phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
SmokyDave said:I think he ought to have thought a lot longer before opening his mush.
That's not generally an option available to you when you are being interviewed on radio.
SmokyDave said:I think he ought to have thought a lot longer before opening his mush.
phisheep said:That's not generally an option available to you when you are being interviewed on radio.
vcassano1 said:Just to balance out the pro-austerity camp, here is an interesting article on the Canadian programme of cuts which the Tories use as a model for theirs. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/18/tory-cuts-uk-bank-debt
Yeah it is, the awkward silence is a problem for the host, notphisheep said:That's not generally an option available to you when you are being interviewed on radio.
vcassano1 said:Just to balance out the pro-austerity camp, here is an interesting article on the Canadian programme of cuts which the Tories use as a model for theirs. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/18/tory-cuts-uk-bank-debt
Meadows said:Is there anything illegal about saying their names together?
Meadows said:Is there anything illegal about saying their names together?
Guerrillas in the Mist said:No, one's a footballer, and the other won Big Brother a while back. There's absolutely no connection between them at all.
phisheep said:It's no more illegal (for us) than saying, for example, Gordon Brown and Cherie Blair together.
JonathanEx said:Oh and Giles Coren is being sued for contempt of court for revealing the identity of another footballer who's been sleeping around and trying to hide it.
Meadows said:Ryan Giggs
Imogen Thomas
Is there anything illegal about saying their names together?
zomgbbqftw said:Doesn't matter, GAF is based in the US and is not subject to UK jurisdiction.
iapetus said:And rightly so; said court is most worthy of contempt.
zomgbbqftw said:Doesn't matter, GAF is based in the US and is not subject to UK jurisdiction.
Meadows said:Why could that "I'm gonna blow up Robin Hood Airport if these flights don't resume!" guy on Twitter (based in the US) go to prison here if he posted onto an American server?
phisheep said:Reminds me of the wonderful line of F E Smith (when he was a mere barrister before becoming Lord Chancellor) who was a notoriously prickly advocate:
Judge: "Are you trying to show contempt for this court, Mr Smith?"
F. E. Smith : "No, My Lord. I am attempting to conceal it."
Careful. That doesn't take any of us in the UK out of the UK jurisdiction.
It does mean that GAF is well-placed to resist attempts at disclosing information about individual posters (but I really wouldn't want to put EviLore through that trouble), and better-positioned than UK boards at avoiding liabililty, but any of us who knew the existence and contents of the injunction beforehand could be liable for contempt in the UK. If they could find us of course. And of course I didn't, and neither did you.
But still, things like libel could still stitch posters up on this board despite the fact it is hosted/managed etc in the US. So there's not a completely free hand, but the chances of a permaban are probably far greater than the chances of a prosecution.
Because his user name was his real name so they could track him down easily.
Being on an American/Canadian/Chinese server is no protection from the law so long as you are under its jurisdiction. And if they can find you - which is easier than it sounds.
Guerrillas in the Mist said:Just realised the law doesn't apply to me because I'm Scottish and in Scotland.
Gotta love having our own legal system.
zomgbbqftw said:I hope they are supported and the law is amended so that rich people can't take advantages of loopholes. We live in a globalised world, surely it can't be that hard getting information into the UK!
zomgbbqftw said:As I understand the situation, making a comment on GAF is the equivalent of having a conversation in the US (or Canada as it turns out) and as such the UK government has no right to prosecute us for any discussions made on this forum or any other discussion boards not based in the UK.
That's how my uncle (a solicitor) explained it to me, but he may have simplified it somewhat.
As I understand the situation, making a comment on GAF is the equivalent of having a conversation in the US (or Canada as it turns out) and as such the UK government has no right to prosecute us for any discussions made on this forum or any other discussion boards not based in the UK.
That's how my uncle (a solicitor) explained it to me, but he may have simplified it somewhat.
zomgbbqftw said:The extradition treaty with the US allows the government to prosecute people who they think are a threat to national security, and the comment on Twitter by that guy could be construed as one. So even though his comments were made in the US he was effectively extradited to be tried in the UK.
The stuff about Ryan Giggs doesn't pose any kind of threat to national security and is not covered by the extradition treaty, and all comments on Twitter (about this subject at least) are covered by the US Constitution (specifically the first amendment). If Shillings (the law firm involved) successfully sued Twitter (they won't btw) the first amendment would be suspended in the US.
The only way these celebrities can stop people on Facebook/Twitter can stop us talking about it is to petition to government to include breach of an injunction in the extradition treaty with the US. That is unlikely as the government are already very irritated by the injunctions and won't amend an important treaty like the one with the US on the whim of a few celebrities.
zomgbbqftw said:Fair enough. Thanks for setting me straight!![]()
Wes said:Ancelotti said: I respect Chelseas decision. I spent two fantastic years at this club. I think I did a good job. Now, I think about my future. I would prefer to stay in the Premier League.
