Unconstituted on Red

I've Moved!

2006-10-06T16:47:00.000Z

Hi and wow, over 2000 hits!

It's been nearly 2 yrs since I've posted on this site but I see it's still getting hits! I've received really nice emails through this blog - many many thanks for those.

I won't be posting here any longer like I have told some of you, but, I have moved to a new site, and will be posting new material there from October 14! Some requests for follow ups on the Luke Mitchell case.. Well.. I've recently moved to Edinburgh, and have local access to the courts and peoples involved, so yes, I'll be following up the newer developments and in time for the appeal. Also, some Very interesting theories on what actually happened are surprisingly prevalent among the locals here- shocked me anyway, but more of that in a couple of weeks.

The new site 'Pedestrian' can be found @ khalidsmythe.wordpress.com , Or by clicking the orange 'I've Moved' link top of the post!

Best Wishes,
ks.

Veritas party release math riddle

2005-02-22T17:35:00.000Z

Veritas claim that on the latest figures they are hypothetically next in line for government. Can you work out how they did it?

"The Daily Mail are running a poll in which the question is:

'Would you vote for Robert Kilroy-Silk's Veritas party?'

Currently the findings are that 32 % say that they would vote for Veritas.

The latest yougov Poll on voting intentions is as follows:

Labour 42%
Conservative 30%
Lib. Dems. 21%
Others 7%

Assuming that Veritas were to take it's votes equally from all parties then Veritas would top the polls!

The revised figures would be:

Veritas 32%
Labour 28.56%
Conervatives 20.4%
Lib. Dems. 14.28%
Others 4.76%"

I'll post the answer in a couple of days.

Dubious diurnal etymology #3

2005-02-21T14:13:00.000Z

A fresh chat up line everydayish.

refute

1513, "refuse, reject," from L. refutare "drive back, repress, repel, rebut," from re- "back" + -futare "to beat," probably from PIE base *bhat- "to strike down" (cf. beat). Meaning "prove wrong" dates from 1545. Since c.1964 linguists have frowned on the subtle shift in meaning towards "to deny," as it is used in connection with allegation.

Warner, Goodman & Streat partner fired over fabricated defence

2005-02-15T15:33:00.000Z

Lancaster will be challenging his expulsion by WS&G

David Lancaster a former stipendary magistrate and defence lawyer has been expelled as a partner for helping an undercover BBC reporter posing as a cocaine dealer. Lancaster 54 showed the 'cocaine dealer' how to persuade a witness not to give evidence against him, as well as providing various explanations for why fingerprints may be found on bank notes and cocaine wrapping. Lancaster's former firm have referred the matter to the Law Society for a 'clear breach of his duties as a solicitor and officer of the court'.

Lancaster claimed he was 'exploring every possible option' with the Inside Out reporter. The programme aired last night on BBC 1.

On the unconstitutional detention of terror suspects

2005-02-13T20:16:00.000Z

The words constitutional crisis have rang through the papers the past few months, and for good reason. The Human Rights Act (HRA) came into force October 2000, with the aim of guaranteeing UK residents the freedoms and rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. These rights are then balanced proportionately against national interests, and, in some circumstances, a putting aside of human rights can be understood when for the greater, necessary good. So what went wrong with the terror detainees held at Belmarsh?

The Terrorism Act (TA) is a prime example of when the HRA can work against the state in protecting it's citizens - Art 6, the right to a fair trial can lead to sensitive information being diclosed in open court; Art 10, freedom of expression can lead to the press publishing sensitive information that could then jeapordise our intelligence agencies. The Home Secretary can reccommend that a terror suspect be held under the TA; which Blunkett when in power did with at least 11 men.

Charles Clarke, on taking Blunkett's position was defeated by a verdict of 8-1 by the House of Lords when they ruled that the suspects were deprived of their rights to a fair trial, that they were discriminated against under Art 14 as the TA only applied to foreign nationals, and that they should no longer be detained at Belmarsh. Yet some of the men are still there today. One suspect, known only as G has been released on house arrest, and last week Charles Clarke took him before the Special Immigrations Appeal Court in a secret hearing to have him returned to Belmarsh. The defence was not allowed to hear the evidence and was only able to speculate as to what the evidence was and then formulate a defence around that assumption. G rightly won his case, as the Home Secretary could not show that he had breached his house arrest with the unknown intelligence against him.

Other detainees have declined to be released on house arrest as they argue, as have Amnesty International, that it is merely replacing one detention without a fair trial for another. Several detainees are in the process of putting together their case before the European Court of Human Rights, however Charles Clarke has retaliated saying that he will be studying the HoL judgement carefully and will be recommending modified legislation on the matter.

