No WMD Cllaim: Breaking News

Go to The Times link immediately.

Politician Denies Plotting And Geraldine Has A Bright Idea!

Jack Straw denies plotting. Erm, isn't that what politicians do? From the cradle to the grave? And, with a further "erm", don't they always deny it?

Geraldine Smith said:

“All this leadership challenge is absolute nonsense. Who are these spineless individuals who are talking about getting rid of the Prime Minister?”

She should know. She is Labour MP for Morecambe and Lundesdale. Now I confess I have never heard of Lundesdale, but I did once holiday in Morecambe. I also liked Eric Morcambe. So, she must be right then.

On the other hand, I was only about 12 when I holidayed in Morecambe so I did not have much choice in the matter. Until now, I had always thought it was spelt "Morecombe".

Dear Geraldine also said that all the plotters should be reshuffled out of the cabinet.

I think that is a good idea. We would then be virtually politician and government free. The whole cabinet would be sacked and there would be no-one mad enough to replace them. Even Gordon, on his own, cannot introduce enough new and stupid laws to seriously inconvenience the rest of us.

And here is the man himself:

I do not plot! I have never plotted! Not even when I was a student radical! In fact, I was never a student radical! Don't you dare print that! The last sentence! No, I mean the one before the one before that! And I never took drugs of any kind! Not even aspirin! So there! No, I am most certainly not a figure of fun and I never use exclamation marks when I am speaking!

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

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

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

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

The leaders consult:

Mugabe Wins: The World Loses: MI6 Fails To Act

Every inch the politician!

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

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

Attempt By MPs To Block Disclosure Of Expenses Fails Miserably

Corporate Officer of the House of Commons
Appellant

- and -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Extract:

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

Key Extract:

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

Key Extract:

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

Further:

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

QUIZ QUESTIONS:

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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:

Boris Johnson: The Clown and The Politician - Spot The Difference

Boris on Have I Got News For You:



Boris the politician:



Shallow? I do not care. All politicians are toads. A funny politician at least provides amusement. That is better than the nothing that the other ones offer.

No Longer A Serious Contender: Boris The Mayor Of London

Boot me out in 4 years if I don't deliver, says Boris. In an attack on the journos who have classed him as clown he promised to keep some jokes running and not to become too po-faced. Hurrah! He can even start drinking again!

I am anti political in the sense of regarding all politicians as corrupt by definition. I do not vote except in the sense of occasionally visiting a polling booth and writing "none of the above" at its base but, if I were a Londoner, I might have been tempted to vote for Boris.

He is funny and highly intelligent. He would top any list of preffered dinner party guests. Dear old Ken is amusing in his own way but would you really want to sit next to him? No. No invitation for you, Ken.

Newts are, no doubt, a fascinating subject but I doubt that I want to converse with Ken for very long about them.

Will The Real Cherie Blair Please Stand Up?

Mrs Blair is well known for believing almost anything at all and has been labelled "bonkers" in the national press; without complaining that the statement is either defamatory or inaccurate. No doubt, she would not want to dignify such allegations by denying them.

Is this her, however? Is this how she believes herself to be? Maybe with enough magic crystals she does see herself like this or hopes to be like this. On the other hand, she may regard this as a defamatory picture:


Or she may not:

Politicians And God In The USA And In The UK

The title link sums up the position. An atheist simply could not be elected as President of the USA.

In England, religious faith is a handicap for a politician. Thus, Tony Blair did not do god whilst in office.

We like our politicians to be rational in all aspects of their life. You guys in the US appear to need your politicians to at least appear to believe in a supreme being otherwise, perhaps, you fear that they would be uncontrollable. You wish them to fear someone or something.

We do not mind a politician who has a vague religious belief; one that has never really been thought through. That is ok because probably most people do not give god much thought at all and simply tick a box on forms, stating belief of one kind or another, out of habit.