I think he really wants to stay in this country. It's widely known he doubled the number of English language lessons he was doing only a few months ago, even when there already mutterings of him being shown the door.
JoshHalliday Josh Halliday
Bizarre: Wealthy British financier seeks to jail sister-in-law over injunction breach gu.com/p/2pa94/tw
A wealthy British financier is seeking to have his sister-in-law secretly jailed in a libel case, in the latest escalation of the controversy over superinjunctions and the internet, the Guardian can disclose.
The financier, who can only be known as The Hon Mr Zam claims his sister-in-law is linked to foreign internet postings which reveal the fact that he has obtained an injunction against her in the British high court.
This latest move, orchestrated by the royal solicitors, Farrers, raises the bizarre legal possibility that a woman who cannot be named, can be jailed at the request of her equally anonymous brother-in-law, and that her entire trial for alleged contempt of court can take place in secret.
zomgbbqftw said:People were ridiculing John Hemming for his secret courts/trials comments, but this could be what he was referring to. The whole system needs reforming and the judiciary need to see that they are not in charge of lawmaking. Parliament needs to smack them down, something that was sorely missing in the Labour era.
zomgbbqftw said:I get that they are applying the law, but activist judges like Eady see themselves as the law, and they are usurping the function of Parliament which is the ultimate court and has the highest privilege.
Also, a lot of the problem arises when it is left up a judge like Eady to decide what is and isn't in the public interest. They very out of touch with reality. I have the full case details of the injunction the Guardian are referring to and believe me it is just another rich and powerful man being protected by activist judiciary.
Someone I know had a good idea, we should use a system similar to the one used by the US. Judges would be elected to the Supreme Court by MPs and Lords and would serve for life. It would assert the ultimate supremacy of Parliament, the current system doesn't involve Parliament and the judiciary are answerable to no one which is surely a bad thing.
I also heard that the Europeans aren't too pleased with Parliament flouting the HRA of 1998, and they want to assert their supremacy over Parliament. However, they have realised the cat is out of the bag and they have no way of enforcing their judgements in the UK after the prisoner votes debacle. It makes me think that this argument has been engineered by right wing politicians and media to force a bust up with Europe over the HRA and force it to be rescinded and replaced with a new British Bill of Rights where freedom of expression/speech trumps all.
Meadows said:I think my problem with activist judges is that they wield considerable influence, but aren't elected, even if they do good work.
phisheep said:Seems we are streets apart on this topic zomg. Let me just try to put my spin on it and we'll see where we end up.
Chances are you know all of this anyway, but I thought it worth writing out for anyone else who wants to play. I guess that if we were discussing this over a pint we'd reach common ground eventually - say after the first three.
I don't see anything greatly wrong with activist judges in principle. Lord Denning was a great one for example and we've had a few more in the higher courts more recently. They are often a very strong force for the good, but I hasten to add I have some reservations as well.
Most of the good activist judging happens in the appeal courts, where a judge rarely sits alone, where judicial opinions emerge through dissenting judgments and eventually make some sort of consensus that swings the balance into a new approach to whatever the legal issue is. Out-of-line judgments in the courts of first instance tend to corrected through the appeals process and precedent. But there's a particular problem with defamation actions in the High Court, in that the actions themselves are so expensive the appeals are usually prohibitively so - so they don't happen, the case settles out of court and judicial errors never get corrected. That's why Mr Justice Eady has had his own way for so long and the law of defamation got so abused. That's probably a hole in the judicial system, as there is no mechanism for a higher court to intervene of its own volition and there is no way to compel the parties to appeal using what is, after all, their own money. (It's a bit different in criminal cases where the Attorney General can intervene, and maybe we need a similar mechanism in civil cases - in fact that might just do the trick of getting the right level of Parliamentary intervention without clogging the courts up).
Privacy law is in a similar position but only because it is so new that there is little caselaw to rely on. Short of parliamentary intervention a couple of good appeals should sort it out.
I don't think it is quite fair to say that judges are usurping the role of parliament if they are operating in an area in which parliament has declined to legislate or not bothered, or not got round to. The job of a judge (in civil cases) is to make a decision. He can't defer it indefinitely on the offchance that Parliament will legislate at some point in the future and can't not reach a decision. If a decision is called for and there is no relevant statute, that doesn't absolve the judge from reaching a judgment. If parliament didn't make the right laws in the first place that is parliament's fault, and it ill-becomes them to blame the judges.
Oh, and it is no longer quite true to say that Parliament is the ultimate court in the land. Since the Supreme Court replaced the judicial committee of the Lords, Parliament has nearly no judicial functions left - only as regards its own members (and recent events on the expenses scandal have shown that to be limited) and on the dismissal of judges for not being of good behaviour. That's about it. Parliament just isn't geared up to make judgments in individual cases, not any more.