Clarke's position is clearly to give the executive power to detain suspects regardless of the HoL's postition, and the entrenched human rights legislation. It is this tug of war between the executive and judiciary that troubles constitutional purists, and the public alike. The judiciary are trained and paid to judge, indeed that is their role. The executive's political tampering not only usurps the judiciary but leaves the public feeling helpless to a secretive executive playing power games for reasons that only they know of, and aren't prepared to divulge.

The Lord Chancellor speaking last Tuesday at a committee renewed faith in a UK supreme court, dismissing the cost on grounds of benefit; and it is here, that the benefit would be seen most. A supreme court with truly independant judiciary would be free from political tampering and would have the power to disapply primary legislation such as that Charles Clarke is hoping to pass in the lower chamber.

Vanitas party

2005-02-03T17:16:00.000Z

Veritas party spoof site launched last night for our amusement. Can be found by clicking on the orange link above.

Veritas launched

2005-02-02T18:26:00.000Z

Kilroy failed to take control of UKIP

Robert Kilroy Silk has gone on to form Veritas which he promises will 'not lie or engage in deceit, evasions or spin for political ends. We shall only ever tell the truth, however unpalatable.' With only around 200 members so far it's safe to say they won't be putting their manifesto into policy any time soon.

An awful name, for a, well, see for yourself. Veritas website can be found by clicking on the orange title above.

Luke Mitchell

2005-01-28T16:18:00.000Z

14 year old Jodi Jones was murdered last year near her home in Scotland. Both Jodi and her boyfriend Luke Mitchell also then 14 were associated with the popular goth genre known by it's dark lyrics, moody clothing and ocassional reference to satanism and various occultish practice. Jodi and Luke experimented with drugs and sex and were known to hang out at the well known Blackfriars cemetary in Edinburgh with other gothic teenagers.

On the 30 June 2003 Jodi was making her way to Luke's home taking a shortcut along Roan's Dyke, a wooden path, where she was to be murdered brutally taking numerous stabbings to the chest. Jodi was found later that evening by Luke and the Jones family when out searching for her. Luke's dog was said to have drawn them to the exact spot Jodi's body lay, a claim that the Jones family now deny.

On arrest Luke's knife pouch was found with his girlfriend's initials and the year they were going out on it. A tree in the wood were Luke and Jodi were seen smoking cannabis had their initials carved into it. There were several witnesses who saw a suspicious character near the crime scene on the day none of whom identified Luke, yet Luke was to become the prime suspect in the coming months despite the close relationship and the romantic engravings found on his personal effects and in the woods.

In the absence of any forensic evidence linking Luke to the crime the case fixated on the alternative teenage lifestyle Luke enjoyed. Lyrics from goth music that Luke had scribbled on his school jotters were gathered, and atheist quotations from Luke's school essay on God were reproduced for the jury.

On trial, a forensic psychologist gave his opinion that, that Luke had continued to try and lead a normal state of affairs by going to school, he was admitting to committing the offence. It was on these opinions and a hotchpotch of alternative teen culture representations that the jury, after 41 days of trial found Luke guilty by a majority of 10-2. He awaits sentencing on the 11 February.

Dubious diurnal etymology #2

2004-12-18T09:50:00.000Z

A fresh chat up line everydayish.

escheat

The reverting of land to a king or lord in certain cases, c.1330, from Anglo-Fr. eschete (1292), from O.Fr. eschete "succession, inheritance," originally fem. pp. of escheoir, from L.L. *excadere, from L. ex- "out, away" + cadere "to fall" (see case (1)).

Dubious diurnal etymology #1

2004-12-17T21:42:00.000Z

A fresh chat up line everydayish.

litigious

1382, "fond of disputes," from L. litigiosus "contentious, quarrelsome," from litigium "dispute, strife," related to litigare (see litigate). Meaning "fond of engaging in lawsuits" is from 1622. Earlier in Eng. than litigate (1615) or litigation (q.v.).

Times article: In praise of judicial jollity

2004-12-17T20:15:00.000Z

David Pannick, QC, bestows awards on the characters who have enlivened the legal year

THIS year, the Law Society ran an advertising campaign picturing a dynamic lawyer with the slogan, “My hero, my solicitor”. The posters may have impressed Saddam Hussein, facing trial in an Iraqi court for breaches of what he described at a very preliminary hearing as “law, what law?” An intermediary informed The Sunday Times that Saddam “respects the British legal system” and “ wants an English Queen’s Counsel” and legal team to act on his behalf. The legal awards for 2004 confirm the continuing inferiority of other legal systems.

