Bullshit Alert

On Tuesday night's Newsnight, Mark Stephens, a media lawyer, questioned what was the motive for the Attorney General seeking the interim injunction, granted by Mr Justice Wilke, against the BBC on the cash for honours scandal. He opined that it was not a legal reason, because there was not a valid legal reason for applying for it. Therefore, the only other option available is that it was sought for a political motive. It has to be said that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is too corrupt to remain in office. He should tender his resignation, and failing that he should be sacked like any other worker caught with his hands in the till. His conduct displays the behaviour usually associated with the common criminal. A law officer who breaks the law and shows such contempt for the rule of law is clearly not fit for purpose.

In today's Guardian, "Move to gag media was not political, Goldsmith says", by Vickram Dodd, Lord Goldsmith, "insisted he had been acting as a lawyer and not as a politician". This amount of bullshit requires a large shovel to move it out of the way to get at the truth. Mark Stephens, in Tuesday's Timesonline, "Comment: why cash-for-honours injunctions are ludicrous", argued that Goldsmith's move was without legal precedent. That does not prevent someone from pioneering a new path through the jungle. I have done it myself many times with great success. However, take a pinch of salt with the bullshit and it won't taste any better. Because Goldsmith has at least set two precedents where he has taken political as opposed to legal decisions, one was the advice he changed for Tony Blair on the Iraq war, and the other was the decision not to pursue the Saudi deal with the Serious Fraud Office.

Along with Mark Stephens, I question Mr Justice Wilke's judgment. Given that he is unable to give a written explanation how he arrived at his decision, perhaps he should take a rest until he recovers? Harlow and Rawlings have argued that there are red light and green light theorists. The former believe in curbing the excesses of the State, by stopping it dead in its tracks. Whereas the latter believe in allowing the State to trample all over our civil liberties. Mrs Justice Swift by removing the injunction not only applied common sense, but also applied established legal principles to the case. For justice to not only be seen to be done but manifestly seen to be done, it requires Mr Justice Wilkes to make a public statement to justify his reasoning or we can safely assume that he has lost his sense of reasoning in which case he is not fit for purpose and should stand down or be removed from judicial office.

The place for manure is on a compost heap or on the garden. Not in the Attorney General's office and sitting in the High Court of Justice.

The Temple of Truth - The butterfly effect...

Some years ago, I wrote a poem entitled The Temple of Truth. It is situated at the crossroads. We are at a political crossroad now. It is a matter of public record which political direction I cast my vote at the last General Election. It is mentioned in Hansard, my local MP, Diana Johnson referred to it in her maiden speech. I thought long and hard before casting it. I even told Diana Johnson that I was bothered about the Iraq Question. But, I was also bothered about the damage caused by Thatcherism. Diana Johnson MP got my vote on the strength of her predecessor, Kevin MacNamarra, and a link going back to the Special Unit in HM Prison Hull.

Tony Blair took a gamble backing George W. Bush, and lost. He gambled on winning over the UN Security Council, and lost. He gambled on winning over the country, and lost. He threw it all away, this remains his legacy. Power is a wonderful thing, it can also be dangerous if used for the wrong reason and ends up backfiring.

Hands up all those in the House of Lords who bought their seats? Come on, don't be shy. It is a good thing to be honoured. But, to receive a honour for the right reason. Some years ago, someone I know was in a position to help me. But, then, he was cautioned that to do so might cost him his prospective MBE. He felt honoured by this award, but he knows and I know that it was gained at the price of human suffering. I am a poor man, but the promise that he would leave me some money in his will was no consolation. I had trusted him, and the selling me down the river was the real value. This is now on his conscience.

In prison, when you get 3 in a cell, personal experience has shown me that two gang up on the other. I call this the vicious triangle. It's not going to happen, but try and imagine what it would be like with Tony Blair, Lord Levy and Ruth Turner sharing a cell designed for one?

It is ironic that each Chief Inspector of Prisons has been chosen in the belief that he or she would turn a blind eye. Instead, it opened their eyes. If this was the purpose of appointing Commander Yates of the Yard to the cash for honours inquiry, instead of him turning a Nelsonian blind eye, they both boggled like Marty Feldman's at what he saw!

What is amazing is that, the political leader of the country lives at Number Ten Downing Street and Tony Blair was not aware of what was happening until the News At Ten on BBC1! We already know that Iain Dale's Diary is compulsory reading for politicians, let alone for those in the media, and Iain posted a short piece at 7.01pm, and he is 3,000 miles away in America. How much closer to Lord Goldsmith is Tony Blair? Of course, his good friend, suddenly becomes public spirited and says nowt! LOL. Where was this independence when it mattered most, on the advice that it was illegal to go to war with Iraq? So independent that he changed it to suit Tony Blair's plan to go to war anyway. And, what happened to the public interest then? We did not matter, we are all stupid, we would buy anything, even a dodgy dossier. Wrong! Besides, I already know that Lord Falconer is psychic. For example, he was telling the World At One what the judgment in the prisoners votes case was before the European Court of Human Rights had published it! All of a sudden his crystal ball had got cloudy? He was rendered speechless?

True, there have been occasions in the past when the media have published information which prejudiced a fair trial. However, in this case the public already know that seats in the House of Lords and Knighthoods have been sold. All the BBC sought to do was bring the public up to scratch with a recent development. The public have learned that truth no longer emanates from Number Ten, and hasn't since the time that bowler tampered with the cricket ball to deliver his brand of spin. We now have the absurd situation where Tony Blair is parodying Rory Bremner mimicing Tony Blair! The hands start to sleight, the eyes go to the left, the tongue licks the lips. One Foot in the Grave, springs to mind, "I don't believe it!". Do you? Peter and the Wolf also springs to mind.

Lord Chief Justice Woolf would have made a good Lord Chancellor. He has made a couple of decisions in court that I would question. But, anybody can make a mistake or two. I do not believe that he is corrupt. His appointment would have been on merit as opposed to the job going to a Tony Crony. This nepotism only leads to corruption.

A problem with the High Court "Protect the poor, defend the weak", in relation to Judicial Review, and it stems from a prison law case, following the Hull Prison riot in 1976, is that if anyone now wants to attack a public decision-maker, they must first seek permission from a judge to proceed. Whereas, in the US, any citizen can take the matter straight into court and the public authority has to defend the action. What can happen over here is that a judge acts as a goalkeeper for the government. That is, he or she reaches a political rather than a judicial decision. I am not saying that that is what the judge did in granting an injunction in this case. But, there is a legal principle and that is: "Not only must justice be done, it must manifestly be seen to be done". What was missing in this case, the public was excluded. Therefore, how can they see justice being done?

Part of democracy, is having a free press and an independent Judiciary. What have the government got to hide from us this time? The public need to scrutinise this very carefully, be very vigilant, and seek the accountability that the government has promised but failed to deliver on.