Law Blog War
Charon QC Tweeted this in a Direct Message to me in private because he did not want other readers to see him in a bad light. However, I have no problem exposing him into the spotlight. "I do not take nonsense from anyone - I tried to assist - but you are a behaving in a very unpleasant way - now piss off.... no more favours".
Favour? Hasn't that got the flavour of the Baron at his Court dispensing favours upon his subjects? What he deems a favour is for me to write a blog post as a guest on his blog. Given that it is me who has composed the post, am I not doing him a favour letting him publish my work? I have ownership of the case bearing my name Hirst v UK (No2), that is, it is my property as decided by the Council of Europe. I suspect that Charon QC is engaged in a bit of willy waving as in "My blog is bigger than your blog". If so, in what way? Stats? The Sun has a large readership but does that make it a quality newspaper? Of course it doesn't.
Just why Charon QC is getting so hot under his wig is because I asked him for the right of reply on a podcast he is doing with Carl Gardner. I have established my interest above. Charon QC took exception to my request, trying to rebuff me on the grounds that I had already written on the subject on his blog, and that this was a different subject ie law, and I was only covering the politics side. In addition, he used the old Iain Dale defence of it's my blog I can do as I like. No fool like an old fool. If he could stay sober for long enough he might be funny on the Grumpy Old Men...
Charon QC is a snob. Qualifications maketh the man and all that. I come along formally legally unqualified and beat QCs. In their eyes I am an upstart. In my eyes they are sore losers. Whilst they got their learning from the traditional black letter teaching of the law, I started my own school of thought Prison Law Inside Out. This came about quite simply because lawyers, generally speaking, knowledge of the law stopped at the prison gates. Because "ignorance of the law is no excuse", I set out to teach them a lesson. Judges, politicians, media and public are no wiser.
What Charon QC's attitude shows is that the old enemies; ignorance, prejudice and fear still prevail in our society. This has to be shameful in 2010!
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.
Charon is a kind, helpful man - I speak from personal experience. As far as his podcast is concerned, he can invite who he wants to participate - or not; you have no inalienable right to muscle into whatever takes your eye. He has, clearly, got under your skin or you wouldn't have written this post. John, a bit of well meant advice, take it or not - just because people disagree with you it doesn't make them bad people, it merely means they have a diferring point of view. It also doesn't make them automatically wrong. Charon extended a courtesy to you, which you then abused him for - I suspect you believed, when you accepted his invitation, that you could pontificate without challenge; but that isn't the nature of his blog.
ReplyDeleteYou are not always right - neither am I, but I accept that as a concept. The sooner you do, the sooner you will gain some respect.
I have just picked this up on twitter and read both your post on Charon's website, all the comments on it and all the related tweets (it took rather longer than I had anticipated when I started).
ReplyDeleteAs an observer not caught up in the melee I am astonished at your aggressive approach to this whole thing and your complete lack of perspective and manners. Courtesy costs nothing and it does not weaken your position. You accuse poor Charon of "willy waving" (classy description that) but your choice of scalping as a metaphor for your legal success seems to me to be precisely that. It is also in extremely poor taste and no doubt deliberately provocative to those who are mindful of your own background.
I don't really want to wade into this bunfight but your post on your own blog goes way beyond arguing your case and simply launches into an attack on Charon - with rather unappealing relish. I think you need to reflect on how you come across to other people and ask yourself whether you are doing yourself or your campaign any favours?
Incidentally I agree that prisoners should have the vote. There are many criminal and objectionable people outside prison but I accept their right to vote regardless of those characteristics.
Pam Nash: A formal legal qualification does not make him right. If that was the case I would not have won against so many qualified lawyers.
ReplyDeleteI don't need his favours, I made it on my own.
People have to earn respect not demand it.
John... this is getting boring....
ReplyDeleteI don't mind a laugh... but life is just too short... fight the government.. not other bloggers... you will have your right of reply to podcast in writing - which, frankly, will get more coverage as people prefer to read than listen.
Now stop pissing abart and get on with campaigning and stop fighting the people who actually want to see the UK Govt comply with obligations...
And..scalping is so 19th century !
And..another thing... you are older than I am.... so you get first choice for Grumpy Old Men... as they say... age before beauty....
:-)
Given your comment 'I don't need his favours, I made it on my own' I wonder why you accepted his invitation to guest on his blog?
ReplyDeleteSecondly you say, 'People have to earn respect not demand it'. You are ABSOLUTELY right, carry on.
Charon: I did not say I was not a grumy old man, you simply did not think or say it first.
ReplyDeleteOral hearing is not the same as paper hearing.
I will listen. but if it needs an oral response I hope you will accord me the same right as Carl Gardner? He has written a comment on you blog.
Don't worry, I will brief you on the right questions to ask me :-)
Pam: Because he asked me, and I obliged.
ReplyDeleteRespect in prison terms is put up or shut up. The Court excluded public opinion as counting for nought. I agree. This is between the Individaul v the State. Holding them to account. People who read the Sun and Daily Mail and believe the rabid garbage are sad. But, I will ignore their ignorant views.
Hahaha ! I think I can probably cope with the questions... but I suspect if you do do a podcast you won't need anyone to actually ask the questions....
ReplyDeleteNow.. back in the box and wait and see what the podcast covers! ;-)
"Respect in prison terms is put up or shut up."
ReplyDeleteClearly, you can take the man out of the prison, but...
;)