Reflections on #DaftArrest

Well, it’s been a couple of months now since the #DaftArrest trial was heard before The High Court, and I’ve spent them in reflective mood. I thought that now, since I am both well overdue for a blog post, and also somewhat calmer than in the days immediately after the case, I might take a more considered look back at events. There are, after all, important things to say.

Ok – as a result of reading the judgement, I am now aware of a good deal of history between Jacqui Thompson and the council of which I was previously unaware. I didn’t realise for instance that she had conducted sit in protests, or that her history was quiet so … extensive?

But hang on a minute – it doesn’t really matter, does it? She never painted herself as a friend of the council, and merely having a dispute with the council doesn’t mean that she should expect to be treated any differently than anyone else. She had every bit as much right as anyone else in the public gallery to protest about democratic accountability, and I believe the judge even recognised that, going so far as to mention it in his written judgement.

The Council / Mr. James seemed to be suggesting throughout the case that her protests surrounding the issue of filming council meetings was somehow motivated by and represented a continuing harassment centred around her earlier libel dispute with the council. To my own mind, that remains far from proven – indeed, I don’t think any evidence was presented to even support it. It is only natural that, considering herself wronged in one matter, she would elect to give far more concern to the activities of the council.

Perhaps an example… If I take my car for a repair to the brakes which failed after I had them in last time, and whilst in the garage I hear from other customers that their steering has become faulty following work undertaken there, am I wrong to wonder about my own steering? Is it unreasonable that I might consider calling for more scrutiny on the steering? If I do make such a call, does it really follow that it is motivated by my earlier problem with the brakes? Should the garage, when I complain publicly about shortcomings in their steering, really be able to claim that I’m merely pissed off about the brakes?

To my mind, it is ridiculous to claim that Mrs. Thompson has conducted a campaign of harassment. Mr. James mentioned in his post on this blog that her family had tried to visit a member of staff, at home, without an appointment to discuss their grievances. This relates to an incident where in truth her husband set off, alone, to visit Mr. Bowen – the then Head of Planning.

What Mr. James mysteriously fails to mention is both:

• Mr. Thompson realised he was being stupid, and turned back of his own accord before ever visiting Mr. Bowen’s property, and

• Mrs. Thompson, the lady who apparently conducts such vitriolic, bitter campaigns of harassment against the council, actually called the police to intercept her husband. Not an easy decision as we can all imagine, and not the sort of thing we might expect from a death of glory die hard nemesis of the council.

I’ve always felt Mrs. Thompson’s campaign for better democratic accountability in Carmarthenshire to be both sincere and motivated by the public interest, and I have yet to see any evidence that might tempt me to change that view.

Another questionable issue of the judgement, at least in my opinion, is that the judge finds that Mrs. Thompson attempted to pervert the course of justice when she reported what she viewed as an attempt to steal her mobile phone to the local police.

To my understanding, an attempt to pervert the course of justice requires a deliberate mind – it’s not something you can accidentally do – and must very much be the objective of your actions. With that in mind, let’s consider what happened… The witnesses to the incident had, in court, to admit that they hadn’t been able to see what had actually happened. Mrs. Thompson speaks of an attempt to grab her phone, and it’s important here to understand that in law an act of theft requires an attempt to permanently deny someone their property. Would Mrs. Thompson have known that? Would you? That someone taking your phone, by force, is not necessarily an act of theft?

Even so, Mrs. Thompson merely reports what happened to the police – honestly and accurately. I’ve not spoken to her about this so I don’t know what happened, but I presume the police told her that the offence wasn’t made out. Did she fabricate further evidence? No. Did she appeal their decision? No. Can it, in short, be said that she tried to pervert the course of justice? No.

It looks as though Mrs. Thompson might well now be considering an appeal. I hope she find some success in it – because what she has been dealt out with by the court didn’t smell much like justice to me…

 

A Ghastly Decision on #DaftArrest

I really shouldn’t be typing right now… I know it’s not a smart idea to blog when you’re angry, and boy oh boy am I angry right now… I’ve just heard the news that Jacqui Thompson, the well known and respected blogger from Carmarthenshire, has lost her libel action against Mark James (Carmarthenshire County Council Chief Executive) – and now faces a bill for £25,000 in damages.

