Burning Tiger Woods: A New Year Story in Pictures

Tiger, tiger, burning bright

We are ending our sponsorship agreement with you and wish you well in the future...

In the forests of the night.


What immortal hand or eye
Dared frame your fearful symmetry?



In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of your eyes?


On what wings did you aspire?
What hand did dare seize your fire?


And what shoulder and what art
Twisted your sinews and your heart?


And when your heart begain to beat,
What dread hand and what dread feet?


What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was your brain?


What the anvil? What dread grasp?
Dared your deadly terrors clasp?


When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,


Did He smile His work to see?
Did He who made the lamb make thee?


Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,


What immortal hand or eye
Dared frame thy fearful symmetry?

Happy New Year

IS THIS LAWYER HAPPY?

Why am I posting again? Simple. I am unhappy. So, I thought I'd share a little bit of my unhappiness around in the hope that unhappiness divided by you will become less. Oh, alright, I'm just asking for more shit. Post it. Go on. I love you too.

So, this is news? Bobbies Like a Bacon Sarnie? In a Nice Comfie Station? Instead of Going out in Nasty Cold Weather catching CRIMINALS.

FURIOUS POLICE ARREST JACK STRAW

A nice cup of tea and a bun as well, please.

“Some police officers - whatever they may say - actually enjoy staying in the police station in the warm. We are dealing with human beings, but we are also dealing with the kind of discipline and culture in the police service.”

Mr Straw added: “It is very striking around this country that if you go to one police force it is up for it, getting crime down and really motoring, while the adjacent force - serving very similar communities - has not got it together.

“It is not about money, it is about leadership, organisation and culture.”

The police are of course "furious", just like MPs were when their expenses were exposed to scrutiny.

Hetty the Hotty Goes Mad Or Is It Someone Else Who Is Equally. Or Even More, Insane?

Hi Steven

My name is James Dean, and I'm your new best friend. I came across your blog while looking for something else, but you're perfect! Your combination of smug and needy is perfection! I'm going to follow every move you make. You will never be alone again!
BTW, what is it with you and Hetty Baynes? Did she turn you down some time? Little case of hurt pride?
Oh, and the novel-writing ambition - fab! - you couldn't make it up! xx

20 October 2009 00:31

Hi there, my new best friend. You are no doubt going to become the star of this blog - well, as previously posted, I have lost interest and no-one else appears to be interested.

You may be a thicko, and that will entertain the readers that I do not have, but did it not occur to you that your IP address is now in my log files?

Maybe, I will broadcast it. Oh, sod the maybe. I will make time just for you.

Hetty Baynes Again: Losing a Grip on Reality

It seems that it is not only Chris Keil who wants to post inane comments to the Hetty Baynes blog:

As there is no e-mail address to send you a discreet communication - I'm having to post it here on your site:

What you have written is very distressing and unprofessional and an outright defamation of character towards someone who has done nothing to deserve your venom.

I'm kindly asking you to remove them and request that you refrain from passing judgment on people or cases you know nothing about.

If this is truly a blog about legal matters - where are all the OTHER legal matters you are supposed to be 'commenting' on???? Funny isn't it that it is just this case you mention... Seems to me that you are acting on someone's behalf - sour grapes to say the least!

You do not need to be reminded what the consequences of libel are... Do you?

For reasons set out in the previous post I have not been checking up on this blog much recently. This is posted by another "Anonymous" (I will find you dear). I suppose that is because he or she wants to remain "discreet" or, possibly, not expose themself to ridicule. Too late!

1. No-one else has difficulty emailing me. Oh, alright, try going to The Firm.

2. You are either a very bad lawyer or a very badly advised lay person and clearly have no understanding of the law of defamation.

3. If you think this is a blog about one case then that can only be because you accessed one page. Either (a) you are fixated on Hetty Baynes and/or (b) you are Hetty Baynes and/or (c) you are off your rocker and/or (d) you are a perfectly nice sane human being who just had one too many on 17th September this year.

3. Sue me. Go on, I dare you. Your brain is addled.

4. Ooo! You can only sue me if YOU ARE HETTY BAYNES! Well, at least that would explain 2 above.

The Meaning of Life

Trust me to get it wrong. There I am (provoked by Chris Keil) banging on about the meaninglessness of it all and reading Climbing Mount Improbable (very good, get a copy) and the ten ton truck shows up. So now I am head over heels in love and every single moment in her arms is just stuffed full of meaning. Oh, well.

Blade Running

I just woke up to hear that a lady's body has been identified by the serial numbers of her breast implants.

Well, there's another chore to add to a would be murderer's checklist of things to remove: fingers, teeth, breast implants...

The Meaninglessness of Meaninglessness

Visit the Daily Mail website. It is an everyday example of why nothing matters. The news, for them, is how much bigger, or less big, Jordan's tits were yesterday than the day before. The news, for them, is how many more, or fewer, drinks Jade Goody's ex-husband had the night before.

The Daily Mail is an easy target. The Daily Mail takes itself seriously but is in fact a shameful disgrace - as are all those who work for it, including its pompous self-regarding columnists: the opinion formers of middle England.

Is The Times any better? No, not really.

It is all a charade. Even the news about death and destruction, the machinations of infantile politicians and reviews of Chris Keil's books are wholly without merit or content of any kind that might for even the briefest second be meaningful.

Really, it is all Chris Keil's fault that I hardly bother with this blog any more. He has done you a service.

Oh, well, nothing new here then.



Cheer up! If it is all meaningless then you might as well have some fun.

Andy Murray v Frank Skinner

I have just watched the Murray v Ferrero match, which I could enjoy a bit.

However, I have also just been reading Frank Skinner's autobiography and distracting excerpts kept creeping into my mind as Andy Murray banged it down the court.
The problem is that Andy Murray and Frank Skinner look alike or, at the very least, share a similar sort of ugliness.

Of course, one of them can do push-ups without his legs touching the floor and the other just used to be legless most of the time. I'm not saying there are no differences that might enable you to tell them apart. For instance, one of them can tell jokes and the other gives the impression that jokes are a strange extraterrestrial concept that he long ago dismissed as one of those childish things that an adult puts behind him. One laughs a lot (including, endearingly, at his own jokes) and the other...ok, you find a picture on the Internet that shows Andy Murray smiling, let alone laughing.

Frank Skinner glories in the fact that his success has enabled him to have anal sex and any other kind of sex he wants with much younger and much prettier girls than he is himself (and he is entirely candid about being neither a young nor a pretty man). He also boasts about having swallowed a lot of tiny bits of toilet paper when he has, demonstrating his commitment to equality, gone down on these girls. OK, that is probably comic exaggeration (but it also probably happened once - because Frank keeps telling us about his telling and he says, always, that his telling is the truth). I believe the truth of the first sentence though.

The reason for that is not only that Andy Murray's current girlfriend is beautiful but that, in addition, they showed shots of a former girlfriend who happened also to be a former Miss Scotland who, would you believe it, was accompanied by another former Miss Scotland; both of them seemingly very enthusiastic about Andy - or, maybe, they are just tennis aficiandos.