Again, it is probably not quite fair to claim that judges are 'out of touch with reality'. It's a common claim with some factual basis in the usual background and upbringing and experience they have, but in the main judges see, day in and day out, far more of a wider variety of life than most of us ever do - even if it is seen from the height of a bench and through the window of evidence. The judges I have met socially all seemed very sane and worldy-wise.
Injunctions - of the ordinary sort - are an essential tool in all manner of cases, and aren't reserved for the rich and powerful.
I'm not familiar with the case you mention, but from the brief details you've given it seems like it is an essentially private civil matter of whether or not there was a breach of trust, and it is this sort of thing where the rich (and possibly powerful) are at particular risk of bad publicity of matters come out before a trial and get into the newspapers (who will of course report the initial scandal and not bother to report the trial if it isn't interesting enough) - and it seems perfectly sensible that this should happen. It isn't that the remedy is only available to the powerful (and possibly rich) or that they are particularly being protected by the judiciary, but that they are particularly vulnerable, because of being newsworthy, to newspaper intrusion.
Put it this way, there were probably something over 1000 injunctions granted in various courts over the last month, and we don't care about any of them except the ones that are newsworthy. Now just because someone is newsworthy does not mean they should not have the same protection of the law as everybody else gets.
This separation of powers is a bit of a tricky balance.
You seem to be saying that the judiciary should be answerable to parliament (though proposing a rather roundabout route for that to happen). Well, that's all well and dandy except when it is Parliament or the government itself that is interfering illegally with citizens, and that's when you need the judiciary to be independent. There's a whole string of cases that limit the arbitrary acts and discretions of government/parliament going all the way back to 1607 and probably before - and they're still going and still protecting us, like the recent business over control orders for example.
You make the judiciary accountable to a Parliament that is itself dominated by a government and you end up with a whole load of dengerous stuff happening.
I'm not saying it is perfect now by any means. But on the other hand, the constitution of the Supreme Court seems to be the least of our problems. It's getting the right cases in front of them that is the bigger problem.
I'm inclined to think - given some of the recent shenanigans in Parliament - that having the Supreme Court answerable to nobody is way better than having Parliament answerable to nobody.
I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the Europeans (of whom I am one, and so are you) are displeased with the UK government disregarding a judgment, especially from a court that the UK was instrumental in setting up and provided much of the mechanisms for and whose judgments the UK is very happy to wave around as against other countries, and whose jurisdiction is enshrined in both a treaty and an Act of Parliament.
Plus (and see your previous point) the judges get elected by a Parliamentary Assembly. So that should give them some legitimacy, right?
You might be right about why this row has come about. But a British Bill of Rights wouldn't get rid of the Treaty, and nor should it. And if it doesn't, then it doesn't get rid of the ECHR's judgment being final, and it doesn't get rid of anything else that's relevant either. It would just be noise for the sake of it.
Probably the problem then.zomgbbqftw said:I don't see myself as particularly European, maybe that is why I support the cause.
A "British bill of rights" would just be another layer of bullshit over the perfectly acceptable ECHR. The problem is faulty application of the law, not faulty law.I think the solution is probably going to be a sovereignty bill which puts our judiciary above the ECHR so that judges don't need to defer to ECHR rulings for UK cases. If that is impossible under the current laws then the HRA will be repealed to make it possible. It will probably be replaced with a British bill of rights.
The EEC did pretty well without us. It's combative nonsense like this that makes the English out to be a nation of morons. You really think the Dutch would leave the EU if we did? You really think that we lose £10bn a year and don't make it back? Ridiculous.Many people forget that Europe needs us much more than we need them so if we were to repeal the HRA and exit from the Council of Europe they wouldn't do anything about it. Just like they haven't done anything about the government's refusal to give votes to prisoners, they won't do anything about our extrication from the ECHR and ECJ. Don't forget that the UK contributes around £10bn a year to the EU, and if we were to leave it would probably start an exodus from Scandinavia, the Netherlands who don't want to be in the EU either. They would just let us stay in the EU and operate outside of the Council of Europe as an observer member.
lol they're not going to do that.Speedymanic said:UK may have to slow pace of cuts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13558997
Any of the more learned gaffers on this subject think he's right/wrong?
Speedymanic said:UK may have to slow pace of cuts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13558997
Any of the more learned gaffers on this subject think he's right/wrong?
Wes said:Louise Bagshawe is everywhere these days. I'm assuming this means she is the Tories go to spokesperson right now?
Meadows said:I'm currently in support of the Governments cuts, and think that debt reduction is the best thing to do right now, even if it will cause short term pain.
Speedymanic said:UK may have to slow pace of cuts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13558997
Any of the more learned gaffers on this subject think he's right/wrong?