Nevertheless, everything he writes is well worth reading, particularly this.

This is old news, but I missed it.  Laurie Pycroft of Pro-Test fame, did not.

Geoff Hoon is very cross with the media, it appears.  He believes it is partly to blame for the political disengagement of the electorate.  The BBC reports him as saying, 

"There is not a media in the developed Western world that is as dismissive or as aggressive or as intrusive as ours." 

He added:

"Increasingly politicians don't trust the media to provide a fair account of what we do."

and,

"The biggest spinners in our society are journalists. You only have to look at any day's newspapers to see that.... From the experience of dealing with a lot of specialists, the specialists are by far the worst."

Oh dear, he is not serious is he?  I think a reality check is well overdue.

I am going to enjoy reading the blogger and press responses to this latest piece of complete nonsense from Mr Hoon.

We have known that it was coming for some time.  Pronouncements about "having to do something about the problem" have been given prominence by both press and television in recent months.  Now it is confirmed that,

"Ministers [are] today publishing proposals to boost the number of people convicted of rape."

Legislation will no doubt quickly follow, after a brief period of "consultation". The statistics quoted by the Government "proving" the need for new measures, mislead more than inform.[1]  The whole edifice constructed by the Government is built upon sand.  Sooner or later, it must surely fall.

The problem with proposals of this nature is that any opposition or criticism is always presented as being "pro-criminal" or "soft on crime" even though the issue is really one of ensuring that whilst presenting all available, probative evidence before the jury, a defendant still has a fair trial.

At one moment we are being told to be more careful when weighing expert evidence. Indeed, a recent, disturbing piece of research somewhere suggested that experts tended to try to support the case of the party on behalf of whom they were instructed. The next we hear, psychologists are going to called routinely to help us (the jury) understand the "irrational reasons" why we have taken to not believing a complainant and why we should give his or her inconsistent evidence "the benefit of the doubt".  One presumes that the Defence will be allowed to vigorously cross-examine these experts, or even call their own to refute the generalised, inappropriate or even silly opinions professed.

We are told,

" The proportion of rape allegations which lead to someone being punished has sunk to an all-time low, despite long-running Government efforts to boost results."

Juries are not so stupid as the Government wants to believe.  It is a myth that juries are institutionally biased against rape victims. Juries will continue to acquit defendants so long as there is any doubt in their minds as to the strength of the Crown's case.  If they perceive the law is being twisted to secure a conviction for instance, by way of psychologists seeking to persuade them that if they are minded not to believe the complainant, that judgment on their part is perverse, they will not be cowed.  Juries will continue to do the right thing, no matter how hard the Government tries to load the trial system against the defendant.[2]

Mark Stephen’s article in The Times last week that was commented upon by me here, has provoked responses from the claimant in the libel proceedings, Mike Keith-Smith and a Times reader Kristen Roy, which were published in The Times today.

I republish their correspondence here: -

"Sir,

 

As the successful claimant in Keith-Smith v Williams, I strongly object to Mark Stephens’s assertion that the decision by Judge Alistair MacDuff, QC, marks “a dark day for freedom of speech” (news comment, Mar 22).

 

Since when did the right to free speech imply the right of an anonymous malefactor to engage in a long-term campaign of vile and obscene abuse against an innocent individual? This disgusting conduct is not “the democratisation of knowledge”. A far better analogy would lie with the facility, common in Nazi Germany and other totalitarian dictatorships, for malicious individuals to bear false witness against their neighbours from behind a cloak of secrecy.

 

If I have made a stand that in any way assists in the plight of other victims of internet abuse – and I know that they are legion – then I am very proud to have done so."

 

Mark Keith-Smith

and,

"Sir,

 

The High Court ruling in the case of Keith-Smith v Williams demonstrates the application of common sense to legal treatment of speech over the internet.

 

The internet is a technologically unprecedented medium and certainly presents conceptual difficulties for the law where jurisdictional questions arise. However, there is little justification for creating a new set of libel laws for the World Wide Web or, rather, taking them away altogether. A libellous allegation remains exactly that, whether read from a paper in hand or on a screen before the eyes.

