Research Project

Dear Diary,

Tucker has a relative who is an artist. The portrait to the left is a little different from his usual work, but I insisted on looking like myself. I am still slightly unsure of the merits of this cameo, but I was determined to treat myself to a new image for spring. In reality, I think the artist has made me look a little staid, but I suppose respectability comes to us all in the fullness of time.

Mistress Ruthie is, alas, a long way from respectability. She has acquired new clients who partake of the hobby of biking. This is something which I view with horror, but Mistress Ruthie assures me that the pleasure of a large, hot, throbbing sensation between one’s knees is almost unsurpassable. I defer, dear Diary, to Mistress Ruthie in this as in all things.

Be that as it may, it appears that the bikers have a serious case to answer, their case, in turn, resting upon the Human Rights Act. This, of course, begs the question of whether the Act applies to bikers. Let us assume, for now, that it probably does. Talking to Mistress Ruthie, it struck us both that the human rights legislation seems to take a role in a case directly proportionate to the hirsuteness of the Defendant.

Dear Diary, this is a fascinating and potentially far-reaching insight. The areas of law in which human rights are most often to be found concern bikers and alleged terrorists. Both are the ZZ Tops of the criminal world. This blog, determined as ever to get to the truth of the matter, is undertaking a research project. The following possibilities seem to be available:

• Hairy people are more likely to commit criminal offences. This is Tucker’s view.
• Hairy people are more likely to be familiar with their human rights, possibly as a result of invoking their right to privacy in such a practical and concrete way.
• A human rights based defence is the last refuge of the desperate and is thus more regularly adopted by bikers and terrorists than by others.
• Alternatively, when confronted by beardless people, bikers and alleged terrorists feel vulnerable and instinctively reach for anything which connects them to the rest of humanity.
• Hirsuteness rots the brain and thus leads those who practise it to both commit criminal offences and, thereafter, to flock to solicitors who love the Human Rights Act for its complexity and expense ability to deliver justice to the needy.

Should any of our readers chance to have a view, they can assist in this important search for knowledge. Moreover, it will help Mistress Ruthie to determine if she really wants quite as much in common with Phil Shiner as she is in danger of having. Phil is not a hairy man, but he is a religious one and he does work in Birmingham. Dear Diary, the parallels are frightening.

I would rather see Mistress Ruthie as the Gareth Peirce of the biking world. Just as Gary was once ‘Jean’, Mistress Ruthie could, if she really wanted, change her name to something more masculine. Esau would be an excellent choice, in the circumstances.

Colony Collapse

From 2000 to 2006, there was a gradual reduction in the number of feral (wild) barristers in England and Wales. This decline includes the cumulative losses from all factors such as reduction in legal aid, fewer prosecutions being brought, solicitor-advocate mites, and personal injury solicitors retiring and going out of business. However, late in the year 2006 and in early 2007 the rate of attrition was alleged to have reached new proportions, and the term “Colony Collapse Disorder” was proposed to describe this sudden rash of disappearances.

The number of eggs being laid by the Queen is higher than ever; attrition occurs between the larval stage and maturity, when barristers seem to simply disappear.

A colony which has collapsed from CCD is generally characterized by all of these conditions occurring simultaneously

• Complete absence of pupil barristers in, with build-up of dead and dying barristers
• Presence of siginificant aged debt in colonies.
• Presence of briefs

• i. which are not immediately robbed by other barristers
• ii. which when attacked by solicitor advocates, the attack is noticeably delayed.

Precursor symptoms that may arise before the final colony collapse are:

• Limited range of call of barristers
• Workforce seems to be made up of young adult barristers
• The Head of Chambers is present but weak
• The colony members are reluctant to consume provided briefs such as VHCC

The exact mechanisms of CCD are still unknown. One report indicates a strong but possibly non-causal association between the syndrome and the presence of the acute financial paralysis. Other factors may also be involved, however, and several have been proposed as causative agents; solicitor advocates, reductions in legal aid funding, presence of CPS at decision to charge leading to fewer prosecutions, VHCC contracts, insurance companies settling more claims, credit crunch, barristerkeeping practices such as the use of clerks on salaries, or siting of hives outside town centres. Whether any single factor is responsible, or a combination of factors (acting independently in different areas affected by CCD, or acting in tandem), is still unknown. It is likewise still uncertain whether CCD is a genuinely new phenomenon, or simply a reaction to an unsustainable increase in the barrister population.

