BAA Are Not Very Good: Sheep Vindicated

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Nor, really, does it even vindicate the old sheep website that ran from www.baa.com (an out of date and unmaintained version is still available at www.baa.net).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

Go to The Times link immediately.

Coming Soon: Website Update

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

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!

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

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.

Legal Monkeys: The Partner

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

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?

"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

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

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

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

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

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!