 

Are people really so adept at distinguishing “ranters” on the internet from those making viable claims? Should we be? And, if we are, then why are we deemed unable to make these distinctions when the claim appears in hard copy?

 

The characteristic of the internet which sets it apart from others is quite simply its potential for dissemination at mind-boggling speeds, in mind-boggling volumes. The internet is a legitimate mode of communication and to place it in a legal vacuum undermines the very real place it now occupies in today’s society."

 

Kristen Roy

Let me start by saying that I do not think the opinions they profess are either misguided or wrong.  I just do not agree.  I have a different perspective.

Mr Keith-Smith has a political persona to protect.  The palpably false insults made by his nemesis, an obviously malicious woman, could have been used by unscrupulous opponents who were willing to smear his good name behind the scenes, though I am unconvinced of the likely success of this tactic on the part of such miscreants.

As I have already said in my earlier post on the subject, the danger of litigating against small time "slanderers" is that the legal action publishes the libel to a larger audience that will contain even more people who will believe, irrationally, that the falsehoods are true, because for one reason or another they need to believe they are true.

In some cases (though clearly not in the instant case) a libel action is used as a gagging device to suppress a truth (Liberace, Jeffrey Archer.) This is not lost on the public. Thus very often, only the most popular litigants of uncontroversial occupations or pursuits truly escape unscathed.  So often, even successful libel actions do not have the desired result.

I fear this victory is likely to give succour to those who wish to silence critics on the net.  Bloggers have a limited audience and their shelf life is relatively short.  A blogger or owner of a website who is clearly bitter and twisted about something will lose an audience fast and nothing they say will carry any weight, anyway. We are not discussing mass audience newspapers or television media whose utterances have far more weight (and thereby cause more damage) because they try to verify their facts and have lawyers to ensure that so far as is possible, there is not any overstepping of the mark. Only a handful of blogs have a very large audience and the reason for their popularity is that they are amongst other things, interesting, authoritative in their chosen subject and in the main avoid gratuitous offence.

It is the possibility of gagging actions that most bloggers could not hope to afford to defend, which bothers me.  Pitfalls for the claimants, do not.  If they wish to risk doing a Gillian Taylforth, then so be it.

It had to happen of course, as night follows day.  Terrorist elements amongst the Animal Rights fraternity have shown already that harassing and threatening opponents is an effective means of controlling and forcing them to submit to its will.  The tactic is catching on amongst other single issue groups, the most recent example being  anti abortionists, as is reported today by Sandra Laville.  As yet, our home grown hard-line anti abortionists have yet to blow up an abortion clinic as happened in the United States but, no doubt, from now on we can expect little acts of harassment and intimidation here and there against anyone who is seen or suspected to support, legal abortion.

In the case reported today in The Guardian, the miscreant anti abortion group is UK Life League which is run by a James Dowson.  Like Animal Rights groups, it also appears to rely upon doctored photographic evidence as part of its case in drumming up support and finance.

"Life League, which is a registered company, raises money through donations, and stalls on streets across England and Scotland, a tactic successfully employed by animal rights groups."

Remember that name and next time you pass a Life League stall in the high street, please give it a wide berth.

“Labour isn’t wicked…” says Danny Kruger.  However, it is seeking to pass legislation similar to that passed by the National Socialists in Germany following Adolf Hitler’s electoral success in 1933.[1]

The problem is that just like the Nazis, Labour too has a vision.  It believes fervently in the justice of what it does and will not be diverted from its chosen course.  It does not believe that its opponents act in good faith when criticising the measures it proposes.  It is not open to reasonable compromise.  It neither listens nor wants to listen.  It has a mission that will be fulfilled.

Unlike the Nazis, Labour does not want to intimidate, terrorise, imprison or murder a significant part of the population or wage war against its European neighbours, though it does seem to need to micro-manage the activities of the citizenry.  This Labour Government’s crime is that it cannot conceive that any British Government should ever wish to abuse the powers it is currently seeking to create.  Its arrogance is breathtaking.

So muses Jackie Ashley, and I tend to agree.

