The "rule of law" should be suspended for people we dislike

Here:

Responding to the ruling NSPCC Wales head of service Des Mannion said: "It is extremely frightening that a child rapist described as 'very dangerous' and unrepentant has been released back in to the community due to what seems like a legal technicality surrounding the timing of the offence."

This is increasingly common, not least amongst the Richard Murphy tendency.

Discuss.

As a starter, in my opinion, it is bad enough that the law is as complex as it is. The average punter has nothing expect the increasingly vague moral framework we inherit from our environment (and, of course, mandatory testing on the Road Traffic Act) to determine what is actually legal. Professionally, I have corrected senior counsel on their interpretation of the law (albeit it in a field of professional and personal interest) - and I have had fewer law lectures than I have had stats ones. And, to their credit, they admitted (after lunch) that I was correct.

If we require people to obey the law as it might be framed in the future?

This has nothing to do with whether the appropriate sentence for a specific (or any) rapist should be less than the statutory maximum - which is life.

I'm puzzled.

This.

In Reprieve's eyes, BT was therefore partly responsible for deaths dealt from Djibouti drones, and should be answerable for it.

So I had a look at the OECD document that Reprieve are complaining BT are in breach of. One of the first things I see is

They provide non-binding principles and standards for responsible business conduct in a global context consistent with applicable laws and internationally recognised standards.

So, actually, the guidelines are completely irrelevant. What is relevant and what BT should be accountable for is any breach of applicable law.

Of course, if Reprieve win, it will effectively signal joint-supplier liability for any multinational from providing any products or services to any military or paramilitary organisation anywhere. Even in their home-base country. Which, frankly, ain't going to happen.

Oh, and, if BT can crack the encryption that the Yanks will have put on the carrier circuit, then they better not tell the NSA.

This is petty to the point of imbecility.

While I'm not quite in the "get out the piano wire" mode of Mr Worstall, this case (Telegraph, Mirror) makes me cringe through its abject stupidity.

Kim Walmsley, 49, said her 23-year marriage was declared illegal and she was forced to return from Australia after she could not renew her passport.

Her troubles began when the registrar wrongly recorded her as a male after she was born in February 1965.

Okay, so there are two totally separate issues here - the bureaucracy and the church. Now, nobody expects sense out of any bureaucracy and nobody expects sense from the Church of England on matters that could be considered, from even a hypothetically reductio ad absurdum conservative point of view, to have anything to do with sex.

But ...

As far as the bureaucracy is concerned, a transsexual would be entitled to a "certificate of gender recognition". Mrs Walmsley should be entitled to a "certificate of sex and gender recognition". Or just "sex recognition". So that's settled.

As far as the Church is concerned, their error is far more egregious. It should not be worried about matters of bureaucratic incompetence or, in fact, bureaucratic recognition. Given that the Church's current position is that marriage is between a man and a woman - Section B, Canon 30, paragraph 1:

The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord's teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

And Kim is clearly a woman (she's given birth to five children) and, Jack is a man, then the marriage is clearly canonical, regardless of the failings of the English Registry system.

Edited to add: reading elsewhere, Kim clearly has a case for an amendment to the register under s29(3) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953:

An error of fact or substance in any such register may be corrected by entry in the margin (without any alteration of the original entry) by the officer having the custody of the register, and upon production to him by that person of a statutory declaration setting forth the nature of the error and the true facts of the case made by two qualified informants of the birth or death with reference to which the error has been made, or in default of two qualified informants then either by two credible persons having knowledge of the truth of the case or, where it applies, in accordance with section 29A of this Act. 

Noting that s29A does not apply in this case (it is restricted to mis-identification of the father), then two qualified informants (in accordance with s1(2) of the same Act). Her parents would do, if they are still alive (and she's 49, so it wouldn't be abnormal) or two credible persons. I would suggest any of the obstetricians or midwives who oversaw any of her pregnancies or births or any gynecologist would do.

Now, this would not alter the initial in-correct registration but it would correct it and allow her issue of an accurate birth certificate and, providing the Church wasn't insanely stupid (I'm not offering odds here) belated re-recognition of the validity of her original marriage.

Unsurprisingly, St Julian of Knightsbridge is completely, utterly and totally wrong.

Bradley Manning is guilty.  He broke the law. In fact, he took a deliberate decision to break the US Uniform Code of Military Justice, and US Federal Law, in releasing classified information to Wikileaks.