Silver Linings

Dear Diary,

It is encouraging to note that decent things seem to be happening, and even more encouraging to see most of them emanating from the Courts.

In a Judgment of remarkable terseness, the Divisional Court (Moses LJ and Sullivan J) have comprehensively demonstrated that the Government gave in to Saudi Arabia and was, effectively, complicit in the breach of the rule of law when it prevented the SFO from investigating whether BAE had bunged the Saudis in order to get an arms deal. The Judgment is long, but the language is pithy. At paragraph 77 the Court says:

Mr Sales’ submission appears to us not to be one of principle but rather one of practicality: resistance is useless, the judgement of the Government is that the Saudi Arabian government will not listen and the authorities in the United Kingdom must surrender. That argument reveals the extent to which the Government has failed to appreciate the role of the courts in upholding and protecting the rule of law.

And at paragraph 102:

The Director failed to appreciate that protection of the rule of law demanded that he should not yield to the threat. Nor was adequate consideration given to the damage to national security and to the rule of law by submission to the threat. No-one took any steps to explain that the attempt to halt the investigation by making threats could not, by law, succeed. The Saudi threat would have been an exercise in futility, had anyone acknowledged that principle. We are driven to the conclusion that the Director’s submission to the threat was unlawful.

This diary has already commented on the particularly loathsome stance the Saudis take when it comes to dealing with this country (and perhaps other countries). It is bracing to see that the Government’s traditional submissiveness to the Sons of the Desert is not shared by the Courts.

In a separate development, the Court of Appeal refused to deport Mr Othman (otherwise known as Abu Qatada: ‘Abu’ meaning ‘father’ and ‘Qatada’ meaning ‘Of All Bastards’) to Jordan. The Government said that the Jordanians had promised not to torture Mr Othman. The Court said that such a promise was worthless. The Government said that the use of torture would not cause a real problem because the evidence would be reliable. The Court said (at paragraph 48):

That view, that the use of evidence obtained by torture or ill-treatment is prohibited not just, or indeed primarily, because of its likely unreliability, but rather because the state must stand firm against the conduct that has produced the evidence, is universally recognised both within and outside Convention law. What is, with respect, a particularly strong statement to that effect, citing a multitude of equally strongly worded authorities, is to be found in §17 of the speech of Lord Bingham in A v Home Secretary (No2) [2006] 2 AC 221.

It is depressing that the Court needs to tell the Government why we are against torturing people until they say what those inflicting the pain wish to hear, but cheering that the Courts’ moral compass is firmly pointing to the North.

Abu Qabomba is an odious person. His hatreds match Hitler’s in their insanity, passion and apparently deadly determination to do something about them. That is exactly why we must treat him conspicuously better than he would treat us. Preferrably we would also laugh at him, his toxic beliefs and his idiotic rantings. This is difficult whilst he and his mates are trying to kill people, but it is an effort worth making.

Interestingly, in both cases the Government was represented by Philip Sales QC, who raised eyebrows when he was appointed the Treasury Devil whilst still at prep school. Now in silk Phil is one of the stars of the Bar. This was just a bad few days in the office.

Finally, thousands of ordinary people have turned out to show the Chinese that killing whoever they like is widely viewed as unpleasant. This is not a message the IOC, the Chinese or any government wanted to hear. It does, however, show that most of us can tell right from wrong and vastly prefer the former.

The conclusion I draw, dear Diary, is that the Courts and the people are in tune with each other.  Those who put the making of money and power above all else, march to a different beat. Pathetic pleas to protect ourselves by destroying the claimed subject of the protection should be seen for the humbug they are. Moses LJ may have replaced the staff of old for two stiff fingers but the message is the same and particularly timely.

