The reforms of the Family Court unveiled today by Mr Justice Ryder are likely to be a case of re-arranging the deckchairs:-
Inquisitorial judges at heart of family reform proposals Tuesday 31 July 2012 by Catherine Baksi
The longstanding problems with the Family Court will never change until control over the Court and its cases is taken out of the hands of Judges appointed from the English Bar and out of the control or influence of their colleagues at the English Bar.
The Family Court has a reputation amongst the public, practitioners, politicians, expert witnesses and journalists for administering injustice. Ryder reform plans will likely not bring about change to that reputation.
We need a new system to break up the incestuous organic and social relationships behind the English Bar’s system of Barristers’ Chambers and appointments to the Judiciary – mainly from its own members.
There is an unhealthy relationship between the Judges, predominantly from the English Bar and their friends and former colleagues at the Bar who appear before them. They in practice control most of what takes place. The problems with the Family Court are systemic and organic. So it is unlikely any judge appointed to deal with the problems will ever go to the heart of the matter.
The Family Court is and will continue to be a Court whose Judges fail to observe basic principles of procedural fairness and justice. The long abandonment of pleadings means issues are introduced on spec in Court instead of being defined in advance. Litigants can be and are taken by surprise and faced with a litany of invention and accusation introduced “on spec” during the course of a case which they have to try to answer and when least fitted psychologically to do so.
This is at the culmination of a long process during which they have been softened up by unpalatable conduct of some lawyers and when they have been are subjected to considerable stress, not knowing what invention and accusation they may face at the next hearing before the trial.
The position is compounded by the Judges of the Family Court who appear to do nothing whatsoever about improper litigation conduct by the lawyers who appear before them as Officers of the Court and who may be their former colleagues, current friends and social peers.
It is a Court system which rewards the wrongdoer and punishes the victim. Those of the lawyers who fail to observe accepted standards of conduct in Family Court cases and routinely act in contravention of their obligations to the Court and under the rules of Court go undealt with, save to the extent they are rewarded with the outcome they seek by such conduct.
The worst aspects of course are when it comes to children and the false evidence presented by social workers from some local authorities and the consequent cases which some members of the English Bar present. There has long been complaint about these abuses and nothing has been done. Ryder will never address that. The litigants cannot do it – it is the lawyers who do it for them and the Judges who make it all happen. And the Judges just let it go on day in and day out.
The Family Court thus operates and maintains a Cheats Charter. Under the auspices of the Court wrongdoers who play the system and break the rules are rewarded and victims of that wrongdoing punished. The Judges do nothing about sometimes rampant impropriety taking place daily within the walls of their Courts and even under their noses. And nor do other members of the English Bar despite it being their duty to report it.
Regrettably of course it is a self-perpetuating system in that those members of the Bar who do operate unscrupulously and unlawfully may eventually be recruited to the ranks of the judiciary. Not all members of the English Bar behave improperly and likely many or most do not, but one too many do and they are allowed to get away scot free by their colleagues and Judges alike. The public as always pay the price and the lawyers collect.
We could clean up litigation in this country in six months if improper conduct were to be dealt with at source at the time in the Court. With the current social and other relationships between Judges and the English Bar that will of course never happen.
We can see from the report in the Gazette yesterday that the claimed high ethical standards of the English Bar are a myth, which go unpoliced by any effective system of regulation:-
“Review slams ‘systemic failures’ in bar’s disciplinary system” Monday 30 July 2012 by Catherine Baksi
Solicitor Judges and Solicitor Advocates are a step forward in breaking up this cosy insidious cartel in British justice controlled by Judges appointed predominantly from the English Bar and by the Bar. But that is hardly even a pin-prick on the carbunkel.
The Bar Council better start looking at its own ranks before it has any standing to attack the only relatively recent phenomenon of Solicitor Advocates.
July 16, 2012
The pictures here are of road closures signs officially placed in London for the 2012 Olympics saying “Ha Ha Road Closed”. Olympic Road Closures took effect from today. These signs were last week at a junction near the The Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich South-East London which is hosting Shooting, Paralympic Shooting, and Paralympic Archery at the London 2012 Summer Olympics.
