Victim Of Rapist Lottery Winner Allowed To Sue After 20 Years!

LOTTO RAPIST:

IORWORTH HOARE

This case has been to the House of Lords already and changed the law in the sense that they decided that the shorter 3 year limitation period for bringing claims for personal injury applied to intentional assaults rather than the longer 6 year period generally applicable for other torts.

That was a victory for the rape victim. Why? Because the 3 year period can be extended in exceptional circumstances but the 6 year period cannot.

Whether the period should be extended was referred back to the High Court and its decision was released on the internet today. See the title link.

Mr Justice Coulson has given the Claimant the extension and allowed her action to proceed against her rapist. Instinctively, we probably all feel that he has made the right decision. Why should the undeserving £7 million pound lottery winning rapist not compensate his victim?

Legally, I am less sure. Mr Justice Coulson has done his very best to render his decision appeal proof. I am not sure that it, in fact, is.

Here are his reasons for exercising his discretion in the Claimant's favour:

"... When considering all the circumstances of this case, I have identified a number of factors in the defendant's favour. These include, in particular, the length of the delay, the possible difficulties for the defendant on some aspects of the evidence on causation caused by that delay, and the payment of the £5,000 by the CICB. However, I have concluded that the factors in the claimant's favour are more numerous and of significantly greater weight. They lead me unhesitatingly to conclude that equity requires that the discretion under section 33 be exercised in her favour.

Those factors include in particular:

(a) The nature and seriousness of the underlying tortious wrong;
(b) The fact that one of the consequences of that wrong was the defendant's impecuniosity (because he was unable to earn money by which he could otherwise have met a judgment for damages);
(c) The fact that, prior to his lottery win, the defendant's impecuniosity meant that he was simply not worth pursuing in an action for damages. This was the principal reason for the claimant's delay and one that I consider to be reasonable on the particular facts of this case;
(d) The fact that the claimant acted promptly following the defendant's release from prison and his lottery win:
(e)The fact that the 'clinically significant' second bout of PTSD in 2004 will be capable of being fully addressed by both parties at any trial."

Do these factors fully and necessarily trump the purpose of our limitation legislation; which is to enable potential defendants to know when the risk of a claim against them has expired and they can rest easy?

Well, Mr Hoare certainly has the resources to explore this question on further appeal.

No-one, I think, is going to wish him luck. It emerged after the verdict that this little bastard had "six previous convictions for rape, attempted rape and indecent assault." A less attractive client would be difficult to envisage.

I would not touch him with a barge pole and it can hardly be defamation to describe him, quite simply, as a piece of low life scum. Hopefully, he will spend any part of his fortune that does not go in damages to the Claimant on legal fees!

And, what about his other six proved victims? They should be consulting lawyers now.

Here he is at the time:

And here he is now:

A small picture of a small man. You will need the picture as he lives under aliases.

QUIZ QUESTION: What were they thinking of when they let this man out?

All Over For The Lloyds Names

They entered a market they said they did not understand. Indeed, they did have an understanding. It was, however, their own understanding and not one based on misrepresentation by Lloyds. See the title link.

Their understanding was:

If I become a Lloyds name I shall get richer than I am aleady, quicker than I have so far and at no risk to me!

That is, they believed in fools' gold.

Not many will sympathise with their plight. The decade of litigation they have engaged in has secured them nothing. It has simply been a matter of postponing the evil day.

I thought the whole concept of being a Lloyds name was based on "honour" (ie. you pay up when you lose). It was not. It was simple greed and, if you got caught, you simply wriggled and squealed like a stuck pig.

Cases That Changed English Law: The Times Archive

The Times has created a fantastic archive of cases that changed the law, with summaries by Gary Slapper and links to the origanal Times law reports. Here are the links:

• Part 1: The cases that changed Britain: 1785-1869


• Part 2: The cases that changed Britain: 1870-1916


• Part3: The cases that changed Britain: 1917-1954


• Part 4: The cases that changed Britain: 1955-1971


• Part 5: The cases that changed Britain: 1972-2006

This a wonderful resource that I would love to have had when I was a law student but everyone interested in the law, or even just in human beings or life, will find fascinating tales here.

I will put a link to this post in the sidebar shortly so that it is easy to find.

Anyway, here is a sample of what you will find:

"In 1895, The Times reported on three trials of Oscar Wilde. It was the celebrity scandal of the century. The Marquis of Queensbury, who thought his son was being corrupted by Wilde, sent a card to Wilde’s club saying: “To Oscar Wilde posing Somdomite” [sic]. Wilde sued for criminal libel. Queensbury pleaded justification, accusing Wilde of soliciting more than 12 boys. The case had many marvellous episodes, particularly when Wilde was cross-examined:

COUNSEL: Have you ever adored a young man madly?
WILDE: I have never given adoration to anybody except myself.

