Andy Murray v Frank Skinner

I have just watched the Murray v Ferrero match, which I could enjoy a bit.

However, I have also just been reading Frank Skinner's autobiography and distracting excerpts kept creeping into my mind as Andy Murray banged it down the court.
The problem is that Andy Murray and Frank Skinner look alike or, at the very least, share a similar sort of ugliness.

Of course, one of them can do push-ups without his legs touching the floor and the other just used to be legless most of the time. I'm not saying there are no differences that might enable you to tell them apart. For instance, one of them can tell jokes and the other gives the impression that jokes are a strange extraterrestrial concept that he long ago dismissed as one of those childish things that an adult puts behind him. One laughs a lot (including, endearingly, at his own jokes) and the other...ok, you find a picture on the Internet that shows Andy Murray smiling, let alone laughing.

Frank Skinner glories in the fact that his success has enabled him to have anal sex and any other kind of sex he wants with much younger and much prettier girls than he is himself (and he is entirely candid about being neither a young nor a pretty man). He also boasts about having swallowed a lot of tiny bits of toilet paper when he has, demonstrating his commitment to equality, gone down on these girls. OK, that is probably comic exaggeration (but it also probably happened once - because Frank keeps telling us about his telling and he says, always, that his telling is the truth). I believe the truth of the first sentence though.

The reason for that is not only that Andy Murray's current girlfriend is beautiful but that, in addition, they showed shots of a former girlfriend who happened also to be a former Miss Scotland who, would you believe it, was accompanied by another former Miss Scotland; both of them seemingly very enthusiastic about Andy - or, maybe, they are just tennis aficiandos.

Frank says its just being famous. He says that the more famous you are the more women you get to shag. He excuses his penchant for shagging young women because they would not look at him when he was young and unknown. Now, he can have almost any woman he wants.

Either Andy Murray gets to screw beautiful women because he is incredibly witty and empathetic (in addition to being famous) or he just gets these women because he is more famous than Frank Skinner. Maybe he and Frank should have a talk and do some trades.

I speak, of course, as an ugly person who is not famous, but it all seems a bit shallow.

I also speak as an atheist and cannot therefore say anything against someone leading a shallow life in the knowledge that it does not matter a damn and, hey, we will all be a long time in the grave: oblivious to our past misdeeds and pleasures. Therefore, fuck anything that moves. Indeed, why require movement?

But, Frank Skinner professes to be a genuine hands on Roman Catholic who gets his chauffeur to stop and let him light candles at suitable churches.

Having it both ways, Frank? Well, I guess you have already told us that.

Amazing Confessions: Chris Keil is Not a Dog

Ok, I admit it. Chris Keil is not a dog; not even the very nice looking pooch portrayed in my last post. It was a cruel and inhuman thing for me to do to place that picture above those nasty derogatory comments. I was, of course, legless when I did it. That, as Mr Keil has insinuated, excuses everything.

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!]

Gutter Politics is OK, says Judge Eady

Partial, biased, hard-hitting electioneering, even if it merits the description "gutter politics", does not sustain an allegation of malice to found a cause of action for injurious falsehood; so held by the leading libel judge Mr Justice Eady in his judgment in the case of Quinton v Pierce, released on the internet today.

Clearly, this judgment only applies to politicians and could be justified on the basis that if you want to participate in a dirty game do not expect normal rules of civilized behaviour to apply and certainly do not expect your opponents to treat you with any civility. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

To put that in latin (which we lawyers are no longer supposed to do): the defence could have been volenti non fit injuria or, going back to English, if you go into politics you are consenting to being traduced, vilified, blackguarded, having your character trailed through the gutter, your expenses questioned, your every word, act, omission etc. subjected to the utmost scrutiny, generally being booed and hissed at as if you were a pantomime villain (even, in those rare cases, where you are not) etc. etc. and you will have no right to complain because you knew what you were getting into you pathetic little moron.

Well, that is the ratio decidendi of the decision as far as I am concerned.

Do you agree?

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.

Another Turbulent Coroner

David Masters, the Wiltshire coroner, today joins the list of heroic coroners (headed by Andrew Walker) who are prepared to say to government and the military:

"UP WITH THIS WE WILL NOT PUT"

Samples from the coroner's findings as reported in today's London Times:

"The system in place failed the captain and crew of that aircraft and this should never be allowed to happen again."

"The stance taken by the US is difficult to comprehend."

"I just wonder, as an aside, what if the boot had been on the other foot - if a US aircraft had come down with the loss of 10 lives and the only eye-witnesses had been British forces?”

10 British servicemen died when their Hercules transport exploded. The details are readily available elsewhere.

Both the UK and US are criticised but the RAF stands indicted for "serious systemic failures."

My focus is on the independence of coroners to say things the government does not like.

Will David Masters suffer the same fate as Andrew Walker?

The problem is that coroners are far more easily removed (or, transferred sideways - ha, ha) than judges if the government does not like what they say. See the reference to Andrew Walker above and here.