The conclusion I come to is that the UK's distrust of irrational beliefs in decision makers makes for a better chance of good decisions being made. The USA's insistence that their decision makers either hold or, at least, profess such beliefs means that they can only ever be governed by hypocrites and mad people.

I do not conclude that the UK government actually makes better decisions. However, I do prefer to be governed by people who, by and large, do not feel obliged to commit to a fundamentally childish set of beliefs that are beyond logic.

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.

Mbeki Disgraces South Africa

President Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki has brought disgrace on himself and his country by his continued refusal to criticise Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe.

He has long stated that Africa should regulate itself but his servile and hypocritical attitude to his neighbour wholly undermines this position. He seriously calls into question any suggestion that Africa is capable of performing this role.

Mugabe is just as bad as his white racist pedecessors:

Justice For the Tibetan Dead and Mangled

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

Free Tibet and Stop This Disgraceful Hypocrisy On The Part Of The UK Government

Pictures do sometimes speak louder than words and I can add nothing. Go to the title link.

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 Martians Have Not Landed

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

Speaker Martin: Update, Update!

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

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

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

*All lawyers live forever (in infamy).

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.

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.

Dearlove Says He Didn't Kill Princess Diana

The problem is that the evidence of Sir Richard Dearlove that MI6 could kill people if it wanted to but never in fact did kill anyone under his watch would be exactly the same (and expressed with the same astonished surprise that anyone should even consider that he may once have stepped on a spider) whether or not he did or did not order Diana's assassination at the behest of the Duke of Edinburgh.

Are Our Parliamentary Drafstsmen Up To It?

In its anxiety to empty our prisons the government has enacted two incompatible regimes for early release and developed an unlawful non-statutory policy in a botched attempt to reconcile them. That seems to be the gist of Mr Justice Mitting's judgment of 31st January, 2008 and uploaded today on BAILII in the grandly entited case of:

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF REBECCA NOONE
Claimant
v
(1) GOVERNOR OF HMP DRAKE HALL
(2) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE
Defendants

I will not tire you with further details mainly because that might prove difficult or "impossible" in anything under the length of Mr Justice Mitting's full judgment. As he said:

"Section 174(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires a court passing sentence to explain to an offender in ordinary language the effect of the sentence. This requirement has been in place since 1991. These proceedings show that, in relation to perfectly ordinary consecutive sentences imposed since the coming into force of much of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, that task is impossible. Indeed, so impossible is it that it has taken from 12 noon until 12 minutes to 5, with a slightly lengthier short adjournment than usual for reading purposes, to explain the relevant statutory provisions to me, a professional judge."

I simply supply a link to this judgment and some choice extracts:

"The position at which I have arrived and which I will explain in detail in a moment is one of which I despair. It is simply unacceptable in a society governed by the rule of law for it to be well nigh impossible to discern from statutory provisions what a sentence means in practice. That is the effect here."

AND:

"Mr Patel advanced the submissions which he canvassed before Dobbs J in R(Steven Highton) v The Governor of HMYOI Lancaster Farms and the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWHC 1085 Admin. Mr Weatherby, who appears for the claimant, drafted grounds of appeal in that case. Both are therefore thoroughly familiar with the complexities of the legislation and the difficulties to which it gives rise. Both have made helpful and, insofar as it is possible with legislation of this obscurity, clear, submissions about its effect."

AND:

"Unattractive though the answer which she [Dobbs J] gave is, and hard though I have struggled to avoid it, in my respectful view her reasoning and conclusion were right. I need not set out the blind allies into which I have driven myself in an effort to escape the unattractive conclusion to which she and I feel driven."

AND:

"The effect of the policy adopted by the Home Office and now the Ministry of Justice therefore depends upon the order in which the court pronounces its sentence. Unless the court applies its mind to the differential effects of sentencing in any particular order, the outcome in relation to any individual prisoner is likely to be arbitrary. As the example given by Ms Seddon demonstrates, the prisoner who serves the short sentence first is eligible for release on Home Detention Curfew before the prisoner who serves the long sentence first."

