A PR campaign to discredit a judge and thus get a court decision overturned?
The researcher behind the Duke of Sussex’s phone hacking claim is preparing a campaign to discredit the High Court judge who threw out the case, The Telegraph can reveal.
Umm:
The Telegraph has seen a document that suggests he is now soliciting support for a campaign to undermine the judge as the Duke and his fellow claimants weigh up whether to launch an appeal.
OK, so maybe a chancer looking to set up a scheme rather than an active campaign.
But, umm, no, eh?
Graham Johnson plans to undermine the legal credibility of Mr Justice Nicklin, who ruled against the Duke and his fellow claimants in their £50m case against the publisher of the Daily Mail.
Seems a bit fanciful, the people who need to be swayd are the judges of the Court of Appeal. And I tend to doubt a PR camapign is going to get to them. But even so, no, not something I think is a good idea. Really, just not…..
Judges have no idea of the real world, do they ?
I always imagined them being kept in some big cupboard and wheeled out on a parcel trolley to court.
It’s a popular beat combo, m’lud.
Clearly not a good idea and anyone with half a brain can see that.
But this is Harry we’re talking about …
It’s straight out of the US lawfare playbook, where many judges are elected so can be pressured. I doubt it’ll work here unless Mr Justice Nicklin has a history of wayward judgements, which seems unlikely.
Do our courts retain any legal credibility?
No
Our judges are perfectly capable of discrediting themselves.
It’s fairly obvious that judges are swayed by fashionable opinion.
It’s also fairly obvious that people with fashionable opinions Long March into becoming judges. As do people with fashionable ethnicities.
The former, yes.
The latter seem less Long March than catapulted in by our smug status-signalling lanyards.
I suppose it’s possible that the Court of Appeal might rule that x and y were decided wrongly – using incorrect precedents or something, since it has to be a matter of law rather than fact at the appeal level as far as I know (not a lawyer so I’ve probably missed something).
At which point they send it back down to the trial court to be done right this time.
If the trial judge has since been discredited they’d have to get a different one?
Seems like a stretch. But this is law we’re talking about.
It seems to me that the New Testament account of the trial of Jesus should look recognisable to modern people. The Sanhedrin find him guilty of sedition (or whatever they’d have called it then) which is a matter of Fact. So they sentence him to execution although they don’t have the power to do so – that’s a matter of Law.
So the case is kicked upstairs to the Court of Appeal under Mr Justice Pontius Pilate who is puzzled by the desire to execute him but has no quarrel with the matter of Fact so allows the execution to go ahead. That’s him passing a decision on a matter of Law – he does indeed have the power to order the execution.
Given that so much in the Bible is just a confusing mess of conspicuous fiction I reckon the account of the trial is one of the most convincing parts of the whole schemozzle.
I don’t think it would take a PR campaign to discredit Harry Hewitt, now would it?
Having said that I asked an AI network recently to flag any outliers among judges that hear immigration cases, and of the 200 it analysed it found 6 whose decisions were statistically significant. All six were excessively lenient compared to their peers.
The March Through The Institutions.
So what recourse IS there to purge an institution of political activism, without resorting to violence or jumping in a little PR clown car?
Excessively lenient meaning?
“excessively lenient compared to their peers.”
An unusual number of their decisions allowing immigrants to remain in the UK, for reasons that were later considered to be “legal errors”.
So you might have just said “excessively retarded”, except there were few errors made by those judges in the opposite direction…
So………what to do with the data?
The AI network proposed “a scoped HMCTS Data Access Panel request”
So 194/200 immigration judges were doing just fine?
If that’s right, it’s far more concerning (but not in the least surprising).
I doubt it; just that six were notably even worse.
Er, no.
There was a wide range of “leniency”, with the very strict on one end and the very lenient on the other.
There were six outliers, that comprehensively failed to fit on this spectrum.
All six were at the extreme end of lenient.
Just as dogs have a wide range of sizes, ranging from chihuahas to Great Danes.
But these six were the size of giraffes. All six of them.
And there were none the size of gerbils.
So my question is “If you were concerned that the six dogs that were the size of giraffes were actually giraffes masquerading as dogs, and asked someone to investigate whether they were dogs or giraffes, who would you ask?”
