Banks Case Judge’s Very Own Anti-Brexit Twitter Echo Chamber Shows “Apparent Bias”

Our research shows that Mrs Justice Steyn herself inhabits an anti-Brexit echo chamber like the one she controversially ruled to be of no importance when it came to Arron Banks’ reputation. We have found her private Twitter account, the one that signalled her support for her anti-Brexit campaigner husband’s political ambitions. It followed 27 tweeters, two BBC journalists – who, for the purposes of this research, we will consider to be impartial – one anonymous account, and 24 well-known, high-profile remainers. That, to Guido’s mind, constitutes her own self-selected, anti-Brexit echo chamber.

She followed the likes of Faisal Islam, Eddie Izzard, Nick Cohen, Alan Rusbridger, Jon Snow, David Miliband, Robert Peston, David Allen Green, Gary Lineker and Rupert Myers – hard-line remainers all. The fact is that Karen Steyn does not follow a single Brexiteer, all her timeline and the information coming to her on Twitter is from anti-Brexit sources. That is the definition of an echo chamber.

This is important because it is a judicial principle that “apparent bias” arises when, even if the judge does not have an interest in its outcome, there is something in the judge’s conduct or behaviour, their interests, affiliations or their allegiances, that gives rise to a suspicion that they have not decided the case in an impartial manner.

The most famed example in recent years is R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 119, which involved the unprecedented decision by the House of Lords to set aside its own previous judgment based on just the mere possibility of bias.

In that case, Lord Hoffman, who had formed part of the 3-2 majority in the House of Lords trial which decided the former Chilean President had no immunity from arrest, had failed to declare his links to Amnesty International, which had intervened in the appeal. Not only was he an unpaid director of the charitable arm of Amnesty International but his wife had been an administrative assistant to Amnesty International’s London office for 21 years. When this emerged his fellow Law Lords held that: ‘The fact that a person has the necessary training and qualifications to resist any tendency towards bias is not relevant when considering whether there was an appearance of bias.’

In Magill v Porter[2001] UKHL 67, the House of Lords adopted the test of ‘what the fair-minded and informed observer would have thought, and whether his conclusion would have been that there was real possibility of bias.’ This is an objective test. When applying the test: ‘It will very often be appropriate to enquire whether the judge knew of the matter relied on as appearing to undermine his impartiality, because if it is shown that he did not know of it the danger of its having influenced his judgment is eliminated and the appearance of possible bias is dispelled.’

It is open to the claimant, Arron Banks, to draw this information to the attention of the Lord Chancellor when asking for the case to be set aside and reheard. The judge should, according to the Bar Standards Council rules, have recused herself because of her husband’s relevant political views and campaigning, which could arguably have prejudiced her views. The evidence of her Twitter account shows she was supportive of his efforts and she herself, on the basis of the people she follows, inhabits an anti-Brexit Twitter echo chamber…

Read her follows list, and their anti-Brexit sentiments in full, below:

Read More

mdi-timer 15 June 2022 @ 17:00 15 Jun 2022 @ 17:00 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Zelenskyy Celebrates Boris’s Win, Smug Lefty Tweeters Left With Egg on Face

Following the leadership vote last night Nadhim Zahawi told Sky News Zelenskyy will be “punching the air”. As expected, anti-Boris Twitter know-it-alls were absolutely outraged at the claim. Ignoring the myriad viral tweets from nobodies condemning the Education Secretary, among blue tick condemnations included Times columnist Alex Massie, HuffPo’s Kevin Schofield, The Mirror’s Ben Glaze, Reuters journalist Christian Radnedge, journalist and commentator Edward Hardy, and journalist and broadcaster Harry Wallop.

This morning Zelenksyy has left Twitter lefties eating humble pie after confirming Nadhim Zahawi definitively correct. Speaking to the FT this morning, a delighted Zelenskyy hailed Boris as a “true friend of Ukraine” and said “I am glad we have not lost a very important ally.”

No doubt all the above will continue speaking on Zelenskyy’s behalf…

mdi-timer 7 June 2022 @ 12:11 7 Jun 2022 @ 12:11 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Readers Think Government’s Counter-Inflationary Strategy is “Wait & Hope”

Over half of the 2,000 of Guido’s co-conspirators responding to a tweeted poll think the government is just collectively crossing its fingers and hoping for the best. Just under 15% think the government is or will tighten monetary conditions. Guido has asked HM Treasury what the official policy on countering inflation is exactly…

mdi-timer 31 May 2022 @ 16:45 31 May 2022 @ 16:45 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Government Confirms They Will Not Arrest Elon Musk

Intervening on the story of the day, Business Minister Paul Scully has confirmed before a Commons Select Committee that the government is not planning on arresting Elon Musk the next time he visits Britain. MP Nus Ghani asked the question in light of the DCMS Online Harms Bill, which “mandates that platforms have to remove content that emotionally distresses people – so are we going to be arresting Elon Musk when he arrives in the UK, or are we going to change the Online Safety Bill?”

Scully: “We won’t be arresting Elon Musk, I can leave that with you.”

On a more serious note, as the Institute for Economic Affairs’ Matthew Lesh pointed out last night, although Elon’s victory might herald the imminent return of free speech to the platform, he’s about to run into a major UK roadblockDrop the plan, Nadine…

mdi-timer 26 April 2022 @ 12:32 26 Apr 2022 @ 12:32 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Nadine Dorries’ Anti Social Media “Pile On” Announcement Backfires

Nadine Dorries was up at the despatch box yesterday to outline the provisions of the Online Safety Bill during its second reading. One particular moment caught Guido’s attention:

“[The bill] seeks to force the largest social media platforms to enforce their own bans on racism, misogyny, antisemitism, pile-ons and all sorts of other unacceptable behaviour that they claim not to allow but that ruins life in practice. In other words, we are just asking the largest platforms to simply do what they say they will do, as we do in all good consumer protection measures in any other industry.”

What exactly does forcing a social media company to stop a “pile-on” look like? What defines a pile-on? Any answers to these questions inevitably run the risk of hindering free speech. When Guido asked these questions on Twitter last night, Nadine herself responded…

“By holding tech companies to account to comply with their own stated terms and conditions… We will also list in secondary legislation legal but harmful online activity, such as incitement to self harm, harassment, eating disorders, bullying, racist hate. Not limiting free speech or political /public interest debate but the serious most harmful activity.”

Nadine’s tweet ended up receiving 172 replies, most of them hostile. Some might even call it a pile-on. Under the new legislation, would she expect Twitter to wade in on her behalf?

It’s easy to envision a future government using this law to enforce dangerous woke language policing. This is a slippery slope…

mdi-timer 20 April 2022 @ 11:28 20 Apr 2022 @ 11:28 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Elon Musk Bids to Buy Twitter for $43 Billion in Hostile Takeover

Elon Musk has made a “best and final” offer to buy Twitter Inc., saying the company has extraordinary potential and he will unlock it. He is also committed to reversing the company’s encroachment on freedom of speech… 

I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy.

However, since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.

As a result, I am offering to buy 100% of Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, a 54% premium over the day before I began investing in Twitter and a 38% premium over the day before my investment was publicly announced. My offer is my best and final offer and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.

Twitter has extraordinary potential. I will unlock it.

Elon Musk

Guido for one wants him to unlock an edit function…

mdi-timer 14 April 2022 @ 11:31 14 Apr 2022 @ 11:31 mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-comment View Comments
Previous Page Next Page