The Adventures of Shannon

Dear Diary,

Things are getting complicated out there in Chavville UK. It seems to be possible that Shannon Matthews was not necessarily kidnapped, but was rather asked to hide in the base of a bed as a prank, or perhaps for a reward of a double whopper, extra-large fries and a gigantic coke. Meanwhile, the family carried on asking the McCanns for money, scoping kiddie porn and spending the budget the police had allocated for protecting the denizens of Dewsbury.

Whether this tomfoolery is, as some are suggesting, the product of too many hours watching television, or a more sinister plot to make Dewsbury safe for the wearers of Burberry and Lonsdale to rob on request by taking the plod off the streets, is not a matter upon which I feel qualified to express an opinion. I do have a small black and white television, upon which Tucker is permitted to watch Percy Thrower repeats if his performance has been more than usually satisfactory. Otherwise the Maiden household spends its leisure time with a good book.

Still, respec’  (as I gather the current mot juste to be) to Shannon’s kith and kin. It is given to comparatively few families to have five members simultaneously facing charges of kidnap, false imprisonment, assisting an offender, perverting the course of justice (x2), neglect and possessing indecent images of children. The prize for Chav of the Year is within reach and I predict that very soon, the thick gold chain with the pit-bull locket in the Burberry check will be adorning the neck of a Matthews/Meehan scion as they have their picture taken for the cover of Zoo magazine. What a joyous day that will be.

In the meantime, the decision to put Shannon into police protection is looking good.

Give me the child and I will show you the man..

Having been thwarted in their attempts to have us logged and tagged via Identity Cards (as a consequence of the ineptitude of the civil service in losing databases in the post - God bless bureaucrats) the Government has come up with a more subtle and invidious means of controlling the citizen. A new “Childrens Register” is being set up to apparantly to identify and help youngsters felt to have problems holding them back at school. It is not designed for children at risk of harm, but for those with any health, learning or general wellbeing problems. The common assessment scheme will encourage professionals who have contact with children to pass on concerns to assessors including matters such as “family routines”, “evidence of a disorganised and chaotic lifestyle”, “any serious difficulties in the parents relationship” and “ways in which the family income is used”. Whilst reports will be compiled only with consent, its not difficult to envisage a siuation where, say, access to certain benefits would be contigent upon giving permission. Apparently children as young as 12 may be deemed sufficiently responsible to give permission - although one may question whether a child being considered for inclusion on the list, ought to be by definition considered unsuitable to give permission.

Goodness I wonder what will happen to all that information as the child grows up? I’m sure we can be confident that it will be kept privately and be systematically destroyed when the child reaches adulthood. It is well known that criminal activity occurrs in disproportionate measure within families of the deprived and dysfunctional, but I’m sure that the information gathered on the child, would only ever be used for the child’s welfare, and not, say as a means of crime control and prevention.

The Stasi regime in Eastern Germany had citizen control methods off to a fine art. Unfortunately they relied on a network of informants who are notoriously unreliable. Still it’s good to know that in these modern days of electronic surveillance, informants have been rendered largely otiose.

Better still, why not save taxes by chipping us with a transmitter at birth, and putting tranquillizers in the water supply. Not only would our whereabouts be known at all times, but we’d be too docile to cause any trouble even if if we did wander around late at night.

Of course with all crime instantly solvable, Ruthie would be out of a job. Alternative suggestions anyone?

New Ruthie pic

Upon grepping the logs, the most popular post on the site is, naturally, the Ruthie pics. I’ve added another one just to keep your interest up, but I’ll be drip feeding them so you have to keep coming back…

Lock up your children

Having spent the last 5 years in the countryside interfering with the wildlife, Ruthie will shortly be back in town. I had been hoping to sneak up on you all (I managed to startle 3 people at Blackfriars Crown Court on Friday), but my cover has been blown by Dan.

I am trying to arrange suitable accommodation in London, so if you are a Russian Oligarch, Middle Eastern Oil Billionare, or Internet Tycoon with a spare Thameside flat that you can let Ruthie have for free in exchange for watering your plants then please contact me at the usual address ruth6328 [at] googlemail [dot] com

Suffice to say that Ruthie will also soon be back on the London social scene..lock up your children.

