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!]

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."

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?

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.

Margaret Haywood, The Brighton Sussex Hospital and Elder Abuse

Margaret Haywood went undercover for the BBC and secretly filmed neglect/abuse of elderly patients at the Royal Sussex Hospital in Brighton, England.

After the film was broadcast, the trust responsible for the hospital admitted and apologised for "serious lapses in the quality of care".

I think we can take it that this was the most anodyne formula the trust's lawyers felt they could get away with.

The Times reports today that the Nursing and Midwifery Council has found that Ms Haywood had prioritised filming over her obligations as a nurse and had breached patient confidentiality.

In consequence, she has been struck off and cannot act as a nurse. That is, her career has been destroyed.

Oh, by the way, it is also reported that all of the patients (subsequent to the filming) waived confidentiality. I would too. If I was a vulnerable elderly person and was being maltreated but with no means of doing anything about it, I would positively want someone, anyone, to do something about it and by whatever means possible.

Ordinary mortals will find the decision to strike this nurse off the register inexplicable other than as a protective act of revenge and as a blatant attempt to discourage others from blowing the whistle on National Health Service malpractice.

She did a greater service to these patients than the hospital or any of their other doctors or nurses.

I hope Margaret Haywood takes this matter further. I am sure she has access to proper advice and I can think of many lawyers who would take this case on a no win no fee basis.

The decision of the Nursing and Midwifery Council, on the facts available in the public domain, is an utter disgrace and wholly against the public interest.