OPINION:

The UK government's record is disgraceful. If they can can get rid of a judicial officer whose decisions they do not like then they will.

PROPOSITION:

Coroners need equal protection from arbitrary government interference as do judges.

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 Mosley Sado-Masochism Trial Not A "Landmark" Decision, says Judge

Mr Justice Eady said at the end of his judgment in the Mosley case:

It is perhaps worth adding that there is nothing "landmark" about this decision. It is simply the application to rather unusual facts of recently developed but established principles. Nor can it seriously be suggested that the case is likely to inhibit serious investigative journalism into crime or wrongdoing, where the public interest is more genuinely engaged.

This is correct but does not mention that it is Mr Justice Eady himself who has played a leading role in developing the law in this area.

Well, he made Mr Mosley smile:

£60,000 should be a welcome addition to his budget for any future activities of his.

It has to be said that The News Of The World did not cover itself in glory. Their pursuit of this story was cynical and had nothing to do with the "public interest" defence they ran at trial.

The case is therefore a real test for believers, like me, in freedom of speech. I confess Eady J's judgment gives me pause for thought and makes me question the boundaries of free speech where the privacy of an individual is involved. You will need to read the judgment to answer the following questions in an informed manner. See the title link.

QUIZ QUESTIONS:

(1) Was Max morally entitled to victory?

(2) Was Max legally entitled to victory?

(3) Does Max deserve £60,000?

(4) If not, what amount should he have been awarded?

(5) Are the News of the World reporters, involved in this case, mired in slime?

Jeremy Kyle Is Not Dead! (Hint For US Readers: He Is A Springer Emulator)

I had a few days off recently and I watched the Jeremy Kyle Show.

It is about as ghastly as these trailer trash daytime reality shows get. He is pontificating and self-righteous. He has no hesitation in launching into a moral crusade against his generally not spectacularly intelligent guests. Yet, he is one of those making money out of them and, in my opinion, exploiting them.

They are silly to expose themselves to this but then, I suppose, silly people do this kind of thing. It seems that fame is enough reward to volunteer to place themselves in the modern equivalent of the stocks.

I can see no "public interest" that is served by Mr Kyle's show. Making a buck on the back of other peoples' stupidity does not strike me as an honourable way of making a living.

That is, of course, just my opinion, Mr Kyle. You are entitled to hold, and may hold, a similarly low opinion of litigation solicitors such as myself.

It is, perhaps, unfair to compare Mr Kyle's lack of physical courage to his apparent lack of moral courage but the Daily Mail reported today that a witness said he was "shaking like a leaf" following his car crash, and you may wish to read this.

The question is not whether Jeremy Kyle should die. Clearly, he should not. The question is whether shows like his should be killed off. I do not believe in censorship. I do believe in free speech. I am compelled, with regret, to answer that question "NO."

I think Mr Kyle's shows have a tendency to corrupt those who produce them, those who present them, those who participate in them and those who watch them. In my opinion, they are worse than slash movies or and obscene movies.

However, I will (in the well known words) defend to the death the right of Mr Kyle and his ilk to do exactly what they bloody like.

Alright, Voltaire is supposed to have said:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Others say that it was actually first said by Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

So what? Who cares? It is the the first principle of freedom by which every individual should be governed. If you cannot say those words aloud and mean them then, well, you do not believe in freedom or free speech.

Disaster For Freedom? Google Ordered To Reveal Subscriber Details

The title link reveals a disgusting invasion of privacy. I have nothing to hide and so can post this.

It is, however, simply wrong.

I am an old school long time internet user. Alright, I'm just old. I still think of the internet as properly still "the wild west" without sheriffs. I also think that that is the way it should be.

I will post further on this.

British MPs Are World's Champion Pigs: It's Official

Today, British MPs have taken a narrow lead over Members of the European Parliament to take the title of the most mendacious and greedy so-called public servants in a supposedly democratic society. See the title post.

They simply will not give up their perks no matter what public opprobrium this entails. No matter the stench; they want their money.

Mind you, it is nice to see such cross-party cooperation on an issue of public interest!

The leaders consult:

House of Lords Condemns Kafkaesque UK Government

Mrs Chikwamba was ordered to go back to Zimbabwe and apply for entry clearance even although everyone accepted that the application would succeed and the requirement would have no beneficial effect for anyone. The the uk government could hardly deny that there would be serious deleterious consequences for her, her husband and her young daughter.

It was a jobsworth application of the rules that would have lead, in the words of Lord Scott of Foscote, to something that should not be allowed to happen. He said:

"...policies that involve people cannot be, and should not be allowed to become, rigid inflexible rules. The bureaucracy of which Kafka wrote cannot be allowed to take root in this country and the courts must see that it does not."