This fact has nothing at all to do with whether you consider him a brave and principled whistle blower,  being persecuted by a military embarrassed by the exposure of their misdeeds,  or an evil pinko terrorist-loving pervert who has disgraced his uniform.

Morality and the law are not the same thing. Whether they should be, or not, is a thorny philosophical issue most easily addressed by the rhetorical question "Whose morality do you pick?"

Politically correct bollocks

This.

While I appreciate it is essential to ensure that commercial landlords and professional letting agents don't discriminate illegally, I'm not sure that insisting that flat-shares, "empty nester" room-lets and room shares should be* subject to the same rigorous scrutiny.

I have no problem with Hindi young ladies wanting to share with other young Hindi ladies - or even other vegetarian ladies, rather than some scruffy kebab-stuffing ned. Equally, kebab-stuffing neds might not want some neat and respectable young lady around continuously nagging them to wash the ? (Ed notes: S-E was trying to find something that neds might use for food - but it is all eaten by hand from the cardboard or styrofoam and drunk direct from bottle or can. No washing up ...)  Okay, tidy up their mess, wash themselves, put on clean clothes. Etc. If they wanted that, they'd not have run away from their mums!

Or the orthodox of any religion wishing to share with fellow travellers who would both understand and respect the restrictions of their faith. The law is, if it applies as being suggested, an ass.

"David Goodhart, director of think tank Demos" obviously mixes with some frighteningly unpleasant people if he really thinks that

There's a danger these adverts could create anger and division

Or, as you might expect from Demos, he is merely the asses' arse.

* This was amended on 4 Jul - it originally said "are". Which completely fails to express the point I was trying to make - the private sharing probably 'is' as regulated as the commercial proposition, whereas it almost certainly shouldn't be.

To strike is a right

As you would expect to hear from the TUC Deputy General Secretary. And I don't disagree with her. Except in very limited circumstances, the labour is the labourers', not the employer's (Ed notes: 'very limited' is essential public services - police, army, some {even most?} bits but possibly not all of hospitals*. I'd alo include firefighters, who are currently allowed to strike, and exclude GCHQ, who might or might not be, TPTB keep changing the rules.)

Except the rest is the usual CiBollocks.

Voting to go on strike is not a decision working people take lightly and is always accompanied by a strong sense of injustice at work. The impact of losing a day's pay is significant, not least for those in the lowest paid jobs who are already on the tightest budgets.

To suggest that benefits encourage people to go on strike is ridiculous.

Err, anybody remember the 70s? One out, all out? For any reason and none? She should - she's in her fifties. But probably remembers it from the privileged position of union power not from the point of view of the poor bloody citizens (Ed notes: Although, of course, this was prior to the British Nationality Act, 1981, so we were "subjects") who just had to put up with the quarrels of their 'betters'.

People who don't work can't go on strike. Some people who do work go on strike not because they feel 'a strong sense of injustice at work' but because some machinating trot has appealled to some false sense of 'worker's solidarity'.

Right, so if it is ridiculous to suggest that people are encouraged to exercise their right to strike by the fact that the rest of us are there to provide a safety net, surely it isn't ridiculous to suggest that removing that safety net won't discourage them from exercising that right? Or am I not allowed to apply logic to lefty nonsense?

And then it gets worse:

The government's intention to limit benefits for strikers, however, is more about rhetoric than real impact.

So it won't even change much. Great - so we've got a politician promising a sop to their electorate and it won't even affect yours. Except, possibly, to encourage them to think about it a bit more. So you have to whine about it anyway. It's brilliant minds the downtrodden have claiming to be on their side - makes you wonder what she's running for.

* I'm not too bothered, for example, about a plastic surgery clinic being shut. A&E, obviously, maternity, long-stay are different matters. I don't really know enough about it to make the critical judgements.

Common sense from the Child Protection mafia?

Wonders will never cease:

Ceop called for police forces to prioritise investigating suspects who had easy access to children.

78 arrests, 80 kids "safeguarded" (whatever that means - if they've been put in to council care, they're hardly 'safe') - big operation. 

Gay Marriage, the ASA and Archbishop brûlée

His Grace, well on the conservative side of the debate, has got in to trouble with the Advertising Standards Authority. Which is really quite difficult for somebody who has been charcoal for quite so many years. Being the blogosphere, quite a few people have weighed in on it. So, here's my ha'penny's worth.

