A visit to the Police Station….

Police, Camera, Action….

Today I read three different stories about the Police.  The first is serious – the other two mildly absurd.

I read on SimonCollister.com a post about the Metropolitan Police and  the Evening Standard

“The Met has now requested that all imagery of its officers hiding or obscuring their badges be removed from photo libraries and image databases (hiding numbers means officers can’t be (easily) identified and is an illegal tactic usually performed to allow police to act with impunity while committing – often violent – offences against the public).

While the Standard accuses the Met of trying to “re-write history”, a member of the public gets it right in a comment posted on the story:

“If people start uploading such images to Facebook and Twitter, will they get their collars felt? We seem to be heading in that direction.”

SimonCollister.com goes on, however, to reveal something rather more unpleasant…

He was talking about the Met’s unwillingness to engage with social media and noted…

“Following the G20 the Met has signed up 6Consulting and Radian6 to run social media monitoring for the force so it’s very likely that any ‘offending’ material will certainly be identified. That said, I return to the point I made originally which was that this approach reveals a traditional command and control communications culture at the Met which will not fit in the distributed, complex, networked world in which we now live.”

The blog post ends with a note  where the author of the post had a rather intimidating ‘encounter’ with the Met’s Director of External Affairs, Dick Fedoricio.. who left a phone message . “He advised me, in a rather intimidating fashion, that if I planned on blogging about the Met again I  should give him a call in advance.”

We live in a democracy of sorts where the police, theoretically, act on behalf of the people and not against the people. They police, theoretically, by consent. For the most part, this is true – but we have seen many instances over the years of police brutality, police corruption, police dishonesty and police criminality.  Hopefully – eventually, these transgressions are rooted out and dealt with.

I can see absolutely no reason why any journalist, blogger or other commentator (provided they do not compromise an authorised police operation or compromise judicial proceedings) should not question the police, write about the police or comment on police activity…..

Next they’ll be telling us we cannot photograph them…. Hang on… they already have… possibly so that we cannot identify police officers, with their shoulder boards taped over,  using truncheons on unarmed women or hitting an unsuspecting man from behind at the G20 protest – a man who subsequently died.

Well… if the Met’s Director of External Affairs, Dick Fedoricio wishes to consult with me about my future blog posts about the Met… he can have a quick look at my ‘About‘ section which will provide him with the means of getting hold of me.  Mind you, after reading my About section he may well take the view that his time would be better spent on other matters. I would understand.

Now to the two absurd stories about Plod…both from The Sun.

Cops have been assigned to peer out from behind a beach hut clutching hand-held speed cameras in a bid to halt brisk bikers breaking the 10MPH limit along a waterfront promenade. The operation — which sees a PC clock a speeding rider and radio down to a council “seafront ranger” who stops the cyclist and warns him to slow down — has been slammed as “ludicrous” and “absolutely ridiculous”.

Curiously… it looks as if this officer is not wearing identifying shoulder boards… so maybe he was ‘undercover’.

The second story involves Police cyclists. Apparently there is rather a complex ‘Roadcraft Style’ booklet to ensure that Police know how to stay upright, how to get off and… the fun bit… know how to cycle down stairs past a ceremonial guard of other police officers.

In fairness – as a motor bike rider -  the Police Roadcraft method for motorbikes is superb. I have had three excellent two day courses with experienced police riders who were great fun to learn from and I have no doubt at all that my bike riding improved – particularly in London. For the avoidance of doubt – should Met Blogger Spotters be reading this – I do respect the work that the majority of police officers  do.  Like others, I have no time at all for police who abuse their powers or break the law. We need a good police service.

Thankfully… most police officers do not behave badly, do not break the law, do not abuse powers and, frankly, deal with some pretty unpleasant stuff during their working lives.  Would you want to deal with a fatal road crash?  Would you want to deal with violent drunks on a Saturday night or face a dangerous thug or  criminal?  Not so sure I would…

I’d like to say “Evening all”… mind how you go... but it would appear that this is just not allowed now in the politically correct mania that is our country.  Apparently, it might offend some sodding minority who may have a different view on what the word ‘Evening’ means… sod it… I’m thinking of sailing for France where they seem to be far more sanguine about many things!

The law of unintended consequences….lizard gods and control orders.

It is, I suppose,  quite possible that somewhere out there, in The City or the regions, there is a lawyer who believes that god is a lizard and  who also happens to be a psychic.

Last week environmental campaigner Tim Nicholson successfully argued that green beliefs were the same as religious beliefs  for the purpose of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

The Independent reports today:

In an unpublished judgement in Mr Power’s favour seen by The Independent, the employment specialist Judge Peter Russell said that psychic beliefs are capable of being religious beliefs for the purpose of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

Judge Peter Russell, sitting at Manchester Employment Tribunal, said:

“I am satisfied that the claimant’s beliefs that there is life after death and that the dead can be contacted through mediums are worthy of respect in a democratic society and have sufficient cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance to fall into the category of a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Regulations.”

Judge Peter Russell did say, however, that a later hearing would have to establish whether the claimant was “dismissed for the possession of religious or philosophical beliefs or for his alleged inappropriate foisting of his beliefs on others.”

Returning to the case of the fictitious solicitor psychic who believes that god is a lizard…. it would seem that his beliefs in lizard gods and psychic powers are capable of protection under the  Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, but if he started to use his psychic powers to predict the outcome of litigation instead of looking up the law, he would find himself on the wrong side of a professional negligence judgment. But… there again, he would be able to predict that… would he not?

Setback for Government over ’secret evidence’ for control orders

On a rather more serious note, for those of us who are not lizard god believing psychics, there is the continuing problem of ‘Control Orders’ and ’secret evidence’ following the Lords ruling in July in AF.