Frank says its just being famous. He says that the more famous you are the more women you get to shag. He excuses his penchant for shagging young women because they would not look at him when he was young and unknown. Now, he can have almost any woman he wants.

Either Andy Murray gets to screw beautiful women because he is incredibly witty and empathetic (in addition to being famous) or he just gets these women because he is more famous than Frank Skinner. Maybe he and Frank should have a talk and do some trades.

I speak, of course, as an ugly person who is not famous, but it all seems a bit shallow.

I also speak as an atheist and cannot therefore say anything against someone leading a shallow life in the knowledge that it does not matter a damn and, hey, we will all be a long time in the grave: oblivious to our past misdeeds and pleasures. Therefore, fuck anything that moves. Indeed, why require movement?

But, Frank Skinner professes to be a genuine hands on Roman Catholic who gets his chauffeur to stop and let him light candles at suitable churches.

Having it both ways, Frank? Well, I guess you have already told us that.

Amazing Confessions: Chris Keil is Not a Dog

Ok, I admit it. Chris Keil is not a dog; not even the very nice looking pooch portrayed in my last post. It was a cruel and inhuman thing for me to do to place that picture above those nasty derogatory comments. I was, of course, legless when I did it. That, as Mr Keil has insinuated, excuses everything.

Chris Keil Admits He is a Drunk

Chris Keil cannot resist responding. Here is his latest:

Anonymous Chris Keil said...

I really want this to stop. I said I thought someone had used my name to post comments on your blog because I have absolutely no recollection of doing so myself. Maybe this was the result of inebriation so total that it has produced amnesia. I was not ‘admitting’ to have posted this garbage, but apologising for it, in particular for it being so atrociously badly written.You were entitled to defend yourself, and you have done so to devastating effect - you must be truly impressive in your working life. Consider me out for the count. Nevertheless, this is disproportionate. If you keep these posts up you will end by causing real distress to people who in no way deserve to have that inflicted on them, and I don’t understand why you would choose to do that. You have the means to prevent it. Would you take note of the fact that I am not being abusive to you; you are being abusive to me. All I can do is to ask you again: please delete these posts.

OK, that is fun but now let us see the same quote with some appropriate comments.

Anonymous Chris Keil said...

I really want this to stop.

[I am 100% convinced that this is a truthful statement; particularly, the wish for anonymity. But then why post the identical comment (a comment identifying the sender) five times in response to two different blogs? Possibly Mr Keil has a dodgy trigger finger; especially when it hovers over the send button and its owner has had a few.]

I said I thought someone had used my name to post comments on your blog because I have absolutely no recollection of doing so myself.

[That is not what was said. What was said was:

"Someone has used my name to post a comment, without my knowledge or consent. Could I ask you to remove it please"

Is telling lies habit forming?]

Maybe this was the result of inebriation so total that it has produced amnesia.

["Maybe" is poor English; "it may be that" would have been better. Otherwise, I can believe in the "inebriation" but the assertion that it produced "amnesia" is easily refuted. See Mr Keil's lying suggestion that it was not him, gov, as reproduced above. This was sent five minutes after the last of his abusive and allegedly forgotten messages.]

I was not ‘admitting’ to have posted this garbage,

[Oh, yes you were, I have the log files, and the audience (well, there isn't one, but never mind) is now chanting "OH, YES YOU WERE!" in the stereotypical response to a pantomime villain which is, sadly, what you have now become.]

but apologising for it,

[Why were you apologising for something you had not done? Cross-examining you would be a piece of cake.]

in particular for it being so atrociously badly written

[Your subsequent efforts have not demonstrated any superior skill but I will read your book Liminal just to check that my first impression of your literary skills does not do you a disservice.]

You were entitled to defend yourself, and you have done so to devastating effect - you must be truly impressive in your working life.

[Sucking up will get you nowhere with me. I only respect people who fight back with rational and persuasive arguments. All that you have provided is whining self-justification of a sickening nature.]

Consider me out for the count.

[That is a matter for you. Free tip: underestimating opponents is very unwise.]

Nevertheless, this is disproportionate.

[This is a good point. I have wondered whether I have transformed myself from the victim into the bully. On balance, I have decided that that has not happened yet. You are the writer with published work and I am only a wannabe writer. Thus, you have the power to bully and I am only fighting back.

The proportionality of the methods I use to defend myself depends upon the nature of the attack I am defending myself against. You have repeatedly stated that you want me dead. Physical response by me might well therefore be justified to defend myself. Certainly, my choice to defend myself only by the use of words in response to a death threat cannot be considered "disproportionate".]

If you keep these posts up you will end by causing real distress to people who in no way deserve to have that inflicted on them, and I don’t understand why you would choose to do that.

[Who are these mysterious people? Who is it that is inflicting distress upon them? Is it you?]

You have the means to prevent it.

[No, you have those means. Confess and your soul may then be content. Whether the deserving people will also be content will be a matter for them.]

Would you take note of the fact that I am not being abusive to you;

[I take note that your mood is different today and confer upon you benediction for your past sins.]

you are being abusive to me

[You are a very silly man; I am merely responding to your abuse of me. There are no circumstances in which I would have abused someone as you did me.]

All I can do is to ask you again: please delete these posts.

[Yeah, Mamma!]

What is Chris Keil's Problem?

I pause in relation to Chris Keil's comment that I am a "sad prick" who should "die, fuck off, both" to speculate whether he has got religion. Otherwise, I wonder how I could fuck off after I had died. I would by definition already have fucked off at the same time I followed his first instruction to die. Having fucked off this mortal coil it could only be my ghost that would be left to follow his second instruction. I do not believe in ghosts but it may be that Chris Keil is a haunted man and could provide personal testimony concerning the ghosts (demons?) that surround him.

His latest comment appears to lend support to this theory:

I fully understand your reaction, and I apologise unreservedly. However, there are people other than myself who are innocent parties and who would be deeply hurt by seeing this, so I can only ask you once more to accept my apologies and to delete all this. 11 June 2009.

I frankly do not understand Mr Keil's concern. This blog is only read in desolated and alienated places, is boring and uninteresting and will therefore be wholly ignored by the wider world. What therefore has he got to worry about? Unless, of course, he has a belief that any comment about him will be avidly tracked down by his hordes of admirers wherever it may appear. Oh, dear! That would make him a prime candidate for comment on a site entitled Divorcing Reality.

This is entirely speculative of course but is Chris Keil involved in a contact/residence dispute where alcohol consumption is an issue?

I have no information at all because, as Mr Keil complains, I lack any "insider slant."

This is apparently a required qualification for an interesting blog.

Well, Mr Keil's last post on his own inpress books uk blog was as follows:

The city is returned to me, the keys to leaping bridges, silver skies. In the radiant anonymity of its streets, a fish is released into water.

That is it; in its entirety. Check Chris's bog. Well, it appears no more than a candidate for Pseuds' Corner but that is irrelevant; no more than my opinion and I may be accused of bias.

However, I ask you to visit Mr Keil's blog and defy you to find anything interesting there that is the product of his having any kind of insider slant, even in relation to his own personality.

