AC Grayling has won £20,000 libel damages against a Twitter user who accused him of being a paedophile in a case he said should act as a “marker” against irresponsible social media users.
The 69-year-old philosopher and Oxford University fellow was “distressed and enraged” after Peter North suggested he possessed videos showing child abuse in a tweet posted online in May last year.
The defamatory tweet read: “I’d bet good money that AC Grayling has a hard drive full of under age botty sex videos.”
Professor Grayling was alerted to the post by other Twitter users and said he felt so insulted that he was unable to ignore it as he launched legal action, the High Court heard.
North, who failed to file a defence,
I’d have at least tried the defence of mere common abuse….
Harriet Wistrich, Mrs Challen’s lawyer, said there were “many more cases” of women whose years of abuse by their partners would merit a reassessment of their convictions. One has already been given leave to appeal.
“How many have been convicted for murder where they’ve killed someone abusing them?” said Ms Wistrich. “There are probably dozens of them.”
If we relax these standards then we must do so in a decidedly non-gendered manner, no?
How many men are serving murder sentences for having killed nagging wives? Or perhaps a little stronger – but our definition of domestic abuse is gender equal now, isn’t it?
A police force has been found guilty of discrimination after it refused to give a potential recruit a job because he was a white heterosexual man.
Cheshire Police are believed to be the first organisation in the UK to be found guilty of using positive action to discriminate by deciding to shun 25-year-old Matthew Furlong in 2017.
The force rejected him while in the midst of a diversity drive after a report found in 2015 it was one of only four constabularies to have no black officers.
For there will be massive street protests over this display of institutional racism, won’t there?
Be careful here – we’re not in Scotland but still, contempt of court and all that.
Still, interesting choice of words:
Alex Salmond has said he was “innocent of any criminality”
No comments, see top line.
A Labour MP could face a parliamentary inquiry for using House of Commons notepaper to plead with a judge not to jail her “beautiful son” for serious drug offences.
Kate Osamor stated her position at the time on Jeremy Corbyn’s front bench when she wrote to the judge who spared her son a jail term in October for possessing drugs including cocaine and ecstasy with intent to supply.
Her letter was released yesterday after the judge agreed with an application by The Times and other newspapers, which argued that the public interest demanded transparency in the sentencing process.
“Don’t you know who I am” not being one of those things we Brits really take to….
David Beckham ‘shirking responsibility as role model’ after dodging speeding conviction on technicality
The State has awesome power to prosecute. To entirely fuck up lives by doing so. Thus there are limitations pm how and when it may do so. Important stuff like producing evidence and so on. And you can think that getting the letters out on time as being unimportant but it’s not, it’s all part of that same limitation on what they may do to us.
Despite accepting driving the car at that speed, he will not face action because a notice of intended prosecution (NIP) was not received until one day after the statutory 14-day time limit.
And how about that Curajus State that can’t send letters?
Blackpool activists jailed for anti-fracking protest
Three protesters given prison sentences for blocking Cuadrilla lorry convoy
No, not really.
Three environmental activists are believed to be the first people to receive jail sentences for an anti-fracking protest in the UK.
Nope, all of that is their own justification for what they’ve done. What they’ve been jailed or is something different:
Simon Roscoe Blevins, 26, and Richard Roberts, 36, were given 16 months in prison and Richard Loizou, 31, got 15 months on Wednesday after being convicted of causing a public nuisance by a jury at Preston crown court in August. Another defendant, Julian Brock, 47, was given a 12-month suspended sentence after pleading guilty to the same offence.
They’ve been jailed for causing a public nuisance.
Their justification of it being something the jury didn’t find to be a justification. Yes, yes, we don’t have jury nullification in England, they decide purely and only on points of law and fact. And here’s the bridge in Brooklyn I’ve for sale…..by the way, on Tuesday, the Guardian was telling us that conviction rates of young men for the crime of rape were low because juries didn’t like to convict young men with their lives ahead of them. No no, we’ve not got jury nullification at all.
But a senior staffer for a Republican on the judiciary committee told the Guardian that as long as Kavanaugh categorically denies the allegation, there is no way to overcome the “innocent until proven guilty” threshold and justify altering the vote.