Remembering that the Court of Appeal had upheld the uk government's Kafkaesque approach, we must be very grateful that we have the House of Lords who unanimously cut through the crap. Lord Scott also thought that the lower courts (including the Court of Appeal) had approached the matter in a manner that was "clearly unreasonable and disproportionate" and was amazed that the application had got this far.

LORD BROWN OF EATON-UNDER-HEYWOOD (who has defeated my attempts to find a photograph of him) giving the lead judgment said this:

"Let me now return to the facts of the present case. This appellant came to the UK to seek asylum, met an old friend from Zimbabwe, married him and had a child. He is now settled here as a refugee and cannot return. No one apparently doubts that, in the longer term, this family will have to be allowed to live together here. Is it really to be said that effective immigration control requires that the appellant and her child must first travel back (perhaps at the taxpayer's expense) to Zimbabwe, a country to which the enforced return of failed asylum-seekers remained suspended for more than two years after the appellant's marriage and where conditions are "harsh and unpalatable", and remain there for some months obtaining entry clearance, before finally she can return (at her own expense) to the UK to resume her family life which meantime will have been gravely disrupted? Surely one has only to ask the question to recognise the right answer."

The appellate courts are clogged up with immigration appeals. Sometimes these appeals are hopeless. But sometimes, as here, it is the government decision making process that is utterly hopeless. A rational government would not pursue such matters and its Kafkaesque approach in this case should cause it shame. Fat chance!

See the title link for the full decision and backward links to the Court of Appeal decision.

But, another bloody nose for the uk government and its sychophantic, idle, gutless and anti-freeddom civil servants. Not a spine amongst any of them.

Mugabe Wins: The World Loses: MI6 Fails To Act

Every inch the politician!

There was no other outcome possible. The bloody dictator wins, as he must and always would do. Which of us would put their hand out holding a pencil and vote for anyone else knowing that it would then be chopped off? Your daughters would then be raped and murdered. Your wife would then be cut into little pieces. There is no justice.

The world is totally mad so we might as well amuse ourselves by looking at a cat:
Why haven't MI6 assassinated him yet? What are they for?

Eshaq Khan: The Mad Khan And The Inept Electoral Rigging

This is old news but the case has only recently surfaced on BAILII.

The judgment is a lot of fun, however, and really worth a visit. See the title link.Eshaq Khan is very possibly the most stupid vote rigger in history.

When he was found out in an obvious scam which was bound to be exposed in court, what did he do?

Put his hands up and beg for mercy? Not a bit of it.

He lied.

He claimed that lots of people lived at a small flat uccupied entirely by someone else and their family. He claimed that 16 of his voters lived at a boarded up property. He presented to the court bogus tenancy agreements.

Then he encouraged other members of his gang (mainly family members) to perjure themselves with lies so hilarious and incapable of belief that the judge was wholly bemused that the matter had ever come before him.

It is safe to say that Eshaq Khan is (a) very stupid and (b) a criminal,

The full judgment makes entertaining reading. That cannot be said of every judgment I report but this one I leave you to read for yourself. You will enjoy it.

Would you Adam & Eve It?

I liked today's joke so I am putting it in this post so that it can still be available when it changes (as it does daily making the site worth a visit even if I have not posted - scroll down the right sidebar):

A little girl asked her mother, "How did the human race come about?"

The Mother answered, "God made Adam and Eve; they had children and, so all mankind was made."

A few days later, the little girl asked her father the same question. The father answered, "Many years ago there were monkeys, and we developed from them."

The confused girl returns to her mother and says, "Mom, how is it possible that you told me that the human race was created by God , and Papa says we developed from monkeys?"

The Mother answers, "Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about the origin of my side of the family, and your father told you about his side."

Given the images, it must be a bit of a toss up which story the child would be better off believing. The monkey looks more intelligent to me. But then, Adam & Eve are simply daffy and in love, which always makes people appear stupider than they in fact are.

"Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult," Says Teenager And Gets Arrested

Seems scientology is running scared if it has to seek a police prosecution of a juvenile for echoing the views expressed by Mr Justice Latey in a 1984 case in which he aid scientology was a "corrupt, sinister and dangerous" cult.

How can you be prosecuted for echoing the views of a judge in court?

Scientology is not recognised as a religion in England and Wales so what is it?

That must be a matter of opinion.

If so, the description "cult" must be among the range of reasonable opinions that can be held.

The above seems to me a complete defence although I hasten to add that I am a civil litigator and not a criminal defence lawyer. I hope one of the latter will offer to take this case pro bono.

Aside from that, this case should not proceed to trial and the kid should have had his rights protected by the police not been persecuted by them in order to help out the scientologists.

Speaker Michael Martin: Update, Update, Update, Update!

The "Update, Update!" take is wearing thin as an associative reference to the Speaker's "Order, Order!" said in his own spectacularly unauthoritative manner (particularly as regards labour politicians). I promise to change it next time Michael Martin behaves in a stupid manner that I can bother to comment upon.