Firstly, the ASA should fuck right off. If there has been a complaint or ten, then they should direct their wrath, queries, whatever to the advertisers - in this case the Coalition for Marriage - not Cranmer. As per this recent case. ASDA were hauled in front of not-the-beak, not the TV company or the ad agency.

Secondly, this is a clear matter of current political controversy. There are clear ECHR / HRA Article 9 and 10 points to be made in terms of running the ads. On both sides.

Thirdly, my personal point of view? Ideally, I'd like the government just to back completely off from the whole marriage business. Allow nearly anybody to have a registered partnership - and it really doesn't need to be sexual. The whole "next of kin" thing is the clearest example, to my mind, of allowing a life-long partner, a relation or friend - subsequent to official acknowledgement by both parties - similar rights to a spouse. The right to make the appropriate decisions in nasty situations should defer to the person most likely to make the decision you would want, not some Victorian hang-over of who is your "closest relation". The "I don't want to be thrown out of our house if one of us dies" scenario scores highly too - even if you think heavy death duties are appropriate, this is only delaying, not cancelling them.

Marriage can then be left to the churches. The Quakers, Episcopal Church and Reform Jews can marry gayers. Islam, the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox (Christian or Jew) can refuse. Of course, this won't happen. In which case, my personal view is that allowing gay marriage is a good thing. YMMV.

And, I can't see the legal point being made following the ECHR Schalk judgement. If the government makes marriage available to homosexuals - as it already has to trans-sexuals, there is nothing in that judgement which says that churches will be able to be forced to conduct gay weddings. Divorcees, trans-sexuals, non-confirmed members of the relevant church are already permitted marriage, yet the various faiths are specifically and explicitly permitted, unlike civil registrars, to allow or deny wedding services based on their beliefs. I cannot see any difference in ECHR between these cases and homosexuals.

Although, as a corollary, I could see that a law permitting civil marriages to homosexuals while banning churches from conducting gay weddings could be subject to Article 14 challenge. I expect that the current legal status is only maintained because a similar ban on conducting heterosexual registrations with religious overtones or on church premises applies.

Easy BBC Questions

Can celebrities expect privacy?

Or, more specifically:

But how much privacy can, and should, celebrities - who make their living in the public eye - expect?

And the answer is simple - within the limits of the law.

So, clearly, phone hacking is illegal - a s1 offence under CMA90, at least - we'll agree that both the statute and the case law around RIPA s1 offences is less clear (particularly about what "in the course of its transmission" means). And CMA s1 offences can now attract 2 years inside - which would probably calm the fevered brows of the Murdoch-bashing mob.

We might disagree about how much HRA98 Article 8 should be usable to protect public figures (and we'll certainly disagree about who is a 'public figure') from the consequences of having acts committed in public places being publicised. We'll disagree more, or less, about acts committed in private - whether it is long lenses, kiss and tell (or, wonderfully in this week's Private Eye's cartoon - "shag and brag") or planting an "investigative" reporter in a position of actual or presumed confidential access.

We might campaign - on the same or different sides - for changes in such law.

But, it is simple - the law is the law - for the Prime Minister, Hugh Grant and Milly Dowler. Sympathy may vary but that's why we have judges, not libertarian bloggers, to preside over cases.

I'm actually appalled!

Firstly by a column from, unsurprisingly, the New Statesman (and it's not by the "People's Princess). However, our correspondent states:

The true covenant between the military and its government is that it will serve it loyally, without fear or favour. If necessary, it will march and fight and die for policies or causes that it does not necessarily understand or support. Theirs is not to reason why.

This is wrong¹ - an appalling misunderstanding in fact - in two very different ways. He is talking about military discipline, enshrined in law since the Naval Articles of War were first published in 1653, which is not not "the military covenant". The military convenant is, in addition to pay, what the government or the nation gives us back in return for, amongst other things, s12 and s15 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. It is our "right" to be treated fairly and humanely by our own hierarchy (who don't actually have to obey the Geneva or Hague conventions when dealing with us.)

Secondly, and Nuremberg and modern "Law of Armed Conflict" (LOAC) training makes it clear - it is ever soldier's responsibility to question the legality of their orders. Just because an elected politician gives them, rather than a military superior, makes no change to the validity of that questioning.