The source acknowledged that adding a name and a face changed the calculus to a degree but said a number of Republicans feel there is not enough to investigate, with the accuser understandably forgetting details and with no corroborating witnesses.
Well, no, here is a witness, the third person in the room.
According to her account, she escaped when Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Preparatory School friend, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, “sending all three tumbling”. She said she ran, locked herself in a bathroom, then fled the house.
Judge told the Weekly Standard he had “no recollection of any of the events described in today’s Post article or attributed to her letter”.
But who does it corroborate?
Procter & Gamble, the household products company, has applied to trademark acronyms common in textspeak including “LOL” and “WTF”.
If successful, the terms could be used to market products such as soap, detergents and air fresheners in order to attract younger consumers.
P&G registered the trademark applications with the US Patent and Trademark Office in April. The newly branded products would be sold alongside well known items such as Febreze, Fairy and Mr Clean.
Alongside LOL (laughing out loud) and WTF (what the fuck), other acronyms P&G has applied to trademark are NBD (no big deal) and FML (fuck my life).
The company’s applications have not yet been approved. According to Ad Age, the trademark office has requested clarification regarding the applications and P&G has until January to respond.
That “If” in “If successful.”
Not a hope in hell it will be.
Trademarks aren’t a first come, first served, you get to collect any interesting looking phrase. There’s got to be some connection with the product, even some origination story. As with patents, something that’s already in common use ain’t gonna make it.
Either that or we need to take some .50 calibres and deal with the patent and trademark office.
This is a political prosecution:
Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former lawyer and right-hand-man, reportedly faces a federal investigation into possible bank and tax fraud relating to more than $20m in loans.
The New York Times reported that federal investigators in Manhattan were reaching the end of their inquiries and were “considering filing charges by the end of August”. According to the newspaper, their focus was falling on multi-million dollar loans Cohen received from two New York banks as well as on income his family gained from the city’s yellow taxi business.
Federal investigators were also homing in on Cohen’s role in arranging hush money for two women who alleged affairs with Trump before the 2016 presidential election. The pay-offs might have constituted a breach of campaign finance law, the New York Times reported.
The darkening cloud of federal prosecutorial interest amid possible imminent charges are likely to substantially crank up pressure on Cohen to co-operate with the on-going investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller. That probe is reaching a critical stage as Mueller seeks to determine whether collusion took place between the Trump campaign and Russia to sway the outcome of the 2016 election.
Whether and when to prosecute seems to be based on whether he’ll turn on Trump.
Sure, this isn’t political at all, is it?
A professor who has been an expert witness in hunting prosecutions and provided key evidence for the foxhunting ban has been accused of “manipulating” evidence in an academic row.
Prof Stephen Harris, a retired Bristol University academic, has been accused of “cherry-picking” studies, allowing him to “ignore or misrepresent the science that had been contrary to the activist agenda”.
The Crown Prosecution Service is now facing calls to review the suitability of Prof Harris as an expert witness.
Even as an expert witness you are supposed to do this you know. There’s a hell of a lot of dross published as science out there after all.
Quite what he line to cross between being properly selective and biased is, well, hmm……..
A parked car belonging to an imprisoned man cannot be moved whilst he is in jail because he has a blue badge, a council has said.
The vehicle, which is said to belong to David Marks, has been reportedly sat outside Croydon Crown Court for months after Mr Marks parked there to attend his own hearing.
Local residents have now raised questions over the car, asking why it has been allowed to take up the disabled bay for so long, despite no one using it.
But the council has confirmed it has no intentions of moving the vehicle as it parked there legally.
The Smart car has been sitting outside the court since Mr Marks, from Bromley, was jailed earlier this year.
He reportedly drove the car to court where he was sentenced for racially or religiously aggravated harassment. After being found guilty of one count and pleading guilty to a second he was jailed for 12 months on April 13.
And no, we don’t have exceptions. It’s legal, on your way then matey. That he’s in jail, on holiday, simply wants to leave his car where it’s legally parked? It’s legally parked and there’s an end to it.
If I were to describe secretive organisations that make millions from mafia states, you would imagine – what? Mercenaries? Conspiracies with Blofeld at their head? Nothing so thrilling, I’m afraid. Picture instead respectable lawyers of high status and higher income, whose love of money is now, in the words of the Commons foreign affairs committee, a matter of “national security”. Others should judge whether they were so “entwined in the corruption of the Kremlin and its supporters that they are no longer able to meet the standards expected of a UK regulated law firm”.
