D-Notice 2012

Oklahomo!

2014-10-11T17:01:00.000+01:00

Last Christmas, I wrote a piece about Utah's gay marriage ban being struck-out as it was discriminatory.

I said that they would not be able to get a stay on the ruling. I was wrong, but the ruling was upheld on appeal. However, earlier this week the US Supreme Court (USSC) rejected Utah's application for a further appeal. As a result, Utah's gay marriage ban is dead and buried.

At the same time, it also threw out similar appeals by Oklahoma (which is also affected by the Utah ruling), Virginia and Wisconsin.

Based on how appeals work in the US, the USSC's actions (or rather its lack of action) has a much bigger impact than to simply kill off those States' bans: the appeals were from various regional courts, which also cover other neighbouring states, such as Colorado and North Carolina, whose bans have also now been overturned. Its ruling has also lead to another regional court scrapping similar bans in Nevada and Idaho.

Given the regional courts' jurisdiction, it is pretty certain that bans in states such as Montana, Arizona and Wyoming will also fall, whether by a further court ruling, or by the States themselves deciding it would be pointless to try and defend them.

The main issue now is what impact the USSC's ruling with have on other regional courts that aren't directly bound by their decision. States whose bans are currently being challenged in these other courts include Michigan and Texas, both of which were overturned in separate regional courts, but those rulings are stayed pending an appeal.

Given the USSC's rejection of an appeal request, those courts - and the States - have two choices:

Take a hint that the USSC is no longer interested in letting States stop gay couples from getting hitched. This would also impact the other States which the regional courts cover, such as Louisiana (Texas) or Tennessee (Michigan); or
Come up with some sort of reasoning to try and justify the ban. Given that it would conflict with the other regional rulings, this would almost certainly be appealed to the USSC, and would be heard. As the USSC has effectively said it is happy for the bans to be scrapped - if it was unhappy it would have allowed at least one State to be heard - it is likely that it would rule against the States. This would automatically have the same impact of Loving v Virginia (which scrapped all US anti-miscegenation laws), and, depending upon how such a ruling would be phrased, may also lead to further laws against gay people generally being kicked-out, on anti-discrimination grounds.

The States could also decide to simply concede its case. This would not have any direct impact on other States whose bans are still in effect, but would probably give them a massive hint.

It'll be interesting to see what will happen. I think that the courts will follow the USSC, instead of dragging out the process any longer.

PS. Forgot to say: I've found Utah's position all along to be hilarious - it's a State run by Mormons, but they want the courts to rule that "Marriage is 'One man, one woman'". Given their history, it shows a complete lack of self-awareness, or simply bad faith and dishonesty...

Update: Alaska's ban has gone too.

Devolution in your Head

2014-09-22T20:40:00.001+01:00

You've probably have heard that Scotland has decided to keep under the heel of the Sassenachs.

A few weeks before the vote one YouGov poll showed a majority for a "Yes to independence" vote. This was one of only two polls that showed such a result.

This led to panic measures in the government. One of which was to make a "vow" that if Scotland was to vote "No" the Scottish Parliament would get a lot more power.

Unexpectedly, the result has led to calls for other changes in how laws are made, mainly over the minor impact that Scottish MPs have over laws in England (the votes from MPs in Wales and Norn Iron are apparently irrelevant...).

Some people - mainly Tories from the south and/or UKIP-types - are saying that we should now have "English Vote for English Laws"* (the acronym is, appropriately enough, EVEL), and that it should simply be based upon the number of MPs in Westminster from England. Coincidently enough, this would lead to a Tory majority, at least until next Spring.

Labour have said they'll hold a "constitutional convention" in which ideas can be submitted.

The Tories aren't suggesting that there should be a separate election nor that it should be based on anything remotely like a voting system that actually reflects the share of the vote. Again, and I'm sure that this is a complete coincidence, this would lead to a Tory majority until at least next Spring.

Given the importance and clear long-lasting effect that such a change would have on England, I think Labour's idea of a thought out way forward is much better than the Tories knee-jerk one.

Aside from the fact that it seems to be simply little more than an attempt by the Tories to entrench their power - and completely ignoring the fact that Parliament is effectively an "English Parliament": out of 650 MPs, England has 533 (82%), and so removing Scottish MPs wouldn't make a real difference - it doesn't actually deal with the main issue: that the government is too centralised and remote from the general public.

A much better idea would be to give powers similar to the Scottish Parliament - or even the Welsh Assembly - to English local government, either based on current boundaries or on a more regional basis. A good place to start would be the current boundaries that are used for EU elections: North-West/Yorkshire/London etc, albeit with splitting the "South-East" one into a "South Coast" and "Thames Valley" one. We have one in London, which works pretty well, but has little power. There are other possible ways as this piece by George Potter shows. City regions would also be an idea, as would a "quasi-federal UK".

