D-Notice 2012

Out of Station Interchanges

2012-01-25T13:21:00.003Z

Earlier today I saw on Twitter that TfL have released a useful document under the Freedom of Information Act.

It's a guide to fares which they hand out to their ticket inspectors.

It also includes a list of what are classed as "Out of Station Interchanges" on p. 174 - when you can leave one station and enter another without being charged extra, e.g. Bounds Green and Bowes Park.

While I am glad that has been released, it's the sort of thing which should automatically be on their own website, so that people know that they can make changes easily.

Can anyone think of a reason why they would not do so?

Pay my phone bill!

2011-12-22T18:58:00.000Z

I recently bought a new phone.

Instead of remaining on Orange, I decided to use GiffGaff.

They work on a referral system.

For £10/month I get 250 mins + unlimited texts + unlimited data.

There are no issues with coverage as they use O2's network, because they are a subsidiary of them.

It's a fantastic offer & I recommend that others sign up too.

If you want to sign up for them, click here.

[If you go through me, I get a referral bonus]

Kim Jong-(is too) Il

2011-12-19T20:57:00.000Z

You are probably aware that the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il has died.

Officially he died of a heart attack caused by "great mental and physical strain caused by his uninterrupted field guidance tour for the building of a thriving nation"*.

Out of curiosity I asked on Twitter if anyone has seen any pro-Kim articles.I then went over to Facebook and saw that a friend had "Liked" the Juche Idea Study Group of England.

It seems to be a North Korean propaganda group who are based in Winchester.

I wonder if they have any talks planned? It'd be interesting to go along to one.

UPDATE: There is a piece on the Guardian about how the West should now work with North Korea. It has a pro-North Korean lean, but is not strictly pro-Kim.

UPDATE: Yay! A pro-Kim piece from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist).

* I would link to the official North Korean state media's site, but they don't let to link to individual articles, but it is headed "Medical Analysis of Kim Jong Il′s Demise"

Lies, damn lies & Misleading Retweets

2011-11-23T16:23:00.001Z

Saw this on Twitter today:

Is this the sort of thing a reasonable person would do?I think not.

UPDATE: It gets stranger...

Over on The Blog That Peter Wrote is a piece going into more detail about what happened.

Cole has appeared in the comments saying

Peter, I like a lot of what you write so was sad to see this one. The tweet was done at the heat of the moment and does fall more into your latter suggestion [that, as Peter puts it, Cole "'innocently' amended the tweet because there wasn't space to put his insult about Ireland's wife in the 140 characters"] of space. So furious at the ridiculous allegation of the original tweet that on reflection I should probably have stopped and retweeted the original in whole at first. However the allegation that I was somehow threatening to his wife and kids is and remains bs. As I went on to explain in further tweets, Ireland is deluded with his giant conspiratorial web, that I'm frankly bored of being slightly tangled in. I stand by my denial of his assertions and am more annoyed I broke the first and second rules of Tim Ireland club. Engaging.

I think that Cole has misinterpreted Peter's view - see how "innocently" is in quotation marks and how he notes that it carries on about Mrs. Tim.He also says

That I am in anyway protecting someone and thus a threat to your family is a crock Tim. That is the allegation you made and that is my denial. Again.

Even though - as is clear from the two images - Tim made no such claim.

At the best, it seems that reading comprehension isn't Cole's strong point.

At worst, we it appears that Cole wanted to alter Tim's original message in order to give misleading impression of him, and, in a later message, to suggest that Tim has a persecution complex towards Cole.

Person of the Year 2011

2011-11-20T17:29:00.001Z

I came across this a few weeks ago, but it seems like I didn't write about it.

Every year Time Magazine hand out a "Person of the Year" award.

It is given to the person who "has most influenced the news" over the past year.

Given this year's events, there can only really be one winner: Mohammad Al Bouazizi AKA the Tunisian guy who set himself on fire last December.

This led to the Tunisians overthrowing their dictator, as well as causing revolutions in other Middle Eastern & North African countries.

This has obviously been the biggest news event of the year.

Everyone should vote for him and hopefully Time will do the right thing.

'Tis the Season

2011-11-20T15:33:00.001Z

As we're getting close to Christmas it's time for the annual "They've Banned Christmas!!!!!1!!!!!1111!!!!!" myths to re-appear.

As previously said, the Daily Mail has admitted that its "Birmingham have replaced Christmas with Winterval" piece was a load of bollocks.

However, other myths exist.

Thanks to Jamie Sport, I've discovered that on Facebook people are ranting about the Red Cross Banning Christmas so as "not to offend Muslims" or to "peaceifi [sic] muslims", amongst other things.

Shockingly, this too, is a complete load of crap.

Last year the Red Cross did a blog post about how the claim is a load of rubbish, and Jamie has kindly agreed to let me reproduce it:

Yesterday, we started getting some comments on our Facebook page from people angry with us for ‘banning Christmas’, which we haven’t, and the story now seems to be spreading on some American websites.

It turns out that these people have stumbled across an article that appeared in the Daily Mail in 2002 and now forms part of the paper’s online archive. Unfortunately, the article isn’t dated on the Mail’s site, which had led some people to believe this was a current news story – although references in it to Sangatte, the Calais refugee camp that closed in 2002, do serve to date it. We denied the gist of the piece strongly at the time.

Christmas is a major UK holiday and time of celebration, which is shared by people of all faiths and those of no faith. Many of our shops and offices are decked out in festive decorations around this time of year – we also sell a range of Christmas cards and gifts in our shops, both high street and online.

It’s true that you won’t find explicitly religious items or displays, relating to any faith, in any of our shops, at Christmas or any other time. But this certainly doesn’t amount to a ban on us celebrating or mentioning Christmas, or any other holiday. And it’s absolutely nothing to do with “offending non-Christians” or to serve any other sort of politically correct agenda.

The point is that the Red Cross is not a political or religious organisation. This neutrality is one of our fundamental principles and governs everything we do in the whole Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It means that we can reach and help people in need, whoever and wherever they are. Often we provide help in countries that other organisations cannot or will not work in.We cross front lines in times of war to help conflict victims and visit prisoners of war on both sides. We can only do this life-saving work because we are understood to be a completely neutral, independent organisation. Put simply, our neutrality saves lives.

We can’t let people in need down by compromising our neutrality. That is why we do not align ourselves with any particular political cause or religious creed anywhere in the world. And that’s why we don’t have any items of a religious nature in our shops.

A nativity scene in a shop in Kent might seem like it has nothing to do with our sensitive, precarious work in a war zone in Africa or the Middle East. But in a world where information travels quickly and pervasively – a world where an eight-year-old news story is still raising questions with our supporters – we have to make sure we act consistently across the board with regard to our neutrality.

We wish all our supporters a merry Christmas and a happy new year!

Hopefully more people will see this message and how it's wrong.

CFAs/"No Win No Fee" cases aren't being scrapped

2011-11-18T23:03:00.001Z

A video appeared on the Guardian today, which, unfortunately, is based on a false belief - that No win, no fee agreements are going to be scrapped/severely limited.

They're not.

There's nothing in the government's "Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill" (Part 2 has the planned changes to legal costs) - or the Jackson Report (PDF) on which it's based - about scrapping these things.

At most, all they are going to do is make "success fees" - a bonus payable to the solicitor and/or barrister for winning a case on a CFA - unrecoverable from the losing side.

This has no bearing whatsoever on CFAs themselves, or access to justice generally.

Lawyers will always take a case on if they consider that it has a decent chance of winning.

For what the government does plan to do, I refer to my three previous posts.

In defence of Anjem Choudhury

2011-11-10T18:35:00.001Z

You may have heard that the government has banned a group who call themselves "Muslims Against Crusades", efective as of 23:59:59 GMT.

The group is/was led by a guy called Anjem Choudhury.He was he founder of a Group called Islam4UK, before it too was banned.

All he does is acts which he knows will cause hysterical reactions in the public.

This is known as Trolling.It may annoy you, or piss you off, but that's not a reason to criminalise the twat!

It's a case of "We have to do something" and "Ban this sick filth".

All that will happen is he'll create a new group, which will carry on as before.

Daily Mail: Winterval is a myth

2011-11-08T08:16:00.000Z

The Daily Mail has finally - after 14 long, frustrating years - admitted that "Winterval" is a myth.I would do a long post, but suggest that people read Dave Cross's instead.

A tabloid-friendly guide to the EU and ECHR

2011-10-31T21:10:00.000Z

While media watching, one thing you notice is a repeated confusion between the European Union (EU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (run by the Council of Europe, CoE).

This may be completely inadvertent, but the Sun, Daily Mail and Express do make this mistake on a regular basis, amongst other "errors".

I thought I would help them out.

Wikipedia has the following diagram showing how the jurisdiction of various European bodies overlaps*, as well as a few extra bits**:

As you can see there is a clear overlap between the EU and CoE/ECtHR - in fact to join the EU you must be a member of the CoE/ECtHR - but it is clear that there is a significant difference between the two, even when simply looking at the members of each.

The main difference is that one is more trade-related; one more co-operation related.

The EU was set up in 1958 by various western European countries, but not the UK (which created the European Free Trade Association in response), to help them trade with each other. In fact, the basic idea of the EU is to create an economic bloc between various countries via a single internal market.

The CoE was set up in 1949 - by the UK among others - is more of an inter-governmental co-operation organisation, kind of like a Europe-only UN, with a specific focus on civil rights by the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK drafted, and a less obvious focus on pharmacology standards.

So while it can be seen that there are similarities between the two, there are obvious differences.

Hopefully, the tabloids will read this and take note, especially as the EU has already attempted to point this out, albeit without success.

* There are a few bodies which aren't shown on the diagram, including the Central European Free Trade Agreement (which will probably be swallowed up by the EU in the future given the EU's Candidates and Potential Candidates), and the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia which is rarely mentioned in the UK.

** The other items are the European Free Trade Association; the European Economic Area; the EU Customs Zone; and the Schengen Area; as well as showing non-EU countries countries which have agreements to mint €s, but not those which decided to use it, without reaching a formal agreement, due to historic reasons.

We regret the error...

2011-10-31T19:37:00.000Z

You may or not know that the Daily Mail has recently started a "Corrections and Clarifications" column.

It appears to be an attempt to defend the current status of media self-regulation, which is currently being investigated by the Leveson inquiry.

By way of keeping track of what is published Dave Cross has started up a site which feeds the Mail's corrections into one place: Corrections and Clarifications.

As Dave points out:

It’s a pretty half-arsed affair for many reasons. The only way to find it is by searching for it by title. There’s no link for it anywhere on the site and it doesn’t seem to have been given its own section. Most bizarrely, the corrections don’t appear in the main web feed for the paper.

None of the corrections link back to the original story and in many cases you only get a vague description to help you work out which story they are talking about. And even if you work out which story they’re talking about, it’s often impossible to find the story on the web site as it has been removed.

Any suggestions can be emailed to corrections@mailonsunday.co.uk or sent via post.

The real cause of the Eurozone crisis?

2011-10-28T13:19:00.002+01:00

I saw this article on Twitter a few days ago.

The article itself is in Spanish, but that's of no real concern; what counts is the graph:

It shows when interest rates on government bonds of various Euro-zone countries changed.

As can be seen, everything was fine until Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008, so kicking-off the world's current economic problems.

Is this the actual cause of Greece's current problems?

Govt to AMCD: STFU

2011-10-26T21:32:00.002+01:00

I forgot to mention this when it came out 2 weeks ago...

The government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs - which advises the government how best to enforce the anti-drug laws, and from which David Nutt was sacked almost 2 years ago - said that the government should decriminalise possession of all illegal drugs, like in Portugal.

In a shocking response the government has ~~actually agreed to implement its recommendations forthwith~~ responded with STFU.

I could make a comment about the government being addicted and unable to see the damaging effects of its actions, but its too easy.

I guess all that I can do is go "*sigh*"...

A potential SNP/UKIP tie-up?

2011-10-26T20:10:00.000+01:00

The United Kingdom Independence Party - if you're not aware - want the UK to leave the EU.

I seem to have stumbled upon a way to help them achieve it. Back in May an article was published in a Scottish legal magazine about the legal implications should Scotland declare independence from the rest of the UK.

The article quotes Lorand Bartels (a lecturer of International Economic Law at Edinburgh University, and Senior Lecturer in Law at Cambridge):

“Both as a matter of international law and as a matter of EU law, Scotland would have to negotiate its accession to the EU as a new member state” *

This suggests than upon a declaration of independence, Scotland would no longer be part of the EU, possibly automatically.

Scotland is currently run by the Scottish National Party. One of their plans is to hold a referendum on whether Scotland should remain part of the UK. **

Scottish independence was not mentioned in UKIP's manifesto for this year's Scottish elections (PDF) and it does not appear to be covered on their website. In fact, UKIP have spoken out against the SNP even though their plans would ensure UKIP's policies are implemented.

Therefore, I suggest that UKIP move all their supporters to Scotland and vote en masse for independence should there be a referendum. Basically, UKIP should follow the plan of the "Free State Project" - a US proposal for all libertarians to move to New Hampshire and make it a stronghold for them due to a bloc vote.

