Hogan home
Well done to everyone invovled in getting him out, seems Nick hogan got released today
Excellent Stuff, special kudos to Anna Raccoon and Old Holborn for all their work.
This is getting silly
I’ve been meaning to write about the Digital economy bill for a while, but life has been getting in the way and it just keeps getting sillier. Plus of course loads of other people are providing excellent commentary faster than I was getting round to it, but I’ve never let being late to the party stop me before.
The things that are wrong with this bill are almost too numerous to mention, it’s obviously written with either no technical understanding at all, or with the deliberate intent to be wide open to abuse. The current government does such things so often I’ve given up trying to work out if they’re deviously evil or just incompetent or even some odd mix of the two. The latest silliness added to this bill oddly doesn’t come from the government benches but from Lib Dem peers who want to be able to force ISPs to block “access to specified online locations“. Now not only is this silly it’s pointless. (it may be worth noting that the Lib Dem peer concerned gets money from a law firm specialising in copyright protection.
It’s pointless because it’s very easily circumvented, the internet was designed to work around points of failure. So if they block a site people will still be able to get to it using proxies, VPNs, the TOR network or various other methods. A lot of work has been done in solving the problem of blocked sites to deal with far more oppressive and organised regimes than this. Plus of course such banned sites will get more publicity than before they were blocked, as any number of banned lists in the past will testify.
It’s silly because very many “online locations” share an IP address with other “online locations”, so the usual way to block access to a site is to block the IP address. This will have huge amounts of collateral damage as such a block will also block access to all the other sites at that address. Think of it as closing down an entire shopping centre just because there’s a single dodgy shop tucked away in the corner. I imagine that the innocent sites blocked in such a manner might be a bit miffed and contemplate taking some action against the ISP’s so blocking them. Depending on how the required court orders are worded it gets sillier still. If the order says block “copyrighttheft.anonymong.org” then the blocked site can get out of that by just changing the name to “copyrighttheft2.anonymong.org” and if they make it more general and block “anonymong.org” well a new domain costs two quid.
Of course there is a way they could block a site by name and not by IP address, all they’d need to do is look in depth at your traffic, rather than just where it’s going, to see what it’s actually doing. Then they could tell which actual site on a shared server you wanted and only stop requests going to the banned site. This is called deep packet inspection and BT are currently in court about it – but on the upside it would cause the ISPs to have records of everywhere you’ve visited, and with only a tiny bit of feature creep what you’ve done on all of those sites. Such transaction records of course being subject to other legislation which requires the ISP to keep them for seven years just in case the government needs them – to stop terrorists of to protect the children or something.
All of this will of course have a cost, particularly as the bill now says that “the Court shall order the service provider to pay the copyright owner’s costs of the application unless there were exceptional circumstances justifying the service provider’s failure to prevent access despite notification by the copyright owner.“. Whilst this cost will be passed onto the end user pushing up your internet bill, the ISPs are also going to minimise the cost by just blocking things on notification rather than waiting for a court order they have to pay for. Ever since Lawrence Godfrey* ISPs have pretty much had to remove/block content on notification this will just make that situation worse. Though I strongly suspect that where someone such as Guido to ask that the BBC be blocked for violating his copyright** he’d probably not get such a helpful response. Ultimately the aim of this clause is to allow large corporate copyright holders to trample all over the net at no cost to themselves and with little or no risk.
For a more legal focused review of this clause you could go worse than reading panGloss’s take on the matter.
I may attempt to tackle some of the other lunacy in this bill later.
Many thanks to Freya for passing on most of the links referenced above.
* Yeah, sorry about that.
** It’s worth remembering that by default you own the copyright to anything you create – without having to do anything. If some corporate site, or spotty oik in college nicks your graphic/music/content you could in theory get them blocked under this bill (good luck with that though if it’s not a spotty oik in college). This potentially makes this bill an incredible denial of service tool.
