A Sloppy Case

A headline in The Times today is as follows:

'Sloppy' justice system set criminal free to stab an ainnocent man

I think that "ainnocent" could reasonably described as "sloppy" when emanating from a major news organisation; but, no matter. They will probably change it quickly and before you get to the title link.

The error also does not matter at all. It is merely ironic. The content of the story does matter.

The victim is pictured at the head of this post. He was killed by this man:

Enemies Of Freedom Part One

Anindya Bhattacharyya is a hideous example of an enemy of freedom. He abuses freedom in order to attack it.

One cannot rationally “debate” with those who systematically lie about their real aims and views, nor can one “debate” those who use terror tactics and thuggery against ethnic minorities, trade unionists and anyone who disagrees with them.

Oh, really? You stupid man.

What do you recommend as an alternative to rational debate? You tell us:

Mere words are not enough to defeat them – they must also be physically confronted and excluded from public space.

I detest the BNP but I detest you equally Mr Bhattacharyya. You are a fascist.

The Dullard's Answer To Dawkins

Is this really the best that they can do? Having a science degree seems to be being set up as the fatal flaw in Dawkins' criticisms of theism. Well, it would be equally logical to suggest that I am excluded from this debate because I read English rather than Philosophy at University. In fact, let us confine all debate about the existence of god to those who have degrees in theology and have been ordained as ministers in some daft church or other. There's logic for you.

Amy Whitehouse: World's Silliest Woman

Yuk! This is is the silliest woman in the world. See the title link. £10m allows you to biff lesser mortals with impunity.

Latest Site Statistics

Since I am about to be verified by Blog Rush I thought I might update the statistics for the site.

The title link provides statistics up to the 100th post. Up until that post I was posting 0.228833 per day or 1.6 times per seven day week.

Since then, various posting issues have been resolved.

In the last 20 days there have been 35 posts. This is 1.75 posts per day or 12.25 posts per seven day week.

Thai Boxing And Child Abuse: Mum says "It Don't Bother Me."

OK, there are limits to any parent's freedom. That kicks in when you expose your children to harm.

The parents who allow their children to participate in Thai kick boxing are simply the lowest members of our growing underclass.

They are stupid. They have no morality worth speaking of.

The fact that their children have been coached into expressing pleasure in this "sport" means nothing other than that it exemplifies the psychological abuse accompanying the physical abuse.

Where are social services when they are really needed?

Mr Justice Collins Strikes Blow Against UK Government's Assumption Of Dictatorial Power

See my previous post Terror Or Freedom? commenting on The Times' prediction that Mr Justice Collins was about to deliver another body blow to the UK government's draconian anti-terror laws. They were right: see the title link.

Let me make it clear. I have no quarrel with very strict anti-terror laws. There are only two provisos. The laws must be (a) proper laws approved by Parliament and (b) in accordance with fundamental human rights.

Mr Justice Collins, I think, agrees. I do not suggest that he agrees with any other of my comments.

It is simply wrong that by executive action the government can freeze assets on the basis of undisclosed information and provide no effective avenue of appeal. This is such a fundamental breach of the rule of law that such actions are insupportable in a society that professes itself to be democratic and free.

The imposition in this way of such laws is characteristic of a dictatorship not a democracy. If the court's were to countenance laws of this kind they would be acquiescing, at the very least, in government by an oligarchy.

Thus any appeal must fail. If it does not then democracy has been abolished in this country.

A Moderate Proposal: Robbie Bow's Comment On Afghanistan And Drugs

"If we arranged for Monsanto to create a unique, sterile, food crop (wheat, for example) with a unique genotype, we could pay Afghan farmers the going rate for opium to grow this instead. Money and food is passed to the Afghan economy and the drug barons are hit where it hurts money - their wallets."

The above seems to me to be a good idea.

Apparently, the Afghan poppy producers are paid at subsistence levels for their multi-million dollar crop. See the title link.

Mr Bow seems to have a nice simple solution.

We pay them to do something else; preferably something useful. But even if not, it will still be cheaper and more effective than trying to enforce the unenforceable in a lawless country.