If you do find something interesting then I will be more than happy to reproduce it here. The chap clearly needs more publicity.

So, we come to his allegations that I am clogging up the internet and that anyone who posts stuff without a big audience or inside information is necessarily doing so.

It is preposterous nonsense and hardly deserves a reply but many people use the internet or post on the internet simply for an audience of family and friends or simply as no more than the equivalent of a commonplace book of old. No-one forces their crap (and, it may well be crap) on anyone else.

What offends me about Chris Keil's comments is not the personal abuse of me but the incredible arrogance and sense of self-importance that they demonstrate him to have. I am as sure about the fact that his personal opinion of himself is unjustified as I am about anything. However, I confess I have not read his book or books. The sentences quoted above were enough for me.

Chris Keil: The Big Lie

On 20th May. Chris Keil said:

Someone has used my name to post a comment, without my knowledge or consent. Could I ask you to remove it please.

It was an obvious lie and on 22nd May, Chris Keil said:

I deeply regret the appearance of these comments on your blog, but as they have the capacity to cause a good deal of harm to a number of people, I would ask you to delete them.

Chris Keil has accused me of poor journalese. Well, could he please explain to me what moral authority he pretends to have (even compared to, for instance, a Member of Parliament known to have fiddled their expenses) following the first quote above which is an obvious and incontrovertably blatant lie?

Who wants to read his novels now?

His utter desparation is illustrated by his reference to unnamed other "people" who will be "harmed". Seems like the only person he is really concerned about is himself.

The Killer Out There: Chris Keil

At last a picture of the outlaw Chris Keil, who wants this "sad fuck" to die.

Chris Keil posted nasty stuff about me. Fair enough. He is entitled to his opinion. This site is about nothing if it is not about free speech.

He just went too far when he said he wanted me to "die"

Do his readers know the contempt in which he holds them?

Do his readers know the contempt in which he holds free speech?

Do his readers know the contempt in which he holds the little man (as opposed to himself, who is obviously a very big man whose opinions command and deserve to command universal respect)?

That is not tonight's quiz. Rhetorical questions do not count. Here are the quiz questions.

QUIZ:

(1) Should I report Chris Keil to the police for inciting someone to use violence against me?

(2) Should I report Chris Keil to the police for impliedly threatening to kill me himself?

(3) Should I sue Chris Keil in the civil courts for defamation?

Repost of Comments To Date: Chris Keil's Death Wish For Me

Anonymous chriskeil.eu said...

You are a sad prick - what's it to you, Moby Dick?

20 May 2009 22:52
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sad prick, sad prick, sad - in what desolate and alienated place did you think your comments would be heard? Give up. Die, fuck off, both

20 May 2009 23:06
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sad prick, sad prick, sad - in what desolate and alienated place did you think your comments would be heard? Give up. Die, fuck off, both

20 May 2009 23:08
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are not interesting. You don't have any insider slant. What have you got to say about any of this? Why do you put your name to sub- OK journalese? It's fucks like you who clog up the Internet . Seriously, fuck the fuck off

20 May 2009 23:23
Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone has used my name to post a comment, without my knowledge or consent. Could I ask you to remove it please

22 May 2009 11:40
Delete
Blogger Steven Carrigan said...

Been busy and not accessing my blog.

Now, however, my client's case against Moet has been adjourned so I will try to find time to respond to Anonymous and Chris Keil tomorrow.

09 June 2009 19:40
Delete
Anonymous Chris Keil said...

I deeply regret the appearance of these comments on your blog, but as they have the capacity to cause a good deal of harm to a number of people, I would ask you to delete them.

Chris Keil Wants Me To Die

9th June

I have been busy and have not looked at the blog for a while. I looked today, however, and was a bit surprised by the comments under the Hetty Baynes blog on 27th May.

Someone else has looked and appears not to like me. He/she does not only want me to stop blogging. They want me to "die".

Well, I find that interesting. I know several people who share the sentiment but they mainly as a group consist of the clients of opponents in legal actions and, in particular, litigants in person.

As to the unimportance of my blog and the absence of any significant audience I have stated this myself in a previous post - see the admin link below. I have no complaint about that aspect of the comment.

10th June

The above was drafted but not posted yesterday. Chris Keil has now owned up to what I could easily have discovered anyway; that he was the author of all the current comments. He wishes me to delete them. Check out the comments.

Removal of John Nyombi to Uganda was Unlawful

Jaqui Smith, among her other troubles, has been found to have unlawfully removed John Nyombi to Uganda and he has suffered exactly the persecution that was predicted. She has also been ordered to get him back. That may already have happened since the decision was made on 28th February although only published today.

John Nyombi is gay and there was a widespread campaign on the internet and elsewhere to prevent his being deported to Uganda where homosexuality is illegal and can carry a life sentence, in reality a death sentence.

Ironically, it seems to have been the campaign that caused Smith's minion Alan Kittle to decide to deport Nyombi in an unlawful manner and without notice.

"Thus, so far as this breach is concerned, I am satisfied that the actions of the officers of the Border Agency were deliberate. They were deliberately calculated to avoid any complication which could arise from removal being publicly known. It was a deliberate decision that he should not be told the flight details. They deliberately misled him in order to prevent him making any contact with the Refugee Legal Centre when it might have been possible for him to do so. Then later when it was impossible for him to do that, he nonetheless requested it, and they flatly refused to allow him to do it. They took these steps to restrain him, and to restrict the opportunity he might have, to cause difficulty which could complicate their intention to remove him."

The manner of removal was absolutely disgraceful and carried out by government paid thugs. Our government's paid thugs.

"On Thursday 18th September, security in Tinsley House came for me at around 4.30 pm. They confiscated by mobile phone and said that this was procedure. I was very worried and I asked them where I was going. They said to me, "we're taking you for an interview with an Immigration Officer." I remember directly asking them whether I was going be sent back to Uganda and they said, "no" and not to worry; it was only an interview.

"Because they said it was just for an interview I agreed to go with them. There were four guys and they kept saying, "we will bring you back." I remember them telling me that I should eat something, as I would not be back to Tinsley House for several hours. I was put in a van and we drove for just a short period of time and then stopped somewhere; I could not see where. The two men in the back with me where called Michael and Paul. Michael was quite nice and asked me a few questions. Paul told me to shut up when I tried to tell him I was worried. The other two men sat in the front and I don't know their names. One of the guys got out from the back with me and said he was going to get the Immigration Officer and wouldn't be long.

"When he returned he had bits of paper with him and it said, "Removal Directions". It did not specify a date or a time. This would have been at around 6.00 pm. I questioned the security men as they had promised I was going for an interview and to be honest they looked a bit confused too and said they thought I was seeing an Immigration Officer first.

"I asked if I could talk to a solicitor or a friend but they said this was not allowed. From there I was driven straight to the plane. I felt sick and stressed and was starting to cry. I couldn't believe that this was happening to me and no one even knew.

"The van stopped outside the plane for what felt like around 30 minutes and Paul and Michael stayed in the back with me. After 30 minutes or so I was told to get out of the van. When I refused all four men entered into the van to get me. I backed away and struggled and said, "I want to see an Immigration Officer" and asked again if I could call my solicitor. The security men said there was nothing they could do and I had to get on the plane.