Free the Bolton one
If you’re reading this you’ve probably already read about the plight of Nick Hogan, if not go and read about it over at Old Holborns and whilst you’re there make use of the donate button to chip in an help get him out of prison. I thought debtor’s prisons had been done away with but apparently not, and by all accounts this particular prison has a particularly bad reputation.
Even if you agree with the smoking bad, the issue here is as Charles Crawford says far more about “the definition of a privately owned pub as a ‘public place’ under the relevant legislation. Just because the public have ‘access’ to a pub does not mean that it should be treated as a public place.“.
The other interesting point as observed by Old Holborn is that none of the smokers were breaking the law it was perfectly legal for them to smoke in the pub, it was just illegal for the owner to let them smoke (even though he wasn’t there). Which does make me wonder who’d get prosecuted if one. were to smoke in a government or crown building, as again as OH observes most of the staff there will have no power to compel you to stop, and you’re not breaking any law.
Finally in case you’ve not already done so go and chip in a few quid to help get Mr hogan out of prison so he can get back to trying to keep his remaining pub open, and you don’t even have to leave your chair.
Correction The law does make it an offence to smoke in a smoke free place, but that still doesn’t give them much power to enforce it. However a slightly more worrying bit with concern to the point Mr Crawford makes is this:
(1) The appropriate national authority may make regulations designating as smoke-free any place or description of place that is not smoke-free under section 2.
(2) The place, or places falling within the description, need not be enclosed or substantially enclosed.
(3) The appropriate national authority may designate a place or description of place under this section only if in the authority’s opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.
Recycling old announcements
Reading the Metro today is seems that the Transport Minister Sadiq Khan has announced that the fines for over running roadworks will be increased from 2,500 pounds a day to 25,000 pounds a day, which notionally seems a good idea just as it did when he announced the same thing back in October.
One thing that the new announcement does tackle is the concern that “utility firms could use it as an excuse to put up domestic prices to compensate“, the cunning plan to stop this which can not possibly fail is …they won’t be allowed to do it. Because of course if the Government tells them not to pass on the costs they’ll just accept the lost profits and work harder to avoid the fines, there’s no chance they won’t just change prices for utterly unrelated reasons that happen to cover this increased overhead.
With a government so full of people skilled at fleecing the tax payer whilst working strictly within “the rules”, you’d have thought that they might at least suspect that merely forbidding something may not actually work. A more cynical person might in fact suspect that every time they forbid the passing on over regulatory costs they know damn well they’ll be covered in the next price hike. Though if one were that cynical one might also note that it’s a neat indirect route of pulling money out of our pockets without actually increasing taxes and with the added bonus of being able to blame those evil utility companies
Not a terrorist? – doesn’t matter
Via Old Holborn on Facebook and already picked up on by LegIron and Obnoxio it seems that the plastic plod still haven’t got the message about not harassing photographers. Taking photographs of Christmas festivities in that well known security hotspot of Accrington is “Suspicious” behaviour and if you don’t “volunteer” your details when stopped under Section 44 they’ll just get you arrested for anti-social behaviour instead.
Given how many public statements there have been concerning both the police and the plastics abusing their powers in this way, and despite the repeated reminders that “no laws prevent people from photographing buildings” the message just isn’t getting across. It’s almost enough to make you start to wonder if the public message we hear is actually the same one that is being given to the people in uniforms. Also Section 44 applies in designated areas only – so is a shopping centre in Accrington really a designated area or where they just making things up and is there an on-line list of all the designated areas anywhere?
EDL leaders arrested
Just seen over at Old Holborn go read what he’s said and it’s worth following the few links in the article as well it won’t take long. But the gist taken from EDL Media is that:
On Saturday 20th February 2010 Members of the leadership team of the English Defence League were arrested as they traveled to Scotland to support the Scottish Defence League demonstration.
While in custody the team members homes and families homes were raided by police armed with automatic machine guns which terrified the leaderships family which included small children and other older family members. Computer equipment was seized during the 3 hour raid.