Road closures will cause significant traffic disruption for Londoners. Last week similar pictures were touted to The Sun and Daily Mirror newspapers but were not published. By today the signs have gone – no doubt someone realised the potential public relations impact.
Click on the pictures to seen an enlarged version in a new window.
More information on road closures can be found on Get Ahead of The Games website.
March 28, 2012
Not even the fictional CSI Captain James (Jim) Brass (Paul Guilfoyle) of the Homicide Division who works with the CSI team and Dr. Gilbert “Gil” Grissom, (Ph.D.) the fictional star character of the original CBS crime drama CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, have done anything like this in less than 24 hours in one of the shows in the successful and popular US TV series, screened also on UK TV screens.
Late last night in a London residential area, acting on detailed information received of a suspected burglary involving the suspected theft of electronic equipment from a London residence, New Scotland Yard’s emergency call centre responded rapidly to calls with the despatch of Metropolitan Police officers in three patrol cars with uniformed officers to seek out the fleeing suspects.
With the assistance of information from the public, and despite rapid flight in the dark of the night and cunning and evasive tactics by the suspects to avoid detection and CCTV, the officers executed one or more arrests of suspect(s) within hours and were processing the paperwork for the case within much less than 12 hours!!
Well done Old Bill. Smart work.
And US CSI scriptwriters, you really must beef up your scripts. Mr Plod over here and Inspector Knacker of the Yard are ancient history. Even your fictional TV crimefighters are not as quick off the mark as the real thing over here. Maybe you should start watching the UK TV series “The Bill” to pick up a few tips from Sun Hill police station, in the fictional “Canley Borough Operational Command Unit” in East London. Ha!!
This blog is making no suggestion that any apprehended suspect is a perpetrator of the suspected burglary. Innocence is presumed until the contrary is proven to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
No further details can be or will be provided. Sorry folks. You’ll just have to read about it in the papers [maybe] one day, if at all. That is up to “Old Bill’s” press office or a lucky local journalist being in the right Court on the right day, if charges are brought and pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service.
POSTSCRIPT 2/Apr/2012: The case was in the local magistrates Court on the Thursday morning. Tuesday night to in Court on Thursday morning must be something of a record for a burglary?
THIS POST WAS MADE IN 2012 AND HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE THEN – HOWEVER THE LAW IS NOT THE SAME IN EVERY COUNTRY AND IT DOES CHANGE SO DO NOT ASSUME THIS STATES WHAT THE LAW IS WHEN YOU READ IT.
If you thought it was OK to display an image on your blog or website which you have never copied but include by including a weblink to the image on someone else’s website [embedding] then think again. You could be made liable for damages for copyright infringement.
At least that is the case in Germany today according to the Dusseldorf Court of Appeal [8 October 2011, I-20 U 42/11]. Embedding content now appears to be copyright infringement by making the content available to the public on your website even though you have never taken and kept a copy of the image yourself and even though the image is never “physically” part of your website. The Dusseldorf appeal court overruled the lower Court of First Instance.
The Defendant in the case had included links on his blog to two photographs which appeared on the Claimant’s website. No prior permission had been sought or obtained.
This is a completely different case from that of simply including a link on your blog or website to content which only appears on the site to which you link. Mere linking is not, in Germany, copyright infringement but obviously the person viewing cannot view the linked content on your site or blog but must follow the link to the original site to do so.
January 26, 2012
If you want to avoid problems with your money and bank accounts, the message has to be “don’t use Direct Debits and don’t let anyone, not even a company you think is reputable, have your bank account details and don’t trust your bank to be honest“. It is clear that as automated payments go, Standing Order is by far the safer bet where you have full control over what is paid out of your bank account.
And does this also sound far-fetched:
National Westminster Bank plc, in particular, part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group of banks encourages Direct Debit scams and enables fraudsters to take money out of your bank account with non-existent Direct Debits. And when the problem occurs they do nothing to prevent a recurrence. NatWest appears to have no anti-fraud measures regarding Direct Debits and appear to care even less about this problem.