He is at it again. See the title link.The Daily Mail reports today:

"House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin launched a High Court bid today to block an "unlawfully intrusive" decision to force disclosure of MPs' expenses".

It also reports:

"The decision to challenge the Tribunal angered many MPs and freedom of information campaigners, not least because of its cost.

Westminster's anti-sleaze chief, Sir Christopher Kelly, described the move as "unfortunate" and said it suggested MPs have something to hide".

Speaker Martin appears to have a genious for only one thing: damaging himself and damaging everyone else who has ever been associated with him; including both his wife and every other member of parliament of whatever party.

THE QUIZ QUESTION FOR TODAY CAN ONLY BE:

Is Michael Martin the worst Speaker in history?

Previous Posts:

13th April, 2008:
Speaker Martin: Update, Update, Update!

1st April,2008:
Speaker Martin: Update, Update!

22nd February, 2008:
Buffoon Dressed In A Little Brief Authority

Another Good Guy: Government Promises Are Arguably Enforceable

Mr Justice Owen has dealt another blow against the government and in favour of freedom. Gosh! High Court Judges who support freedom seem to be self-propagating at an alarming level. I am sure the government will intervene soon.

The UK government said it could renege on its promise to hold a referendum on a treaty with impunity. It further said that no one could challenge its right to say one thing and mean another. This is the famous Humpy Dumpty Defence:

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

This is the UK government's absolutely favourite defence.

Why would anyone complain?

On 13 April 2005 the Prime Minister launched the Labour Party manifesto in which the earlier promises of a referendum, as reflected in the EU Bill, were repeated. Following the general election on 5 May, the promise to hold a referendum was repeated. On 13 May 2005 the Prime Minister was reported in The Sun newspaper as saying "we don't know what is going to happen in France, but we will have a referendum on the constitution in any event – and that is a Government promise." On 18 May the Prime Minister confirmed in the House of Commons that there would be a referendum in relation to the Constitutional Treaty, and on 24 May 2005 the Government re-introduced the EU Bill which still contained provision for a referendum, in the House of Commons.

What were the government's excuses (sorry, their defence)?

"They are first that the issue raised by the claim is not justiciable, secondly that the claim is a violation of parliamentary privilege, and thirdly that there was no unambiguous and unqualified representation that a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty would be held."

THEY LOST ON ALL THREE POINTS. That is, 3-0 to freedom on round 1. Round 2 follows and I will update.

Look, You Guys Elected President Bush: Boris The London Mayor Again

School Days - Boris Johnson


We in the UK at least knock some education into them before we elect them to office. In the US you seem to elect them to office and then knock the education out of them:



But here he was before:

Enemies Of Freedom Part One

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

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

Oh, really? You stupid man.

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

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

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

The Dullard's Answer To Dawkins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terror or Freedom?

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

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

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

Has it really gone this far?

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

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

Snoopers Want To Snoop More

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

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

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.

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

They want to do it again?

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

Speaker Martin: Update, Update, Update!

MPs back down on expenses

In Atticus in The Sunday Times today:

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

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

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

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

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

Tibet Revisited: Where Lies The Truth?

Who do we believe? A video selection.

The Zen Of Black Power And The Tibetan Olympics

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

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

THE BLUE MEN: AKA THE CYBERMEN

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

Who WIll Rid Me Of This Turbulent Priest?

CORONER ANDREW WALKER

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

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

More when I have read the judgment.

Ryanair Disregards the Law, Again

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

The following extract perhaps indicates Ryanair's attidude:

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

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

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

Ryanair has history!

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

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

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

There is also an interesting video on YouTube:



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

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

Unlawful To Give In To Saudi Threats: Tony Blair Condemned

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

Some extracts from the summary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The King Canute Defence To Breaching Rights of Privacy

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects a person's right to privacy. There are exceptions. For a more detailed explanation try this site.

None of the exceptions applies in the case of Max Mosley and his interaction with prostitutes. Mr Justice Eady accepted this today:

"A relevant consideration here is whether there is a public interest in revealing the material which is powerful enough to override Mr Mosley's prima facie right to be protected in respect of the intrusive and demeaning nature of the photographs. I have little difficulty in answering that question in the negative. The only reason why these pictures are of interest is because they are mildly salacious and provide an opportunity to have a snigger at the expense of the participants. Insofar as the public was ever entitled to know about Mr Mosley's sexual tastes at all, the matter has already been done to death since the original coverage in the News of the World. There is no legitimate element of public interest which would be served by the additional disclosure of the edited footage, at this stage, on the Respondent's website."

A clear case then that The News of the World breached Mr Mosley's Article 8 rights and had no public interest defence. They should therefore be restrained from further publication of the video. Well, no, actually.

Paragraphs 22-24 of Eady J's judgment are as follows:

"When it comes to privacy, however, Mr Price emphasises that, when balancing his client's Article 8 rights against the Respondent's Article 10 rights, the visual display of the edited footage serves no legitimate purpose and that its grossly intrusive nature is unnecessary and disproportionate.