Don’t frighten the horses

Ruthie is both amused and saddened by the unfolding media saga of Max Mosely, president of the FIA, but with a colourful private life involving sado-masochistic sex with prostitutes, allegedly with Nazi overtones. Ruthie can understand how being the son of the British fascist leader Oswald Mosely, might leave one with a few issues. But if one needs to exorcise those issues where better to do it than (seemingly) in private with other consenting adults? There is no evidence that Mosley has perpetuated any fascist or racist views in his job. Whilst some may regard his activities as distasteful, this is precisely why private sexual activity, if not criminal, should remain private, and this is supported in law by article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. None of us has the privilege of choosing our parents; most people would horrified by the thought of being judged by their parents standards of morality.

Ruthie thinks that Mosely’s action against the News of the World for breach of privacy has a good chance of succeeding, but alas, the damage to his career has already been done. Ruthie can’t help thinking that a activity more abhorrent than pretending to be a concentration camp guard for sexual thrills, is the practise of hypocrisy. Naturally none of the eminent members of the world of motorsport, or the board members of luxury car manufacturers currently heaping condemnation on Max have ever done anything more interesting in bed than sleep with their wives in the Missionary Position. Of course. But if I were Mosely’s lawyers I would be making some discreet enquiries just to be sure.

So what is the moral of the story? Be good, especially if you are in a high profile position, or if you can’t be good be careful…and if you are inclined to engage in exotic sexual practices, ensure you only ever do it with friends..

Oh Flower of Worthing

Dear Diary,

Nick Brown (now with added De Lacey) has been basking in his new found fame. I confess that I remain fascinated. In some ways it is a tribute. Rarely does one person, on one programme for one hour, make such an impression. But now that Nick is off to Crown Office Chambers (although curiously absent from the section headed ‘Latest News’) I thought I ought to examine what they are getting.

In his own - doubtless well-chosen - words, and in his own special colour:

• On Alex and his ‘Boyband’ mates: ‘Whereas the rest of us, you’ll have noticed, were more unusual. It was him that made that split. He should have had me on the stall all the time if he wanted me pricing, rather then sending me off to sell in solicitors’ offices.’ Dear Diary - blissful is the only word. It seems to have escaped Nick’s notice that he would be doing quite a lot of selling in solicitors’ offices in the future…
• On his performance in the Board Room: ‘I wasn’t stumbling, not because I’m rubbish at arguing, but because it was so difficult to phrase the divide in words that would please Sir Alan. It was almost impossible, because he himself is the gritty salesman type.’ Aha. The argument wasn’t rubbish because Nick was rubbish, but because the argument was rubbish. A fine distinction (some might say invisible) but excitingly expressed.
• On being told that Katie Hopkins (a previous contestant) had been rude about him: ‘Err, has she looked in the mirror? I think she should look in the mirror, although if she does, she should be aware that it might crack, which might give her seven years’ worse luck than she has had already’. Dear Diary - a gentleman without compare. An ornament to his Chambers.
• On Alex: ‘If I was to do it all again, I would choose myself as project manager. I would probably be better in an organisational capacity.’
• On what Nick ‘Organisation’ De Lacy Brown would have done differently: ‘I’m not sure that I would have delegated the pricing to one person; I think I probably would have had two people on it because it’s very complex; you’re doing these mathematical sums in your head, at the same time as trying to write them on the sides, at the same time as selling.’ Crown Office Chambers do a large amount of personal injury work. I am sure they are sympathetic to one who finds working out the sums at the same time as writing them down difficult.
• On Sir Alan Sugar - a man from the East End of London (where barrister’s clerks come from): ‘Some of the stuff that I said in the boardroom, I look back at now and I cringe! It was such a ridiculous…You could tell that I was stumbling at the time…and especially in front of a man like Sir Alan who is a typical barrow boy businessman.’  I look forward to Nick’s first brief and would have a small wager that Penrith Magistrates Court is beckoning.
• On himself: ‘I find the reputation I’ve gained on The Apprentice hilarious! By no means do I dislike it - the whole posh/snob thing - I’m not really from that at all. To a certain extent, I’ve made myself. I’ve climbed the ladder in society. Call me a social climber if you want to, I don’t have a problem with that.’ Dear Diary, I wonder Crown Office Chambers are laughing. Indeed, I am told they are not and that the Pupillage Committee is being called to account.
• On why his performance in the Board Room was so dire: ‘But I think the main reason for me was that I just could not be bothered at that point.’ Dear Diary, clients everywhere will be saying, ‘get me that man’.