Lawyer Jokes: Litigants In Person

Ok, I feel that I have had an unfair share of persistent litigants in person over the past few years and may, in consequence, be more amused (in a rather long suffering and grudging way) than you will be:

The title link goes to the site where I got this which aims "to become the largest collection of lawyer jokes and cartoons". It is not there yet.

Ryanair Again and Again!

Gosh! I thought I would research Ryanair's involvement in legal cases but a quick search on BAILII for the occurrence of the company's name revealed 94 cases in which the name of the company has been mentioned.

I do not say they were a party in each case; merely that this is a more daunting task than I had envisaged.

A love of litigation does not seem uncommon among the wealthy; however parsimonious they might be in other respects.

Previous Posts:

Ryainair Disregards The Law, Again!

Terror or Freedom?

The Times reports today that the High Court is about to deliver a new blow on terror to the government. See the title link.

I hope they are right. According to the article in The Times:

The government has used subordinate legislation to deny terrorist suspects the right to get legal advice, make them apply to the executive for £10 a week expenses (pardon? are we trying to starve them to death?), restricted their right of appeal to an appeal to the body that made the original decision and denied them access to any information that would enable them to establish grounds for an appeal.

Has it really gone this far?

It also seems that these truly draconian rules have been brought into force without being debated in parliament.

I almost refuse to believe that any Uk government would descend into this Stasi nightmare. I assume that The Times is not making it up, however.

Snoopers Want To Snoop More

"The level of trust in official statistics is currently very low in Britain, a fact recognised by Government through the introduction of the legislation, with cross-party support and support from the devolved Administrations, to establish the new Authority. A recent survey released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on 17 March 2008 found that only one in five people think figures are compiled without political interference. The UK came 27th out of 27 in a recent survey within European countries of trust in their Governments’ statistics."

Oh, yes? You lying little snoopers. See the title link and give them no information at all, ever.

Will The Real Cherie Blair Please Stand Up?

Mrs Blair is well known for believing almost anything at all and has been labelled "bonkers" in the national press; without complaining that the statement is either defamatory or inaccurate. No doubt, she would not want to dignify such allegations by denying them.

Is this her, however? Is this how she believes herself to be? Maybe with enough magic crystals she does see herself like this or hopes to be like this. On the other hand, she may regard this as a defamatory picture:


Or she may not:

Politicians And God In The USA And In The UK

The title link sums up the position. An atheist simply could not be elected as President of the USA.

In England, religious faith is a handicap for a politician. Thus, Tony Blair did not do god whilst in office.

We like our politicians to be rational in all aspects of their life. You guys in the US appear to need your politicians to at least appear to believe in a supreme being otherwise, perhaps, you fear that they would be uncontrollable. You wish them to fear someone or something.

We do not mind a politician who has a vague religious belief; one that has never really been thought through. That is ok because probably most people do not give god much thought at all and simply tick a box on forms, stating belief of one kind or another, out of habit.

The conclusion I come to is that the UK's distrust of irrational beliefs in decision makers makes for a better chance of good decisions being made. The USA's insistence that their decision makers either hold or, at least, profess such beliefs means that they can only ever be governed by hypocrites and mad people.

I do not conclude that the UK government actually makes better decisions. However, I do prefer to be governed by people who, by and large, do not feel obliged to commit to a fundamentally childish set of beliefs that are beyond logic.

Psychic Fraud

"Fortune-tellers, mediums and spiritual healers marched on the home of the British prime minister at Downing Street on Friday to protest against new laws they fear will lead to them being "persecuted and prosecuted".

Organizers say that replacing the Fraudulent Mediums Act of 1951 with new consumer protection rules will remove key legal protection for "genuine" mediums."

Excuse me, what genuine mediums?

"With the changes expected to come into force next month, spiritualists have faced a barrage of headlines gleefully suggesting that they should have seen it coming.

But many don't see the funny side. They say the new rules will shift the responsibility of proving they are not frauds from prosecutors and onto them."

And why not?

Cowboy builders who exploit the gullible do not get special protection, so why should psychics? Their answer:

"By repealing the Act, the onus will go round the other way and we will have to prove we are genuine," McEntee-Taylor told Reuters. "No other religion has to do that."