Hopefully there will some sensible proposals that aren't simply used for short-term narrow political reasons in Westminster, and will benefit England as a whole.

* The Torygraph says that it would also include the Budget, which I think says a lot about the plans

#Russia and #Ukraine: an allegory

2014-08-31T11:51:00.001+01:00

There’s a married couple who had been together a long time.

The husband has never treated the wife very well, but she had always remained with him. Her friends had similar issues with their friends. Oddly enough, their husbands were friends of the wife's husband, and he had a reputation for beating them up for trying to leave his mates.

The husband had also attacked another friend, but she was able to fight him off with minor injuries; The husband also held hostage some other friends, before they escaped too.

The friends eventually manage to leave their husbands, without any real difficulty.

The wife doesn't leave her husband, because he says that he’s changed. He even goes to the extent of changing his name in order to show this. He is happy for the wife to keep their child.

Her friends meet new guys who treat them much better. They move in together and then marry.

The wife notices this and she meets a guy that is similar to her friends’ husbands. However, because she is still married they simply become friends.

The relationship gets worse and eventually the wife does leave. He’s not happy, but accepts it. However, they remain good friends.

The husband convinces her to come back, but he continues to abuse her, but less so.

The wife leaves again.

The wife later decides that she wants to be more than simply friends with her new friend. She likes the fact that they both have the same favourite colours. Her friend is wary at first because he is also friends and business partners with the husband.

The husband gets very angry and tries to force his ex-wife back into his arms. At first she does, but then her friends show her that she’s better off without him. She agrees.

In response, the ex-husband abducts their child, and encourages his mates to try and beat her up. She manages to fight them off. Some other people have said that if she hadn't worn a blue dress with yellow stars yellow, she wouldn't have been attacked. Thankfully no-one really agrees with them.

In the meantime, the wife moves in with her friend, because they realise that they are a good match, and can offer each other a lot.

The new friends uses his business connections to cancel the ex-husband’s credit card and his overdraft, and get the bank manager to call in his loans.

The ex-husband then decides to beat up his ex-wife himself.

The new boyfriend now has to decide how else he can defend his girlfriend from the ex's brutal assault. Does he do more to cripple the husband's businesses or does he and his mates help the wife fight back?

Mormons say that marriage is "1-man and 1-woman"

2013-12-28T13:51:00.002+00:00

You may have heard that last week the US courts struck-down a part of Utah's state constitution, which prohibits gay-marriage, on the grounds that it was violated civil rights. There was a similar ruling in New Mexico a few days earlier.

What happened?

It all goes back to earlier this year when the US Supreme Court (USSC) scrapped part of the US federal government's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The USSC could have thrown it out on the basis that it went against the 10th Amendment, which reserves certain powers, such as marriage, to the States themselves. It did not do this; instead held that it violated the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution on due process. This meant that the USSC's ruling could be cited in opposition to bans within the states themselves.

The Utah ruling is a fun and easy read: effectively Utah was claiming "The public have said 'Homos, eww!'"; "It's tradition"; and "Gays can marry people of the opposite sex" (no, really, the Judge refers to this argument made by them in his ruling!). Shockingly, the Judge held that these are not valid reasons to ban gay couples from marriage.

Based on the USSC's ruling, the gay-marriage-ban part of Utah's constitution was also held to violate the 5th Amendment, and because the US Constitution overrides conflicting State constitutions, that specific part of Utah's constitution is unenforceable.

Had the USSC ruled instead that DOMA went against the 10th Amendment, there is a good chance that Utah's ban would still be in place, on a states'-rights basis.

What happens next?

Utah has said that it will appeal, because it wants to protect "traditional marriage", i.e. 1-man & 1-woman only. For a state run by the Mormons that's an odd position to take...

In the meantime, Utah is trying to get a stay of the original ruling. They forgot to get a stay at the time of the original hearing, and so the Judge's ruling went into immediate effect. As a result, lots of gay couples within Utah are now getting hitched.

Utah now has to try and convince the courts that a stay is required. At first they went to the original judge, but he turned them down; they went to the 10th Circuit (the appeal court), who at first told them to do their job properly, because they had not done a formal application. Once a proper application had been submitted, the appeal court also rejected a stay. They are now trying to get a stay from the USSC, who it seems will operate under the same rules that apply in the appeal court.

However, as someone pointed out on Fark, I do not think that they will be able to get one.