Judge of the Year was Justice Dean Mildren, of the Northern Territory Supreme Court in Australia, who said he was “absolutely staggered” that the serial burglar appearing in his court had previously been granted bail. He demanded to know: “Who is the idiot who did that?” Judge Mildren was later informed that the judge responsible was Judge Mildren. A special mention for Justice Antonin Scalia, of the US Supreme Court, who announced: “I am not a nut”, and for a Romanian judge, Simona Lungu, who resigned after being accused of having appeared in an X-rated video, Secrets of Seduction. The “May It Please the Court” Award goes to District Judge Donald D. Thompson, whose removal from office was sought by the Attorney-General of Oklahoma for allegedly masturbating by the “repeated use of a device known as a penis pump during non-jury and jury trials in his courtroom”. Judge Thompson (who denied the charges) resigned just before a hearing on whether he should be suspended.

An Exceptional Humanitarian Award for Recorder Jeremy Carter-Manning, QC, sitting as a judge at Guildford Crown Court. He was told that the defendant had not eaten any lunch, so he adjourned the hearing, went to the kitchen, collected sandwiches and orange juice, returned to court, and waited for the defendant to eat his meal before resuming the hearing. The defendant’s just dessert was to be convicted of indecent assault and false imprisonment.

There was hot competition for Sentencing Decision of 2004. In Sante Fe, New Mexico, Judge Frances Gallegos ordered drunk drivers to wear pink hats while picking up rubbish. A woman whose erratic driving while talking on her phone caused another driver’s death was sentenced by Judge George Hancher, of Butler County, Pennsylvania, to carry, at all times, a photograph of her victim in his coffin. The winner is Judge Jeffrey Swartz, of Miami. He offered those convicted of causing a nuisance by playing car stereos too loudly the choice of paying a fine or sitting in his chambers on a Monday evening listening to one of his favourite operas.

A special award — Judicial Statement Most Offensive to Anyone Brought Up Near Highbury Stadium — goes to Judge Michael Taylor. Sitting at Teesside Crown Court, he allowed the appeal by a football fan convicted of drunkenness after falling asleep at Middlesbrough’s ground as the home team was losing to Arsenal. Judge Taylor said: “It is the right of every Englishman at a football match to fall asleep if he wants, particularly if he’s watching Arsenal.” The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by the men who tried to steal diamonds worth £200 million from the Millennium Dome despite the admission of the trial judge that he had momentarily fallen asleep during final speeches by counsel. He denied “snoring audibly”.

In the category of least promising lawsuit of the year —or the “No, I Will Not Act on a Conditional Fee Basis” Award — a strong contender was the claim by Ellen Fein (author of The Rules, a guide to finding and capturing your ideal man) who sued her New York dentist for cosmetic surgery which, she complained, left her with a smile so unattractive that “my marriage disintegrated” . A judge in Salt Lake City dismissed the claim by a lawyer seeking damages of $5,000 against the owner of CBS television for exposing him, during the Super Bowl half-time show, to the sight of Janet Jackson’s bare breast when he had expected to see “a family-oriented, patriotic celebration”. A group of Greek lawyers is threatening to sue Oliver Stone, the director of Alexander the Great, for suggesting that Alexander was bisexual. But the winner is a claim rejected by the Ekaterinburg District Court and the Russian Federal Court. A jilted man sought the return of gifts to his girlfriend, including “three kilograms of bananas, 300g of cookies, some big red apples and a souvenir thermometer”. She told the court that most of the gifts had been eaten (she did not specify the fate of the thermometer). The claimant announced that he would be taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

In the battle for The Twelve Angry Men (and Women) Award, the prize goes to the juror dismissed for shouting “Good luck Martha” just before the start of the trial of Martha Stewart in New York (convicted of lying to investigators about the sale of shares). At the Southwark Crown Court trial of Joyti De-Laurey (sent to prison for seven years for stealing millions of pounds from her bosses at Goldman Sachs after the jury rejected the astonishing defence that the money was “a reward for me being me”), the judge excused a potential juror who said that his own financial difficulties might lead to his judgment being clouded by jealousy.

Significant legal deaths this year included Professor Sir William Wade, the father of administrative law, and Marvin Mitchelson, the Californian divorce lawyer whose answering machine greeted callers with the opening bars of You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feeling. Musical Judgment of the Year was delivered by a New York judge in proceedings against the doctor who treated George Harrison. Adapting the lyrics of a Harrison song, Judge Robert Gigante announced that “Something in the folks he treats/ Attracts bad press like no other doctor”. Legal Cartoon of the Year was by Leo Cullum in The New Yorker. One attorney tells another: “My client got twenty years, yet he paid me in full. It just shows the system works.”

Among this year’s notable cases in domestic courts, the Court of Appeal awarded the footballer Ray Parlour’s former wife a third of his future income. A retrial was ordered in the case of Sion Jenkins, convicted in 1998 of murdering his foster daughter, Billie-Jo. Dismissing a claim by Nestlé to register a trademark showing the shape of a Polo mint, Lord Justice Mummery said: “This is an appeal with a hole in the middle.” The House of Lords decided, by a 3-2 majority, that the Daily Mirror had breached the privacy of the model Naomi Campbell (Baroness Hale said that “even the judges know who (she) is”) by publishing details of her treatment for drug addiction and photographs of her leaving a group therapy meeting. The Government backed down from the plan by David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, to make immigration decisions unreviewable in the higher courts after the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, asked: “What is the use of courts if you cannot access them?” One politician accessing the courts is Mr Blunkett, who brought proceedings against his former lover for a parental responsibility order in respect of a child he claims to be his.

