An eye for an eye will make us all blind

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

STOP PRESS: Miners Scam Lawyers Jim Beresford and Doug Smith Struck Off

Well, thank goodness for that! I felt dirty all of the time these obnoxious people could say that they were a member of the same profession as me. I have only just received the good news and refer you to The Times report for further information. Here is Jim Beresford:

What a nice smile!

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.

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.

This Blog is Unsafe!

Blogger is preventing me posting securely.

The new link up with Google requires a google account to access your blogger account and make posts. Fine.

But you have to set your security settings very low.

The Q&As lead you to believe that this is not the case. You would think that you could get away with high-medium or medium settings in IE7 but I simply cannot. I have followed Blogger's detailed instructions several times to no avail.

To get this post up I have had to remove all security and I will not do that long term.

Something must be done!

Please treat the above as if it was handwritten in green ink and was signed off "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells."

Ultimate Proof that Religion is Nonsense

The Moon wedding ceremony? Give me a break. If this does not prove that religion is simply a collection of absurd cults what does? People can be persuaded to believe anything. Search google.

The case of the Right Honourable Gentlemen

NB: This is an old one just now made widely available on the BAIILI website.

There was an all star cast for this case including Lew Grade, Anthony Quayle, Coral Browne, Anna Massey and Corin Redgrave. Yes, the two separate branches of the acting profession combined here!

A Mr Littler thought he was being shafted when his four stars served notice to expire on the same day that they would be leaving, again on the same day 28 days later. It was accepted by the court that this would terminate this successful play.

Mr Grade (as he then was) represented all of the actors through one of his companies. All of the resignation letters were in essentially the same terms.

Mr Littler thought that it was a conspiracy to get him out of the theatre because Mr Grade wanted to move another play into the theatre.

Do you agree? I will not spoil the ending. Read this one.

The Judge's Underpants

In executing a breathtakingly brilliant strategy, worthy of the late George Carman QC, Sir Stephen Richard's leading counsel persuaded Sir Stephen to display his old briefs to the judge.

David Fisher QC asked the eminent Court of Appeal judge (all Court of Appeal judges are by definition eminent):

“In order to remove your penis when you’re wearing your Calvin Klein briefs, is it necessary to use one or two hands?”

To this the judge memorably replied:

“If I had a pee, I would use two hands. It is the natural way of doing it.”

This reply was, of course, fatal to the prosecution case that the judge had exposed his penis twice to a lady on the London underground.

Game, Set and Match!

I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service are immediately revising their training manual to include a completely rewritten version of the chapter on Resisting the Underpants Defence.

American defense lawyers have beseiged the UK solicitors actiing for Sir Stephen.