I haven’t had time yet to read the judgment but Frances Gibb, legal editor of The Times, has a useful report on a case heard recently by Mr Justice Collins who stated “There was “an irreducible minimum” of information that had to be provided even in the case of light control orders. “The approach to disclosure is the same for any control order,”

Frances Gibb states:

The Government’s attempt to restrict the movements of terror suspects through “control-lite” orders suffered another setback at the High Court yesterday. The new orders are an attempt by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, to maintain the beleaguered control order system after they were condemned in July by the House of Lords. The system came under fire because it relies on the use of “secret evidence” to restrict the freedom of suspects who cannot be prosecuted for reasons of national security. Ministers recently sought a way around the problem by introducing the concept of orders imposing lighter, more limited obligations on controlees that they said did not require them to disclose further evidence.”

Jon Ronins, writing in The Times, asks:

Whatever happened to the radical lawyers?

I did laugh when I read this… “The suggestion that legal radicalism may be a thing of the past elicits a heartfelt groan from Roger Smith, director of Justice. “There are a number of baby-boomers who came into the profession in the 1970s, now retiring and feeling old and crabby.” They went through “the heyday of legal aid and frankly made a lot of money”. “Many were able to wear their hearts on their sleeves and keep a full wallet in their back pocket. The grumpy old men should shut up and take their pension.”

Always good to get a sense of perspective.  I’ve done a couple of podcasts (Most recently for The Law Society Gazette) with Roger Smith and he can always be relied on to analyse and provide perspective.

And finally… props to Paul Waugh on his blog for the Evening Standard for this…

Put Swiss cow bells on electric cars – Tory health spokesman

Now, here’s a lovely moment from the House of Lords, proving that eccentricity is not yet dead in Parliament.

During Transport Questions, peers were struggling with the dangers posed by electric cars (they are too quiet for pedestrians etc).

Shadow health minister Lord McColl* then came up with a startling proposal:

“My Lords, does the Minister accept that there might be a simpler solution? When I purchased one of these cars a few years ago, my wife, being very practical, said that the answer would be to put on the front of the car a small Swiss cowbell….”

 

Libel reform: Free speech is not for sale…

Jack of Kent – a skeptical and liberal look at law by writer and lawyer Allen Green – considers reform of libel…

A very interesting read.

Bar Council: An excellent speech by Desmond Browne QC

Access to Justice – Justice for All?

Around 500 people were present at the Bar Council Conference on Saturday which has been judged a great success. The keynote speech was delivered by Sir Nicolas Bratza, following the opening address by Chairman of the Bar, Desmond Browne QC.

Desmond Browne’s speech, if you haven’t heard it or read it is worth reading.

I do no more…for it is not necessary… than to quote a few choice extracts…it is an excellent speech, meaty, direct and to the point.  Food for thought.

In the past few months the Legal Services Commission has been at great pains to have us “celebrate” legal aid’s sixtieth birthday. But once the candles on the cake had been blown out, it was clearer than ever that we had been left in the dark. In all the party euphoria the Commission generated, it overlooked those fundamental principles which govern a social democracy’s obligations for the welfare of its citizens. These principles were espoused especially strongly by refugees from fascism reaching our shores in the late 1930s. Today, more than ever, at a time of deep economic recession and confronted by laws of ever-increasing complexity, we need to remember those principles – and be sure that we apply them in practice.

……

Family Legal Aid:

There is wide recognition that effective legal representation is particularly critical in family law cases. Indeed, over 20 years ago in Airey v. Ireland [1979] 2 EHRR 305 the European Court treated as a breach of article 6(1) the refusal of legal aid to a woman seeking judicial separation in the Irish High Court, because of the complexity of the proceedings, the need to examine experts and the emotional involvement of the parties. Obviously these factors will be present in many, many family cases, and they require experienced advocates to deal with them.

Criminal legal Aid:

Turning from family legal aid to criminal legal aid, we can only conclude that this is a government which will never learn. As Disraeli once said: “you can tell a weak government by its willingness to resort to strong measures”. The very omissions for which the LSC was so harshly criticised in relation to family legal aid have been repeated all over again –  this time by the Ministry of Justice in relation to the cuts in criminal defence fees proposed in their Consultation Paper of 20th August.

………

The betrayal of the ideals of 1949:

There is every reason for the profession to feel betrayed, but what matters is that the public has every right to feel betrayed too. We are now heading for precisely that which the midwives of legal aid wanted to avoid – two standards of access of justice dependent on the ability to pay. When the wolf is at the door, we can no longer be accused of crying wolf.

Desmond Browne then turns to consider Access to Justice and reflects on the future of the profession

In ending, I inevitably return to criminal defence fees. Swingeing cuts can have only one result — quality will be driven down as experienced advocates are driven out, Poor quality advocacy increases the chances of acquittal of the guilty, and (worse to my mind) conviction of the innocent. As the Lord Chief Justice said in his recent Kalisher lecture, “it really is as stark and simple as that.”

The full speech may be read here.

Privacy, secrecy and putting the clock back twenty years

The Independent reports: Ministry of Justice figures indicate there are 3,808 judges in England and Wales and 205 or 5.4 per cent are Freemasons. There are also 29,702 magistrates, of whom 1,900 or 6.4 per cent are Freemasons.

While I am more than happy to go along with Jack Straw’s statement …“no evidence” of any “unacceptable behaviour by Freemason judges… I am not sure that it is a great idea to cave in to possible legal action by The United Grand Lodge.  If Grand Lodge maintains that Masonry is not a secret society why should they be so concerned that judges – who do occupy a rather important place in the firmament of justice – be required to reveal that they are masons? I would prefer to keep to the former practice where judges have to declare and I would hope that judges who, after all, have nothing to hide in the fact that they are masons, would declare voluntarily, given their importance to the administration of justice.

