Jeremy Clarkson and the Workers: A Balanced View

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.

BBC Censorship

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.

Andy Murray v Frank Skinner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazing Confessions: Chris Keil is Not a Dog

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

Chris Keil Admits He is a Drunk

Chris Keil cannot resist responding. Here is his latest:

Anonymous Chris Keil said...

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

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

Anonymous Chris Keil said...

I really want this to stop.

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

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

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

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

Is telling lies habit forming?]

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

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

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

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

but apologising for it,

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

in particular for it being so atrociously badly written

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

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

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

Consider me out for the count.

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

Nevertheless, this is disproportionate.

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

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

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

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

You have the means to prevent it.

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

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

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

you are being abusive to me

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

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

[Yeah, Mamma!]

Gutter Politics is OK, says Judge Eady

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

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

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

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

Do you agree?

Barclays Tax Avoidance Horse Bolts, Then Judge Shuts Stable Door

NO HORSE HERE

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

Another Turbulent Coroner

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

"UP WITH THIS WE WILL NOT PUT"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will David Masters suffer the same fate as Andrew Walker?

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

OPINION:

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

PROPOSITION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, come off it!

You can also visit The Times story and find that:

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

Oh, go on, pull the other one,

The Re-education of the BBC!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, well that's all right then!

ONE QUESTION ONLY:

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

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

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

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

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

Well, he made Mr Mosley smile:

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

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

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

QUIZ QUESTIONS:

(1) Was Max morally entitled to victory?

(2) Was Max legally entitled to victory?

(3) Does Max deserve £60,000?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alright, Voltaire is supposed to have said:

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

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

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

Disaster For Freedom? Google Ordered To Reveal Subscriber Details

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

It is, however, simply wrong.

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

I will post further on this.

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

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

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

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

The leaders consult:

House of Lords Condemns Kafkaesque UK Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mugabe Wins: The World Loses: MI6 Fails To Act

Every inch the politician!

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

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

Eshaq Khan: The Mad Khan And The Inept Electoral Rigging

This is old news but the case has only recently surfaced on BAILII.

The judgment is a lot of fun, however, and really worth a visit. See the title link.Eshaq Khan is very possibly the most stupid vote rigger in history.

When he was found out in an obvious scam which was bound to be exposed in court, what did he do?

Put his hands up and beg for mercy? Not a bit of it.

He lied.

He claimed that lots of people lived at a small flat uccupied entirely by someone else and their family. He claimed that 16 of his voters lived at a boarded up property. He presented to the court bogus tenancy agreements.

Then he encouraged other members of his gang (mainly family members) to perjure themselves with lies so hilarious and incapable of belief that the judge was wholly bemused that the matter had ever come before him.

It is safe to say that Eshaq Khan is (a) very stupid and (b) a criminal,

The full judgment makes entertaining reading. That cannot be said of every judgment I report but this one I leave you to read for yourself. You will enjoy it.

Would you Adam & Eve It?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That must be a matter of opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also reports:

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

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

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

THE QUIZ QUESTION FOR TODAY CAN ONLY BE:

Is Michael Martin the worst Speaker in history?

Previous Posts:

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

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

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

Another Good Guy: Government Promises Are Arguably Enforceable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the UK government's absolutely favourite defence.

Why would anyone complain?

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

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

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

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