"I did not fight them, I was just trying to resist leaving the van. All four of the security men pulled me outside of the van and I was handcuffed. I refused to stand up when I was outside so they lifted me off the ground and then pushed me back on to the ground and the man who had been driving the van punched me in the private parts to make me straighten my legs and then they tied my legs with a sort of belt like you find for a wheelchair. The other men who had sat in the front of the van was hovering his fist over my face and I was crying and asking him not to hit me. I remember there were people there loading things onto the plane and two policemen.

"All four men lifted me off the ground with my face facing upwards and on to the plane. I am afraid I don't recall exactly how they did it and where they were holding me, just that I could not see around me and I was being carried horizontally to the floor. I think that two were by my legs and two by my arms. I was crying because of where the driver had hit me and also the handcuffs hurt and I was trying to tell this. Everything happened so fast and I was in a bad way."

Unconvincing Hetty Baynes Loses Appeal

Ken Russell's ex-wife lost her claim for a bigger share of her mother's lesbian partner's estate before Mr Justice Lewison who found her an "unconvincing" witness and part of the stance she took "distasteful".

It is pretty clear from the case that that Hetty Baynes was a serial sponger so far as Mary Spencer Watson was concerned and some of her tactics not necessarily denoting the highest integrity. For instance:

"On 13th December 2005 Hetty went to see Mary at Dunshay Manor, at the suggestion of a friend, in order to encourage Mary to take responsibility for Hetty as a parent would. Having heard the evidence of Hetty and her friend, Lewison J had no doubt that Hetty tried to persuade Mary to change her will and "did so in forceful terms".

"By now Hetty had realised that her application for a large lump sum from Ken Russell would not succeed. She confronted Mary about her relationship with Margot, and Mary admitted that their relationship had been an intimate one. All the witnesses agreed that Mary was a very private person, who had never previously acknowledged her relationship with Margot; and to do so at this juncture must have been very difficult for her. Hetty herself said that Mary confessed to guilt and shame about the relationship. In her oral evidence, however, Hetty said that it was not her purpose to use the meeting to get Mary to pay her bills. It was, as she put it, about the "bigger picture"; although the canvas of the bigger picture seemed to be filled by her and Rex, and in particular her financial problems. What she wanted was for Mary to make her and Rex secure, by clearing her debts, buying her somewhere to live and giving them a solid base. She said to Mary that without anything coming from Ken she would be bankrupt and homeless; and asked Mary whether she would be happy with that. Without Mary's help, she said, they would not survive. These statements must have put considerable pressure on Mary and in my judgment they were designed to do so."

I wonder if Sears Tooth took this one on no-win-no-fee basis? If they did, then it is surprising that they did not appreciate how their client was going to come across.

If not, Ms Baynes must really be on her uppers now. I doubt, however, if anyone who reads the case (see title link) is going to feel much sympathy for her.

Gutter Politics is OK, says Judge Eady

Partial, biased, hard-hitting electioneering, even if it merits the description "gutter politics", does not sustain an allegation of malice to found a cause of action for injurious falsehood; so held by the leading libel judge Mr Justice Eady in his judgment in the case of Quinton v Pierce, released on the internet today.

Clearly, this judgment only applies to politicians and could be justified on the basis that if you want to participate in a dirty game do not expect normal rules of civilized behaviour to apply and certainly do not expect your opponents to treat you with any civility. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

To put that in latin (which we lawyers are no longer supposed to do): the defence could have been volenti non fit injuria or, going back to English, if you go into politics you are consenting to being traduced, vilified, blackguarded, having your character trailed through the gutter, your expenses questioned, your every word, act, omission etc. subjected to the utmost scrutiny, generally being booed and hissed at as if you were a pantomime villain (even, in those rare cases, where you are not) etc. etc. and you will have no right to complain because you knew what you were getting into you pathetic little moron.

Well, that is the ratio decidendi of the decision as far as I am concerned.

Do you agree?

My Daddy is a Lawyer & Other Lawyer Jokes

TWO LAWYERS

Today's joke of the day should be preserved:

My Daddy Is A Lawyer

While two families were waiting in line to see the Washington Monument, their two five-year-old boys were getting acquainted.

"My name is Joshua. What's yours?" asked the first boy.
"Adam," replied the second.
"My daddy is a doctor. What does your daddy do for a living?" asked Joshua.
Adam proudly replied, "My daddy is a lawyer."
"Honest?" asked Joshua.
"No, just the regular kind," replied Adam.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The Godfather Lawyer

Q: What do you get when you cross the Godfather with a lawyer?
A: An offer you can't understand.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The Truck Driver, the Priest and the Lawyers

A truck driver used to amuse himself by running over lawyers he would see walking down the side of the road. Every time he would see a lawyer walking along the road, he would swerve to hit him, and there would be a loud "THUMP" and then he would swerve back onto the road. One day, he saw a priest hitchhiking. He thought he would do a good turn and pulled the truck over.

He asked the priest, "Where are you going, Father?"

"I'm going to the church 5 miles down the road," replied the priest.

"No problem, Father! I'll give you a lift. Climb in the truck." The happy priest climbed into the passenger seat and the truck driver continued down the road.

Suddenly the truck driver saw a lawyer walking down the road and instinctively he swerved to hit him. But he remembered there was a priest in the truck with him, so at the last minute he swerved back away, narrowly missing the lawyer. However, even though he was sure he missed the lawyer, he still heard a loud "THUMP". Not understanding where the noise came from, he glanced in his mirrors and when he didn't see anything, he turned to the priest and said, "I'm sorry Father. I almost hit that lawyer."

"That's okay," replied the priest. "I got him with the door!"

------------------------------------------------------------------

Laboratory Lawyers

Why are laboratory scientists switching from rats to lawyers for their experiments?
1. Lawyers are more plentiful than rats;
2. The lab technicians don't get as attached to the lawyers,
3. There are some things a rat just won't do, and
4. This is one area where the animal rights activists won't get worked up over.


More another day.

The Mystery of the Missing Motive: Yusuf v The Royal Pharmaceutical Society

This case (see title link) is mundane except for the fact that there is no motive for the acts that got this pharmacist struck off the register.

Yusuf was found guilty of "the consistent, one might almost say systematic, alteration of prescription forms and the forging of doctors' signatures to authenticate the alterations." The Disciplinary Committee said that "his conduct involved dishonesty, abuse of trust, loss to the NHS and the signing of FP34C forms certifying that the drugs ordered on prescriptions had been supplied to patients, when [he] must have known that that was untrue." His conduct, they added, "amounted to fundamental breaches of the Code of Ethics."

Yet the Committee also accepted that there was no evidence of any financial or other benefit to Mr Yusuf from his misconduct. He was an employed pharmacist. The benefit of his fraud can only have accrued to the pharmacy itself.

It is difficult, in the light of those findings, to understand the why? of this case.
It is not common human experience for wrongdoers to commit crimes from which they never intend to derive any benefit.

We need Inspector Morse here. There would appear to be loose ends. You may wish to play detective so I suggest you read the case.