I was reminded of a passage in the speech of Lord Hoffmann in Campbell v. MGN Limited [2004] 2 AC 457, 475 at [60], where he referred to a hypothetical case in which there would be a public interest in the disclosure of the existence of a sexual relationship (e.g. because of corrupt favours), but where the addition of salacious details or intimate photographs would be disproportionate to any legitimate purpose and unacceptable. He observed that these would be likely to be intrusive and demeaning – even if accompanying a legitimate disclosure. Mr Price submitted that this would also be true in the present case.

I was also invited to have in mind similar observations made by Waller LJ in D v. L [2004] EMLR 1 at [23]:

"A court may restrain the publication of an improperly obtained photograph even if the taker is free to describe the information which the photographer provides or even if the information revealed by the photograph is in the public domain. It is no answer to the claim to restrain the publication of an improperly obtained photograph that the information portrayed by the photograph is already available in the public domain.""

He also said at paragraph 32:

"I am quite satisfied that Mr Mosley, even though he may have been misunderstood by some commentators, has accepted that he took part in the "S and M" session with the prostitutes. What he is denying is the link to Nazism. I do not consider that the edited footage shows, convincingly, that his denial is false. But, even if it is capable of being so construed, there is nothing to prevent the News of the World reasserting, with whatever prominence it thinks appropriate, that there was Nazi role-play. Accordingly, if there is any case for saying that Mr Mosley's denials have, in any way, misled the public, and that the record should therefore be put straight for that reason, the objective can be achieved effectively without displaying the edited footage of bottoms being spanked."

It seems all to be going Mr Mosley's way so far. He may therefore have been surprised by the closely following paragraph 34:

"As Mr Millar has pointed out, if someone wishes to search on the Internet for the content of the edited footage, there are various ways to access it notwithstanding any order the Court may choose to make imposing limits on the content of the News of the World website. The Court should guard against slipping into playing the role of King Canute. Even though an order may be desirable for the protection of privacy, and may be made in accordance with the principles currently being applied by the courts, there may come a point where it would simply serve no useful purpose and would merely be characterised, in the traditional terminology, as a brutum fulmen. It is inappropriate for the Court to make vain gestures."

And he may have been even more surprised by the conclusion:

"In the circumstances now prevailing, as disclosed in the evidence before me, I have come to the conclusion that the material is so widely accessible that an order in the terms sought would make very little practical difference. One may express this conclusion either by saying that Mr Mosley no longer has any reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of this now widely familiar material or that, even if he has, it has entered the public domain to the extent that there is, in practical terms, no longer anything which the law can protect. The dam has effectively burst. I have, with some reluctance, come to the conclusion that although this material is intrusive and demeaning, and despite the fact that there is no legitimate public interest in its further publication, the granting of an order against this Respondent at the present juncture would merely be a futile gesture. Anyone who wishes to access the footage can easily do so, and there is no point in barring the News of the World from showing what is already available."

I have read the judgment twice and it still seems to mean that newspapers can get away with the Canute defence if they act quickly, generate enough interest and are copied widely over the internet. They are then (a) immune from attack, (b) can then get away with republication of material originally published in breach of Article 8 and (c) profit from that republication.

THE CANUTE DEFENCE: A GUIDE FOR NEWSPAPERS:

(1) Obtain information in breach of a person's human rights.

(2) Do so illegally if that is to your taste.

(3) Put it up on your website until you receive a letter of protest from that person's solicitors.

(4) Immediately take it down.

(5) Tell the court that so many copies were made whilst it was (illegally) on your site that there is no point in restraining you from putting it back up.

(6) You then say: "Yah! Booh! Sucks!" to the complainant.

QUIZ QUESTIONS:

(1) What principles were applied here (if any)?

(2) Even if the material is now in the public domain, should The News of the World be allowed to make further profit from admittedly unlawful behaviour - even if other people will do so?

(3) Does it make any difference to your answers to the above two questions that you are or may be personally disgusted by Max Mosley's behaviour?

(4) Should it?

(5) Are any of the above "leading questions" and, if so, which?

IMPORTANT NOTE:

I hold no brief for Max Mosley and I have no prurient interest in his personal life. I have not posted before concerning this and have not linked to the "salacious" material, although ordinarily I would not hesitate to do so. This post relates to an important decision on Human Rights and issues of principle. I hope Mr Mosley appeals. Not for his sake but because we need something better on this subject than, I am afraid, Eady J's judgment provides.?

Not Very Good, Fellas!

I love this case. It is a Northern Ireland Court of Appeal decision but ought to be followed here. See the title link.

It is important for, well, restaurant reviewers. However, it is important also for anyone who wants to express an opinion. That includes, for instance, book, film and theatre critics. It also includes bloggers and anyone else who posts over the internet. So read it.