Interesting trials abroad included the sentence by a Berlin court of 13 months’ probation for a right-wing fanatic who trained his alsatian dog, Adolf, to raise its paw in a Hitler salute. (Roger Boyes wrote in The Times that the dog was not in court but would, no doubt, have pleaded that he was only obeying orders.) The US Supreme Court ruled that alleged terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detention in the American courts. The Italian Supreme Court upheld a fine of €300 on a Trieste man for using offensive language by telling a parking warden: “You are nobody.”

In the competition for the advocate of 2004, a special mention for Thomas Mesereau, defence counsel for Michael Jackson on charges of child abuse. Mesereau was appointed in April after Jackson sacked his previous lawyers, who had privately expressed concern about their client “moonwalking” on top of his car on leaving a Californian court after a preliminary hearing. Mesereau announced that the case “is about one thing only. It’s about the dignity, the integrity, the decency, the honour, the charity, the innocence and the vindication of a wonderful human being named Michael Jackson.” But the Advocate of the Year is Jeffrey Kaufman, a Florida defence attorney whose client, a Disney World worker who portrayed the character Tigger, was acquitted of fondling a 13-year-old girl while posing for a photograph with her and her mother. Mr Kaufman gave part of his closing argument dressed in a Tigger outfit.

Some judges were very cross in 2004. When a mobile phone rang in the courtroom of Judge Lawrence F. Clark, of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, he ordered a bailiff to drop it out of the fifth-floor window. United States District Court Judge Sam Sparks, of Austin, Texas, was so irritated by the petulant behaviour of the lawyers in a case that he issued an order stating: “The court simply wants to scream to these lawyers, ‘ Get a life’ or ‘Do you have any other cases?’ or ‘When is the last time you registered for anger management classes?’” Lawyers will be hoping to provoke a more sympathetic judicial response to their submissions in 2005.

The author is a practising barrister at Blackstone Chambers and a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford

Anti terror courts: The lesser of two evils?

2004-12-17T19:20:00.000Z

The House of Lords have ruled 8-1 that detaining foreign terror suspects without their being subject to the safeguards under the criminal process that national suspects are due is incompatabile with the European Convention on Human Rights, Britain being one of the earliest signatories in the 50's.

Such an obvious breach of our incorporated duties did have reasons behind it. UK legislation makes it unlawful to deport a suspect where there is fear of persecution in their home country. However a glancing look at the profiles of just a few of the detainees raises a few eyebrows, and an understanding of how these detentions were felt to be necessary:

One Algerian was detained under special powers in December 2001. The Home Secretary said this man actively supported GSPC, an Algerian group said to have terrorist intentions. Suspect A "broadly supported" the aims of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
He allegedly used credit card fraud to raise funds for the organisation he supported. The government also claims A was associated with a terrorism suspect who was later apprehended at Heathrow.

Another, an Egyptian, was arrested in December 2001 after the home secretary concluded he was a member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The group's leader, Ayman al-Zawhiri is the architect of the al-Qaeda ideology and the closest confidante of Osama bin Laden. The Egyptian courts have sentenced C in absentia to 15 years for allegedly trying to recruit army officers.

The other suspects are alleged to have similar links to terrorist groups and can should they choose to do so exercise their rights to leave. A rock and a hard place for the government, and now that the highest court in the land have ruled on their unconstitutionality in legislating the Anti Terror Act they'll have to change it.

An alternative would be the juryless Diplock courts in Northern Ireland coupled with the inclusion of phone-tap evidence and other intelligence currently inadmissible. It has already been proposed under Blunkett, but now that he's gone would Charles Clarke have the strength to push something that has and is still cause for much controversy and pressure from groups like Liberty?

The problem with the Diplock courts is that often lawyers themselves don't get to hear the evidence and have therefore no chance to challenge it. The obvious democratic shortcomings don't help either especially when the objective ability of Judges such as Lord Hutton have been called into question. Anglo-Irish Oxford educated elite ruling on IRA suspects doesn't seem so palatable to some. However his judgement in the Armagh Four trial was testament to his integrity, and restored credence to the process.

Although these terror courts themselves may prove unpopular, the decisions of the judges, and their reasons for arriving there could be aired like they are in the Diplock courts as well as having an automatic right to appeal allowing for lawyers and appellate judges time to scrutinise the judicial reasoning.