In order to obtain an injunction, under r. 8.1 of the 10th Circuit Court, as well giving supporting statutes and caselaw, Utah has to show that:

There is a good chance that their appeal will succeed;
Utah desperately needs a stay;
The gay couples won't be negatively impacted by a stay; and
There is a pressing public need for a stay

Given that they simply want to stop gay couples from marrying, it's very unlikely that the courts will allow this, never mind the impact on the couples. The appeal court basically said as much in its rejection.

What is the likely outcome?

What is worth keeping note of, is the fact that the appeal court has said that it is perfectly happy to hear an appeal of the ruling, and it will schedule one for some point next year. In the meantime, and unless the USSC grants a stay, gay couples can get married within Utah.

If the appeal court overturns the original ruling, which their rejection of the stay suggests is unlikely, then Utah will once again ban gay couples from being married. However, as in California while Prop 8 was working its way through the courts, it is very unlikely they they will "unmarry" any couples that have got hitched in the meantime.

Should they uphold the original ruling, then that effectively kills-off similar laws in the other states that the appeal court covers, such as Wyoming; Kansas and Oklahoma. Similarly, should either side appeal to the USSC, which then upholds the original decision, that's the end of gay-marriage bans in the US.

As above, DOMA was thrown-out on discrimination grounds. Therefore, the appeal court will almost certainly feel bound by the USSC's ruling, like the original judge. As a result, the USSC will have to go back on its original position, and so hold that gay-marriage bans don't violate the 5th Amendment, and, frankly, it would need a fucking good reason to do so. This is why it won't happen.

Summary

Overall, that's basically the end of Utah's gay-marriage ban, and possibly those in other areas covered by the appeal court.

In addition, given the Judge's reasoning, his judgment is likely to be cited in gay-marriage cases in other US states, even where the appeal court doesn't have jurisdiction.

Gay marriage and transsexuals

2013-07-19T10:12:00.004+01:00

Hello! I'm back!

I've not been up to anything interesting since my last post, other than moving house - I'm now a Dalston Hipster - and asking my girlfriend to marry me on her 30th birthday while we were in Paris (romantic, aren't I?).

Anyway, you've probably heard that the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill was passed and received Royal assent. This is a good thing. As Jack of Kent points out, it's not correct to say that gay marriage is now legal in England & Wales, but that's simply because the Act is not in force, and it probably won't be until some time next year.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Act discriminates against transsexuals: if you want to have a sex-change, but your husband/wife opposes it, they can force you to divorce them or get an annulment. This has been labelled a "Spousal Veto". (Thanks to Left Outside for the link).

This is clearly a bad thing.

However, I don't think that it will have any real impact, because there seems to be 4 possible situations:

You want a sex-change. Partner says "No". You decide not to have one
You want a sex-change. Partner says "No". You decide to have one
You want a sex-change. Partner says "Yes". You decide to have one
You want a sex-change. Partner says "Yes". You decide not to have one

In the first, third and fourth situations, the law is not relevant. In the second situation, clearly your partner doesn't want to be with you, and so an annulment/divorce would be likely to happen no matter what.

I guess there's also a possibility of the law itself being challenged on human rights grounds (most likely Art. 12 and Art. 14, and possibly Art. 8 and Art. 10), but I don't think that there could be any situations in which challenges could be raised, other than those relating to annulments, to which #2 would still apply.

So it seems that either the Act will no impact on transsexuals, or will be helpful.

Of course, it would have been preferable had the law been drafted in a way so that the issue didn't arrive...

The "Common Sense of the Jury"...

2013-02-20T21:36:00.004+00:00

You're probably aware that the ex-wife of ex-Lib Dem Minister Chris Huhne is on trial for allegedly helping him get out of a speeding ban.

Huhne has pleaded guilty to the charge. Ms Pryce has accepted that she took the point, but is basing her defence on the rare "martial coercion", i.e. she was forced to do it by her husband.

After being out for 14 hours, the jury have been discharged after being unable to reach even a 10-2 verdict.

Before that happened, they provided a list of questions to the Judge. I don't have a problem with Juries asking question of the case, and it happens regularly, but in this case there has been massive problems.

The BBC have the questions and his responses, which can be summarised as:

It's a term in plain English
[He must have been lost for words, given the question]
[Sensible question]
See #1
WTF?! You can't simply make stuff up!
There's an presumption of innocence, not guilt. The Prosecution have to convince you, not the Defendant
See #6
See #5
Do you actually know what the job of a Jury is?
That's completely irrelevant

So that's 1 sensible question out of 10. Oh dear!