It doesn’t say on what grounds they’ve been arrested and will be charged so it’s possible they’ve been up to something they shouldn’t and arresting them en-route to a demo like that was just a convenient coincidence. But on the other hand it does look a tad troublesome from the point of view of awkward demonstrators of all sorts. The various comments and sound bites in the articles linked to by OH also don’t paint a very reassuring picture with the police seeming to co-operate with counter protesters to prevent the EDL from exercising their legal right to make a static protest. This comment in particular doesn’t suggest that the anti-EDL protesters the police were helping had entirely peaceful intentions in mind:
Student protester James Nesbitt, 23, from Glasgow, said: “We had spotters out across the city looking for fascists in pubs. We got here quickly but the police are doing everything they can to keep us away from them.
Certainly a situation to watch to see how things develop.
Update on e-petitons
A while back I wrote asking what e-petions are good for following on from a hopeless response from the Government about the petition against the change to cost recovery for defendants. Well I have a slight update in the comments from Jeanette Miller (aka Miss Justice) which suggests that in an entirely predictable fashion people are indeed opting to accept a fine and thus guilt rather than end up far more out of pocket due to trying to clear their name.
Read on:
I was also very disappointed by the response received. Feel free to publish details from this press release. At least the fight continues!
Another disappointing day’s work for Gordon Brown.
The Government’s long awaited response to a petition backed by almost 22,000 signatures has been described as “a joke” by Jeanette Miller, aka ‘Miss Justice’. The expert Motoring Lawyer who is also the Founding Chief Executive and President of AMOL, The Association of Motor Offence Lawyers, began the petition back in September 09 in response to the government’s plans to introduce regulations to restrict the amount of costs an innocent defendant could recover after fighting to clear their name. She says, “The reason I started a petition was primarily to raise awareness of what the government’s plans were. The method that they chose to introduce the rules was very much under the carpet and an almost farcical process. The overwhelming response to the consultation was against introducing the rules that have since come into force on 31 October 2009.”
When the petition closed Jeanette Miller wrote a letter to the prime minister with 37 pages of supplementary information to enable him to produce a proper considered response that she hoped would address many of the flawed premises in the consultation process itself. In relation to the response received today Miss Miller states “I am astounded by the dismissive approach adopted by Gordon Brown and his pitiful response for the issues I tried to raise.”
The petition was launched in an attempt to stop or to repeal the regulations implemented to limit the amount of legal costs an acquitted defendant can claim back from the court once a criminal case against them fails or is discontinued.
Under the rules prior to the 31 October 2009 a defendant could expect to recover between 50-100% when acquitted or found not guilty. The government were losing too much money however, due to the number of cases they were losing. In 2007, 26 per cent of motoring offence prosecutions in Magistrates’ Courts were unsuccessful. The rules do not just extend to motorist but to all criminal defence.
Miss Justice explains that she chose to launch her campaign as she was fearful that many innocent motorists would chose to accept penalties for less serious offences such as speeding or mobile phone offences when they were not at risk of a ban.
Since the rules have changed it seems she has already been proven right. Ian Harrison a company director who contacted Miss Miller in December admitted a motoring offence he had not committed. He was issued a penalty notice but says he was using a Bluetooth device which is legal. He said he could not afford to take his case to court because even if he won he would have to pay nearly all of his legal bills of at least £2,000. The 53-year-old instead opted to accept a £60 fine and three penalty points.
Miss Justice commented “When I spoke to him I was pretty convinced we would succeed in securing his acquittal at court if he chose to contest the proceedings. I had to warn him, however, that even if he won his case he could be liable to pay nearly all of his costs, likely to reach more than £2,000. Mr Harrison said he could not afford to proceed on the basis that even if he was vindicated he would still be the loser because it would have cost him £2,000.”
Turning to the government’s response the Prime Minister argues that the government does not believe that a defendant will be more likely to plead guilty under the new regime as they claim a defendant could never be guaranteed an acquittal. There is no research whatsoever published or referred to that justifies this belief. In the wealth of experience of Miss Justice and her fellow AMOL member solicitors they find that where someone knows they are innocent under the new regime they are far more likely to give up their principals and take the punishment than be several thousand pounds out of pocket.
