Tag: Communication

Brexit: supreme logic required

Much has been written about the Government’s appeal to the Supreme Court in the Brexit case. Political commentators tell us that the appeal is very likely to fail. Many lawyers think otherwise.

DC taking a leaf out of DC?

The morning after the Newsnight before, everyone is asking why did he do it? And how will it work? Find the answer the second question and I think you have the answer to the first.

Victim statements: are they having the wrong impact?

In an episode of The West Wing from 2002, the (fictional) US President. Jed Bartlet, prepares for a presidential debate by considering how he should answer a question designed to challenge his opposition to capital punishment: “If your youngest daughter, Zoe, was raped and murdered, would you not want to see the man responsible put to death?”

Testing times for the Director of Public Prosecutions

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Alison Saunders, says that juries apply a “much higher test” than prosecutors do when deciding whether to pursue a case. If that is true, it seems bizarre. More likely, it betrays a lack of logic on the part of the DPP.

Journalists in a tiz at Supreme Court’s win-win decision

I’m not sure quite how to say this. So I’ll say it twice:

Yesterday, a young graduate won her claim against the government’s back-to-work scheme. She argued that the regulations and the manner of their implementation were unlawful. Despite taking its case all the way to the Supreme Court, the government lost on three separate grounds.

When did you stop ****ing your wife?

I don’t know how to put this politely, so I’ll follow The Times and use a lot of asterisks.

My attention has been caught by a recent news item (£) in which a vicar was taken to task for describing the Archbishop of Canterbury as a w****r.

Harry’s Bottom and the Right to Privacy

Today’s big argument is said to be about privacy and the public interest. I think there must be more to it that that. Most commentators seem to be going round in circles.

Redknapp admits his guilt?

We all know that Harry Redknapp is innocent of tax evasion. A jury has decided that unanimously.

But readers of The Times newspaper may have been a little surprised by the verdict. Redknapp had, after all, admitted criminality. Or so the paper reported on 28 January 2012. Quoting evidence given during the trial, the paper reported Redknapp as saying in a taped interview with the police:

A rule that Mae be broken

I have certain rules. One of them is that, when a friend asks you to watch their daughter do a stand-up comedy routine at an upstairs theatre in an Islington pub, you say “No, thank you”. So when an email came in from a friend I hadn’t seen for over 20 years – and not likely to bump into any time soon, because he lives more than 3,000 miles away – it should have been a no-brainer. Except …

Hasty Copper and the Paper with Secrets

I keep reading expressions of anger that the Metropolitan Police sought a court order under the Official Secrets Act to uncover the Guardian’s source behind the phone hacking story (here, here, here, here, and here, to name but a few). I’m not convinced.