From reading the Judge's responses, he must have been thinking to himself "Do these people know anything?!". After all, he is quoted as saying they showed a "fundamental deficit in understanding" of what they were supposed to do.

I guess this shows the basic flaw in jury trials: they're based on an assumption that the ordinary member of the public is reasonably intelligent. Clearly this assumption was invalid to at least some of the people that had been chosen to serve.

Of course, this makes you wonder if other juries have had similar questions, and if so, how have they decided that issue.

I still think that Jury trials are a good thing to have, even if it is for little else than for having the ability to pretty much turn around and say "I don't care if he would be guilty, this is complete bollocks".

There will be a re-trial starting next Monday. Hopefully the next lot will do a better job.

Training for the future

2013-02-08T20:43:00.001+00:00

Over the past few weeks the government has made some big announcements on spending on public infrastructure.

They've published their plans for a second high-speed train line that will run from London up to Birmingham after which it splits to go to Manchester or Leeds. This will be called "High-Speed 2" (HS2).

As far as I can tell, it is needed because the trains out of London Euston, up to Birmingham and the north-west, will be full in about 20 years' time. Euston currently has lots of long-distance trains (Virgin Trains); lots of local trains (London Overground) and lots of trains-that-are-not-quite-local-but-not-quite-long-distance (London Midland). The train line itself also has lots of freight trains. In about 20 years' time there won't be enough space for all of them, and the idea is to build a separate train line for the Virgin Trains, which will create more space for the other lot. It'll also make my journeys back home to Lancashire much quicker.

It seems to be one of those all-too-rare occasions where plans for being made for the future, and also a good idea.

Separately there appear to be formal plans for a "Crossrail 2". Yes, that thing that's currently ripping up numerous bits of central London is likely to gain a younger brother or sister.

The basic plan is for a tunnel from outside Wimbledon that will lead to London Victoria; Tottenham Court Road; Euston-King's Cross-St. Pancras; and Angel then up through north-east London in two directions.

Apparently it will solve a lot of transport issues in London and the south-east: it'll remove lots of local trains from Waterloo, creating room for longer-distance ones; and will help the Victoria and Piccadilly lines, as well as creating space on the trains in north London. It'll also make massive reductions in travel times across London.

TfL have previously said that it should be built with HS2, but now it seems that it is essential to build it, otherwise Euston won't cope with the amount of extra people that HS2 will bring in.

As an alternative, TfL propose starting it at Wimbledon and only having the trains go in one direction after Angel.

Hopefully it will be built - I currently live in one of the areas that would stand to benefit from it, and given that I struggle to squeeze on my train in the morning I fully support the plans - and there's a good chance given that both TfL and Network Rail both support it. The only down side is that it is unlikely to do so for about 20 years, i.e. when the HS2 Manchester and Leeds bits open...

Nothing but Job-Killing Regulations and Red Tape!

2013-01-15T21:01:00.001+00:00

Just over a year ago I did a post on how the UK's economy was being strangled to death by "job-killing regulations and red tape", and how the Tories were justified in their plans to reduce claims for unfair dismissal. Or, much more accurately, how such claims are a complete load of rubbish.

The sources have since published updated versions of their reports, and I thought it'd be a good idea to do a follow-up post.

In 2011, we had the following:

World Bank "Ease of Doing Business" - #4;
Heritage Foundation "Index of Economic Freedom" - #16;
Fraser Institute "Economic Freedom of the World" - #8;
World Economic Forum "Global Competitiveness Report" - #10;
World Economic Forum "Global Enabling Trade Report" - #17.

Overall, between these 5 reports of differing political leanings, the UK ranked #11.

In 2013, these have changed to:

World Bank "Ease of Doing Business" - #7;
Heritage Foundation "Index of Economic Freedom" - #14;
Fraser Institute "Economic Freedom of the World" - #12;
World Economic Forum "Global Competitiveness Report" - #8;
World Economic Forum "Global Enabling Trade Report" (2012) - #11

Overall, these 5 reports suggest that the UK ranks #10 in how easy it is to run a business.

Once again, we can clearly see that the UK is not a bureaucracy-ridden hell-hole as some may claim...

So, how does the government respond to this clearly appalling situation? Well, it seems that they are trying to scrap s. 47 Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which would make it more difficult to sue your employers for breaches of health and safety laws.

Given what the reports say, I'd thought I should give the government some free advice: there's better ways to help the struggling UK economy; your plans appear to be simply an excuse to push through ideas that will do little other than screw people.

D-Notice Album of the Year Award 2012

2013-01-12T17:21:00.000+00:00

Ever since I started this blog I've done an almost-annual round-up of the CDs that I've purchased over that year.