In fact it is not far-fetched and has been going on for a number of years. The problem of Direct Debit fraud is extensive according to research by Liverpool Victoria Insurance which reveals that over 97,000 Britons have fallen victim to criminals setting up fraudulent direct debits from their accounts. An average of £540 goes missing before the customer notices. Direct debit payment fraud in 2010 accounted for around 10.6% of all identity fraud cases. The extent of Direct Debit scamming is set to grow to 41,000 cases a year by 2013, equating to a 57% rise.
But that is only part of the problem. And it is not just “criminals” but what many decades ago might have been considered “reputable” organisations.
It appears that if you have issued a genuine Direct Debit instruction which is later cancelled – so that there is no longer any Direct Debit – money can be and is being taken from bank accounts just like yours under the non-existent Direct Debit.
The research shows that in 2009 £385 million was taken from customers’ bank accounts with obsolete Direct Debits. For those customers who find out, it takes them on average four months to notice and its cost around £190 each time.
No figures or estimates were provided for what this costs customers who do not notice. However, it is clear there is substantial number of people losing considerable amounts of money annually because the obsolete Direct Debit is neither noticed nor recovered.
So how can you not notice? Only one in five customers (21%) confirmed they check their balance once a month. The average customer who does notice takes 4 months to do so. For cases where the loss is noticed but accounts are not checked monthly they lose 10% more [£611 compared to £540 for those who check their bank statements at least once a month].
Another reason this is not noticed by consumers is that some Direct Debits are annual and for small amounts which do not get picked up and corrected.
And is that the end of the problem. No chance. When you contact the bank they will tell you you must contact the company who took the money out of your account to agree cancellation of the Direct Debit before you can get a refund. That is wholly untrue. The express terms of the Direct Debit scheme are that you only need to contact your bank to cancel the Direct Debit. Once it is cancelled it legally no longer exists – there ceases to be a valid Direct Debit. You only need to contact your bank and no one else. The binding legal contractual provision binding on all parties provides:-
…… If an error is made in the payment of your Direct Debit, by …… your bank or building society you are entitled to a full and immediate refund of the amount paid from your bank or building society. ……..
You can cancel a Direct Debit at any time by simply contacting your bank or building society. Written confirmation may be required. Please also notify us.”
And is that the end of the problem? No chance. That previously annual now non-existent cancelled Direct Debit for £85.00 can still be used to take money out of your bank account for years to come or even sporadically some years and not others. It is a crooked company’s dream. If they do this and it is not noticed they gain. If it is noticed you get your money back after your time is wasted but the same company can do the same thing next year and the next and the next.
And is that the end of the problem? No chance. In the case of NatWest they do not even check to ensure there is any Direct Debit at all before taking the money out of your account. The UK’s National Westminster Bank plc, part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group of banks may not be the only bank which is encouraging Direct Debit fraud but it is one where it is now clear there are no controls against anyone setting up Direct Debits on your NatWest account nor against repeatedly doing so.
Here is what happened to a NatWest business customer in Wales:-
Snowdonia Tourist Services hit by fraudsters by Dan Beavan, Daily Post Apr 27 2009
A TOURISM agency lost hundreds of pounds after fraudsters set up fake direct debits to take cash from its accounts. ….. Hefin and Marian Williams and their daughter Gwen Thomas, 48, were shocked someone had managed to set up the fake direct debits …. they say they’ve been let down by the authorities and have been left with no protection against the same thing happening again …..
Angry Gwen said: “It would appear anyone can do this without us authorising it. If I want to speak to my bank I have to answer eight questions, yet they let just anyone set up direct debits on our account. If you notice an odd direct debit and ask the bank to explain, you’re given the phone number of the company to start sorting it out yourself. Once you’ve convinced that company that you’ve not set up the direct debit, you have to phone the bank back to arrange an indemnity refund. After noticing a number of fraudulent debits on their account this month and last, Gwen said NatWest told her she “shouldn’t worry” because they were protected by indemnity. Gwen said: “But that’s if you notice someone has taken money in the first place.” She’s asked the bank not to allow any direct debits on their account – but the bank said it couldn’t.
A NatWest spokesman said: “ …. It’s not our practice to advise customers when a new direct debit is set up ….”
