Skip to content


Seems harsh, very harsh indeed

A barrister has been banned for 12 months after punching a fashion designer during a performance of Wagner at the Royal Opera House.

Matthew Feargrieve was suspended by a disciplinary tribunal on Wednesday after being accused of professional misconduct.

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) accused Mr Feargrieve of breaching his core duty by behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust and confidence the public places in the profession.

Significant sections of society would have their confidence in the profession enhanced if more did punch fashion designers.

An interesting headline, no?

Trump was convicted of 34 felonies. What is Biden’s next move?

Yes, yes, they mean “How does Biden react” not “How does Biden twist and pervert the course of justice once again”.

Well, probably they do.

They’re desperate, really desperate

Alito’s flag shows the US supreme court is neither honorable nor functional any more
Moira Donegan
The upside-down flag at the justice’s house after the Capitol attack reveals how disgraceful our supreme court has become

The left, the progressives, the woike, the Blob, whatever you want to call it – they’re realising that they made a big, big, mistake. They took their eye off the appointment of judges.

No, not just the Supremes, the Federal judiciary as a whole – and the right started to colonise it.

Oh well, bad political strategy etc. But that has meant the Supremes ending up not being progressive, woke etc.

Which is where they’re getting desperate. At which point the wife of a judge, Alito, flew the US flag upside down. This is such a scandal that Alito must recuse himself, resign, commit hari kari, summat. As if women are not strong and independent these days but are mere accoutrements of their husbands.

Ho hum.

There’sactually a guy out there quite seriously proposing that Alito committed an ethics violation. Because some months after the Bud Light/Dylan Mulvaney thing started to happen he sold (perhaps $10k’s worth, that sort of number) his Bud stock and bought Coors instead. This shows that he’s ideologically inclined against trans, see? Inmstead of being a little late on what everyone could see, that the row wsa going to damage Bud sales and thus the stock value.

They really are desperate, desperate……

The flying of the pro-Trump, pro-coup flag is in clear violation of the ethics rules that apply to federal judges.

Sigh. As to this:

a controversy arose over why, precisely, those ethics rules have never extended to the supreme court justices.

Get a fucking clue Moira. The division of powers, separation of them, mean anything to you?

The justices did not elect, however, to make the new ethics code in any way enforceable for themselves. They’re not rules that can be enforced; they’re guidelines that can be – and are – ignored.

If someone else – anyone else – gets to enforce rules against the Supremes then the Supremes are not independent of those other powers.

JC onna pogo stick they’re desperate.

Fairly open and shut I would have thought

Rupert Murdoch is suing ITV and ITN for using a video released by The Sun of the Princess of Wales at a farm shop in Windsor.

Mr Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers (NGN), which publishes the tabloid title, has filed an intellectual property claim against ITV and ITN, which produces ITV News programmes.

The claim is understood to relate to footage of the Prince and Princess of Wales at a farm shop in Windsor in March.

The footage, which was obtained exclusively by The Sun, was the first time the Princess had been seen since undergoing major abdominal surgery at a London hospital in January. The Princess has since revealed that she has been diagnosed with cancer.

The Sun is thought to be seeking a five-figure sum in compensation for alleged copyright breach after ITV News used the clip in its own coverage.

By definition piccies and videos belong to the person operating the camera. What happens after that depends upon hte contractual obligations.

News organisations often use their rivals’ work under the fair dealing copyright exemption, which affords legal protection if the material is used for the reporting of current events and there is sufficient attribution to the original owner.

However, use can be deemed unfair if it causes the owner to lose revenues or if the amount of the original material taken is considered to be unreasonable or inappropriate.

Hmm, never have thought much of that.


Solicitors at an elite family law firm made a computer error that resulted in the wrong couple being divorced — and a senior judge has refused to overturn the mistake.


But Matey

On Monday morning, Willoughby tweeted:

I want you all to think for a moment what the equivalent racial or religious insults would be to what I am being called today. Triggered by JK Rowling – which has encouraged some national broadcasters to join in. All deliberately misgendering me. Disgrace. @northumbriapol

— India Willoughby (@IndiaWilloughby) March 18, 2024

1) We’re not misgendering, simply descrobing reality.

2) Even if we we’re we’re allowed to.

Toughie really, isn’t it?

Jeremy Corbyn has threatened to take legal action against Nigel Farage over a “highly defamatory statement”.

The former Labour leader, who now sits as an independent MP, said he could not let “disgusting and malicious lies go unchallenged”.

A statement from Mr Corbyn’s team alleged that the former Brexit Party leader had “accused Jeremy Corbyn of subscribing to an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory”.

Really, what could you say that might make Jezza look anti-semitic?

The lie is spreading

Last week, the debate over Biden’s fitness to govern exploded after the release of a report by Trump-appointed special counsel Robert Hur which cleared him of illegally keeping classified documents at his home, but included an instantly memorable description of the president as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”, and claimed that he did not remember “even within several years” when his son Beau died.

We can disregard this because it’s from a Trump appointee.