Then, I came across this "interesting" comment on Jack of Kent's blog:

David McIntosh said...

I wonder what an American serviceman's contract says about reporting war crimes committed by fellow servicemen: "Accidental death by friendly fire," a la Pat Tillman? And for leaking war crimes by fellow servicemen that the military itself won't prosecute: "52 years in jail," a la Bradley Manning? Will you find out for us, Jack?

For a start, neither American nor British serviceman have employment contracts - surprisingly to us, few American workers do. Hence some of their confusing practices such as "faire at will" (which has a interestingly different military meaning). The test for leakers, or many other breaches of militray regulations is, as a matter of US federal law (the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in this case) whether:

such conduct being prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces and being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Which is an interesting test - is leaking creditworthy or discreditable? That begs a per-case answer. Which is, as far as I am aware, what the justice system exists to provide. That, in the manning case at least, the information was classified therefore there is an additional and corollary charge with strict liability, doesn't make the credit test less fascinating.

It also outlines a dreadful delusion common amongst the "chattering classes" - that everything that goes wrong, and certainly every criminal act, in a war is a "war crime". They aren't.  Friendly fire deaths are dreadful - possibly even a tragedy. But neither Pat Tillman's death nor the pathetic cover-up are "war crimes" - according to any of the evidence I have seen. The death may well just have been a dreaful mistake in the fog of war - the cover-up may have actually been an offence "being of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces" - but it is still not a war crime.

Harrowing that the Apache video is - I certainly think the commentary recorded was objectionable - there is considerable dispute as to whether even the second shoot was wrong (as a matter of LOAC - clearly killing kids is morally a bad thing) never mind a "war crime". The van was not marked with any of the protected symbols for health workers. I'm afraid that "shit happens" in fire-fights and when your enemy does not wear any clearly identifying symbols and insists on fighting in populated areas, the risk to civilians is higher. Not nice but, unfortunately, unavoidable. And not every civilian death is a crime. And not every criminal civilian death is a "war crime".

1. Ed notes: There is room for a perfectly valid discussion as to whether the coalition's desire to enshrine the Military Covenant in statute law is either sensible in principle or, in practice, they are going about it the right way. Personally, I think the former is doubtful and, as far as the latter goes, this is so clearly a piece of political theatre that we don't need to even consider the correctness of the drafting or the underlying intent - we can dismiss it all, out of hand, as flim-flam and start looking for the chicanery this misdirection is intended to hide.

I'm having problems understanding this ...

Okay, so there's a "news story":

US 'wants Wikileaks Twitter data'

An Icelandic MP says US officials have subpoenaed personal details from Twitter relating to her activities with the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks.

Birgitta Jonsdottir says the US Department of Justice also asked Twitter for all of her tweets since November 2009.

Now, what "personal information" does Twitter hold about you? The only thing I can think of that isn't generally publicly displayed is the list of Twitterers you follow?

Anyway, she puts up lots more information on her blog!

Your Tweets are public anyway - so a list of them is hardly fundamentally damaging? It all seems like pointless posturing from the Yanks and a knee-jerk response from her. Oh, well ...

Update

Okay, they are asking for, from 1 Nov 2009:

A

1. subscriber names, user names, screen names, (sic) or other identities;

2. mailing addresses, residential addresses, business addresses, e-mail addresses, and other contact information;

3. connection records, or records of session times and durations;

4. length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;

5. telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and

6. means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number) and billing records;

B

1. records of user activity for any connections made to or from the Account, including the date, time, length, and method of connections, data transfer volume, user name, and source and destination Internet Protocol address(es);

2. non-content information associated with the contents of any communication or file stored by or for the account(s), such as the source and destination email addresses and IP addresses;

3. correspondence and notes of records related to the account(s)

Amazing - either this is just a standard "subpeona the ISP" template that has been rolled out, not recognising that Twitter are neither an ISP nor an email service, or, if they have thought about it, Tracy McCormick (or possibly her wingwoman, Vivian) really don't grok Twitter.

I still don't get this. The only thing that might be useful in there, given that Twitter is free, are the IP addresses which they might then cross reference with data from other services. And I'll bet Twitter doesn't keep those for very long.

