BBC v Trafigura
Right now down in Court 13 the BBC is trying to overturn Trafigura’s injunction. Justice Eady is a menace to freedom. He seems to have confused the role of judge with lawmaker. We make laws in parliament not from the bench.
Another Twittish Tweet from Kerry McCarthy | BBC
What’s the Point of Our Anti-Business Secretary? | Ruth Porter
HuffPo Hiring Pro-Iranian Mehdi “Act of Desperation” | Fox News
Krugman is Seductive, Simplistic and Unrealistic | Jeremy Warner
Lower Taxes, Higher Growth, the Statistical Evidence | CPS
Bash the Unions, Gatecrash the Quangos | ConservativeHome
I Told You So: Euro is Doomed | Douglas Carswell
PM Speaks for the Nation When Bashing Balls | Quentin Letts
Time for an Alliance | Dan Hannan
Farage’s Plan | ConservativeHome
Guardian Open News is a Failure | Heather Brooke
Balls Calls for Deeper Cuts | Speccie
Lessons from the Thirties | CPS
PMQs Idiots | Harry Cole
Jon Cruddas is Not the Messiah | Dan Hodges
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Lord Lamont told ITV News…
“I think the PM is just human and Ed Balls is a pretty irritating person”
Do you mean this Trafigura?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura
The freedom of the press is at stake here, good luck to the BBC, I don’t often say that….
If the BBC is really fighting for the freedom of the press why have they not covered this on their website?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Search Trafigura..No mention of the court case.
The Guardian are running with it though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/17/trafigura-bbc-libel-case-decision
Because they are injuncted.
Aren’t you in breach of the super injunction by reporting that the super injunction is being challenged?
No, That would have to be a super duper injunctiomn
and you’d have crossed your heart and hoped to die as well.
Not these days we don’t.
Since the lefties politicised the judiciary they now think they can make law from the bench.
They can – it’s called the common law Throbber and has been around since the Middle Ages
Judge made law – it’s our history and perfectly normal, if wrong sometimes
if Parliament doesn’t like it they can change the law. Simples
…and judging by Parliament’s recent efforts we cannot be any worse off.
No-one who has been appointed to any legal position in the last ten years can be trusted to make laws.
Who needs law, just a little amendment by Peter Mandelson in his crooked Digital Economy bill and you can get a New Labour minister to get the UK’s internet providers to block ANY website on the ministers say so, no overview by parliament or a judge or the press. Upset New Labour and your website is history! A true police state the UK has become.
Section 11, 124H
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.13-19.html#j158
O/T Threads cxoming thick and fast this morning. But as refered to earlier AGW explained on BBC. Discussion over.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm
She’s the Desmond Tutu of the Climate Church.
And Prince “fly everywhere” Charles for Pope
But in the Earth’s atmosphere we are talking CO2 parts per million in her bottle it’s full of CO2. She rightly goes on to say that water vapour is a greenhouse gas..in reality it is THE greenhouse gas…should we dry up all the Oceans? And how will Hydrogen cars reduce greenhouse gas emissions when their exhaust is THE greenhouse gas?
“We make laws in parliament not from the bench.”
Guido, that’s not actually right. The whole point is that we have a common law system and where a matter is not addressed in statute or by binding precedent (called a “matter of first impression”), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent. Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts.
I always thought that judges interpreted statute
No – because not all matters are covered by statute. E.g. the law of negligence is a common law creation. There was no statute to provide for a remedy in the case of negligence.
Go a little further, until a higher court over rules the decision or it is voided by statute
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/12/carter-ruck-and-trafigura-dirty-tricks.html
O/T Dodds in bid to force Lisbon Treaty referendum
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/dodds-in-bid-to-force-lisbon-treaty-referendum-14600755.html
A bid to force the Government into holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was launched by the DUP’s Nigel Dodds in Parliament yesterday.
The North Belfast MP was one of 20 MPs chosen in the ballot to put forward a Private Members’ Bill in the Commons.
He is using the opportunity to push for a poll on the controversial treaty that created a president of Europe and insists the both the Conservatives and Labour have misled voters when they claim that can no longer done now it has been ratified.