Which, you know, isn’t quite the case. He was appointed, during the Trump admin, to his position in Maryland, yes:

On November 1, 2017, Hur was nominated by President Donald Trump to be the next United States Attorney for the District of Maryland.[6] On March 22, 2018, his nomination was reported out of committee by voice vote.[7] He was confirmed by voice vote later the same day.[8] He was sworn in on April 9, 2018.

And, yes, Federal DAs are appointed by the Pres, confirmed by the Senate. But not all of them are ideologically placed.

But in the current mess, this is the important thing:

On January 12, 2023, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Hur to oversee the United States Department of Justice’s investigation into President Joe Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents during his time as vice president.

This was an appointment by Biden’s Admin to investigate Biden’s Admin.

There’s a quite deliberate attempt going on to memory hole that distinction.

So, that ICJ court ruling

Donoghue said the court was “gravely concerned” about the fate of the hostages abducted from Israel on 7 October “and calls for their immediate and unconditional release”.

So, one insistence from the court, Hamas must release the hostages.

Israel is under renewed pressure to avoid civilian deaths in Gaza and enable the delivery of humanitarian aid after the international court of justice (ICJ) ordered it to prevent its forces from carrying out genocide against Palestinians.

In a historic interim judgment, the UN court in The Hague told Israel it must “take all measures within its power” to desist from killing Palestinians in contravention of the genocide convention, and to prevent and punish the incitement of genocide and facilitate the provision of “urgent basic services”. But the ruling stopped short of ordering a ceasefire to the war in Gaza.

The other is that Israel must not break the law.

Umm, yes, OK. Seems like the sort of thing a court would say. Don’t break the law.

What the court didn’t say is that Israel is breaking the law. Nor that it must stop it’s military actions, nor that there must be – however desirable – a ceasefire.

Now, obviously, views differ here. But we’ve not a plain and testable proposition.

Anyone who says that the ICJ demands a ceasefire is wrong. Anyone who claims the ICJ says Israel is committing genocide is wrong. Anyone who says everyone must do what the ICJ says but does not insist Hamas release the hostages is wrong.

Not, in this sense morally wrong – as could be true of any of those things – but simply factually wrong.

It’s gonna be interesting watching what people say to find out who is idiot – or partisan – enough to try to get away with such lies, isn’t it.

That’s the way it works

The Duke of Sussex has withdrawn his libel case against the Mail on Sunday and now faces an estimated legal bill of more than £750,000.

Lose, or here withdraw, you pay the other bloke’s costs.

A few years back I was clearly libelled. Deliberately, with malice and aforethought. A company I’d covered claimed – to my employers at the time – that I’d tried to blackmail them. Pay me a fee or I’ll write bad stuff about you. They made the mistake of sending this claim to an English employer of mine – brings English libel law into operation.

Now, obviously I would win. But there’s still £50k – minimum – that has to be committed upfront. And, well, no, didn’t do it.

That it’s very difficult to enforce English libel settlements in the US is one reason why not…..

Lawyer demands new laws

About as surprising as porn star demanding more fucks:

New terrorism laws are needed to counter the threat of radicalisation by AI chatbots, the Government’s adviser on terror legislation says today.

Writing in The Telegraph below, Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, warns of the dangers posed by artificial intelligence in recruiting a new generation of violent extremists.

We’d probably increase the quality of such legal reviews if we got the porn stars to do them too.

Two stories

What fun that it appears to be illegal for a business to do what every Nimby and Lib Dem insists must be done as an individual or community.

Well, that’s not the reason to jail him

TikToker Mizzy jailed as judge gives verdict on his pranks: ‘they’re not funny’

Funny videos do not get a pass that unfunny ones do not.

Social media star sentenced to 18 weeks detention for breaching court order prohibiting him from sharing videos without consent

Breaching a court order will get you jugged though. And rightly.

Mizzy being jugged is amusing tho’….

Lying bastards, thieves

A Jersey-based oil-refining company is suing the EU, Germany and Denmark for at least €95m over a windfall tax introduced during the Ukraine war that it sees as a “pretext” for undermining fossil fuel firms, leaked documents show.

Klesch Group Holdings Limited is taking action under a controversial secret court system enabled by the energy charter treaty (ECT), an agreement officials fear will stymie climate action and divert hundreds of billions of euros into the coffers of fossil fuel investors.

The treaty was drafted to protect the interests of energy companies as the Soviet Union broke up in the early 1990s and is being used by companies such as the UK oil firm Rockhopper, which was awarded a £210m payout last year after Italy stopped it from drilling.

In July, Brussels proposed a “coordinated withdrawal” from the pact following domino-style exit announcements by several EU countries including France, Spain and the Netherlands. But the treaty remains in effect for now, and an EU official said there was “no specific timeline” for leaving it.

Speaking in a personal capacity, Tinne van der Straeten, the Belgian energy minister who will chair the EU’s energy council from January for six months, said: “The energy charter treaty strikes again. This newest lawsuit is yet more proof that the ECT is blocking a just and affordable energy transition.