Perhaps the last word ought to go to Nick on his future: ‘I’m also starting my pupillage as a barrister in October so I’m well on my way to becoming what I trained, and always wanted, to be.’ And, ‘I’ve actually obtained a pupillage now, at a very pre-eminent Chambers in London’. 

Dear Diary, Mystic Victorian Maiden predicts that Nick wil be every good a clairvoyant as he was an apprentice…

Jackie

Dear Diary,

In my youth, despite Mama’s protests I took that wonderful magazine Jackie. I was particularly fascinated by Cathy and Claire, even though I had to tell Mama that I had not the faintest idea what they were talking about.

The magazine is supposed to have been named after Jacqueline Wilson, but this is obviously an error. In a jounalistic scoop I can reveal that it was named after our esteemed Home Secretary, Jackie Smith. This must be so, because Jackie’s behaviour and attitude is still redolent of the days of her youth, as is clear from the following letter (written pseduonymously to Cosmo, but plainly bearing the marks of its author). How the letter found its way to me is very much to be kept on the down-low (as QV is spelt nowadays): suffice it to say that Tucker’s little tool came in very handy.

Dear Ed,

Gosh but I’m not sure what to do. Hope you can help! I’ve got quite an exciting job really and I’ve absolutely smashed the glass ceiling. Mummsy is so proud!

The trouble is that people are saying that my boss and I are out of touch. It’s all codswallop really but people believe it which is just such a pain! Then they say nasty, horrible, mean things about me which is just so unfair, because I only do what my boss and the people who work for me tell me to do! It’s not as if these things are my ideas after all.

Just as an example I’ve got a problem at the moment about making sure that the people I have to look after are safe. Obviously, I can’t tell you the true situation or you’d be able to say who I was, and that would never do! So let’s just say that I have to look after some sheep. And some nasty sheep are coming to get the sheep I am looking after. And the nasty sheep look the same as my nice sheep, so it’s a bit difficult to know who is nice and who is nasty! So what I thought - and my boss and the people who work for me - is that is we thought someone was a nasty sheep we should just lock them up and check it out! Simple and brilliant don’t you think? That way, the police sheep would be able to investigate the locked up sheep to see if they were nasty sheep.

My old boss wanted to lock up the nasty sheep for 56 days but I thought that was jolly mean! So I said 42 days because they should get time off for good baaah-haviour (gosh - isn’t that funny! My sister practically wet herself when I told her that). But now, everyone is saying that it’s really unfair on the sheep we think are nasty but turn out to be nice and they’re being really mean to me. I keep trying to tell them that we’ll all end up in the cottage-pie (sorry! Just can’t stop my GSOH from coming out, even in difficult times - that’s just how I am!) but they don’t listen to me!

And, to make it worse, this really horrid group of people are saying they’re going to Court to stop me locking up the shep who may be nasty. And I keep trying to tell them that the most important thing of all is not to be made into lamb casserole (sorry!) by the sheep who might be nasty so it’s important to be able to lock up any sheep that might be nasty in case they turn out to be nasty which will save lots of nice sheep from being hot-pot (sorry!) and that even though the people who work for me might not know exactly who the nasty sheep are they are being very careful when they choose the sheep who might be nasty and are making sure that they only chose the ones who have nasty books or pamphlets or friends or family or who once wrote a letter to someone whose uncle definitely was a nasty sheep or who are absolutely the last person at the end of the ipp-dip-doo and they just won’t listen!

Please help me, ‘cos I don’t know what to do and it’s making me sad. I’m sure you’re all nice sheep and I love the Mag!

J