Has that helped?
But a source close to the Duke insisted that he had nothing to do with the proposed campaign.
Liar. Spare is desperate for money, has a horrific sense of entitlement, and already tried publicly attacking the judge. This is exactly the sort of thing he’d do.
Harold’s resentment against Nicklin must be nuclear hot, because it was the latter’s well evidenced and reasoned 436 page ruling that forced the Whinger to come slinking back to the country he hates, but which he demands gives him “a role” (££££££) because he was the least lazy sperm in the royal penis circa 1984.
The thing is, Harry isn’t unusual for the royal family, just a lot dimmer than most, so he says the quiet parts out loud. He took to Woke like flies to shite – but so did his dim Papa, and all his other guffawing relatives are the same. The ridiculously bemedalled military uniforms are just silly dress up, these people have no more loyalty to Britain than Tony Blair does.
What do we need these ugly, pound shop “royals” for, exactly? There’s nothing regal about them.
The Duke of Sussex does not resemble Charles or William or Edward or Philip, who are recognisably similar, (nor Andrew) and the red-headed gene in the Royal family appeared to have expired with Elizabeth I.
So I think Harry *is* unusual for the royal family.
Yes he does, he is clearly Charles’ son.
Idk why people are so fascinated with the ginger of hair, it’s just a recessive trait and Harry’s mother and paternal grandfather were both blonds, ergo likely carriers of gingerhood.
I’ve seen photos of Harry and Prince Philip at the same age. Spittin’ image.
“What do we need these ugly, pound shop “royals” for, exactly? There’s nothing regal about them.”
We don’t. At all. The monarchy have gone from being the people running the place to ridiculous status tokens. People want to go to a Buckingham Palace Garden Party so they can say to their friends they went to a Buckingham Palace Garden Party. Not because the royals are smart, or are going to bestow them with gifts, or the sandwiches are particularly good, but that it was a status thing.
It’s like owning a Rolex. People used to buy them because they were the best engineered watches. Then digital watches came along that tell the time better. You spend £5000 on a Rolex for no other reason than to show off you own a Rolex.
Without the old evolutionary pressures, and as the status and wealth has gradually declined (their money is mostly about agricultural land which isn’t where money is now), they’ve got worse and worse. Go back to the 13th century, if you were this shit, you’d be invaded, and a better king would take over. And when princes were properly powerful, they had women queueing up to be princesses. They could marry the alpha females in the land. The hottest women are not marrying royal princes. Kate’s nice looking. But you can sit in Sloane Square and see a bunch of women just like her. Meghan’s a C list actress who was needing an income.
What’s gradually taking over the “glamorous alphas” are people like the Beckhams, various movie star couples. The monarchy now barely has public support. 55% of the population wants to keep them. Amongst young people, it’s 33%. And why would anyone? All they do is turn up to add a bit of glam, but they look like shit and are a bit retarded.
All they do is turn up to add a bit of glam, but they look like shit and are a bit retarded.
I don’t usually do Americanese, but that’s a big can of whupp-ass you just opened. I’m not sure Rowlandson or Gilray could have drawn the same point any better.
Go back to the 13th century, if you were this shit, you’d be invaded, and a better king would take over.
We are being invaded and the current King doesn’t have a problem with it…
A neighbour of ours received a Buckingham Palace Garden Party invitation in the early 1980s when the formula was still “invitee, spouse and unmarried daughters over the age of 18”. IIRC one of his three daughters was was just short of 18, and it was the more staunchly republican of the other two who accompanied her parents.
Agreed all round, and a splendid denunciation. But I’d spare Anne, and possibly Edward. Mostly pointless they may be, but my sense is that they’d be on our side.
We should ditch the ‘Windsors’ and get a new lot in.
I propose HMG asks Miss Sydney Sweeney to be our Queen and founder of our New Royal Family. At least she looks good and seems to have quite sensible views.
Her Majesty:
How come I can get .gifs to work but not .pngs?
CODEMONKEY!
Wouldn’t that come under contempt of Court, or intimidation?
On the one hand, the judgement of your judges has been in doubt for two generations now.
On the other, you’re not going to convince the other judges that this one has bad judgement when he’s doing all the same stuff as everyone else.