Divorcing Reality

Jeremy Clarkson and the Workers: A Balanced View

2011-12-01T18:02:00.003Z

Jeremy Clarkson went completely over the top by suggesting that the strikers should be executed in front of their families. It will be quite sufficient for them to be publicly hung, drawn and quartered before a disinterested crowd of independent observers as is the traditional treatment reserved for traitors in this free country. There should be no compulsion for members of their family to attend. That would be a barbaric abrogation of the rights guaranteed to them following Magna Carta. Neither, of course, should they be prohibited from attending, for the very same reason. There are no doubt many mothers-in-law out there who would welcome the opportunity to witness the disemboweling of errant sons and daughters in law. Their rights are also deserving of our respect.

Reflecting

2011-11-13T08:16:00.003Z

So I listen to the Northern Irish vicar on Radio 4 reflecting on 50,000 lives given in war. Why not reflect on the existence of your insane despotic god who created what you call the "horror and desolation"? Reflect that warriors did not give their lives but had them taken from them by the predecessors of those gathered now in commemoration.

The Foundation of Morality

2011-03-06T08:10:00.002Z

...is not founded in christianity. They believe that the rest of us go to a burning pit for all eternity. Muslims believe that christians go to that self same pit. Choose something else. American christians are the worst, however. They will not tolerate even the expression of a belief that the rest of us do not go to hell. They have shown their colours in the debate over Rob Bell. Just google his name and see how christian these christians are!

BBC Censorship

2011-01-16T17:34:00.004Z

The good old BBC (bastion of free speech) blocked the following comment:

There are lots of good bits in the King James version. The best thing about it, however, is that reading it shows how hilariously stupid it is to be a theist (mono or multi). Read all about Abraham and his chats with god you dimwits. Omniscient? All knowimg? Did not know how many righteous people there were in Sod Them? Bartered it down to ten and then saved the one who offered up his daughters to be raped as fair recompense for not bumming the guests? Oh ye stupid jews, christians and muslims:

Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. (KJ 19.36)

You have all signed up to the pentacheuch and therefore all of you miserable little sinners ought to be on the Sex Offenders Register. See, I can use capitals when I want to. I can't be bothered with apostrophes, tho'.

When I put it in quotation marks it slipped through. See the link.

I have not bothered with this blog in a while because no-one reads it but the BBC charlatans just got my goat.

MIGRATION

2010-04-16T20:03:00.002+01:00

Currently migrating. Should redirect if Blogger tool works. Otherwise, oh, well.

This blog has moved

2010-04-16T19:57:00.001+01:00

This blog is now located at http://divorcingreality.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://divorcingreality.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

Vanishing

2010-02-20T17:12:00.002Z

This site will vanish soon. It no longer interests me and it has never interested anyone else. I am just checking whether I could make it available for open posting.

Burning Tiger Woods: A New Year Story in Pictures

2009-12-31T22:20:00.014Z

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

2009-12-31T21:00:00.004Z

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.

2009-12-31T18:30:00.007Z

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?

2009-10-22T21:01:00.007+01:00

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

2009-09-26T10:28:00.005+01:00

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

2009-09-26T10:02:00.002+01:00

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

2009-08-23T06:15:00.002+01:00

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

2009-08-22T13:18:00.003+01:00

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

2009-07-01T20:43:00.007+01:00

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

2009-06-13T23:38:00.008+01:00

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

2009-06-12T22:59:00.012+01:00

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?

2009-06-11T18:55:00.010+01:00

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

2009-06-10T22:34:00.003+01:00

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

2009-06-10T21:45:00.003+01:00

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

2009-06-10T20:58:00.002+01:00

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

2009-06-09T19:25:00.006+01:00

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

2009-05-15T14:40:00.003+01:00

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

2009-05-07T13:56:00.004+01:00

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

2009-04-30T17:49:00.008+01:00

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

2009-04-29T18:19:00.003+01:00

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

2009-04-28T18:47:00.007+01:00

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

2009-04-27T18:50:00.004+01:00

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

2009-04-26T20:24:00.005+01:00

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?