The allegedly offending article appeared as long ago as 26th August 2000 in The Irish News. The first hearing did not start until 29th January 2007 and the appeal judgment is dated 10th March 2008. It is not pleasant to have to comment that the courts in England & Wales are sometimes no quicker in bringing about a final resolution to cases. In fact, this case has not been finally concluded because it has been sent back for the first court to apply the correct law. I imagine the parties will, now, however, settle.

A succinct summary of the review is at paragraph 8 of the judgment of Lord Chief Justice Kerr:

"In its final, amended form the plaintiff's statement of claim alleged that the words of the review, in their natural and ordinary meaning, were intended to and did in fact mean that the plaintiff did not train his staff; that he used the cheapest ingredients on the market; that he overcharged; that he served poor quality and inedible food; that he served frozen vegetables and pizza; that his restaurant was pretentious, badly managed, not worth going to and had a joyless atmosphere."

That is, it was the reviewers' (there were two of them) considered opinion that this was about as bad a restaurant as you were likely to find.

Should I identify the restaurant? Well, I already have by providing a link to the judgment. In fairness, however, it should be mentioned that this review is over 7 years' old. Alright, it is Goodfellas in West Belfast.

The judge below had simply got it wrong. The CA held at paragraph 31 that:

"Of greater consequence, however, was the judge's acceptance that all of this material was factual in nature. In fairness to him, it had been portrayed by the defendant as such but, as I have already observed, much of it was plainly comment and other statements might reasonably have been regarded as opinions or inferences drawn from facts rather than unvarnished imputations of fact. Thus, for example, the statements that the reviewers were happy to order cola but did not enjoy it; that the cola was flat, warm and watery; that the squid rings were translucent grey in appearance; that they did not taste like squid; that the starters were of poor quality; that the sauce on the chicken Marsala was very sweet and a bad accompaniment for the savoury food; that the spaghetti dish had overcooked pasta, a lot of sauce and unattractive looking seafood in the sauce; that the reviewers did not enjoy their main courses; that the chips were pale, greasy and undercooked; and that the reviewers were unimpressed by the poor standard of their dining experience were all matters of comment and not statements of fact. They should have been identified as such by the judge and he should have directed the jury that they should so regard them."

Bloggers and contributors to websites should not yet celebrate. The following case presents a dire warning to porkie pie merchants who think of the internet as affording them protection:

Gentoo v Hanratty

I will post on this shortly. Do remember that this a lawyer's promise.

Justice For the Tibetan Dead and Mangled

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

Tibet Awaits Justice

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

Support justice.

Muslim Humour

NOT A PROPHET

I was wrong. There is some. Here are some links I found:

Islamic Humour

The Muslim Has a Sense of Humour

Islam and the Sense of Humour

Now, stop pillorying Muslims for lack of a sense of humour.

The April Fool Was That The Martians Had Not Landed

EMBRYO POLITICIANS: HOW TO SPOT THEM

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

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

Matthew Parris Surprises Himself and Me and Very Possibly Speaker Martin

I am a great fan of Matthew Parris. His support for "mediocre" Speaker Martin (as he describes him) does therefore surprise me.

Part of the defence is that he is not as bad as some past Speakers. But, MP admits, he is not as good as any of the last three ("St George, St Jack and St Betty"). Thus he has to go quite far back to find a worse Speaker.

The truth is that Martin has been an appalling Speaker.

But that does not matter to MP. It is none of our business. It is a matter entirely for the private club of MPs.

That is, it is a matter to be decided solely by those who are dependent on the Speaker's grace and favour.

Shame on you Matthew.

DNA Testing For All: The Abandonment of Freedom?

Philip K Dick

David Aaronovitch has written a striking article in The Times today that gives me pause for thought in my otherwise absolute commitment to freedom.

The visions of Philip K Dick become increasingly our reality as each day passes. This debate brings to mind in particular The Minority Report (also a Spielberg film).

This was the story in which the police arrested you before you did the crime on the basis of your predisposition to commit it.

DNA testing (together with near universal video surveillance) has brought the UK far closer to this "ideal" of detecting pre-crime than the US; and it is nowhere close to 2054 yet (when Minority Report is set).

TOPICS FOR DEBATE:

1) David Arronovitch has strong arguments in favour of a universal DNA database.

2) Philip K Dick, however, has a better "thin end of the wedge" argument.

Buffoon Dressed In A Little Brief Authoity

Gorbals Mick

QUIZ QUESTIONS:

1. Who does the above think he is?

2. Is he qualified for his job?

3. Does he like dressing up?

4. Is he (a) corrupt, (b) thick, (c) inarticulate, (d) a hypocrite or (e) all of these things?

5. Would you give him a job as a mannequin?

To assist in answering question 5 you may wish to click on the word mannequin for dictionary.com's definitions.