Wilde lost after a fatal slip in cross-examination in which he seemed to say he hadn’t kissed a boy not because he was a boy but because he was ugly. Soon after, he was arrested for indecency. Wilde was eventually convicted after a second trial — the first jury failed to agree on most of the charges — and sentenced to two years with hard labour. The case included many shocking travesties of justice. For example, it came to light that throughout the proceedings, the young men who were testifying against Wilde were each being paid £5 a week by the police, an enormous sum at the time.

Nevertheless, Wilde’s courtroom wit was bountiful. Asked by the seasoned 44-year old prosecutor Charles Gill whether he exalted youth, Wilde said he did and added, to courtroom laughter: “I should enjoy, for instance, the society of a beardless, briefless barrister quite as much as that of the most accomplished QC.”

He was asked later whether his habit of giving cigarette cases to working class youths was not strangely expensive. Wilde replied that it was “less extravagant than giving jewelled garters to ladies”."

Part-Time Employment Judge Behaves "Scandalously"

The Claimant in this case was represented by his wife who is a solicitor. See the title link. She is also a part-time employment judge. It was a claim before an employment tribunal.

Many of you may think that she should not have taken the case. If a lawyer acting for himself has a fool for a client then maybe a husband who instructs his wife to act for him has a fool for a lawyer.

It gets worse. Although the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the husband's appeal against the employment judge's decision to strike out his claim it did not disturb the finding that Ms Singleton was guilty of scandalous and unreasonable conduct.

He did not disturb the finding that Ms Singleton had fabricated an attendance note downplaying her and her husband's attempts to "blackmail" the defendants by threatening to put in the public domain documents that could show the defendants were guilty of defrauding the revenue in order to achieve a better settlement figure than the husband might be entitled to.

Well, the allegations are now in the public domain so the defendants will probably be investigated by the revenue anyway. However, the fraud allegations cannot be used against the defendants by the husband in the tribunal proceedings.

The successful appeal may still be a Pyrrhic victory for the husband, at least in respect of global family finances:

In light of the findings against Ms Singleton of scandalous and unreasonable conduct, which I have upheld, and in the light of the fact that she holds a position as a part time Chairman I direct that the decision and reasons of the Employment Tribunal and this judgment shall be referred to the President of Tribunals for him to consider what, if any, further action to take in respect of those matters.

It is difficult to be certain who Ms Singleton is (there are 9 female solicitors of that surname registered with the Law Society) but it may be the Ms Singleton who works for Eatons, the firm that instructed Counsel on the appeal. She lists employment law as an area of expertise. Her Law Society listing is here. If I have leapt to the wrong conclusion I will of course immediately delete or amend this post upon being notified of that fact.

John Hemming MP: A Nutter Reverses Progress For Fathers In The Family Courts

This is the extraordinary case of RP v Nottingham City Council. It is a child care case and, as previous posts make clear, I do not believe that these are always handled correctly. That is not the focus here.

John Hemming MP has engaged in a totally misjudged and ill-considered attack on the professional integrity of solicitors, barristers, social workers and experts. Lord Justice Thorpe has administered a thoroughly justified rebuke. In my view the Court of Appeal judgment calls into question Mr Hemming's fitness to be an MP. The conclusion of Lord Justice Thorpe was:

"As to Mr. Hemming, my judgment is that his self-imposed role as a critic of the family justice system is gravely damaged, and speaking for myself I will not be persuaded to take seriously any criticism made by him in the future unless it is corroborated by reliable, independent evidence."

Hemming's allegations included:

• the Official Solicitor lied and fabricated a letter


• the solicitor instructed by the OS fabricated attendance notes


• the expert was in the pay of the local authority and therefore did not give a true opinion

The second of Lord Justice Thorpe's reasons for setting out in some considerable detail the facts of this matter was:

"to record Mr. Hemming's quite extraordinary reaction to SC's file. After Mr. Peter Jackson QC had taken us through the references to SC's discussions with RP about the role of the Official Solicitor (perhaps not, in fairness to Mr. Jackson, in quite the same degree of detail as I have done) we invited Mr. Hemming to reply on RP's behalf. I confess that, no doubt with considerable naivety, I had expected a recognition on his part that, whatever RP's perspective of the Official Solicitor and his role, the record made by SC would be respected, and that Mr. Hemming would acknowledge that, to some extent at least, RP's recollection had plainly failed her.

Not a bit of it. So astonished was I by Mr. Hemming's response that I asked the transcribers to make me a CD Rom of the exchanges which occurred, so that my note of them could be supplemented by the record. In a nutshell, Mr. Hemming's response was that the evidence contained in SC's file had been made up: in a word, fabricated."