Charles Clarke has released a statement saying that he will be asking Parliament to renew this legislation in the new year, but was uncommittal as to a result,

""In the meantime, we will be studying the judgment carefully to see whether it is possible to modify our legislation to address the concerns raised by the House of Lords."

The HoL ruling can be found by clicking on the orange title.

Embryonic ethics #2

2004-12-16T23:49:00.000Z

On a BBC2 programme tonight a mock-up trial was held where a doctor kept embryos for 19 days so that the chance of them developing into nerve tissue would be increased. The doctor did so in hope of increasing a paralysed man's chances of walking again.

In the UK it is illegal to keep embryos past 14 days as this is the period where in natural fertilisation the egg attaches itself to the womb. Pro-life groups argue that even this is amoral as life starts on fertitisation and that the law should reflect this.

There was a public phone in to decide the verdict of the jury, and two endings were shot. The public overwealmingly voted 81% in favour of the defendant.

If you feel differently you can find the alternate ending on the BBC2 website found by clicking on the heading above, (in orange).

The Millau Bridge

2004-12-15T11:14:00.000Z

Absolutely mindblowing. Standing over 28ft taller than the Eiffel Tower at it's longest pillar, weighing half a million tonnes of concrete and steel. Perhaps Norman Foster's greatest achievement to date.

Online Investigation Service

2004-12-14T17:38:00.000Z

Got a qualm with some specific area of law? Something you feel needs reformed or requires attention? Post a comment on a worthwhile subject and I'll look into it and relay the law as it stands on the issue. Or is there an angle from a minority group you feel needs illustrated then I might be persuaded to try that too regardless of the controversial content.

Nothing on tax thankyou.

Self defence, an alternative solution.

2004-12-14T14:45:00.000Z

Following my previous article describing the situation on self defence there has been little progress in terms of ideas. The Chief Constable minced his words on radio, and the Tories are accusing Blair of bandwagon jumping. Blair and the Attorney General have two contrasting opinions on the matter and the whole thing has taken a political flavour.

The Chief Constable's proposal was shortsightedly contrary to the current climate. He wants the wording changed from 'reasonable' to 'necessary'. What may be seen as reasonable (blowing out a burglar's kneecap whilst he makes a beeline out the door with the bone china) is not exactly necessary (calling the police). In reality it would be a greater burden on householders.

The grossly dispproportionate force solution would allow 'dispproportionate force'. There's something unconscionable about being unreasonable or dispropportionate, in fact there is no other law in the UK that allows for dispropportionate action, and for obvious reason.

Surely there is a third option. One that quenches the public thirst and allows them to be involved in their own protection. Something that brings the law into their streets, where it can be seen and felt. Something that is reasonable, and proportionate. In civil law homeowners fulfill their duty of care to trespassers when they put up signs warning of the dangers on their property. This relieves them of an action in negligence.

Could it not be said that it's reasonable that if a burglar is thinking, 'if I break into that house I might get ravaged by the guard dogs', and he continues on his course of action that it is reasonable if he then gets ravaged by the guard dogs. Surely all that is needed is the existing law, coupled with a disclaimer warnning of serious injury should there be an attempt to enter under illegal circumstance.

This way, there is no need for ridiculously worded legislation allowing 'disproportionate force'. Although the actions of householders may in practice be similar, with the disclaimer solution, the burden is shifted on the criminal to choose between the profit of his crime, and the consequence if he gets caught in the act.

Afterall, it was the shift from protecting the criminal to protecting the householder that was required and this device firmly, and reasonably puts the ball in the criminal's court.

A blind eye on self defence

2004-12-07T15:14:00.000Z

The Tony Martin case showed two things: that the existing law is clear and settled, to lawyers; and that the public neither understand it, or agree with their interpretation of it. For lawyers the criminal law is wrought with reasonableness which is decided in each case on the facts. It seems however that the outcomes of such legal reasoning is proving unpopular, with significant numbers of the public holding the opinion that shooting a burglar when running away from you is good practice. Some kind of common sense moral waiver has emerged with eyes turning to the US state of Oklahoma, where householders are given an unqualified right to use any force, including deadly force.

MP Patrick Mercer is to table a private members bill which will get a second reading and go to vote. The Conservatives are behind it and there seems to be a consensus across the board that something needs to be done. The Home Office have welcomed a new definition as long as it 'bettered and not just changed' the current law. One suggested proposal is to only investigate in extreme situations where there has been 'grossly disproportionate force', this, Mercer says is to,

"...shift the balance so that the fear of imprisonment or physical harm should lie with the intruder, not the householder."

Whether or not such a Bill will get enough votes remains to be seen, but what we are in danger of, if the public aren't satisfied with the political / legal reform should there be one, is driving a strong moral consensus underground. A consensus which when held amongst members of the police could lead to compromised cases and miscarriages of justice. Such views are already being voiced from within the Metropolitan Police by Chief Sir John Stevens,

"My own view is that people should be allowed to use what force is necessary and they should be allowed to do so without any risk of prosecution."

