The Curious Case of Heather Mill’s Nanny
I say curious case because the two parties in this unfair dismissal case seem to have views that are poles apart.
These are the first two paragraphs in the report in the BBC.
Heather Mills has told an employment tribunal she fell out with her nanny after refusing to pay for her breast enlargement surgery.
Sara Trumble, 26, from West Sussex, is seeking compensation from Sir Paul McCartney’s ex-wife, alleging unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.
They can’t be further apart than that!
Incidentally, Miss Trumble did have the breast enlargement surgery and bless them, the Sun has got pictures in their article. The second picture in the article shows her £4000 breasts in all their glory/horror. (Delete as appropriate!)
My only comment on Miss Trumble’s body would be to say that her breasts look like she’s added a couple of large tea-cups or something equally unreal.
Fair Comment?
I have been following the progress of the action against Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association with interest. As a scientist, I believe strongly that in science we get progress by research, experiment, peer review and open debate, and not by resorting to the law. I’ve also always had a deep regard for Simon ever since he wrote Fermat’s Last Theorem: The story of a riddle that confounded the world’s greatest minds for 358 years
So perhaps I’m biased.
But I am rather pleased that he has obtained a judgement in the Court of Appeal, that allows fair comment as a defence in certain libel actions.
The Battle of Bolton
Yesterday, what happened in Bolton was not the way to protest.
You could argue that on the one hand it was a protest very similar to the Battle of Cable Street, where East London was determined to stop a march by the British Union of Fascists. My father, a left-wing Tory, was at that battle in 1936 and his view was that it was all of the East End against a rather nasty group with connections to Hitler. It could not be argued then, that we didn’t know of the ambitions and awful nastiness of the German dictator.
You could also argue that on the other, there are strong fears about such things like Sharia law and militant Islam.
I was listening to Radio 5 last night and the two sides had an argument with the presenter, as they thought they’d been duped into talking to each other by the BBC.
That probably shows more about the groups than anything else. They wanted a fight and that is what they got. But it was mainly with the police, who as ever were stuck in the middle. They should have let both of these groups get on with what they wanted to do. Preferably, in a place where they couldn’t do any damage to anybody else.
Those on both sides of the argument should talk to make sure that nothing like this happens again.
Fear of Libel Laws
In a piece called Scientifically Correct – Raymond Tallis, I drew attention to the problems of the British libel laws. Now one of my favourite authors, Simon Singh, has had to give up his column in The Guardian because fighting the libel writ is taking too much time.
Simon says that it may come to the point, where quality American publications refuse to publish in the UK, because they are feared of the consequencies.
Where is free speech?
Dish Ran Away with the Spoon
This story is from the Daily Mirror.
A woman tunnelled out of jail using a spoon.
The attractive un-named 35-year-old – doing 18 years for trying to murder her sister-in-law – was called “a dish” by local newspapers.
Her lawyer Ludo Hameleers said: “She would have been released in 18 months. She just couldn’t wait.”
The woman, who had served 12 years, dug the 30ft tunnel from a cellar of her Dutch jail, hid the soil in her trouser legs and then sprinkled it around the yard – a ruse straight from classic PoW tale The Great Escape.
This is the complete story, so apologies to the Mirror.
On the other hand, this was repeated word-for-word on the BBC.
Scientifically-Correct – Raymond Tallis
I have used the term scientifically correct several times in this blog and you’ll find out a bit more about the history of the use of this term here.
Today, Raymond Tallis in The Times has written a comment entitled, “Test medicine in the lab, not the court”. Here’s the first two paragraphs.
A while back, I wrote a piece arguing that the retired, such as myself, had a responsibility to speak fearlessly about what we saw to be the truth and to take unpopular stands on difficult issues. After all, we no longer had any hope of advancement and the execration of ill-informed, unthinking or self-interested opponents could not touch us. Recent events have awoken my dormant cowardice to question this bravado. Speaking out on some things might mean that Mrs Tallis and I could end our days on the parish, cleaned out by a ruinous court battle with individuals or institutions with deeper pockets than us. The libel case brought against Simon Singh is one such event.