This decision, believe it or not (and I really am having problems with this) was taken in the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice. By an actual judge. Who was awake. Shocking…

It is my view, and I speak as someone who has regularly read Jacqui’s blog over the course of the past couple of years, that all Jacqui has done is to hold her local council to account – and she’s done that amidst a perception that the local press failed to do this effectively themselves… The Council would have us believe that she her blog is motivated by a desire to harass Mark James and assorted other officers following an earlier libel case – and the Council, like it or not, are talking bollocks.

I’ve met this lady – and whilst it’s fair to say that the earlier case perhaps triggered her blog (a move to try and bring some scrutiny to the conduct of the Council), it can hardly be said that this continues to motivate her. She rarely brought up the subject of the earlier action on the occasions we have spoken (though I was already aware of it), but she did talk at length about the various misdeeds of the council, about her arrest, and about the need for scrutiny of public bodies… I agree with her sentiments on all points.

I gave evidence in this trial, sat through a day of it in court, and kept abreast of it on the days I wasn’t there using Twitter and the excellent commentary provided by Mrs Angry (Broken Barnet). I can’t say that I have come away from the case having seen justice to be done.

There are, perhaps most troubling of all, a lot of things I can’t now say – for fear of facing my own encounter with Carmarthenshire’s lawyers. I’m certainly not engaged in a campaign of harassment, and have valid points to make, and yet can’t speak my mind on reasonable points without fear of the potential consequences.

I weep for democracy, and for the very concept of accountability in public life. If Jacqui decides to appeal, she will have my support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Conservatives and Lib Dems are somewhat extracting the urine…

I am getting totally fed up with the Conservative and LibDems solution to the debt crisis – namely forcing below inflation increases on benefit claimants, whilst simulataneously granting tax CUTS to their mates (I’m thinking of the scrapping of 50p income tax).

The line coming out of the Conservatives is “It isn’t really that benefit claimants should be receiving higher increases than public sector workers”. If this were indeed the case I would support their position, but it isn’t. If you’re over 25 years of age, a Job Seekers Allowance claimant will receive £71 a week. The consumer price index stands, I believe, at 2.7% – meaning that the difference in the CPI and the proposed settlement is 1.7%.

1.7% of £71, which is afterall what we are arguing about, is £1.21 per week.

The average person in work earns roughly £400 a week. So, what reduction in their earnings would they have to suffer to equate to that £1.21? Let’s do the maths…

1.21 = (x)*400/100
1.21 / 4 = x
x = 0.30%

What I am saying here is that the losses involved in a cap of 1% has only 1/5 of the effect on someone in work as it does on someone claiming benefits – as a consequence of how little someone in this position receives.

Next, let’s consider that benefits are calculated to be what you NEED. There’s no room built in for luxuries. The government intends to pay claimants less than they themselves have assessed claimants need.

How sincere are MPs in their concerns about a comparison between the average working person and a benefit claimant? Not very – else they would not in good conscience be calling for a 32% pay rise for themselves, would they?

 

Dear Isreal – WTF are you doing?

The stories on the news concerning current events in Gaza are harrowing, not only for because of the horrors of civilians on both sides being massacred through no fault of their own, but also because this is all so avoidable. It really doesn’t need to happen – and the tragedy is that neither side seems willing to concede that.

Of course, it is entirely unacceptable that HAMAS have launched attacks on Isreal, and they should be rightly condemned for doing so. I don’t care where innocent civillians are – targetting them is a war crime in my eyes, and if you are really going to fire a rocket who’s guidance capabilities can best be surmised as “go somewhere over there…”, then you are totally responsible for the consequences of your actions.

So why do they do it then? Basically, it’s an act of desperation. The situation in Gaza is far too complex and horrific for a single blog post to do it any justice, but it would be safe to say that the people of Gaza are being oppressed by the state of Isreal. There is no free movement of goods either into or out of Gaza, and the economy of the region is paralised by the activities of the Isreali state. Sometimes, people feel they have to fight even when they have no hope – and I personally believe such desperation lies at the heart of those people in Gaza actively involved in attacks.
It’s wrong though – and last week three innocent Isrealis were butchered by a rocket hitting their home, despite having no personal connections to the activities of the state. That is totally indefensible.