Miss Justice has confirmed that her firm, Geoffrey Miller Solicitors, have seen a drop of 34 per cent in the number of motorists taking their speeding claims to court in November 2009 compared with November 2008, when costs were still met from central funds. With an offence that carries points and poses no risk of a ban, most drivers seem to be admitting to offences rather than be out of pocket. A scenario Miss Justice predicted would happen when launching the petition.
The government also referred to there being no guarantee of the sum recovered if acquitted. Jeanette Miller’s response to this is ”This point is true. However, my firm Geoffrey Miller Solicitors, maintain detailed statistics of our clients’ costs recovery levels so that all of our clients are fully informed of the likely recovery they can expect at the outset of a case”
The rates the government claim to be sustainable for criminal lawyers are widely known across the legal field as nothing more than a pittance. With most plumbers charging more than the government plan to pay under the legal aid scheme, their response is likely to infuriate the majority of the legal profession.
Jeanette Miller states “The final paragraph of the government’s response is insulting not just because of the sentiments expressed but it is clear that the Prime Minister has simply dismissed all requests to review this significant issue. Mr Brown has adopted the wording of several press releases that were issued during the campaign and continues to miss the point entirely.”
Miss Justice suggested a face to face meeting with the Prime Minister once the petition had closed to be able to discuss the more intricate details relating to the campaign. Unlike the Tories met with Miss Miller, and fellow AMOL member, David Sonn, Gordon Brown chose to snub this opportunity and dismiss the concerns raised with nothing short of an extract already used during the campaign to raise awareness of the petition.
The fight is not over though as a result of Miss Justices’ petition, the Tories backed her cause and tabled an early day motion which received support from 30 MPs.
Following on from that was the Law Society’s Judicial Review Proceedings issued against the Government on 7 January 2010. One way or another, the government will have to respond with real answers rather than the nonsensical responses they continue to spout in the hope that the majority of the general public either will not understand or will not care about the erosion of the British Justice System as we know it.
For more information or to speak to Jeanette Miller, President of The Association Of Motor Offence Lawyers about any motoring issues please contact Caroline Tomlinson at Geoffrey Miller Solicitors on 0161 271 5591 or ctomlinson@motoroffence.co.uk.
Update: Almost forgot to link to this older article by Anna Raccoon about the Law Society launching a judicial review into the matter.
You say Tobin they say Robin
So after the G20 decided that a Tobin tax was a bad idea it has risen zombie like at the behest of varies lovies lefties and media pundits under the new name of The Robin hood tax. Which is far more fun sounding, though one has to ignore that Robin Hood was if the legends can be believed mainly against taxation, and has it’s own FaceBook page. Of course all of the problems pointed out last time about the Tobin tax still apply, it requires global enforcement else all of the transactions to be taxed will just change jurisdiction, it needs to be worded such that a minor change in the transactions won’t make them exempt and of course as observed by the Salted Slug if adding o.o5% was so painless the traders would already be charging 0.05% more. And all of that aside the banks will pass on these charges to theier customers in one form or another even if it’s just lower interest rates, and it will need to be administered and Governments don’t have a terribly good track record of move money from taxes to the “poor” very effectively. Oh and of course the banking crisis wasn’t caused by ForEx traders that a tobin tax is aimed at, but by poor credit and risk management. So the “Robin Hood” tax isn’t even going to affect the right group of “evil” bankers.
If people are so concerned about helping the poor why not ask the main parties the same question as Norman Tebbit is asking? Namely why are people that are considered to be so badly off they qualify for benefits at the same time expected to pay taxes? What sense can it make to pay one bunch of beauracrats to give them money whilst at the same time paying another lot to take it back off them? Could just not taking some taxes be a much simpler and better solution to helping the poor than trying to construct a globally agreed bureaucracy to take taxes from one group of people to give to another group of people that are also being taxed?
