Super Injunctions

Posted on May 23, 2011 by simon

Super injunctions what are they for? Of the little we know about super injunctions we’ve had Fred “The Shred” Goodwin taking a super injunction that stopped him being referred to as a banker, then we’ve a footballer who’s had an affair with Imogen Thomas – personally I’ve little interest in the latter – and surely it comes as no surprise that too many footballers cheat on their wives and girlfriends.

The first one though is of much greater interest what does Fred Goodwin’s super injunction cover besides the inability to refer to him as a banker?

The very secrecy of super injunctions is their very problem. You can’t legally mention that one’s been taken out or what it might be for.

I find this secrecy very worrying particularly if you consider we’ve no idea how many super injunctions are in force or what they cover

As for footballers who really cares about their sex lives? I guess from the circulation figures for the red tops a lot of people. But if a player’s daft enough to have an affair why should the other person involved be unable to name them? Have footballers no concept of consequences?

You know Super injunctions are there to protect the rich from the poor.

Fred the Shred He’s No Banker

Posted on May 19, 2011 by simon

Sir Fred Gordon who earned the nickname Fred the Shred for his ruthless approach to cost savings when in charge at the Clydesdale Bank, Sir Fred is notorious for being the man who almost brought down the Royal Bank of Scotland. Which leads to the question how can he obtain a superinjunction that prevented him from being identified as a banker?

The wide-ranging gagging order – which prevented Goodwin from being identified as a banker – was brought up by Lord Stoneham, a Liberal Democrat peer, during a debate in the House of Lords. Stoneham’s comments are protected by parliamentary privilege.

Goodwin’s superinjunction was first made public during a House of Commons debate in March. However, there have been no claims about the subject matter of the injunction until now. Josh Halliday, The Guardian.

The law is at best an ass.

Beware What You Say on Twitter

Posted on November 12, 2010 by simon

Whatever I think of Twitter – and I’m not a fan – although this week I have succumbed and joined – Paul Chambers was convicted and fined nearly £400 and order to pay costs of £2,600 for tweeting this:

“Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!” BBC.

Now haven’t we all said something similar? Of course I wouldn’t repeat anything in writing or rather type as I’d be liable for a fine – the people who decided on this ridiculous prosecution should be… we’ll I’ll say no more otherwise I’ll definitely find myself in court.

Guess How Many Terrorists Where Caught Using the Stop and Search Powers of Section 44 of the Counter-Terrorism Act?

Posted on October 28, 2010 by simon

Absolutely none out of 101, 248 searches – I have to agree with Davis Davis.

“This astonishing fact of no terrorism-related arrests, let alone prosecutions or convictions, in over 100,000 stop and searches, demonstrates what a massively counter-productive policy this is”.

“A policy which fuels resentment and antagonism amongst minority communities without achieving a single terrorist conviction serves only to help our enemies and increase the terrorism threat.” The Guardian.

For those of you who don’t know:

Section 44 enables the police and the Home Secretary to define any area in the country as well as a time period wherein they could stop and search any vehicle or person, and seize “articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism”. Unlike other stop and search powers that the police can use, Section 44 does not require the police to have “reasonable suspicion” that an offence has been committed, to search an individual. Wikipedia.

Asil Nadir to Get off Scott Free

Posted on August 28, 2010 by simon

Fears were growing in legal circles that it might prove impossible to try Asil Nadir on the multiple fraud allegations that followed the collapse of his Polly Peck Empire 20 years ago.

A lengthy jury trial of the 69-year-old would be a “prosecutorial nightmare” unprecedented in the history of the Serious Fraud Office, legal experts with knowledge of the case warned.

They suggested that there is a strong likelihood that the court would be persuaded by Nadir’s lawyers to throw the case out on the grounds that too much time had lapsed. They also warned that crucial documents may have been lost. Rumours have been circulating that some computer records have been corrupted.

Returning to Britain in a blaze of publicity, Nadir repeated claims that he is battling an “immense injustice and tremendous abuse of power”. His lawyers are expected to stress the practical challenges of undertaking a trial after so long. Simon Bowers, The Guardian.

These fears will turn out to be reality, why otherwise would the odious Nadir return – the real injustice is that a wealthy fraudsters skips the country and then returns a few decades later with the expectation he won’t even face a trial.

Rape Defendants Anonymity Dropped

Posted on July 26, 2010 by simon

The Ministry of Justice has confirmed that the law will not be changed to grant anonymity to men accused of rape in England and Wales. BBC.

The courts don’t offer anonymity for other crimes – why should rape be different? Thankfully it isn’t to be although

The government now says it will put pressure on media outlets not to name suspects instead. BBC.

I’m not sure what is meant by pressure – I suspect it’s nothing more tjhan the Con-Dem’s attempting to save face.

Thousand Pound for a Tweet

Posted on May 12, 2010 by simon

I’m not a fan of Twitter, that’s in case you didn’t realise however should this Tweet get you a £1,000 fine?

Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high! Paul Chambers.

In case you didn’t know Robin Hood airport is in Doncaster. Chambers was found guilty under the communications act for the offence of sending a menacing message and ordered to pay £1,000 in fines and legal costs. Absolutely ridiculous – be careful what you write on the net.

Religious Bigotry Triumphs over Equality Laws

Posted on March 17, 2010 by simon

A Catholic adoption society today won the right in the high court not to consider homosexual couples as parents.