Sensible Judge Lets The Diana Inquest Farce Continue

Scott Baker LJ

“These inquests, which are an inquiry into two deaths, are being heard by a jury following the decision of the Divisional Court, and they will continue to be heard by the jury, which in due course will return its verdicts,” the coroner told the hearings in the presence of the jury. “I remind everyone, as I have before, that the jury decides the case on the evidence it hears in court and on nothing else. Comments that are made outside the court, often about a limited aspect of the evidence, may render the maker or publisher liable to contempt of court. I again urge great care that nothing is said, written or published that may influence the jury."

Scott Baker LJ made this extremely sensible ruling following rather silly establishment calls to end the Diana inquest farce.

It may have cost a lot of money but imagine what would have happened if the case had been stopped and withdrawn from the jury.

Fayed has said he will abide by the jury's decision. He may not mean it but he has said it and it is on record.

You can be assured that stopping the case at this stage would have given him the green light to pursue his conspiracy theories all the more relentlessly and at ever increasing cost to the taxpayer. He may still do so but we need a jury verdict to have any chance of ending this.

Secret Son of Princess Margaret Gains Chance to Read His Alleged Mother's Will

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ has given Robert Andrew Brown the chance to read Princess Margaret's will.

He indicated his reluctance in the following way:

"It is unfortunate that the important issues to which we have drawn attention should be raised by an application made by a person motivated by a belief that is both irrational and scandalous. We have, however, concluded that the appellant was and is entitled to have a substantive hearing of his claim to inspect the wills."

This was, in my opinion, the right decision whatever Mr Brown's mental state.

QUIZ QUESTIONS:

Why should royal wills be immune from inspection when yours and mine are not?

Why should royals be exempt from the general law in any sense in a free and democratic society?

Why are their rights to privacy greater than yours?

The Mad Soviet Bureaucracy at Wikipedia

I have done some searching since my last post and the link in the title may suggest that Comrade Durova is in fact no more than a latter day Joan of Ark being conveniently burnt at the stake in the interests of others.

That probably is true but then Joan of Ark was still a crazed religious lunatic. Comrade Duroza is only a crazed wikipedia fanatic. We have not yet learned to deal with her like.

Comrade Durova may even have resigned but persists in maintaing a way back in to the delusional hierarchy that has abandoned her. This is not untypical of devotees who lack any sense of bearing outside the original group that gave them strength. Christians, Moonies, Scientologists, Islamists, Clausists etc.

Reading the headline link page (and there are a hell of a lot more wikipedia pages like this) is akin to reading the annals of state trials involving inquisitors and torturers. Of course, there is also the hapless victim. But the victim is no more than an inmate of Lubyanka who would kiss her gaoler's bottoms if they allowed her back into the party and she could treat others to the same kind of "justice".

These are mad people. Tread warily.

If any of them acquires real power, hide in a nuclear proof bunker immediately. If you cannot find one, as you will not, fight back now or be ready to blow your head off.

The Apparatchik Durova, Wikipedia and the Suppression of Dissent in the New Soviet Internet Empire by Imperator Jimbo Wales

NB: There is a link to the entertaining video relating to this dispute at the bottom and unlike some other links, should play full screen.

The arch-fiend of the secret society running wikipedia access even calls herself "Durova". She appears by her actions to be a natural born censor and to draw satisfaction from the abuse of power involved in controlling non-members of the elite by, for instance, banning them from editing wikipedia on the basis of secret evidence which, when dragged out of her (she all the while kicking and screaming), turns out not only not to support her case against the offender but to vindicate him. It then turns out that wikipedia administrators maintain a secret list of those forming an elite within the elite who communicate with each other so that they can act collectively to enforce super-elite decisions that no-one else will be allowed to question because of their power.

Her namesake appears much more friendly, sensible, organised, used to putting down despots, capable of civilised conversation, capable of fighting in the Napoleonic Wars, capable of becoming a stabs-rostmistr, writing fiction and non-fiction and...er...generally achieving things in the big world. Nadezhda Durova was also, of course, a woman and may have been Comrade Durova's role model. Whether the pupil came up to the mark is, of course, another question.

You should first look at an interview with Durova on You Tube to form an impression of her. But do not a lot of dangerous subverters of freedom often appear meek and unthreatening? May it be a question of an otherwise powerless person of no great intelligence finding by chance access to power in an immensely powerful system and thus acquiring for themselves power over more gifted people? People she would otherwise never been able to emulate? People she can now grind under her heel and, by doing so, assuage her inferiority complex? A wikipedia administrator position is said to be unpaid and probably requires an immense devotion of time and energy. It will therefore attract those motivated by altruism and a genuine belief in the concept (as charities do) but it will also attract power hungry despots who lack the skills to succeed elsewhere (as, er..., charities also do).

An overview of the story so far can be viewed at The Register.

Continuing events will no doubt be recorded at The Wikipedia Review and, more particularly, on the forums devoted to Comrade Durova.

