Joe asks 'Is it me or what?'

You Cant' Say That!

Quite a worrying item in the news recently where a lady, Lesley Kemp, complained on Twitter about an unpaid bill. She hadn't been paid for work done and moaned about it online. There were further problems when only part of the bill was [paid but eventually it was settled. The firm though, Resolution Products, has started a case against Ms Kemp for defamation. They don't claim the story was untrue, just that their character was damaged. Seems to me that stating the truth in this fashion should not lead to this sort of case. Hopefully the case will be dismissed and costs and damages awarded against the company.

I await their charge of libel against me for writing about this.

Tisztességtelen?

Okay, a raft of bonus marks if you understand the title of this post…

Give up? - it's Hungarian for unfair which was the question I asked myself when I read that law changes in Hungary may be undemocratic. Some of them do appear to a be harsh, for example homeless people being fined for, well being homeless.

On the other hand a proposal that those claiming a university grant must work for sometime in Hungary after getting their degree seems quite sensible. Most UK companies have a similar rule, if you leave shortly after a training course that you requested to attend then you need to contribute to the cost of the course. I'd rather take the work in my home country option than the be saddled with masses of debt on leaving university one. Am I missing something?

I Put It To You

The case against Vicky Pryce, Chris Huhne's ex-wife, has had to be restarted because the judge decided the jury was too inept, well that's my reading of his words. In case you didn't know she is defending the charge of agreeing to accept his speeding points by claiming he forced her to take them.

Some have questioned whether juries are becoming less intelligent but as juries are picked at random then that would suggest that people in general are becoming thicker. The government has certainly had thoughts along these lines, pushing for complex financial frauds to be run without a jury as they cannot be expected to understand the law well enough to give a verdict, that's another post on another day but in this case my thoughts lead to different conclusions.

Firstly people nowadays are more empowered to challenge and ask questions of their "superiors". The class system still exists but not to the extent that juries are in total awe of a judge and will sit silently. Some of the questions they asked are very difficult to answer. For example what exactly is reasonable doubt? Surely it means different things to different people? The case against two suspected muggers that I was part of the jury relied on mistaken identity as a defence. the two claimed they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and the real muggers had ran past them leaving their stolen goods behind. It seems reasonable on the surface but broke down because of their striking looks, two very large Africans, both very tall with unusual hair. But it was a doubt, fortunately some more evidence was presented which made it an obvious guilty decision. Other questions refer to what can be considered. Although in law only what is presented in court can count it's the classic case of don't think of an elephant; neither can you expect people to disregard that last remark as the judge can often instruct. It's also difficult in such a  technologically advanced age to keep information away from juries in a practical manner.

The judge also told them that drawing inferences from evidence was okay but speculation was not, again there is a fine line dividing the two. The whole system is fraught with danger and part of the problem is the adversarial nature of the English court system. I strongly believe that a system whereby the objective was to find the truth and lawyers took a very secondary role, especially in criminal cases, would lead to a much fairer outcome. The idea of two opposing counsels fighting a game and coming out as winners or losers is not one that encourages the truth to come out. The system in Scotland is a step advanced from this but it's still could be centred around finding out exactly what happened when a crime has been committed.

Of course the other big legal story is that of Oscar Pistorius, who has admitted killing his girlfriend. Speaking personally if I wake up in the middle of the night and my wife is not there and I hear a noise in the bathroom I don't need Sherlock Holmes to tell me she's probably gone to the toilet. Perhaps it's fortunate I don't own a gun, that stops me from drawing the inference that it's a dangerous burglar and shooting her. We shall see how Oscar fares with that defence.

I'd like to speak to Jass, Hugh Jass

Of course it's sad when someone takes their own life, as appears to have happened with the nurse involved in the prank phone call to the hospital where the Duchess of Cambridge was staying.