For those that say it would be used for the truly needy nations and not for the poor in the west, how well do you think that will work? Who’s going to decide which nations get to partake of this global bounty? Would it again not be simpler to just let these poorer nations off the debt they owe to other governments, or at least the interest? Or if that’s going to far how about removing the various trade barriers that help to stop the third world competing on a more even footing?
Of course if your goal isn’t to actually help the poor but rather to establish global control over banking and financial trading… do carry on.
Oh I should mention there is also a FaceBook page for people who think the Tobin tax is a stupid idea.
Back to the blog with MPs being charged
I’ve been even quieter than usual as the last two weeks my free time was spent rapidly building props for a friend of mine called Preacher who for publicity and other reasons best known to himself was doing the Britains got Talent thing – oh and then there was sleeping. So I’m way behind on pretty much everything so may well go over stuff that’s already been covered by other people far better.
So as a fun place to start there’s the wonderful news that at least some of the corrupt or incompetent members of parliament are to actually face charges , something which will hopefully rumble on long enough to still be fresh in peoples minds when it comes to time to vote. Sadly of course it’s only four of them being charged so far even though < ahref="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/guidofawkes/~3/HJwEg3uxHfI/">52% were found to have over claimed.
The four that have been charged are claiming that parliamentary privilege means they shouldn’t go to court but that instead accoridng to the 1689 bill of rights it should just be a matter for parliamentary authorities – but they don’t think they’re above the law oh no, of course not. We should also pay no attention that the three of them are using the law firm that < ahref="http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/a-devine-precedent/">usually represents Labour. There is of course the slight problem that if they can delay their day in court for long enough they may still get a rather handsome pay off, though of course if their colleagues so chose yet another bit of legislation could fix that.
The one thing that is making me suspect that they may actually all be incompetent rather than dishonest is the amazing video of Jim Devine explaining why he shouldn’t be charged. Also utterly failing to understand the difference between a budget and an allowance and the whole concept of false accounting. But then he does claim it was all OK because a whip told him so.
Meanwhile over at the Lords they can carry on troughing. As a final point the new body they’re bringing in to make sure we can’t complain in future when they feather their beds in this fashion is going to cost about six times the amount recovered from our MPs this time round – but just enforcing the rules as they existed and applying existing law would have been far too difficult and wouldn’t have allowed the government to be seen to be doing something.
A worrying sort of sense
Just read a rather disturbing article by Mr Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday (hat tip to The Salted Slug). Disturbing because it makes an awful lot of sense in suggesting that if we want rid of Labour and a real change in politics then the best thing could be if the Tory’s lose and Labour get in. As many others comment I’m not sure I could face voting Labour but Mr Hitchens reasoning is sound. Here’s a taster but go read the whole thing.
I give myself a great deal of trouble by attacking the Tories, the party most of my readers want to support. Why do I do this, condemning myself to many angry and often personally rude messages from affronted people? I could easily make everyone happy by quietly dropping this campaign. It would save me hours spent writing letters and e-mails to Tory loyalists who absurdly accuse me, of all people, of wanting to keep Labour in power.
But I cannot, because I think we now have a unique opportunity to remake British politics and recapture Britain from the people who have messed it up and trashed it for so long. The next election cannot change the government. But it can change the opposition – from an ineffectual, useless, compromised one, into an effective one genuinely opposed to what New Labour is doing.
And such an opposition, no longer weighed down by the awful record of the Tories and their miserable reputation, could throw New Labour into the sea, perhaps within five years of coming into being.
The destruction of the Tory Party, which is now both possible and desirable, is the essential first step to this. In our two-party system, new parties arise out of the collapse and splitting of those they seek to replace. They cannot be created until that collapse, and that split, have begun. A serious, undoubted and decisive defeat for the Tory Party at the next election would make this possible and likely. Such a defeat is possible, despite the events of the past few weeks, and can be aided by voters simply refusing to waste their votes on a party that is both likely to lose, and certain to betray them if it wins.
UK terror threat status
- Severe 2010/01/25