Churches may be equally fraudulent and may obtain huge amounts of money from gullible people but, generally, this is by way of voluntary contributions. Psychics charge fees. Welcome to the real world, guys. If you want to be paid for "professional services" (be it prostitution or legal advice) you have to deliver something of value.

The title link for this story is simply a sad example. Of course, Cherie Blair has always believed in weird things and Tony Blair has come out from the closet. He is a christian and we do not really like that in the uk. I should not really be surprised then.

USA readers may find my comment about TB strange. See a later post.

Da Vinci Judge Mr Justice Peter Smith Reprimanded

Mr Justice Peter Smith, most famous for inserting his own coded message into his judgment in the Da Vinci Code case, is reported today to have been reprimanded for his refusal to step down as judge in another case for apparent bias.

He may feel he has got off lightly. He potentially faced being stripped of his office as a High Court judge.

The other case was Howell & others v Lees & others. The Claimant/Appellant were represented by Addleshaw Goddard. The judge had been in negotiations with that firm to go and work for them but had eventually been turned down. He had been a bit upset by this and thus they argued that he might be biased against their client in the Howell case.

You may well wish to read the whole of the email correspondence but here is a small extract:

"I feel you have wasted my time for several months. I am extremely disappointed because contrary to your fine words you have allowed the bean counters to prevail. I am not very impressed with you or your firm at the moment and I do not think the tone of your emails enhances the position."

More extraordinary were his exchanges with Mr Crampin in the court below. The extracts cited in the Court of Appeal judgment are quite lengthy and I recommend reading the full CA judgment. It will be an entertaining read even if you are not a lawyer.

Here is a short one:

"MR CRAMPIN: Having had an unsuccessful discussion or negotiation with Addleshaws, your lordship expressed yourself in strong – intemperate, almost -- anguish.

MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Nonsense. I don't know what part of the country you come from, Mr Crampin, but it's about time you grew up. If you think that's intemperate, then you are on another planet from me. If you thought it was intemperate, then you should have seen the correspondence which didn't trouble Mr Twigden.

MR CRAMPIN: I'm endeavouring to make a submission, not to engage with your Lordship in badinage of that kind. The question that a fair-minded person –

MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH: I'm challenging you, Mr Crampin, on your analysis, when you suggest that my correspondence was intemperate. I don't accept that."

Oh, it gets better; or, worse, depending upon your point of view.

The Court of Appeal decision was unanimous.

FURTHER READING:

Mr Justice Peter Smith's Da Vinci Decision. He was upheld on appeal.

Heroic And Troublesome Coroner Moved Sideways

The heroic Oxford coroner Andrew Walker (a thorn in the side of the Ministry of Defence) has been moved sideways.

It is not accurate to say that he has been sacked (as is widely reported on the internet). He was on a fixed term contract and his contract is not being renewed.

The reason given for this is that the "resources" (i.e. the three additional coroners appointed to deal with a backlog of military inquests in Oxford) are no longer required. See this article. The Department of Constitutional Affairs said:

"The government believes that these extra resources can complete all 85 inquests by May 2007."

I love the Dalek-like reference to human beings as resources!

However, Andrew Walker is indisputably an able, efficient and incorruptible coroner. Even if you want to get rid of him it is going to look bad if you simply dispense with the services of such a useful "resource". But, he is a bloody nuisance. See this article.

SOLUTION: Move him to be coroner for Hornsey in North London.

RESULT: The Ministry of Defence can rest easy. Des Browne can smile again. Not many dead soldiers in Hornsey.


If anyone says the government did not recognise Mr Walker's sterling qualities (thorough, precise, fair etc.) they can respond that his job as coroner was redundant (we terminated the other two temporary coroners as well), they have given him an important job in Hornsey and their critics are being unreasonably cynical. Oh, you are not really suggesting that the Department of Constitutional Affairs would make a decision to move a coroner simply because it was in the interests of the Ministry of Defence, are you?

Well, I might be. I know you do not do not do much in the way of joined up thinking but maybe you are capable of just a little when the self-interest of ministers is involved.

