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!]

The Killer Out There: Chris Keil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUIZ:

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

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

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

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."

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.

Ian Tomlinson: Murder Not Manslaughter?

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

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

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

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

TOPIC FOR DEBATE

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

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.

Barclays Tax Avoidance Horse Bolts, Then Judge Shuts Stable Door

NO HORSE HERE

Mr Justice Blake thinks that the documents Barclays does not want you to see are still sufficiently difficult to find that they have not yet lost all confidentiality. Well, I'm a slow typist and it took less than 60 seconds. Mind you, when you start trying to read them you wish you had not found them. They use an especially effective cryptogram. They are written in mind numbingly boring jargon so that only the most dedicated investigative reporters will stay awake long enough to penetrate to the heart of any wrongdoing the documents may reveal. I have not the patience. Of course, Barclays say that there is no wrongdoing to be found. Well, that explains why they woke the first judge at 2:30 am in the morning to try to suppress publication then.

PD Oscar is Innocent!

THE REAL OSCAR WINNER

Mr Walker (a retired solicitor's clerk) drank 10 pints of beer and half a bottle of wine. He was found in charge of a car which he had been driving. He ran away. PD Oscar gave pursuit. In the course of securing the arrest of Mr Harris he bit him. Mr Harris sued the Chief Constable for damages for personal injury. A PD is a police dog.

You might think that chasing criminals and assisting in their arrest is what PDs are for and how they earn their cookies and other treats. In fact, you might think that it is a PD's public and contractual duty to chase criminals and sometimes they may have to bite them. No arrests, no cookies and treats.

Of course, they must (as with all officers of the law) use no more than reasonable force to secure an arrest. This may not in a lot of circumstances involve biting. Most people when confronted by a PD will heed his handler's warning to stand still. In that event, a properly trained PD will simply circle you and bark at you a bit.

So did PD Oscar exceed the bounds of his authority? Well, that must depend on what Mr Walker did in order to resist arrest. With 10 pints and half a bottle of wine inside whilst trying to drive a car Mr Harris could hardly say that PD Oscar did not have good grounds to arrest him.

Now it must be emphasised that the following is an agreed factual account of what happened. Agreed, that is, by Mr Harris. When you read it you are going to wonder what possessed him to bring his case to the Court of Appeal or who (if anyone did) advised him that he should. There is a twist in the tail. See further below.

On the admitted facts Mr Harris did a lot more than run away:

"PC Harris ... saw that there were two white males in the car and he thought that they were aged about 50 or so. He tapped on the window but got no response. He tapped again more loudly. He got no response again, so he opened the door and asked the two inside if they were all right. PC Harris noticed that inside the car it smelt strongly of alcoholic liquor. PC Harris concluded that Mr Roberts had been drinking, as indeed he had. He asked Mr Roberts if he had been drinking and Mr Roberts replied "no". At that stage the car's engine was running. PC Harris asked Mr Roberts to turn off the engine. Mr Roberts would not do so, so PC Harris lent over and took out the ignition key.

PC Harris then asked Mr Roberts to get out of the car and join him at the rear of the vehicle; that is, between his car and the police van. Mr Roberts refused. PC Harris wanted to give Mr Roberts a breath test as he thought that Mr Roberts had been driving whilst over the legal limit. PC Harris told Mr Roberts he wished to give him a breath test.

Eventually Mr Roberts got out of the car and went to the rear of it. PC Harris said that he could smell alcoholic liquor on Mr Roberts' breath at that stage. PC Harris asked Mr Roberts to take a breath test and asked him to wait there whilst he fetched the test kit from the police van. As PC Harris reached into the van, he saw Mr Roberts running away past his car and along the fence towards the compound gates. PC Harris concluded that Mr Roberts did not wish to be breathalysed and was trying to escape. PC Harris shouted to Mr Roberts to stop. He did not. PC Harris shouted to him again to stop. He said that if Mr Roberts did not stop he would send the police dog. Mr Roberts did not stop. At that stage PD Oscar was taken out of his cage in the van.