Singh is one of the most brilliant, accurate and thoughtful science writers of his generation. In 2008 he wrote a piece in The Guardian to coincide with Chiropractic Awareness Week challenging claims that spinal manipulation could be useful for treating childhood conditions such as asthma and ear infections. (Yes, ear infections — I kid you not!) The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) protested that he had defamed its reputation and threatened to sue for libel. The Guardian offered the BCA a 500-word response and an entry in its “Corrections and Clarifications” column. This was rejected, The Guardian chose not to engage in a potentially costly battle, and Singh was on his own. He courageously decided to fight on, because of the principles at stake.
Now I was married to a barrister, who did one of her pupilages in libel chambers. In those far-off days of the early 1980s, libel was all about people with massive egos and often bank balances, who felt they had been wronged in the tabloids. Now, it seems it is being used in a much more general way to protect commercial interests.
In the next few years, how many writers and scientists will challenge the established view, if they felt that what they said despite the overwhelming evidence was against the commercial interests of a large company or professional organisation?
Raymond Tallis finishes by asking us to become a signatory on the National Petition for Libel Reform. I have done what he asked and suggest that all those who want scientifically correct, rather than lawyer derived truth, should sign.
Does Ali Dizaei Wear a Wig?
Surely not! But just look at the pictures of him on the Internet and in today’s Times.
Just search “Ali Dizaei” in Google Images.
In some he has virtually no hair and in others he has lots! You will also notice that the pictures taken before the latest court appearance show him with a large amount.
Commander Ali Dizaei
This case does not show the Police in a good light.
Dizaei has been found guilty of misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice and will spend some time in jail. It blew out of a row over a web site outside a London restaurant. I’ve tried the web site today and it is no longer there!
I’ve never met Dizaei, but he has been in the media in various negative stories over the last few years.
At the time, I gave Dizaei the benefit of the doubt and put it all down to things like racism and jealousy. Was I wrong? Read the stories and judge.
It illustrates though that if you are high-profile member of a minority, women, Asian, black, Jewish or whatever, you probably have to behave as impeccably as the cleanest of the majority. But then so does everybody else.
Dizaei did not and he paid the ultimate price.
In one quick stroke though Dizaei has hurt all those good officers from minorities, who by hard work have managed to climb up the rather slippery and difficult ladder of promotion.
I hope we have heard the last of Dizaei. But I fear not, as he will probably use all methods to clear his name.
We’re Under Control
Last night’s television was frightening.
It wasn’t any old horror story, but two programmes which shared a common theme.
The first was Panorama about the Government’s, Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) which aims to stop unsuitable people working with children and vulnerable adults. A laudable idea, but it is being done in such a heavy handed way, that it will end up with large numbers of people being branded unsuitable, despite there being no real evidence.
Here’s what Sir Ian McKellen had to say about the effect on the theatre.
A new vetting scheme is dissuading amateur theatre companies from casting child actors, Lord of the Rings star Sir Ian McKellen has said.
The Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) aims to stop unsuitable people working with children and vulnerable adults.
But some theatres say they do not have resources to carry out the paperwork it entails, and Sir Ian fears child actors will lose important stage experience.
He may be overreacting, but then I always worry about schemes like this, as I have a very common name. As an example I’m in a database in Hong Kong and every time I visit, I’m called aside for special treatment. At least I haven’t ended up in jail, but one day my namesake might have upped his level of crime or annoyance. I also used to live in a small village with a criminal with a similar first name and the same surname. I had great difficulty getting a credit card, as I was thought of as one of his relatives.
I will be very unlikely to have any trouble with the Act, but then I only have about two hours contact alone with children in every year. And that is with my granddaughter, either when I take her to the supermarket or show her something on the computer, with one of her parents in the next room!
