Amazing Confessions: Chris Keil is Not a Dog

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

Chris Keil Admits He is a Drunk

Chris Keil cannot resist responding. Here is his latest:

Anonymous Chris Keil said...

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

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

Anonymous Chris Keil said...

I really want this to stop.

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

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

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

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

Is telling lies habit forming?]

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

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

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

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

but apologising for it,

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

in particular for it being so atrociously badly written

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

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

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

Consider me out for the count.

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

Nevertheless, this is disproportionate.

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

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

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

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

You have the means to prevent it.

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

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

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

you are being abusive to me

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

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

[Yeah, Mamma!]

What is Chris Keil's Problem?

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

His latest comment appears to lend support to this theory:

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

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

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

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

This is apparently a required qualification for an interesting blog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Keil: The Big Lie

On 20th May. Chris Keil said:

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

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

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

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

Who wants to read his novels now?

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

The Killer Out There: Chris Keil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUIZ:

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

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

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

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

Anonymous chriskeil.eu said...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Been busy and not accessing my blog.

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

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

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

Chris Keil Wants Me To Die

9th June

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

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

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

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

10th June

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

Removal of John Nyombi to Uganda was Unlawful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unconvincing Hetty Baynes Loses Appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gutter Politics is OK, says Judge Eady

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

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

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

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

Do you agree?

My Daddy is a Lawyer & Other Lawyer Jokes

TWO LAWYERS

Today's joke of the day should be preserved:

My Daddy Is A Lawyer

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

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

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

The Godfather Lawyer

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

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

The Truck Driver, the Priest and the Lawyers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laboratory Lawyers

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


More another day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Garlic Defence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bible in English Just Like Jesus Talked

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

Ian Tomlinson: Murder Not Manslaughter?

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

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

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

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

TOPIC FOR DEBATE

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