PD Oscar did not have a collar on him nor did he have a leash. The judge found that at first PC Harris held the dog by the scruff of his neck. PC Harris called to Mr Roberts again to stop and said that he would otherwise let the dog on him. Mr Roberts did not stop but ran towards the compound gates. PC Harris then shouted "Stop him" to the dog, which is the dog's order to go and seize a man who is running away.
...
When the dog was let go, Mr Roberts was trying to climb the compound fence. It was accepted at the time that the dog was a well-trained police dog and that PC Harris was a well-trained police dog handler. The dog was trained to look for someone running and then to try and stop that person. The dog would try to grab the person's right arm to achieve this object. If the person stopped running, the dog would circle the person or stand back and bark.

PD Oscar ran towards Mr Roberts and barked at him. Mr Roberts failed to climb over the fence and dropped to the ground. At that point the dog did not bite Mr Roberts. PC Harris, who had a torch, was trying to get in radio contact with other police officers to assist him and he was also trying to catch up with Mr Roberts. As he did this, Mr Roberts was saying to the dog "Get off, stupid dog" or words to that effect. He was also raising his arms so that the dog could not get them and he was batting and pushing the dog off.

PC Harris saw PD Oscar bite Mr Roberts' right arm as Mr Roberts was running along the fence, which was on Mr Roberts' left side. This slowed Mr Roberts down and he tried to kick the dog, who held on to Mr Roberts' arm. At this point PC Harris caught up with Mr Roberts and the dog but PC Harris was then hit across the throat by one of Mr Roberts' arms. PC Harris continued to tell Mr Roberts to stand still but he got no response. He asked Mr Roberts to stop and give himself up, but Mr Roberts ran towards his car, saying at some stage "Get lost."

At this point PC Harris had hold of PD Oscar. PC Harris warned Mr Roberts again that if he continued to move he would send in the dog. PC Harris did not want Mr Roberts to get back to his car as he did not know what might happen then. PC Harris warned Mr Roberts again but he took no notice.

PC Harris released PD Oscar to stop Mr Roberts and then PC Harris ran with the dog towards Mr Roberts. PC Harris grabbed some of Mr Roberts' clothes whilst Mr Roberts was kicking and moving his arms. PC Harris heard the dog yelp. PC Harris was hit on the right side of his face by Mr Roberts at some stage whilst PC Harris was trying to restrain Mr Roberts and get him onto the ground. There was a struggle between the two men and they fell to the ground together. At this stage PD Oscar was biting Mr Roberts, but PC Harris did not know where. A police dog is trained to bite a person who is fighting a police officer and who is not complying with an order from the police officer and who is on the ground. Moreover if the dog is punched or kicked the dog is trained to fight back.

PC Harris then called off the dog."

OK: If you read that, which Mr Harris agreed for the purpose of his appeal was accurate, you, if you are like me, do not understand what chance of success Mr Harris had in the Court of Appeal.

This is the core of the appeal:

Mr Roberts was a 57- or a 58-year-old man who had drunk considerable amounts of alcohol, as PC Harris believed he had. Mr Roberts could not therefore be guaranteed to react sensibly if the dog was released on him. His reaction was unpredictable. Moreover PC Harris knew that there was a range of reactions that a person who was drunk might have to a dog released to stop him.

Thus, even though being old and drunk would not be a defence to the offences Mr Harris committed those facts did entitle him to damages for the manner of his arrest.

Wow! The legal profession hits a new low?

Oh, PD Oscar seems to be an excellent cop, now sadly dead. Here is what his handler said about him:

PC Harris said that Oscar's death had come as a bitter blow: "He was very special and excelled as a police dog, a pet and a very good mate."

Be ashamed Mr Walker. Be very ashamed.

An eye for an eye will make us all blind

I previously posted this as my Christmas message but you really should watch it.

Sportsmanship: Could it happen today?

The "tie" in the 1981 London Marathon

Trent Health Authority Guilty of Abuse of Power but No Redress for Victims: A Monstrous Injustice?

I am conscious of the need for a sub-editor to work on a title such as the above but read this...

Trent Strategic Health Authority* has been held guilty by the House of Lords of ruining Mr and Mrs Jain's nursing home business and causing them "serious economic harm" on the basis of a "without notice application that ought never to have been made".

[*Note: Trent's liability arises as successor to the Nottingham Health Authority, as is made clear in the judgments. But "they inherit any liability incurred by their predecessors". ]

Yet, Mr and Mrs Jain have no redress under English domestic law and will receive no compensation.