I can only imagine the response but it might consist of the exclamation "Oh, really!" and the stamping of a foot. Well, I was not suggesting that they had climbed out of their prams. Ok, I have not suggested it yet.

I should quote one tribute by one parent of a dead soldier:

"We wish to pay tribute to the coroner Andrew Walker, for his unrelenting quest for the truth, his objectivity in considering all the evidence and his humanity in the way he dealt with us, the family.

He is, indeed, a fine and wise coroner."

Well, you can see why the government does not like him!
Previous posts:

The Oxford Coroner Andrew Walker and Jason Smith

Who Will Rid Me Of This Turbulent Priest?

The Neigbours Are Both "Potty" Says Lord Justice Ward

The Daily Mail reports today that Lord Justice Ward (pictured above) has labelled two neighbours continuing a dispute about a smallish amount of land in the Court of Appeal "potty".

This is a boundary dispute. Not all neighbour disputes are boundary disputes but all boundary disputes (alright, most of them) are neighbour disputes.

"Potty" is an apt description for most parties to neighbour disputes. They are as acrimonious as divorces with, usually, not much in issue in terms of the value of the land but huge amounts tied up in legal costs.

Lord Justice Ward gave Mr Robert Beton permission to appeal i.e. he gets the right to a hearing before a full three judge Court of Appeal. This is not a sensible use of court time.

Lord Justice Ward is fully aware of this. He had some trenchant comments to make:

“This is another of that hideous form of litigation called the boundary dispute, a form of litigation which is best not pursued.

"Just how much is this stupid piece of land worth? What you are arguing over is a few rhododendron bushes.

"If you live in St Georges Hill, you've got money to throw away, presumably. But why throw it away like this? You're all potty.

"Disputes of this kind are a most hateful form of litigation; go away and sort it out."

It is rare for permission to appeal applications to be reported. I hope this one is; if only for those words. They form a sensible basis for advising any client wishing to litigate a neighbour dispute.

My first choice is to advise my client's to forget it unless there is some serious land value involved and a strong case.

My second choice is to try to get the parties to agree a joint instruction to a land surveyor and enter into an agreement to be bound by his or her determination.

Hey presto. No huge legal fees and a surveyor who is likely to cost under a £1,000.

And it is going to be surveying evidence that is likely to be conclusive in most cases anyway.

Litigation to resolve these disputes is therefore correctly described by Lord Justice Ward as "potty".

Legal costs may not be the only reason to avoid litigation. In a divorce, sometimes you may be living in the same house but not always. A divorce is one of the most stressful processes you will encounter in your life. In a neighbour dispute you will, by definition, always be living next door to each other. Others may take sides.

So why is the Court of Appeal giving them time in this case against Lord Justice Ward's better opinion? The answer is because he has to. Mr Beton employed a QC who has found an arguable point:

"The judge found that adverse possession must have been manifest to the owner.

“But he failed to give weight to the fact that the presence of the bushes was such to make much of the fence not observable.”

Of such points are Court of Appeal decisions worthy and, even so, to get this far, someone had to be so oblivious to costs that he was willing to fund leading counsel to review the papers. The question remains, in the words of Lord Justice Ward:

"Just how much is this stupid piece of land worth?"

I will just add this. One neighbour dispute I was involved in lasted years. Both parties were well off and retired. It ended one day when one of the parties dropped down dead of a heart attack. Needless to say, they were having one of their verbal arguments outside their houses as to who could park where in their private road. My client wanted me to continue proceedings against the widow. I declined the instructions.

The Oxford Coroner Andrew Walker And Jason Smith

I promised in a previous post (Who Will Rid Me Of This Turbulent Priest?) to provide an update on the brave Oxford Coroner and his right to criticise the government, when the judgment became available. It now is, at the title link.

The following extracts give the flavour of the reasoning of Mr Justice Collins:

"Ms Moore [for the Secretary for Defence] submitted that it was impossible to afford to soldiers who were on active service outside their bases the benefits of the Human Rights Act. If the Act was to apply, it had to apply in all aspects. The circumstances of any particular case will determine whether an Article is breached. I am concerned with Article 2. This reads, so far as material:-

"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection." ..."