2009-04-17T18:05:00.003+01:00

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

2009-04-16T18:43:00.006+01:00

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

2009-04-14T08:27:00.002+01:00

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?

2009-04-14T06:12:00.006+01:00

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

2009-04-14T04:11:00.002+01:00

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

2009-03-26T12:51:00.004Z

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

2009-02-28T13:25:00.008Z

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

2009-02-26T22:23:00.003Z

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

2009-02-24T18:23:00.003Z

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

2009-02-20T18:15:00.004Z

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

2009-02-11T18:45:00.002Z

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

Compare the MeerKat

2009-02-10T18:34:00.006Z

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

2009-02-09T19:51:00.003Z

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!

2009-02-04T17:28:00.005Z

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

2009-02-01T08:53:00.002Z

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

Sportsmanship: Could it happen today?

2009-02-01T08:10:00.007Z

The "tie" in the 1981 London Marathon

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

2009-01-29T18:26:00.010Z

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!

2009-01-27T17:58:00.006Z

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?

2009-01-21T17:57:00.006Z

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

2009-01-15T18:53:00.004Z

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

2009-01-10T12:55:00.003Z

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

2009-01-10T06:35:00.003Z

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...

2009-01-10T06:22:00.004Z

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

2009-01-08T20:17:00.004Z

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

2009-01-01T23:48:00.007Z

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

Daily Mail Readers Rejoice

2008-12-31T22:53:00.005Z

I have been reading about the pointlessness of blogging.

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

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

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

Happy Christmas

2008-12-25T11:34:00.001Z

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

2008-12-18T19:04:00.009Z

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

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

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

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

Do they remain influential?

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

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

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

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

Graham Calvert's Last Bet?

2008-12-16T19:23:00.006Z

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

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

What is it about?

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

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

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

This was not appealed.

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

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

BUT he did not win any compensation.

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

The Appeal

Mr Calvert lost.

Comment

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

Foreign Surrogacy: The Complexity and the Costs

2008-12-15T18:47:00.006Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008-12-11T20:00:00.006Z

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

What a nice smile!

A Preserved Daily Joke: The Stripper and The Teacher

2008-12-11T19:24:00.002Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

The British Soldier in Afghanistan

2008-12-10T21:47:00.002Z

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

"... all for £19,000 a year..."

The Ruinous Cost of Divorce in England

2008-12-10T18:19:00.005Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

More poignantly Munby J explained:

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

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

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

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

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

2008-12-09T18:01:00.008Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baby P and the Witches of Salem

2008-12-08T17:10:00.002Z

I have refrained from posting about Baby P until now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLOXORZ

2008-11-15T11:07:00.003Z

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

Bloxorz

Get the block to fall into the square hole.

Play this free game now!!

The Doctors' Chat Joke

2008-11-12T18:52:00.005Z

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

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

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

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

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

Professor William Friedrich: The Expert

2008-11-10T18:50:00.012Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lion Man, The Credit Crunch And Sarah Palin

2008-11-05T20:56:00.005Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter And Katy

2008-10-31T23:46:00.002Z

Yuk. What a pair.

De Menezes: The Met Is In Difficulty

2008-10-31T20:23:00.004Z

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

It is dangerous to report snippets.

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

Lastly, I have no wish to prejudice any investigation.

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

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

I say no more.

Jonathan Ross Gets Away With It

2008-10-30T21:07:00.002Z

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

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

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

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

Walsall Social Services Condemned. Who Is The Guilty Man?

2008-10-30T18:27:00.005Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is the Guilty Man?

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

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

There is a Mr David Martin:

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

How Not To Tell A Joke

2008-10-25T12:51:00.010+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

The questions are:

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

Here is the full text of The Times version:

Gerald Ratner (1991)

Ratners

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Turbulent Coroner

2008-10-22T18:59:00.007+01:00

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

"UP WITH THIS WE WILL NOT PUT"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will David Masters suffer the same fate as Andrew Walker?