For the avoidance of doubt, there is no implication by the use of the word "comrade" that Comrade Durova is a communist. I doubt if anyone cares what her political views are and that may be part of the problem. Being unimportant because they have no talent often seems to lead people to derive gratification from the exercise of petty power over overs. Unfortunately, controlling the content of wikipedia is not petty power - it is now too big for that. The important point is that Comrade Durova is an enemy of freedom.

I have called her an apparatchik. Let us see how wikipedia defines this:

Apparatchik (Russian: аппара́тчик, pronounced [ʌpʌˈraʨɪk] plural apparatchiki) is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party or government; i.e., an agent of the governmental or party "apparat" (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management.

Members of the "apparat" were frequently transferred between different areas of responsibility, usually with little or no actual training for their new areas of responsibility. Thus, the term apparatchik, or "agent of the apparatus" was usually the best possible description of the person's profession and occupation.

The term was usually associated with a specific mindset, attitude and appearance of the person; when used by "outsiders", it often bore derogatory connotations.

Today this term is also used in contexts other than Soviet Union. For example, it is often used to describe people who cause bureaucratic bottlenecks in otherwise efficient organizations, especially at support services groups (such as IT services). It is also frequently used to describe individuals appointed to positions in any government on the basis of ideological or political loyalty rather than competence.

Most of this seems to apply to Comrade Durova and it will be noted that the definition applies to members of any government, not just communist ones.

The ideological loyalty here is not to a political creed but to the dominance of wikipedia as a provider of information - not as a provider of correct unbiased information. The organisation has taken over and become an end in itself.

This is where the story becomes really scarey. The Emperor has abandoned the founding ideals and his not very imperial name of Jimbo Wales seems to match his new role as a loose cannon in the wild west.

As you will see from the links above and the video below (which is partisan but fun) Emperor Jimbo not only supported Comrade Durova but threatened those who tried to expose her and continued to do so even when her humiliating public exposure as someone to whom the phrase "free speech" described an alien concept unknown on this planet was complete.

Since this concept was fundamental to the vision behind wikipedia and everyone (at the start) believed him, his trahison des clercs is not excused by the fact that Comrade Durova remains a mere apparatchik and failed in her bid for higher office.

You must view the video. You will need Flash 9.

Questions:

When she chose the name Durova was it a conscious decision to emulate those who sought power in the Soviet empire as an "agent of the apparatus" on the basis of "loyalty rather than competence"?

When Imperator Jimbo supported her, was it because of her loyalty, her competence or merely because she (unpaid) was a useful agent of the appaatus?

Rename Your Teddy Now

Some Muslims wanted to kill her. Presumably by stoning her to death or inflicting a prolonged lashing.

Our politicians go out of their way to not offend the believers in such practices.

These are people we should offend. Immediately rename your teddy bear.

I suppose 15 days in a Sudan hellhole for renaming (after a child - not the prophet -and upon the childrens' democratic direction) a teddy is considered relatively mild by their standards!

Those are not standards we should aspire to.

The Oxford Protest Against Freedom: A Damp Squib

Libby Purves said everything necessary in her article in The Times yesterday. I will not repeat it. Just click on the title to go there.

Matthew Shearman also wrote a nice letter:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article2956695.ece

The simple truth is that these students at Oxford University who have no respect for ancient freedoms or for free speech are uneducated barbarians. They spit. They squeak. They hurl abuse. They say that supporters of free speech are fascists. They
do not deserve to graduate.

Why? They have no rational arguments to advance. They are just thugs.

Ooops, how will they earn a living? Their juvenile (indeed, infantile) views do not qualify them to work in a free society.

Only kidding. Hopefully, they will grow out of their fascist tendencies.

My daughter has recently graduated from Oxford. She is not anti free speech. I do not therfore blame Oxford University. But I find it extraordinary that any University can permit attempts by any of its members (students or faculty) to attack (by violent or intimidatory methods) the sole and only purpose of its existence and not be called to account.

That purpose is to encourage informed debate and understanding based on factually accurate research and scholarship. Or, have I missed something?

The wanted posters are above. They are idiots who hold delusional beliefs. So what? Free speech is more important than they are.

The Idiots Have Taken Over The Asylum

Oh well, this was entirely predictable.

The enemies of freedom have massed at the Oxford Union and are jumping barriers.

They do so in the name of freedom.

Do they not realise that they are imbeciles?

The Oxford Union, Griffin, Irving and Free Speech

Juvenile posturing? Maybe. A decision I may not have made? Probably. A decision the Oxford Union was entitled to make? Certainly.

It would come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog (if there were any, which there are not - as to which see next blog) that I regard free speech as an absolute. Give it up and you have participated in the destruction of civilization or, at the very least, you have rendered the society in which you currently live one that is fit only for slaves.

The reasoning is simple. You concur in the suppression of views which you entirely justifiably despise and one day others will believe it justifiable to suppress a view that you hold dear.

The protestors (on screen as I type) are therefore foolish and are, further, providing hostages to fortune. Their views may in years to come be suppressed by similar haters of liberty.