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:

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?

Attempt By MPs To Block Disclosure Of Expenses Fails Miserably

Corporate Officer of the House of Commons
Appellant

- and -

The Information Commissioner
Heather Brooke
Ben Leapman
Jonathan Michael Ungoed-Thomas
Respondents

"ACA" below = Additional Costs Allowance, an allowance payable to Members of Parliament (MPs) who represent constituencies outside London or outer London.

This is the appeal to the High Court to protect MPs from having to make proper and full disclosure of certain expenses paid to them out of tax payers money.

I have been following this story and relevant previous posts are:

7th May, 2008:
Speaker Martin: Update, Update, Update, Update!

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

The following are extracts from the decision. They speak for themselves. You can read the full judgment by clicking on the case title above.

Key Extract:

Once legislation which applies to Parliament has been enacted, MPs cannot and could not reasonably expect to contract out of compliance with it, or exempt themselves, or be exempted from its ambit. Such actions would themselves contravene the Bill of Rights, and it is inconceivable that MPs could expect to conduct their affairs on the basis that recently enacted legislation did not apply to them, or that the House, for its own purposes, was permitted to suspend or dispense with such legislation without expressly amending or repealing it. Any such expectation would be wholly unreasonable.

Key Extract:

Even if (which we do not accept) MPs were justified in anticipating that the details of their claims for ACA would not normally be disclosed, once it emerged, as the Tribunal has found, that the operation of the ACA system was deeply flawed, public scrutiny of the details of individual claims were inevitable. In such circumstances it would have been unreasonable for MPs to expect anything else.

Key Extract:

Having closely examined the privacy issue, not only as it related to the MPs claiming ACA, but also to anyone living with them, the Tribunal concluded that "the ACA system is so deeply flawed, the shortfall in accountability is so substantial, and the necessity of full disclosure so convincingly established, that only the most pressing privacy needs should in our view be permitted to prevail". It may be that the system will be revised, and subject to much more robust checking to ensure, for example, that the addresses to which ACA relates do in fact exist, and that the claims for them are within the scheme and not excessive. If so, the case for specific disclosure of such addresses may be rather less powerful. As it seems to us, all the necessary elements to the decision making process were properly recognised and carefully balanced by the Tribunal. No basis has been shown to justify interference.

Further:

Speaker Michael Martin is said to be considering a further appeal and has sacked lawyers who have advised that his case will not succeed.

QUIZ QUESTIONS:

What is it that he and other MPs are so desperate to hide?

What are the legal fees so far for this doomed litigation? Clue: six figures should be your starting point.

Do they not realise that their desperation is deeply unattractive to the public?

Do they fail to understand that the desperation suggests that they trying to hide their corruption?

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.

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.

Unlawful To Give In To Saudi Threats: Tony Blair Condemned

Hurray! The court overrules the Government. Justice and freedom are alive in England. What is the SFO going to do now. Er, nothing, probably; naturally, this inactivity will be suitably camouflaged by the appearance of doing something. This does not deprive the judgment of its value as a statement of how law officers should act in the face of blackmail.

Some extracts from the summary:

"The allegation made by the claimants is clear. It sets out a report from the Sunday Times dated 10 June 2007. The report states that:-

"Bandar (Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz of al-Saud) went into Number 10 and said 'get it stopped' [words omitted]. Bandar suggested to Powell he knew the SFO were looking at the Swiss accounts?if they didn't stop it, the Typhoon contract was going to be stopped and intelligence and diplomatic relations would be pulled." ..."

"The Director, in his first witness statement, states that the reason why he discontinued the investigation was that to continue:-

"would risk an immediate cessation of co-operation in relation to national and international security which might have devastating effects on the UK's national security interest ? both locally in the UK and in the wider international field in the Middle East?a compelling case had been made out that the UK's national security and innocent lives would be put in serious jeopardy if the SFO's investigation continued." He says:-

"It was this feature of the case which I felt left me with no choice but to halt the investigation."

The defendant in name, although in reality the Government, contends that the Director was entitled to surrender to the threat. The law is powerless to resist the specific and, as it turns out, successful attempt by a foreign government to pervert the course of justice in the United Kingdom, by causing the investigation to be halted. The court must, so it is argued, accept that whilst the threats and their consequences are "a matter of regret", they are a "part of life".

So bleak a picture of the impotence of the law invites at least dismay, if not outrage. The danger of so heated a reaction is that it generates steam; this obscures the search for legal principle. The challenge, triggered by this application, is to identify a legal principle which may be deployed in defence of so blatant a threat. However abject the surrender to that threat, if there is no identifiable legal principle by which the threat may be resisted, then the court must itself acquiesce in the capitulation. ..."