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

OPINION:

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

PROPOSITION:

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

Terrorist Mark Haddock Hides His Face

2008-10-18T17:50:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Banking Crisis For Dummies: Really Complicated Investment Vehicles

2008-10-14T18:27:00.007+01:00

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

It is simple:

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

2. In fact, no-one was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. The bubble popped.

QED.

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

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

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

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

2008-10-07T18:51:00.007+01:00

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

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

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

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

Oh, come off it!

You can also visit The Times story and find that:

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

Oh, go on, pull the other one,

The Re-education of the BBC!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, well that's all right then!

ONE QUESTION ONLY:

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

The Royal Bank Of Scotland: Disgraceful Scrooge

2008-10-02T19:05:00.013+01:00

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

Timetable:

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

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

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

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

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

it also disciplines her for her unavoidable absence...

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

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

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

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

I think we should have a quiz.

QUIZ TIME:

1. Do you approve of RBS's behaviour?

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENT:

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

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

It has to do with greed and stupidity.

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

2008-09-26T21:06:00.004+01:00

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

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

The core of the decision as follows:

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

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

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

QUESTIONS:

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

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

Lack of Blogs

2008-09-24T19:51:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

BAA Are Not Very Good: Sheep Vindicated

2008-08-26T19:12:00.011+01:00

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

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

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

Spot the difference:

An Airport

A Sheep

Try this summary of BAA's case: Shafting Sheep

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

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

No WMD Cllaim: Breaking News

2008-08-05T21:27:00.002+01:00

Go to The Times link immediately.

Coming Soon: Website Update

2008-08-02T11:26:00.006+01:00

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

Samuel Edwin Ashby: The Abusive Aussie Vet

2008-07-29T20:00:00.006+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

MR ASHBY: No. I have nothing left.

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

MR ASHBY: No.

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

MR BRADLEY: I am grateful.

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

Politician Denies Plotting And Geraldine Has A Bright Idea!

2008-07-27T16:02:00.006+01:00

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

Geraldine Smith said:

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

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

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

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

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

And here is the man himself:

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

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

2008-07-24T18:31:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

Well, he made Mr Mosley smile:

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

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

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

QUIZ QUESTIONS:

(1) Was Max morally entitled to victory?

(2) Was Max legally entitled to victory?

(3) Does Max deserve £60,000?

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

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

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

2008-07-23T19:43:00.012+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alright, Voltaire is supposed to have said:

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

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

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

Legal Monkeys: The Partner

2008-07-23T18:52:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life On Mars, Sodium And Gods

2008-07-16T20:45:00.005+01:00

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

Perhaps, we all need to learn some science:

Is This Puzzle Wrong?

2008-07-15T19:48:00.005+01:00

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

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

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

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

You decide.

The UK's Disgraceful Treatment Of Its Iraqi Interpreters

2008-07-14T19:08:00.008+01:00

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

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

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

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

Bob Marley - No Reason

2008-07-13T17:43:00.003+01:00

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

MOD Settles At £3M For Iraqi Torture Victims

2008-07-10T20:10:00.005+01:00

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

"How much did the lawyers get?"

Another is:

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

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

No wonder half of them want to quit."

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

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

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

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

The Rabbit Killers From The Planet Zog

2008-07-09T21:25:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Low Down On Sexy Libel Lawyers

2008-07-09T20:21:00.003+01:00

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

The Easy Solution To The Banking Crisis

2008-07-08T22:05:00.003+01:00

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

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

2008-07-08T20:15:00.003+01:00

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

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

2008-07-08T18:51:00.005+01:00

LOTTO RAPIST:

IORWORTH HOARE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those factors include in particular:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here he is at the time:

And here he is now:

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

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