With spreading views like the one expressed above it's not hard to imagine a police force turning a blind eye in obtaining evidence, or in juries applying their discretion objectively at trial.

Dangers however in arbitrary self defence laws like those in Oaklahoma is that we stop being reasonable. Plain uniformed police and old women getting the baseball bat treatment spring to mind, trigger happy countrymen and the sale of brutal anti-theft devices like those sold in South Africa could invariably be of consequence to the law that allows 'disproportionate force'. Supporters are keen to express however that this law wouldn't have made any difference to the Tony Martin outcome which still mighten't appease those still protesting his sentence.

Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer reasons that a new law isn't required, only a better application of existing law. It's hard to see how a law that begs reasonable behaviour can be so condemned; and a law allowing for disproportionate response not unforseeably in contravention of the European Convention of Human Rights is high on the public's priorities.

Alternative opinion can be found at http://www.tonymartinsupportgroup.org/

Appraisal

2004-12-07T01:42:00.000Z

Thanks to Stephen from azuredreams for coding the template here at unconstitutedonred to include the links section. Stephen primarily concerns himself in web-design and azuredreams sports a contemporary and sharp feel testament to his talent; and attracts a wellrounded and diverse membership on it's forum concerning itself with current affairs. To see what the site has to offer, azuredreams can be found in the links section or by clicking the title heading, (in orange).

Unlawful act manslaughter and the case of Virgin Records

2004-12-04T19:00:00.000Z

"They know what they're doing isn't right, so they get uptight and defensive."

The above is a reference to gays and lesbians by a supporter of reggae's anti-gay ethic in an interview taken recently in Simply the Best music store in Miramar. Others are more hostile and make the claim that it's their right to listen to music that represents their own point of view. Lyrics such as,

"Batty Man Fi Dead,"

meaning, 'men who like bottom must be killed' in Jamaican patois. MTV have pulled artist Beenie Man, and on entering the UK late last summer he was taken in for questioning concerning lyrics he was due to rap at a concert. He could well have been charged with an offence of inciting murder had he been allowed to air his views, facing the warranted lengthy prison term. In spite of the recent furore from gay rights groups such as Stonewall, EMI subsidiary Virgin still have Beenie Man signed on their record label as well as fellow homophobes 'Elephant Man' and 'Bounty Killer'. 'Sizzla' has also been banned from performing here in the UK after gay rights group Outrage campaigned against his offensive lyrics. Had Sir Richard Branson not have sold Virgin Records to EMI back in 1992 one can only hope there would have been a different response to the public outcry.

Homophobic or offensive lyrics are understandable, not to eveyone's taste, but then few things ever are. It would be a profound loss of liberty if we were to censor what offends the majority. As Mills said,

"The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it."

The difference however between what offends and what must cross the line as a clear infringement of the autonomy of others can be illustrated by an examination of existing UK law, imagining a scenario where Virgin were brought before trial in the case of a murder as a consequence of Beenie Man's music.

The board of directors are fully aware that Beenie Man's lyrics constitute criminal conduct, and they have made the decision to keep publishing the same to the public. This brings them within the scope of Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972], necessary to make out corporate liability. This is evidenced by the actions of the Metropolitan Police in stopping the concerts.

The actual persons who are the 'directing mind and will' of the company under Lennard's Carrying Co. Ltd. [1915] can be idenitified by an examination of board meetings, public statements and internal memos. Although rare, it may well be that on the facts surrounding the previous police interventions that the very rare case of unlawful act corporate manslaughter could be made out.

Embryonic ethics

2004-12-04T14:57:00.000Z

Paralized for 20 years a Malaysian woman was the first ever recorded case of a spinally injured patient walking again following her treatment from stem cells taken from umbilical cord blood. Treatment similar to that the recently deceased Christopher Reeves was campaigning to have legalised in the US. The treatment she received was however lower down the moral compass that the type of embryonic manipulation used to create the clone 'Dolly' the sheep. Put simply it would seems that there are two schools of thought; that only waste stem cells are ethically acceptable as a means of treatment. The other that culturing stem cells for use en masse will be beneficial to humanity and also acceptable. Unfortunately not all all types of stem cell manipulation fit into these two categories and it's the grey areas that most of us will have issue with making our moral choice.

Adult stem cells: the least controversial; when cells remain undeveloped they can be coaxed to become other tissue. Can be found in the blood, or brain tissue, or elsewhere but are generally quite rare.

Discarded embryos: human embryos as a result of in-vitro fertilisation have been taken at the 5 day stage and used to develop into as many as one of around 220 different tissues, compared to the limit scope of adult stem cells.

Therapeutic cloning: replacing the genetic material from a donor egg with say, the nucleus from a skin cell, allows the egg to grow similar to an embryo in which stem cells can develop.

