Personality is part of politics whether politicians like it or not. Spitting Image, the parody puppet show years ago, showed how a politician’s parody image could become more ‘real’ in the public mind than the reality of a thousand speeches in the House of Commons. When I think of Lord Tebbitt even today… I still think about the puppet of him dressed up a s a leathered up biker bovver boy. I still think of John Major, grey, eating peas. I prefer not to conjure up images of him having sex with Edwina Currie – revelations which followed his premiership. Guido Fawkes coined the phrase the ‘Prime Mentalist, and it is increasingly the case on blogs, in the mainstream media, that Brown is painted as a violent, bad tempered, dysfunctional man. His Nokia throwing escapades are, they say, legendary.
Guido Fawkes’ latest piece is worth a read: Labour Will Have a Khrushchev Moment of Truth in the End
Guido writes:
As we come closer to the dénouement of this government more and more will come out confirming the truth of this characterisation. The increasingly manifest weirdness of the man means that his acolytes are now reduced to excusing him as a “poor communicator”. Poor communication skills do not explain the widely reported acts of violent rage, poor communication skills do not explain the bizarre behaviour, the appalling mistreatment of junior staff or the violent Nokia chucking abuse towards aides.
The demented dithering of Downing Street’s dysfunctional operation is now well known throughout Westminster and openly recognised in Whitehall. The decision making processes that determine the strategic direction of the country have almost broken down. This stems in large part from the personality of Gordon Brown.
I have very little interest in football and even less in what footballers get up to. If the England Captain wants to behave badly towards his wife by having extra-curricular activities with another woman that is really a matter for his wife to take a stance on. Being an election year, it was no suprise to find that a government minister has piled in. Politicians seem to be falling over themselves to bathe themselves in the glory (or caddery) of our sports stars.
The Financial Times notes: “Mr -Justice Tugendhat lifted the injunction on Friday after spending a week examining the case in which he came to the conclusion that the gagging order was largely to protect commercial deals and not justified by “the level of gravity of the interference with the private life of the applicant”. Under the terms of the super-injunction, which has become increasingly popular, newspapers cannot identify the applicant. Hugh Tomlinson, a QC at Matrix Chambers, said: “This is a welcome reminder of the rigorous tests that have to be satisfied before injunctions are granted.” Dan Tench, a partner at Olswang, which specialises in media law, said the ruling was a “manifesto” judgment that set out a stricter approach for those seeking such injunctions. The approach has been contrasted with that of Mr Justice Eady, who has been accused by newspapers of creating a privacy law after awarding injunctions to individuals such as Max Mosley, the Formula One chief, although some lawyers argue the attacks on the judge are overdone.”
It is refreshing to see the High Court taking a different line to the use of super-injunctions. Perhaps they will be rather more difficult to get in the future?The FT notes that other lawyers take a more sanguine view – that Tugendhat J is even more ‘pro-privacy’ than Eady J and suggest that this stance is more to do with the ‘limited utility’ of granting injunctions in the global internet age.
Pressure is mounting for a clarification on the law of assisted dying. The Independent reports that a poll shows that 73% are in favour of assisted dying.
Pratchett: ‘Let me be suicide court test case’
Sir Terry Pratchett, who has Alzheimer’s, wants to see a tribunal set up to which people with incurable diseases can apply for assistance. A legal expert and a doctor who had dealt with serious, long-term illness would be part of the body, he will add. “If I knew that I could die, I would live. My life, my death, my choice,” he will say.
We’re getting desperate, say kidnapped British couple
The Times reports: Britain reiterated its refusal to pay a ransom for the British couple kidnapped by Somali pirates as a video emerged yesterday in which Paul and Rachel Chandler pleaded for the Government to help.
Britain has taken a consistent stance in public over kidnap cases. The government does not submit to blackmail or terror ransom demands. A Foreign & Commonwealth Office spokesman said “We do not make substantive concessions to hostage takers, that includes paying ransoms.”