He then referred to the difficulty of imposing human rights obligations in battle conditions and went on:

"But the soldier does not lose all protection simply because he is in hostile territory carrying out dangerous operations. Thus, for example, to send a soldier out on patrol or, indeed, into battle with defective equipment could constitute a breach of Article 2. If I may take a historical illustration, the failures of the commissariat and the failures to provide any adequate medical attention in the Crimean War would whereas the Charge of the Light Brigade would not be regarded as a possible breach of Article 2. So the protection of Article 2 is capable of extending to a member of the armed forces wherever he or she may be; whether it does will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. ..."

"It was common ground that the circumstances of Private Smith's death gave rise to concerns that there may have been a failure by the army to provide an adequate system to protect his life. Thus the Middleton approach to the inquest, namely that in deciding how the deceased met his death, the coroner should consider in what circumstances death resulted, should prevail. On the last day of the inquest, the coroner asked for argument whether the evidence justified a finding that there was even arguably a breach of Article 2. He decided that no such finding was justified. It seems he thought that a conclusion on this was needed since it would dictate the contents and form of the verdict he would announce.

In my view, he was wrong to entertain the argument. The procedural obligation under Article 2 was to hold the necessary inquiry and to find the necessary facts. If those facts showed that there was no breach of the substantive obligation and that nothing different need be done in the future to protect life, that should be indicated by the verdict. The family needed to know what were the conclusions on the important issues. Thus the inquest is not the means whereby a substantive breach of Article 2 is to be established – indeed, as will become apparent, a verdict which appeared to determine this would be likely to be contrary to Rule 42(b) of the Coroners Rules 1984. It is to decide by what means and in what circumstances the deceased met his death. ..."

He then referred to the European Court of Human Rights key decisions and in particular quoted from Jordan in the House of Lords:

"The investigation must also be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances and to the identification and punishment of those responsible. This is not an obligation of result, but of means. The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the person or persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard."

He concluded that a coroner must be entitled to conduct an effective investigation in compliance with the above.

The conclusion of Andrew Walker which the Ministry of Defence attacked was that:

"On the 13th August 2003 Jason George Smith was on active service when found suffering with heatstroke at the Al Amarah stadium where he was stationed. He was taken to a medical centre at Abu Naji Camp where he died. Jason George Smith's death was caused by a serious failure to recognise and take appropriate steps to address the difficulty that he had in adjusting to the climate."

He went on to summarise the MOD attack and to further conclude:

"While there was a somewhat faint argument that the word 'failure' was undesirable, the real attack by Ms Moore was directed at the adjective 'serious'. It is obvious that there is some tension between the prohibition contained in Rule 42(b) and the need for an Article 2 inquest to identify those responsible and shortcomings so that they can be remedied for the future to avoid similar deaths. Section 8(3)(d) of the 1988 Act, which requires a jury if the continuance or possible recurrence of the circumstances in which the death occurred is prejudicial to the health or safety of members of the public, creates its own tension since there must be examination of and findings in relation to any shortcomings which led to the death and which may need to be addressed."

In a final (itself robust) attack Mr Justice Collins stated clearly that a coroner is entitled to be robust (trenchant, perhaps, or even, severe) when making his findings:

"Ms Moore submits that a verdict which speaks of a failure is in danger of transgressing Rule 42(b) and the addition of the adjective serious crosses the line. It is, she says, not neutral but pejorative. But the coroner was recording the evidence of witnesses and concluding that that evidence was accepted. Ms Moore accepts that he would have been entitled to record that acts or omissions existed which were directly relevant to the cause of death. To identify them would have had much the same effect as describing them as failures. The prohibition is against framing a verdict in such a way as to appear to determine any question of civil liability. The word determine is important; a finding that there was a failure to act in a particular way does not appear to determine a question of civil liability. It no doubt will assist a potential claimant, but it is the evidence which is elicited which will in the end be material, not the verdict of the coroner or the jury. No doubt, assertions that there has been a breach of a duty of care or that there was negligence should be avoided, but I do not think that findings of fact, however robustly stated, can be forbidden."