Birds of a feather flock together, whether we like the practical implications of this or not. It is part of life. The trouble with Freemasonry, it is argued, is the very secret nature of the proceedings.  If you are not a mason, you just don’t know what influences masons bring to bear and what favours are granted to masons between themselves – if any.  They say that they do not favour each other.  I am not so sure about that.  I have had some unusual handshakes and suggestions in my time and frankly, I am almost certain that masons will favour another mason over a non-mason all ‘other things being equal’ – whatever that means. More often than not – that will be perfectly harmless…. but it might be best, when it comes to justice – that we continue to keep a register of such interests?

I cannot, now, recall the case – but some years ago a judge halted a trial, telling the jury that the defendant had just revealed to the judge by a secret distress signal that he was a mason.  The judge was right to disclose this – but it cost the state a fair bit of money to set a new trial. Maybe a reader will recall the exact case and remind me? Maybe this was just ‘urban myth’.

Of course – quite a few police officers, lawyers, prison officers, politicians, business people, magistrates are Masons – a society within a society? Is it a force for good?  Undoubtedly the Masons have done great works of charity. This is a matter of public record.  Is it just another hocus  pocus bit of harmless mumbo jumbery which men, particularly, like to engage in – a chance to dress up, have arcane rituals and generally invent a way of life for themselves?  Probably – it certainly seemed that way to me all those years ago when I was ‘approached’.  Today the mantra seems to be – ‘To be one, you have to ask one’.  They do have a website!

And moving from secrecy to another type of secrecy – Privacy.

Max Mosley, whose private sexual interests were emblazoned all over the News of The World earlier in the year is taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to argue that newspaper editors should be obliged to forewarn people if a newspaper is likely to publish a story likely to invade the privacy of an individual.

I think Mosley has a fair point – when it comes to legitimate and lawful private interests, people are entitled to protection of law. The public interest point arises, however,  if an individual’s private interests, personal, financial or otherwise, impact on his or her ability to do a job involving public interest. As the Guardian notes – “The changes he wants might undermine the right to freedom of expression.”

The developing privacy law, not by any means always associated with libel law, is a development we should keep a very close watch on.  On the matter of libel law – here is a proposal From The Libel Reform Campaign which is  worth reading.

And on to dishonest secrecy…  Ofsted hid crucial evidence on Baby P sacking

The Times reports: “The childcare watchdog has admitted withholding crucial evidence that could potentially hand Sharon Shoesmith, the former head of children’s services at Haringey Council, hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation. Ms Shoesmith was sacked after a damning Ofsted report into how her department was run in the aftermath of the Baby P case. A High Court judge has taken the extraordinary step of reopening her case so dozens of pages of handwritten notes, e-mails and draft reports can be examined.”

Putting the clock back?  What?  By our progressive DPP?

The Times reports: “The police may take over responsibility for bringing charges for thousands of minor offences each year under changes to be piloted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The move — which turns the clock back more than 20 years before the service was set up — would leave CPS lawyers to deal with more serious offences while police handled offences that can only be tried by magistrates.”

And finally….

Infidelity murder defence to go

BBC: Ministers are pushing ahead with plans to end the right of murder suspects to cite the sexual infidelity of their partner as a partial defence in court. In last month’s Lords debate, deputy High Court judge Lord Thomas of Gresford described the plans as “illogical” and “outstandingly obnoxious”.

Well…..good to see that all is going swimmingly in the legal world and world of law.

They put a man to death… he died at 9.11 last night

Why, when we have bravely and nobly progressed so far in the recent past to create a decent, humane society, must we perpetuate the senseless barbarism of official murder?

– Abe Fortas (1910-1982), former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, New York Times.

The DC sniper was executed at 9.00 pm last night. Reports on Twitter reveal the irony of his death being announced at 9.11 pm. A quick trawl through Twitter posts under the #DC Sniper tag on Twitter reveals very mixed responses from the delighted and retributive to responses from those staunchly opposed to the death penalty.  There was even one tweet where a person staunchly opposed to the death penalty appeared to make an exception for this case.

I am opposed to the death penalty. Quite apart from  the very real possibility of human fallibility, the possibility that an innocent man could be put to death by the inherent imperfection of any judicial process – it reduces us to the level of barbarians and there can, for me, be no solace in the fact that such execution is democratically ordained and sanctioned by the State.

The death penalty has been abolished in several states in the USA.  A quick look at death penalty quotations from judges on Google throws up some interesting views. Judges, in the main, appear not to approve of the death penalty.

I recall sitting in the Selangor Club in Kuala Lumpur some 15 years ago, while visiting Malaysia on business, talking to a Malaysian High Court judge who I had known for some time. He had sentenced four people to death that very day – for drug offences.  He had no alternative but to apply the law of Malaysia.  He found the the matter profoundly depressing and quite apart from the fact that the death penalty was clearly not a deterrent in drug (or any other cases) he believed it was contrary to morality for the state to put anyone to death.  He felt it diminished the state.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, U.S. Supreme Court Justice: “People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty … I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution stay applications in which the defendant was well represented at trial.”

Arthur J. Goldberg (1908-1990), former Supreme Court Justice: “The deliberate institutionalized taking of human life by the state is the greatest conceivable degradation to the dignity of the human personality.”

Our sceptred isle: another great day for British law and justice…

As the prime minister and Alistair Darling continue to empty the coffers at the Treasury and the Bank of England quantitatively eases yet more money into the banking system, it would appear that ‘Question Time Jack”, our Lord Chancellor and Minister of Justice, not to be left out in providing absolute powers for a future government (?),  is continuing his quest to appear in the dark humour footnotes of history.

First up this foggy dark and cold morning is the matter of secret inquests.

The Independent reports: ” Secret inquests which will bar bereaved families and the public from attending hearings into controversial deaths were forced through Parliament last night. The Government narrowly defeated opposition to the new powers by a majority of eight MPs in a highly charged vote in the House of Commons. Under the measures ministers will be able to order that an inquest is replaced with a secret inquiry whenever they deem it necessary.”

