How Not To Tell A Joke

The Times maintains a list of the top ten gaffes in various areas. Reading these will fill an idle moment or two. The title link takes you to one such list, but it links to all or most of the other lists so that is the only link I am posting here.

Here is a truncated example of the most famous and possibly the biggest gaffe of all time:

In the early 90s Ratners was one of Britain’s biggest jewellers...

When asked to speak at a dinner held by the Institute of Directors, [Gerald Ratner said:]...

"We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say, 'How can you sell this for such a low price?' I say, because it's total crap."

If you compare this with the original you may feel that The Times's sub-editor did not do all that he or she could or should have done.

The questions are:

1. What, of importance, does my version sacrifice?; and
2. Is my version punchier?

Here is the full text of The Times version:

Gerald Ratner (1991)

Ratners

In the early 90s Ratners was one of Britain’s biggest jewellers. You won't find a Ratners on the high street anymore though, and all because of a notorious gaffe made by Gerald Ratner, the company's boss.

When asked to speak at a dinner held by the Institute of Directors, he made the decision to lighten up his speech with a few jokes at the expense of his business. He joked that his Ratners High Street chain 'sold a pair of earrings for under a pound, which is cheaper than a prawn sandwich from Marks & Spencer, but probably wouldn't last as long'.

He didn't stop there adding: "We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say, 'How can you sell this for such a low price?' I say, because it's total crap."

He lost his job and the firm quickly changed its name (to Signet in case you were wondering).

His faux pas has since been immortalised in the phrase "Doing a Ratner", which means making a massive error of judgment. Fame of a sort.

My view is that almost all of the extra information in the above can and will be readily inferred by a reader of the truncated version.

The only exception is the actual name of the new company.

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?

MOD Settles At £3M For Iraqi Torture Victims

Well, one of the comments on this Time's story is:

"How much did the lawyers get?"

Another is:

"This beggars belief when you see the paltry sums offered to our servicemen blown to bits by "innocent Iraqis".

The law firm involved found greater rewards looking for Iraqi claimants rather than taking up the labour party & MOD injustices to our own troops.

No wonder half of them want to quit."

These comments seem a bit unfair and I pose the following questions:

1) How much compensation would these claimant's have got without the assistance of Leigh Day & Co?

2) Why should these claimants have been prevented from pursuing lawful claims because others (i.e. soldiers) may not have lawful claims because of their contractual relationship with the MOD?

3) Are there any racist connotations to these and similar comments?

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

LOTTO RAPIST:

IORWORTH HOARE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those factors include in particular:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here he is at the time:

And here he is now:

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

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

Oh No They Didn't! The Compensation Culture.

The court has not held that Jeanette Cenet (nee McGlennon), the Claimant in this personal injury case, or Mr Maguire, "the alleged eye witness", were complete scam artists as alleged by the defendant, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. I emphasise the word "not".

This was despite the judge stating:

"There was a history of involvement by the claimant and her witness in similar claims. Mr Maguire, the alleged eye witness who gave evidence on the claimant's behalf, had himself submitted claims in respect of three highway tripping accidents in 1998, 2001 and 2004. In addition, he claimed to have been an eye witness to a similar accident suffered by Mrs Barry, another resident of Chatham Road, on 12 August 2004. That accident was said to have taken place on Chatham Road within a few yards of where the claimant's accident occurred. Mrs Barry's claim had been due for trial at the same time as that of the claimant (at the direction of the Designated Civil Judge, having regard to the issue of credibility arising from Mr Maguire's involvement as a witness in both claims); however, she discontinued her action the day before trial."

Luckily, some may think, the judge was able to uphold the Council's appeal on a different ground - i.e. the area where this trip and slip occurred was not, in fact, dangerous.

Go to the title link if you think that there is no compensation culture in the UK.

QUIZ QUESTION:

Is there a compenation culture developing in the UK?

NB: I am a claimant lawyer in respect of personal injury work. There are just some cases I would not touch.

Fantasy & Science Fiction Question Time (1)

Isaac Asimov had a 30 years correspondence with Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling. Pauling read Isaac's science articles in Fantasy & Science Fiction magazine regularly and wrote Isaac whenever he found an error. Here is an interesting excerpt.
From Pauling to Isaac:

I am writing now about your article in the September 1978 issue. On page 123, you say that Amontons and Guy-Lusac observed that if a gas at the freezing point of water, 0 degree Celsius, is decreased in temperature to -1 degree Celsius, then both the volume and the pressure of the gas will decline by 1/274 of the temperature. This is wrong. What you should have said is that _ _ _ I hope you are keeping busy as ever.

What was the explanation?

Just To Keep You Busy

Work out the numbers of A to G if...

A+B+C+D+E+F+G=340
3A+7B-4C-13D+E-6F+2G=219.25
2A-7B+9C-4D-3E+2F+3G=82
ABC=21,150
DE=1225.25
FG=3,145
BDF=11,544

Also C is the smallest number, and E is the biggest number. F is the middle number.

Bureaucracy For The Insane: No Smoking At Rampton Not A Breach Of Human Rights

Rampton Hospital is a high security psychiatric hospital in the UK. It is an alternative for prison where a criminal is insane.

Residents or former residents applied in this case to be exempted from no-smoking regulations.

For instance, "normal" prisoners are exempt and can smoke in their cells.

Certain persons suffering an acute psychiatric state can be exempted at mental health hospitals. The rules for this are, however, so bizarre that they probably make the exemption pretty worthless to the beneficiaries. We will come to those in a minute.