"The principle we have identified is that submission to a threat is lawful only when it is demonstrated to a court that there was no alternative course open to the decision-maker. This principle seems to us to have two particular virtues.

Firstly, by restricting the circumstances in which submission may be endorsed as lawful, the rule of law may be protected. If one on whom the duty of independent decision is imposed may invoke a wide range of circumstances in which he may surrender his will to the dictates of another, the rule of law is undermined.

Secondly, as this case demonstrates, too ready a submission may give rise to the suspicion that the threat was not the real ground for the decision at all; rather it was a useful pretext. It is obvious, in the present case, that the decision to halt the investigation suited the objectives of the executive. Stopping the investigation avoided uncomfortable consequences, both commercial and diplomatic. Whilst we have accepted the evidence as to the grounds of this decision, in future cases, absent a principle of necessity, it would be all too tempting to use a threat as a ground for a convenient conclusion. We fear for the reputation of the administration of justice if it can be perverted by a threat. Let it be accepted, as the defendant's grounds assert, that this was an exceptional case; how does it look if on the one occasion in recent memory, a threat is made to the administration of justice, the law buckles?..."

"The court has a responsibility to secure the rule of law. The Director was required to satisfy the court that all that could reasonably be done had been done to resist the threat. He has failed to do so. He submitted too readily because he, like the executive, concentrated on the effects which were feared should the threat be carried out and not on how the threat might be resisted. No-one, whether within this country or outside is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice. It is the failure of Government and the defendant to bear that essential principle in mind that justifies the intervention of this court. We shall hear further argument as to the nature of such intervention. But we intervene in fulfilment of our responsibility to protect the independence of the Director and of our criminal justice system from threat. On 11 December 2006, the Prime Minister said that this was the clearest case for intervention in the public interest he had seen. We agree."

It was, of course, Tony Blair who "intervened in the public interest" and to whose cheek the slap in that last sentence is directed.

Justice For the Tibetan Dead and Mangled

Do Justice You Corrupt and Disgusting Alleged Representatives. Yes, you, Mr Brown; our alleged Prime Minister.

The April Fool Was That The Martians Had Not Landed

EMBRYO POLITICIANS: HOW TO SPOT THEM

I am sorry that the April fool post was so obvious. The behaviour of our parliamentarians (as they grandly style themselves) is so obviously non-human that, of course, the Martians have landed. I am using "Martians" as shorthand. I do not swear that they are from Mars. They are just not from this planet. They are either extraterrestrials of some kind or they may merely be escapees from an institution near you. Care in the community is going too far in my opinion but, at least, most of the worst cases have regularly to visit a single centre that we allow them to call the Palace of Westminster. That is why the row over their expenses is misplaced. Without access to that particular trough we might lose track of them.

You may note that this post does not carry any reference to humour in the labels below.

The Martians Have Not Landed

It is being universally reported that the Martians have not landed. Certain British politicians, who are widely suspected to be Martians, are not Martians at all, but have quite other explanations for their unearthly behaviour.

Speaker Martin: Update, Update!

Further to my post on 24th February, 2008: Buffoon Dressed In A Little Brief Authority, they seem to be closing in on Gorbals Mick.

It is getting to the point that we are soon going to start feeling sorry for the wee man, despite his cynical, grotesque and hypocritical abuse of his position.

As is quite often the case, my title links to a report in The Times. For the avoidance of doubt, they do not pay me for these links. They do not even pay my expenses: a cup of coffee and, possibly, a biscuit. I fully and openly declare those expenses of preparing this post (including, on this occasion, two biscuits) but will, on pain of torture at the hands of my fellow lawyer Thomas Cromwell*, maintain until death that no-one, no-one at all, and certainly not anyone I am prepared to name for less than a five figure sum, has reimbursed me.

*All lawyers live forever (in infamy).

J K Rowling: Hypocrite or Superstar?

I have just watched a documentary covering a year in the life of J K Rowling. Since she or her publishers are very litigious, I will add that my son is a big fan and has been routinely indulged with first day editions. I even read one or most of one of the Harry Potter books. I remember a mesmerising performance by Robbie Coltrane so I guess I must have also seen at least one of the films.

She is therefore an abolutely wonderful person and the title link should in no way be regarded as detracting from that.

The question for debate is simply whether exposing your life in a television documentary is consistent with suing a lowly photographer or his newspaper for taking a photograph of your child.

My opinion is that only a megaritch client could be advised to chance their arm. Only the lawyers win. They did. She lost.

So who advised her to pursue an unwinnable case? I do not know and, even if I did, I could not possibly say!