Mark Pack blogs in detail about the interface between search engines and web arcana.
I have been increasingly concerned about the increased commercialisation of searching, even if using meta-engines like Copernic and Dogpile. For instance, in looking up the judge's epigram quoted yesterday, relying on a vague recollection, I had to wade through screensful of plugs for expensive establishments before finding the exact quotation.
Another niggle is that the leading engines have over-reacted to the European Court ruling about burying links to old and irrelevant references, and seem to be removing links on demand. So misdeeds by public figures from more than a few years ago which remain on the print record and online if you know where to look are not readily recoverable.
Saturday, 6 December 2014
Friday, 5 December 2014
Perhaps local LibDem parties should threaten deselection
It is a weapon more associated with Labour (though the heavy hand of the North London commissariat has proved more weighty in recent years) and the Tories (witness Anne McIntosh's travails in Thirsk), but even some Liberal Democrats might find the affront to the principles evidenced here and here overcoming their niceness. Sarah Teather, the sole vote against Chris Grayling's muzzling of judicial review, will be missing from the next parliament, as the Brent MP is to stand down. The point is that the Liberal Democrat party is the only one formally committed to equal access to the law. If not our MPs, who else? One answer is Elfyn Llwyd, not always in the Plaid Cymru mainstream, also standing down in 2015, who spoke in Monday's debate:
Judicial review is often the only means by which individuals can hold the Executive responsible for wrong -doing, yet the Government are trying to shut down that avenue for redress. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has said it sees no evidence to support the Government’s reforms, and neither does Justice, Liberty, JustRights, Human Rights Watch, the Howard League, Redress, Inquest, Mencap, Amnesty International—the list goes on; can anyone report which groups actually support the Government in these changes? [Hon. Members: “The Whips.”] Yes, the Whips.
On clause 67, Lords amendment 107 would maintain courts’ discretion over whether to order an intervener to pay the costs of relevant parties and vice versa. As drafted, the Bill would compel the court to order interveners to pay such costs, other than in exceptional circumstances, as we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon. The provisions in clause 67 are among the most disturbing in the Bill. Unamended, the clause would ensure that charitable organisations and individuals with expertise could no longer enrich the opinion of the courts by intervening in cases where their expertise would be of use because they could not justify the risk to their trustees, funders or members of supporting litigation. As the noble Lord Carlile [Liberal Democrat] asked in the other place:
“How could trustees reasonably agree to support an intervention when it could result in losing tens of thousands of pounds or more in costs, jeopardising, in some cases, the existence of small charities?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2014; Vol. 754, c. 1607.]
Yet the plans would still allow Departments and corporations with huge funds to intervene and hence play a pivotal part in the development of public law.
I ask the House to reconsider the Government’s proposals in the context of the various and—I am trying to avoid vitriol—crippling reforms to access to justice in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. As a result of the significant cuts in that Act, more individuals will be looking to charitable organisations for support in getting justice. It seems to me that clause 67 will take away this last resort. I am afraid the Government seem intent on restricting access to justice so that only those with the least to lose can gain redress. Why do they think it necessary to pursue this agenda, which will throw the baby out with the bathwater, despite the perceived misuses of the law relating to judicial review? The hon. and learned Gentleman, a far more experienced lawyer than me, has referred to the time-honoured practice of judicial review—the Wednesbury principles and so on—and the practices in place to ensure that Departments act reasonably in all circumstances. Why should we not uphold the individuals’ rights to ensure that Departments act reasonably?
In conclusion, Justice said:
“Punitive and disproportionate, these measures are designed to deter any organisation with limited funds acting as an intervener. In practice, this means that – even in important cases with a constitutional impact which reaches far beyond the immediate interests of the parties - the court will no longer benefit from expert advice and information provided from cash-poor and experience rich charities and NGOs.”
I think that says it all. As we heard earlier, senior judges themselves are on the record as saying that the courts are enriched by the interventions of these people, who know exactly what they are talking about.
In this same week, Theresa May allowed only judicial review as a means of redress for those deemed to be returning jihadis, labelled as such by a functionary of the state, not by a court of law:
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): I understand the system that my right hon. Friend is putting in place of managed return, but what is not clear in the Bill is the system that will be present to enable that managed return requirement to be challenged. I wonder whether she can help the House on that point. It seems to me that there must be a mechanism by which a person who is told that they have to return in a particular way can challenge it on their return to this country, and do so expeditiously, if it is not to be an unwarranted interference with their rights.
Mrs May: There will be a form of challenge available to an individual under judicial review. We will also have to notify the individual that action is being taken against them, so that they are aware that the measure is being put in place.
It appears from the following equivocal exchange that there is unlikely to be any state aid for returners who cannot find the money for a legal challenge from their own resources:
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): On a point that was made earlier, if an individual has the right to challenge how they are managed—I think the right hon. Lady said that it would be by means of judicial review—can we ensure that they have legal aid to do that?