All of the law lords expressed great sympathy for the Jains and reached this second conclusion "with regret" for their "undeserved fate".

Many will be be of the view that where a government established body causes financial ruin to those subject to its authority AND is found to have behaved wholly improperly BUT its victims have no remedy THEN it follows that:

(a) something has gone badly wrong with the law; and

(b) a serious injustice has been allowed by the law to happen.

This is simply a logical proposition based on underlying assumptions concerning morality and justice. The assumptions are shared by most who live in democratic societies (of whatever religion or none). Such people may struggle to understand this decision but only if they are not also lawyers. We lot are used to the discordance between the law on one hand and justice on the other. It's one of the things that get us a bad name.

You should read the judgments by following the title link if you want to see how this discordance occurs.

Let us look at what Trent did (this is paragraphs 6-9 of the judgment of Lord Scott of Foscote):

"6. Mr and Mrs Jain's only recourse was to appeal to a Registered Homes Tribunal. This they did. But there was no procedure available for an expedited appeal and no procedure enabling a stay of the magistrate's order pending an appeal to be obtained. We were told that the procedures under which appeals to a Registered Homes Tribunal can be made lead to a minimum delay of six weeks before an appeal can be heard. In the event, Mr and Mrs Jain's appeal was not heard until February 1999, over four months after the order had been made, and, not surprisingly, by the time the appeal was heard irrevocable damage had already been done to their nursing home business, with an adverse knock-on effect on other assets that they owned.

7. The appeal, heard by the Tribunal on 8 and 9 February 1999, was a resounding success. But the success came too late to afford them more than the satisfaction of vindication. The Tribunal, having heard evidence from the Authority in purported justification for the action they had taken, did not call for any evidence from the Jains in response and were scathing in their criticism of the Authority. In the Tribunal's nineteen page Reasons For Decision one reads of the inclusion of irrelevant and prejudicial information in the statutory statement that had been placed by the Authority before the magistrate, of insinuations by the Authority of abuse of residents notwithstanding the absence of evidence sufficient to justify any charges of abuse, and of untrue suggestions by the Authority of failure by the Jains to comply with various statutory regulations. Some of the complaints made in the statutory statement about the running of the nursing home did, in the view of the Tribunal, have some substance but, commented the Tribunal, "none warranted the immediate closure of the home". They said that "there was no reason for supposing that the residents could not properly have been protected by proper monitoring by the inspectors and the provision of advice where necessary". The statutory statement had complained that building works of improvement being carried out at Ash Lea Court had produced an unsatisfactory physical environment for the residents, but the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence that the dust from the building works "posed any risk to the life or health of the residents" and concluded that the conditions at Ash Lea Court had not justified an application for an order under section 30 :

"… the respondents have wholly failed to persuade us that an application for an order cancelling registration under section 30 was an appropriate way of meeting [the Authority's concerns about the running of the nursing home]"

8. The Tribunal was particularly scathing about the Authority's decision to make their application ex parte and without notice to the Jains. While accepting that there had been "no bad faith" on the part of the officials who, on behalf of the Authority, had been responsible for making the application, the Tribunal said that they could see

"… no justification whatever for the failure to warn [the Jains] that the application was to be made"

So the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the magistrate's order of 1 October 1998 and expressed, as a coda, their regret that they had no power to order the Authority to pay Mr and Mrs Jain's costs: cold comfort, no doubt, for the Jains.

9. The upshot of this sad story is that Mr and Mrs Jain's nursing home business had been ruined and serious economic harm had been inflicted on them by an ex parte without notice application that ought never to have been made".

Well, there you go Mr and Mrs Jaine. Trent are wholly discredited, have abused their powers, you have been ruined and all you get is "vindication". Oh, you can try your luck in Europe if you like. You will need to finance it if you can or get funding from the LSC.

You might also sympathise with the Jaines in respect of the finding of no bad faith. Read all of the judgments. I do.

The British Soldier in Afghanistan

"it's not worth losing your life, it's not worth losing your legs..."

"... all for £19,000 a year..."

British Ambassador To The Philippines Interrogated About Sexual Abuse Of Maid: Perhaps, Not

The above is not a very funny sketch. I did not laugh at all but ...