The Garlic Defence

An amusing story from Gary Slapper of The Times concerns the abandonment of criminal trials at Bristol Crown Court because the smell of garlic was spreading around the court building. Visit the title link.

This is a particularly stupid defence to run. The best it will get you is an adjournment.

If you are exposed as the garlic deployer's friend you will cast doubt on your credibility and may destroy any other available defence you have. But then, lots of criminals are stupid. That is why they are criminals.

On the other hand, some criminals are clever and never get caught. This just supports two cardinal principles that prosecutors and governments need to keep at the forefront of their minds. They are:

(1) Probability of detection rather than harsh sentencing is the primary deterrent.

(2) Confiscation of the proceeds of crime should be the primary punishment.

Therefore, focus on better policing (more intelligent, better qualified, properly funded) and increase the penalties for failing to satisfy a confiscation order; perhaps, discounting the retributive part of the sentence and applying a percentage uplift to the criminal gain.

The really interesting thing you will find in Gary Slapper's article is the exclusion of a barrister from court for wearing perfume. OK, it was the 60's.

The Bible in English Just Like Jesus Talked

I thought P J O'Rourke made the title up but I have found it, or something so similar that it makes no difference; except, that it is written by an agnostic who wasted part of his life doing it. Go on, you believe it all now. See the title link.

Ian Tomlinson: Murder Not Manslaughter?

In English law murder does not require an intent to kill. The following will also suffice:

(a) an intent to cause grievous bodily harm; or

(b) grievous bodily harm is the virtually certain consequence of the perpetrator's act.

The news that Ian Tomlinson died from internal bleeding seems to me to mean that investigation of the unknown police officer only for manslaughter is inadequate. A murder charge should not be ruled out at this stage.

TOPIC FOR DEBATE

Manslaughter would be an example of undercharging that would not be countenanced if the offender were not a police officer.

Margaret Haywood, The Brighton Sussex Hospital and Elder Abuse

Margaret Haywood went undercover for the BBC and secretly filmed neglect/abuse of elderly patients at the Royal Sussex Hospital in Brighton, England.

After the film was broadcast, the trust responsible for the hospital admitted and apologised for "serious lapses in the quality of care".

I think we can take it that this was the most anodyne formula the trust's lawyers felt they could get away with.

The Times reports today that the Nursing and Midwifery Council has found that Ms Haywood had prioritised filming over her obligations as a nurse and had breached patient confidentiality.

In consequence, she has been struck off and cannot act as a nurse. That is, her career has been destroyed.

Oh, by the way, it is also reported that all of the patients (subsequent to the filming) waived confidentiality. I would too. If I was a vulnerable elderly person and was being maltreated but with no means of doing anything about it, I would positively want someone, anyone, to do something about it and by whatever means possible.

Ordinary mortals will find the decision to strike this nurse off the register inexplicable other than as a protective act of revenge and as a blatant attempt to discourage others from blowing the whistle on National Health Service malpractice.

She did a greater service to these patients than the hospital or any of their other doctors or nurses.

I hope Margaret Haywood takes this matter further. I am sure she has access to proper advice and I can think of many lawyers who would take this case on a no win no fee basis.

The decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Council, on the facts available in the public domain, is an utter disgrace and wholly against the public interest.

The Pot and the Kettle

Rachel Sylvester of The Times appears somewhat sinister if the title story really represents what she thinks.

Take a look!

She is doing exactly what she criticises others for doing.

Does Dr Michael Pelling Help Fathers or Children?

The notorious lay represenative of fathers in the English courts has been at it again. And this time it is not about contact with the father's children. It's about filthy lucre.

Well, I suppose Dr P is entitled to earn a crust.

The answer to the title question is: No, not a lot really. In fact, if you consider cases that he has been involved in (including his own sorry dispute with his ex-wife) he damages fathers and their relations with their children.

It is not simply that he gets up the noses of judges. He does that, however. He does it with such skill and alacrity that I sometimes think that he wants to lose.

If you are really tempted by having Dr Pelling represent you then you should first of all read the judgment in his latest debacle. You will quickly change your mind.

It is G v A and it becomes compelling reading at about paragraph 100.

For instance, would you really want your advocate to send in a written comment on the judgment as follows:

"In fairness to [the father] I would ask the reason why the cheque was stopped be stated. It was stopped on Dr Pelling's advice who drew [the father's] attention to the stated purpose of the £20000, for the mother's cost of moving, … , and pointed out that no move of the mother was on the horizon and that of course the problems of the settlement deed etc had not been resolved so the move was not going to take place in the near future. It was not reasonable to pay under those circumstances, especially as the Order made no provision for what would happen to the money if the move was not taking place, and on the mother's record there was real concern it would just be spent improperly and dissipated. It is not fair to [the father] as a businessman of probity to damn him in a judgment as a person who stops cheques when he owes money, which prima facie does not enhance reputation. [The father] cannot publicly reply to such aspersions because of the anonymisation (which does not guarantee that [he] will not become known to some people as the A in question)."

Mr Justice Munby saw that one coming:

I am content to record Dr Pelling's comments but they hardly seem to assist the father. The facts as I set them out in paragraph [6] are not disputed; nor could they be. The fact is that the father stopped the cheque in December 2006, at a time when his appeal against the District Judge's order stood dismissed, when the stay had long since been lifted and long before he made his application to the court on 15 June 2007. The fact is that when he stopped the cheque he owed the money. The fact, as now appears, that the father acted on the advice of Dr Pelling can hardly assist him; it merely throws an interesting light on Dr Pelling's approach to orders of the court.

As a lawyer, I naturally advise you to pay attention to orders of the court. If you want to take the advice of Dr Pelling then feel free to do so. If the advice, in the end, does not work out entirely costs neutral (financially or emotionally) then I am sure that Dr Pelling's insurance will cover you. Please check with him first, however.

The Date of Your Death is a Random Number

6 teachers and three students died today, I heard on the radio as I awoke this morning. I might as well have heard that a tsunami had killed tens of thousands. Or that the Rwandans had massacred another million or two.

Barclays Tax Avoidance Horse Bolts, Then Judge Shuts Stable Door

NO HORSE HERE

Mr Justice Blake thinks that the documents Barclays does not want you to see are still sufficiently difficult to find that they have not yet lost all confidentiality. Well, I'm a slow typist and it took less than 60 seconds. Mind you, when you start trying to read them you wish you had not found them. They use an especially effective cryptogram. They are written in mind numbingly boring jargon so that only the most dedicated investigative reporters will stay awake long enough to penetrate to the heart of any wrongdoing the documents may reveal. I have not the patience. Of course, Barclays say that there is no wrongdoing to be found. Well, that explains why they woke the first judge at 2:30 am in the morning to try to suppress publication then.

4% of Universe Known; No-one At The Times Watches Star Trek Then

If you’re wondering what the LHC might do for you, how’s this: it might just find a whole quarter of the universe. The collider is hoping to create some particles of what physicists call “dark matter”, an enigma that is thought to make up roughly 25 per cent of the universe. Then there is the “dark energy”, a mysterious force that seems to be ripping space and time apart. In total, a whopping 96 per cent of the universe has gone AWOL. Unless, that is, we’ve got our maths all wrong. Watch this space.