I have always seen Gordon Brown as a faithful, reliable sidekick to the “dashing” Tony Blair, a kind of Tonto character.  I have never believed that he could cut the mustard as either as leader of the Labour Party or as Prime Minister.  Should he show that he has not the mettle to claim his inheritance now and require Mr Blair to stand aside sooner rather than later, he does not deserve the highest office.

I do not read either the Guardian or Observer to be informed, but rather to be amused.  In the aftermath of New Labour being exposed as not so frank, transparent and whiter than white in relation to the awarding of honours, these Labour-sympathetic titles are desperate to make a story about sleaze that sticks to the Conservatives.  I should not suggest that you need to read this report in the Observer today by Antony Barnett, Gaby Hinsliff and Ned Temko. Having whispered in dark conspiratorial tones about the manner in which the Conservatives have raised funds (whilst being strangely silent about new revelations involving Labour reported elsewhere) their report concludes,

“There is no evidence to suggest either the loans or donations to the Tories broke the law.”

Well then, that’s a damp squib of a story.

This part of the report did make an impression, however:

“…Downing Street has been closely studying the Bradley report which shows how Labour was financially outgunned in the marginal seats.

 

Of the Tories' 36 gains at the last election, 24 were funded by donations from at least one of the trio of Lord Ashcroft, Lord Steinberg and Bob Edmiston in a separate initiative from the party's official campaign: in 20 of them, they got bigger swings than the national average. Blair will now push for a cap on spending in each constituency, to stop money being poured into a handful of critical seats which could skew the next election.”

It should not surprise anyone that political parties target those seats of their opponents that they believe are vulnerable. Leaving aside the issue as to whether it is right that a party should not be allowed to target marginal seats, “skewing the next election” is an interesting concept. This is the Government, let us remember, that delayed implementing constituency boundary changes before the last General Election, changes which would have, surprise surprise, handed the Conservatives up to a dozen extra seats in the Commons; the same Government that allows Scotland and Wales to be over represented in the Commons by, you’ve guessed it, predominantly Labour MPs.

Oh, and finally a word about the author of the “Bradley Report”, namely the former MP for The Wrekin, Peter Bradley.  As you might expect, he has had rather a lot of time on his hands since the General Election last year. I perceive that Mr Bradley feels himself wronged by being one of those Labour MPs on the receiving end of these naughty Conservative tactics.

It was Mr Bradley, the private secretary to Alun Michael, the Rural Affairs Minister, who admitted that the hunting ban was part of the class struggle thereby ensuring that the anti-ban Conservatives would have scores of extra voluntary helpers to canvass and deliver their leaflets.

Mr Bradley, the Conservatives did not have to out-spend you in your election campaign, through your sheer, unabashed arrogance, you made yourself vulnerable.

It was in Scotland that opposition to the Community Charge first exploded.  I should not suggest for one moment that the anti-smoking ban in Scotland will lead to so much violent protest, but quiet, large scale disobedience is assured.  No matter how softly softly the authorities seek to enforce the ban, it will just cause more hard feeling and generate the political opposition to the measure that was so singularly missing when it was first proposed.

As someone who does not smoke, it suits me not to inhale others’ cigarette smoke or have the dubious honour of my clothes smelling as if I had polished off a pack of twenty, personally.  Nevertheless, I feel that smokers are being victimised.  Many non-smokers I have spoken to feel the same way.  Beyond our politicians and persons involved in the provision of medical or health care, amongst non-smokers the support for a ban is soft  or non-existent.  Smokers are currently resentful but compliant.  This resignation to their fate will not last long once the inconvenience of their being unable to smoke in their favoured pub or club has sunk it.  The sheer unfairness of it all will rankle.

Many hundreds of thousands of Labour supporters will be directly touched by this ban in a way that Iraq and Sleaze did not.  Iraq did no more than reduce Labour’s Commons majority  from epic landslide proportions to a “pathetic” thumping one of sixty plus. Sleaze, taken on its own, is not likely to lose many seats for Labour, particularly if Honest Gordon takes over at No.10. The smoking ban will irritate many natural supporters and the Government should bear in mind that it is not only bad weather on Polling Day that can keep away Labour supporters.[1]

Andrew Sullivan reports today in The Sunday Times concerning the row that has erupted in relation to an episode of the cartoon series South Park being “pulled” from a television schedule because it appears to have offended Scientologists.  Now others seem to be jumping on the “cartoons” bandwagon, the willingness to kow-tow to the complainers is unsettling.  There may be solid commercial reasons for this particular example of self censorship, but nevertheless more people with super sensitivities about their beliefs might to be encouraged to chance their arm.  Should this trend continue, a line will have to drawn. 