But, for balance, let’s briefly consider the figures – because although three innocent Isrealis have been killed, over a hundred people in Gaza have died – largely through air strikes, which are hardly a discriminating means of dealing with a problem. Isreal state that they are merely trying to defend their citizens, and in part I’m sure they are – but we also have consider the fact that they are also expanding, massively, their programme of creating illegal settlements – as well as other acts of oppression.

Personally, I’m convinced Isreal is the bad guy here, but both sides are at fault. However, any conflict, any battle, will eventually come to an end, and they always end the same – with people deciding they need to talk. Wouldn’t be nice if the leaders of both HAMAS and the Isreali State had the balls to simply do that NOW? Maybe then, another innocent Palestinian or Isreali child might not get slaughtered this evening – because the uncomfortable truth is that by the time I come to have my shower in the morning, more innocent lives will be lost – and more families will be consumed with feelings of grief and retribution, adding to the cycle of war.

We need, throughout the world, an entirely different class of leader. We need people who will take decisions based on the welfare of their people, and not their own personal political or property interests. We need these people desperately, and we need them now, because the current crop of world leader seems to fall some way short of the mark…

Dorries and I’m A Celebrity

So, Nadine Dorries MP, who allegedly represents the people of Mid Bedfordshire, has now decided to take a month away from parliamentary business to appear on the ITV reality show “I’m A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here”.

This particular show is noteworthy for many things, but Britain’s foremost platform for political debate it is not. One wonders therefore why Nadine would be willing to appear – so far I have only come up with trying to raise her profile, or the cold hard dosh. Either motivation would, I suspect, be sufficient to get Nadine to do just about anything.

Clearly one issue that doesn’t feature too prominently in her mind is the interests of her constituents, who will now be left without parliamentary representation for a month. Still, to be fair, they might be better under those circumstances anyway.

As an MP, Ms. Dorries receives a salary of around £65K per year – and I don’t believe I will be the only person in Britain who would prefer that she actually earn it. Serving as a truly committed MP is a full time job (and then some…), and one can’t help but wonder what her constituents will be told should they have the temerity to actually try to gain access to their MP during this period.

Parliament has defined holidays, and it is expected that any member will take any significant personal leave within these remarkably generous periods – although even then a true MP will spend much of the parliamentary holiday working for their constituents.

The situation is not dissimilar to that of a teacher working within a school – a situation I am personally familiar with seeing as my girlfriend works as a Teaching Assistant for a local school. Her salary is derisory, but she is expected to play by the rules like everyone else, and only take leave during school holidays. Obviously this is quite restrictive, and means we end up paying a hell of a lot more for holidays etc, but rules is rules – and so she follows them, without complaint. Nadine seemingly takes a different stance – even going to far as to take a photograph of guidance relating to her expenses laying on a roof after it, apparently, blew out of the window. “And there I think it shall stay…” was the comment she made.

Let’s hope the people of Mid Bedfordshire take the next election a little more seriously…

 

 

#DaftResponseToDaftArrest

Caebrwyn and Y Cneifiwr, two well respected Welsh bloggers, are reporting that Carmarthenshire County Council have decided to produce a filmed record of some meetings. Readers will remember Caebrwyn as the blogger involved in the #DaftArrest affair, who faced arrest when she refused to stop filming at a public meeting of the same council. Various comments made following #DaftArrest on my blog are now subject to a court case before the High Court, so you’ll understand if I steer this post away from discussing Caebrwyn’s own issues with the council…

In short, it seems that the council have decided to film full meetings of the council, and to post these films, once edited, on the internet a couple of weeks after the meeting takes place. In arriving at this decision, the council have completely missed the point.

The reason we have people wanting to film council meetings in the first place is that various members of the public attested that the minutes produced in these meetings do not always properly reflect the content of the actual meetings… Providing a plain, unedited video record of the meetings would have removed all doubt about who said what and when. You might think, dear reader, that this would suit the council just fine – but no, apparently we have to have these films edited. One question – WHY? What exactly happens at these public meetings that the council would prefer the public not to see?