Cloning to destroy: a limitless supply of stem cells are potentially available from manifacturing human embryos.

Designer babies: genetic engineering can improve characteristics by increasing height or removing defective genes which cause disease.

Human cloning: the last frontier as it were, perhaps already broken as claimed by Raelian leader Brigette Boisselier. An embryo would be taken and implanted into an egg, then coaxed to divide into a normal embryo. A perfect copy. Dolly was created this way, but there is evidence to suggest that she aged quicker than is expected.

The House of Lords have ruled that support for therapeutic research will not be granted, and farther a field, the Virginia fertility clinic, where the first US test tube baby was conceived, have caused an uproar by creating embryos solely for the puropse of creating stem cells. Whether it offends the moral palette or not the fact remains that governments not supporting stem cell reseach will push the top scientists out of that particular practice, and smaller privately funded projects will go ahead out of the public eye with their research targetted at making a profit.

You can support human cloning at www.clonerights.com .

Misrepresenting fauna

2004-12-04T14:11:00.000Z

In 1984 John Curtis a leading figure of the Hunt Retribution Squad attempted to send the head of the Duke of Beaufort to the then Princess Royal. He was caught on Boxing day attempting to dig up his grave and was sentenced for 2 years for what the judge described as a 'revolting act'. Not surprising then that when an 82 year old year old woman's grave was desecrated in connection to animal rights intimdation recently, that Curtis was prime suspect. He has yet to provide a reliable alibi.

The FBI arrested Allison Lance Walker in January this year following lies she told to a grand jury concerning an arson attack on Olympia forest-product company. She faces jail for 5 years and a $250,000 fine. She's a dedicated activist for the Animal liberation front.

Groups like SHAC, (who have a list of 'targets' on their website), don't seem to realise that the world understands the animal rights issue, every pet-owner (or 'carer' as animal rights fundamentalists may prefer) empathises with the mice, primates and other species born and bred for experimentation, and we want these animals to have the voice they deserve. The benevolent paradox we can see past, that is, if the numbers add up. Robin Hood's utilitarianism: 'the greatest good by the greatest number'; but his numbers worked for us. The reason we as a conscientious public consent to animal testing is because we found our society on numbers. Economics provide that we need animal testing to save those in third world predicament, and even closer to home.

The animal contingent

If the John Curtises of this world want to make a difference they'd stop terrorising and start educating on alternative techniques that could realistically be used to test drugs. Removing bodies from graves and the like have only misdirected the public attention from the issue of animal testing to the playground tactics of intimidators keen only it seems on a spot of mischief. We can only welcome the new legislation making distress caused by protest a criminal offence due early in 2005.

The relative value of democracy in the EU

2004-12-03T13:56:00.000Z

We've never had a universally accepted notion of what democracy is on an operational or even esoteric level. Oft democracies are founded in tradition and deriving a deficit therefore from those traditional norms, or even an abstract subjective notion of democracy seems as meaningless as it is futile. However approaching democracy from a libertarian constitutional law perspective to protect the individual from potentially arbitrary, corrupt and tyrranical actions of the state may be of value because, as Lord (1998) reveals,

"The notion that there is no universally accepted approach to democratic politics should not, however, be taken as opening the door to an extreme relativism in which anything will do."

The framework of the EU has a unique nature and should be considered on it's fundamentally ad hoc basis; that is, that it was set up specifically to do a job. So what democratic check should be imposed when past practice hasn't dealt with an entity such as the EU before? Surely Montesqieu would have himself dismissed the seperation of powers doctrine when faced with the hotchpotch of relations between Community institutions; it was afterall inspired as a crtique of the French monarchy, and such critiques usually breed extreme idealism as a form of escape for the author.

Criticisms on the Comitology procedure by-passing the European Parliament are soaked in Montesqieuesque censure, as are the lack of powers the EP have as a legislative body compared to the Commission's executive dominance. Scholars have scolded the intra-party collusion; the same scholars who've employed the same adversarial techniques since the greek intellectuals of Aristotle and Socrates. They argue that there is no real representation of voters interests this way. Yet they neglect to mention that in case of narrow majority there can be a significant, (theoretically 49%) portion of the community who are left wanting. The collaborative approach allows for the interests of all voters to be taken into consideration to some degree; and in a community of nearly half a billion citizens, there must be no such thing as a minority interest.

Balancing the institutional powers have made the legislative processes appear more legitimate to national onlookers judging the co-decision procedure inter alia by their national ideals. Which is no bad thing. Citizens convinced of legitimacy in Brussels will be more inclined to vote, and voting is the real test of democracy. A greater proportion of UK voters turned out for the European Parliament than Americans have done in recent presidential elections.