Some meditations on the Assange saga

1. Of course the US Government are out to get him. With Joe Lieberman accusing him of treason (well, actually, Fox News's Jenna Lee did. Lieberman just didn't try to run away), Palin calls for him to be assassinated (Ed notes: just how well is the US hunt for ObL going at the moment? Hmm!, Peter King publicly calls him a terrorist. Yeh. 
• Wikileaks made the US government look stupid. Governments hate that.
• Wikileaks may have actually committed some form of crime in the USA. I'm not a 1st Amendment (Ed: or, frankly, any sort of) lawyer.
• Assange is, quite deliberately, the public face of Wikileaks.  
• Of course he isn't a traitor. He isn't and has never been a US citizen. The Aussies might have their own ideas on the matter, of course :)
• If this is some conspiracy to get him to Sweden to then have him rendered to the USA, somebody hasn't read the Extradition Act 2003. Much easier to get him from us.
• Somebody, probably Bradley Manning (who has apparently confessed), has committed a number of crimes under US civil and military law. I hope they think it was worth it.
2. I don't thing it is particularly relevant whether the allegations against Assange are for "rape rape" (Ed notes: and isn't the fact that we use that a horrid reflection on society's attitudes?) or "sexual assault" or some sexual misconduct that might not be a crime in the UK or (in some states in) the USA but is in Sweden. This sort of allegation is, prima facie, is worthy of comprehensive investigation and, given the Swedish legal system and the "he said, she said" nature of most sex-crimes, extradition for that investigation. 
• Although the fervour with which it is being pursued is probably fuelled by Assange's 'celebrity'. 
• Although for some crimes, especially private and hard to prove ones such as this, it is reasonable (ab)use of state power to target high-profile offenders, "pour encourage les autres".
• I would note that s75(2)(d) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 would make (at least) one of the allegations formally "rape" in the UK. And I'm aware of the allegations of force in another event - that would be a (2)(a) or (b) statutory non-consent. Interestingly, note that (a) and (b) apply to series of events - but (d) does not. So having consensual sex before falling asleep and committing a sex act on the sleeping partner is an imprisonment for life case in the UK.
• I would also note that s76(2)(a) applies - "the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act" may well cover the 'broken condom' issue.
• The concept that you have a legal right to insist that a sex partner has an STD test seems reasonable given the dangers and the mores of this modern world of ours. Especially an overtly promiscuous partner.
3. The two ladies talked and then went to the police. Well, yes. This is the rational argument for releasing the names of accused sex offenders - most are not one-time criminals. 
• Although "He did that - to you? As well? Bastard!" may have played some part.
• Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
4. The US government seems to have been criminally negligent in allowing the initial release of the information.
• When you get information from the spooks but you are not a spook yourself, they do "source protection". That means that you remove all the names and, often, other identifying details such as exact dates. Or more complex stuff if it is technically derived rather than human source info. Of course, Manning was a spook ... 
• It could be written to a CD-RW? This is just piss-poor security if it was on SIPRNet; if it was on JWICS, it was unconscionable. Many much lower-grade systems - financial, UK Gov etc - have this sort of thing effectively controlled.  
5. Claims that Assange would not get a fair day in a Swedish court need to be evidenced. Sweden might be a more difficult jurisdiction for rape defendants than others (just look at the results in some Sharia jurisdictions) But as long as his treatment is as fair as it would be for any other person accused of the same crimes, this seems entirely reasonable to me.
• Any American court may be a different matter.
• And the bail / no-bail thing puzzles me. But I've never been involved in those sorts of discussions.
6. What Assange has done - good or bad - doesn't really reflect on what Wikileaks does or has done.
• Unless, of course, he turns out to be in the pay of the CIA, the SVR, the DI (which may explain some of the stranger conspiracy theories) or the RPF. In which case, all bets are off.
  
7. The Americans want to use some ancient law to prosecute Assange. Well, okay, the Espionage Act 1917 hasn't been written in the modern, cuddly internet age - but it was written when the US had just entered in to a (rather significant) war. And, frankly, most of the slightly older British Official Secrets Act 1911 is still in force.

Not A Particularly Good Argument.

Well, they've been in Parliament long enough for the ridiculous ideas to come out in to the open again. This time, it is Rebecca Harris, Tory MP for somewhere in the deep South. And, yes again, it is the "let's save millions of lives by moving to Central European Time" idea. Possibly practical in Essex but, as somebody who has had a shift job in mid-North Scotland - it is a real bugger never seeing the sun except your one day off each weekend?