Whilst the full judgment should be read I feel I must post the following lengthy segment:

"Over the period during which this judgment has been reserved, I have, of course, carefully considered Mr Hemming's interventions in this part of the case, and I have re-read the files. Having done so, the feeling of incredulity which I experienced on 4 March has not diminished.

In my judgment, SC's files demonstrate overwhelmingly four clear facts. They are; (1) that RP was fully aware that SC had doubts about her ability to provide instructions; (2) that RP was fully aware that the Official Solicitor was being approached to act on her behalf; (3) that she was fully aware that the Official Solicitor had been appointed, and was representing her; and (4) that she was fully aware of his role in the proceedings. In short, RP's assertion that she did not know the Official Solicitor was acting for her is manifestly unsustainable.

Mr. Hemming's response on RP's behalf is that this cannot be so because the file has been interfered with. I have, of course, considered that response with care. It is a profoundly serious allegation. However, it is one for which, in my judgment, there is absolutely no evidence. The only query is the mistaken date on the typed attendance note.

I find it not only unacceptable but shocking, that a man in Mr Hemming's position should feel able to make so serious an allegation without any evidence to support it. In my judgment, it is irresponsible and an abuse of his position. Unfortunately, as other aspects of this judgment will make clear, it is not the only part of the case in which Mr Hemming has been willing to scatter unfounded allegations of professional impropriety and malpractice without any evidence to support them.

I can simply see no reason why the file should not be taken at face value as accurately reflecting what occurred. The file simply reflects and records the actions of a solicitor doing her best to represent a disadvantaged client. I can see absolutely no reason why SC should have made false entries on the file and no reason why she should not have forwarded the Official Solicitor's letter of 11 December and the explanatory leaflet to her client. I ask myself the very simple question: why should she behave in this manifestly unprofessional way? In the crude phrase: what was in it for her? The answer to the second question is, of course, nothing."

Mr John Hemming MP has done nothing but damage the cause he espouses.

His behaviour in this case was utterly deplorable.

In an earlier age, not long ago, well, only decades ago, an MP in his position would have done the honourable thing and resigned.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Hang 'em High

Another victim:

SOPHIE LANCASTER

"Sophie, 20, was booted in the face and left in a coma as she tried to protect Robert Maltby, 21, during the “totally unprovoked” attack in a park.

The couple were so badly beaten that medics and police could not tell which was which as they lay side by side unconscious in a pool of blood."

Another victim:

DAVID MORLEY

"Mr Whitehead described lying on the pavement and putting his hands around his head while he was kicked and punched in the ribs and head.

He told the court one of his assailants "seemed to be getting enjoyment" out of it and was smiling or laughing.

He described looking over to see Mr Morley sat against hoardings near the bench.

"A girl ran up and kicked his head like a football. There was only the girl when I saw him. She went over to David. She pulled her foot back and was kicking him like a football very hard to the head two or three times.""

WHAT THE LEGAL PROFESSION IS DOING ABOUT IT:

OUR MAJOR ISSUE: FISHNETS?

"In the case of fishnet tights versus office decorum, the jury was most certainly out yesterday.

A law firm's decision to ban women wearing fishnets to work has left lawyers as neatly divided as a divorcing millionaire's fortune.

The unidentified firm has decreed that female lawyers in fishnets distract male colleagues and look unprofessional".

AND WHAT THE JUDGES ARE DOING:

Mr Justice Coleridge blames youth crime, child abuse, drug addiction and binge-drinking on the "meltdown" of relations between parents and children.

He warns that the collapse of the family unit is a threat to the nation as bad as terrorism, crime, drugs or global warming.

And:

"He will say: "Almost all society's ills can be traced directly to the collapse of family life. We all know it. Examine the background of almost every child in the care system or the youth justice system and you will discover a broken family.

"Ditto the drug addict. Ditto the binge drinker. Ditto those children who are truanting or who cannot behave at school.

"Scratch the surface of these cases and you invariably find a miserable family, overseen by a dysfunctional and fractured parental relationship - or none at all."

Calling for action before it is too late, the judge will say family breakdown is as serious as global warming."

IS HE RIGHT?

Ultimately Cross

I have long resisted commenting on sentencing policy. I am not a criminal lawyer and I do not write, and rarely agree with, Daily Mail editorials.

However, this gifted young man's death has not been properly avenged.

And, yes, vengeance is a proper part of the sentencing decision. Otherwise, these atrocious little thugs will never learn that they will not be allowed to get away with it.

The thugs were Patrick Rowe and Dejon Thompson (may their names live in infamy). If anyone has photographs of these animals I will put them up.

Discuss.

Tibet Awaits Justice

If we do not provide justice, no-one else will.

Support justice.