Mrs May: As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have made a number of changes to legal aid, and we are looking at the position in relation to that particular issue on these new measures.
Late nineteenth-century Irish judge Sir James Mathew was just one of those down the ages pointing out the hypocrisy of the administration of justice:
In England, Justice is open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Liberals and socialists in the last century moved to correct this, but under the last three administrations we have seen a tilting back of the balance towards the establishment. Even before the "reforms" of this government, I have seen two people in Neath Port Talbot clobbered with the financial cosh of costs awarded against them in cases where they were seen to be in the right. Surely we cannot rely on the efforts of the stinking rich to expose maladministration in future?
Judicial review is often the only means by which individuals can hold the Executive responsible for wrong -doing, yet the Government are trying to shut down that avenue for redress. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has said it sees no evidence to support the Government’s reforms, and neither does Justice, Liberty, JustRights, Human Rights Watch, the Howard League, Redress, Inquest, Mencap, Amnesty International—the list goes on; can anyone report which groups actually support the Government in these changes? [Hon. Members: “The Whips.”] Yes, the Whips.
On clause 67, Lords amendment 107 would maintain courts’ discretion over whether to order an intervener to pay the costs of relevant parties and vice versa. As drafted, the Bill would compel the court to order interveners to pay such costs, other than in exceptional circumstances, as we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon. The provisions in clause 67 are among the most disturbing in the Bill. Unamended, the clause would ensure that charitable organisations and individuals with expertise could no longer enrich the opinion of the courts by intervening in cases where their expertise would be of use because they could not justify the risk to their trustees, funders or members of supporting litigation. As the noble Lord Carlile [Liberal Democrat] asked in the other place:
“How could trustees reasonably agree to support an intervention when it could result in losing tens of thousands of pounds or more in costs, jeopardising, in some cases, the existence of small charities?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2014; Vol. 754, c. 1607.]
Yet the plans would still allow Departments and corporations with huge funds to intervene and hence play a pivotal part in the development of public law.
I ask the House to reconsider the Government’s proposals in the context of the various and—I am trying to avoid vitriol—crippling reforms to access to justice in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. As a result of the significant cuts in that Act, more individuals will be looking to charitable organisations for support in getting justice. It seems to me that clause 67 will take away this last resort. I am afraid the Government seem intent on restricting access to justice so that only those with the least to lose can gain redress. Why do they think it necessary to pursue this agenda, which will throw the baby out with the bathwater, despite the perceived misuses of the law relating to judicial review? The hon. and learned Gentleman, a far more experienced lawyer than me, has referred to the time-honoured practice of judicial review—the Wednesbury principles and so on—and the practices in place to ensure that Departments act reasonably in all circumstances. Why should we not uphold the individuals’ rights to ensure that Departments act reasonably?
In conclusion, Justice said:
“Punitive and disproportionate, these measures are designed to deter any organisation with limited funds acting as an intervener. In practice, this means that – even in important cases with a constitutional impact which reaches far beyond the immediate interests of the parties - the court will no longer benefit from expert advice and information provided from cash-poor and experience rich charities and NGOs.”
I think that says it all. As we heard earlier, senior judges themselves are on the record as saying that the courts are enriched by the interventions of these people, who know exactly what they are talking about.
In this same week, Theresa May allowed only judicial review as a means of redress for those deemed to be returning jihadis, labelled as such by a functionary of the state, not by a court of law:
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): I understand the system that my right hon. Friend is putting in place of managed return, but what is not clear in the Bill is the system that will be present to enable that managed return requirement to be challenged. I wonder whether she can help the House on that point. It seems to me that there must be a mechanism by which a person who is told that they have to return in a particular way can challenge it on their return to this country, and do so expeditiously, if it is not to be an unwarranted interference with their rights.
Mrs May: There will be a form of challenge available to an individual under judicial review. We will also have to notify the individual that action is being taken against them, so that they are aware that the measure is being put in place.
It appears from the following equivocal exchange that there is unlikely to be any state aid for returners who cannot find the money for a legal challenge from their own resources:
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): On a point that was made earlier, if an individual has the right to challenge how they are managed—I think the right hon. Lady said that it would be by means of judicial review—can we ensure that they have legal aid to do that?
Mrs May: As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have made a number of changes to legal aid, and we are looking at the position in relation to that particular issue on these new measures.
Late nineteenth-century Irish judge Sir James Mathew was just one of those down the ages pointing out the hypocrisy of the administration of justice:
In England, Justice is open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Liberals and socialists in the last century moved to correct this, but under the last three administrations we have seen a tilting back of the balance towards the establishment. Even before the "reforms" of this government, I have seen two people in Neath Port Talbot clobbered with the financial cosh of costs awarded against them in cases where they were seen to be in the right. Surely we cannot rely on the efforts of the stinking rich to expose maladministration in future?