Yesterday the Lisbon Treaty (Referendum) Bill, which “requires the holding of a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon”, was laid before Parliament……………
About time a real alternative appeared. Cameron has lied to the country over the EU, why didn’t he do something like this (or at least mandate that all Tory MPs in the private members ballot have to put forward a Lisbon Treaty referendum bill)? Cameron is bluLabour, just more of the same.
Well done Nigel Dodds
Like a copper who nicks one crim! and then lets hundreds of his mates off !,the bbc cannot buy back any creditability with this one case,sorry but they are tainted beyond redemption !.
hahahahahaha…..what were you collared for??
It used to be that Common Law was made by Judges and precedent whereas only Statute Law could be enacted by Parliament.
Now that the Law has been taken over by crooks the Judges can’t be trusted to make Law.
The BBC (ie the licence fee payer) are paying for this case because the Guardian can’t afford to
The only judges appointed in the last fifteen years have been lefties or lefty sympathisers. The selection process weeds out anyone else.
When judges were largely appointed by the judiciary from the ranks of the independent Bar (policed by their colleagues and their Inn of Court) you could trust them to interpret the law and occasionally to make it.
But the Inns have been eclipsed by the highly political and right-on Bar Council, which is simply an arm of the state (the Chairman has to be a liberal/lefty or he doesn’t get a look in and a knighthood and a seat on the High Court bench come with the rations if he wants, so he doesn’t rock the boat).
Abolishing the Lord Chancellor and the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords has further strengthened the power of the state over the judiciary, which is clearly no longer independent (Ministry of ‘Justice’ like everything this govt has done means exactly the opposite of what it says).
The only Law Lord with the balls to stand (temporarily) against the ‘reforms’ was Lord Neuberger who would not move to sit in the ‘Supreme Court’ and is now Master of the Rolls (demotion to the Court of Appeal, but still a semblance of a proper court, even though it is often overruled).
The answer to our loss of freedom is not to have laws made by the ‘people’ in Parliament (what a tyrannical shambles that is turning out to be), but to have a truly independent judiciary, beyond political control, but the ‘people’ have been so conditioned against ‘elites’ that they now believe exactly the opposite of what is in their best interests.
The noose is tightening.
“The only judges appointed in the last fifteen years have been lefties or lefty sympathisers. ”
Tosser. Labour have only been in power for 12 years, can’t you count?
Tosser yourself. You prejudiced twat!
Blair didn’t start the appointment of lefties to the bench. It’s been going on for much longer than your narrow little mind can imagine.
Ill mannered twat.
Justice Eady is ‘place’ man to cover the backs of the criminal kleptocracy and profiteering war criminals.
The diabolical scum in Nu Liebore, and their shady corporate mates, want to make sure evidence of their thieving, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, remain covered up. To do this they put the evil little jumped-up muppet, Eady, in place. His job is to send a message to the world that any mention of the of crimes committed by the filth with power and money, will result in harsh punishment and financial ruin.
Justice Eady is shit. The scummy little rat-bastard is completely without conscience, humanity and common sense. He is in the same judicial league as the slimy criminal moron, Patricia Scotland, and cheap oily idiot, Jack (Lord Chancellor – ‘yer avin a larrf’) Straw. In fact the British judiciary as a body are fucking filth who wouldn’t be out of place administering justice in Zimbabwe.
So where’s the petition to the PM to sack Mr Justice Eady? If only Michael Howard had won — then he could have threatened to over-rule him.
Cameron is a Privy Councillor, and he has done nothing about Eady.
Cameron is bluLabour, and is more of the same.
You might want to check some basic legal facts first…
One of the first lessons you learn in law school is that judges DO make law…
UPDATE – BBC have thrown in the towel, issued an apology and paid a sum to charity…
Here is the Guardian on the BBC’s climbdown:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/17/bbc-trafigura
Time for a big demo outside Carter-Fuck’s offices, timed for when the legal sluts are going into or coming out of the office, methinks.
I thought this site was fire proof? So why doesn’t Guido get whatever it is that Carter-Fuck has prevented the BBC from publishing and publish it here? Or maybe Guido is not fire proof? Or maybe he does not have the balls to find out?
What is needed is some paramilitary types from some undisclosed organisation to march into Trafigura’s offices round the world, pistols at the ready, and grab the directors and march them out at gun-point (gun with safety off rammed into base of skull in a painful manner) into blacked out cars. Directors never seen again.
Or they could march into Television Centre and do it there instead.
