Harry's Place

Some enterprising soul needs to turn out Mr Justice Eady voodoo dolls like those those which so annoyed Sarko and which failed to ruffle Lord Hailsham a.k.a Quentin Hogg.*

Get the word out to those journo-reptiles: Mr Justice Eady Dolls On Sale. They’ll do the rest!

Sell them outside the law courts!

* Offered by ‘Private Eye’ on teatowel material; one snipped and sewed. The urbane and literate and actually rather-Liberal-Tory Hogg was said to be unannoyed and wryly amused.

Where do I contribute online.

Actually Quintin Hogg issued a writ over the ’stuff your own Quintin Hogg cushion’ and the Eye had to withdraw it – see p. 98 of ‘The Private Eye Story’.

One is forced to accept David Boothroyd’s version of events, backed up by hard print, but a good few Quentin Hogg ’stuff your own Quentin Hogg cushion’ items were sold before the writ could come into effect.

Any other ideas, bearing in mind what an effective weapon mockery and stire are?

One is forced to accept David Boothroyd’s version of events, backed up by hard print, but a good few Quentin Hogg ’stuff your own Quentin Hogg cushion’ items were sold before the writ could come into effect.

Any other ideas, bearing in mind what an effective weapon mockery and satire are?

One is forced to accept David Boothroyd’s version of events, backed up by hard print, but a good few Quentin Hogg ’stuff your own Quentin Hogg cushion’ items were sold before the writ could come into effect.

Any other ideas, bearing in mind what an effective weapon mockery and satire are?
[2nd attempt at submission/sending]

How do morons become judges in the first place?

At least this demonstrates he’s not a dhimmi… just a twat.

British Society of Quacks

Isn’t that a libellous statement?

Isn’t it about time David T admits life would be better if he was Minister for Justice?

I fail to see what Minister for Justice would be able to do to reverse individual rulings. Maybe he should be Emperor.

Alec

of course DT he should be Minister of Justice! Every other post by the man is calling for heads to roll, sackings, resignations, etc, etc.

PS.

Actually, I have a bit of sympathy for DT when he says “Oh No!” in his blog entry.

I say “oh no” whenever something human attempts to pass itself off as a worthwhile and says “it” is a lawyer. At least vampires are honest.

Isn’t Eady the Judge that usually finds George Galloway to be an impressive witness.
Lord.

he is also assigned to the many Lawfare cases, in which Islamists express outrage that anybody might be less than impressed as to what they’re up to

“of course DT he should be Minister of Justice! Every other post by the man is calling for heads to roll, sackings, resignations, etc, etc.”

Not sure which site you got that from, because it sure isn’t this one.

The Jack of Kent blog is great. A couple of points have been made there, that I would like to reiterate here.

Firstly, as others have commented, it is quite extraordinary that the word ‘bogus’ is being taken to mean ‘deliberately false’. That is not what the word means, and no dictionary will ever define it as such.

Secondly Singh himself defines what he meant by ‘bogus’ in the piece under dispute – indeed, as Jack of Kent points out, in the paragraph directly under the first use of the word ‘bogus’. Namely -

I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

Singh is quite clearly describing the treatments as ‘bogus’ because they are ineffective. There is no claim that the BCA believed them to be ineffective.

This is utter madness.

Someone

OK, I made it up. David T NEVER uses his other posts to press for sackings, resignations and heads to roll. There is no evidence at all, ever, in HP to suggest anything of the sort. Not one post passim.

I look forward to DT, Gene, et al looking at Jew moonbattery. It seems to be missing

spgb gray,
You do understand, don’t you, that there are other possibilities between “every other post” and “never, not ever”? Or is this too subtle for Marxist-Leninist-Engelsian-Communists?

Would that be Julio Englsian? ;-)

Mr.T (the weak, lawyer luvvie, not the A-Team muscle) does call for sackings at every turn. As long as the person is a non Jew and non Zionist. If Mr.T has any backbone, let him ALSO go after the Jew nutters

He wont. I PITY THE FOOL

See Forum magazine in court. If you want paying. They are ungrateful scum…

“I PITY THE FOOL”

Such self-awareness.

“As long as the person is a non Jew and non Zionist”

So you now accuse him of racism.
Yes, pity a fool like you, indeedy.

I’m going to be in a small minority here and say that I think Eady is right on the meaning of bogus. Most reasonable people take ‘bogus’ to mean something along the lines of a deliberate fake for dishonest purposes, eg as in ‘Bogus Callers’ -now better known as distraction burglars. http://www.hubbardtwppd.org/Safety%20Tips/distraction.htm

I don’t think it changes the substance of the case though. While chiropractors might think or believe they have some medical prowess for these ailments, they actually know that they do not; as does everyone else, since there is no clinical evidence -quite the opposite.

