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?

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.

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?

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).

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.

Richard Dawkins is God: Gosh! I've only just read The God Delusion

God prevented me from uploading this image of Himself correctly. It will be lightning bolts next!

I suppose he did not let me download or upload it because (a) fuck's sake, He's God or (b) it was a bad likeness or (c) copywright infringement or (d) he really is just a greenish panel of nothingness.

Those of you who believe (a) to be the correct answer may as well turn your monitors off. You are beyond redemption and beyond reason. Restarting the computer is probably too difficult for you, so I have kept it nice and simple. If you cannot find the button to turn off the monitor, pull the plug out of the wall and go to bed with a nice cup of chocolate. When you wake up, sell your computer. Knowledge and information are not things you need. Buy a PlayStation. I believe (without knowing and without having any evidence at all and, indeed, without caring whether there is any evidence) that they include a free game entitled "Suicide Bombers and the Ultra-Virgins". You will like it.

Those who answered (b) or (c) are only mildly less insane.

The correct answer was, of course, (d).

There is no God. Professor Dawkins has proved it.

Well, he didn’t really need to. The basic idea is obvious. Did he really need to write a whole book about it? Most of the book is either elaboration or written in support of his alternative explanation for life: Darwinian evolution. His alternative theories may be right (and they are certainly interesting) but you do not need to buy into the positive exposition to realise that the Christian, Jewish or Muslim “god” is an improbable explanation for life on earth.

The improbability of god is summed up in a three word question. Who created god? Once you realise the infinite regression this traps you into (Who created the being or thing that created the being or thing that created god?) no sane person can believe in god.

My school had a joint debating society with a nearby girls’ school. I ran it (essentially, this was the 70’s and the girls mostly just did as they were told - with the exception of my girlfriend: see below). I once held a debate on the existence of God and the utility (or otherwise) of Jesus as a role model. The headmistress of the local girls’ school forbade her pupils to even attend.

That’s right! She did not say “Go forth, and defend Jesus.” She simply did not want the pure little ears of “her girls” to be exposed to contrary opinions. As I remember it, she did not let them attend a debate on homosexuality either. So, god and gayness had a special status. You were not allowed (at least, her girls were not allowed) to dispute the given truths that god was good and gay was bad.

You probably think I am making this up and you will be reinforced in your belief if I tell you that the girls’ school was called Nonsutch School. OK, ye unbelievers go to their website and be justly smited for thy unbelief! And, one girl did turn up! Admittedly, she was my girlfriend at the time but she went to Nonsutch School and defied her headmistress.

I went to Sutton Manor High School (as it was briefly called in an attempted act of camouflage) or, as it is now proud to call itself, its original name, Sutton Grammar School.

I bet the headmistress in question would like me to give her a capital letter. She, dead or alive, does not deserve one (and that goes for god too), but my Headmaster does. Dr Walsh was a religious man and his doctorate was in science (I think, physics). But, although he suspended me on three occasions, he ignored reported sightings of me on the premises and was always a lively and interested participant in our personal debates (otherwise, my harangues, or, from his perspective, the disciplinary interviews).

Lots of (but, crucially, not all) theists act as if they are sane in other aspects of their lives.

It is the “not all” bit that justifies Professor Dawkins’ book and the time and trouble he took to write it.

Incidentally, he is also a very good writer and I have found it difficult to put down this book notwithstanding that I had other pressing matters requiring my immediate attention. That is about as good as it gets if you are looking for praise from me. But, of course, neither “god” nor Professor Dawkins will be even slightly interested in my opinion. On the other hand, at least one of them exists.

I am so convinced of his existence that I have pre-elected myself as High Priest of the cargo cult that will arise around Professor Dawkins' bones. So please address me as Your Holiness in future. Otherwise, Steven will do. But NOT Steve. I'll cast a spell on you if you call me Steve. And you know that, as the preemptive High Priest of the Church of Richard Dawkins, my spells work.