Enough about her - she is the cause of the problem but not the problem itself. A commenter on ConservativeHome says that, apropos of somebody pointing out that what is ideal for Canvey Island may not be suitable for Edinburgh, never mind for Lerwick, that only Portugal, Ireland and the UK, within the EU, are on GMT (although they call it 'Western European Time) and that the Danes manage on CET.

Okay, so only the 3 most westerly countries in the EU are on the most westerly time zone. Dreadful, isn't it.

But it is the bit about the Danes that annoys me. Even though Copenhagen is on roughly the same latitude as Edinburgh, it is somewhat east. Edinburgh is 3 and a bit degrees West, Copenhagen is 12 and half, ish, East. That's slightly over 15 degrees difference. And 15 degrees in longitude is 1 hour worth of solar time difference (360 / 24 = 15). So, if you assume that latitude and longitude make CET the appropriate time zone for Denmark, then GMT is the appropriate time zone for Central Scotland (and that the natural time zone for Edinburgh is only 12 minutes different from that for London!)

Also, would just have to comment that latitude has an effect - an artificial time zone which is manageable in Edinburgh at a bit less than 56 degrees North, is not automatically going to be acceptable over 4 degrees further north in Lerwick. Just to note, the whole North / South extent of Denmark, Skagen to Padborg, is less than 3 degrees of latitude.

Unintentional Irony?

He teaches courses in constitutional law and creative writing ...

Here.

What's Missing Here?

From the Lawfare blog, discussing Guantanamo:

Like Steve Vladeck and unlike some of the human rights groups, in other words, David acknowledges that there is a legitimate role for non-criminal detention in the current conflict.

I would suggest that the missing phrase should be along the lines of "subject to the controls and limitations contained in the 3rd Geneva Convention of 1949 on the Treatment of Prisoners of War". Something notably missing at Gitmo.

That's your choice: PoW = rights but indefinite detention or criminal = trial and detention after sentence.

Sauce for the Gander?

Just for the record, I'm as suspicious of the (ab)use of the Extradition Act 2003 in the Abid Nasser case as in the Gary McKinnon and Natwest Three ones.

If we know he is a member of Al Qaeda and suspect he was the leader of a plot to blow things up in the UK, why is he being arrested on a US warrant rather than charged under, well, ss11, 57 & 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and conspiracy to cause things to go "Boom"?

They think it's over; and it isn't quite

BCA drop libel case ...

Now, let's see what happens about the legal costs ...

Thankfully NOT an April Fool

Well done to Simon Singh, on winning his libel appeal against the British Chiropractic Association.  Off to read the judgement, if I can find it.  More later.

Update 1: Judgement here

Update 2: I believe this is now citable precedent under English Law:

We would respectfully adopt what Judge Easterbrook, now Chief Judge of the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, said in a libel action over a scientific controversy, Underwager v Salter 22 Fed. 3d 730 (1994):

    "[Plaintiffs] cannot, by simply filing suit and crying 'character assassination!', silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs' interests. Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. … More papers, more discussion, better data, and more satisfactory models – not larger awards of damages – mark the path towards superior understanding of the world around us."

That's a definite win for common sense, a definite defeat for woo.

Update 3:  Some mild analysis from outlaw.com and a statement released by BCA.  I particluarly like the way the latter refer to Mr Justice Eady as "one of the country’s leading libel judges" while not referring the fact that the three appeal judges included the two senior judges in England.

Surprised?

Shocked even? This, from the BBC:

More than half of those of both sexes questioned said there were some circumstances when a rape victim should accept responsibility for an attack.

Now, that just shows both how difficult the debate has become and the wider issues surrounding "one person's word against another's" crimes - domestic violence, for example. And women who have been raped are appalled by the survey results.