Mr Justice Briggs, sitting in London, has allowed the society’s appeal for an exemption from the sexual orientation regulations – opposed by the Charity Commission – which means the society can continue operating as it has always done.

Catholic Care, serving the dioceses of Leeds, Middlesbrough and Hallam in South Yorkshire, warned it would give up its work of finding homes for children – as many Catholic adoption societies have already done – rather than comply with the legislation.

Mr Justice Briggs has ordered the Charity Commission to reconsider its opposition to the society’s operation. Maev Kennedy, The Guardian.

Where will it stop? What other bigoted religious beliefs are we to allow?

Not the World’s Worst Tennis Pro!

Posted on February 25, 2010 by simon

A young British man described as “the world’s worst tennis pro” appeared at the high court in London to sue the Daily Telegraph for ruining his professional reputation.

Robert Dee, 23, from Bexley in Kent, has already secured more than 30 apologies and tens of thousands of pounds in damages from media organisations that made similarly disparaging allegations about his sporting prowess.

But the Telegraph refused to back down over two articles on the front page and in the sports section on 23 April 2008 under the headlines “World’s worst tennis pro wins at last” and “A British sensation – the world’s worst”. The newspaper is ready to call high-profile witnesses, including Boris Becker and John Lloyd, the former British No 1 who is now captain of the Great Britain Davis Cup team.

The offending stories said Dee did not win a single match during his first three years on the professional circuit but finally ended this “dismal run” by beating an unranked 17-year-old in Spain in April 2008. One article, claiming Dee had lost 54 matches in a row, compared him to the ski jumper Eddie “the Eagle” Edwards and Eric the Eel, the Equatorial Guinea swimmer who struggled at the Sydney Olympics in 2000. Helen Pidd, The Guardian.

Personally I don’t have the slightest interest in tennis and even less in the scummy rag that is the Daily Telegraph – what concerns me is that you can libel a player with such an appalling record by calling him the worlds worst tennis pro – which ever way you look at it Dee’s professional record isn’t something a young player aspires to – another example of our countries ridiculous libel laws.

Libel Reform

Posted on February 11, 2010 by simon

It must be the week for petitions on Tuesday I received an email asking me to sign a petition against legislation before Uganda’s parliament that punishes gays with prison and death – which I signed.

Today I received an email from Simon Singh who is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association for an article he published in The Guardian – if you look for the article on the newspapers website you won’t find it at best you’ll receive the message Sorry – we haven’t been able to serve the page you asked for. I’ve republished the original article at the end of this post along with a list of websites publishing the article and here’s the text of Simon Singh’s email.

I’ve had an idea – an unusual idea, but I think it might just work.

As you know, England’s chilling libel laws need to be reformed. One way to help achieve this is for 100,000 people to sign the petition for libel reform before the political parties write their manifestos for the election. We have 17,000 signatures, but we really need 100,000, and we need your help to get there.

www.libelreform.org/sign

My Idea

My idea is simple: if everyone who has already signed up persuades just one more person each week to sign the petition then we will reach our goal within a month!

One person per week is all we need, but please spread the word as much as you can. In fact, if you persuade 10 people to sign up then email me (simon@simonsingh.net) and I promise to thank you by printing your name in my next book … which I will start writing as soon as I have put my own libel case behind me. I cannot say when this will be, but it is a very real promise. My only caveat is that I will limit this to the first thousand people who recruit ten supporters.

When persuading your friends remember to tell them:

(a) English libel laws have been condemned by the UN Human Rights Committee.

(b) These laws gag scientists, bloggers and journalists who want to discuss matters of genuine public interest (and public health!).

(c) Our laws give rise to libel tourism, whereby the rich and the powerful (Saudi billionaires, Russian oligarchs and overseas corporations) come to London to sue writers because English libel laws are so hostile to responsible journalism. (In fact, it is exactly because English libel laws have this global impact that we welcome signatories to the petition from around the world.)

(d) Vested interests can use their resources to bully and intimidate those who seek to question them. The cost of a libel trial in England is 100 times more expensive than the European average and typically runs to over £1 million.

(e) Three separate ongoing libel cases involve myself and two medical researchers raising concerns about three medical treatments. We face losing £1 million each. In future, why would anyone else raise similar concerns? If these health matters are not reported, then the public is put at risk.

My experience has been sobering. I’ve had to spend £100,000 to defend my writing and have put my life on hold for almost two years. However, the prospect of reforming our libel laws keeps me cheerful.

Thanks so much for your support. We’ve only got one shot at this – so I hope you can persuade 1 (or maybe 10) friends, family and colleagues to sign.

www.libelreform.org/sign

Simon Singh

I’m never sure how much influence a petition has but it only take a few seconds to complete so what have you got to lose – also you can email your MP, so sign the petition and email your MP!

Beware the spinal trap – Republished

This is Chiropractic Awareness Week. So let’s be aware. How about some awareness that may prevent harm and help you make truly informed choices? First, you might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that, “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.
You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.

I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Professor Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

Bearing all of this in mind, I will leave you with one message for Chiropractic Awareness Week – if spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

About this article: This article appeared in the Guardian on Saturday April 19 2008 on p26 of the Comment & debate section.

Source: Svetlana Pertsovich.

Or here’s a copy of the printed version – click to enlarge: