June 2009 Archives

I spotted an article on a US web site the other day and it is somewhat telling that the American Government is having to take steps to protect its citizens from our oppressive libel laws which are now routinely used to stifle free speech and fair comment. Despite this idea we are the cradle of justice and democracy there is no real legal protection of free speech and clodhopping legislation on race, religious and hate crimes and so on have potentially limited free speech even further. There is little pride in Britain having become the libel tourism capital of the world where anyone with enough money from any dark corner of the planet can pop up and sue anyone in the world for libel - or to be more accurate saying something the plaintiff did not like - on the spurious basis that a web site can be seen in Britain or a book or publication can be obtained here. The rich and dubious don't sue in the countries where web sites are based or books are published because more often than not freedom of speech legislation would protect the author or libel law interpretation is more sensible. So we had the case of Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz where Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld, a US expert on international terrorism who lives and works in New York, published a book Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed - and How to Stop It. The book was published and sold only in the USA but 23 copies were sold through online bookshops in the UK so wealthy Saudi financier, Khalid Bin Mahfouz, who took exception sued here as he would never have got past the courthouse steps in the US. Our courts awarded him £110,000 damages and ordered a correction and apology to be published which more than ruffled the feathers of the USA where Freedom of Speech is a religion. Here though, in a nation which seems to be run these days by accountants and lawyers, our libel laws are weighed heavily in favour of plaintiffs and suppression and if the defendant is British based the eye-watering cost of defending a libel action usually means it is cheaper to capitulate rather than go bankrupt standing up for freedom of speech. Not so in the USA though where freedom is protected as opposed to here where it is quietly being eroded. Several states have passed legislation making British court judgements unenforceable if the case could not have been brought in the US and now the Senate has a bill aimed at protecting all American journalists and writers from libel decisions by our courts. And to deter libel tourism even further the Free Speech Protection Act would make it possible for US journalists and writers to counter sue for three times the damages awarded in London if the British case was seen as an attempt to suppress a US person's first amendment rights. Now wouldn't it be nice if our Government had a similar interest in protection our rights.

I spotted an article on a US web site the other day and it is somewhat telling that the American Government is having to take steps to protect its citizens from our oppressive libel laws which are now routinely used to stifle free speech and fair comment. Despite this idea we are the cradle of justice and democracy there is no real legal protection of free speech and clodhopping legislation on race, religious and hate crimes and so on have potentially limited free speech even further. There is little pride in Britain having become the libel tourism capital of the world where anyone with enough money from any dark corner of the planet can pop up and sue anyone in the world for libel - or to be more accurate saying something the plaintiff did not like - on the spurious basis that a web site can be seen in Britain or a book or publication can be obtained here. The rich and dubious don't sue in the countries where web sites are based or books are published because more often than not freedom of speech legislation would protect the author or libel law interpretation is more sensible. So we had the case of Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz where Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld, a US expert on international terrorism who lives and works in New York, published a book Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed - and How to Stop It. The book was published and sold only in the USA but 23 copies were sold through online bookshops in the UK so wealthy Saudi financier, Khalid Bin Mahfouz, who took exception sued here as he would never have got past the courthouse steps in the US. Our courts awarded him £110,000 damages and ordered a correction and apology to be published which more than ruffled the feathers of the USA where Freedom of Speech is a religion. Here though, in a nation which seems to be run these days by accountants and lawyers, our libel laws are weighed heavily in favour of plaintiffs and suppression and if the defendant is British based the eye-watering cost of defending a libel action usually means it is cheaper to capitulate rather than go bankrupt standing up for freedom of speech. Not so in the USA though where freedom is protected as opposed to here where it is quietly being eroded. Several states have passed legislation making British court judgements unenforceable if the case could not have been brought in the US and now the Senate has a bill aimed at protecting all American journalists and writers from libel decisions by our courts. And to deter libel tourism even further the Free Speech Protection Act would make it possible for US journalists and writers to counter sue for three times the damages awarded in London if the British case was seen as an attempt to suppress a US person's first amendment rights. Now wouldn't it be nice if our Government had a similar interest in protection our rights.

LDV wanted £5 million to survive.

The Government, who hand that sort of amount over to banks in loose change to top up the staff tea and coffee fund, said no and 5,000 or so Midland jobs are at risk.

Mind you LDV probably didn't arrange to take as many Treasury and FSA senior officials to polo matches, days at Wimbledon's centre court, Lords' Test matches, cup finals, operas, first nights and 02 Arena concerts as the bankers seem to have managed.

And sadly those in charge of Birmingham's van maker probably did not make as many nod and wink offers of directorships, consultancies, advisory roles and the like in the direction of the Whitehall and Westminster decision makers to provide a nice little retirement number in Small Heath, an area where sadly the old boy network is probably not as strong either.