For the past two years the round-up has been a bit lacking due to a combination of apathy and lack of time. In fact it seems that I didn't do one at all for 2011!

It's unlikely that I'll do one for 2012 either, but instead will link to my Spotify playlist that contains tracks from those CDs and my random tracks of 2012 one. I'll also link to my 2011 CD playlist and the 2011 random tracks one given that they don't seem to have put on here.

Will I do one for 2013? Who knows? At the very least you'll get two Spotify playlists out of it: my 2013 CDs and the year's random tracks that I've enjoyed.

You should also check out my Soundcloud feed for other stuff that I've liked. In fact that's probably a better option because I seem to be updating that much more frequently that the random tracks one on Spotify.

As for the coveted "D-Notice Album of the Year Award for 2012", that goes to Grimes - Visions for her weird electro-Kate Bush album. Its the one I've listened to the most and it remains as enjoyable as the first time it put it on.

The Award for 2011 goes to Anna Calvi for her self-titled album, with the usual disqualifications for Radiohead and the Fiery Furnaces' Eleanor Freidberger on grounds of personal bias.

The 2010 award, which again it seems that I didn't actually hand out, goes to Yeasayer - Odd Blood.

They join such lucky recipients as Arcade Fire (2005); The Knife (2006); Von Sudenfed and Battles (2007; joint award); The Bug and Hercules & Love Affair (2008; joint award) and The Horrors (2009).

Stuck in a Rutland

2013-01-10T22:44:00.001+00:00

There was an interesting post in the New Statesman today: that Rutland County Council are planning on suing some of its critics for libel. Apparently they're being targeted by anti-corruption campaigners. *plays tiny violin*

They have obtained legal advice saying that due to s. 1 Localism Act 2011, they now have the power to sue people for defamation.

As the piece points out, the advice, especially para. 11, seems to be wrong.

Basically it boils down to an interpretation of the phrase in s. 1(1) that councils have the "power to do anything that individuals generally may do". The solicitors say that this overrides a 1993 House of Lords case that banned local government from making defamation claims on public policy grounds. The article suggests that the legal advice has misinterpreted both the case and the Act.

The House of Lords case has a great quote:

There are, however, features of a local authority which may be regarded as distinguishing it from other types of corporation, whether trading or non-trading. The most important of these features is that it is a governmental body. Further, it is a democratically elected body, the electoral process nowadays being conducted almost exclusively on party political lines. It is of the highest public importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism. The threat of a civil action for defamation must inevitably have an inhibiting effect on freedom of speech.

I'm not a libel lawyer, but - given that the advice contains basic and sloppy errors, and has a general lack of actual quotations from the House of Lords judgment, and only make very brief reference to it - it seems that they told they client what they wanted to hear. Oddly, they also seem to suggest in para. 17 that the Council "send the heavies round"...

Para. 11 of the advice also says:

"a local authority is now dependant on its public reputation for its ability to secure external funding, to attract competitors for the provision of services, or to recruit outstanding officers"

I would advise that threatening people with libel claims who raise allegations of corruption is not a good way for a local authority to maintain its reputation... Also, the Lords judgment does actually refer to this situation, and so clearly has taken it into account.

Anyway, the Council had a public meeting tonight at which they apparently voted in favour of libel proceedings but deferred a vote on whether to actually issue them. They also seems to have voted to indemnify the councillors in any proceedings for harassment.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens next...

As an separate issue, we have Eric "Slendertone" Pickles for such sloppy drafting of the Act that Rutland base their stance on.

UPDATE: Rutland have put out a statement on the vote. They confirm they'll be making harassment claims and that the council will indemnify its councillors' costs, but deferred a vote on the libel claim.

2012 in video clips

2012-12-23T19:37:00.002+00:00

Hello again!

Have you missed me?

There's no real reason for a lack of posts other than a combination of work being busy and a general lack of enthusiasm.

Anyway, as it's the end of the year I tend to do a round-up of the various albums I've bught this year.

I may do one, bu as yet I've not actually decided whether I will.

In the meantime, I thought I'd link to some videos clips that I've enjoyed over the past few months.

First of all there's the Olympics Opening Ceremony, which I consider was the best show/TV programme/artistic achievement of the year.

I also consider that the Paralympics Opening Ceremony is worth watching too.

The less said about the closing ceremonies the better though...

Given the resounding success of both the Olympics and Paralympics, there's supposed to be a channel launching that will deal with the more obscure Olympics events, that you never see on TV. It was due to start this month. However, this deadline has not yet been met, and probably will not be met, but hopefully it'll start in 2013.