However, I’m thinking about volunteering to perhaps provide transport or computer help. Because of this Act, I have said that I don’t want to do anything concerned with children or their parents.
Is that the purpose of the Act? Because if no-one worked with children, then we wouldn’t have any problems would we!
And then I watched Generation Jihad.
This was chilling as young Muslims talked candidly about their outlandish views.
I feel that we may be winning some of the battles against those who feel we should be punished because of our lack of religion. The Police are arresting people before they do any damage, mullahs seem to talk sense in good English, and the tone of Muslims on phone-in programmes seems to be very much more tolerant to others.
But again oppressive legislation has been used against the Muslim extremists, that in the end may prove to be unproductive. How many people have downloaded anti-Western videos? Probably a lot more than you would think. For instance, I’ve been sent links to them in spam, by spammers in the Middle East. I unknowingly downloaded the first bit, but then as my Arabic is a bit rusty, so I deleted it.
If your brother was locked up for doing something like this, would you support the authorities or the brother? I suspect, where no actual threat has been proved you would support him.
So is this legislation actually creating more potential terrorists, rather than reducing them? After all if you’re prepared to be a suicide bomber, then a few years in jail if you get caught preparing, is a small price to pay. You can wait and probably you’ll learn a lot more in prison to help you on your way.
Let’s face it, on a scale of nastiness, terrorists and paedophiles are the lowest of the low. Oppressive agencies feasting on innuendo as well as facts, relying on typical government computing and staffed by people on not the best wages are one way to do it. But is that the best?
No!
These systems only catch those on the radar of the authorities. The London bombers weren’t and neither are most paedophiles.
I also have a big worry about these sort of systems. Supposing one was found to be a complete waste of time. Would it be scrapped? After all, if a government did, they’d be described as pro-paedophile or pro-terrorist. Look at how long it took them to sort out the Child Support Agency and the damage that was done in the interim.
So what should we do?
We should look at what causes people to become paedophiles, terrorists and criminals for that matter. One thing stands out; poverty. There is also the way that the parents treat their children. Many paedophiles were abused by their parents, many criminals take up their parents habits and there are terrorists, who have strained relationships with their family. Obviously, not all, but as the programmes pointed out last night, the seeds of criminality are sown within the family home.
Poverty is a very difficult one. The poor are very little better off after nearly thirteen years of Labour rule. But perhaps we should radically change things like the tax system to make sure that those at the bottom end keep more of what they earn, paying for it with taxes on energy. The tax system should also be seamless with the benefit system, so that part-time work is better and less hassle than no-time work.
I have hopes though about poverty and from a rather surprising person; Iain Duncan Smith.
As to family problems, my late wife spent a lot of her working life dealing with their breakdown. Barristers like her are being squeezed by the Legal Aid Fund and anyone worth his or her salt would not go into that field today. But then government doesn’t properly fund the Social Services, so that we get so many problems there.
But then those at the bottom end of society don’t vote, so looking after them is not on the average politician’s radar. Also horrendous crime plays well in Middle Britain, when the government says that they’ll bring in ASBOs, Super-ASBOs, life for littering etc. etc. I bet some wish capital punishment was still available.
But perhaps something that would help everybody, is that we should look at society and make it all a lot simpler.
Let’s have a Bonfire of the Regulations.
The Cost of the Death Penalty
I have an axe to grind over capital punishment, in that I think it’s wrong. Well not just wrong, very very wrong.
My main reason is that by taking someone’s life in retribution for something they have done, is just stooping to their level. We should be more humane than that. After all, dictators like Hitler were all for capital punishment, so that’s a pretty good reason too. And what happens with a miscarriage of justice.
But Parade Magazine in the United States has just published an article with a poll about the Death Penalty. One of the arguments in the article is that the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment. It is also a bit more convenient, if the judgement was wrong in the first place.
So vote early, often and many times.
The Anonymous Widower 