Labour’s Bob Marshall-Andrews (Medway) described the inquiries as a “disproportionate remedy……In order to rectify what is an evidential problem, the Government is proposing to hand a massive new power to the executive.”

Simon Carr, writing in The Independent, has an amusing sketch: Trust him, he’s the Justice Secretary … Oh, if only we could

I rather liked this….from Mr Carr…”“There’s no reason not to trust me,” Jack Straw told the House of Commons. He wouldn’t dare say that in public.”

But there is some good news….The Independent reports:

‘Big Brother’ database cancelled by ministers’. Plans to store information about every phone call, email and internet visit in the United Kingdom have in effect been abandoned by the Government.

The Independent reports that ministers remain convinced of a need to investigate everything the people of Britain do.  I suspect this delay is not borne of a Damascus style conversion on the part of the home secretary, but is more of a cynical ’spin’ influenced  postponement until the next election.  Should Labour get back into power (and some reports suggest they not only won’t get back into power but we could be saying goodbye to quite a few familiar Labour figures as they are reduced to a rump party of 120 MPs) the plan will, no doubt, be revived.  The plan will probably be revived anyway… because if the Tories win,  they could find it most convenient to know what we are up to as well.

But.. just as we thought that we could regain some credibility for our justice system… along comes a raft of stories today and yesterday which are worth noting…

Russian oligarchs, tedious celebrities, venal businessmen and sundry assorted scum are putting on their sombreros, oiling themselves up with gel and sun cream and are flying to the Costa del Stranda to superinjunct and bully people into submission.

Libel tourism is big business….perhaps we should be pleased that at least a few lawyers are doing OK at the moment?… but, it isn’t just about the interests of these assorted users of the skills of Mr Justice Eady and others… this goes very much to the heart of freedom of speech.

Fortunately, Parliament, perhaps shocked by the ludicrous Carter-Ruck / Trafigura incident, has been called to action.  Question Time Jack can’t be expected to know everything that goes on in his ‘patch’ – that would be placing an altogether unfair level of competency standard on Ministers – but it would appear that his Ministry of Justice, while able to tell us the precise amount it is reducing the legal aid budget by, hasn’t a clue how many superinjunctions are out there.

“It seems that the select committee’s findings next month could be quite radical. It is likely to recommend that judges be urged to throw out cases that do not directly involve UK publications; MPs may look again at the casino culture of costs and conditional fee agreements. The “no-win no-fee” system was introduced in 1995 with the laudable aim of broadening access to justice. But rich litigants have created a situation where costs can be 100 times the damages awarded.” The Times

The laws that stain Britain’s good name

There is a rather good piece about libel tourism in The Times today by John Kampfner, chief executive of Index on Censorship and author of Freedom for Sale – worth a read.   It is a pretty sorry state of affairs when some states in The United States have to pass laws to protect their people from British Libel Laws (Scotland’s libel laws are a bit more sensible, they say) and several publications abroad are thinking of blocking access to their online material by British users for fear of libel litigation in Britain.

John Kampfner notes... “Of many absurd individual cases, one stands out. The science writer Simon Singh is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association after he accused it of promoting “bogus treatments”. Singh has fought a dogged and high-profile campaign. But for every one of him, dozens of individuals are bullied into silence.”

See also: The Guardian Foreign media count cost of UK libel laws

And yesterday……a number of stories about Justice on the cheap with the Police using cautions for even quite serious cases…

““Nearly half of all crimes — or 700,000 a year — are handled outside the courts, including shoplifting, burglary and assault. Under a drive in the past decade towards swift, summary justice, police have been given wide powers to impose cautions and fines (fixed penalty notices), and prosecutors can impose conditional cautions.”

Frances Gibb, writing in The Times, asks: Fixed penalties are efficient and cost-effective. But is it justice?

Well… that is enough to be getting on with for one day. Dawn is breaking.  It is still cold and foggy… and I’m not just talking about the weather.  Time for a cuppa. As they used to say at the end of Crimewatch… Try not to have nightmares.

No sex please… and a fine end to a pet chicken.

One of the benefits of starting my work at around 4.30 am each day is that by late afternoon I can faff about.  Today,  Chef Charon decided that it was time to cook a chicken.

It was, I suppose, the natural ending to the pet chicken but I did, at least, offer it a last request.  Not surprisingly she asked for a Marlboro Lite.  This, after all, is no ordinary chicken… it is a Charon chicken.  The Maris Piper potatoes were blanched and cooked with a whole unpeeled lemon for 12 minutes and a bulb of garlic.  The chicken was rubbed down with salt, pepper and olive oil.  The whole lemon from the potato pan was pricked with a fork and placed into the chicken’s cavity, along with the whole garlic separated into cloves.  The chicken was cooked for 45 minutes and basted.  Goose fat was added to the pan – and the pre-blanched potatoes with roughened edges were placed into the chicken juices and goose fat. 45 minutes later, roughly – a rather good roast chicken.  I cooked the carrots in butter, sliced thinly and a cup of water .  This concentrated the flavours.  A chicken stock with added juices from the roasting tray provided good gravy. I nicked the idea from Jamie Oliver… and why not!

Malbec from Argentina was taken.

And then I started to think about SEX… not, I hasten to add, for myself… but in terms of a law report I was reading about noisy sex upsetting the neighbours.  The judge had to listen to a ten minute recording of the romps. 30 years practising law, onto the bench and you have to listen to audio recordings of people having sex. Fortunately, one assumes, the judge doesn’t have to do this every week.  We are British, after all. The Independent has the full, lurid, tale….

I went out onto my balcony for a smoke and to do 100 press-ups.  I am still following my Smokedo regime.  It was a bit quiet on the balcony.  I could see the copy of The Law Society Gazette which my pet chicken had been reading just before the end. I could see the dish of Rioja, half drunk….. Yes…. I do miss Henry Chicken… but what a fine way to go, if you have to go?

Blawg Review #237 – Christian Metcalfe of Property Law blog

Blawg Review #237 – Christian Metcalfe of Property Law blog

“Today’s single most important political principle, the right to live in a participatory democracy, comes down to us not from the slave-owning societies of Athens and Rome, or from the pleasant estates in France where Rousseau and Montaigne envisioned the ‘general will’, but from buff-coated and blood-stained English soldiers and tradesmen.”

Christian has produced an excellent Blawg Review #237, embracing many of  the posts on the legal blogosphere over the last week.  A work of detail and themed beautifully….. do read it…. it will give you a good overview of legal thinking and the pre-occupations consuming law bloggers last week

Read Blawg Review #237

Westminster Bridge: A hidden Da Vinci code metaphor for MPs…Parliament?

I do not know who took this photograph – but props to whoever did…. I found this on Twitter this morning.

colmmu http://twitpic.com/ov76e – RT @spacemonki a photo of Westminster Bridge … one ponders the intention to represent the neighbouring inhabitants…

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori

“Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, sed dulcius pro patria vivere, et dulcissimum pro patria bibere. Ergo, bibamus pro salute patriae”

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori is a line from the Roman lyrical poet Horace’s Odes (III.2.13). The line has been used frequently in war poetry – most notably by WWI poet Wilfred Owen.

The quotation above translates as… “It is sweet and right to die for the homeland, but it is sweeter to live for the homeland, and the sweetest to drink for it. Therefore, let us drink to the health of the homeland.”

My interest in this quotation was triggered by a tweet today from Oedipus_Lex who was at The Cenotaph marching today.  He described the maxim as ‘The Great lie’ – and, of course, he is right.  No-one wants to die for their country.  It isn’t sweet and right to die for one’s country – but it is right to wish to fight for one’s country and it is right that we should honour those who gave their lives in war so that we may enjoy life and freedom.  One wonders whether our government(s) are now squandering the freedom brave men and women have given their lives for by failing to address the big issues properly, by knee-jerk reactions to terror, by eroding our  civil liberties, by failing to govern minimally and effectively.

The Independent today became the first newspaper to call for our troops to be brought home in their leader. I don’t know enough, frankly, to hold a clear opinion, let alone express a view at this stage.  I would be surprised if many, not privy to government and military information, know enough either.   I do, however, agree with the proposition expressed by many commentators that while we may not agree with the reasons for the war, we do support the troops and it is essential that the troops know that we respect their work, that we honour their dead and they are properly equipped and resourced.  Gordon Brown has come in for serious criticism this week from former senior military and naval officers – men who rose to the very top of the services, men who, in their day, advised government. One would have thought that weight should be given to their opinions? Is there another way of dealing with this long long war… a war that some say is, ultimately, unwinnable – a war that could go on for many years to come?

I think I shall have a drink to the memory of the many who have given their lives and to the living who choose to use their lives to serve in our armed forces now. Salut! slainte

Postcard from The Staterooms-on-Sea: Ghosts, Lemon cake and wine edition

Dear Reader,

You may well find that drinking a glass of Argentine Malbec on a Saturday afternoon at 4.00 pm with a slice of lemon cake a strange thing to do and, more often than not, I would agree with you. But today, I made a bacon, egg, mushroom and onion pie (some people prefer the French word quiche) and a lemon sponge cake. At 4.00 this afternoon I was rather bored.  By 4.15, a glass of Malbec and a slice of lemon pie consumed, I was in excellent spirits. I may do this again.

I am grateful to Mark Pack (Via Matt Wardman) for noting this wonderful gem from Hansard

It’s February 1940. The country is at war. The question of the moment: inter-species enmity.

Sir Arthur Heneage: Is it not a fact that foxes are the greatest enemy of rats and mice?

John Morgan: Cats.

I followed up on a few more Hansard gems from related posts on Mark’s page… I did enjoy this one…

In (partial) fairness to the government department concerned, this is from May 1994:

Mr Newton The Privy Council has no plans to use the internet.

The irony of the new MP Salary Czar being paid £100,000 (not a bad little earner to shuffle a few economic indices about and rather more than MPs earn as a basic) has been compounded by The Telegraph revelation that Professor Sir Ian Kennedy (late of Kings’ Colege, London – a fine lawyer) is a close friend of Alastair Campbell, spin-meister in chief to the Blair administration. So close in fact…. “that (Kennedy) helped advise him on his appearance before the Hutton Inquiry into the death of David Kelly, the government scientist.He also holidayed with Mr Campbell, was even the spin doctor’s “phone a friend” on a celebrity episode of the television quiz show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.”  (Kennedy got that one wrong and, as a result, Campbell lost £7000.  An omen for MPs?

SuperPlod has been at it again.. and by the term SuperPlod…I am referring to the successors to the Special Patrol group a group of police Rambos who caused a lot of trouble in the old days and who had to change their behaviour and change their name to the territorial support group (TSG).

The Guardian has the story… and, sadly, it speaks for itself…. I accept that Police officers face mindless violence every day and particularly, on a Friday and Saturday night from drunken yobbos and Yobettes – and most people applaud them for their courage and humour when doing it…. but there were problems with a few officers at the G20 and … but surely this can’t be right?

Scotland Yard faced calls for an “ethical audit” of all officers in its controversial riot squad tonight after figures revealed that they had received more than 5,000 complaint allegations, mostly for “oppressive behaviour”.

Details of all allegations lodged against the Metropolitan police territorial support group (TSG) over the last four years reveal that only nine – less than 0.18% – were “substantiated” after an investigation by the force’s complaints department.

The figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, were described as evidence of a “culture of impunity” that makes it almost impossible for members of the public to lodge successful complaints against the Met’s 730 TSG officers.

