The gagging order issue at the behest of Carter-Ruck and their crooked* clients has rightly angered everyone. However blaming Carter-Ruck or any of the assorted gangsters, terrorists and sex offenders they represent for the situation misses the point. It is like blaming individual mosquitos for malaria whilst ignoring the swamp they breed in. In this case the swamp is the UK's grotesque libel laws that are so infamous that the US has passed a law preventing UK libel judgements being enforced over there.
Nick Cohen's article in Standpoint is probably a good place to start.
* I assume they are crooks because why else would they hire Carter-Ruck?
Dirk Bogarde and the Crystal Palace dinosaurs
6 hours ago
7 comments:
I read that Standpoint article
I'm curious that you picked Nick Cohen to elucidate your point becuase he does exactly what you complain about: he blames the make up of the judiciary rather than the law:
the judiciary is engaged in a class war and a political project. The class element ought to be obvious. The Sutton Trust, which seeks to improve educational opportunities for young people from non-privileged backgrounds, reported this year that after a small decline in their influence the public schools were regaining their grip on the law. Seven of the 10 leading judges, 68 per cent of leading barristers and 55 per cent of partners in the top law firms went to public school. Old schools and new money meet as the judiciary and London's extraordinarily aggressive solicitors use the law of libel and a privacy law they have virtually invented to protect the wealthy from scrutiny.
He seems to believe that there is some contradiction between the complaint about liberal make up of the judiciary and the fact that they come from the public schools. SUrely he must know the countless socialists that have gone through the public schools. That the elite think they have a right to rule is a constant regardless of politics.
But anyway, that's not the point. If the lawyers were originally barrow boys they would still pick up cases based upon the law. It's the law that's at fault not Carter Ruck
"he does exactly what you complain about: he blames the make up of the judiciary rather than the law:"
Isn't it largely judge made law though? They aren't making rulings based on statute but inventing bizarre new rules.
They're more than insane - they are deep infringements of what the west is still pleased to call liberty.
But is that right?
In a case like Roe vs Wade there is a clear event that marked the step from a sane law to an insane interpretation.
British Common Law tradition means that you have to find precedents but that applies to the defence too. Ultimately if appealed the case can go up the House of Lords which does have the ability to make or amend laws. I'm not sure that can be said about lower courts.
The law against Libel is not new. If judges have perverted the law through incremental or major changes then we ought to be able to see when the law was sensibly applied and when it went wrong. We ought to be able to trace the path. The alternative is that it was always wrong.
Which is it?
Let me point out another case that made use of these laws. George Galloway was able to get damages from the Telegraph over allegations that he profited from the Oil for Food program. This doesn't fit comfortably with Cohen's thesis that the problem is the make up of the judiciary.
Let me rephrase the last sentence.
I have no issue with Cohen's belief that the law is insane.
I do have an issue with him getting there via the standard leftist sideswipe: "public schools..nada.. rich people..nada.."
"I do have an issue with him getting there via the standard leftist sideswipe: "public schools..nada.. rich people..nada.."
That's a distraction on Cohen's part, but the cases he cites are illustrate the case against our current system.
"The law against Libel is not new. If judges have perverted the law through incremental or major changes then we ought to be able to see when the law was sensibly applied and when it went wrong. We ought to be able to trace the path. The alternative is that it was always wrong."
Yes, although one of the key problems, the extra territorial ambitions of our courts appears to have become a problem because of globalisation and technology, so wouldn't really have existed 15 years ago.
I take your point. The case of Funding Evil was brought because you could buy it via Amazon.com even though it was unavailable on Amazon.co.uk. That couldn't have occurred 15 years ago.
I just saw Newsnight. They basically lifted the best cases from Nick Cohen's article and not once credited him. Nor did they mention the blog explosion over Trafigura that surely caused the climb down.
Post a Comment