UK Radar: FROM THE ABSURD TO THE JUST BLOODY SILLY

DIARY 23rd May 2011. Its been a big day down at the Strand. The High Court has been well busy with the judges getting their knickers in a twist.

First the weekend saw the biggest mass act of civil disobedience since the refusal to pay the poll tax. Some sixty thousand Twitterers utterly destroyed what credibility remained of the judiciary, by Twittering one of three jokes. No one except perhaps the comatose could have failed to have been informed of the identity of CTB (the footballer behind the super-injunction). This was a defining moment as it readily demonstrated the drift of power from the press and media to the web and citizen action. Ironically Lord Neuberger (the Master of the Rolls) on 20th May 2011 at the press conference launching the report of the Judicial Committee on super injunctions hinted of this. But whilst there was a drift of power from traditional journalism to citizen action there was also power struggle between the judiciary and Parliament.

Lawyers tend in the main to be dishonest and arrogant creatures. All judges in the UK were once lawyers. The fruit does not fall far from the tree as they say, so it was no surprise to those who understand these things that Lord Neuberger during the press conference was proposing that the unelected judiciary has the gift of controlling Parliament itself.

The public mood was therefore set for mass civil disobedience of the celebrity footballer super-injunction. Twitter started to trend the identity of the celebrity footballer. On Sunday morning the Scottish Herald published a photo of the celebrity footballer with his eyes masked but which in effect identified him. However all this was just a last stand from orthodox journalism to show its value having been shown its utter impotence by better gunned web citizen action. The farcical nature of the situation created by the inept judiciary was that the celebrity footballer super-injunction was being breached by the telling of one of three jokes which did not directly disclose the identity of the celebrity footballer but which left no doubt as to who he was. Thus the judge by his deficiencies had manufactured a situation where the mere telling of a joke created criminal liability with the prospect for imprisonment. What compounded the judicial pantomime was that in theory any imprisonment for telling the joke could be effected and the reporting of the imprisonment would also be a criminal offence. The law was not any more an ass, it was the whole colonic irrigation.

This then was the lost weekend of the British judiciary. It was not unexpected to those possessed with even a modicum of common sense. In a fit of hubris the judiciary and the lawyers for the celebrity footballer were in a “its nearly the weekend” kind of mood at the end of last week. Lord Neuberger's encroachment for the supremacy of Parliament and the Bill of Rights has already been mentioned, what also needs to be recorded is that at the same press conference attended by Lord Neuberger, Lord Justice Judge used the word “paedophiles” in describing the need to control online citizen comment. Then came the news that Schillings solicitors who represented the celebrity footballer which the super-injunction forbade from identifying had gone after Twitter to disclose who was narrating the identity of their client. This was the spark that lit the fuse and those who were previously disinterested in who the celebrity footballer was were now deliberately joining the electronic protest by repeating one of the three jokes. The more funnier joke was that of the press and the media trying to tell the joke without the punch line. The high point of the web action was the taunting of the Attorney General by some (including the author) through deliberately identifying themselves with an invitation to be be prosecuted.

By Monday morning the super-injunction battle was over as one Twitterer commented - Final Score: Imogen Thomas 3 Celebrity Footballer 0, own goals scored by celeb' footballer who should have known not to get into a fight with a woman, judge who should have understood the fundamental freedom of the many outweighs the supposed rights of a celebrity to hide his embarrassment, and Schillings Solicitors who represented the celebrity footballer and who should know better than to send a representative to speak on Newsnight when the individual concerned (in the author's opinion) has the appearance of a large rodent better suited to damp sewers than TV studios.