The position is entirely logical, if rather harsh for the unwilling victims. The Somali pirates, we are told, regard kidnapping and ship seizure as a business. It appears to be an extremely successful and profitable business – ransom demands have been met elsewhere. Why would the Somali pirates stop if governments and ship owners are prepared to buy their ships back? Tragic though it could well be for the British couple and their families if the Somali pirates do carry out their threat to execute them – it must be the right stance for the government to take? I have to admit, however, that it was a bizarre choice of sailing holiday destination. There aren’t many Somali or any other pirates in the Med, in the West Indies and pirates have not been sited around the coasts of Britain and mainland Europe for several hundred years. The couple are in very real danger, but presumably they were aware of the attendant risks of sailing in that region and if they weren’t, they should have been. [It has been pointed out – rightly – that the Chandlers were in Seychelles Waters and were heading towards Tanzania when they were hijacked and towed towards Somalia – fair point. Happy to correct.}
They say that the Somali pirates rarely injure or kill their hostages. I don’t know enough about the subject to be more precise. There can be little profit in it for the Somali’s to kill an elderly British couple, given the British government stance. A Spanish or French couple, on the other hand may well have luckier. Both the Spanish and French governments have, reportedly, paid kidnappers off according to The Times.
Yesterday I wrote about Solicitorsfromhell.com – a website set up to name and shame lawyers (into paying money to have their names removed from the list)
Hat Tip to Brian Inkster, of Inksters – a Scots law firm – for information on a Scottish ‘lawyers from hell’ name and shame website: Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers
Lawyers and Iraq – living with the consequences
Jonathan Goldsmith, secretary general of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, writing in the Law Society Gazette has an interesting piece on lawyers involved in the Iraq Inquiry last week. The Foreign & Commonwealth lawyers, Wilmshurt and Sir Michael Wood stated that the war was unlawful. Jack Straw, Lord Chancellor ignored this advice and took the view that as he had chanced it before the courts while at The Home Office and won, he would regard the war as lawful and Lord Goldsmith, who initially took the the view that the war was unlawful, had a Damascus moment after a visit to the United States etc etc etc.
Jonathan Goldsmith makes this rather poignant comment “I do not envy the participants in this decision, who were required to give advice in just the kind of circumstances which calls on the lawyer’s deepest core principles. I do not know how I would have behaved (and I fear the worst about myself). But I imagine that the legal profession will have to live with the consequences, in terms of the image of lawyers and the image of what legal advice means, for a long time.”
I do like understatement.
Attorneys in UAE
Need a lawyer/Legal expert in Dubai
EDIT BY CHARON
Pay for adverts you tight fisted buffoons…. no spamming accepted on this blog… next time you try this stunt… I shall re-direct your post to a very dodgy site. You have been warned. I have removed telephone numbers… but have legft your URL as given…so people can have a look at what modern law firms are doing to get free adverts on blogs.
I saw the “solicitors from hell” article in thursday’s Gazette – the “best” part being one can get one’s name removed for a fee.
At best, unseemly – at worst, blackmail?
I am surprised that nobody’s hit back with a defamation suit and injunction application. If the owner of the site (and I do say “if”) is running the site from his basement, I would wonder if he would have sufficient means to provide an undertaking.
I understand that the Chandlers were in fact in Seychelles waters on passage to Tanzania when their yacht was hijacked and towed towards Somalia. The original route is a favorite of yachties sailing the Indian Ocean, who until this event, have had no real reason to be concerned about full-on piracy in that particular region. Good luck with your relocation!
David – Fair point… i didn’t fully appreciate that last point…. it is a sad situation. Hopefully the Somalis will release them on the premise that they are not hated by people for killing innocents at the moment… which they will be if they do execute this elderly couple.
Hijacking big ships and trying it on with governments and ship owners is a very different thing from killing unarmed innocent yachties… African and International public opinion wd not be with them if they did that..
The Chandler’s and the Somali Pirates. Am I alone in thinking that the British government hardly come out of this smelling of roses. Was it not the case that a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship was nearby, knew of the situation and failed to intervene? Hardly in the Nelsonian tradition was it?
Obiter J – I haven’t followed this story very closely. I didn’t know that there was a fleet Auxiliary nearby. I do recall something about ‘rules of engagement’ and fears of people being killed if assaults not being planned thoroughly with the correct resources..
Bit more information here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article6915658.ece