I did enjoy this…

SWANSEA, Wales, Nov. 6 (UPI) — An alleged burglar wanted by Welsh authorities sent a newspaper a picture of himself because he didn’t like the mug shot it published…… he sent a picture in, posing beside a Police van.

Police said Maynard’s stunt is likely to backfire as the newspaper printed the photo on its front page. “He is a berk. He thinks he is being clever by showing off like this, but we’ll have him in soon now,” one officer said. UPI

BUT… it isn’t just the criminals in Wales who are possibly a bit daft.  This classic from The Guardian reveals theat the Welsh Police or Heddlu may be a bit daft as well…

Psychic ‘leads’ prompt murder inquiry

Welsh police investigate information that mediums claim to have received from dead man’s ghost….

A police force has defended spending £20,000 investigating a man’s death after his ghost was said to have told psychics that gangsters had forced him to drink petrol and bleach.

Guardian

Well… another week goes by…. not long to Christmas and as I said on Twitter while mildly over refreshed the other night…. “Tomorrow I shall buy a Christmas tree, some hideous decorations and set fire to them…. why wait until Christmas to be a GRINCH.

Best, as always

Charon

The Law business and the business of law…

Will law firms be able to attract third party investors in the brave new world or will existing financial services business develop their own businesses by providing legal services or provide law services from scratch under their brands?

Well… to be perfectly honest, if I knew the full answer to that now,  I would probably be sitting in a lavishly appointed hotel (I would not waste money on my own lavish offices, of course) revealing my thoughts on the matter to eager and greedy lawyers for a ‘fee’ rather than sitting here on a Saturday afternoon, a glass of Rioja to my right,  and nipping off every so often to do 100 press ups or 30 curls with weights while I smoke on my balcony.

The difficulty with the present model of partner owned law firm is that Professor Stephen Mayson has a point (infra). Neil Rose argues in The Law Society Gazette that ‘Law firm partners are paid too much and their business will struggle to attract external investment because they are not worth as much as partners believe. Stephen Mayson, director of The College of Law’s think tank says that partners have to re-think how much they pay themselves.

Cutting to the chase – in the partnership model the profit goes to the partners, so there isn’t anything left for external investors.  To attract external investors there will have to be an attractive return on capital invested.  This means that the model will have to change.  Partners will have to convert drawings to a much smaller salary and share, as shareholders, along with external investors. Have they the appetite for this?  Of course, it is quite possible for law firms to come up with wonderful fudges by packaging off parts of their ‘business’ to external investors… but that, I shall  leave  for another time…and, who knows, possibly for that meeting at a lavishly appointed hotel with greedy lawyers?

The law firms will also have to build up a real brand, recognised not only in this country but worldwide.  Law firms are not very good at marketing themselves to the wider market, it would seem. Rachel Rothwell, writing in the The Law Society Gazette states that ‘More than 60 of the public cannot name a single law firm’.

While the top City firms are obviously well known to their specialist clientele – and they are not all interested in the wider market – this lack of brand recognition of law firm providers of legal services does not augur well for the future.

I would hazard a guess that most people would be able to name an Insurance company – Norwich Union, Churchill… come to mind immediately, for example.  Most people would be able to name a leading supermarket…. of course… Tesco et al comes to mind. There are many other large corporations out there with well known and trusted brands who are quite capable of providing high quality legal services.

The question is – will they invest in law firms with their antiquated business model structures and complex and possibly inefficient management and delivery infra-structures,  or will they start from scratch, paying good money to attract expertise?  I suspect it may be the latter model – for in business,  the brand and scaleability and liquidity of investment on a stock market is the real key.

When a solicitor or barrister, for that matter, decides to retire.  That’s it.  No further earnings or drawings and NO EQUITY… for there is nothing to sell.

I have a feeling if a law firm went into the Dragons in Dragon’s Den seeking investment… there would be five people saying “I’m OUT”.

It is wonderfully ironic that while law firms can’t build a brand within an investable model (yet)…. providers of legal education can and did.  BPP Law School, as part of BPP Holdings PLC, was sold to the yanks for a very large sum of money…..

***

PS – this may interest you – a tweet from a fellow tweeter…

filemot There is one #IPlaw firm already quoted on the London Stock Exchange http://www.murgitroyd.com/i…

Rive Gauche: Cock ups, being a cock and on ‘The Square’.

It is Friday, so there isn’t much legal news – journos having hyperventilated themselves into a state of collapse earlier in the week are, possibly, recovering from Thursday night – the new Friday.

So, in keeping with this spirit, I thought I would start a weekly section and being a ‘european’ with a small ‘e’, call it Rive Gauche.  This is more ‘coming out of left field’ rather than ‘left’ politics…

So… starting off with two stories from RollonFriday…

“BPP students found themselves anxiously waiting for their results last week, when the computer system failed yet again…..Students told RollOnFriday that when the LLB results were put out, the computer system simply couldn’t cope with the demand. One says that the system was down for most of the afternoon, and claims that “when I was finally able to log on I could only get access to a different student’s results“.”

A solemn press statement was issued by Peter Crisp, Dean and CEO of BPP Law School demonstrating  the usual masterly and exquisitely crafted exculpation.

ex·cul·pate
I am almost tempted to adopt this word as my word of the week.  For the many scholars of human activity who ‘peruse’ my blog… here is a little treat for you – not, of course, being scholars, that you need it… [Medieval Latin exculpre, exculpt- : Latin ex-, ex- + Latin culpa, guilt

And then the noble art of Cockery - being in a state of being a cock. We have all been a bit 'gauche' in our time (my cheeks still blush at some of things I did last week, let alone 30 years ago when I was in my mid-twenties... but here we have an Ashurst Trainee doing the business and suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous mockery on the RollonFriday discussion board no doubt..

Ouch!:  RollonFriday picked up the story...

An associate at Ashurst's Abu Dhabi office has been given a merciless ribbing after boasting about his Porsche and Rolex in a local newspaper.