In Manchester where a Rabbi was tried for possession of cocaine, drug dealing and pimping in front of a Jewish Judge, represented by Jewish barrister and where the prosecution was represented by a Jewish barrister who either didn’t try very hard or was completely useless and failed to find the key witness, has been let off with a rap on the knuckles. Its not known what religion the jury were but I think we can guess.
Its called British Law and its a joke.
Property owning rabbis? Plural? Was this post the result of a round of Cheddar Gorge?
It’s about time the bench were sorted out. They seem more eager to jail those who defend their property against burglars, and jail little old ladies that object to the unfair council tax, than hitting criminals hard.
“We make laws in parliament not from the bench.”
Which parliament would that be, then – Westminster or its masters in Brussels?
The common law is as important as statute. The judiciary is a part of the constitution.
I despair The BBC have just recanted on Trafigura
The judges have become over-mighty. They need reform.
1. No judge should come from the lawyer class. The idea that spivs who have been defending the worst sorts of criminals, employing all sorts of subterfuges end up presiding over the administration of justice is outrageous. Judges should be separately trained and could be initially drawn from volunteers in the general public who would be trained up, perhaps after
obtaining a law degree.
2. We need time limits on cases. Not absolute but set down in law. Some of these cases drag on for absurd lengths of time. It might be a good idea to put all the lawyers and the judge on half pay when they go over the limit.
3. All injunctions should be public. The situation where Mrs. Justice Hogg secretly issued orders to all public agencies, including the police, to co-operate with the McCanns (whilst they were prime suspects according to Portugese law) beggars belief.
4. Libel cases should be settled on a percentage of your total wealth – say a maximum of 10%. Where the aggrieved party fails to prove libel they should surrender 10% of their wealth. That should put a stop to most libel actions.
At the same time their should be a legal redress procedure which will allow people to obtain prominent retractions for incorrect statements. That should be a cheap and cheerful system.
Bit like the judge’s ruling on the BA strike ballot isn’t it Guido, or do your libertarian principles not go that far? Sounds like that judge was more worried about Christmas holidays than what an overwhelming number of the cabin crew had voted for.
Let’s see what Private Eye make of this. they don’t give a toss abut Carter Ruck and Judge Eady, this could be interesting.
Eady?
You are not alone in your disdain!
Private Eye seem to run a page on him in every issue.
lol this comment string is only slightly better than those on YouTube. no one has mentioned the nazis yet. anyway,
“Desperate Dan says:
December 17, 2009 at 12:02 pm
The BBC (ie the licence fee payer) are paying for this case because the Guardian can’t afford to”
isnt it because the BBC made allegations that the Guardian and even Leigh Day didn’t make? deaths et.c
WE (all of us) are paying for the BBC’s substandard investigations because it has wasted all its (OUR) money on Jonathan Ross, Jeremy Clarkson and some nonsense about vampires and werewolves in Bristol. See the Newsnight apology of YouTube that is the fruits of your hard earned cash.
1. Mr Justice Eady is not doing anything wrong, he is interpreting the law as set down by Parliament which is what he is paid and appointed to do. If you don’t like the law in question there are things called General Elections to deal with it.
2. Mr Justice Eady has actually handed down some of the most favourable rulings on Press freedom to report this country has ever seen, something for which he has received absolutely no credit.
3. Neuberger LJ was not demoted; he chose to return to the Court of Appeal following the precedent set by Lord Denning and everyone says he looks 20 years younger.
4. The Inns of Court and the Bar Council never had anything do with the selection of judges. The selection was made by the Lord Chancellor’s Department, who would take soundings of the legal profession as a whole. This role is now performed by the Judicial Selections Board funded by the Ministry of Justice, under the power granted to the Lord Chancellor who is also the Secretary of State for Justice, and follows a paper based process with no anonymous soundings taken.
5. Selection of judges is dependent entirely on those who actually apply, if the current judiciary seems left wing or liberal that is because they were the only people willing to put themselves through the process. The same applies to the number of female, black or Asian judges.
6. Attacking a man who by the nature of his office is not permitted to reply is the act of a coward; not a word I ever thought I would find myself using of Guido.
Eady is not entirely a hero. He has been slapped down for ignoring rulings from higher courts and to be fair comes from the ambulance chasing fraternity that is libel lawyer business.
Not in the EU you dont. The courts have much more power