UPDATE: Coincidentally, Obiter J has done a post covering this issue too - from a more legal, non-piss-taking point of view.

* He carries on by showing that should Scotland wish to re-join the EU, it would have to go through the qualification criteria, like other prospective members

** They refer to Scotland being a "member of the EU...", but, of course, this would be incorrect should independence be declared.

UK in the European, what? Union/Economic Area/Free Trade Agreement

2011-10-25T14:03:00.000+01:00

You're probably aware that the bill to hold a referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EU was defeated last night.

If it had passed, I planned to do a post going through the pluses and minuses of the various options: stay in the EU; leave but remain part of the EEA, like Norway or Liechtenstein, and so still have to follow EU law without a say in it; do a "Switzerland"; or choose do summat else entirely.

Of course, my post is now not necessary, but I would like to flag up this post by Jon Worth going into what I would have covered.

The EUSSR exists!!!!!

2011-10-05T20:47:00.000+01:00

When dealing with anti-EU types, one phrase they tend to use is "EUSSR".

As can be seen, it's meant to suggest that the EU is the same as the Soviet Union.

Of course, this is complete bollocks. After all, the USSR wasn't really up on free movement of goods, capital, services or people, what with it being a communist dictatorship.

Anyway, I was reading a report which the EU published a few days ago concerning its 2010 dealings with other countries over human rights.

It's quite an interesting read, especially the sections covering the Middle East and North Africa given this year's events.

While I was reading it I found discovered something alarming: the EUSSR does exist! Seriously, it does - check pg. 124, para. 5.4.11.

Of course, the EU's use of the term is somewhat different; in the report it is an acronym for "EU mission in support of the Security Sector Reform", which is was created to help stabilise Guinea-Bissau but closed last year due to the on-going situation there.

Back of the net!

2011-10-04T21:52:00.000+01:00

You probably heard that the European Court of Justice has ruled in favour of a pub landlady from Portsmouth who was sued for copyright by the Premier League.

I was going to write summat, but there's three posts by Head of Legal which go into more detail than I possibly could do - or, frankly, would want to - and gives a good overview of its overall impact.

If you wanna go into a lot of detail I'd recommend reading the whole lot (and also the judgement if you want a flavour of how thrilling it is to read EU law).

If not, I'll summarise it: if you have a valid subscription for the Premier League from any EU country, e.g. Greece, and want to use it in any other EU country, e.g. the UK, you can't be stopped. It's based on one of the main features of the EU: the free movement of goods.

Amanda Knox is guilty!

2011-10-03T22:21:00.001+01:00

You may be aware that Amanda Knox has been cleared of murder.

However, if you'd stumbled upon the Daily Mail's website, you would have thought otherwise.

This was published on the Mail's website as soon as the judge said "Guilty". However, he was referring to her being "guilty" of defamation, not murder.

Nevertheless, it appears that whoever publishes articles on the Mail's website jumped the gun. A piece went up with the URL slug-words: Amanda-Knox-verdict-GUILTY-appeal-murder-conviction-rejected.

The artice has since been removed, but a screenshot was taken by @syn for posterity.

While it has captions including "Media scum", what it interesting is that the Mail's erroneous article has "quotes" from the prosecution.

The killer paragraph is:

Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said "Justice has been done" although they said on a "human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail"

Clearly they would only make such comments upon there being a guilty verdict. Even ignoring the fact that she was innocent and so the quotes would never have been made, the timing of the article on its own (8:50 p.m.) would suggest that the "quotes" are fake.

Nothing but Job-Killing Regulations and Red Tape!

2011-10-02T16:32:00.001+01:00

According to the Sun, George Osborne has said that he wants to slash what are technically referred to as "job killing regulations" and summarises views which he received at last year's Tory conference

"What a lot of the businesses in the audience said was, 'You are just making it too difficult to employ people. There is too much red tape, there are too many obstacles, you are asking us to take too many risks'. We have listened to those businesses."

Amongst other things, this will include increasing the qualification time before you can bring a claim for unfair dismissal from 1 year to 2 years. Oddly, reversing his own VAT increase doesn't get a mention...

Coincidentally enough, a few days ago I was involved in a discussion on Twitter over "red tape" in the UK, and thought it would be a good idea to see how the UK ranks overall.

I stumbled upon a Wikipedia article called the "Ease of Doing Business Index". This is an annual survey done by the World Bank that ranks every country in order of how easy it is to, well, do business there. As of 2011, the UK ranks #4.

As PPUKScuzz said "If we're already 4th (abo[ve] the US/Japan/Germany) red tape is obviously not the biggest issue".However, as with many studies, it does have its share of criticisms.

Thankfully, there are alternative rankings. These includes one made by the Heritage Foundation and Wall St Journal called the "Index of Economic Freedom", in which we rank #16; the Fraser Institute creates one known as the "Economic Freedom of the World" in which we rank #8; while the World Economic Forum publishes two different ones: the "Global Competitiveness Report", in which we rank #10; and "Global Enabling Trade Report", which ranked us as #17 in 2010. *

So we have 5 different studies. Some from right-wing think-tanks, others from international bodies. An average of these puts the UK at #11.

Given that we have such a high ranking, I doubt that anyone can seriously claim that the UK is suffering from "red tape" and "obstacles" like Osborne does...

PS. I also thought that this quote was worth highlighting

"To go on strike because you are being offered a better pension than your next-door neighbour at a time when maybe your next-door neighbour is facing losing their job is something that is very difficult to justify."

In other words, "That's a nice job you have there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it".

* There are almost certainly others, but I just wanted to give an overview.

What Does the EU Know?

2011-09-28T19:51:00.000+01:00

You may be aware of the website What Do They Know?

The idea is that it helps people take advantage of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by making it easier to make requests to public bodies.

As of next week there will be an EU-specific version, made by the same people: AskTheEU.org.*

I'm not sure if I'l be making any requests, but know that this is a good thing - anything which helps gets information into the public sphere should generally be supported.

No sensible person can be opposed to this. I'm not sure of UKIP's position, but if they want to have nay credibility, and simply be a crank party, they should be in favour of citizens having access to information so that people can make a fully informed decision about the EU. However, I have asked them via their Twitter page, the BNP too.

* It actually launched earlier this week, but won't be taking requests from the general public until 3rd October

SOCPA RIP... or is it?

2011-09-25T19:39:00.000+01:00

Last week the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 received Royal Assent.

Amongst other things, s. 141 of the Act repeals s. 132-8 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, the "Parliament Protest" ones.

These sections stated the following:

Demonstrations invicinity of Parliament

132 Demonstratingwithout authorisation in designated area

(1) Any person who—

(a) organises ademonstration in a public place in the designated area, or

(b) takes part in ademonstration in a public place in the designated area, or

(c) carries on ademonstration by himself in a public place in the designated area,

is guilty of anoffence if, when the demonstration starts, authorisation for thedemonstration has not been given under section 134(2).

(2) It is a defencefor a person accused of an offence under subsection (1) to show thathe reasonably believed that authorisation had been given.

(3) Subsection (1)does not apply if the demonstration is—

(a) a publicprocession of which notice is required to be given under subsection(1) of 11 of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64), or of which (byvirtue of subsection (2) of that section) notice is not required tobe given, or

(b) a publicprocession for the purposes of section 12 or 13 of that Act.

(4) Subsection (1)also does not apply in relation to any conduct which is lawful under section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation)Act 1992 (c. 52).

(5) If subsection (1)does not apply by virtue of subsection (3) or (4), nothing insections 133 to 136 applies either.

(6) Section 14 of thePublic Order Act 1986 (imposition of conditions on public assemblies) does not apply in relation to a public assembly which is also ademonstration in a public place in the designated area.

(7) In this sectionand in sections 133 to 136—

(a) “the designatedarea” means the area specified in an order under section 138,

(b) “public place”means any highway or any place to which at the material time the public or any section of the public has access, on payment orotherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or impliedpermission,

(c) references to anyperson organising a demonstration include a person participatingin its organisation,

(d) references to anyperson organising a demonstration do not include a person carryingon a demonstration by himself,

(e) references to anyperson or persons taking part in a demonstration (except in subsection (1) of this section) include a person carrying on ademonstration by himself.

133 Notice ofdemonstrations in designated area

(1) A person seekingauthorisation for a demonstration in the designated area must give written notice to that effect to the Commissioner of Police of theMetropolis (referred to in this section and section 134 as “theCommissioner”).

(2) The notice must begiven—

(a) if reasonablypracticable, not less than 6 clear days before the day on which the demonstration is to start, or

(b) if that is notreasonably practicable, then as soon as it is, and in any event notless than 24 hours before the time the demonstration is to start.

(3) The notice must begiven—

(a) if thedemonstration is to be carried on by more than one person, by any ofthe persons organising it,

(b) if it is to becarried on by a person by himself, by that person.

(4)The notice muststate—

(a) the date and timewhen the demonstration is to start,

(b) the place whereit is to be carried on,

(c) how long it is tolast,

(d) whether it is tobe carried on by a person by himself or not,

(e) the name andaddress of the person giving the notice.

(5) A notice underthis section must be given by—

(a) delivering it toa police station in the metropolitan police district, or

(b) sending it bypost by recorded delivery to such a police station.

(6) Section 7 of theInterpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) (under which service of a document is deemed to have been effected at the time it would be delivered inthe ordinary course of post) does not apply to a notice under thissection.

134 Authorisation ofdemonstrations in designated area

(1) This sectionapplies if a notice complying with the requirements of section 133 is received at a police station in the metropolitan police district bythe time specified in section 133(2).

(2) The Commissionermust give authorisation for the demonstration to which the notice relates.

(3) In givingauthorisation, the Commissioner may impose on the persons organisingor taking part in the demonstration such conditions specified in theauthorisation and relating to the demonstration as in theCommissioner's reasonable opinion are necessary for the purpose ofpreventing any of the following—

(a) hindrance to anyperson wishing to enter or leave the Palace of Westminster,

(b) hindrance to theproper operation of Parliament,

(c) serious publicdisorder,

(d) serious damage toproperty,

(e) disruption to thelife of the community,

(f) a security riskin any part of the designated area,

(g) risk to thesafety of members of the public (including any taking part in the demonstration).

(4)The conditions may,in particular, impose requirements as to—

(a) the place wherethe demonstration may, or may not, be carried on,

(b) the times atwhich it may be carried on,

(c) the period duringwhich it may be carried on,

(d) the number ofpersons who may take part in it,

(e) the number andsize of banners or placards used,

(f) maximumpermissible noise levels.

(5) The authorisationmust specify the particulars of the demonstration given in the notice under section 133 pursuant to subsection (4) of that section, withany modifications made necessary by any condition imposed undersubsection (3) of this section.

(6) The Commissionermust give notice in writing of—

(a) theauthorisation,

(b) any conditionsimposed under subsection (3), and

(c) the particularsmentioned in subsection (5),

to the person who gavethe notice under section 133.
(7) Each person whotakes part in or organises a demonstration in the designated area is guilty of an offence if —

(a) he knowinglyfails to comply with a condition imposed under subsection (3) which is applicable to him (except where it is varied undersection 135), or

(b) he knows orshould have known that the demonstration is carried on otherwise than in accordance with the particulars set out in theauthorisation by virtue of subsection (5).

(8) It is a defencefor a person accused of an offence under subsection (7) to show—

(a) (in a paragraph(a) case) that the failure to comply, or

(b) (in a paragraph(b) case) that the divergence from the particulars,

arose fromcircumstances beyond his control, or from something done with theagreement, or by the direction, of a police officer.

(9) The noticerequired by subsection (6) may be sent by post to the person who gavethe notice under section 133 at the address stated in that noticepursuant to subsection (4)(e) of that section.

(10) If the person towhom the notice required by subsection (6) is to be given has agreed,it may be sent to him by email or by facsimile transmission at theaddress or number notified by him for the purpose to theCommissioner (and a notice so sent is “in writing” for the purposes of that subsection).

135 Supplementarydirections

(1) This sectionapplies if the senior police officer reasonably believes that it isnecessary, in order to prevent any of the things mentioned inparagraphs (a) to (g) of subsection (3) of section 134—

(a) to imposeadditional conditions on those taking part in or organising a demonstration authorised under that section, or

(b) to vary anycondition imposed under that subsection or under paragraph (a) (including such a condition as varied under subsection (2)).

(2) The senior policeoffice may give directions to those taking part in or organising the demonstration imposing such additional conditions or varying anysuch condition already imposed.

(3) A person takingpart in or organising the demonstration who knowingly fails to comply with a condition which is applicable to him and which is imposed orvaried by a direction under this section is guilty of an offence.

(4) It is a defencefor him to show that the failure to comply arose from circumstances beyond his control.

(5) In this section,“the senior police officer” means the most senior in rank of thepolice officers present at the scene (or any one of them if thereare more than one of the same rank).

136 Offences undersections 132 to 135: penalties

(1) A person guilty ofan offence under section 132(1)(a) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine notexceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or to both.