At the end of the day though the vituperation directed at the Australian DJs is misguided. Thousands of people have played such practical jokes over the centuries without such dramatic effects. Dom Joly is well-known for his stunts, if his famous snail crossing the road had backfired, perhaps delaying someone from rushing to their mother's deathbed in time to say goodbye, I presume there would have been an outcry about that? And that's the problem, no one cares unless something bad happens. So berate the DJs if you will, although perhaps their anonymous bosses would be a better target, but try and put it in perspective. It's hard to believe that this incident was the only reason the unfortunate lady took her life, perhaps we should be asking if she was reprimanded by her work superiors over the incident or had she been equipped to deal with identifying phone requests? One can imagine that the pressure to not upset a member of the royal family would be very great. That's how these calls work - social engineering at its finest.

I can already see the cries for legislation to outlaw such acts, please don't let it get that far, first establish exactly what happened and precisely why, if it's possible, that such an extreme reaction was the outcome.

Thought Control

An interesting item in the press this week concerning a prospective juror who was excused service for maintaining that he held racist and homophobic view and didn't think he had the right to judge anybody.

Of course I don't hold with his views but if he spoke honestly, and was not just trying to manipulate the system, how should he be handled?

It might be illegal to discriminate on the grounds of race or sexual preference but, as far as I know, it's not illegal to hold these views. One might say that he was stating that he would treat someone differently because of their race, and that would be a crime, but what if he was just admitting that his views made him less objective than he should be? This is something that affects us all, though many simply refuse to concede it.

He is now facing prosecution for contempt of court, seemingly for just stating the truth – the moral seems to be that he should have stayed quiet and let his views cloud his judgement – which of these is worse?

An interesting debate on free speech and legislation of thought.

Going For Gold

The recent news about badminton players in the Olympics allegedly not trying to win a match, because it would have meant an easier time in the next round, is perfectly understandable – especially to students of game theory. Most athletes are trying to win their overall event, if that means losing a particular match en route for tactical reasons then that’s the fault of the rules designers.

I’ve come across the same situation many times playing bridge and the answer is simple. Let the highest placed team chose their opponents for the next round, the next highest has second choice etc. This means that it’s almost certainly in your interest to win every heat or match. Having a fixed draw leads to the situation that supposedly happened in the badminton.

This change would prevent officials from having to decide whether players tried their hardest, an extremely difficult thing to do in most cases, the one that sparked the outcry being an exception as the competitors seemed to have shown a very lackadaisical approach to the affair.

There may be occasional problems with some sports when the locations are widely separated and teams need to know well in advance where they need to be, but these situations are rare.

Rave On?

The sleepy village of Laleham in Surrey is not renowned for its late night raves and high-profile music events but the local council there decided to crackdown hard when they saw a sign at the The Feathers pub promising Music from 4am. Now it seems to me that a sensible idea would have been for a council official to pop round one afternoon and check with the pub’s management as to what was going on, they could then see if he knew a licence was needed for such late night entertainment.

But that’s not how the average council worker’s mind works (if works is the right term), a better plan is to storm in, accompanied by two more officials and a couple of police, late on the night of the advertised gig.

As you’ve probably guessed there were a lot of red faces when the Spelthorne Borough Council workers found that 4am was actually the name of the band, who were just finishing their set, at a respectable 10:00pm.

The two-piece soul funk combo, consisting of singer John Adams and drummer Joe Becket, are enjoying the most publicity in years. They never realised that naming their band after a song by jazz musician Herbie Hancock would get them into so much trouble.

The council are now concentrating on a crackdown on pubs that encourage excessive drinking after spotting many sporting a Free Beer Tomorrow sign behind their bars.

Vox Populi

Argyll and Bute council have really stirred up a hornet’s nest by banning a school girl from taking pictures of her school meals. She had been posting on her blog about the meals, constructive comments in surprisingly good English, and rating the meals on nutrition and how many mouthfuls it took to eat. The meal pictured got 4/10 for health and 6/10 on her food-o-meter rating.

Instead of taking her comments on board the council decided censorship was the way forward, judging from the outcry on Twitter they will soon have to stand down but who knows?