I’d happily comment that the claims of chiropractors are bogus -akin indeed to distraction burglars; pretending to offer a cure while instead lifting cash from their patients’ wallets- metaphorically.

Good luck to Singh and all those others who take on quacks.

I’m not a great supporter of complementary medicine, but I think it’s unfair to say that the practitioners are deliberate charlatans. To say that tehy ‘know’ they are fakes, rather begs the question. I am sure that most of them sincerely believe in what they are doing. Anyway, even so, this is a terrible decision for freedom of speech. Surely someone should have the right to criticise anything without being hauled in front of the courts?

I wrote a short review of the 1995 annuary of the Austrian Freedomparty under the title “Freedomite annuary 1995 with Nazi tones”.
The author sued me for diffamation and I had to present proof that Jews did not declare war on Germany in 1933. I stood in 3 Viennese courts as accused for 3 years until finally the upper court of Vienna aquitted me.
Singh certainly can apply to the European Court of Human Rigths if Judge Eady was the last instance.

“I had to present proof that Jews did not declare war on Germany in 1933.” Karl Pfeifer that is beyond belief. Have you written a fuller account of this dreadful ordeal? If so , do you have a link?

spgb grey

“Mr.T (the weak, lawyer luvvie, not the A-Team muscle) does call for sackings at every turn. As long as the person is a non Jew and non Zionist. If Mr.T has any backbone, let him ALSO go after the Jew nutters”

First of all, what precisely are you suggesting here?

Which particular ‘Jew nutters’ do you think I’m not pursuing, who I ought to be having a go at?

Are there an awful lot of Jews out there who you think need me to have a go at them, do you think?

In fact, what has this case got to do with Jews? Is Singh a Jew? Or is Eady a Jew?

Or are you suggesting that I’m attacking this judge’s conduct, because he is NOT a Jew?

You’ve forgotten, of course, my opposition to segregated religious schooling? Or my stuff on segregated swimming – which, on the first occasion, involved Haredi women? Or my support for the exclusion of Feiglin from the UK?

Yes, of course you have.

Instead, you think that when I point out that – for example – a senior member of the MCB, or the guy who runs the MSF, supports jihad or calls for attacks on British troops and persons who ’stand with the Zionist entity’, I’m just having a go at Muslims, unfairly, and for no reason at all. Actually, I really should shut up about it.

OK then. Find me equivalents of that in the United Kingdom, and tell me why you think I should be having a go at them too.

What precisely is this all about anyhow. Why have you chosen this post – a post about a body of quacks suing a science writer in an attempt to prevent commentary on his quackery – to lay into me about Jews?

God, you’re an utter cunt, aren’t you?

Dear Amie,
me
See page 34 on:

http://www.intjewishlawyers.org/docenter/frames6f99.html?id=9251

and the following on winning a case against Austria

http://www.swanturton.com/ebulletins/archive/pfeifer.aspx

Why do the British insist on making their judges wear those silly carpets on their heads? Maybe they muddle the mind.

I regret that that I cannot conrtibute financially to Mr. Singh’s cause, as I’m decidedly not well off. I don’t mean this as a nasty joke, but in deadly earnest, but I have to save 60 euros for my chiropractic treaments, which put my body into beter shapke every time, and make me feel good. That’s what matters to me. Then there is the dentist, who is a financial black hole of Calcutta

Karl Pfeifer: Thanks, very interesting. Not sure I like the pandora’s box that appears to have been opened with this ruling about reputation being protected by Article 8 Right to private life, but certainly it is a relief you were rightly vindicated.

There once was a Justice named Eady,
Much loved by the pompous and greedy.
He says “You can’t say that!
It insults some rich prat!”
We could do without him, indeedy.

I am certain Ven has some stored away knowledge on why British (and Commonwealth) advocates have wigs and black robes in courts. The justification is probably as meaningful as why rhe Lords exist, another bewigged person sits on a wool cloth and Charles is a Prince and talks to flowers. (ie. Who gives a damn. Get rid of the lot.)

****wool sack?

Someone

as readers of the comments will know I am pretty ascorbic re. Zionism. My “anti-Zionism” is not that shite (eg. “we are all Hamas”) which supports terrorism. I am opposed to nationalism full stop. I point out the basic uniting factor is CLASS, which means that working class Israelis and Palestinians should unite against their rulers.

Mr. T and Gene never do discuss Jew or Zionist Moonbattery at HP. It exists, you know. Why do they never mention it?

When my husband first got his barrister’s wig our border collie puppy attacked it. As they are very expensive to buy, he is still years later wearing the same dog-mangled wig.

David T

m’learned friend. “Cunt” is a bit ‘arsh on your prospective clients’ ears, me thinks. Get out of your suspenders and bra – it is the weekend.