(2) A person guilty ofan offence under section 132(1)(b) or (c) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3) A person guilty ofan offence under section 134(7) or 135(3) is liable on summary conviction—

(a) if the offencewas in relation to his capacity as organiser of the demonstration, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine notexceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or to both,

(b) otherwise, to afine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(4) A person who isguilty of the offence of inciting another to—

(a) do anything whichwould constitute an offence mentioned in subsection (1), (2) or(3), or

(b) fail to doanything where the failure would constitute such an offence,

is liable on summaryconviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or to both,notwithstanding section 45(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980(c. 43).

(5) A constable inuniform may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably believes is committing an offence mentioned in subsections (1) to (4).

This subsection ceasesto have effect on the coming into force of section 110.

137 Loudspeakers indesignated area

(1) Subject tosubsection (2), a loudspeaker shall not be operated, at any time orfor any purpose, in a street in the designated area.

(2) Subsection (1)does not apply to the operation of a loudspeaker—

(a) in case ofemergency,

(b) for police, fireand rescue authority or ambulance purposes,

(c) by theEnvironment Agency, a water undertaker or a sewerage undertaker inthe exercise of any of its functions,

(d) by a localauthority within its area,

(e) for communicatingwith persons on a vessel for the purpose of directing the movementof that or any other vessel,

(f) if theloudspeaker forms part of a public telephone system,

(g) if theloudspeaker is in or fixed to a vehicle and subsection (3) applies,

(h) otherwise than ona highway, by persons employed in connection with a transport undertaking used by the public, but only if the loudspeaker isoperated solely for making announcements to passengers orprospective passengers or to other persons so employed,

(i) in accordancewith a consent granted by a local authority under Schedule 2 to the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993 (c. 40).

(3) This subsectionapplies if the loudspeaker referred to in subsection (2)(g)—

(a) is operatedsolely for the entertainment of or for communicating with thedriver or a passenger of the vehicle (or, if the loudspeaker is orforms part of the horn or similar warning instrument of thevehicle, solely for giving warning to other traffic), and

(b) is so operated asnot to give reasonable cause for annoyance to persons in the vicinity.

(4) A person whooperates or permits the operation of a loudspeaker in contraventionof subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and is liable on summaryconviction to—

(a) a fine notexceeding level 5 on the standard scale, together with

(b) a further finenot exceeding £50 for each day on which the offence continues after the conviction.

(5) In this section—

“local authority”means a London borough council (and, in subsection (2)(d), theGreater London Authority),

“street” means astreet within the meaning of section 48(1) of the New Roads andStreet Works Act 1991 (c. 22) which is for the time being open tothe public,

“the designatedarea” means the area specified in an order under section 138,

“vessel” includesa hovercraft within the meaning of the Hovercraft Act 1968 (c. 59).

(6) In Schedule 2 tothe Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993 (consent to the operationof loudspeakers in streets or roads), in paragraph 1(1), at the endadd “ or of section 137(1) of the Serious Organised Crime andPolice Act 2005 ”.

138 The designatedarea

(1) The Secretary ofState may by order specify an area as the designated area for the purposes of sections 132 to 137.

(2) The area may bespecified by description, by reference to a map or in any other way.

(3) No point in thearea so specified may be more than one kilometre in a straight linefrom the point nearest to it in Parliament Square.

This is a good thing.Now I can stand within the vicinity of Parliament without fear of being arrested.However, the new Act has its own s. 142-9, which state the following:

Controls onactivities in Parliament Square Garden and adjoining pavements

142 Controlled areaof Parliament Square

(1) For the purposes ofthis Part, the “controlled area of Parliament Square” means thearea of land that is comprised in—

(a) the central gardenof Parliament Square, and

(b) the footways thatimmediately adjoin the central garden of Parliament Square.

(2) In subsection (1)—

“the central gardenof Parliament Square” means the site in Parliament Square on whichthe Minister of Works was authorised by the Parliament Square(Improvements) Act 1949 to lay out the garden referred to in that Actas “the new central garden”;
“footway” has thesame meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of thatAct).
143 Prohibitedactivities in controlled area of Parliament Square

(1) A constable orauthorised officer who has reasonable grounds for believing that aperson is doing, or is about to do, a prohibited activity may directthe person—

(a) to cease doing thatactivity, or

(b) (as the case maybe) not to start doing that activity.

(2) For the purposes ofthis Part, a “prohibited activity” is any of the following—

(a) operating anyamplified noise equipment in the controlled area of ParliamentSquare;

(b) erecting or keepingerected in the controlled area of Parliament Square—

(i) any tent, or

(ii) any otherstructure that is designed, or adapted, (solely or mainly) for thepurpose of facilitating sleeping or staying in a place for anyperiod;

(c) using any tent orother such structure in the controlled area of Parliament Square forthe purpose of sleeping or staying in that area;

(d) placing or keepingin place in the controlled area of Parliament Square any sleepingequipment with a view to its use (whether or not by the personplacing it or keeping it in place) for the purpose of sleepingovernight in that area;

(e) using any sleepingequipment in the controlled area of Parliament Square for the purposeof sleeping overnight in that area.

(3) But an activity isnot to be treated as a “prohibited activity” within subsection(2) if it is done—

(a) for police, fireand rescue authority or ambulance purposes,

(b) by or on behalf ofa relevant authority, or

(c) by a person so faras authorised under section 147 to do it (authorisation for operationof amplified noise equipment).

(4) In subsection(2)(a) “amplified noise equipment” means any device that isdesigned or adapted for amplifying sound, including (but not limitedto)—

(a) loudspeakers, and

(b) loudhailers.

(5) In subsection (3)(b)“relevant authority” means any of the following—

(a) a Minister of theCrown or a government department,

(b) the Greater LondonAuthority, or

(c) Westminster CityCouncil.

(6) It is immaterial forthe purposes of a prohibited activity—

(a) in the case of anactivity within subsection (2)(b) or (c) of keeping a tent or similarstructure erected or using a tent or similar structure, whether thetent or structure was first erected before or after the coming intoforce of this section;

(b) in the case of anactivity within subsection (2)(d) or (e) of keeping in place anysleeping equipment or using any such equipment, whether the sleepingequipment was first placed before or after the coming into force ofthis section.

(7) In this section“sleeping equipment” means any sleeping bag, mattress or othersimilar item designed, or adapted, (solely or mainly) for the purposeof facilitating sleeping in a place.

(8) A person who failswithout reasonable excuse to comply with a direction under subsection(1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a finenot exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

144 Directions undersection 143: further provision

(1) A directionrequiring a person to cease doing a prohibited activity may include adirection that the person does not start doing that activity againafter having ceased it.

(2) A directionrequiring a person not to start doing a prohibited activity continuesin force until—

(a) the end of suchperiod beginning with the day on which the direction is given as maybe specified by the constable or authorised officer giving thedirection, or

(b) if no such period isspecified, the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day onwhich the direction is given.

(3) A period specifiedunder subsection (2)(a) may not be longer than 90 days.

(4) A direction may begiven to a person to cease operating, or not to start operating, anyamplified noise equipment only if it appears to the constable orauthorised officer giving the direction that the following conditionis met.

(5) The condition isthat the person is operating, or is about to operate, the equipmentin such a manner as to produce sound that other persons in or in thevicinity of the controlled area of Parliament Square can hear or arelikely to be able to hear.

(6) A direction—

(a) may be given orally,

(b) may be given to anyperson individually or to two or more persons together, and

(c) may be withdrawn orvaried by the person who gave it.

(7) In this section—

“amplified noiseequipment” has the meaning given by section 143(4);
“direction” means adirection given under section 143(1).

145 Power to seizeproperty

(1) A constable orauthorised officer may seize and retain a prohibited item that is onany land in the controlled area of Parliament Square if it appears tothat constable or officer that the item is being, or has been, usedin connection with the commission of an offence under section 143.

(2) A constable mayseize and retain a prohibited item that is on any land outside of thecontrolled area of Parliament Square if it appears to the constablethat the item has been used in connection with the commission of anoffence under section 143.

(3) A “prohibiteditem” is any item of a kind mentioned in section 143(2).

(4) A constable may usereasonable force, if necessary, in exercising a power of seizureunder this section.

(5) An item seized underthis section must be returned to the person from whom it was seized—

(a) no later than theend of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the itemwas seized, or

(b) if proceedings arecommenced against the person for an offence under section 143 beforethe return of the item under paragraph (a), at the conclusion ofthose proceedings.

(6) If it is notpossible to return an item under subsection (5) because the name oraddress of the person from whom it was seized is not known—

(a) the item may bereturned to any other person appearing to have rights in the propertywho has come forward to claim it, or

(b) if there is no suchperson, the item may be disposed of or destroyed at any time afterthe end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which theitem was seized.

(7) Subsections (5)(b)and (6) do not apply if a court makes an order under section146(1)(a) for the forfeiture of the item.

(8) The references insubsections (1) and (2) to an item that is “on” any land includereferences to an item that is in the possession of a person who is onany such land.

146 Power of courton conviction

(1) The court may doeither or both of the following on the conviction of a person (“P”)of an offence under section 143—

(a) make an orderproviding for the forfeiture of any item of a kind mentioned insubsection (2) of that section that was used in the commission of theoffence;

(b) make such otherorder as the court considers appropriate for the purpose ofpreventing P from engaging in any prohibited activity in thecontrolled area of Parliament Square.

(2) An order undersubsection (1)(b) may (in particular) require P not to enter thecontrolled area of Parliament Square for such period as may bespecified in the order.

(3) Power of the courtto make an order under this section is in addition to the court’spower to impose a fine under section 143(8).

147 Authorisationfor operation of amplified noise equipment

(1) The responsibleauthority for any land in the controlled area of Parliament Squaremay authorise a person in accordance with this section to operate onthat land any amplified noise equipment (as defined by section143(4)).

(2) An application forauthorisation must be made to the responsible authority by or onbehalf of the person (or persons) seeking the authorisation.

(3) The responsibleauthority may—

(a) determine the formin which, and the manner in which, an application is to be made;

(b) specify theinformation to be supplied in connection with an application;

(c) require a fee to bepaid for determining an application.

(4) If an applicationis duly made to a responsible authority, the authority must—

(a) determine theapplication, and

(b) give notice inwriting to the applicant of the authority’s decision within theperiod of 21 days beginning with the day on which the authorityreceives the application.

(5) The notice mustspecify—

(a) the person (orpersons) authorised (whether by name or description),

(b) the kind ofamplified noise equipment to which the authorisation applies,

(c) the period to whichthe authorisation applies, and

(d) any conditions towhich the authorisation is subject.

(6) The responsibleauthority may at any time—

(a) withdraw anauthorisation given to a person under this section, or

(b) vary any conditionto which an authorisation is subject.

(7) Variation undersubsection (6)(b) includes—

(a) imposing a newcondition,

(b) removing anexisting condition, or

(c) altering any periodto which a condition applies.

(8) The exercise of apower under subsection (6) to withdraw an authorisation or to vary acondition is effected by the responsible authority giving notice inwriting to the applicant.

148 Meaning of“authorised officer” and “responsible authority”

(1) This sectionapplies for the purposes of this Part.

(2) “Authorisedofficer”, in relation to any land in the controlled area ofParliament Square, means—

(a) an employee of theresponsible authority for that land who is authorised in writing bythe authority for the purposes of this Part, and

(b) any other personwho, under arrangements made with the responsible authority (whetherby that or any other person), is so authorised for the purposes ofthis Part.

(3) “Responsibleauthority”, in relation to any land in the controlled area ofParliament Square, means—

(a) the Greater LondonAuthority, for any land comprised in the central garden of ParliamentSquare (as defined by section 142(2)), and

(b) Westminster CityCouncil, for any other land.

149 Effect of Parton byelaws

(1) In section 385 ofthe Greater London Authority Act 1999 (byelaws), after subsection (6)insert—

“(6A) Byelaws underthis section may not be made as respects Parliament Square Garden forthe purpose of prohibiting a particular activity so far as thatactivity is a prohibited activity for the purposes of Part 3 of thePolice Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (see section 143(2)of that Act).”.

(2) Any byelaw madeunder section 385 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 before thedate on which section 143 above comes into force ceases to haveeffect on that date so far as the byelaw makes provision prohibiting,as respects the controlled area of Parliament Square, a particularactivity that is a prohibited activity for the purposes of this Part.

(3) Nothing in thisPart restricts the making of any byelaw under section 235(1) of theLocal Government Act 1972 (power of councils to make byelaws) for thepurpose of prohibiting, as respects the controlled area of ParliamentSquare, a particular activity except so far as the activity is aprohibited activity for the purposes of this Part.

Hmmm... they're no longer going to ban protests within 1 km of Parliament, only those on Parliament Square. Otherwise, I don't see any real difference, and, given that you may now have to pay to apply for permission, if anything it's worse...

... trolls Iain Dale

2011-08-07T23:04:00.000+01:00

[This post will not show up properly on Facebook]

You've probably heard that there's riots taking place in north London.

In relation to the Enfield ones, Tory blogger Iain Dale wrote this on Twitter:

So, is anyone going to blame this mindless thuggery and violence in middle class Enfield on wicked Tory policy on poverty? Dare you.less than a minute ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet ReplyIain Dale
IainDale

I, of course, responded to his request:

@IainDale Yep. #Enfield was entirely due to the Tories & their horrific policies over the past year. They've pushed people to the limitless than a minute ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet ReplyGareth Winchester
dnotice2012

In what appears to be a complete inability to consider that people may be taking the piss out of his ridiculous request, Dale replied as follows:

@dnotice2012 You utter, utter prat. These are well organised thugs. Nothing to do with politics. Pure criminals.less than a minute ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet ReplyIain Dale
IainDale

What else can I say other than "hook, line and sinker"?