The writer of this blog item has banked with NatWest for some years and has direct experience of this problem. Every year for over 8 years NatWest has been allowing an organisation to take money out of a business account with a non-existent Direct Debit. It may only be a small amount of money but it is only picked up because of accounting procedures and it takes time every year to sort out – and time is money.
The overall problem of course is the steady and continuing erosion of ethical behaviour in leading financial and governmental institutions. If the Board Directors of RBS or NatWest or their children or other relatives become the victims of crime or do not like rioting and looting like that seen recently on London’s streets, they are in no position to complain. They are setting the moral and ethical standards and the ethos which others copy in one way or another.
September 28, 2011
New peer reviewed papers published today Wednesday September 28th 2011 in the International Journal of Person Centered Medicine reveal Evidence-Based Medicine [EBM], the reigning medical paradigm for the practice of modern medicine for the past 30 years, as an inevitable failure from its inception and that the “Gold Standard” of evidence in modern medicine, randomised controlled trials [RCTs] as currently practised should be abandoned. The irony of EBM’s failure is that its proponents over the past 30 years simultaneously claimed the scientific high ground whilst having failed to adopt a scientific approach to EBM’s foundations. EBM is fatally philosophically wounded.
Penston, J (2011). “The Irrelevance of Statistics-Based Research to Individual Patients”, The International Journal of Person Centered Medicine 1, 2, 240-249.
Miller, CG; Miller, DW “The Real World Failure of Evidence-Based Medicine” IJPCM 2011 1,2 295-300
The second of the above cited papers is by Clifford Miller and Professor Donald Miller. It asks whether EBM “may have to be consigned to the wastebasket of medical mistakes, alongside bleeding people in the 17th and 18th centuries and treating syphilis with mercury in the 19th and early 20th centuries”.
This puts in question the reliability of the formal medical journal published evidence base underpinning modern medical research and practice. The impact is on medicine and its practice is at every level internationally. Evidence-Based Medicine was doomed from its inception, lacking logical, scientific and theoretical foundations. Large scale RCTs are used universally to prove the safety and efficacy of new drugs but commonly used to claim “small” treatment effects. This means in that in the majority of recipients, the drugs are shown to have no effect. In only small numbers are effects claimed and those claims are shown now to be based on flawed premises where even the claimed effect may not exist.
Randomised controlled trials and epidemiological studies provide the grounds for much of clinical medicine and consequently affect the lives of millions of patients around the world. But this statistics-based research offers little to individual patients.
The ability to generalise the results of these studies to the wider population of patients is unsuccessful. External validity is brought into question by the selection involved in the recruitment process and in the participation in clinical trials. Thus, we cannot know with any confidence to whom the results apply and this has obvious implications for individual patients. Yet, there is a further problem: conventional statistical analysis involves the frequentist approach which entails that probabilities only apply to classes. Hence, the results of this type of research are not strictly applicable to individuals.
But even if we set aside the difficulties associated with external validity, there is a more important problem which relates to the size of the treatment effect. Large-scale studies entail that any treatment effect detected will be very small. While this is often hidden by the use of relative risk reductions, once the absolute treatment difference is presented, the paltry size of the benefit becomes clear. This has little importance or relevance to the lives of individual patients and, as is argued, has doubtful meaning.
Current medical practice encourages patients’ participation in decisions regarding their care and this includes providing them with sufficient information to enable them to make informed choices about their treatment. However, were they to be told about the problems with external validity and the true size of the benefit – not to mention the many other problems with statistics-based research – it is likely that far fewer would accept treatment than is currently the case.
Further reference may be had to the recent book by British NHS medical doctor Dr James Penston “Stats.con – How we’ve been fooled by statistics-based research in medicine.” The London Press. London, November 2010.
As a way to make medical decisions, Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) has failed. EBM’s failure arises from not being founded on real-world decision-making. EBM aspires to a scientific standard for the best way to treat a disease and determine its cause, but it fails to recognise that the scientific method is inapplicable to medical and other real-world decision-making. EBM also wrongly assumes that evidence can be marshaled and applied according to an hierarchy that is determined in an argument by authority to the method by which it has been obtained. If EBM had valid theoretical, practical or empirical foundations, there would be no hierarchy of evidence. In all real-world decision-making, evidence stands or falls on its inherent reliability. This has to be and can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis applying understanding and wisdom against the background of all available facts—the “factual matrix.” EBM’s failure is structural and was inevitable from its inception. EBM confuses the inherent reliability and probative value of evidence with the means by which it is obtained.