Robin Hickman's interview is worth a read for the contradictions alone: His dad wasn't well off, apparently, but nonetheless owned a squash club and a Porsche. And Robin is frugal with money, but nonetheless blew a month's salary on a Rolex Daytona. Read more....

On the square?

While it is unlikely that you will find the body of God's Banker, Roberto Calvi, swinging from a rope under BlackFriar's Bridge, should you be out early of a morning (He did that some years ago) there were suggestions that he was done in by 'Masons'....

Wikipedia has an entry:

On 10 June 1982, Calvi went missing from his Rome apartment, having fled the country on a false passport in the name of Gian Roberto Calvini. He had shaved off his moustache and fled initially to Venice, and from there he apparently hired a private plane to London. At 7:30 AM on Friday 18 June 1982 a passing postman found his body hanging from scaffolding beneath Blackfriars Bridge in the financial district of London. Calvi's clothing was stuffed with building bricks, and he was carrying around $15,000 of cash in three different currencies.^[4]

Calvi had been a member of Licio Gelli’s illegal masonic lodge, P2, and members of P2 referred to themselves as frati neri or “black friars”. This has led to a suggestion in some quarters that Calvi was murdered as a masonic warning because of symbolism associated with the word “Blackfriars”.^[5]

It would seem that British Masons are not quite so direct. The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chanccellor, Jack Straw, has announced that it is OK for judges to be Masons and there is no longer any need for them to disclose this.Times

If you are not a Mason – and you would know if you are; although a non-mason would not know you are a Mason – here is The Square.

The Times notes… in a solemn and ritualistic manner… “The policy reversal was announced by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, after a threat of legal action forced a review. He said that it would be “disproportionate” to continue with the practice.’

But… all my concerns are allayed, put to rest, diluted …. by the statement in The Times:

But senior judges resisted being required to make the declaration. Lord Bingham of Cornhill, then Lord Chief Justice, said at the time that there had never been “a vestige of evidence that any judge in any case ever in this country has been diverted from his duty by any conflict arising from Freemasonic association”.

I can’t quite see why a judge, these days, would want to be a member of what is, essentially, a private and secret society…. must be the charitable foundation work Freemasons do… and they do a fair bit of that.

Tonight may be bonfire tonight… but tonight… I’m all about Europe!

Bonjour Willkommen bienvenue… as we say down on the River Medway….. but in fact… we say Hiya!  You alright?… which I quite like… and have found myself saying as I greet the taxi driver who whisks me from the Staterooms-on-Sea to Chatham Railway station.

It is wonderfully ironic that the Tories, who have some very strange bedfellows in European politics, are being pilloried for their ‘pathetic’ policies on Europe and today Pravda appears to agree with them with an article written by one Hans Vogel entitled “ Twenty Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the EU is a Reincarnation of the Former Soviet Union”

The irony was just too much for me – the former soviet Russia agreeing with the Tories….. who appear to be running their political marketing propaganda with the ineptitude and efficiency of an old soviet commune farm -  bit of an Eton Mess… as the saying goes…..that I just had to go an cook something particularly British (although I did use a good robust French red)… Steak Pie with puff pastry…. and it was good!

Politics.co.uk thinks Miliband is headed off to Europe as Great High Executioner on Foreign Policy… and that Lord Mandelbrot will soon be de-lorded to allow him to stand for parliament, look after things for one term and then hand back the reins of power to Miliband when he tires of being the Foreign Policy Shah of the new European super state. Curiously Miliband says he doesn’t want the job… which can only mean one thing, some say… that he is hyperventilating at the prospect.  After all who wants to be ‘Shadow’ Foreign Secretary…. ?

Losing our right to reject goods?  A right that has been with us since…. Time Immemorial?

The trouble with Europe…. is the Europeans….  who think so very differently than we do; who are used to centralised state control, who seem to prefer a strong state and over regulation – which they then promptly appear to ignore.

An example of European thinking is the Euro plan to abolish the right to reject goods under ss13,14 Sale of Goods Act 1979 (and, presumably at common law in Contract) in favour of a requirement to accept a replacement or repair.  Bugger that…. our Contract Law works, it is absolutist in nature, unfairly fair at times – but at least business people know where they stand – and the European laws on Contract are a bit… well…. European and wishy washy..

The Times takes up the story…

The right of consumers to reject faulty goods must be retained in the UK despite European plans to abolish it, legal watchdogs said yesterday. The Law Commissions of England and Wales, and Scotland, have thrown their weight behind retaining the right which consumers have exercised for more than 200 years. There is overwhelming support among both the public and businesses for keeping the right to reject faulty goods – currently the subject of 10 million complaints a year. But the European Commission has proposed a new directive on consumer rights which, if adopted, would force the UK to abolish the right to reject in favour of a right to a repair or replacement.

I am, of course, a Contract lawyer, albeit academic… but I am a militant one…. and our Law Commission is right to throw weight behind the issue and kick this latest eEuro fuck up into the river.

Good grief… I like Europe… but the Frenchies and others may just have crossed my line in the sand with this proposal.  Vive La Revolution…. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité… as we say down on the Medway.

Blawg Review #236 – Halloween Edition by Eric Turkewitz

Eric Turkewitz writes a ‘mean’ Blawg Review… and I mean that in the Cowboy Western ‘mean an ornery’ sense…of the word I heard as a child when I was transfixed by Rawhide, Gunsmoke et al.  From a Marathon themed Blawg Review, written by him some time back and which was superb, to the dark depths of the ghouls…. of Halloween - a US festival and calendar import we Brits are taking to our hearts… perhaps even more than Guy Fawkes night.

As ever, Eric Turkewitz manages to cover a wide range of blogs in a highly readable way…. as I am always pleased to say to friends…. every day is Halloween for me…. believe me… I don’t need the make up.

Go and read Eric’s excellent Blawg Review # 236. It has been a strange old week and I am a bit behind on the reading….