Thursday, 4 December 2014
Chancellor's nod to real music
Jessica Duchen blogs :
In yesterday's autumn statement, the chancellor, George Osborne, announced (among other things) that orchestras in the UK may get tax breaks. [...] nobody seems quite certain whether it will make any difference to the fortunes of these organisations once the next round of ACE funding cuts is meted upon them.[...] We suspect that this may be a case of the chancellor giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
Presumably such tax breaks would apply to Wales, notwithstanding the devolution of arts policy.
In yesterday's autumn statement, the chancellor, George Osborne, announced (among other things) that orchestras in the UK may get tax breaks. [...] nobody seems quite certain whether it will make any difference to the fortunes of these organisations once the next round of ACE funding cuts is meted upon them.[...] We suspect that this may be a case of the chancellor giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
Presumably such tax breaks would apply to Wales, notwithstanding the devolution of arts policy.
Wednesday, 3 December 2014
IT debt
A few days before the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, I received this timely reminder from MicroFocus that, while national governments are still having to handle deficits and thus are racking up increasing debt, global companies are cash-rich. The article is US-orientated, but I recall financial commentators pointing out that the same is true of London-quoted corporations.
The article questions the philosophy of building up cash reserves while doing no more than patch up IT systems. This failure to plan and implement change and to train IT staff has been particularly marked in the case of banks, leading to disasters like this.
The article questions the philosophy of building up cash reserves while doing no more than patch up IT systems. This failure to plan and implement change and to train IT staff has been particularly marked in the case of banks, leading to disasters like this.
Tuesday, 2 December 2014
Bus subsidy cuts bite
This Wales Online article bears out the warnings about the effect that budget cuts by both the Labour Welsh Government and local authorities would have. Bus passenger numbers in Wales have fallen, uniquely among the nations of the UK.
Tax rises will be necessary
- and when the parties go to the country in May, they should not be frightened to say so. The big increase in Liberal Democrat representation in 1997 was on the back of a manifesto positing a penny on the basic rate of income tax. This time round, it will not even be necessary to touch the basic rate. The people on lower incomes have suffered enough.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/01/nick-clegg-conservative-spending-plans-autumn-statement
The projected increase in NHS spending (of which Wales will get £70m) apart, public spending will have to be restrained for another year, as Nick has warned. However, there are signs that the long-delayed growth in Germany, the powerhouse of the EU, on which so much of our own recovery forecasts were based, is about to happen. Also, we may yet be surprised by the tax returns from self-employment, which should start to come in shortly.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/01/nick-clegg-conservative-spending-plans-autumn-statement
The projected increase in NHS spending (of which Wales will get £70m) apart, public spending will have to be restrained for another year, as Nick has warned. However, there are signs that the long-delayed growth in Germany, the powerhouse of the EU, on which so much of our own recovery forecasts were based, is about to happen. Also, we may yet be surprised by the tax returns from self-employment, which should start to come in shortly.
Monday, 1 December 2014
Co-operators not happy with contributions to political parties
The results of the the Cooperative Movement's survey of its customers from earlier in the year have now been released by YouGov. (There are pdfs on the Web: http://www.haveyoursay.coop/summary/hys-summary.pdf and http://www.haveyoursay.coop/data/hys-data.pdf) I turned immediately to the section about the Coop's links to Labour via the Cooperative Party, having banged on about this for some time. I was gratified by the outcome:
Overall, respondents believed that it is inappropriate for big businesses to donate money to political parties, with six in ten (59 per cent) of the general public thinking this. [...] This was reinforced further by respondents having negative perceptions of The Co-operative donating to The Co-operative Party. Only 14 per cent of the general public disagreed with the statement ‘it is inappropriate for The Co-operative to give financial support to a political party’.
But:
there was strong support for redistributing the funds given to The Co-operative Party to the local community
Overall, respondents believed that it is inappropriate for big businesses to donate money to political parties, with six in ten (59 per cent) of the general public thinking this. [...] This was reinforced further by respondents having negative perceptions of The Co-operative donating to The Co-operative Party. Only 14 per cent of the general public disagreed with the statement ‘it is inappropriate for The Co-operative to give financial support to a political party’.
But:
there was strong support for redistributing the funds given to The Co-operative Party to the local community
The political dimension of the European Union
Once again, we hear Eurosceptic Tories parroting that the British were deceived into voting to stay in the European community on a false premise. I am old enough to remember the days before the last European referendum when our then leaders, who had most of them seen war service, were open about the need to bind the continent together to prevent a third carnage. David Steel, happily still with us, was another to speak about "shared sovereignty" in Europe.
So the deceivers were not Europhiles. Most prominent among those who put the case for Europe as a free trade area and nothing more was Margaret Thatcher, as Mark Pack reminds us.
So the deceivers were not Europhiles. Most prominent among those who put the case for Europe as a free trade area and nothing more was Margaret Thatcher, as Mark Pack reminds us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)