Thus the MOD and its silly minister Des Browne were swatted down and effectively held up to ridicule for their breaches of human rights and their pathetic attempt to defend them.

I now hear that the coroner will not be reappointed. More tomorrow.

Corby Magistrates' Court: What Are They Playing At?

I monitor lots of decisions of the courts. This a decision of the Administrative Court and does not have much in the way of global implications. It does illustrate, however, that the little man (woman, in this case) does have access to justice under the England & Wales legal system and will, generally, be treated fairly.

Also, it illustrates both the value and the eccentricity of applications for judicial review. In theory, the Queen intervenes on your behalf against the executive or inferior courts. In this case, Corby Magistrates' Court.

Lindis Elizabeth Percy says that she was assaulted by US military and UK bobbies failed to intervene when they should have done. Here is her case as summarised by Lord Justice Moses:

"The claimant alleges that on Sunday 19 February 2006 she was at RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire. There she was accosted by several American military personnel. Airman First Class Frank Macdonald took the lead and controlled the incident. She was hand-cuffed and detained face-down on the ground. She repeatedly said to the American personnel that the Ministry of Defence Police Agency based at RAF Croughton should be called to deal with the incident pursuant to Third Air Force Instructions 31-209 of 15 February 2004. Following that request two Ministry of Defence Agency officers arrived, PC Athawse and PC Woodhouse. They instructed the American airmen to remove the handcuffs and said that they would now deal with the situation. However, it is alleged that Airman First Class Macdonald would not allow this and pushed one of the officers away. Neither of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency officers insisted that they should assume control. They allowed the American military personnel to continue the search of the claimant. During the course of that search she alleges that she sustained pressure to the carotid nerve of her neck as a result of the activities of Airman First Class Macdonald, which caused facial palsy from which she suffered for a period of six weeks. She suffered bruising, a cut to her right hand and abrasions from the tight fixing of the handcuffs.

Whilst this serious assault is alleged to have taken place, PC Athawse and PC Woodhouse stood by. Neither of them intervened to stop the assault. The claimant was then issued with a section 69 notice for aggravated trespass, contrary to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, by one of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency officers."

Lord Justice Moses went on to hold that Ms Percy was treated with inexplicable discourtesy by the magistrates and that they were wrong in failing to issue summonses against the Ministry of Defence Police Agency and Airman First Class Frank MacDonald of the US Air Force. He ordered them to issue the summonses.

His final exchange with Ms Price is revealing:

"THE CLAIMANT: Could I just add that this could have been settled without going down this road.

LORD JUSTICE MOSES: I know. I do not know what they are playing at. We will order costs against the Corby Magistrates' Court in the sum of £412.

THE CLAIMANT: Thank you."

Why did she only get £412?

Simple; she represented herself. I applaud her. This was not a simple application.

It does show that it can be done so do not believe you always need a solicitor to achieve justice.

Lindis Percy has form, however. This is not her first appearance in court and you may wish to perform a google search.

Impeccably Logical Challenge To Dawkins

I love this site. It is a totally logical refutation of Dawkin's theories. In fact, it proves beyond any doubt that Professor Dawkins does not himself exist at all. Just go to the title link and you too can share the experience of being cleansed by the pure and unadulterated logic of this wonderful shaman.

Conclusive Proof That The Chinese Government Is Composed Entirely Of People Who Are Certifiably Insane

They want to do it again?

The title may be long but I need add no more. Just click on the title link.

Mbeki Disgraces South Africa

President Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki has brought disgrace on himself and his country by his continued refusal to criticise Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe.

He has long stated that Africa should regulate itself but his servile and hypocritical attitude to his neighbour wholly undermines this position. He seriously calls into question any suggestion that Africa is capable of performing this role.

Mugabe is just as bad as his white racist pedecessors:

Speaker Martin: Update, Update, Update!

MPs back down on expenses

In Atticus in The Sunday Times today:

"An obscure Tory backbencher has made himself the member least likely to catch the Speaker’s eye in the Commons. Douglas Carswell has become the first MP to call publicly on Michael Martin to resign.