In China View (the title link) it is reported:

"It was revolting. It was disgusting and an insensitive and racist attempt to satirize a scene of exploitation," said Risa Hontiveros, a Philippine lawmaker, demanding an apology from the BBC.

She said that "by making a horrible scene of exploitation an object of ridicule, the show trivializes an act of abuse commonly experienced by [Filipino] workers abroad."

Oh, come off it!

You can also visit The Times story and find that:

"... [a] petition has been set up by a group called the Philippine Foundation, which is calling for the re-education of the BBC."

Oh, go on, pull the other one,

The Re-education of the BBC!

This is the suppression of free speech red in tooth and claw.

Isn't "re-education" a Chinese communist concept meaning, in essence: do as we say, think what we tell you and become our slave OR WE WILL TORTURE YOU TO DEATH?

I apologise immediately for the capital letters: an Internet solecism, I know. But just this once we need them.

And what we do not need is a shameful, spineless, cowardly and, unfortunately, typical response from our political leaders:

"...the British Embassy in Manila distanced itself from the broadcaster by saying the organisation has editorial independence and the views expressed and portrayed by the network “are completely independent” from the Government.

It said Filipinos in Britain “are an important part of British society, making invaluable contributions to our scientific and service sectors, and enriching UK culture”.

Oh, well that's all right then!

ONE QUESTION ONLY:

Is free speech of any importance to any supposedly democratic government anywhere in the world?

The Royal Bank Of Scotland: Disgraceful Scrooge

The Royal Bank of Scotland disciplined an employee because she was let down by a childminder and could not work on 22nd December because she had to look after her 5 year old and her 15 month old baby.

Timetable:

8th December - Mrs Harrison notified by childminder of her unavailability for the 22nd.

12th December - notifies employer that she has tried everything but cannot find a substitute.

20th December - Royal Bank of Scotland says words to the effect "Work, or else".

The Royal Bank of Scotland is then as good as its word; no doubt having carefully thought through its consequences for employee relations, customer relations and its public image.

It not only does not pay Mrs Harrison for the day...

it also disciplines her for her unavoidable absence...

it then resists her complaint to the Employment Tribunal...

it is then puzzled as to why it loses...

and it is then crass enough to take the matter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. See the title link...

where, as a moron in a hurry could have predicted, it again loses.

I think we should have a quiz.

QUIZ TIME:

1. Do you approve of RBS's behaviour?

2. Would it make any difference to your opinion if RBS's actions were actually unlawful? (See the title link for the legal decision).

3. If you had a choice, would you work for:

(a) The Royal Bank of Scotland; or,
(b) Another Bank; or,
(c) Someone else; or,
(d) Anyone else as long as it was not the RBS.

4. If you could not find another job, would you prefer to be unemployed rather than take a job with RBS?

5. Do you want to be a customer of RBS?

COMMENT:

Luckily, I am not a customer of RBS and so do not need to change banks but I would if I was.

The credit crunch has nothing to do with this. It started well before that was even on the horizon.

It has to do with greed and stupidity.

Ladd v Marshall Still Rules After Over 50 Years: Time to Abandon It?

Ladd v Marshall (see the title link) is the most important decision governing appeals in England and Wales.

It is also a decision, essentially, of Lord Denning. That alone would make it worth reading. Although a 1954 decision it is only much more recently available over the internet.

The core of the decision as follows:

The principles to be applied are the same as those always applied when fresh evidence is sought to be introduced. In order to justify the reception of fresh evidence or a new trial, three conditions mast be fulfilled: first, it must be shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial: second, the evidence most be such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, though it need not be decisive: thirdly, the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, or in other words, it must be apparently credible, though it need not be incontrovertible.

Bailii does not seem to add numbers to the paragraphs of old decisions but the above is about half way down.

The problem with Ladd v Marshall is that it can be used as a lazy excuse by the Court of Appeal to turn a blind eye to otherwise exculpatory evidence.

QUESTIONS:

Should we forget this decision and allow our appeal courts to simply decide whether someone was really guilty or not?

After all, if someone is not guilty why should he/she be kept in prison simply because his incompetent legal team failed to find evidence that they could have done if they had been competent?

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.