UV Factor: Vino

2011-08-02T20:36:00.000+01:00

I saw this on Skeptoid today:

Today there is one more reason you should be sure to get your daily merlot. Researchers from the University of Barcelona and the Spanish National Research Council have discovered that a chemical found in grapes can limit cellular damage done by the sun. Details of the study can be found in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

*
Well, what else can I do other than crack open another bottle?

This is also helpful for my up-coming holiday to California...

* Unfortunately the article does not link to the particular study

Hacking phones since 1999

2011-07-18T22:36:00.000+01:00

I've just been alerted to a website called Hackgate.

Some guy claims to have told the media about phone-hacking back in 1999...

However, his story checks out!

The BBC's Dragon's Eye has a piece which confirms what he says [starts at 4:45]

... is alerted to planned changes to legal costs in criminal cases

2011-07-17T16:17:00.002+01:00

I've previously covered the possible impact on the government's planned changes to legal aid and legal costs generally, in their proposed "Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill".

However, there is one section which - for some reason - I didn't actually mention, namely the possible impact of cl. 52 and Sch. 6. These specifically deal with criminal costs, i.e. the legal costs incurred by people found innocent of a crime.

The Observer today has an article (thanks to John Band on Twitter for alerting me to it) which covers the possible impact. The article says that Part 1 of Sch. 6 will penalise people for daring to be innocent of a crime.

As I've mentioned before, in my day job I deal with legal costs issues. The firm that I currently work for deals quite regularly with claims for costs resulting from failed prosecutions. So, based on what the Observer say, I should be worried about the possibly devastating impact that it could have on my employment. However, I think that the article misinterprets the effect of the new Bill.

The current situation is that a person found innocent of a crime is entitled to their reasonable legal costs incurred in their defence, under s. 16 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

Amendments to section 16

The plan is to insert a few more sub-sections into s. 16, including this:

(6A) Where the court considers that there are circumstances that make it inappropriate for the accused to recover the full amount mentioned in subsection (6), a defendant’s costs order must be for the payment out of central funds of such lesser amount as the court considers just and reasonable.

This seem to have quite a significant impact. However, all claims for legal costs have to be reasonable, and in civil cases the Court already has powers to limit claims for costs to a certain percentage; or to certain issues in the case, etc, based on the facts of the case, under CPR 44.3. Reading the Government's Bill, I get the impression that it will lead to a similar situation in criminal cases.

While I can see why people would be alarmed at the proposals, I think that it would only have a real effect where, for example, the Defendant refused to co-operate with an investigation.

A new "section 16A"

There is also the proposed "s. 16A", which includes sub-section 1:

A defendant’s costs order may not require the payment out of central funds of an amount that includes an amount in respect of the accused’s legal costs, subject to the following provisions of this section

This seems to eliminate a big chunk of possible claims for legal costs, but it would not apply in a wide-range of cases due to sub-sections 3-6.

The only major area of worry is sub-section 9:

Where, in a defendant’s costs order, a court fixes an amount to be paid out of central funds that includes an amount in respect of legal costs incurred in proceedings in a court other than the Supreme Court, the latter amount must not exceed an amount specified by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.

This brings in the concept of "summary assessment" of costs which civil cases have. This means that the Court deals with the innocent party's costs there and then, instead of ordering further hearings specifically dealing with costs. However, in civil cases, these are not subject to upper limits, as proposed in criminal cases. There is also a problem is that there is nothing to stop the Lord Chancellor's limits being unreasonable, i.e. ridiculously low.

Overall

In summary, I do not feel that the Observer have got the gist of the plans, but there are areas of concern in the proposals.

UPDATE: On the "summary assessment" point, I probably should point out that in Patent County Court cases, there are upper limits to what can be allowed for costs (CPR 45, section VII and the relevant Practice Direction), while in low value car-crash cases costs are calculated by a formula. Of course, there is a big difference between these situations and criminal cases.

Economic Girth

2011-07-16T14:40:00.000+01:00

I saw this on Matt Yglesias yesterday I thought it deserved more wide-spread coverage:

The size of male organ is found to have an inverse U-shaped relationship with the level of GDP in 1985. It can alone explain over 15% of the variation in GDP. The GDP maximizing size is around 13.5 cm, and a collapse in economic development is identified as the size of male organ exceeds 16 cm... [I]t is also found to be more important determinant of GDP growth than country’s political regime type.

Of course, this raises a question of what policies you can create with this data.

Should the government enforce a policy of minimum and maximum penis sizes? Should circumcision be taken into account? Should penis pumps be available on the NHS?

Seriously though, I spy an Ig Noble prize for someone...

Data.gov.uk - massive expansion

2011-07-10T20:07:00.000+01:00

Back in 2010 I mentioned that the government had launched a website of various databases which were free for public use.

Over a year later and the government plans to undertake a massive expansion of the system.

As before, I fully support their actions and hope that more is to come.

I look forward to seeing what people with more technical skills than I do with it.

PS. I should be offended by this comment...

Meets Autonomous Mind

2011-07-10T20:00:00.000+01:00

On Friday I stumbled upon this post by Autonomous Mind on the News of the World phone-hacking.

We got into a discussion and it can be safely said that we had differing views. However, in the end we agreed that I would do a response piece.n

I was intending to go through it and critique it. To be honest I'm struggling to do so.

This may come across as an ad hominem, but, frankly, the entire consists of nothing more than a long rant of alleged left-wing bias by the BBC, ITV and C4 - but not Channel 5 - and the silencing of right-wing views, and that the only reason the Guardian has been investigating phone-hacking is to stop Murdoch taking full control of Sky TV.

It should be noted that the article came out on 7th July, so it's possible the author was merely waiting for more to appear. However, the follow-up article would argue against this...

The new #singhBCA?

2011-07-10T14:31:00.000+01:00

Yesterday, I came across what appears to be another ludicrous libel lawsuit in the UK.

Vaughan Jones is being sued for a book review he did in September 2010 of a book called "The Attempted Murder of God" in which he called the author a creationist. No, really!

Jones has started a blog to cover events: Me (an Others) vs Creationist. He's also on Twitter: @vaughanjones82.

It's at a very early stage - proceedings were only served a few days ago - so there isn't much to say about the case so far.

Libel isn't my area of law, but if he wins and wants to claim his legal costs, Jones knows where to find me.

I'll be keeping an eye out for it and you should do too.

The impact of NOTW being shut down

2011-07-08T09:16:00.001+01:00

So the News of the World has been sacrificed to save Rebekah Brooks et al.

Some people think that this will give them the abaility to liquidate ex-NOTW assets in order to delete information.

I'm not sure that it's as simple as that.

As the comments on that article point out, it would depend on who legally owns the NOTW and its property.

I don't know how NOTW or News International organise their corporate structure, but it's worth noting that - from a quick search on BAILII - that any legal case involving NOTW is dealt with by News Group Ltd., the NOTW's publishers.

News Group Ltd. will remain even after the NOTW is closed down. Therefore, presumably, the assets would be in their name, not in a NOTW-specific company,- should one exist - and would not be up for liquidation.

David Allen Green comes to a similar view in relation to the criminal proceedings.

UPDATE: David Allen Green has a further post going into more detail.

... visits Glastonbury 2011

2011-06-28T22:08:00.000+01:00

Over the weekend I went to Glastonbury.

To celebrate this momentous occasion, I've done a Spotify playlist of most of the artists I saw.

There's a few missing, due to them not being on there, apparently due to obscurity:

Ellyn Maybe & Her Band (jazzy, folky, spoken-word poetry); and
Twin Brother (dark, spiky indie)

I also saw Mark Thomas talk about his walk around the Israeli Wall.

Hope you enjoy the playlist.

... has mixed views Ken Clarke's proposed legal costs changes

2011-06-21T22:00:00.000+01:00

As I said in my previous post, I'll now deal with Part 2 of the government's new "Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill"

Damages-Based Agreements

One thing the government plans to expand upon are what's known as "Damages-Based Agreements" (DBAs) (s. 42) which already occur in employment law cases.

The basic idea is that a solicitor will take a percentage of any damages received as his success fee (the bonus for winning a case on a "No-Win, No-Fee" basis), instead of the current system whereby a success fee is claimed from the losing party.

I'm not sure that this is a good thing as it could cause cases to drag on in the hope that a bit more damages will be obtained, while racking-up unnecessary legal costs.

I'm also a bit concerned about whether there will be any technical legal arguments over these things. The "No-Win, No-Fee" cases used to have to comply with the CFA Regulations 2000. These were scrapped a few years ago due them simply causing a lot of wasteful litigation over whether the solicitors argeements with thier clients complied with them. Talk to any solicitor about the CFA Regulations and you'll hear nothing but horror stories. I went a to a talk about DBAs a few weeks ago and the speaker mentioned that there had been suggestions that the only way DBAs could would would be by bringing back in equivalent to the CFA Regulations. I shudder at the thought.

ATE Premiums

The government also plans to stop ATE Insurance premiums - insurance taken out to cover legal costs which a party may face - from being claimed from the other side. (s. 43). I've no real views on this, one way or the other. It would make my work slightly easier as there are numerous disputes over whether they premium should be paid, and to what extent. Of course, I'm not sure whether simplifying my job is a reason to support this proposal.

Divorce proceedings

There are plans to alter the way divorce cases are dealt with (s. 45-50). To be honest, I've never had to deal with these sort of cases, so can't comment on whether the plans are a good or bad idea.

Claimant's settlement offers

Section 51 is interesting - they plan to bring in extra damages if a Claimant beats their own offer to settle the claim at trial, e.g. if the Claimant offers £5,000, which is rejected, and the Judge allows £6,000 then it will come into play.

However, it doesn't say how much extra would be awarded nor how it would be calculated, e.g. would it be based on the total awarded?; the percentage that is on top of the offer?; etc.

It also doesn't say that there will be any extra award for the Defendant who beats their own offer at trial, e.g. if the Defendant offers £6,000, which is rejected, and the Judge allows £5,000.

I agree with allowing extra damages as it would encourage the Defendants to make more realistic offers, as not only could they be liable for penalty costs ("Indemnity Basis" costs) as now, but they would have to pay out more.

Nothing else is of particular interest from a legal costs perspective.

... reads Ken Clarke's proposed legal aid changes; despairs

2011-06-21T21:26:00.001+01:00

Earlier today the government published its long-awaited Bill on how it'll change sentencing procedures, rehabilitation and the changes it plans to makes to legal aid and civil legal costs.

In "real-life" I deal with legal costs, and so I'm only going to cover Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill because I'd like to think that I have some sort of idea what I'm talking about... not that that's stopped me before...

Part 1 (sections 1-40) covers Legal Aid. Part 2 (sections 40-52) covers legal costs generally. These two Parts are also supplemented by 7 separate Schedules which go into further detail.

I gave my views on the legal aid proposals when they were initially announced back in November 2010. Briefly, - and ignoring any possible "access to justice" arguments against it - it'll cost the taxpayer more in the long-run as the amount solicitor & barristers can claim under legal aid is a lot less than what they can charge privately. So, for example, in a clinical negligence case (from which legal aid will be removed), the NHS would face a higher legal costs Bill should it lose a case than it would otherwise face. This would be the situation even if the injured person's solicitors acted on a "No-Win, No-Fee" basis.

I've not seen anything in Part 1 Bill to significantly alter them.

I'd also recommend this Guardian article on how badly different parts of England and Wales will be affected by the changes.

I'll do a separate post on Part 2 once I've had a proper chance to look through it.

UPDATE: Nearly Legal has a good post and goes into a lot more detail on the "access to justice" issues it raises, including the following:

Oh and the [Legal Services Commission - the people who administer legal aid] is to be abolished. The [Ministry of Justice] will take legal aid funding decisions in house, with no prospect of possible conflicts of interest at all. Honest.

Hmm... what could possibly go wrong?

Brian Haw RIP

2011-06-19T10:00:00.000+01:00

Brian Haw, the guy whose camp-site on Parliament Square lead to David Blunkett's SOCPA Parliament Protest ban, has died. (via Bloggerheads on Twitter).

I met him a few times on Mark Thomas's Mass Lone Protests back in 2006-7.

He will be missed.

Twitterbook

2011-06-16T20:32:00.002+01:00

I've finally got round to installing Twitter and Facebook buttons on this thing.

Hopefully, they're not too distracting.

Bite Me, Bahrain

2011-06-14T20:02:00.002+01:00

From the Bahrain News Agency (via @HariKunzru and on Twitter):

Bahrain has today decided to sue the British Independent newspaper for repeatedly publishing wrong and defamatory information to tarnish its image.

The Information Affairs Authority has commissioned a UK-based legal firm to file a case against the British daily. "The Independent has deliberately published a series of unrealistic and provocative articles targeting Bahrain and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia", Publications director-general and acting press and external media director-general Nawaf Mohammed Al-Maawda said.