It (the BBC article, the report, the questions in the research for the report or the questioned) also misses the fundamental difference between 'responsibility' (or as the subsequent comments have it 'blame') and 'contributory behaviour'. I would like to demonstrate with two much less emotionally charged or controversial examples:

• I accidentally forget to lock my car when parking it in a city centre car park. Somebody steals the car, or something from the car. They are a thief and are criminally responsible for their actions. My behaviour in parking the car in the city centre is neither (unreasonably) contributory nor responsible. My failure to lock the car is significantly contributory. This should make no difference to the criminal case but might reasonably change the amount, for example, that my insurance company would pay out.
• I am dismissed from my job for some heinous offence against good taste (I have a number of ties that should do the job.) My tie-disaster is so extravagant evil that they fail to follow the corporate disciplinary policy and summarily dismiss me with immediate effect. I go to Tribunal. It is, because of the failure to follow policy, automatically unfair dismissal. In a heroic devotion to justice and truth, one of the lay members of the panel asks to see the tie. As they are rushed away to Intensive Care, the Chairman declares that my behaviour contributed 99% to my dismissal therefore my compensation will be minimal.

'Blame' for criminal acts, whether life-changingly drastic like rape or trivial, lies with the criminal (unless they do not have the capacity for mens rea in an offence that requires it - in which case they need to be in, or under, some form of care.)

Yes, there are defences of, or similar to, provocation (e.g. self-defence) and there are pleas of mitigation - only the former of these shifts (or removes) responsibility. And I fail to see, under modern British law, how 'provocation' can apply to sexual offences.

Edited to add: Having reread this post, after reading Bella's comment, I can see how my two examples (where the contributory factor is high) might lead people to think I am excusing rapists or blaming victims. If you get that impression - please reread the third and second-last paragraphs of the original article, where I clearly didn't make it clear the difference between responsibility / blame on one side and low risk versus high risk behaviour on the other. No-one 'deserves' to be raped. Equally, if less significantly, no-one 'deserves' to have their car stolen. Regardless of the seriousness of the offence, 'high risk behaviour' is no excuse for the criminal.

Probably Not the Last Word

So, Met Commander (previously a Thames Valley Police Chief Inspector) Ali Dizaei is finally convicted of something (in this case, 'perverting the course of justice' and 'misconduct in a public office'). It is almost certainly not the last we will hear of this, never mind that of his 4 year sentence (2 inside and 2 on licence, according to the judge's direction), he'll probably be out (even in the unlikely event that he doesn't appeal) for Valentines Day 2011.

A trained barrister¹, with a PhD² and in the "oh shit, we've no senior ethnics" reaction that most of the civil and uniformed services had in the 80s & 90s (as a reaction to their almost completely white male management structures - yes, institutional racism, just like the rest of society back then), he was probably a shoe-in for (reasonably) high rank. Now, I've never met the guy, so I have no idea whether he is the ignorant, bullying clown with dubious social connections portrayed in many of the comments on the police blogs and in some of the trial reports or whether, after so much investigation, the IPCC and CPS have merely demonstrated Richleau's maxim:

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

It has to be said that "misconduct in public office" and "perverting the course of justice" are scarcely rare amongst the ruling class of Blairs' Britain - witness MPs expenses, John Prescott, the endless and scandalous BAE saga and John Prescott. And I've never done any investigation where I haven't found something that could be considered dubious (even where there was no evidence that the suspects or their acquaintances were even loosely connected to the original alleged issue.)

But, regardless, a couple of things concern me:

• Was this just the "entitlement culture" of the modern dictatorship, unbound by the endless 'getting away with it' (for any definition of 'it') that all of the previous investigations, the not-guilty verdicts and the compensation would have given anybody bar a saint, or did the man start out as a fraud (it must be admitted that he clearly started out as an effective self-publicist)?
• Why is a Met Police Commander - a Royal Appointment and one of the most senior ranks in the British Police services - allowed to hold dual nationality and, let's be honest about it, dual nationality in a state that has repeatedly demonstrated its armed hostility to Britain and its interests?

Update: And, yes, as I suggested might just happen, we have an appeal against his "completely outrageous" conviction as a result of the vendetta the world has against him. Would he just get out of the JCB?

1. Yes, legally qualified - but some of the news reports have this 'trained barrister' in. He joined the police at 24 - PhD by then is quick but not unusual; cramming in another year 'taking dinners' is moving quickly. Did he then complete his pupillage? If so, which chambers?

2. On 'police racism', "The Thin Black Line" - according to the Daily Hate, which also implies he took it much later (completion shortly before joining the Met), as opposed to the Telegraph's timeline - "He was privately educated at Slindon College in Sussex, trained as a barrister and took a PhD before joining Thames Valley Police in 1986." Obviously, if he did his PhD part-time or sabbatical from the cop-shop, it makes the timings in note 1 more reasonable.