My favourite bits of the Olympics themselves are Nicola Adams' performance in the Women's Boxing final, where she demolished the #1 seed (section 2), and that 45-minute period in which Jessia Ennis; Greg Rutherford; and Mo Farah won their golds (from section 18 onwards).

My favourite clips of the Paralympics were when George Osborne was booed, and the performance of Richard Whitehead in the men's T42 200m. My favouriter overall performance was from David Weir who won 4 gold medals in 4 different wheelchair races (800m, 1500m, 5000m and marathon). I'd also recommned the men's F40 (dwarf) javelin in which the top 5 people all beat the previous world record, which itself was extended seven times!

Away from London, the biggest, and most important event of the year was the US Presidental election. There's 2 clips that I like, which are more concerned with certain people's reactions on Fox News to the then-still-pending outcome: this from the Daily Show that has one of my all-time favourite quotes; and a similar one that gives other clips from Fox News.

Like I said, I may do a music one, but if not this will tide you over!

UK's credit rating is downgraded

2012-06-05T15:50:00.001+01:00

One thing that the government has said is that it is making big cutbacks to public spending so that Britain will keep its "AAA"-rating with various credit rating agencies.

Well, last night this happened:

Rating agency Egan-Jones cut the credit rating for the United Kingdom on Monday to AA-minus with a negative outlook from AA, the latest in a string of European sovereign downgrades from the agency.

"Unfortunately, we expect that the UK's debt/GDP (ratio) will continue to rise and the country will remain pressed."

We were downgraded, due to the impact of the government's economic policies. By their own standards, they've failed.*

Of course, whether it is worth being obsessed with having the highest rating is another matter entirely. According to Paul Krugman, a downgrade such as this makes little difference.

* I accept that we've not been downgraded by this lot from a AAA-rating, but the downgrading itself is what counts

Today's #QTWTAIN: Is the census a breach of human rights?

2012-05-27T12:02:00.001+01:00

I saw this in the Observer today:

The government's prosecution of census objectors is in jeopardy after a Birmingham man was granted a judicial review to challenge the legality of the act that makes it an offence not to complete the 10-yearly survey.

Privacy campaigner Nigel Simons, who did not fill out the census, argues that section 8 of the 1920 Census Act conflicts with his right to privacy guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

It's an interesting case, and I can see where he's coming from, especially given that here's a good chance that the information would be processed in the US, but he'll lose.

The ECHR states that the right to privacy (Art. 8) can be breached if it is "in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".

It's pretty clear that the census would certainly fall the "economic" justification, under this given that a census is kind of essential for establishing a country's demographics. It could also fall under "national security and public safety" for the same reasons.

The new #singhBCA? - result

2012-03-31T17:05:00.002+01:00

In July 2011 I mentioned a stupid libel case which was taking place: a guy was being sued for calling someone a "creationist" in a review placed on Amazon.

The judgment was published yesterday (apparently a draft version was published back in December, but it has taken until now to be finalised): the case was struck out and the Claimants have to pay £75,000.00 in legal costs.

Unfortunately, it seems that the First Claimant is being a bit of a bad loser and appears to be harassing the guy he sued.

Anyway, given that the case has ended, I thought I'd bring up how the case has affected me.

On 13th September, the Claimant wrote to me and basically threatened to sue me for libel. Apparently it was because I had stated that the case itself was a complete load of bollocks:

Dear Gareth Winchester,

Re: Libel – http://d-notice.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-singhbca.html

You run the above blog and your email and partial address are confirmed by a Facebook page on which you announce your intention to run for Parliament.

We give you the benefit of the doubt at this preliminary stage in any possible action that:

1) you did not know the character of the Fourth Defendant prior to publishing your post above and do not know the full extent of the case against him, which the Fourth Defendant clearly wishes to conceal, giving only partial and self-serving information on his blog;

2) you do not endorse any of his political or anti-religious views;

3) you did not know the extent of the case being brought against him, including possible criminal proceedings;

4) you have been unwittingly enjoined by the Fourth Defendant to add to, and promote, his on-going libel at his own blog, to which you provide the following link in your post: http://vjohn82libelcase.blogspot.com/

However, whether witting or unwitting, you repeat and provide links to on-going libellous material and we respectfully ask you to remove your webpage above and submit Google cache removal requests for this immediately.

No doubt the existing libel case in question will be decided upon in due course and at that point the public will have the benefit of the full picture, until which time we are unable to comment further.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. Christopher A. McGrath

& McG Productions Ltd.

Unity at the Ministry of Truth received a similar letter.