He accused the British daily of orchestrating a defamatory and premeditated media campaign against both countries, failing to abide by professional impartiality and credibility in its one-sided news-coverage and reports. In this regard, he cited particularly leading Independent Middle-East based reporter Robert Fisk. Mr. Al-Maawda called upon all media to observe accuracy and objectivity and project the true image, adding that all doors remain open to visit Bahrain and gauge the real situation on the ground as the Kingdom is steadily regaining normality and stability.

To be fair to Bahrain, they only sent in the army to wipe out anti-government protesters and tortured doctors for treating them, amongst other things.

Legally-speaking, UK local governments can't sue in the English Courts (Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers Ltd. [1993] UKHL 6). Foreign governments shouldn't be able to.

Bunch of murdering, corrupt wankers.

UPDATE: According to Ministry of Truth, they're annoyed with an article by Robert Fisk which I've YFrog'd for future reference (unfortunately it's too large to Freezepage).

2012

2011-06-14T11:39:00.000+01:00

I saw this in the Independent today:

The overseers of the London 2012 Olympics are hinting at legal action against an events company after objecting to their use of next year's date, "2012", in the name of a forthcoming series of events celebrating British culture.

LOCOG is citing the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 which prevents people from creating an unauthorised association between a person or organisation and the London 2012 Games.

*sigh* I guess this means I'll ahve to re-name myself "D-Notice 2012" in response...

... goes mobile

2011-06-13T07:56:00.000+01:00

Last week Blogger gave people the option to enable a "mobile-friendly" version of their blogs.

I chose the option so if you're looking at this on a phone it'll come up as as cut-down version, showing nothing more than the headline and first few lines f each post, with a link to the rest of the post.

The People's Pledge

2011-06-07T20:07:00.001+01:00

On Liberal Conspiracy a few weeks ago was an article saying why we should have a referendum on the UK's involvement in the EU, in what's know as "The People's Pledge".

Nosemonkey did two separate responses.

The people behind The People's Pledge didn't agree with what he said and did a response to him.

I'm not going to do into too much detail as to the response to Nosemonkey other than to say that I agree with him. My view is that the EU is a very boring thing - nothing much more than a trade bloc - and that it's better to be inside it and influencing it - after all, we're the joint-second biggest country with France - than outside and having to comply with pretty much everything it does, like Norway.

However, I thought I'd briefly comment on one paragraph that The People's Pledge's second article:

We have not explicitly consented in referenda to have EU officials pass measures that are of huge significance; laws that have broken up our railway system (directive 91/440), privatised the most profitable parts of our postal service (directive 2008/06/EC), imposed the European Arrest Warrant that results in citizens being extradited without any evidence having to be submitted in court, introduced greater state electronic surveillance (directive 2006/24/EC), restricted access to 300 alternative health medicines, among numerous other measures.

They quote 3 EU Directives and the European Arrest Warrant - while not bothering to link to anything so that people can actually check their claims, which at the best is bad blogging etiquette - showing how the Eurocrats have destroyed our way of life.

I thought it'd be a good idea to go through each of these in turn. Note: EU Directives are very boring to read!

Directive 91/440/EEC

Article 6(1) says

Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the accounts for business relating to the provision of transport services and those for business relating to the management of railway infrastructure are kept separate. Aid paid to one of these two areas of activity may not be transferred to the other.

It's an accounting measure.

As the Wikipedia article points out:

there are no requirements in the legislation requiring any level of privatisation; the main aim of the process was the "de-monopolisation" of European railways

It simply means that a train company from one EU country can operate services in another EU country without too much difficulty.

Wikipedai also states

By 2004 some such as the United Kingdom had gone far beyond the original remit privatising the entire railway system

In other words, the government used the Directive as an excuse to privatise British Rail.

Directive 2008/06/EC

As this article by Consumer Focus shows, there's no mention whatsoever of "privatisation", it simply means - like the train Directive - that a company in one EU country can provide services in another.

European Arrest Warrant (EAW)

This stems from Directive 2002/584/JHA.

I accept that there are issues with the EAW. However, it only applies to crimes which have a penalty of at least 1 years in prison (Art. 2(1)) and has to be authorised by a judge. There are also a variety of safeguards to ensure that a person is not simply "whisked away", e.g. Arts. 11, 14, 15, 17, 27.

Directive 2006/24/EC

While on the face of it, they appear to be accurate, the Directive makes numerous references to the Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC, as enforced in the UK by the Data Protection Act 1998) and the Data Retention Directive has to be compatible and cannot override the Data Protection Directive.

"Restricted access to 300 alternative health medicines"

I'm assuming that they're referring to the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (Directive 2004/24/EC).

I could say the fact that they're complaining about the EU legislating against quacks says more that I ever could about their claims, but that's too easy. Although, as Tim Minchin says: what do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine!

The whole point of this Directive is to ensure that there are some standards on the stuff that you can buy in Holland & Barrett!

As I said above, while I disagree with their views, but I really wish that they would ensure that their claims are accurate.

Schrödinger's law

2011-05-23T19:59:00.000+01:00

Yesterday I wrote about the Futility of a certain person's actions.

Today he was named in Parliament by John Hemmings MP. However, the injunciton itself remains in place.

As the Guardian point out on their Politics live blog:

6.53pm: We are in the realms of the bizarre. In strict legal terms, I can't name the subject of the injunction that has just been upheld. The injunction prevents that. If I am only reporting details if the injunction, no names can be mentioned. But if I move on, as I am doing in this sentence, to reporting the proceedings of parliament, I can quite legally tell you that an MP today named the footballer Ryan Giggs as the subject of an injunction relating to a Twitter privacy row.

6.57pm: The third hearing today was held in front of Mr Justice Tugendhat. According to my colleague Josh Halliday, who was at the high court, he said: "It is obvious that if the purpose [of the injunction] was to protect a secure then it would have now failed – but as it is to do with harassment it has not failed."

Tugendhat conceded that Giggs's anonymity had been lost. But he said the injunction was about harassment, not just privacy. He said John Hemming's question in parliament today serves to "increase, not decrease, the strength of his [Giggs] case that he needs protection." The judge went on to say: "If a court can stop one person or five people [from harassing Giggs] – not 50,000 – is there not something to be achieved?"

I've decided to call this Schrödinger's law after the famous physics theory.

Futility

2011-05-22T14:17:00.001+01:00

Any lawyer knows that the Laws of England & Wales only extend to, well, England and Wales, i.e. they do not cover anywhere else in the world.

Therefore, an injunction taken out in the English Courts cannot be enforced in say, Scotland, without a separate set of proceedings taking place there and those proceedings being granted.

Currently there is an injunction out against anyone naming a certain Premier League football player who has - allegedly - been cheating on his wife, with a woman known as Imogen Thomas.

The Guardian is published in London and Manchester, i.e. within England, and so is bound by the injunction.

However, Scottish newspapers are not bound, nor is anyone publishing within the US.

This results in situations such as this which the paper justifies elsewhere [I've decided against actually publishing the photo]:

The Guardian has a article about this action, yet states

The Scottish newspaper, which the Guardian cannot name for legal reasons, devoted its front page to a large picture of the footballer's face, with a black band across his eyes and the word "censored" in capital letters. The player is easily recognisable.

The BBC is also similarly bound yet it names the newspaper in question, as does Sky News.The Daily Mail also shows what a ludicrous situation we have.

What will the effect be in the future? The Guardian goes into some detail.

As a simple matter of practicality, this situation cannot and will not last.

UPDATE: Co-incidentally, Love & Garbage - a Scottish lawyer - wrote a similar article from a Scots Law point of view at the same time. You should read that too.

A list of "Superinjunctions"?

2011-05-19T20:19:00.001+01:00

You've probably been following the recent "Superinjunction" developments...

Via the Super Injunction Blog, comes this spreadsheet.

Apparently it lists people who are subject to privacy injunctions.

Some are clearly correct, because they've been lifted.

Others appear to be based on nothing more than speculation and rumour.

In any event, I'd recommend this article in the Daily Star which has loads more.

UPDATE: I forgot to say, if you're going to cheat on - usually - your wife, you've only got yourself to blame if someone tries to tell the press.

The simple way to deal with his situation - even simpler than going to Court to gag the media - is not to cheat on them!

... has a question for Boris Johnson

2011-05-07T12:13:00.000+01:00

Last night Boris Johnson wrote this on his Twitter page:

AV distraction over. Now let's concentrate on jobs, growth and making the most of the Olympicsless than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet ReplyBoris Johnson
MayorOfLondon

In response I asked him this question:

@MayorOfLondon I must be missing something. How did the AV referendum get in the way of the other 3?less than a minute ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet ReplyGareth Winchester
dnotice

After seeing another post on his Twitter page, I asked him again:

@MayorOfLondon Oh good, you're up. Would you be willing to answer my question about the claims you made last night? http://is.gd/Qchrf8less than a minute ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet ReplyGareth Winchester
dnotice

I have yet to receive a response.

It is clear that he does respond to people, but for whatever reason he has decided not to respond to me.

This is not a way to encourage people to vote for you instead of the only real alternative in next year's Mayoral Elections...

Pinocchio

2011-05-05T21:27:00.001+01:00

A couple of weeks ago a did a detailed post about the AV referendum.

I've decided to do another one. This will only be a short one, but a lot more personal.

Earlier today a friend - a Lib Dem voter - posted on Facebook that she voted No to AV.

I said to her "How come?"

I was expecting something along the lines of that she wanted some form of Proportional Representation, which, as I said before, I have some sympathy for.

This is her reply:

I do not want parties such as the BNP coming in 4th but then getting elected. It is an expensive and complex system. I don't like it.

I responded giving links to the BNP and £250 million claims and to the AV flow-chart.

As a result, the No campaign as one vote more than it should do. I feel that it is likely - given the claims that they have made - that there are more who've voted the same way.

I would not have a problem if - as appears likely - AV is rejected, if the anti-AV campaign had based their position on facts. However, they have not.

They've based their campaign on nothing but blatant lies, condescension and misleading propaganda, yet are likely to win.

People do not like being treated in this way, especially when it's so obvious.

They, their funders and their backers have not won.

Keep at it Yes to Fairer Votes and the Electoral Reform Society. You will win in the long-run.

UPDATE: This post by Mark Reckons goes into more detail.

I never wanted to see anybody die, but there are a few obituary notices I have read with pleasure

2011-05-02T15:42:00.002+01:00

[headline courtesy of Clarence Darrow]

You've probably heard that Osama Bin Laden is dead.*

I was going to write something about what happens next.

However, this post on the UK Human Rights Blog says what I was going to say.

All I should add is that I guess I can retire the blog's "TWAT" tag, and that this caption sums up the past week:

* Assuming you're not one of the types who think that it's very suspicious that he's been buried at sea in order to conceal the evidence.

UPDATE: See also, this article on Comment is Free.

UPDATE: Also this from Primly Stable on Twitter:

Coming next on Fox News: Black man admits guilt in shooting death of frail religious leader #OBLless than a minute ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® Favorite Retweet ReplyPrimly Stable
PrimlyStable

I've nothing further to add.

My view of the Royal Wedding

2011-04-29T11:14:00.000+01:00

I put this on Twitter this morning:

Unemployed woman marries 3rd generation immigrant whose family live off the taxpayer #royalwedding #rw2011less than a minute ago via TweetCaster Favorite Retweet ReplyGareth Winchester
dnotice

MoD lose big freedom of information case on rendition documents

2011-04-27T09:58:00.001+01:00

From the Panopticon blog:

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition (APG) requested information from the [MoD] on

(i) memoranda of understanding between the UK ... Iraq, Afghanistan and the USA regarding the treatment of prisoners detained in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan,

(ii) a copy of the Detentions Practices Review,

(iii) a copy of the UK’s policy on capture and joint transfer, and

(iv) statistics on detainees held in Iraq and Afghanistan. The MOD refused the requests, relying on a number of exemptions under FOIA.

For the most part, the [Information Commissioner (who initially deals with FoIA disputes)] agreed.

APG’s appeal[ed] to the Upper Tribunal... and [e]xcept as regards request (iii), its appeal has succeeded, to a limited but substantial extent. The Upper Tribunal has ordered disclosure or significantly more information than that ordered by the Commissioner.

MoD lost on the following grounds:

that it wouldn't cost too much to obtain the documents, because it took too long to respond initially;
that public interest over-rode claims of legal privilege;
that it would adversely impact its dealings with other governments; and
that the people and places named in the documents had been anonymised and so argument over personal data could not possibly apply.

The MoD won on its argument that certain documents were covered by national security. It also plans an appeal over the argument of costs of disclosing documents.

UPDATE: On a related note, is this artcile in PLoS Medicine about the complicity of medical staff in the torture of people held in Guantanamo Bay.

The Alternative Vote Referendum

2011-04-20T20:31:00.001+01:00

I've finally decided to write a post on the up-coming referendum on whether we should change our current system of electing MPs from the "First-Past-the-Post" (FPTP) system to the "Alternative Vote" (AV) system.

I've decided to write one in an attempt to cut through the lies and bad arguments which have been raised by people over the past few weeks.