So Michael Brooks of The Times writes. How silly. He probably borrowed it from a physics site such as top ten physics problems for stupid and lazy journalists but failed to register that no-one can tell us what percentage of the unknown we do not know.

Margaet Thatcher as Coriolanus

She would not do the tea rooms. The BBC's drama makes it clear that her downfall equated to the tragedy of Coriolanus.

Gail Trimble, Knowledge, Intelligence and Memory

Gail Trimble seems very nice to me.

The internet abuse seems to be subsiding and being topped on search engines by more favourable posts. This is as it should be.

Even so, some of these "good" posts fundamentally confuse analytical intelligence with mere recollection of facts quickly. In fact, Trimble is in ample possession of both faculties but the distinction still needs to be maintained.

Savants can remember huge sequences of numbers but may not always be able to put that ability to any analytical use.

Trimble can do both. One faculty is helpful to an intelligent person but not necessary. The other is essential.

Some of the questions on University Challenge test only the ability to recollect facts but others did test Trimble's analytic intelligence as well. For instance, the questions on the periodic table and the questions on Roman numbers.

So she entirely deserves the accolade of being probably amongst the most intelligent people to appear on University Challenge but not simply because she has a good memory. That simply diminishes her fantastic achievement.

Fools And Their Money

Been fooled by a ponzi scam? A 419 advance fee fraud? Bought anything at all from Mr Madoff? Could you be? Have you? Would you?

Take the test.

You will have seen a link that says:

You are the 988,744,113th visitor to this site. You are guaranteed a prize. Click here.

Did you click?

Now you know the answers to the last three questions without needing any help from Einstein.

NB: If you said yes, immediately check all your bank accounts. Also, develop some wisdom (particularly concerning impossibly - not just improbably - high numbers of claimed hits).

An Illusion

Above is a picture. Below is the same picture. Your task is to explain how that can be so.

Compare the MeerKat

This is my new TV advertisement. It seem some people still visit this site for cheap car insurance deal, so this time I have make absolute clear difference. Only mongoose could not understand.

This is not an advert for anyone except those who created my favourite advert in years. It is incidental that their client gets more free exposure.

They even set up a real (advert laden, of course) meerkat site and it is all hilarious or, at the very least, chucklesome.

Petition Thought For The Day

Thought for the Day on Radio 4 is a time honoured institution.

But the believers should not have it all one way so I have signed the petition to have secular presenters. I did put in a word for an alternative solution. We could have Rabbi Lionel Blue every day. He has a consistently human (and therefore humanist) approach. He is also, without question, the wittiest presenter.

If you want to sign go to the title link.

Oh, yes, that is Dawkins above. I am happy to publish cartoons ridiculing people I respect. When can I expect religious bigots to reciprocate or, at the least, not to threaten to kill other people who do?

PD Oscar is Innocent!

THE REAL OSCAR WINNER

Mr Walker (a retired solicitor's clerk) drank 10 pints of beer and half a bottle of wine. He was found in charge of a car which he had been driving. He ran away. PD Oscar gave pursuit. In the course of securing the arrest of Mr Harris he bit him. Mr Harris sued the Chief Constable for damages for personal injury. A PD is a police dog.

You might think that chasing criminals and assisting in their arrest is what PDs are for and how they earn their cookies and other treats. In fact, you might think that it is a PD's public and contractual duty to chase criminals and sometimes they may have to bite them. No arrests, no cookies and treats.

Of course, they must (as with all officers of the law) use no more than reasonable force to secure an arrest. This may not in a lot of circumstances involve biting. Most people when confronted by a PD will heed his handler's warning to stand still. In that event, a properly trained PD will simply circle you and bark at you a bit.

So did PD Oscar exceed the bounds of his authority? Well, that must depend on what Mr Walker did in order to resist arrest. With 10 pints and half a bottle of wine inside whilst trying to drive a car Mr Harris could hardly say that PD Oscar did not have good grounds to arrest him.

Now it must be emphasised that the following is an agreed factual account of what happened. Agreed, that is, by Mr Harris. When you read it you are going to wonder what possessed him to bring his case to the Court of Appeal or who (if anyone did) advised him that he should. There is a twist in the tail. See further below.

On the admitted facts Mr Harris did a lot more than run away:

"PC Harris ... saw that there were two white males in the car and he thought that they were aged about 50 or so. He tapped on the window but got no response. He tapped again more loudly. He got no response again, so he opened the door and asked the two inside if they were all right. PC Harris noticed that inside the car it smelt strongly of alcoholic liquor. PC Harris concluded that Mr Roberts had been drinking, as indeed he had. He asked Mr Roberts if he had been drinking and Mr Roberts replied "no". At that stage the car's engine was running. PC Harris asked Mr Roberts to turn off the engine. Mr Roberts would not do so, so PC Harris lent over and took out the ignition key.

PC Harris then asked Mr Roberts to get out of the car and join him at the rear of the vehicle; that is, between his car and the police van. Mr Roberts refused. PC Harris wanted to give Mr Roberts a breath test as he thought that Mr Roberts had been driving whilst over the legal limit. PC Harris told Mr Roberts he wished to give him a breath test.

Eventually Mr Roberts got out of the car and went to the rear of it. PC Harris said that he could smell alcoholic liquor on Mr Roberts' breath at that stage. PC Harris asked Mr Roberts to take a breath test and asked him to wait there whilst he fetched the test kit from the police van. As PC Harris reached into the van, he saw Mr Roberts running away past his car and along the fence towards the compound gates. PC Harris concluded that Mr Roberts did not wish to be breathalysed and was trying to escape. PC Harris shouted to Mr Roberts to stop. He did not. PC Harris shouted to him again to stop. He said that if Mr Roberts did not stop he would send the police dog. Mr Roberts did not stop. At that stage PD Oscar was taken out of his cage in the van.

PD Oscar did not have a collar on him nor did he have a leash. The judge found that at first PC Harris held the dog by the scruff of his neck. PC Harris called to Mr Roberts again to stop and said that he would otherwise let the dog on him. Mr Roberts did not stop but ran towards the compound gates. PC Harris then shouted "Stop him" to the dog, which is the dog's order to go and seize a man who is running away.
...
When the dog was let go, Mr Roberts was trying to climb the compound fence. It was accepted at the time that the dog was a well-trained police dog and that PC Harris was a well-trained police dog handler. The dog was trained to look for someone running and then to try and stop that person. The dog would try to grab the person's right arm to achieve this object. If the person stopped running, the dog would circle the person or stand back and bark.

PD Oscar ran towards Mr Roberts and barked at him. Mr Roberts failed to climb over the fence and dropped to the ground. At that point the dog did not bite Mr Roberts. PC Harris, who had a torch, was trying to get in radio contact with other police officers to assist him and he was also trying to catch up with Mr Roberts. As he did this, Mr Roberts was saying to the dog "Get off, stupid dog" or words to that effect. He was also raising his arms so that the dog could not get them and he was batting and pushing the dog off.