Still at least LDV and the banks have one thing in common, Lloyds seem to be axing a similar number of jobs. Personally, as Lloyds TSB HBOS and now of course Taxpayers Inc, seem to be making a profit at the moment and the bank is one of the parties responsible for this current financial mess I do not think it would be unreasonable to expect them to cover the total bill for benefits, grants and the like for at least the first 12 months for all the 4,500 or so people they seem to be sacking.

I really do not see why the taxpayer, who is bailing them out already, should also be lumbered with a bill for 4,500 of their staff heading for the dole just to make their balance sheet look prettier for the shareholders.

Whatever you may think of Nick Griffin he is a smooth operator. His has turned a party of rag bag thugs and neo Nazi skinheads into something, which on the face of it at least, appears, at first glance, to be a respectable party.

I have no doubt that the skinheads with swastika tattoos and love and hate knuckles - which hang a touch lower than in the rest of the population - are still there, kept in some dark cellar or other stuffing envelopes but the face of the party presented to the public seems little different to the parties we are more accustomed to seeing.

That is all down to Griffin and his considerable political nouse and leadership. Now, thanks largely to New Labour, with a little help from the Tories, his party has become electable if for no other reason that the mainstream parties, particularly New Labour, are so out of touch with the public that they might as well be on another planet. The masses are tired of empty rhetoric with no action, old cash dressed up as new spending and new legislation being rolled out twice a day. Chucking money at bankers and filling their expense account boots to the brim with spurious exes while the real workers were losing their jobs was perhaps the last straw.

So the likes of the BNP become worth a punt. Once elected that should be the end of the matter. A spell in Europe should provide a rope long enough to hang both MEPs.

But people just cannot accept the result. The one thing Griffin and his BNP crave is publicity and if he can also be seen as a victim at the same time then that is a bonus so chucking eggs at him turned his bottom of page seven Press conference into front page and national TV and radio news. He could not have organised it better himself.

He will even now be reorganising the Press conference which will be assured of even more Press and cameras in attendance, live on Sky and with a police guard to boot. The protesters have made a minor side show nationally important. Chucking eggs has never been the most persuasive of political arguments but it has done old Nick proud.

This Government is at it again. After the European elections when they managed a staggering 15 per cent of the vote - which, considering only about a third of those who could vote bothered to turn out, is about five per cent of the electorate - you would think they would try to keep their heads down for a while,

But no, you can't teach an old dog new tricks and all that and despite having slightly less authority in the country than the average Big Issue seller they plough ahead with yet another scheme to penalise the public.

Everything they touch involves fines and charges. There is never any attempt to educate or persuade, just legislate, stick on a charge or levy a fine.

The latest wheeze is a plan for £100 fines, going up to a grand no less, if you don't recycle down to the last can or potato peeling and the latest Government scheme even includes kitchen waste buckets - those should be pleasant with fornightly collections in the middle of summer.

Birmingham, to their credit, did provide cut price compost bins, a much better idea than slop buckets but providing rather than fining is not the way this Governement works.

I am a great supporter of recycling and years ago used to marvel at how on the Continent, which as we all know is full of filthy foreigners, they not only had clean streets but recycling bins in shopping centres while we were still chucking everything in holes in the ground.

Now, no doubt with a spur of EU recycling targets with penalties and fines attached, the Government are becoming recycling disciples but as with everything they touch they start with the fine detail - that's the details of the fines they are going to impose by the way not the way the scheme actually might work.

We had some po-faced academic on the radio banging on yet again about how we should all be paying more for our alcohol - pushing this 50p a unit mantra - all to prevent people drinking themselves to death.

No one has yet admitted what will happen to all the extra cash that will come in if the already heavily taxed booze if hiked in price again but I suspect that the Treasury has already bought a new piggy bank which is ready just in case.

Now my experience of hardened drinkers - and I have known a few includng an alcoholic relative - is that price is not even considered in the equation of obtaining the next drink.

And when it comes to the drunken gangs of binge drinkers spraying the pavements of Broad Street with carrot pebble dash then it is not the cheap lager from the local Asda but expensive bar priced booze they have been pouring down their necks.

I have said before and will say again that France, Spain, Portugal and so on have much cheaper booze than we do yet don't have the problems we seem to get with drunkeness.

All of which tends to indicate that it is not the price of alcohol that is the problem so much as the price we are paying for this Government.

With all the oversights, accounting errors, genuine mistakes and the like our MPs happily admit to when it comes to something simple, like filling in exes - the mistakes always in their favour by the way - you do have to wonder if they are the right people for the job.

If they can make mistakes of that sort of magnitude without batting an eyelid it does explain some the dog's dinners we have ended up with when it comes to the legislation they have happily nodded through.