Background

At the moment, our MPs are currently elected by simply counting who has got the most votes. This is done by people sticking an "X" next to their choice. This may seem fair. However, it means that you can be elected on just over 30% of the overall vote. This mainly happens due to their being a number of candidates with relatively equal numbers of support.

Under AV in order to be elected an MP needs 50% of the votes from their constituents. This is done by ranking the candidates 1, 2 and 3. If no-one gets 50% first time round, the lowest ranking candidate is knocked out and their 2nd choice is transferred to the other candidates. If there is still no-one with 50%, the next lowest is eliminated and their 3rd choice votes are allocated to the remaining people. This flowchart shows how easy it is:

Simple isn't it? Also it's fairer as it ensures that MPs cannot be elected with the support of simply a minority of their constituents.

AV is currently used in the UK

In any event, "FPTP" is actually a misnomer - there is no "Post". If anything, AV is FPTP because you need 50% of the vote to be elected, which is a clear "Post" for someone to be the first past.

AV isn't a new system - we actually had a vote in Parliament to use it back in the 1930s, but it failed. It is also used for the main political parties in their leadership elections: David Cameron only became Tory leader - and subsequently PM - due to it. If they hadn't; the PM would now be David Davies. However, Cameron opposes AV.

The obvious question arises: if it's good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for the rest of us?

Labour also use AV - Ed Miliband also won on AV otherwise his brother "Torture" would now be Labour leader.

Arguments against AV

I've seen a variety of arguments against AV; some of which are on the face of it valid; some are wrong; while others are - in my view - complete bollocks.

AV will lead to coalitions;
BNP support AV;
It leads to weak and divided governments;
It will "institutionalise mushy centrist politics... I’m an unapologetic left-winger who wants a left-wing government"
It's not Proportional Representation;
No to AV; Yes to PR;
We need to break the current coalition government;
It destroys the idea of "One Person; one Vote";
It costs £250 million/we've better things to spend the money on

So what? Coalitions are not a bad thing - most countries of the world are governed by coalitions. Just look at other EU countries for a start. This coalition should not be used as an argument against coalitions generally. Coalitions can be a good thing as it forces politicians to show why their polices should be enacted, instead of simply forcing them through on sheer numbers. In any event, if they don't have the support of the majority of the public, why should they have complete control of Parliament. For example, in 2005, Labour under Blair only had 35% of the vote, yet had 55% of the seats.
No, they don't. They - unlike most other minor parties - oppose it. Why? Because they think they'd be worse off! Other minor parties favour it as it means that they could be a first choice - so they could gauge the actual size of their support- even if they lost out overall in any particular seat.
I'm not quite sure what this means, but a "weak" or "divided" government is one which is unable to govern. Think John Major at the end of his term. These can occur under any electoral system.
Frankly, that's a terrible argument. It's barely even rises to the level of an excuse! What you're saying is that tribalism - my lot over anything else - outweighs a system which more accurately reflects how the public voted. If anything, AV will lead to more left-wing governments as votes won't be fragmented. In any event, party politics have no place in this sort of vote. You're not voting in an election; you're voting to determine how future elections would be dealt with. It will have a major effect for possibly decades to come.
You're right, it's not PR. However, it doesn't claim to be, yet it is more proportional than the current system
On the face of it, this is sensible argument and one which I kind of agree with: I accept that AV is a poor substitute for PR which I would prefer. However, PR is not on offer. Which is more likely: that a rejection of AV - thereby keeping FPTP - will lead to the government offering a referendum on some form of PR in the future, or that a rejection of AV will lead to the government turning around and saying "The People have spoken: FPTP today, FPTP tomorrow; FPTP for ever"? In my view, the latter.
This could simply be written off as nothing more then tribalism, but I'll go further. I don't think there's any real prospect of the coalition being "broke" by a "No" vote. All that will happen is that the Tories would not be any worse off - possibly strengthened due to FPTP remaining in place - while the Lib Dems are significantly weakened due to a major policy of theirs (electoral reform) being rejected. The reasons for it being rejected - even if you vote "No" because you don't think that AV goes far enough - would not matter; simply the fact that FPTP would have effectively been approved by a public vote would count.
No, it doesn't. A good analogy is ordering drinks from a bar: your first choice - e.g. a pint of Peroni - may not be available, but your second choice - a pint of bitter - is available. You have two choices but you still only end up with one drink.
Lies!

Arguments in favour of AV

Your vote is worth more under AV
A vote for AV is - at the very worst - a step away from a crappy electoral system, and will possibly lead to a more representative one in the future.

The No2AV campaign

The anti-AV lot call themselves "No2AV".

As can be seen above, I do not agree with them.

However, instead of basing their campagin on facts they've decided to lie their way to a possible victory.

Their campaign is based on a leaflet full of lies and a TV ad, which, again is full of lies and misleading propaganda.

Someone has done an anntoated version of their campaign leaflet while someone else has done a critique of their TV ad. Click on both links and make your decision on whether to support them accordingly.

The Yes to Fairer Votes campaign

This is the lot in favour of electoral reform.

They've also done a TV ad and leaflets. Again, click on both links and make your decision on whether to support them accordingly.

AV in simple terms

B3TA have photoshop competition which explains AV in laymans terms.

Summary

As I've said above, I'm in favour of AV and so would like it to win.

However, given the way the anti-AV people have acted they deserve to lose! Otherwise, it'd show that if you base your campaign on nothing more than outright lies and misleading propaganda you can still win. That's a terrible message.

Of course, the choice is yours.

However, bear in mind that not only are you deciding this, you're deciding a lot of eections in the future.

People complain that politicians do not listen to them - this would ensure that they have to because they would need 50% of your vote in order to get elected. If you don't vote; don't make this complaint in the future.

UPDATE: This post by Gowers goes over AV vs FPTP in greater detail.

Family Planning, Libertarian style...

2011-04-03T22:46:00.001+01:00

From the Twitter account of the Rally Against Debt (a group who plan a rally in London next month to campaign for more cuts to government spending):

@TenPercent irresponsible breeding is another thing that needs to be cut.less than a minute ago via webRally Against Debt
RAD_London

Is this account run by the Chinese government?

UPDATE: I've had this response from RAD_London on Twitter:

@dnotice @tenpercent Apologies for the earlier tweet by someone else. They aren't part of the rally and will no longer be tweeting.less than a minute ago via webRally Against Debt
RAD_London

At least they've admitted they were wrong...

Govt lies about NHS legal costs

2011-04-03T17:55:00.000+01:00

I saw this on Twitter a few days ago and thought it should get more coverage.

The government has said that it wants to reduce the amount of money the NHS pays out in legal costs. One of the ways is to limit the impact of "No-win, No-fee"-funded cases by ensuring that the "success fee" - the bonus which a Solicitor or Barrister can claim for winning a case taken on in this manner - cannot be recovered from the losing party, but from the winning lawyer's client, presumably from any damages payment they receive.

I feel that a better option would be simply to limit the amount of a success fee which can be claimed from the other side. This would ensure that instead of it being up to 100%, it would be fixed at an amount similar to that for a car-crash (12.5%) or employers' liability claim (25%). This is because I do not feel that a person should have to lose out by having to take out legal proceedings.

Anyway, in support of his proposals, Ken Clarke said on Radio 4

"In 2008-2009 the National Health Service did pay out £312 million worth of damages. It paid far more out to lawyer in fees - £456 million."

However, as FullFact point out, this is completely wrong:

Our attention was first drawn to the issue by comments made by Shadow Justice Minister Andrew Slaughter, recorded in The Guardian.

He told the paper: "£456 million is the cost for damages (£312m) plus defence legal costs (£40m) plus claimant legal costs (£104m)."

So Clarke's figure is in fact the total paid out by the NHS, including damages.

Thankfully, the governemnt have accepted that Clarke was wrong. However, he should know better because he's a QC and so should have some knowledge about legal costs, even if it's not his area of practice.

... has a popular Twitter message

2011-03-27T22:24:00.000+01:00

Yesterday, I puit the following message on Twitter:

What do we want? Evidence-based, sensible policies! When do we want them? After fully evaluating the evidence! #march26 #26march #solidarityless than a minute ago via TweetCasterGareth Winchester
dnotice

As of this moment, it has 92 of the "New Style" Retweets, plus many more of the "Old-style" Retweets.

I stuck I struck a chord!

However, I have to give a big chunk of credit to this sign:

How the Middle East protests started

2011-03-27T22:18:00.000+01:00

I saw this on Twitter earlier today, and thought that it needed a summat more permanent.

It's an article in the Washington Post about the Middle East/North Africa protests started.

For years, [Mohammed] Bouazizi had told his mother stories of corruption at the fruit market, where vendors gathered under a cluster of ficus trees on the main street of this scruffy town, not far from Tunisia’s Mediterranean beaches. Arrogant police officers treated the market as their personal picnic grounds, taking bagfuls of fruit without so much as a nod toward payment. The cops took visible pleasure in subjecting the vendors to one indignity after another — fining them, confiscating their scales, even ordering them to carry their stolen fruit to the cops’ cars.

He was pissed off an got into trouble with the police and so tried to sort out the situation.

Bouazizi went to city hall and demanded to see an official. No, a clerk replied. Go home. Forget about it.

Bouazizi returned to the market and told his fellow vendors he would let the world know how unfairly they were being treated, how corrupt the system was.

He would set himself ablaze.

The protests and events over the past few weeks are the results of the flapping of a butterfly's wings...

... blows a tenner

2011-03-22T20:19:00.000Z

You're all aware that were currently bombing the crap out of Libya, apparently in accordance with the terms of the No-Fly Zone which the UN Security Council approved last week.

I currently favour it because I think that it's the least-worst way of dealing with Gadaffi's attacks on his own population and help out the people trying to overthrow him.

Hopefully not much help will be required.

Anyway, on Twitter, Flying Rodent came up the idea of running a book on when Gadaffi dies and suggested 12th April.

I said that he'll still be alive by Christmas, which was accepted. He's confident of winning.

We'll see what happens.

How #savingsnotcuts started

2011-03-07T12:44:00.001Z

This morning I saw an article on Liberal Conspiracy about how the BBC is reporting the government's spending reductions.

Apparently, they have to use the word "saving" instead of "cut".

I linked to the article on my Twitter page and decided to start a hashtag game: #savingsnotcuts.

It's now mentioned in the Guardian's Society Daily and on their Twitter feed.

I'm in the Guardian. My life is now complete.

The real impact of that insurance ruling

2011-03-02T08:03:00.000Z

Yesterday the European Court of Justice ruled that sex cannot be used as a factor when determining insurance premiums, i.e. men and women should be treated the same.

Insurance companies are saying that as women's insurance will have to go up.

However, the judgment says nothing of the sort; just that both sexes should be treated equally.

Therefore, any increase that a woman faces is due to the insurance company's own actions, not the court's.

Another Brick in the Wall Street

2011-02-13T14:02:00.000Z

I was reading the comments on a post on Balloon Juice about the effects of a lack of regulation, and this one sprung out:

We don’t need no regulation
We don’t need no market control
No dark socklism in the gummint
Gummint leave our pipes alone
Hey! Gummint! Leave our pipes alone!

All in all it’s just a ‘nother hole in the ground.

I think this sums up "Libertarian" attitudes perfectly!

Music of 2011

2011-02-12T19:11:00.000Z

Once again I've decided to do a Spotify playlist of the albums I've bought this year.

So far there's only 1 album on it, but - based on the previous years - it'll grow quickly!

I've also done one of various songs which I've enjoyed from this year too.

EU v Sky TV and the Premier League

2011-02-03T10:55:00.000Z

Earlier today an interesting ruling was made by the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice.

He says that not allowing pubs to pubs to show foreign TV coverage of Premier League games violates EU law.

It's not binding on the ECJ, simply an advice; however, quite often they are followed.

Unfortunately, it's a case of wait-and-see, but if the ECJ does follow it, it should mean that pubs will be allowed to show e.g. Greek sports channels' coverage of English football games, while the games are taking place on a Saturday afternoon without the landlords facing any sacntions, unlike now.

Disney Law

2011-01-25T21:31:00.000Z

From the Guardian:

Lawyers for a child in Pennsylvania who was 11 when he allegedly shot and killed his father's pregnant fiancee attempted today to persuade an appeals court not to try him as an adult under America's harsh system of juvenile justice.

Unless the lawyers for Jordan Brown who is now aged 13, can convince the judges to change tack, he will be tried in adult court and if convicted will serve an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole. He would become the youngest child in US history to be sentenced to be incarcerated forever.

Pennsylvania, where all juveniles are automatically treated as adults unless a judge decides otherwise, heads the league table of 44 states that hand out the sentence, with about 450 cases.

I don't know how I can respond to such a ruling, other than to say that the judge appears to be using what I class as the "Disney Guidelines":

If you can't read the table, when it comes to buying tickets for Walt Disney World, anyone aged over 10 is classed as an adult...

... has a Pod Delusion

2011-01-21T10:28:00.000Z

I've done a report for the science-y podcast The Pod Delusion.

It's about this week's European Court of Human Rights judgment on libel success fees.

It goes into a bit more detail than my Liberal Conspiracy article, which was published yesterday.

Please listen to it and I recommend subscribing to the Pod Delusion as they cover a lot of interesting subjects.

