RBS
Surely, if we paid no bonuses at the Royal Bank of UK Taxpayers, then these people would walk and we’d save their salary as well.
But would that also mean they’d be able to sue for constructive dismissal, as bonuses are expected?
Un-American Activities
The Times devotes its second leading article to their process of shipping people halfway across the world to stand trial without the evidence being tested in a court of law, where the accused has had the opportunity of testing the evidence.
The article finishes with this paragraph.
The national interest of the US lies in living up to its own rhetoric, and demonstrating that, wherever someone lives, the American promise of freedom under the law extends to them. Arresting people and shipping them half way across the world without a fair trial is the sort of thing that the founding fathers made it their life’s work to prevent.
The sooner we call time on this law the better.
What worries me is that I have a common name, which is probably one of the most common in the English-speaking world. Suppose the United States said say, that I was behind some notorious Internet hack, would I get the justice of having the evidence tested in a British Court. Possibly not, because Tony Blair signed my rights away, just as he did to everybody other British citizen, who lives peaceably within the law in the UK.
Our Crazy Extradition Laws
I actually think that to extradite Abu Qatada to Jordan to stand trial might be the wrong thing to do. Although many in this country from Lord Carlile and the Prime Minister downwards think he should go.
But then I also think to leave him here might be the wrong thing to do as well. If you read about him on the Internet he has annoyed a lot of powerful and/or nasty people, who have a record of making sure people they don’t like, can’t hurt them.
But then we are quite happy to send people to the United States, as we did with the NatWest Three and are soon to do with Christopher Tappin and a few others, due to Tony Blair’s one-sided extradition treaty, that he signed to curry favour with the United States.
It all doesn’t seem fair, that we have no control over our extradition process. Either the European Court stops us or we just say yes to the United States.
Is This The Sickest Lawsuit Ever?
David Belniak was drunk, had taken cocaine and Xanax, when he crashed his car at 88 mph into the back of someone else’s in a 55 mph zone and killed all four occupants. He got a twelve year sentence and you can read the whole story here in the Daily Mail.
He is now suing the relatives of those he killed for the mental anguish he went through.
Oxford Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up To Be
I had to smile at this article.
At least she decided to follow in C’s footsteps and go to UCL to read law.
I’ve always believed that you shouldn’t go to a university, that is in a place, that is very similar to where you were brought up, as it doesn’t widen your mind.
Weird and Wonderful
The Sunday Times has a column of this name, which collects odd news from around the the world. This is the text of one this week with a title of Call the Pants Police.
Brides should be forced by law to wear knickers at the altar, says a Brazilian councillor. Ozias Zizi claims a growing number of women are being married without underwear because a superstition says this will guarantee a longer marriage.
The councillor from Vila Velha wants to introduce a local law that would not only force brides to wear knickers, but would bring in a minimum neckline for dresses.
“The moment they enter a place of worship they must show some respect,” he said. But Enoch de Castro, a local priest, said: “It would be absurd to try to police something like this, to find out whether a bride is wearing knickers or not.”
I think the priest has it right. Although, I don’t think that the police would lack volunteers for the job.
This Should Never Happen Again
The case of Dr. Eva Michalak should never happen again. Reading the story in The Times and on the BBC, it seems that the doctor did nothing wrong in her work, except decide to have a baby. That seemed to arouse the ire and vindictiveness of her colleagues and quite rightly, she has got a settlement to compensate for the career they destroyed.
My main problem with this case, is that it would appear that none of her colleagues, have been disciplined in any way. That may not be the case, but as in so many cases like this secrecy may have been used to protect the guilty.
Every person, who runs a large company or organisation, has a duty to all their employees to make sure things like this don’t happen. It could also be argued that they must manage the organisation, so that no employee is pushed into a position, that will cost their company a lot of money. Is the Chief Executive still employed by the Trust? I hope not!
A Slow Motion Legal Car Crash
The goings-on at Dale Farm, were just described in that way on the BBC. In fact, everybody seems to have got involved from Tony Blair to the UN and perhaps half the lawyers in Essex.
I’m not going to argue for either side in this dispute, except to say that the only beneficiaries of this long-running farce have been the lawyers. Everybody else has lost. I suspect in the end, we’ll all pay something out of central taxes.
It will run and run. For instance what would happen, if they found bats in some of the dwellings on the site?
The Tevez Defence
Carlos Tevez got himself off a serious charge by claiming he couldn’t read English according to many reports, including this one in the Mirror.
I would assume that he didn’t have any colleagues or friends, who couldn’t read English either. I once had a spam e-mail in Russian, so I asked one of the builders, who was Lithuanian, what it meant. He said it was spam, so I ignored it.
How long before the defence is used in a serious case like murder or rape? The accused in a rape case could perhaps claim that he didn’t understand what No meant.
Perhaps the best thing we could do is give Tevez six months to learn basic English.
One Problem With Televising Courts
This is a true story and some would think it would be good television. I don’t! But it illustrates the fact that a lot of cases contain things that really shouldn’t be broadcast. After all, our court system is open and anybody can go and look if they are interested.
My late wife was a barrister and once she was prosecuting a man for a sexual assault. She could hear a rustling behind her in the public gallery and quick look confirmed that a teacher was bringing in a class of school children to see how the court worked. She carried on, but her next question to a witness was not very appropriate. “When did you first notice that the defendant had an erection?” She then heard shrieks of laughter from behind her and then a lot of whispering as the children were quickly escorted out.
I bet those kids never forgot their first day in court!
She would repeat this story every time, televising courts was mentioned, to show how you can never be sure what will happen and how do you ensure that justice is fair and correct to all parties.
The Anonymous Widower 