In spite of this it seems that the Commission have produced a White paper wanting to return to and exceed the Community method, insodoing relegating the Council and the European Parliament to defining essential elements of primary legislation, themselves achieving massive executive control. It can only be hoped that the Laeken White paper will seek out increased transparency and legitimacy without radically imbalancing a misunderstood, yet effective symbiosis.

Luke Winston-Jones

2004-12-03T10:36:00.000Z

The baby with Edwards syndrome, (also known as Trisomy 18, a condition causing the manifestation of an extra chromosome), amongst other complications passed away last November during a case before the High Court ruling as to the legality of not mechanically ventillating young Luke in the case of another heart attack. Alder Hey hospital, (at the centre of the organ scandal where over a 1000 foetuses and stillborn babies predating 1980 were recently found), sent for the decision as fewer than 10% of babies born with the rare Edwards syndrome live at most for a year.

The High Court ruled that should there be a further cardiorespiratory arrest mechanical ventilation should not be used as a means of resuscitation, however cardiac massge may be used as was held on a last minute concession by the hospital. Dame Elizabeth Butler Sloss commented that 'both hospitals and particularly the mother and her family should turn over a new leaf and move on'.

Dame EBS obviously means 'start again' when she says 'move on' which, in the grand scheme of things, is not really moving on at all. Progression is moving on. An advance of the current state of human knowledge and improvement of method is moving on. Should the courts have ruled, in line with the wishes of Luke Winston-Jones' mother, to keep the baby alive at all costs there could have been a new technique sought from overseas that knowledge could be drawn from to use on the next prematurely born facing similar odds at survival.

The money and time spent on the court battle could easily have been used in seeking out medical opinions on new techniques, rather than seeking out medical opinion as to Luke's chances of survival which were obviously slim. Perhaps if this agenda were applied to Charlotte Wyatt, (a baby in similar circumstances with a court ruling only two weeks prior to the Jones' case), during her lifetime something could have been learned to help young Luke.

The protocol of law saps time and energy from those involved in it. Doctors should exercise their discretion with a life saving outlook braced to push the boundaries of medical science. How much unneccessary time did Alder Hey spend with lawyers and in court that could have been spent on oversea consultation?

You can leave your opinions for the consideration of the next General Medical Council meeting on 'good medical practice' at, www.gmc-uk.org/forms/gmp_feedback.htm the deadline for comments was the 26th November, but as the meeting hasn't been held yet I'm sure they'll still be accepting them.

Stoa Poikile: law chatroom

2004-12-02T21:57:00.000Z

Came across this on irc on the Slashnet server: #stoapoikile

Not everyone's familiar with irc chat but there's little much to it, www.slashnet.org , or try, www.xchat.com to get yourself started.

Pleural plaque test case.

2004-12-02T19:00:00.000Z

That test case is ongoing in Manchester at the moment, Kenneth Johnson and 10 others are taking action against their former company for the scarring on their lung tissue caused by the asbestos they encountered. The pleural plaque appears to have no known symptoms but Jackson's claiming distress and related anxieties that have arisen from the fear that other illness may arise from the condition.

It looks as though we're going to see public policy shape this one. The good old moral repressor: the floodgates argument. Left wing ranting aside, it does raise an interesting philosophical issue.

Is irreversibility inherently detrimental?

Jackson may never develop anything from the plaque that scars his lungs. He has however been deprived of the option to have his lungs in the state they previously were in. Not that he would have ever exercised the option to inhale asbestos fibres and change his lung tissue, but that misses the point. Imagining a woman emptying a condom post-coitus for a spot of self-insemination. Not a perfect analogy; but the point remains that choice over over your body must be your own in a libertarian society. That sperm may well have been destined for the wheelie-bin, but at what point does the law say someone else can take control of it and begin making choices as to it's future state? It's a grey area with no authority seeming to take any interest from this angle. It's safe to say that natural copulation has rules specific only to that practice.

But for our purposes it seems that the old adage of one man's trash is another (wo) man's treasure shouldn't apply, until cogent arument can be brought to the contrary. If that's the case, then surely it can be said we are to have complete control over the state of our bodies, and it's produce and any interference would fundamentally be immoral as an infringement over our autonomy. The irreversible nature of such interference surely exacerbates the nature of said interference to the extent that it is indefensible when reasonably forseeable.

The best thing about facing life solo is that you get to have the whole bottle to yourself. Hardly profound - but a satisfying reality.

Ab initio

2004-12-02T07:55:00.000Z

In vino veritas, or at least that's the ethos here on in. Those thoughts about 'any excuse for a spot of the Red Stuff' (not a noun, but worthy of reverence), you can keep to yourself...

Did you know that law students lead the dullest of existences, comparatively, to all other students bar those paraplegic? That's why there are a plethora of Law Blogs, (or blawgs as some witty hopeful blessed us with recently), on the net. But alas, that's where the analogy breaks down - paraplegics have none, (excusing the pun).