Withers LLP twinned with Carter Fuck

It would seem that the new fashion amongst lawyers is to try to silence Parliament, following on from Carter Fuck trying to stop Trafigura we now have Withers LLP trying their hand at preventing MPs talking about things in Parliament. This time though it’s not about dumping toxic waste in the third world but local planning issues, the full story is over at The Guardian. The key par of the e-mail sent by Withers LLP though is this gem:

“”In order to settle this matter we, therefore, require an apology in respect of both the serious allegations plus payment of our client’s costs, a substantial payment to a charity of his choice and an undertaking not to repeat the allegations or any similar allegations, particularly in parliament.

“Your threat to make a statement in the House of Commons referring to our client’s alleged ‘spoiling tactics’ in this and other situations and that our client’s threatened proceedings amount to ‘bullying and an attempt to gag opponents’ is tantamount to blackmail.

“These allegations are untrue as our client is only trying to put right a serious wrong to his reputation. We note that you would only make these allegations under the cover of parliamentary privilege. My client objects very strongly to you doing this and would ensure, via other sources, that the House of Commons were fully appraised of the true situation and not misled.”

Which Withers LLP claim is not in any way an attempt to limit John Hemming MP’s parliamentary privilege. I guess he could say what he liked as long as he didn’t mention their client. On the bright side our glorious parliamentarians are actually at least thinking about doing something about it – if we’re really lucky they might accidentally become concerned about our freedoms whilst they’re at it. Maybe reform the odd bit of libel law (though at least the offence of criminal libel has gone.)

update Forgot to link to this first time round sorry.

Watch what you say

Various friends have brought my attention to this rather disturbing article on the BBC:

Five men have been cleared of raping a woman after it emerged she had spoken online about group sex fantasies.

There is so much wrong with this story I’m not quite sure where to begin, for a change I don’t find myself disagreeing with Penny Reds take on the matter. So I shall leave much of that side of things alone.

Instead a few other things that struck me, though obviously there’s not that much detail to be sure but I do have to wonder why the MSN logs were given such credibility, where they forensically retrieved from the MSN servers? Because the logs on the local computer are just plain text files and remarkably easy to edit. My suspicion would be that these logs haven’t been handled forensically and verified, and that the prosecution should have had them chucked out on that grounds alone rather than using them as an excuse to throw the case. The judge should also have known better, and a decent prosecution surely should have alerted the jury to the possibility of a perverse verdict, if they couldn’t get the logs thrown out (or even just argued that they didn’t change a thing).

I’m deliberately ignoring the whole issue of discussing any sort of fantasy with someone does not count as consent (as that should I hope be self evident) – though I do wonder how much of a precedent this could set for wearing various items of currently fashionable clothing with various indiscreet words written on them. Are “kiss me” hats now a legal invitation?

The thing I’m really wondering though is just how far this could be extended, especially once the powers that be are monitoring everything. Would saying you’ve “had enough” be grounds for euthanasia, could you be press ganged for saying you wanted to “give <random approved state enemy> what for”. Just how much consent does discussing something hypothetical terms now provide? And I also can’t help but think that this is somewhat at odds with events in the Girls scream aloud case. Admittedly one case doesn’t make a strong precedent, but this really does seem to me to be quite a worrying development, especially if the powers that be do ever get their panopticon of internet monitoring.

MPs expenses 4 weeks to go

Just to remind people the consultation on MP’s expenses end on the 11th of February.

you can take part on line here:
http://mpexpensesconsultation.org.uk/

The Tax Payers Alliance have a fairly good run down of the questions on their Website (hat tip to Iain Dale again).