I never complied with his request to remove my original post referring to the case, and instead simply ignored it; given what I had written - nothing more than a summary - there was never any basis for a claim against me.

UPDATE (10/04/2012): the judgment is now available on BAILII.

Why EU law is a good thing

2012-03-26T23:04:00.002+01:00

I saw this on Twitter today, but think that it deserves more coverage.

It's a long and bring article about the impact of having laws passed at EU level vs national level.

Granted, I'm not selling it in anyway whatsoever, but it's the EU so it's hard to make it interesting at any time.

In summary, doing stuff at EU level makes things easier for businesses - after all it's much simpler to only have to comply with one set of laws with apply through almost 30 countries, compared to complying with many, many different sets of laws.

It also goes into issues regarding enforcement and the difficulties which result from using EU Directives vs EU Regulations.

Like I said, it's a very dry and boring piece, but useful if you wanna see how things work in the real world, not in some UKIP-delusion world.

Oh Canada!

2012-03-26T22:54:00.002+01:00

From CNN:

Ontario's top court has legalized brothels, saying Canadian prostitution laws unfairly discriminate against prostitutes and their ability to work in safe environments.

A panel of five judges wrote that the law banning common bawdy houses "is grossly disproportionate" if all it aims to do is keep public order in a neighborhood and maintain public health standards.

"The record is clear that the safest way to sell sex is for a prostitute to work indoors, in a location under her control," the judges wrote in a much anticipated ruling.

Good.

It'll make it safer for the women involved both for public health reasons and by making it more difficult for them to be exploited.

An argument in favour of road privatisation

2012-03-19T14:20:00.004+00:00

The government has said that it plans to private our roads.

I plan to buy one.

there's no particular reason why I would want one - I don't drive and don't travel very far on the roads any other way - but I feel that I have to have one for the future of the UK.

Why?

Simple, if I buy a road I will install metric road signs throughout.

After all, the government has basically admitted that it has no reason for them not to be used throughout, i.e. in addition to the small-scale use it currently has, yet refuses to do so.

Who wants to contribute?

Mafia State

2012-03-07T21:09:00.000+00:00

I was reading a post on the Economist about Russia.

Apparently a lawyer uncovered a $230m tax fraud being done various Russian officials, and he ending up paying for it with his life.

There seems to be a campaign to ban the officials who were allegedly behind it from getting visas to the UK. These were apparently named in Parliament back in January*:

From the courts service:

Judge Yelena Stashina;

Judge Alexei Krivoruchko;

Olga Egorova

From the Interior Ministry:

Oleg Silchenko;

Oleg Urzhumtsev;

Alexei Anichin;

Oleg Logunov;

Boris Kibis;

General Major Tatiana Gerasimova

From the FSB (the Russian secret service and the successor to the KGB):

Viktor Voronin;

From the tax offices:

Olga Stepanova;

Elena Khimina

From the prison services:

Dmitri Komnov;

Fikhet Tagiev;

Yuri Kalinin

From the General Prosecutor’s Office:

Andrey Pechegin

I wonder if anything will happen?

On a related note I'd recommend Luke Harding's "Mafia State" book.

* As a result, they can be reported freely on the grounds of qualified privilege.

Where do my taxes go?

2012-03-01T20:09:00.000+00:00

I saw this on Twitter yesterday:

a spreadsheet which shows where your tax money goes (Excel) (assuming you're a UK taxpayer).

It's very interesting to see how it all breaks down.

UPDATE: Given my post on the costs of the EU, I thought I'd work out how I pay per year for the hulking bureaucracy that resides in Brussels.

Apparently I pay £26.29 (€31.51)/year net to be in the EU, or 7.2p (8.6c)/day.

The UK's net contribution to the EU works out at a staggering 0.49% of total government expenditure: £2.533 billion/year, which averages out at - assuming there's 62 million people in the UK - £40.85 (€49.03) per person/year or 11.2p (13.4c) per person/day.

I think I can justify such expense...

An Open Letter to David Cameron

2012-03-01T09:37:00.002+00:00

Dear Mr Cameron,

Last night on C4 News I saw film of you in Parliament using the term "Trotskyites" towards those who oppose people being forced to work for no pay on the Workfare scheme.

Do you seriously believe that such a miniscule, hard-core left-wing group has such extensive power in the UK and that only people with those views are opposed to the scheme?

Do you seriously not realise that you can be opposed to such a scheme simply on the grounds that people should be paid for doing a job?

If not, then are only two real alternatives:

either you are completely deluded, in which case you should resign, or
you lied to Parliament, in which case you should definitely resign!