EBM is therefore an ad hoc construct and is not a valid basis for medical decision-making. This is further demonstrated by its exclusion of relevant scientific and probative real-world decision-making evidence and processes. It draws upon a narrow evidence base that is itself inherently unreliable. It fails to take adequate account of the nature of causation, the full range of evidence relevant to its determination, and differing approaches to determining cause and effect in real-world decision-making. EBM also makes a muddled attempt to emulate the scientific method and it does not acknowledge the role of experience, understanding and wisdom in making medical decisions.
A recent English Supreme Court decision on copyright in Star Wars merchandise spells bad news for George Lucas and his Lucasfilm companies: Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor  UKSC 39 (27 July 2011)
British based Andrew Ainsworth was making and selling copies of the distinctive body armour costumes of the Imperial Stormtroopers used in the highly successful Star Wars films. Between 1974 and 1976 Ainsworth was one of the original creators, responsible for the injection mouldings for the costumes when Mr Lucas had come to live in England while the first Star Wars film was made [at Elstree Studios, Elstree on the outskirts of London (there was also filming on location in Tunisia)].
Lucasfilm however own the intellectual property rights in the designs.
Mr Ainsworth later sold to some customers in the United States costumes that he made in England. In 2005 Lucasfilm sued Mr Ainsworth in the United States District Court, Central District of California, and in 2006 it obtained a default judgment for $20m, $10m of which represented triple damages under the Lanham Act. A “default judgement” is one where the defendant takes no part in the proceedings. The whole judgment remains unsatisfied. Ainsworth is unlikely to be visiting the USA in the near future no doubt. It is also difficult if not impossible to enforce a US judgement in an English Court and vice versa. So Lucasfilm also commenced proceedings in the Chancery Division of the English High Court.
The case was appealed to the English Supreme Court. The only way Lucasfilm could squeeze a copyright infringement claim into an English Court was to claim the costumes were copies of an artistic work and the only artistic work in English copyright law they could try to rely on was a “sculpture”.
The Supreme Court rejected the contention that the original designs for the costumes were sculptures.
George Lucas’ concept of the Imperial Stormtroopers as threatening characters in “fascist white-armoured suits” was given visual expression in drawings and paintings by an artist, Mr Ralph McQuarrie, and three-dimensional form by Mr Nick Pemberton (a freelance scenic artist and prop-maker) and Mr Andrew Ainsworth (who is skilled in vacuum-moulding in plastic). Mr Pemberton made a clay model of the helmet, which was adapted several times until Mr Lucas was happy with it. Mr Ainsworth produced several prototype vacuum-moulded helmets. Once Mr Lucas had approved the final version Mr Ainsworth made 50 helmets for use in the film. These events all took place in England between 1974 and 1976.
The Supreme Court upheld Lucasfilm’s contention that they could sue in England for copyright infringement under US copyright law for sales in the USA.
So it looks like Ainsworth can carry on making and selling the Stormtrooper body armour costumes as long as he does not sell into the USA or any country with copyright law which might prevent such sales. As the US judgement was a default judgement, it is not established between these parties in a contested case that making and selling the costumes in the USA is infringement either. [So if a US lawyer would like to comment here they are more than welcome].
That part of the judgement is of little use to Lucasfilm in any event and is a Pyrrhic victory.
Ainsworth sold goods to the value of US $8,000 but not more than US $30,000 which is hardly worth bothering with in comparison to the publicity generated for Lucasfilm’s lack of ability to prevent copying of the Star Wars Stormtrooper white body armour in the UK and some other countries.
So it looks like the floodgates might be opened up to cheap copies for some kinds of merchandise from blockbuster Hollywood films [as long as no patent or design protection laws apply instead of copyright]. Be warned though. This does not mean registered trademarks can be used – like “Star Wars” to describe the copy products. And be careful. Just in case any other Star Wars merchandise did start out life as something which does qualify as a “sculpture”.