Paul Dacre not Judge Eady is arrogant and amoral
Paul Dacre, the editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, is in trouble with the law for paying £10,000 for copies of stolen photographs of Madonna's wedding to Guy Ritchie. The judge who ruled in Madonna's favour is Mr Justice Eady. Recently, Paul Dacre abused his position at the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday to launch a private attack upon the judge. Dacre claimed that Mr Justice Eady is both "arrogant and amoral", and that the Human Rights Act is wretched. Madonna used the HRA to launch her claim that the conduct is an invasion of her privacy. Given Dacre's unjustified attack both upon the judge and the HRA, I would argue that it is in fact Paul Dacre who is both arrogant and totally amoral.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
I disagree: Eady rules for whichever party is repersented by his chambers One Brick Court, be it a Nazi whipping prosies, a convicted child molestor who cant appear in person but still manages to win his claim for defamation in the court of Eady, or an MP whose "Wife" received iraq oil money payments. These and others all manage to win their dubious claims, or defend against valid claims, because they have used the services of Eady's chambers One Brick Court. I beleive Eady is in the pocket of One Brick Court and should be sacked.
ReplyDelete