Pointing out the fact you never ever mention loony jews or zionists could be done on any thread. I just chose this one as you are after somene’s head again, again.

You will know by now that I am not a racist, absolutely vehement in my dislike of religion, anti-zionist and ok with workers who are jews

“I point out the basic uniting factor is CLASS, which means that working class Israelis and Palestinians should unite against their rulers”

Complete moonbattery. Straight out of a 1950s Pravda editorial.

Someone

Not at all. The state capitalist and imperialist USSR supported then moved against Zionism and Israel. Communists, like myself, were against Zionism, Arab Nationalism, the USSR and the USA.

Anyway…that is going WAAAAAY off topic.

@spgb gray@ so you are a trotzkyte crank who tries to sell us old, very old slogans. The trotzkytes form always new grouplets and tell us, how important the class struggle is. Most of them never worked in their life one day. What is new is the antisemitism of most of those small groups.
If one would believe what they say in theír brochures the 5,5 million Jews in Israel are responsible for all the misery in the Middle East.

spgb – I hate to disapoint you, but there is no class system as you know it in Israel.

Leave him alone to his dreams, Nurse. After all, he thinks the USSR wasn’t communist.

Israelinurse: “spgb – I hate to disapoint you, but there is no class system as you know it in Israel.”

Ah yes, but the Stalino-Trotskyites solve this quite simply. According to their narrative Jews are ipso facto bourgeois and the Palestinians are all working-class.

You done him wrong, Cipriano: spgb is an honourable man, and nothing if not consistent. Just as he is against Zionism, he is against independence being granted to Ghana, Kenya, Syria and India.

You will know by now that I am not a racist, absolutely vehement in my dislike of religion, anti-zionist and ok with workers who are jews

Well done you.

PS: We talk extensively about Jew Moonbattery.

“When my husband first got his barrister’s wig our border collie puppy attacked it. As they are very expensive to buy,”

Really? How much? What makes them expensive?

After a little research http://legal.edeandravenscroft.co.uk/BuyItem.aspx $800 to $3000+ there? How can they get away with that?

@amie   
Yes, the judgment in the Pfeifer case is a dangerous precedent. As I remarked in a debate with Mettaculture, implying a positive obligation to protect reputation in Article 8 might well result in the court also implying a right to respect for religious feelings in Article 9.

Amie and LC

A journalist who wrote a review in 1995 on the article of a teacher of political science. In 2000 the prosecutor starts procedure against this teacher because of the article. The teacher commits suicide the same year . So according to your opinion about freedom of opinion, it should be permitted to accuse this journalist, because of his article published in 1995 that he is responsible for the suicide of this teacher five years later?
Should such an accusation without any factual base be permitted?

@Karl Pfeifer
No, I have not argued that freedom of expression — which is distinct from freedom of opinion — should protect this publication. Rather I argue that implying a right to reputation in ECHR Article 8, like the similar right to privacy recognized in the Von Hannover judgment sets a dangerous precedent. The European Court of Human Rights has blurred the distinction between freedom from the state and the right to stop people from talking about you. The ECHR should not´ be construed as guaranteeing a “human right” to having the government censoring the speech of other private actors. If Austria wants to provide a remedy against defamation, it’s its own municipal law, but claiming that the failure to provide a remedy against private defamation, invasion of privacy and somewhere down the road insults to religious feelings constitutes a human rights violation is slippery and afront to liberty and democracy.
The consequence of the precedent set by your case and the Van Hannover case seems to be that a contracting state would be in violation of human rights for providing too much freedom of expression, but that’s a nonsequitar. The question is therefore not whether you should by grace have a defamation remedy in Austrian law, but whether the substantive adequacy of Austrian defamation law should also give rise to a cognizable human rights complaint.
I don’t think so.

My bad, I meant nonsequitur.

SPGB: It’s no mystery why lawyers and judges wear the robes they do (and they are red, not black). It is because they are a remnant of the eighteenth century, a symbol of the continuity of the law. Back then, every one (wealthy men) wore such wigs. You keep claiming to be a Marxist, but you don’t understand history.

Things like symbolism and ethos are beyond the ken of Marxists, Sue. They are intangible, they have nothing to do with means of production and input and output – they are not material. Hence, their significance is ignored from the outset. The theory doesn’t allow for them, which is one of many reasons why Marxism is bollocks.

Quite rightly, you cannot sack judges.

Then it should not be possible to libel them. Since they are tenured for life, there is nothing about them that could be defamed in any meaningful sense, as they have no reputations that could be “damaged” in any meaningful way.

Careless @ 10 May 2009, 1:54 am

” “When my husband first got his barrister’s wig our border collie puppy attacked it. As they are very expensive to buy,”

Really? How much? What makes them expensive?”

Pardon me if I suspect restrictive practices by lawyers. Such as the exisitence of Barristers as a separate profession.