The lawyers who worried MPs worked at the “magic circle” London firm Linklaters, whose 40 highest-paid partners received £1.57m on average last year. Linklaters decided that the attempted murder of the Skripals, Russia’s shooting down of the MH17, its complicity in crimes against humanity in Syria, the annexation of Crimea, the invasion of Ukraine, support for the far right, the interference in democratic elections in the west and the suppression of democracy at home in no way obliged it to answer questions about its dealings with Moscow. It had nothing to say about its role in floating a Russian company last year.
The argument seems to be that bad guys shouldn’t be allowed to have lawyers.
I’m really pretty sure that’s not the way we want the system to work actually.
But in a judgment released on Friday Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Whipple said her understanding of the law was “misguided” and the guidance was incorrect.
“What on its face looks like a general policy which applies to everyone equally may in fact have an unequal impact on a minority.
“In other words, to treat everyone in the same way is not necessarily to treat them equally.
“Uniformity is not the same thing as equality,” they said.
Jews and Muslims have a 3 day policy – the body should be in the ground within three days of death.
A coroner who operated a “cab rank” system for burials has been told by the High Court to drop her policy and release the bodies of Jews and Muslims first.
Judges said the “equality protocol” policy introduced by Mary Hassell, the senior coroner for inner north London, was “discriminatory” and “incapable of rational justification”.
The protocol said that “no death will be prioritised in any way over any other because of the religion of the deceased or family, either by the coroner’s officers or coroners.”
This meant cases were assessed and bodies released for burial by the coroner’s office in order of when they were received, taking no account of any religious requirements.
Thus that’s discriminatory.
Seems an entirely reasonable decision on the basis of simple pragmatism. Why not accommodate such beliefs after all?
The more general statement that uniformity is not equality needs to be carefully circumscribed though, doesn’t it?
The book’s 400-odd pages of near-hysterical orotundity can roughly be broken down into the following sequence of propositions:
1) The democratic nation-state basically operates like a criminal cartel, forcing honest citizens to surrender large portions of their wealth to pay for stuff like roads and hospitals and schools.
2) The rise of the internet, and the advent of cryptocurrencies, will make it impossible for governments to intervene in private transactions and to tax incomes, thereby liberating individuals from the political protection racket of democracy.
3) The state will consequently become obsolete as a political entity.
4) Out of this wreckage will emerge a new global dispensation, in which a “cognitive elite” will rise to power and influence, as a class of sovereign individuals “commanding vastly greater resources” who will no longer be subject to the power of nation-states and will redesign governments to suit their ends.
Point 1 is roughly Olsen’s thesis. That the state is the system by which special interests plunder us all.
2 and 3 are really Marx. The state of technology determines social relations. Change the tech and you’ll change the relations.
4 is just a reversion to Olsen but with different people using a different form of state and or governance to plunder.
There’s not, to be honest, a great deal libertarian about this.
The gunman who allegedly killed at least 17 people at a Florida high school on Wednesday was a former student who posted disturbing material on social media and was “crazy about guns”.
Police identified the suspect as Nikolas Cruz, a 19-year-old who had been expelled from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, about 45 miles (72 km) north of Miami.
The suspect was wearing a gas mask and carrying smoke grenades, Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida told CNN.
Any bright ideas on how to disarm a nation of 300 million guns? Even if all ignore that legal bit and the Second Amendment?
“Terrified” residents of a housing complex clad in similar flammable panels to Grenfell tower are facing a bill of £2m to make their homes safe after the building’s owner said it was not its responsibility to pay.
The freehold is owned by a company owned by the family trust of the multi-millionaire property mogul Vincent Tchenguiz, and its property agent has told residents that work recladding the Citiscape complex in Croydon will begin “once full funds are in place”.
The government told the agent to remove the cladding five months ago and Sajid Javid, the housing, communities and local government secretary, last month suggested the landlord was responsible for ensuring residents’ safety.
But freeholder Proxima GR Properties has insisted that it is not obliged to cover the costs of the work, warning leaseholders in the 93 apartments that the bill will increase if they delay payment.
Well, yes? And?
Isn’t that they way freeholds and leases work?