Mr Sullivan argues,

“…it’s this artful ability to say in cartoon form what you cannot say in any other without a libel writ that makes cartoons irreplaceable…

 

Cartoons and puppetry, as the classic series Spitting Image proved, can convey truths and explore fantasies no other form can.

 

We need those truths and benefit from those fantasies. A free society survives partly because the powerful are mocked, and their pretensions undermined. Religions, which guard their own illusions carefully, are particularly ripe for satire.  And they should be.

 

Whenever one human being is claiming to tell the truth about the meaning of life he is making a very powerful claim — and in a free society he also runs the risk of getting a raspberry. Laughter matters because piety begets power.

 

Orwell once remarked that one reason fascism never took off in Britain was because the sight of a goose-stepping soldier would prompt your average Englishman to giggle. Someone is now silencing the giggles.  And our world is a lot creepier because of it.”

Yes, quite.

Perhaps it should be expected that the usual suspects criticize and make fun of Gordon Brown, but I detect that he is being left exposed in a way that the New Labour Spin machine never allowed in relation to Tony Blair.  The explanation might be that Mr Blair was all style and no substance so it was easy to create a slick media image against which nothing unpleasant could stick, initially.  Mr Brown does stand for certain things and so you have to take him for what he is.  As such, a make-over will just not work and some criticism will find its mark.  To that extent, he is vulnerable in a way that Mr Blair was not.  I suspect that certain New Labour heavyweights are  aware of this and are prepared to brief against Mr Brown, albeit quietly at first.  Even those outside the party who until now have been natural allies of New Labour are voicing some disquiet about his qualities.  Should Tony Blair leave No.10 soon, I have no doubt that its new occupant will be Mr Brown.  If, as is being counselled, it is to be next year, Mr Brown might find his dreams shattered.

You should really read the whole article published by Alice Miles in The Times today, but this little snippet interested me: -

“Incidentally, while I was researching this I came across this fact: that the median level of full-time earnings in the public sector (£476 a week in April 2005) is £64 higher than in the private sector (£412 a week), and the gap is widening. That is an extra £3,328 a year, along with generous pensions. I didn’t know that. Bear it in mind when you hear the moans of public-sector workers next week over their pay rises.”

At least we now know that the money Gordon Brown has ram-raided from the middle classes, particularly from their private pensions, is being well spent.

I see that the predominantly New Labour press has been seeking to divert attention from New Labour’s funding shenanigans by pointing to similar fund raising devices by the Conservative Party. This tactic will not work because a little thought reminds us quickly of the real reason for the furore. Gongs appear to be being sold for cash, by “we’ll clean up the sleaze/whiter-than-white” New Labour.  This is not the point of my post, however.   The holier-than-thou Liberal Democrats, in the guise of Lord Oakeshott of Seagrave Bay, their Treasury spokesman, have now stepped into the fray in their usual opportunistic manner. I did not anticipate having to refer to this so soon, but for the record let us remind ourselves of this.

The Court of Appeal's decision in the Shabina Begum case was disturbing for a number of reasons and happily the House of Lords has reversed it. I suspect that Boris Johnson echoes the thoughts of many of us when expressing his opinions on the matter in his article in The Daily Telegraph, today.

I do not smoke, so the recent legislation that will soon ban people from smoking in certain public places does not concern me to any material degree.  I do not hunt, so I have not been deprived of my sport by that means.  I do not shoot, so when that is banned, I shall not suffer, nor shall I when the time comes for angling to be outlawed.  I am astute enough to realise that sooner or later however, one of my little freedoms will be the subject of Government interference.  It is for this reason, that when the smokers or hunters or any other minority whose little freedoms have been trampled under foot finally revolt, I shall be there alongside them at the barricades.[1]

I have little doubt that Tracy Williams went too far when insulting Keith Smith, a UKIP parliamentary candidate, in a chat room in April 2004.  Whether he should have issued proceedings for libel is another matter.  Ms Williams’ insults were palpably false and were merely intended to insult.  No reasonable person was likely to take them seriously.  Mr Smith’s victory has done no more than broadcast the nature of the insults to millions of people rather than the few hundred who might have visited the website in question.