“We need treaties that serve our people and climate, not the fossil fuel industry. I am personally convinced that we should establish a unified stance on a collective and coordinated European withdrawal. It’s time to take the necessary and legally sound steps for the climate. It’s time to walk away from the ECT.”

All the treaty does is say that governments must conform to the contracts they’ve signed. If they don’t then the company gets to sue in a court which is not run by the government being sued.

And that’s it. What the EU wants here is to be able to act with caprice, to be able to just steal whenever.

Cleodie Rickard, the trade campaign manager at Global Justice Now,

GJN has been campaigning aginst this, and the closely related ISDS system, for a couple of decades at least. Justice now meaning, obviously, no justice allowed for capitalists.

Excessive costs?

Cadwalladr’s legal team confirmed on Saturday, however, that the fight was not over, revealing that they would be taking the case to Strasbourg.

Gavin Millar KC said: “Carole established that over 90% of the publications Banks sued on were lawful public interest speech. So her lawyers believe the order for her to pay 60% of Banks’ costs was a penalty which violated her right to journalistic freedom of expression under article 10 [of the European Convention on Human Rights]. We will seek a ruling to this effect from the European Court of Human Rights.”

She didn’t even have to pay all the costs! And she also lost.

The point about costs is not that they should be a punishment. But why should Banks be out of pocket for defending himself against libel? That is the actual point here. So some journo libels someone. Hmm, OK, happens, sometimes by mistake and so on. Why should that person libelled lose money in trying to get the journo to admit the libel and restore their reputation? That’s the question the Carole supporters have to answer.

Gove reminds me of Blair

All new houses in England and Wales will have to be sold as freehold properties as part of sweeping government reforms to phase out the “feudal” leasehold system.

The reforms are set out in a Leasehold Bill being drawn up by Michael Gove, the levelling-up secretary, for the King’s Speech, which will also overhaul the process of extending leases and give leaseholders more power to manage their building and service charges. Whitehall sources said it would make it easier and cheaper for millions of people to buy their homes outright.

I’ve no idea whether there will be problems from this. But Blair also liked to throw out ideas about how to refirm those meidival practices – abolityion of the Lord Chancellor being the most fun one. We still have the equivalent of a Speaker of the House of Lords, we still have a Lord Chancellor, all that happened is that they’re not the same person any more. Because having an LC was so entwined with the system that it was impossible to actually abolish the existence of an LC.

I expect there to be similar problems. As I say, I don;t know but I expect. Simply because even the clearest logic and political will struggles with complex millennium old systems.

Oh, right

The parents of disgraced cryptocurrency entrepreneur Sam Bankman-Fried have been accused of siphoning off millions of dollars in “misappropriated funds” from FTX.

Claims against Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried have been made in a lawsuit by administrators of FTX, as the crypto company seeks to claw back cash that they allegedly received prior to its collapse.

FTX has alleged the pair “exploited their access and influence” at the business to “enrich themselves”, as they benefitted from perks such as luxury hotel stays and the use of private jets.

They are demanding that Mr Bankman, a law professor at Stanford University, return a sum of $18.9m (£15.2m) allegedly used to pay for a beach house in the Bahamas.

Aren’t they supposed to be deeply caring lefty lawyer types?


Fining motorists by post using CCTV camera evidence has been ruled “illegal”, The Telegraph can reveal.

Drivers may be entitled to refunds for millions of pounds of penalty charge notices (PCNs) after a ruling by a panel of lawyers that hears appeals against motoring fines.

A special test case found that Transport for London (TfL) had “illegally” fined motorists who had stopped on parking bays on red routes in the capital.

The transport authority, acting on behalf of Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, breached government guidance by using CCTV rather than traffic wardens to enforce road rules.

Ruling looks at DfT guidance
Laws limiting the use of CCTV to issue fines were introduced in 2015 because of what ministers described as “overzealous enforcement by local authorities”.

The judgment by London Tribunals has implications for drivers across the country and could be relied upon in appeals where a CCTV motoring fine has been issued. A London Tribunals spokesman said while its rulings do not set a legal precedent, “adjudicators may take previous decisions into consideration before reaching a conclusion”.

The ruling, on eight red route fine appeals, has emerged just one week after Rishi Sunak declared he was on “the motorists’ side” and ordered a review of low traffic neighbourhoods.

Analysis of TfL data suggests it issues about 435,000 PCNs of all types a year, which if paid in full at £160 would net £69 million.

Three adjudicators accused the authority of a “procedural impropriety” by issuing fines through CCTV rather than “civil enforcement officers” – or traffic wardens.

The ruling says the “most recent version” of Department for Transport guidance states that “approved devices” – or CCTV – should only be used “where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and enforcement by a civil enforcement officer is not practicable”.

Explaining how many motorists may have legitimate reasons for stopping, such as loading or unloading, they “may find it impossible to obtain the necessary evidence after the event” when the £160 fine arrives by post.

“A motorist parked in such a bay who encounters a civil enforcement officer may, there and then, be able to show that he or she is loading or unloading … or can readily obtain the evidence … to substantiate that claim,” the adjudicators said, scrapping all eight fines.