... elsewhere

2011-01-20T14:54:00.000Z

I've written an article for Liberal Conspiracy.

It's about the European Court of Human Rights' judgment this week regarding legal costs in libel cases.

Please read it!

Boris v ASLEF

2011-01-11T10:03:00.001Z

This appeared on the Mayor of London's Twitter feed this morning:

Can't have a strike ruining the royal wedding. Please tell ASLEF what you think. Bombard their website now! aslef.org.uk/info...less than a minute ago via txtBoris Johnson
MayorOfLondon

Yes, he appears to be advocating a Denial of Service attack on their website. This appears to break s. 36 Police and Justice Act 2006.

For the avoidance of doubt ASLEF have never mentioned nor suggested any such strike.

UPDATE: Boriswatch goes into more detail.

Album of the Year Award 2010

2011-01-09T18:38:00.000Z

In spite of my on-going apathy, I've come to a decision about the "D-Notice Album of the Year Award", the only music award that counts.

It was a close-run thing between Hot Chip and FourTet, but the winner - based on their live performances - is Hot Chip.

Well done Hot Chip!

You join the previous winners: Arcade Fire; The Knife; Von Sudenfed and Battles (joint winners); The Bug and Hercules & Love Affair (joint winners) and The Horrors.

Footballers and Twitter

2011-01-09T18:26:00.002Z

A footballer's view of today's Man Utd v Liverpool game:

#hey http://plixi.com/p/68909575less than a minute ago via ÜberTwitterRyan Babel
RyanBabel

Music of 2010

2010-12-27T16:26:00.001Z

Every year since I've done this blog, I've done a round-up of the CDs I've bought that year and handed out the "D-Notice Album of the Year Award".

I'm not sure if I'll be doing one this year, due to apathy and lack of time.

However, most of my albums have been listed on a Spotify playlist. Unfortunately, not every album is on there, but the missing one are mentioned here.

UPDATE: Just noticed that I forgot to link to my Spotify playlist of various tracks I've liked throughout the year.

London 2012 Zion Olympics

2010-12-27T13:53:00.000Z

Yesterday, I stumbled upon Conspiracy Science.

It seems to be a good critique of various conspiracy theories.

While I was looking at their "America" category, I noted a post about London 2012 Olympic conspiracies!

I mentioned on Twitter that I'd never come across this sort before.

In response, @RooftopJaxx gave me a link to a post which has a few YouTube clips which go into more detail about the conspiracies, which shows how they are The Truth (TM) about it is an NWO and Zionist plot, to take over the world in 2012.

The Na-Twivity

2010-12-25T08:37:00.000Z

Yesterday 10% decided to update the Nativity story on Twitter, to give an impression of what would happen nowadays.

He's now combined the posts into a blog post.

I recommend that you read the whole thing.

The Winterval Myth

2010-12-24T17:34:00.000Z

A few weeks ago, Kevin of the Angry Mob published a thesis covering the media myth of "Winterval".

There is the document itself, plus a 55 page appendix!

It makes for essential, albeit thoroughly depressing reading.

Video Nasties: The Definitive Guide

2010-11-20T03:19:00.003Z

Jake West, 2010. BBFC rating: 18.

The BBFC, which certifies TV and film into age appropriate categories, doesn't have much of an impact on the watching habits of most adults in this country these days. Although it refused Grotesque an 18 certificate last year, anyone with an interest was able to acquire a digital copy with little effort. It also refused certificates to two other films: NF713 and My Daughter's a Cocksucker were rejected for, respectively, eroticising sexual torture and 'being likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity'. Regardless of your views on censorship in general, these reasons are at least thoughtful and serious.

This seems to be the case for most, if not all, the BBFC's recent decisions. Often they exhibit a wry sense of humour, as in this excerpt from their most recent annual report:

Despite the widespread media coverage of our decision to classify Lars von Trier’s Antichrist ‘18’ with no cuts, we only received 10 complaints. The film was described by correspondents as an “abomination”, “pornographic” and “common trash”. All the comments were made in response to the media coverage; none of the complainants had actually seen the film. Indeed, there was some confusion about the actual nature of the film, with some people believing it to be a film about religion or Jesus Christ.

Anyone who speaks fluent bureaucratese will see the grin and sneer suppressed beneath this polite choice of words. I highly recommend reading the report in full (pdf) - it's full of this sort of thing, particularly delightful when describing the complaints received from teenagers about decisions to certify games and films at 18, and is in any case a fascinating insight into film classification and censorship.

The fact that the complaints about Antichrist were made by people who had not even bothered to research the film's content, much less see it, should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the moral panic about video nasties in the early 1980s. As Video Nasties explains, the moral panic may have been spurious, ill-informed and hysterical, but the distributors of the films in question didn't help themselves. By rebranding Day of the Woman as I Spit on Your Grave (admittedly evocative, though not of the film's contents), they were appealing to paternalistic politicians along with excitable teens. Mary Whitehouse and The Daily Mail went thorugh the roof and survey statistics were deliberately misinterpreted and put to good use in lies fed to the public and Parliament.

Moralisers and politicians working together behind closed doors soon led to the introduction of the Video Recordings Act, which required the BBFC to certify any video recording before it could be legally distributed, and the director of public prosecutions compiled a list of films thought to breach obscenity laws - the soon-to-be-infamous list of video nasties.

Video Nasties is rare as a documentary that allows those with opposing views to defend themselves. Alongside the talking heads of academics and producers of modern horror movies sit interviews with and clips of contemporaneous footage of those who opposed the video nasties. The director of public prosecutions and the MP who introduced the Act remenisce about and are clearly proud of the roles they played. The forces of good don't need to lie to make the other side look bad; they're perfectly capable of doing that for themselves, and the story speaks for itself.

It's not often I complain about a film being too short, but this documentary is only 70-odd minutes long and it seems a shame they didn't say more about ongoing controversies, a brief mention of the controversy surrounding A Serbian Film aside. (Of which more should be expected soon, as the movie is slated for a theatrical release in December. Expect Christopher Tookey to hit the roof.) Regardless, anyone interested in video nasties should buy this DVD boxset quickly, before the limited run of 5000 sells out. They should also check out the Video Nasty Project.

The documentary ends with the grim prediction that the current lack of online censorship - of youtube and the like - will likely one day seem distant and utopic, and a reminder that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. All it takes is The Daily Mail to write a couple of stories spuriously linking a horrible crime or manufactured teenage trend to a subset of films for our politicians to blindly grasp for the parchment. Recent reactions to drug policy critics demonstrate that they cannot be trusted to seek evidence or balance before speaking or legislating. Is it too optimistic to predict they'd have a tougher time stamping on creative and expressive freedom in the age of web 2.0? I hope not.

Packaged with another two DVDs featuring trailers for each of the 72 video nasties, along with introductions by academics and filmmakers as well as a series of postcards featuring lurid promotional artwork, Video Nasties is a great coffee table item as well as an essential reference for these era-defining films.

Cross-posted to Chaos, Hostility and Murder.

Legal Aid cuts will lead to greater costs

2010-11-15T22:47:00.000Z

The government has said that it will make significant cuts to legal aid.

It will remove legal aid from areas such as divorce, welfare benefits and school exclusion appeals; employment cases; immigration where the person is not detained and clinical negligence and personal injury.

This is a terrible idea.

The current legal aid rates are as available as a (pdf), from section 7 onwards.

As you can see, the maximum hourly rate is £58.50/hour, for London-based law firms attending Court.

For non-Legal Aid cases, the High Court provides guidelines as to what hourly rates would be considered reasonable for a solicitor to charge for their work.

These are the 2010 guideline hourly rates:

The Bands and locations aren't particularly relevant for our purposes, but they show how much of a difference there is compared to what a solicitor can claim from legal aid.

As you can see, the Legal Aid rates are significantly lower than the guideline rates; even the lowest-level lawyer working in some rural area can claim almost double the maximum allowed on a legal aid basis. Presumably any gaps in the market place caused by the cuts would be covered by Conditional Fee Agreements - the "No-win, no-fee" ones - which will have a success fee (a solicitors bonus fee for winning the case) of up to 100%.

Leaving aside any "Access to Justice" arguments, it's a terrible idea from a legal costs, i.e. taxpayers', point of view.

Article 10

2010-11-14T14:13:00.000Z

This is a cross-post from an article on Law Seen From The Cheap Seats, which was written in response to the ludicrous conviction of Paul Chambers over his Twitter "bomb threat":

This first appeared as a series of messages on Twitter, and that’s probably where it is best seen. But for those who asked (thank you!) here are my thoughts on Article 10:

A lot of what is going on this week, Aung San Suu Kyi, #twitterjoketrial, @baskers, all comes down to one thing. Freedom of speech.

Now we have members of the London Assembly saying they will suspend the right to protest because they can’t afford to police it.

So I just wanted to say this. My name is David Wales. That doesn’t mean a thing to any one of you.

My name is Gaijin-san. I have a right to freedom of speech. It is not a gift you may revoke if you find it inconvenient or costly.

It is my right and it is guaranteed to me by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It therefore supersedes your authority.

I will not use disclaimers. Article 10 does not require that I use disclaimers.

I will not tell you when I am making a joke. Article 10 does not require that I tell you when I am making a joke.

I will not moderate my language. FUCK THAT SHIT. Article 10 does not require that I moderate my language.

I will not be intimidated out of my rights by poor application of the law. Article 10 protects me from poor application of the law.

I will not allow you to propagate bullshit about terrorism to keep me scared. I will use my Article 10 rights to inform myself and others.

Freedom of expression is my right, guaranteed to me by Article 10. If you want it you can take it from my cold dead hands.

But if you try, remember #IAmSpartacus. Because my name is Legion, and I am many.

I guess this also links in with the on-going #TweetDelete discussion which is on Twitter, which I mentioned back in July.

Message to America

2010-11-03T08:07:00.000Z

In light of this, a response from Simon Pegg on Twitter:

The War Against Terrooner

2010-11-01T17:28:00.001Z

Theresa May has decided to ban toner cartridges weighing over 500g from aeroplanes.

Not much I can say other that I guess that "TWAT" is no an acronym for The War Against Toner.

You're either with us, or with the Tonerists!

UPDATE: Here's my views on Twitter.

Down the memory hole

2010-11-01T15:56:00.000Z

You may have heard that Prof david Nutt has published another article showing the UK's drugs system to be lacking.

Not going to comment on the article (there's a good overview by Mark Easton), other than to highlight this disappointing message I saw on Twitter:

Yeah, Labour London Assembly Member Valerie Shawcross has had a go at him.

She doesn't actually dispute what he's written, she simply states:

"Prof Nutt probably never lost a young member of his family to heroin/crack cocaine. He might make a very different calculation if he had."

The message has since been deleted, but the address was http://twitter.com/ValShawcross/statuses/29372981863.

In other words, you can only comment if you're personally affected by something.

Sanity in the UK

2010-10-27T21:57:00.000+01:00

You may be aware of the US "Rally to Restore Sanity" which is being promoted by the Daily Show and is planned for this weekend.

Tim Ireland has decided to do a UK version around Parliament Square, which co-incidentally is within the still enforceable SOCPA protest-ban "designed area".*

Tim suggests that people wear black.

Tim does have permission to protest - as is still required by the law.

I'm going to try to come along, but I'm currently house-hunting and so may not be able to make it.

* Hopefully, not for much longer.

Project Censored 2011

2010-10-21T22:00:00.000+01:00

Yesterday I mentioned the World Press Freedom Index, and referred to "Project Censored".

If you've never come across it before, this is an annual list of stories which, while important or significant, for whatever reason have gained little it any real coverage in the US media.

As is tradition on this site (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010) I cover what they say.

I've finally managed to look into this year's edition.

Amongst their stories covered - or more accurately, not covered - are:

I'm going to ignore #14...

Freedom of the Press in 2010

2010-10-20T22:54:00.000+01:00

Reports Without Borders has published its annual "World Press Freedom Index" (PDF).

I've previously covered the ones in 2005, 2006 and 2007.*

Briefly:

UK #19 in the world;
USA is #20;
6 (!) countries share top spot: Finland, Iceland, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland;
The highest-ranked "poor" country is Namibia, which is joint 21st with Canada; and
The lowest ranked country, shockingly isn't North Korea, but, for the fourth straight year, Eritrea

As usual, it makes for interesting and an odd mixture of up-lifting and mood-dampening reading.

On a related note, around this time of year the annual Project Censored book gets published. This covers articles which have been pretty much ignored in the US media, when they shouldn't have been. I'll cover this in a later post.

* I know I missed the 2008 version, but was sure I covered the 2009; however it appears to be missing...

The Sun Lies: Chocolate liqueurs

2010-10-18T13:42:00.002+01:00

I hve a new post up on the Sun - Lies.

Please read it!

How to Respond to Media Myths

2010-10-16T10:11:00.000+01:00

I've done a cross-post on the Sun-Lies, Express Watch and Mail Watch.

It's aimed at the journalists at my favourite newspapers and the idea is to help them out.

Aren't I nice?

The Sun Lies: The Sun ignores its own campaign?

2010-10-14T22:47:00.000+01:00

I have a new post up on the Sun - Lies.