PC Harris saw PD Oscar bite Mr Roberts' right arm as Mr Roberts was running along the fence, which was on Mr Roberts' left side. This slowed Mr Roberts down and he tried to kick the dog, who held on to Mr Roberts' arm. At this point PC Harris caught up with Mr Roberts and the dog but PC Harris was then hit across the throat by one of Mr Roberts' arms. PC Harris continued to tell Mr Roberts to stand still but he got no response. He asked Mr Roberts to stop and give himself up, but Mr Roberts ran towards his car, saying at some stage "Get lost."

At this point PC Harris had hold of PD Oscar. PC Harris warned Mr Roberts again that if he continued to move he would send in the dog. PC Harris did not want Mr Roberts to get back to his car as he did not know what might happen then. PC Harris warned Mr Roberts again but he took no notice.

PC Harris released PD Oscar to stop Mr Roberts and then PC Harris ran with the dog towards Mr Roberts. PC Harris grabbed some of Mr Roberts' clothes whilst Mr Roberts was kicking and moving his arms. PC Harris heard the dog yelp. PC Harris was hit on the right side of his face by Mr Roberts at some stage whilst PC Harris was trying to restrain Mr Roberts and get him onto the ground. There was a struggle between the two men and they fell to the ground together. At this stage PD Oscar was biting Mr Roberts, but PC Harris did not know where. A police dog is trained to bite a person who is fighting a police officer and who is not complying with an order from the police officer and who is on the ground. Moreover if the dog is punched or kicked the dog is trained to fight back.

PC Harris then called off the dog."

OK: If you read that, which Mr Harris agreed for the purpose of his appeal was accurate, you, if you are like me, do not understand what chance of success Mr Harris had in the Court of Appeal.

This is the core of the appeal:

Mr Roberts was a 57- or a 58-year-old man who had drunk considerable amounts of alcohol, as PC Harris believed he had. Mr Roberts could not therefore be guaranteed to react sensibly if the dog was released on him. His reaction was unpredictable. Moreover PC Harris knew that there was a range of reactions that a person who was drunk might have to a dog released to stop him.

Thus, even though being old and drunk would not be a defence to the offences Mr Harris committed those facts did entitle him to damages for the manner of his arrest.

Wow! The legal profession hits a new low?

Oh, PD Oscar seems to be an excellent cop, now sadly dead. Here is what his handler said about him:

PC Harris said that Oscar's death had come as a bitter blow: "He was very special and excelled as a police dog, a pet and a very good mate."

Be ashamed Mr Walker. Be very ashamed.

An eye for an eye will make us all blind

I previously posted this as my Christmas message but you really should watch it.

Sportsmanship: Could it happen today?

The "tie" in the 1981 London Marathon

A Happy Ending: Coventry City Council Forced To Pay For Voluntary Care Provided By Good Samaritan

ANTONY EDWARDS-STUART QC
A WISE JUDGE

A child, kicked out of his home by his step-mother, was taken in by Elizabeth Casey.

Terry (the child) had had a lot of bad luck: his mother had died, his eldest brother had died, his other older brother had moved in with Ms Casey.

He had one piece of good luck. Ms Casey took him in when his step-mother, with at least the acquiescence of his father, kicked him out of the family home.

Ms Casey was given the impression by the local Council that she would receive financial assistance.

They reneged on an untrue technicality.

No surprise there.

Mr Antony Edwards-Stuart QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge has ordered them to pay. Read the case.

There is a lot of technical legal analysis of the law in the judgment but you can read that for yourself if you wish. The only part I will quote here is this:

"Terry has remained with Ms Casey, with whom he has been very happy. She has cared for and supported him ever since, almost entirely at her own expense. He is now 17 and attending a carpentry course at a City College in Coventry. Ms Casey's kindness to Terry reflects enormous credit on her and her care has been beyond reproach."

Result = Good judge. Very nice lady. Justice served.

The wriggling silly Council was Coventry City Council. May they live in infamy.

It Is Wrong To Bite Ears off Mentally Ill People: Landmark Legal Decision!

FB had an ear bitten off in the course of a dispute over a card game. The accused HR admitted there had been a "silly quarrel" in the course of a card game but denied biting FB's ear off. There were others present and one of them might have done it. He simply had not noticed who. To his great credit "HR made it clear that he was not suggesting that FB's ear might have been bitten off by a passer by". He accepted that it must have happened inside.

HR accompanied FB (with others) to hospital. FB said:

"...before they left he saw HR take from his mouth the piece of FB's ear which had been bitten off but then put it back in his mouth. On the way to hospital HR threatened violence to FB's family and himself if he were to report the matter to the police. The others joined in telling him to keep his mouth shut. At the hospital two police officers were called. FB initially told them untruthfully that he had lost his ear in an incident on Camden High Street, because one of the others was still present with him and he was scared about the threats which had been made".

With HR's creditable admission that this was not a passer by attack this seems to me a credible account and easily capable of belief by a jury.

However, the Director of Public Prosecutions through counsel instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service decided on the day of trial to offer no evidence against the accused. Two barristers concurred in this decision. It was reached as a result of a report by a Dr C that said that "FB had a history of psychotic illness in which he at times held paranoid beliefs about certain people and also suffered auditory and visual hallucinations".

This was an atrocious decision. The barristers have been given anonymity too, however.

It was also the case that FB had never held paranoid beliefs about HR, held no hostility towards him and had insight into his condition.

The barristers misread Dr C's report.

There was a case to be put before a jury.

Luckily, the application for judicial review of the barristers' decision succeeded. Lord Justice Toulson concluded that "the decision to terminate the prosecution was unlawful".

Unluckily, "because it was immediately followed by the prosecution offering no evidence, it was also irreversible".

So, HR will never face trial and FB will receive £8,000 in "just satisfaction" from the DPP.

Is that just satisfaction? A trial would have been but then I am not a criminal lawyer. If FB was not to have that then my non criminal lawyer opinion is that £8,000 is paltry recompense. I doubt, however, whether HR is worth powder and shot in a civil action. It might be nice if FB's legal advisers would launch one anyway. Just to show the bastard.

One last quotation from the detective constable involved when she told FB of the decision not to prosecute:

"The claimant was upset; I could see tears in his eyes. He kept on asking me if he could leave - he didn't want to sit and discuss the matter further. I asked him if he was ok to travel and he left the court building".

Trent Health Authority Guilty of Abuse of Power but No Redress for Victims: A Monstrous Injustice?

I am conscious of the need for a sub-editor to work on a title such as the above but read this...

Trent Strategic Health Authority* has been held guilty by the House of Lords of ruining Mr and Mrs Jain's nursing home business and causing them "serious economic harm" on the basis of a "without notice application that ought never to have been made".

[*Note: Trent's liability arises as successor to the Nottingham Health Authority, as is made clear in the judgments. But "they inherit any liability incurred by their predecessors". ]

Yet, Mr and Mrs Jain have no redress under English domestic law and will receive no compensation.

All of the law lords expressed great sympathy for the Jains and reached this second conclusion "with regret" for their "undeserved fate".