After all, you can't seriously say that the SWP secretly control everything behind the scenes, and have more power than anyone else could possible imagine, can you?

UPDATE: It turns out that Trotsky would have supported Workfare.

If we leave the EU we'll have free access!

2012-02-27T22:21:00.002+00:00

One argument that people make in favour of the UK leaving the EU is that it costs us money.

Of course, reality is not so simple. In fact, the Norwegian government has done a report on the impact being outside the EU has upon it.

There's also these things known as the EEA Grants and Norway Grants.

These are payments made by non-EU EEA countries (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) in order to access the EU's Internal Market.

Next year Norway will pay the EU €290 million in order to gain access, which works out at €0.79/day . This is €0.10 more than what the UK pays!

Overall between 2009-14 Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway will pay €988.5 million in EEA Grants (of which Norway will pay 95%, i.e. €939.075 for Norway and €49.425 between Iceland and Liechtenstein*), with a further €800 million contributed by Norway as part of the Norway Grants**.

Therefore, life outside the EU is not cheap if you want to access the EU's market. Of course, even if you pay for access, you also end up having to comply with EU laws with no say in them. What's technically known as a "fax democracy".

I'm not sure what Switzerland contributes, but will try & find out for a later post.

UPDATE: According to Nosemonkey it turns out that in 2009 Norway paid €340 million/year. Also I've amended the figures in the footnote.

* I can't find a breakdown for the amounts paid by Iceland and Liechtenstein. However, it seems to be based on GDP: Norway ($414.462 billion) + Iceland ($12.594 billion) + Liechtenstein ($4.797 billion) = $431.853 billion. On a strict GDP basis, these would be 95.97% + 2.92% + 1.1%, but their actual shares are 95%, 3% and 2% respectively.

Taking into account the percentage shares, the figures equate to €939.075 million for Norway (average: €187.815 million/year, or €0.515 million/day or €0.10 per capita/day [the difference is due to an increase in the amount Norway pays in the later years]); €29.655 million for Iceland (average: €5.931 million/year, or €0.016 million/day or €0.05 per capita/day); and €19.77 million for Liechtenstein (average: €3.954 million/year or €0.011 million/day or €0.30 per capita/day).

Polio wiped out in India

2012-02-27T20:55:00.000+00:00

In a change to our scheduled programming of disdain towards most things, here is some good news.

The World Health Organisation has said that India is free of polio.

Guzzle the World

2012-02-27T12:47:00.003+00:00

My girlfriend and I have started up a food-review blog: G & T Guzzle the World.

It'll cover the variety of food and drink we come across in and around London.

Check it out!

Blog Post of the Day/Month/Year

2012-02-18T16:30:00.003+00:00

You're probably aware of the current fuck-up surrounding the Greek economy.

I know very little about economics - not that's necessarily a bad thing - and I also don't know what can ad should be done to sort it out.

Which is why I'm glad I found a post on Crooked Timber to help me.

It's a Choose Your Own Adventure game over the various options there are for Greece and everyone else, and it takes into account the economic impacts and limits and also the political ones.

It's a great post which explains the situation in a simple-to-understand manner.

When I did it I got the "Argentina 2001" option. That's not good.

Hopefully, other people can do better.

Technical Legal Argument of the Day

2012-02-18T16:22:00.000+00:00

On Thursday the Court of Appeal released its judgment in the case of Simcoe v Jacuzzi UK Group Plc.

For work reasons* I had been keeping an eye out for this.

What I didn't expect - and I doubt anyone else did - was for the Claimant to also win on a very obscure technical argument (para. 20-34).

The best was to describe it is**:

Lawyer: The law doesn't apply because the government fucked up when they drafted it

Court: [looks at the background to the law] You're right

I have to applaud whoever considered such a strategy - normally you would assume that any amendment is valid - mainly due to the amount to work involved in researching the issue itself and the background of how the law was amended and it actually should have been changed.

However, I'm expecting the Defendant to appeal to the Supreme Court, either on the technical argument or generally. I'm also expecting the Supreme Court to give permission due to the wide-ranging impact a decision would have.

* It was a technical argument over from when interest on costs can be claimed in cases funded by CFAs/"No win, no fee" agreements. The Court says that it can be claimed from when the main case settles, not just from when the legal costs are agreed which will be some time later on, possibly years.

** Legally, the argument was that CPR 40.8 doesn't apply in the County Court because the law amending it didn't comply with the Act of Parliament which it was enforced under: it says that the Treasury should also have been consulted in preparing it, but there is no suggestion that it ever did. The Court also said that even if it was wrong, the amendment simply led to a general rule that interest would still apply, but could be ignored if it was justified.