.

Manic Miner

Another free game today for fans of old games. Manic Miner was probably the best game for the ZX Spectrum. Older readers may remember this machine; which was the first really affordable PC. It worked with a TV set and a cassette tape recorder. Younger readers may regard such a primitive set up as, well, prehistoric. Consult the link to reassure yourself that I am not pulling your collective legs.

Click on the Manic Miner link to go directly to the download page for the game. The title link goes to the home page for the distribution site. This site provides many more free downloads of old games and is worth a visit.

I was addicted to Manic Miner during my postgraduate years. It is still a very good game despite the release of Quake IV, Bioshock, GTA IV et al. As is said in the readme supplied by takegame.com:

"Miner Willy, while prospecting down Surbiton way, stumbles upon an ancient, long forgotten mine-shaft. On further exploration, he finds evidence of a lost civilisation far superior to our own, which used automatons to dig deep into the Earth's core to supply the essential raw materials for their advanced industry. After centuries of peace and prosperity, the civilisation was torn apart by war, and lapsed into a long dark age, abandoning their industry and machines. Nobody, however, thought to tell the mine robots to stop working, and through countless aeons they had steadly accumulated a hugh stockpile of valuable metals and minerals, and Miner Willy realises that he now has the opportunity to make his fortune by finding the underground store. Can YOU take the challange and guide Willy through the underground caverns to the surface and riches. In order to move to the next chamber, you must collect all the flashing keys in the room while avoiding nasties like POISONUS PANSIES and SPIDERS and SLIME and worst of all, MANIC MINING ROBOTS. When you have all the keys, you can enter the portal which will now be flashing. The game ends when you have been "got" or fallen heavily three times.

NOTE: This was taken from the original BUG-BYTE inlay. I have never seen any POISONUS PANSIES, SPIDERS or SLIME anywhere in the game.

For those of you who have never played Manic Miner before, all you have to do is collect X number of objects from each screen to open the exit before your air runs out. Sounds easy? Just give it a try."

Try it. You may like it.

Another Good Guy: Government Promises Are Arguably Enforceable

Mr Justice Owen has dealt another blow against the government and in favour of freedom. Gosh! High Court Judges who support freedom seem to be self-propagating at an alarming level. I am sure the government will intervene soon.

The UK government said it could renege on its promise to hold a referendum on a treaty with impunity. It further said that no one could challenge its right to say one thing and mean another. This is the famous Humpy Dumpty Defence:

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

This is the UK government's absolutely favourite defence.

Why would anyone complain?

On 13 April 2005 the Prime Minister launched the Labour Party manifesto in which the earlier promises of a referendum, as reflected in the EU Bill, were repeated. Following the general election on 5 May, the promise to hold a referendum was repeated. On 13 May 2005 the Prime Minister was reported in The Sun newspaper as saying "we don't know what is going to happen in France, but we will have a referendum on the constitution in any event – and that is a Government promise." On 18 May the Prime Minister confirmed in the House of Commons that there would be a referendum in relation to the Constitutional Treaty, and on 24 May 2005 the Government re-introduced the EU Bill which still contained provision for a referendum, in the House of Commons.

What were the government's excuses (sorry, their defence)?

"They are first that the issue raised by the claim is not justiciable, secondly that the claim is a violation of parliamentary privilege, and thirdly that there was no unambiguous and unqualified representation that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would be held."

THEY LOST ON ALL THREE POINTS. That is, 3-0 to freedom on round 1. Round 2 follows and I will update.

Look, You Guys Elected President Bush: Boris The London Mayor Again

School Days - Boris Johnson


We in the UK at least knock some education into them before we elect them to office. In the US you seem to elect them to office and then knock the education out of them:



But here he was before:

Boris Johnson: The Clown and The Politician - Spot The Difference

Boris on Have I Got News For You:



Boris the politician:



Shallow? I do not care. All politicians are toads. A funny politician at least provides amusement. That is better than the nothing that the other ones offer.