Many will be be of the view that where a government established body causes financial ruin to those subject to its authority AND is found to have behaved wholly improperly BUT its victims have no remedy THEN it follows that:

(a) something has gone badly wrong with the law; and

(b) a serious injustice has been allowed by the law to happen.

This is simply a logical proposition based on underlying assumptions concerning morality and justice. The assumptions are shared by most who live in democratic societies (of whatever religion or none). Such people may struggle to understand this decision but only if they are not also lawyers. We lot are used to the discordance between the law on one hand and justice on the other. It's one of the things that get us a bad name.

You should read the judgments by following the title link if you want to see how this discordance occurs.

Let us look at what Trent did (this is paragraphs 6-9 of the judgment of Lord Scott of Foscote):

"6. Mr and Mrs Jain's only recourse was to appeal to a Registered Homes Tribunal. This they did. But there was no procedure available for an expedited appeal and no procedure enabling a stay of the magistrate's order pending an appeal to be obtained. We were told that the procedures under which appeals to a Registered Homes Tribunal can be made lead to a minimum delay of six weeks before an appeal can be heard. In the event, Mr and Mrs Jain's appeal was not heard until February 1999, over four months after the order had been made, and, not surprisingly, by the time the appeal was heard irrevocable damage had already been done to their nursing home business, with an adverse knock-on effect on other assets that they owned.

7. The appeal, heard by the Tribunal on 8 and 9 February 1999, was a resounding success. But the success came too late to afford them more than the satisfaction of vindication. The Tribunal, having heard evidence from the Authority in purported justification for the action they had taken, did not call for any evidence from the Jains in response and were scathing in their criticism of the Authority. In the Tribunal's nineteen page Reasons For Decision one reads of the inclusion of irrelevant and prejudicial information in the statutory statement that had been placed by the Authority before the magistrate, of insinuations by the Authority of abuse of residents notwithstanding the absence of evidence sufficient to justify any charges of abuse, and of untrue suggestions by the Authority of failure by the Jains to comply with various statutory regulations. Some of the complaints made in the statutory statement about the running of the nursing home did, in the view of the Tribunal, have some substance but, commented the Tribunal, "none warranted the immediate closure of the home". They said that "there was no reason for supposing that the residents could not properly have been protected by proper monitoring by the inspectors and the provision of advice where necessary". The statutory statement had complained that building works of improvement being carried out at Ash Lea Court had produced an unsatisfactory physical environment for the residents, but the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence that the dust from the building works "posed any risk to the life or health of the residents" and concluded that the conditions at Ash Lea Court had not justified an application for an order under section 30 :

"… the respondents have wholly failed to persuade us that an application for an order cancelling registration under section 30 was an appropriate way of meeting [the Authority's concerns about the running of the nursing home]"

8. The Tribunal was particularly scathing about the Authority's decision to make their application ex parte and without notice to the Jains. While accepting that there had been "no bad faith" on the part of the officials who, on behalf of the Authority, had been responsible for making the application, the Tribunal said that they could see

"… no justification whatever for the failure to warn [the Jains] that the application was to be made"

So the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the magistrate's order of 1 October 1998 and expressed, as a coda, their regret that they had no power to order the Authority to pay Mr and Mrs Jain's costs: cold comfort, no doubt, for the Jains.

9. The upshot of this sad story is that Mr and Mrs Jain's nursing home business had been ruined and serious economic harm had been inflicted on them by an ex parte without notice application that ought never to have been made".

Well, there you go Mr and Mrs Jaine. Trent are wholly discredited, have abused their powers, you have been ruined and all you get is "vindication". Oh, you can try your luck in Europe if you like. You will need to finance it if you can or get funding from the LSC.

You might also sympathise with the Jaines in respect of the finding of no bad faith. Read all of the judgments. I do.

An American Litigant in London

The case is Barclay v British Airways.

I wonder how this case would have been decided in the USA. Perhaps, someone will enlighten me.

Similar fact cases could be litigated in any country that is party to the Montreal Convention 1999. There was no dispute as to the facts of the case and everything turned on the construction of Article 17.1 of the Convention:

[British Airways] is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of [Beverley Anne Barclay] upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.

So there was only one question: Did the agreed facts constitute an "accident"?

The Agreed Facts

I summarise the key agreed facts as follows:

1. The aircraft was in normal working condition and all applicable aviation regulations had been complied with.

2. As she lowered herself into her seat, with her body weight towards the right, Ms Barclay's right foot suddenly slipped on a strip embedded in the floor of the aircraft and went to the left.

3. Ms Barclay suffered injury in consequence of 2 above.

4. Ms Barclay had no remedy in contract or negligence but only under the Convention and only if she had suffered an accident.

This is only a brief summary and you should refer to the report for fuller details.

No Win No Fee?

You may by now have formed the opinion that this was a "brave" claim. But it went to the Court of Appeal and I, at least, would not have taken it on a no win no fee basis. Of course, Ms Barclay may be that rare litigant who is rich enough to fund speculative litigation regardless of advice because she is determined to have her day in court as a matter of principle.

Well, someone got it badly wrong.

This is Part 1 of a 2 part post. Look tomorrow for Part 2: The Decision.

Toadies and Sycophants

I am just watching A Man for All Seasons for the umpteenth time.

I love the scenes where the toadies wait for the king to laugh before they dare to and where they jump in the mud because he has done so. They remind me of our lower echelon politicians; meaning the cabinet, not simply the cannon fodder who masquerade as the people's representatives aka MPs.

I cannot find the scene but those above and below should show you how good this film is.

The Futility of Blogging

There is a blog headed "Blogging is Futile." Click on the title.

Now I knew this anyway but it was really brought home to me some months ago when I checked my weblogs and found that my most frequent visitor for a while was some nutty scientologist. (NB: All scientologist's are "nutty" by definition.) I had mentioned the word scientology in an unflattering context. When you do that, one of these barking mad people seems to get assigned to monitor your blog. Anyway, he or she gave up after a while. No doubt this was because this is a wholly insignificant blog that generates no traffic whatsoever.

So, in a major circulation drive, I just thought I would mention the word scientology again and say something mean. That way I may get a monitor assigned to me again and generate a few hits.

I might also mention that a Belgian prosecutor has expressed the view that the scientology church thingy is a criminal organization. A bit like the mafia I suppose but more scary. At least the mafia admit that they are bad nasty people only in it for money and power.

Forget the Credit Crunch. The Really Bad News is...

Oh No!

Someone is writing a new book about Winnie the Pooh.

This is sacrilege and I immediately pronounce fatwah calling upon all right thinking members of society to hunt down all of those involved and throw a substantial quantity of egg custard tarts at them.

I am now a Victim of Crime

I was burgled today so, with customary quintessential logic, I wish to share with you a photograph of a meercat.

Meercats are cute. They might steal things sometimes but not electrical goods.

They are also very calming to observe.

So guys, keep focused on the picture.

The knock on your door that you hear in the background is just those nice policemen who figured from the targeted nature of the thefts exactly who you are.

New Year Resolution: Let's All Go Kill Mugabe

Martin Fletcher writes in The Times that this is a war we should really get into. Debate.