The Harwich MP says a new Speaker is the only way to regain public confidence in the Commons. “Speaker Martin must step down,” says Carswell. “Perhaps not immediately, but he needs to set a date for his departure now. MPs need to choose a Speaker who understands there is a problem with Westminster politics”. The question now is: are any other MPs brave enough to line up alongside Carswell?"

At last, even if only a little one, an MP speaks up.

They really are a bunch of cowards! No bones in their blubbery little bodies at all.

Mr Carswell is, after all, merely stating the obvious. But, why not immediately?

Tibet Revisited: Where Lies The Truth?

Who do we believe? A video selection.

The Zen Of Black Power And The Tibetan Olympics

Yes, these are now the Tibetan olympics, not the Chinese olympics.

The Chinese have clutched defeat from the jaws of victory. Blue security guards, for instance. Thugs in fancy tracksuits, to you and me.

THE BLUE MEN: AKA THE CYBERMEN

Tommie Smith and John Carlos might advise olympians to keep silent if they do not want to suffer the consequences that they did. This, however, simply demonstrates the prostrate, immoral and subservient role of the IOC. Abolish this useless body immediately! It is composed of corrupt sycophants.

Who WIll Rid Me Of This Turbulent Priest?

CORONER ANDREW WALKER

The Ministry of Defence aka Des Browne tried to gag coroner Andrew Walker and stop him from criticising the government of the UK from sending ill-equipped soldiers on virtual suicide missions.

The High Court, in the person of Mr Justice Collins, has told the government that they are a shoddy bunch of toe rags and, if they want to silence the heroic Mr Walker, they had better send out a posse of knights with big swords.

More when I have read the judgment.

Ryanair Disregards the Law, Again

The Times reports today that Ryanair is facing prosecution and a substantial fine on a reference to the Office of Fair Trading by the Advertising Standards Authority. See the title link.

The following extract perhaps indicates Ryanair's attidude:

"In January Ryanair refused to withdraw an advert of a woman dressed as a schoolgirl, despite the authority’s ruling that it breached advertising rules on social responsibility and decency. Ryanair accused the authority of censorship, saying that it was run by “unelected, self-appointed dimwits”.

The authority also upheld a complaint that Ryanair had published misleading information about the effect of aviation on climate change. A Ryanair spokesman said that ASA stood for “Absolutely Stupid Asses”.

Ryanair lost £20 million in February after closing its website to comply with an OFT ruling that it should advertise prices inclusive of taxes and charges."

Ryanair has history!

The best site to visit, if you contemplate flying with them, is Ryanair Campaign. Ryanair has made repeated attacks on this site so it clearly worries them. The site comments:

"We suspect that Ryanair's main intention, as evidenced by their solicitors' letters demanding that the site be shut down as long ago as 2004, is to censor the content of this site. However, they have been successful in gaining control of the domain name ryanair.org.uk, having complained on the grounds that it infringed their trademark. This effectively censored the content, until they attempted to gain control of our current domain name, ryanaircampaign.org, and were unsuccessful, resulting in a lot of publicity. Neither judgement had anything to do with the content of this site.

We accepted the judgement (by Nominet) about our original domain name (from which we have never earned a penny, nor in any way attempted to pass ourselves off as Ryanair) and moved to the current domain name specifically to avoid the trademark issue. Search engine ratings inevitably plummeted, and the campaign was effectively over, but Ryanair could not resist snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They made an incompetent complaint about ryanaircampaign.org, the ruling in which not only gave us publicity, but seems to be a precedent in the interests of free speech."

There is also an interesting video on YouTube:



There are also over 400 comments on this video at YouTube so you might wish to go there.

From the above, one might easily conclude that Ryanair has complete contempt for both regulatory authorities and the law. Perhaps it operates on the basis that the only penalty it will face is a financial one and that is so rich that it can afford any penalty that might be imposed. This leads to a further "perhaps". Maybe, the authorities should take this into account when deciding the level of any fine that should be imposed. If money is all they care about (rather than respect for the law or customer service) then (another "perhaps" - they are notoriously litigious) only a "massive" fine will do the trick.