The next issue is that as I understand it, the proposals only cover full council meetings. However, the public have a right to attend executive meetings, and meetings of scrutiny panels etc – which is of course where controversial matters seem to end up being discussed. Again, the importance of a simple, undeniable record of what has been said cannot be overstated.

Denying the public access to the films produced for a couple of weeks will mean that interested parties do not have the time that might be reasonably required to prepare questions / submit queries pertaining to matters discussed. Carmarthenshire County Council are well known for insisting on the notice for motions etc, so it seems unlikely that anyone who has trouble preparing a submission in light of such delays would be looked on favourably…

In conclusion then, as someone who supported the call to film these meetings, I’m afraid this simply does not satisfy me. Indeed, it only underscores the importance of members of the public being able to film proceedings for themselves… If I were a voter within the county, I would be taking a keen interest in everything the authority thought it better I not know…

Enough with the apologies…

I am rapidly getting sick and tired of hearing those in authority issue their “profuse”, “sincere” and “deep” apologies for the varied failings of their various authorities.

It’s a matter of sincerity. If you truly were sorry, then you would have apologised BEFORE the Hillsborough Report was published. You would have done so not in 2012, but at the time your various misdeeds first came to your attention.

Don’t pretend you only just heard that the stadium didn’t have a safety certificate, or that you really had no idea that the police were secretly amending over a hundred statements to paint themselves in a better light, and defame the dead. Bullshit. The authorities have known all along.

Am I really supposed to believe you had all the evidence stored up in the loft and everyone took a solemn oath not to go up there?

We don’t need apologies. We need the FA to account for the venue. We need the police to answer for tampering with statements, and for using the PNC to try and drag up any dirt on the victims. We need it to be made plain that such behaviour will ALWAYS result in being held to account. We need to see proper criminal investigations.

We need, as we always have needed, justice for the 96.

TwitterJokeTrial – the Result!

Ok – first of all, my apologies for a slight delay in blogging on the outcome of the TwitterJokeTrial. This can be put down to a number of reasons, just a random smattering of which might include commitments at work, a girlfriend who would like to see me every once in a while, and just not really getting enough time in front of a computer to write something meaningful. Sorry – I’ll try harder next time…

Or will I? Because the news of course is that there really shouldn’t be a next time, as we’ve had the verdict from the High Court, along with the accompanying judgement. Paul has been totally acquitted, and his good name is restored forthwith. By way of contrast, the name of the CPS has been somewhat tarnished, as the judges have pointed out that this case did not meet the requirements for a prosecution on these grounds. Indeed, the conduct of the CPS and, allegedly, that of the Director of Public Prosecutions, is likely to come under some close scrutiny now. To which, if I might interject with a bit of personal invective, I say “tear the bastards a new one…”. The manner in which they went after a perfectly law abiding man in this test case was absolutely appalling – and someone needs to see the end of their career over it. After all, Paul did.

 

Paul fought this case not only for enlightened self interest, but because, had it been allowed to stand, our freedom to express ourselves on the internet would have been seriously curtailed. The rest of us now have a duty to remain watchful for the next attempt to restrict freedom of expression here in the UK, for there most certainly WILL be a next time, and see that it too is opposed.

 

Personally I’m just relieved it’s all over – I shouldn’t need to visit the High Court for a while (though I may attend the Daft Arrest trial later in the year.)

 

One other thing – it seems to be that the one question people might be thinking about asking now is “what happens to the money we all raised, now the defence costs are to be paid from the public purse?”. The honest answer is I haven’t a clue – and I did make several donations myself. It’s in the hands of the trustees… What I can say however is that having gotten to know Paul, Sarah and the legal team, I’m sure whatever eventual resolution we see will be acceptable to us all as appropriate.

 

WE WON!

 

 

Hmm…

As I write this, I am on a London Underground train, heading for my car at Edgware, having just atteneded the latest hearing for the #TwitterJokeTrial. So how’s it gone then?