My concern is that Ms Williams’ insults were very tame when compared to much of the criticism directed towards other, more powerful politicians, individuals and corporations which routinely appears on UK blogs.  I hope a precedent has not been set.  Many political blogs, though full of invective and bile (and almost certainly libellous) are highly entertaining, very much in the tradition of James Gillray.  It would be a shame to see them gagged, particularly as the media in general now seems to be so feeble in its criticism of big business and big Government.  We shall have to wait and see.[1]

Of course, as a lawyer involved in criminal defence work from time to time, I should be expected to be biased in favour of the English legal system.  I do happen to think that it is sound and works relatively successfully, notwithstanding HM Government’s numerous attempts to sabotage it.  Other legal systems work as well though differently, but in my opinion, none can be described as being better.  Unlike our illustrious Home Secretary, at least I have considerable experience of the English legal system.  I have also more than a nodding acquaintance with other legal systems.  Accordingly, I think I am entitled to say that I am able to make an informed judgment about the relative merit of our own system.  It is true that I am not convinced by the efficacy of an inquisitorial system because I believe that our adversarial tradition is better at eliciting the truth.  I prefer our Common Law over the Roman Law systems of continental Europe but these beliefs on my part would not lead me inexorably to the conclusion that Johnny Foreigner’s system is inferior.

In his lecture to the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday, Charles Clarke glibly pronounced upon the inferiority of the English legal system as compared to that of the French. In the light of recent events, it is hard to resist the suspicion that Mr Clarke’s sudden conversion to the charms of the French criminal justice system is generated more by a malevolent petulance arising from his inability to convince either Parliament or the Public of the wisdom of New Labour inspired “reforms” supported by his department, in the face of vociferous but principled, learned criticism.  I do not have any confidence that Mr Clarke understands any of the issues involved concerning the subject matter of his current outburst.  I am left with an irresistible impression that he is a man who knows very little and understands even less.  If my assessment is right, that makes him very dangerous.

Some weeks ago, in anticipation of the tenth anniversary of the Dunblane tragedy, I started work on a long article documenting successive Governments’ attempts to control gun crime by bearing down hard on lawful gun ownership, and pointing out the futility and unfairness of it all.  It is enough to say that the article was not completed.  This article by Ross Clark in The Times today says much the same thing, is shorter, better written and far more interesting.

Politicos are masters at one particular manoeuvre.  When faced with an irresistible argument that they cannot answer, they create an argument they think they can defeat and then attribute that argument to their opponents.

It is depressing to see that this tactic is already gaining momentum amongst those who wish to smother the “English votes on English-only matters” issue.  It was to be expected that the overwhelmingly pro-New Labour media would help to obfuscate the issues but it is even more depressing to see individuals who acknowledge the iniquity of the present situation, accept the argument of those who wish to preserve the current status quo.

We have already suffered Lord Falconer’s attempt to present those wishing the West Lothian Anomaly to be dealt with as pressing for an English Parliament (for which, he correctly pointed out, there is not great support.)[1]  He was unsuccessful not only because he tried to pull his “fast one” whilst being interviewed by John Humphrys, but also because too many bloggers are on his case.

Now we have Peter Riddell in an article in The Times, today:

“The stumbling block to all solutions (that is to say, English votes on English-only matters) is the relative size of England, which has more than four fifths of the UK’s population and of the total number of MPs.  Creating a separate English parliament would risk undermining the Union…”

Well, there they go again…

I should have realised that that was coming when earlier in the article he commented,

“'English votes on English laws' has an appealing ring.  Now that the Scots and Welsh have devolution, it only seems fair that English MPs alone should be able to vote on Bills affecting just England….The more you look at the idea, the more flawed it looks.”