With Monday morning also came the news that the Prime Minster was also repeating his previous unease of the judiciary in the grant of super-injunctions. Meanwhile lawyers for the Sun were getting ready to go to court in the afternoon to get the super-injunction discharged. At the same time in another courtroom of the High Court at the Strand another judge was considering the extent of the lifting of the Fred Goodwin super-injunction. Mr Justice Tugendhat said the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the RBS board or any other regulator remained free to investigate. Well that's all right then. The idiot Keystone Cops that is the FSA who were supposed to be policing Fred Goodwin but did not and which is costing every taxpayer a considerable sum of money can know, but not the rest of us plebs who will have to pay for Fred Goodwin's time at RBS must know. The question does need to be asked, where do judges live? The question is not being asked for any mischievous reason such as knocking on their doors and running away but in a metaphorical sense. Do judges live in the real world or do they after finishing their judging for the day retire to lie in oak panelled coffins with one eye open for anyone nearby carrying a steak. Anyone who has lived in the real world over the weekend will know that the identity of the woman with whom Fred Goodwin is alleged to have had an affair is discoverable from the web. In fact that information is on this very website.

Meanwhile in another part of the Alice in Wonderland world of the British judiciary the Sun's lawyers were arguing their case for the lifting of the Imogen Thomas celebrity footballer super-injunction. In a telling exchange lawyers acting for Imogen Thomas related to the court hat the injunction battle had become about "the dignity of the court", Mr. Justice Eady Eady immediately interrupted, declaring: "This is not about the dignity of the court." Sometimes the fact of an interruption can tell the truth more than what was said in the interruption (nod nod wink wink). The end result of the excursion to the court, was that Mr.Justice Eady denied the application to discharge the injunction. This may be good news for Schillings who can presumably spin/PR the whole fiasco as a victory for their client, however Schillings client has been made to look like a real wazack (as they say in Yorkshire) when the worst which would have happened had he not taken out the super-injunction was a little embarrassment. Whilst the celebrity footballer could walk away with some temporary phyrric satisfaction of Eady's judgment, unfortunately the same can not be said of Eady himself who by his incomprehensible order has created the impression of trying to “cover his ass” more than giving effect to common sense and reason. As if to deliver the point of Eady's sheer foolishness, Parliament made it clear who is in charge even if that involved metaphorically booting Eady in the arse. During the afternoon John Hemmings MP identified Ryan Giggs as the celebrity footballer who had obtained the super-injunction, which was followed by what appeared to be a “nod nod wink wink” rebuke from the Speaker (Mr.Bercow).

And the whole affair seems to have ended with a further nod nod wink wink acknowledgement of the stupidity of the judiciary. This one came from the Attorney General who indicated that he has no plans to prosecute anyone for breaching the super-injunctions.

To everything there are winners and losers.

Imogen Thomas is a winner. She comes out of this with the impression that she the victim of rich man who has tried to use a distrusted legal system to crush her.
Ryan Giggs he comes out as loser as a twat who tried to prevent a little harm and did a great deal more to himself.
Schillings solicitors come out of this losers as having appeared to made a dog's breakfast of something simple with the suspicion that either common sense evaded them or they continued a futile battle for a fistful of coin.
The Sun Newspaper comes out as a winner (maybe undeservedly) as appearing to be on the side of freedom of expression.
Conservatives and David Cameron come out as a winners. David Cameron's expression of unease at the grant of super-injunctions some two weeks ago was the mastery of perfect timing.
The Press and media generally come out of this losers. Citizen action showed not only their impotence but their increasing irrelevance.
Liberal Democrats and John Hemmings MP comes out of this a winner. Hemmings is the politician who has done more than any other to expose the silliness of the super-injunctions.
Lord Stoneham comes out of this a winner. His exposure of the Fred Goodwin affair in the House of Lords earns him credit.
The Judiciary come out of this losers. They just exposed themselves to ridicule and defiance.
Solicitors and barristers come out of this as losers. There is a deep suspicion that Ryan Giggs would have not taken matters so far with the benefit some sensible and practical foresight.
The web comes out of this as winners. It showed its effectiveness when the press and media could only stand by and do nothing.
Alex Salmond and Scotland come out as winners. After the publication of the Scottish Herald it was noticeable on Twitter that being Scots was cool because the jurisdiction of English judicial stupidity did not extend to Scotland.
Ed (Milli Vanilli) Milliband and the Labour Party come out as losers. For a Labour politician to stay silent whilst ordinary people have participated in one of the greatest acts of civil disobedience to preserve their freedoms shows how arid the landscape in British left-wing politics is for radicalism.