The result of the case was failure. No-one at Rampton gets exempted. And the court has effectively decided that is ok. This is not what interested me in this case so go to the main title link if it interests you.

What interested me was the regulations that do apply if you get an exemption or, more specifically, the mind of the person that drafted them. Here they are:

"5.9 The patient may only smoke outdoors. The location to be chosen should be discrete as the sight and smell of a patient smoking may upset other patients.

5.10 The Nurse will retain the cigarette until the patient has been safely escorted outdoors, when the cigarette will be given to the patient and then lit by the Nurse who will retain the ignition source.

5.11 When the patient has finished smoking the Nurse will ensure that the cigarette is extinguished in a suitable ashtray and disposed of safely in an appropriate bin.

5.12 The staff and patient will return to the ward.

5.13 Once the decision has been made for the patient to stop smoking then the remaining cigarettes will be returned to the [patients'] Shop for destruction."

QUIZ QUESTION: What kind of mind devises such a regulation or would want to devote a single minute of their working life to drafting it?

My answer is that it is the kind of person who themself requires psychiatric help and may well be criminally insane. Mind you, they probably have a double first and flew through the civil service entrance proceedure.

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?

"Tiny" Tibetan Protest Was "Vile" Says China

NOT WANG HUI*

>

“A tiny number of Tibet independence elements sought to disrupt the relay of the Olympic Games sacred flame through London.” the official said. “We strongly condemn this vile behaviour.”

Well, that makes it ok to lie about it then. On the other hand, given the population of China (see the title link) - 1,319,175,345 at 18:17 GMT+1, the protest clearly was "tiny".

When deciding whether a statement amounts to "a lie" context is important. London is not China. The Tibetan population of England & Wales is truly tiny.

QUIZ QUESTIONS:

1) In that context, was the protest "tiny"?

PICTURE QUESTIONS:

*2) Who is pictured above?

*3) What is his connection to any Wang Hui you can discover?

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.

I regret having sex with dead body of model: Understatement of the Year? Not Quite! His Barrister Outdid Him.

Mark Dixie Obscured

The Times prints the words before the colon in the title above between inverted commas. That is not strictly accurate. The exchange in court was in fact more chilling:

“I crouched down from behind where the legs were,” he said. “I took full advantage of someone and I should not have done it.”
His counsel Anthony Glass, QC, asked: “Do you mean you had sexual intercourse with her?”
“Yes,” he replied.
Mr Glass asked: “Did you think she was dead or unconscious?”
He replied: “I would not have expected to see anyone dead in that street. I thought she might have passed out or fallen over.”

Remember this next time you come across a disadvanteged female in the streets, blokes. Never mind the ambulance or the police; just get your trousers down. Also, fully brief your counsel on the "that street" defence and the "she might have only been unconscious" defence. If all else fails, get your mitigation in first and tell the court you were a naughty boy and "should not have done it."

This his own counsel questioning him! What is prosecuting counsel going to do with this? Does he/she have to do anything? This is a reservoir dog of a client.

His counsel admitted that this may be "a very unattractive defence."

STARTLING QUIZ QUESTION:

Who is in pole position for having made the biggest understatement of the year: Mr Dixie or his counsel Mr Glass QC?

Mark Dixie Revealed

TOPICS FOR DEBATE:

1) Mark Dixie is innocent of murder unless the jury are persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that he is in fact guilty.

2) Mark Dixie is a disgusting human being and a reservoir dog on his own admission.

3) Thank goodness for the cab rank principle. Otherwise, Mr Dixie would have little hope of decent representation. (NB: the cab rank principle means that barristers are not allowed to turn down unpleasant cases).

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 Judge Who Judged But Had No Judgment

Judge Lincoln Crawford

Family lawyers will be familiar with the kinds of behaviour exhibited by Judge Crawford in the course of his divorce.

He became obsessed. He therefore harrassed his wife. He spied on her. He resented her new partner. He resented any contact between his children and his wife's new partner. He abused them both. He took photographs. He was upset and hurt and therefore human. He felt his wife's abandonment of him justified any retaliation he inflicted on either of them.

He reacted as a human being and not as a Judge. His distinguished career may now be in danger. This helps no-one, least of all the children.

I feel great sympathy for Judge Crawford. I have been through the process (although many years ago and I got what would now be called a residence order in respect of my two children).

The tabloids will no doubt misreport it. I recommend you to read the court judgment instead. Just click the title to this post. You will find that the wife and her new partner were far from paragons of virtue. One Judge concluded that they were not entirely truthful (translation: they lied to a court) and it should be noted that the wife (Ms Bronwen Jenkins) is Head of Employment Law at Irwin Mitchell's London office.

Quiz Questions:

1) Why is the title to this post ambiguous?

2) Is a Judge necessarily disqualified from judging others because he fails to exercise good judgment in his personal life?

3) If the answer to 2 above is "yes", how many Judges would we have left?

4) How do you spell "judgment"?

The January 2008 Archive is Screwed

The January 2008 Archive is corrupt. It is probably to do with the google changes. Ah, well.

It seems that it will continue to affect the current page until January posts no longer appear. That is a guess. It may be worse.

Whatever the cause (and it might be my fault) all the right hand links appear at the bottom; but not if you go to the February 2008 archive page which also contains this post and the one below.

Whether "affect" should be "effect" in the first sentence of the previous but one paragraph is the subject of my monthly quiz question - now instituted. They may not be monthly and they may not be questions. They may occur more or less than once a month and they may simply invite an opinion rather than an answer.