Being extremely slow-witted, I did not see the fallacy of the argument until I read further about “stumbling blocks”.  The argument presupposes that the answer to the West Lothian Anomaly is a parliament for England but of course, that is not necessarily so.  It is for that reason that I could not see the “flaws” in the justice of English votes on English laws.

It is becoming clear that once we have been manoeuvred onto ground of their choosing, we shall then be bombarded with “facts” which mitigate against the creation of the English parliament we so crave.  For instance, we are told that the Scottish Centre for Social Research shows that, while a majority agree that Scottish MPs should not vote on English laws, there is no appetite for an English parliament or for English regional devolution.  The point is that a majority agree that Scottish MPs should not vote.  That is our argument and it is why the issue must be resolved.  That “there is no appetite for an English parliament…” is the red herring.  Once the issue has been raised in the English public’s mind, the Scottish Centre for Social Research might discover a seismic change in opinion, but as I have said, that is not what the current argument is about.

Other, equally fatuous arguments are rolled out, such as “the technical problems of identifying English only laws…” and “…creating a separate English parliament would risk undermining the union…”  Well, I’ll repeat myself for clarity. We are not demanding an English parliament as the answer to the Anomaly.  However, even if we were, “technical problems” and “undermining of the Union” have come about because of Scottish and Welsh devolution not because of calls for the resolution of the Anomaly.

Finally, we have the sop of there being a case for reducing the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs.  The Scots and Welsh are over-represented in the Commons but that is another issue, not directly related to the Anomaly. Even one Scottish or Welsh MP voting for an English only law is one too many.

The pro-Anomaly politicos should be assured of one thing.  No matter how effective they are in stifling the debate or spinning the argument, if the English electorate believe that England is not receiving a fair deal, they will reap the whirlwind.

[1] At the moment.

I have made my views plain already concerning successive Governments seeking to rig the trial process to ensure more convictions.

I had heard of the Government's proposed advertising campaign to warn men against indulging in sexual intercourse with inebriated females because it would be treated as rape if the partner complained later of there not having been any real consent.  My immediate reaction was to think, "yes, very sensible, but what about advice to young females to avoid drinking too much alcohol in the first place?"

I learn now that the Government is minded to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 so that an inebriated female is deemed to be incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse.  New Labour's feminist agenda will skew the law heavily against the defendant, if such an amendment is enacted.  It is a matter of fairness, pure and simple.  Whether or not there was consent is an important issue that should be left to the jury to decide.

If the Government thinks that amending the law in this fashion will result in more men being convicted of rape, it is wrong.  Unless the Crown is allowed to rely on some strict formula by which the young lady in question is deemed to have been "drunk" and thereby did not consent,[1] juries, trying to be fair and "do justice" to the case, will continue to make findings of fact that enable them to acquit defendants against whom they feel the prosecution case (in all other respects) had not been proved.[2]

Lord Falconer rules out an “English Parliament” because it would “destabilise the Union”.  Perhaps New Labour should have thought about that when creating assemblies for Scotland and Wales.  However, to bring the subject back to point, I need do no more than quote Oliver Heald, the shadow constitutional secretary, who retorted,

“Having English only votes on English only-laws in the Commons is not tantamount to creating an English Parliament.  The Government knows that there is a problem with the current settlement, but it seems to hope that the West Lothian problem will somehow disappear.  It is not sustainable to have measures imposed upon England on the back of votes of Scottish MPs, when the same measures in Scotland are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.”

Of course, the argument in favour of English-only votes for English-only matters is irresistible.  Nearly everyone, including the Scots and Welsh, can see that.  The Government sees it too, but it suits it to obfuscate the argument.  It is not currently a question of whether there should be an English Parliament, but should the English part of the electorate consider that their legitimate grievances concerning Scots and Welsh MPs voting on English-only matters are not being heeded, it soon will be.  Then the Union really will go hang, and it will be all New Labour's fault.[1]

Nicola Woolcock reports in The Times today about Oxford University’s successful attempt to secure an injunction against animal rights activists preventing their screaming through megaphones and taking photographs. The earlier injunction had placed no restraints on noise, which enabled the activists to use amongst other things, horns, whistles and tapes of dogs howling. They had also photographed and videoed staff, students and construction staff.