 

PS… while we are on the subject of US blogs… I see that the US prof who was suing Above The Law has decided against ….

ARRIVEDERCI LONDRA!

ARRIVEDERCI LONDRA!
by Tonto Papadopoulos

A grave and present threat looms on the horizon: one that could wilt the economic life of The City, London, the entire UK – maybe the World.

You’ve heard it again and again, and you’ve been warned, “If banks don’t hand out billions in bonuses, talent will migrate!”… leaving tumbleweeds blowing down Moorgate, and the rest of Britain.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what’s known as ‘talking your own book’. Do groups like Goldman Sachs gee the market with purple commentary to try to make themselves and their product seem more attractive, and more valuable? Do they talk their own book?

You bet they do – and so what.

Talking your own book has been part of human behaviour since the first enterprising caveman collected an inventory of rocks. The financial markets are a poker game not a tea dance. If other speculators, fund managers, government, the media, etc. are dumb enough to believe slick table talk from Goldman et alia, tough beans on them.

Banking “talent” threatening to leave London sounds more like the hollow demands of a not-very-attractive gold-digging spouse, “You wanna keep getting some of this, Frank?… You know what to do.”  As long as the rewards are consented to and  mutual who am I to argue with arrangements between two adults, but in the case of the banks one has to wonder exactly what value shareholders are receiving in exchange for the huge sums lavished on human resources.

We’ll have a look at what all of this “talent” we might lose constitutes in a second article, right now the obvious question is, if they left London, where would all these financial rainmakers go?

Let’s imagine a worst case scenario. Let’s suppose for a mad cow second that The City and Wall Street suddenly became the bastions of prudence and responsibility they’re meant to be. What if bankers didn’t hand themselves thousands of multi-million bonuses this year. Or next? Or ever again? What then?  I know that nowadays this sounds like a crazy nightmare or some whacked out LSD trip, but  please bear with me.

If bonuses were pared back in London and New York there are several choices open to the bank employee looking for the supra-valuation of his own merit to which he’s become so accustomed. Let’s not forget these are mostly the same clever individuals who weren’t clever enough to see the well-telegraphed crunch in 2008, the very same people who helped to create the financial crisis. Well, any one of these brainiacs could go to Tokyo, Singapore, Shanghai, or Hong Kong; or closer to home, Paris, Frankfurt, and Milan beckon; or staying in the Anglosphere let’s not forget Dublin, or knocking on doors for surreal and over-the-top lucre in Sydney or Johannesburg. Assuming there’s the money and the will. That’s a big assumption.

Most of all London should be scared of Milan. Milan could easily lure tomorrow’s grabby financial cat, for the following good reasons (besides the fabulous shopping on Via Montenapoleone, one of the few temples of conspicuous spending that can actually compete with London financial districts): For one thing, in Italy you have a very supportive government. No one knows how to sweep Blunders & Corruption of Historic Proportion under the rug with flair, style, and perseverance – no one knows how to “take a lickin’ and keep on tickin’!” –  quite like the Berlusconi administration does.

Second, Italians’ appetite for flamboyant excess is legendary.

Third, if by any chance said legendary flamboyant excess were begrudged, in Italy banks can always fall back on a solid organised crime infrastructure staffed by individuals who fully appreciate the buccaneering self-interest displayed by opportunists and careerists. I mean this in the best possible way.

Come to think of it what stops the entire City from uprooting itself to an offshore oil platform  like a Bond movie villain might do? Most of the big banks have already extirpated themselves from The City to Canary Wharf. Decamping a few more miles away, or 6,000 miles away, is therefore not inconceivable.

But please, let’s THINK.

For all the whooping and hollering the fact is that regardless of big bonuses there is no substitute for London as the major international financial centre. There are many reasons, but the most obvious one (doh!) is the Time Zone between Tokyo and New York. The main reason London is a global hub today – just as it’s been since Roman times – is geographic.

The other lock London has on its role is that the language of the markets, just like the language of, say, international air traffic control – is English.

Oops, I forgot: having a large concentration of English-speakers means maybe also we see threats to London’s pre-eminence from canny Bangalore, East Timor, the wily Kingdom of Bhutan, and many parts of Sri Lanka? Maybe even Newcastle-upon-Tyne?

No. It takes more than just speaking English to create a financial centre. Apart from the geographic high ground that London has, it takes money, and it requires relationships.

Where is money concentrated in this world? The biggest user and abuser of capital is the US, a nation that requires at least $2 billion of inflows per day just to sustain the American Dream (and a couple of long distance wars). And with whom does the US have its closest relationship?

Britain serves as America’s aircraft carrier. This is a role that evolved during WWI, developed during WWII, flowered after Big Bang and the Thatcher/Reagan lovefest, and came into full, heartsick bloom with Tony Blair, “cementing our special relationship”.

Yes, the Continent is also between Tokyo and New York, but London’s time zone puts it one hour closer to US time, and there is no price on 60 minutes in modern financial markets. Paris and Frankfurt don’t ignore these facts about London’s hold as a global focus point for capital transactions, which is why they don’t bother playing the bonus game to the extent we do in the UK. They could offer the sky and the moon. Dubai has, and what has it achieved? Dubai… who?

Try as they may, no one can change geography, and altering the bonds of history can take centuries.  Bonuses or not, no prima donna will be saying arrivederi, Londra in a hurry. Anyway, based on the appalling failures that came to a head in 2008 we should all be wishing they would leave!

Cameron sets out policy for Europe

Bar Council Launches It’s Your Call – A Career at the Bar

Bar Council Launches It’s Your Call – A Career at the Bar
(3 November 2009)

The Bar Council has published the fourth annual edition of It’s Your Call, a guide for those interested in joining the Bar.  The guide, published in collaboration with the Inns of Court, is the latest in a series of publications designed to inform the public and those interested in a career as a barrister.