Well, as you’ll all know by now, it’s a reserved judgement. Sure, we’d like the result now, but it’s a complicated case, and so it’s not unreasonable that the judges want a little time to think about it.

I think things went well, for whatever that nay be worth, and I suspect not much because I’m no legal eagle. The judges, and especially the Lord Chief Justice, seemed very receptive to our arguments. The other side had a fair hearing as well, but I just took the impression that they were more in our camp than that of the opposition.

There are, in essence, three ways that this might go.

The nightmare scenario is that they find against us. This leaves Paul Chambers with a criminal record, and the rest of us with a very nasty case left in precedent. Paul would likely have an increased costs award. This is not really somewhere we would want to go.

Far preferable would be that the case is sent back to the lower court, with strong guidance to issue an absolute discharge. That means that Paul’s criminal record would be cleared, and he and Sarah would be able to get on with their lives.

This option was discussed in court, and were I a betting man, then this is where my money would be. However, an absolute discharge would also mean that the CPS were right to bring the original prosecution, and welcome to bring more such prosecutions in the future. Good for Paul, bad for freedom of expression.

The dream scenario of course is that the appeal truly succeeds – Paul is clear, and the CPS can’t pull this stunt again.

No matter what happens though, I think Paul Chambers can walk with his head held high. A lesser man would have scurried under a rock and taken his medecine long ago, but Paul has has the balls to fight, because he considers himself innocent – and so do I. He knows what’s at stake, and he has fought on – not just for himself, but for all of us.

I wish him and Sarah every success in rebuilding their lives, and having a bit if what the rest of us perhaps take for granted. They’re wonderful people, and they never deserved to have their dreams bashed around like this.

My appeal to you all know is simple – talk about the case. Really, just that. Make sure people understand what is at stake, and why it matters… This could have been any one of us, and if we fail, it will be.

Dorries and the £40K daughter

The press and numerous blogs have seemingly caught onto the story that the Mid Bedfordshire MP, Nadine Dorries, is paying her daughter £40K per annum as an “office manager”.

A note of caution here straight away – it seems as though what is actually happening is that she is paying her daughter at this rate “pro rata”. In leyman’s terms, she works out what hourly rate someone would be paid to make up the “upto” £40K salary in the role, and then pays her daughter at that hourly rate… There is even some doubt as to whether the £40K figure is correct – some are claiming it might be as low as £35K.

Is this a problem? Well that all depends…

I’m perhaps in the minority in the blogosphere in that I don’t particularly have a problem with MPs employing relatives in their offices, so long as a number of conditions are met.

Are they able to fulfil the function?

I would have thought that, if the role is genuinely for an office manager, then the role is required throughout the year. It seems odd that Ms. Dorries should appoint someone who is only capable of working when her studies allow.

Are they competent?

I don’t know what Phillipa is like at general office management, but when it comes to processing Freedom of Information requests (like the one I sent), I am somewhat less than impressed. I met an incorrect assertion that my request was not made in the proper format, and only on quoting the law directly at her did I receive an explaination that “she had been reliably informed” that there was a problem. There wasn’t, as she had to eventually concede.

I’m not legally trained – and Phillipa is apparently a law student. You would think that she would check the leglislation before attempting to use it to justify her decision to try to evade my request made under the Freedom Of Information Act.

No discrimination

The position should be advertised, and the relative should have had to emerge as the best canidate from those who apply for the role. I simply do not know if this happened in this case, but if it didn’t, then I would say we have a problem. I would expect the MP to retain evidence that a fair selection process had been followed.

Salary should be at the going rate for the job they do

I do not see why the public purse should suffer an unreasonable burden, so I expect the relative’s salary to be comparable to that which might be offered to a non-relative in the role. I have to say here, I do consider £40K for an office manager to be extremely generous – but then of course we’re not privy to precisely what she does. It’s possible, though unlikely, that such a figure could be justified…

So? Should Phillipa really be in the role? Well, we don’t know – we don’t know what the role entails, and we don’t know exactly what she has been paid. The point is however that we SHOULD know. Arrangements like this should be whiter than white – with the MP more than happy to discuss the full details of the case. That doesn’t seem to be the case here, and that is very troubling indeed…