The report continues,

"However, the University’s attitude towards freedom to demonstrate is called into question by its decision to apply for an even more stringent injunction at a full hearing next month. It wants the weekly protest cut from four hours to one and the maximum number of demonstrators reduced from fifty to twelve."

Why is the University’s attitude towards freedom to demonstrate called into question? The animal rights activists are not there to demonstrate, they are there to intimidate. They have not just turned up in their hundreds, had a noisy march, called their opponents a few rude names and having made their point, then gone home. They are there every day, causing a nuisance and making it very clear that if anyone disagrees with them, that person’s property and/or health might suffer. It is arguable that the University should have sought an even more stringent order. The animal rights daily gathering in Oxford is nothing to do with freedom of expression.

Henry Lui is a restaurateur. He is the proprietor of the Chinese restaurant called the Kar Ling Kwong, which is situated in East Street, Farnham, Surrey. For decades Mr Lui has selflessly, tirelessly, successfully but quietly fund-raised for local charities. A couple of years ago he was awarded a well earned MBE. The awarding of an honour in this particular instance shows our Honours system working as it truly should.

Contrast this to the granting of honours to donors of political parties. The gongs handed out to these people are worthless. They are but cheap baubles. The awarding of knighthoods to senior civil servants and their like is not much better. These establishment personnel are paid well for their service to the Country. It is not only a matter of their handsome salaries and perquisites, the power, the kudos, just look at their pension entitlement. There is too much establishment back slapping of this kind. It is unedifying, but Tony Blair just does not “get it”.

The general population understand and applaud a well earned honour. The bravery exhibited by an individual, devotion to duty or selfless hard work for the community or a particular cause for instance, set an example to the rest of us. There should be some element of personal sacrifice suffered or exceptional service before anyone is considered for an award. The handing over of a sack full of dosh for a baronetcy is just cheap.  Substantial reform of the Honours system is needed.[1]

[1] See the article by Andrew Pierce in The Times, “Lords nominees are blocked in Labour loan row”.

She is by all accounts, one very lucky lady.

It would appear that from early in her relationship with her former fiancé Howard Johnston, "they were trying for a baby".  It was when she failed to conceive that she sought medical assistance and then was diagnosed with tumours in her ovaries.  In consequence, she required surgery that would result in her being unable to have children.  What followed has been well documented.

Now, let us just assume for one moment that Miss Evans had not met Mr Johnston nor any other partner who wanted children "from day one" (as she alleges, did Mr Johnston) at that particular point in time. Is it safe to assume her ovarian cancer might then have passed unnoticed for a longer, potentially fatal, period of time?

Too often we overlook or discount our good fortune as ours by right.  Perhaps Miss Evans should reflect upon the fact that she is still possessed of her own life.

Well, William Keegan believes that the people of Britain think so.

I say, yes, we do!

For my part, I hope that Tessa Jowell is not forced out of her ministerial position.  The longer she stays, the more damage she will do to this venal Government.  With the help of the overwhelmingly pro New Labour media, the stench of the sleaze in which this administration has been too frequently drenched, has never stuck.  The Government has come to accept that it is bomb-proof.  Just wait for the hue and cry to die down, and then bring back the minister who had found himself in an unfortunate situation (of his making.)  It will not always be thus.

I suspect that Ms Jowell will be forced out sooner or later.[1]  Nevertheless, she will be back in some other capacity very soon, once “it has all been forgotten.” It will be not forgotten however and neither will any of the other sleazy indiscretions of the Government. 

The Government’s own arrogance will ensure that it is finally, spectacularly, brought to book.[2]

"The problem with the Liberal Democrats is that they promise one thing to one part of the country and another thing to another part."

So says Jenny Hjul in The Sunday Times, today.  I concur.  It is blatant opportunism mixed with political cynicism of the worst kind, yet the Liberal Democrats continue to cast themselves as the guys in white.

A persuasive plea from Rachel from North London.

As ever, Matthew Parris  says all that need be said.

I do not recall it happening before in a Liberal Democrat leadership contest.  Though at one point in the 1976 contest between David Steel and John Pardoe things became a little robust