The blog is supposedly finished although many have asked her to continue without the photos.

I, and many others, have complained via the council’s web site. The site is conveniently closed on 16th and 17th June, not sure if this is connected or just coincidence.

My own complaint read as follows:

I find it incredible that you think that you have the right to prevent a schoolchild taking innocuous photographs of her school dinners. Instead of taking her constructive comments on board you try censorship instead. It's a shocking indictment of how the council 'mind' thinks and of how you have little idea of whom you serve.
I hope you are well-prepared for the backlash this action will cause, although I don't live in your area I feel that plenty of people who do will express their opinions through the democratic process as soon as possible.

It will be interesting to see who will win this battle.

Arrest That Man!

This story amused me. An actor who helped in a police recreation of a jewel robbery for a German TV’s crime watch programme was arrested after being spotted by an eagle-eyed member of the public pointed him out to security guards as looking just like that thief on television. Apparently his protestations of innocence and his explanation about being an actor were said to be ‘a likely story’.

Aaron Defant, pictured in character, is quite well known in Germany and, apparently, no publicity is bad publicity. He was released after convincing police at the local station of the truth of his claims.

Meanwhile the real criminal has been offered a part in a remake of To Catch a Thief…

Worrying Trend

A few pieces of news this week that worry me. At first glance the news that Barclays bank will have to pay £500 million in tax because it tried to use avoidance schemes seems great but if you think about it introducing a law and making it retrospective is just not fair. How would you feel if the government put up the income tax rate by ten per cent and then made it effective from two years ago? Either the schemes were lawful at the time and the law needs tightening or they weren’t and tax is now due, as well as fines for law breaking. The  whole tax laws need simplifying so that the Inland Revenue can state that

Processes that are designed simply to avoid paying taxes and do not involve the production of goods or the offer of bona fide services may be judged to be tax evasion measures

This way any convoluted scheme which simply involve many transactions and transfers, but don’t actually produce any goods, services or benefits, can be stepped on – without having to enact new laws or to make them retrospective. The Inland Revenue could then offer an advisory service (at a price) for banks and the like to check first on any new schemes.

The second and third items concern freedom of speech. Firstly the French government has decided that it won’t be a crime to deny that the Turkish government committed genocide against Armenia during World War I. Given that France already has a similar law concerning the holocaust in Germany during the second world war and no one denies that over 1.5 million Armenians were killed it seems odd – why have they done this? But unfortunately it’s not because of any concerns over freedom of speech, it’s mainly because it would jeopardise relations with Turkey. My feelings are that if I’m stupid enough to deny either event, especially the one perpetrated by Germany, then that’s my wish and it shouldn’t be a crime for me to say so. After all no one has to take any notice. Again it’s a dangerous precedent to set, it will come to a point, and this has already happened in many countries, when disagreeing over any state decreed facts is a crime.

The final example is closely related, it concerns David Jones, who helped create the Fireman Sam children’s story character, and a recent event as he passed through Gatwick airport. He was asked to remove his scarf before going through the security scanner. Afterwards he noticed that a woman, dressed in Muslim style garb that included a face covering, was allowed to walk through unchallenged. When he commented on this he was hauled aside because a Muslim security guard had claimed his remark, perhaps I should have worn a face scarf, could be taken as offensive. After being detained he was released and allowed to board the plane. Again it seems a very worrying event. For one thing he didn’t mention anything about the lady’s religion and secondly why shouldn’t he make an observation, especially when it’s obviously true, people like the lady are allowed more latitude at airports, I’ve noticed this myself many times. In theory they can be asked to remove their face scarves in a private room but in practice this is all extra work for the security staff so they take the easy option.

Virtually any remark based on observation of people can cause offence, but who decides whether it the person making the statement that is offensive or the person observed who is simply over-sensitive? It seems to me that freedom of speech is become less and less tolerated, there was no chance at the airport for example of the remark deliberately inciting racial hatred, or any of a number of other just causes for supressing speech.