Its about the effects of a policy which the Sun campaigned for, yet onw which the Sun appears to be unwilling to take credit for.

... as unblocked by Nadine Dorries MP (?)

2010-10-13T20:32:00.000+01:00

Back in February I noticed that I had been blocked on Twitter by "Britain's Sarah Palin", Nadine Dorries.

Shortly after the election, she deleted her account.

However, she's now back. Yay!

As yet, I've not been blocked and so I can see individual messages. Of course, this may change...

... as featured on Liberal Conspiracy

2010-10-10T10:56:00.000+01:00

I've written an article which has been published on Liberal Conspiracy.

It's about William Hague's attempts to override EU law.

You Can't Talk About ImMigration Watch

2010-10-07T13:30:00.000+01:00

Last Friday, I mentioned another ludicrous libel threat, this time by Migration Watch.

Today MW said ("Mrs Bercow and Migrationwatch 6 October 2010") that after reading the response from Bercow's laywers (PDF), they will not be taking it any futher, i.e. they've caved in, in spite of what some people say.

Well done on standing up to them!

The Who were wrong...

2010-10-02T12:45:00.000+01:00

I was reading this on the New Scientist today:

[A] US National Research Council report commissioned by the CIA, DARPA and the Department of Homeland Security confirms [that biometrics can be fooled].

The natural changes that occur due to age and health - and the fact that prints from the same finger can differ because of dirt or moisture - mean that anyone can unwittingly fool the technology, leaving such systems "inherently fallible".

I've only read the Summary, because the rest is beyond me.

In any event, it's another example of the many issues with biometrics.

Google's blacklist?

2010-10-01T22:47:00.000+01:00

You may have heard that Google have revamped their search engine.

They've created summat called "Google Instant" which displays search links while you type the term into the search box, as in this example:

Unfortunately, some people have discovered what can only be described as a "blacklist" - words and phrases which do not appear in Google Instant, yet do appear if you search for the terms in the "old-fashioned" way.

Who knows why Google Instant works like this? What benefit is it? More importantly, how do terms get on to the list?

The answers to these and other questions will not be provided by me, but may be by other people in the future...

You Can't Talk About ImMigration Watch

2010-10-01T20:34:00.000+01:00

Another day, another pointless libel case...

Earlier today it was announced that the not-at-all-nuts Migration Watch are threatening to sue Sally Bercow (the wife of the current Speaker of the House of Commons) for comments she made in August on Sky News. While referring to an article in the Express using figures from MW, apparently she said that groups such as MW use "arguments linking immigration to unemployment had been used by fascists such as Adolf Hitler and British Union of Fascists leader Oswald Mosley".

Oddly, as in the Simon Singh libel case, the publishers are not being being held liable, but her personally.

She's instructed Jack of Kent's lot to defend her.

The current documents - initial letter from MW's solicitors and the response - are available as a PDF.

If you wanna track it on Twitter, the "official" hashtag seems to be #MigWatchFail. However, I've created my own - and if I may say so - better one: #YouCantTalkAboutImMigrationWatch.

Naturally, I'll keep both of you informed on any future updates.

BTW, yes, the headline and hashtag are piss-takes of the usual right-wing fantasy that "you can't talk about immigration".

"It's a free country"

2010-09-19T21:49:00.001+01:00

I stumbled upon this a few days ago: the World Freedom Atlas.

It takes data from numerous sources over a variety of civil rights measures and areas measuring how well-run each country is and then colour codes each country based on its overall score.

Obviously I can't vouch as to the accuracy or reliability of the scores, but it seems quite a useful tool. The only downside is that it only goes up to 2006.

UPDATE: I've been told that the WFA is close to the US govt, due to its use of Freedom House data, which may impinge on its accuracy... I've been told that the Global Peace Index is more reliable. Of course, the same caveats apply regarding its reliability. Thanks to 10% for the info.

Introducing (new & improved) Mail Watch and Express Watch

2010-09-19T18:44:00.001+01:00

While I was on holiday two things happened in the world of media criticism:

The Daily Mail Watch website was re-launched with more editors and more frequent posts; and
Express Watch was launched

I've agreed to join on on both of these.

I'll be posting on these in a similar way to how I post on the Sun - Tabloid Lies, i.e. whenever I feel it is required.

I'll also be partly running the Twitter accounts for both Daily Mail Watch and Express Watch, as well as continuing to run the Sun Lies one. Follow all of these accounts.

I've also added permalinks to the Daily Mail and Express Watch sites.

Bliar's book, excerpted

2010-09-04T17:15:00.000+01:00

You may have heard that one of our previous great-and-glorious leaders has written a book.

The Virtual Stoa has taken it upon himself to read the book and twitter excerpts. He my complete sympathy for undertaking such a task.

By the way, well done to the people of Dublin for their reception.

Holiday in Cambodia Croatia

2010-09-04T00:04:00.000+01:00

As you may have noticed, I've not been posting much on here recently.

There's not been any particular reason, simply apathy...

However, from Monday I'll be away from a week because I'll be on holiday with my darling girlfriend Tola.

I'll probably be updating my adventures on my Twitter feed, but it is as yet unconfirmed, because I do not know whether or not I will be able to get a signal.

This is your Independent on Drugs

2010-09-02T22:34:00.000+01:00

Back in 2007, the Independent went all hysterical over cannabis, in particular "super skunk".

Thankfully it has re-evaluated its position and decided that prohibition causes a lot more problems than it solves.

To AV or Not to AV, that is the Question

2010-08-23T20:14:00.000+01:00

For some reason - possibly masochism - I've started following the "VoteNo2AV" group on Twitter.

As you can guess by their name, they're opposed to the proposed Alternative Vote (AV) system. For the record, I am too; however, I know that it'd be better than the current First-Past-the-Post system that we use.

They claim to be opposed to AV, because FPTP has "suppl[ied] a simple, strong, stable majority government in over 74 nations worldwide for hundreds of years". Aside from the fact that this is irrelevant because tradition is no reason to support something, they have a go at other groups, e.g. the Electoral Reform Society, who favour AV over FPTP, because it would delay proportional representation, which VoteNoToAV are also opposed to!

Anyway, amongst other things, on their blog they have a post in which they have a go at the Electoral Reform Society over its support for the referendum on AV.

They state that because the ERS's position is to support Single Transferable Vote, not AV, then their support for the next year's planned referendum is "contradictory" and a "U-turn".

I might be missing something, but I fail to see how.

A choice of a preferred voting system - as an example - is not mutually exclusive. You can prefer one over another, i.e. you can prefer A [STV] over B [AV] and prefer B over C [FPTP]. It's ridiculous to say that for someone to support B over C contradicts their support for A over B.

I'm expecting more of this sort of thing over the next 9 months.

Proposition 8

2010-08-05T23:43:00.001+01:00

You've probably heard that California's Proposition (the "ban gay marriage within the state") has been ruled to violate the US Constitution, specifically Amendment 14.

Back in 2008 I wrote an article for the London Progressive Journal, which briefly touched upon this. I mentioned that it was subject to legal challenges on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.

Thankfully, I have been proven correct.

In light of this ruling, there's two songs which I'd like to link two; both of which relate to gay marriage: The Gossip - Standing in the Way of Control (not embeddable)

Hidden Cameras - Ban Marriage

All I have to add is: good! It was an appalling thing to put to a public vote, which was publicised, promoted and voted for by twats.

... DNA wasn't invented then

2010-08-01T22:23:00.000+01:00

There's a post on Pharyngula about fundamentalist religious group teaching RE in schools in parts of Australia.

This includes possibly my all-time favourite response to a question:

A parent of a Year 5 student on the Sunshine Coast said his daughter was ostracised to the library after arguing with her scripture teacher about DNA.

"The scripture teacher told the class that all people were descended from Adam and Eve," he said.

"My daughter rightly pointed out, as I had been teaching her about DNA and science, that 'wouldn't they all be inbred'?

"But the teacher replied that DNA wasn't invented then."

I don't know what I can say. Even one of my usual sarcastic responses wouldn't suffice to such a moronic position.

The Best Football Celebration Ever?

2010-07-29T20:47:00.001+01:00

I found this clip from the Iceland football league on the Guardian's You Tube feature today:I look forward to Rovers doing summat similar next season...

UPDATE: 30/09/2010: altered links because they've been changed. Thanks to Raincoat Optimism in the comments.

Movie review: Inception

2010-07-27T21:39:00.000+01:00

Like Shutter Island, Inception stars Leonardo DiCaprio as a man on a singular mission, obsessed with the absence of his wife and children and constantly haunted by their apparitions. Also like Shutter Island, it turns into a dizzying commentary on the fragile nature of reality. They're also both ambitious, portentous concept movies from respected directors - this one from Christopher Nolan, who made Memento and The Dark Knight.

But even more than it recalled Shutter Island, Inception brought to mind David Cronenberg's 1999 movie eXistenZ. (Coincidentally, it's not the only thing to do so recently.) It has similar multi-layered levels of reality and fantasy and similar young, strong, intellectual female characters who expertly design these reality-levels. In some ways the concept is better than that of eXistenZ: in Inception's dreamworld, dreams-within-dreams last longer than their host dreams and so several parallel "events" can synchronise - which they do, in a technically superb and exciting finale. In the to my mind important sense of plausibility, the concept of eXistenZ is superior and thus more satisfying. But the world of Inception is largely self-consistent, despite some minor gaps.

I deliberately haven't explained much of the concept here, because finding that out is an important part of the enjoyment of the film. But it's worth saying that although Inception has been slapped with warnings of complexity and of being hard to follow (notably by Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo), I wouldn't take these warnings too seriously. Yes, it doesn't spoonfeed us, but it does give us ample explanation of what's going on. I was slightly apprehensive about it myself, ensuring I was wide awake before seeing it. But that wasn't too necessary. For one thing, it's got enough explosions and gunfire to keep the doziest viewer awake. I wouldn't want people to miss out on seeing the best film of the summer just because they don't fancy having to make too much effort. Inception is thoughtful - but it's also rip-roaring, dizzying fun. Whether it would survive a second viewing with as much praise is hard to say, but everyone should give it a first.

Now with added Spotify goodness

2010-07-27T20:55:00.000+01:00

I've finally got around to adding a link to my Spotify account, on the left hand column.

Click on it and explore my fantastic music taste.

... on #TweetDelete

2010-07-27T14:06:00.000+01:00

Over the past few days, Jack of Kent has been having a discussion over whether people on Twitter should have a "#TweetDelete" - a mass deleting of their Twitter feed.

He says that based on the recent debacles over Scientology (local councillor in Wales was taken to the standards board due to making a joke about that cult) and the Paul Chambers/Twitter Joke Trial (who was convicted for making a clearly jokey bomb-threat) it's good practice to regularly remove items from your Twitter feed, as long as it's not done to deceive.

In my view, that's the problem. It would be difficult to determine whether or not it was done in such a way. *

There's also the fact that, by Jack's argument, people should also delete blog posts and threads on messageboards, as soon as they're written. After all, what's to stop people issuing claims based on what's contained in those?

In any event, you shouldn't be encouraging people to delete evidence - it may come back to haunt you in the future - and in fact this was one of the issues in the Dave Osler and Alex Hilton cases: Ms Kaschke's post which they linked to disappeared for some unknown reason, which made it difficult to raise a defence.

Jack has said that he's happy defend anyone who is sued for anything written on their blog/Twitter, like he did with Osler and Hilton. While I fully support this sentiment - and am happy to help out in any way possible, should such claims be issued - I think that systematically deleting stuff in an attempt to head-off any potential issues is the wrong way to go about it.

In short: in my view deleting stuff can cause more problems that it solves, and it just looks dodgy!

* Note: I have deleted stuff in the past, but that's just been down to pressing enter too quickly, so the messages are garbled/littered with typos.

Kaschke v Gray & Hilton

2010-07-27T12:32:00.000+01:00

I've previously mentioned a libel case which Johanna Kasche issued over claims of her links to '70s German terrorists against two Labour bloggers: Gray and Hilton, in a similar to her case against Dave Osler.

The judgment was originally due to be issued two weeks agao, but was delayed.

It was eventually handed down last Friday, with the case being struck out again on the grounds of an abuse of process, again because there was no real damage to her, like Kaschke's claim against Osler.

Latest libel ruling: Flood vs Times

2010-07-15T21:55:00.000+01:00

Just after I pressed "Publish Post" on my Kaschke vs Osler post, I realised that I hadn't covered another libel ruling from this week.

On Tuesday, there was an appeal in the case of Gary Flood vs Times Newspapers Ltd.

Flood is a Detective Sergeant in the Metropolitan Police. He sued for libel over allegations of "taking bribes".

The Times won the first case in the High Court on the basis of a Reynolds defence which gives qualified privilege to articles in the public interest. However, this only covered the period up to 5th September 2007 because Flood had subsequently been exonerated of the charge, and because the Times's archives kept mention of it, it was found to be libellous and not covered by Reynolds after this date.

Flood appealed the decision regarding the Reynolds defence and the Times cross-appealed, i.e. appealed against another part the ruling - the post 5th November '07 position.

Flood won; the Times Lost.

It remains to be seen whether the Times will appeal to the Supreme Court, but the Guardian's report says they plan for permission.