No Longer A Serious Contender: Boris The Mayor Of London

Boot me out in 4 years if I don't deliver, says Boris. In an attack on the journos who have classed him as clown he promised to keep some jokes running and not to become too po-faced. Hurrah! He can even start drinking again!

I am anti political in the sense of regarding all politicians as corrupt by definition. I do not vote except in the sense of occasionally visiting a polling booth and writing "none of the above" at its base but, if I were a Londoner, I might have been tempted to vote for Boris.

He is funny and highly intelligent. He would top any list of preffered dinner party guests. Dear old Ken is amusing in his own way but would you really want to sit next to him? No. No invitation for you, Ken.

Newts are, no doubt, a fascinating subject but I doubt that I want to converse with Ken for very long about them.

East Sussex County Council Branded "Disgraceful" By The Court Of Appeal

East Sussex County Council is within my geographic area. Until the government rendered it uneconomic to maintain a legal aid franchise I used to handle child care cases involving them. I rarely came across a lawyer who did not regard their social services department as badly managed and arrogant. The Court of Appeal has now confirmed this opinion and condemned them. See the title link.

In argument, a number of adjectives were used to describe the conduct of the local authority / adoption agency [East Sussex County Council's SS] (henceforth "the agency") in this case. Over the period during which this judgment has been reserved, I have re-read the papers and reflected on the agency's conduct. In the event, I have come to the conclusion that the only word I can use to describe it is "disgraceful". That is not a word I use lightly.

Lord Justice Wall went on to criticise the barrister in the case (Ms Briggs of Crown Office Row in Brighton):

"During the course of argument, we gave counsel for the agency every opportunity to defend and justify its conduct. In my judgment, she not only failed to do so: worse, she did not appear to think the exercise necessary. On her argument, the agency was acting within the letter of the 2002 Act, and in the best interests of the child. Although she acknowledged that aspects of the agency's conduct were likely to be criticised, her attitude came across, to me at least, as – in effect – so what? If the 2002 Act permitted the agency to do what it did, why was the manner in which it did it relevant?

In my judgment, the conduct of the agency in this case demonstrates a profound if not total misunderstanding of its functions under the 2002 Act. Moreover – and this I find particularly dispiriting - it provides useful ammunition for those who criticise the Family Justice System for administering "secret" justice, and who attack social workers as a group for their arrogance and the manner in which they abuse their functions by both removing children from their parents unlawfully, and by stifling legitimate parental responses."

This was an adoption case. East Sussex Social Services forced through the adoption before the father of the child's application to set it aside could be heard. They were fully aware of the application because the father's solicitors had written to them.

"There was no reply of any kind to that letter. Counsel for the agency was either unable or unwilling to offer any explanation for the total failure to reply, but in my judgment, given the agency's subsequent behaviour, only two inferences, both adverse to the agency, can properly be drawn from that failure. They are; (1) that the agency did not wish to give the father or his solicitors any information; and (2) it wished, as the judge found, to "scupper" or "stymie" any application which the father made to the court. These two inferences are, in my judgment, irresistible. Indeed, there is no alternative explanation. Certainly counsel for the agency did not proffer any alternative."

And further:

"Both the agency and the recipient of the letter of 17 January must understand that the failure to answer the letter was not merely discourteous and thoroughly bad practice, but that it can only be seen as a deliberate attempt to keep the father in the dark, so that the agency could proceed to place the child and thus prevent the father from making an application to the court under section 24(2) of the 2002 Act. It is this conduct in particular on the part of the agency which leads me to categorise its conduct overall as disgraceful."

I need not go on but you should read this case if only to discover the full extent of the "abuse of power" and "sharp practice" in which East Sussex County Council's social services are prepared to indulge where the welfare of children is involved.

Blogger Cannot Upload Images At Present

I am reduced to producing posts without images at present. Having discovered that this is currently a problem with Blogger (and known to them) I will be posting text only updates until the problem is resolved OR UNTIL I GET FED UP AND USE ANOTHER PROVIDER.

UPDATE: 3rd May - seems to be working now.