AND:

"The contention of the Secretary of State produces an outcome which any legislator would have found surprising if he had had his attention drawn to it, namely that a prisoner sentenced entirely under the 1991 regime or entirely under the 2003 regime would be dealt with in one way, but for no reason that anybody could explain sensibly, a prisoner who fell to be dealt with under both regimes would be dealt with in a way which objectively is less advantageous to him.

CONCLUSION:

This is a serious legislative cock-up caused by an interaction between the multiple incompetencies of various stupid people. The Defendants to be indicted are:

1. Parliament (which includes a number of members who could not make a profit from running a whelks stall on Blackpool beach but have considerable expertise in claiming for expences incurred as MPs) for passing legislation in a state of panic and without proper consideration; and


2. The Parliamentary Draftsmen/Draftswomen (who never have run a whelks stall, or, indeed, anything else) for not reading beyond their immediate brief; and


3. The Ministry of Justice (whose employees do not know what a whelk is) for its belief that it can do what it likes regardless of, or more accurately, in complete disregard of, the law by applying "unlawful" policies.

These people (and I mean all of them) present a clear and present danger to your and my human rights.

QUIZ QUESTION:

In less than 250 words summarise the law relating to sentencing for criminal offences in England and Wales.

Jobs for the Unemployable

I posted the following on the Sunday Times board about Boris Johnson running for mayor of London. There would appear to be no connection at all. A totally mad post, you may think. But you haven't read the article on young Boris. When you do you will have a greater insight into madness.

Those people who the PM most wants to find jobs for would appear to be the most unemployable and slothful and alienated, the least educated and the most delinquent.

Surely those who are slightly less ignorant and have only minor violent tendencies may wish to complain about this patent discrimination in favour of the abominable, apparently on the basis that they are more in need of improving. They have got further to go. A simple lesson then. Be worse and we might give you a job.

It is the PM who is mad, of course, not Boris. Boris is immensely entertaining and must run for mayor. Stuff his family. The nation needs a really entertaining electoral contest. It's nothing to do with politics. I could not care less who runs (or thinks they run) London. But, Boris trying to run anything would be a huge laugh. Think of all those wonderful pratfalls we are in store for!

DISCLAIMER: "Cretins" below does not refer to Boris but to the other nutter.

Smoking and Freedom

I regard it as unadulterated nanny statism to ban smoking in pubs, and, god help us, on open air railway stations. It is also an attack on freedom. But, I do want to give up smoking and it may therefore be helpful to me personally. I am not going to want to spend a lot of time outside under shelters in the wind and rain.

The ban is unsupportable, though. This infingement of the liberty of the citizen cannot be justified. Nanny has become a dictator and good motives do not justify that.

Freedom must include the freedom to say unpopular things or to do unpopular acts or it is not really freedom. It is the dictatorship of the majority.

Freedom is about minority rights and upholding them. Freedom is about letting other people do or say things you dislike them doing or saying.

There were perfectly obvious other solutions that would have infringed no-one's rights. The simplest would have been a law that said that pubs with one bar should be non-smoking but that pubs with two or more bars could designate one of them as a smoking bar. In employment law it could have simply have been enacted that it would amount to discrimination to fail to employ bar staff who only wanted to work in a non-smoking environment.

It is legitimate to restrict freedom im in extreme circumstances (in the face of terrorism, for instance) but only so far essential, not merely expedient. To restrict freedom unnecessarily is both foolish and dictatorial which will be part of the Blair Legacy.

Sarkozy: Drunk, Dizzy or Judged?

Judge not that thee be not judged. That was one of the guy's better sayings (whether he existed or not).

That journalists should judge Sarkozy takes, well, the biscuit. Actually, it takes a whole lorry load of biscuit tins.

Mind you, you have to eat quite a lot of biscuits to buy his running up the stairs explanation too. Maybe it wasn't beer.