Tag Archives: Legal

End of Canadian long gun registry.

Just received:

Changes to the Canadian Firearms Program

On April 5, 2012, Bill C-19, Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, came into effect. The key changes are as follows:

Removal of the requirement to register non-restricted firearms
Destruction of the existing non-restricted firearms registration records
Allowing the transferor of a non-restricted firearm to obtain confirmation of a transferee’s firearms acquisition licence prior to the transfer being finalized

Until further notice, due to a Court Order issued by the Quebec Superior Court, residents of Quebec are still required to register non-restricted firearms with the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program.

It is important to note that the new law does not change the requirement for all individuals to hold a licence in order to possess a firearm. The licensing, safety training and safe storage requirements for anyone who uses or owns a firearm continue to be in force.

The legislation also does not impact registration requirements for restricted or prohibited firearms.

Update: A subsidiary thought occurs that the new regulations on Ammunition storage are a business opportunity for the makers and fabricators of suitably sized heavy duty lockable boxes.

Advertisements

Jeepers, creepy

The UK’s latest ‘all your privacy belongs to us‘ outrage is, as Richard North so elegantly points out, EU inspired. I don’t buy the Cleggsky promises of ‘safeguards’ nor the Theresa May nonsense about snooping catching the Soham murderer. This is derived from an EU directive, and as such is like being threatened by the Head Girl at school who, in a fit of PMT psychosis, suspects others have been saying ‘bad things’ about her, and is now rushing around trying to find out who they are so she can shout at them.

My own inclination is to let the paranoia increase until said person implodes in tears, declaiming loudly that “No-one loves her” and wander away, chuckling quietly. As for the Apparatchiks and snoopers, let them hear ‘bad things’. In short invent a few. Drive the intrusive bastards and prodnoses nuts. Send the paranoid fruitcakes off on wild goose chases. If they go looking for insults, let them find what they’re looking for. Overload their system.

Tip: To avoid the ‘Four o’clock knock’ so beloved of states who can’t handle a little honest criticism, when challenged, hand over any encryption keys (after first making the ‘authorities’ wait as long as possible) then let the ‘authorities’ find nothing but innocuous messages between friends and family. Then after a suitable pause start all over again with a new set. Not that I would worry about such things, the UK Police Service is being cut to the bone and won’t be able to do anything much. Although the thought does occur that perhaps an excuse is being sought to allow European security resources to operate freely on UK soil. Much good may it do them.

For example; I think the European Union is an unsustainable bureaucratic nonsense, where affected timepleasers and political placemen play out their delusions of power by making endless rules to solve non-problems. In short, they’re corrupt barmcakes, ‘soft’ Nazis, with a less than solid grip on reality. An institutional threat to the rights of the individual. There. In writing down what is simply an opinion formed by years of observation of an institution at work, I’ve just insulted the European Union, which is apparently an ‘offence’ under EU law. Oooo, now I’m so afwaid.

Had the EU remained a mere trading bloc (Which is what it was originally sold as), I might feel more charitable towards it. But seeing as they appear to think people might be so full of ‘sedition’ (Towards a superstate to which we owe no loyalty, nor sworn any oath of fealty to) that all our electronic communications need to be monitored, then my answer can be found in the chorus of a certain Lily Allen number. To which I would add “and the horse you rode in on.”

Good gravy, in sending out directives like these, the EU administration proves itself full of people who are nothing short of creepy.

Update: Having read David Davis’s short piece in the UK’s Sun on this topic, I find myself wondering about the quality of personnel that will supposedly be vetting this new Tsunami of information. How can we be sure that one or two of them will not utilise information about families and their children for less than wholesome purposes? Can we be certain those with access to our families emails and such have no inclinations towards paedophilia and other such perversions who might abuse that position? Such people are artful in wheedling themselves into positions of trust and influence. Might it not be a better idea not to place temptation in their path in the first place?

Update 2: The Mash neatly nails it.

Google not responsible

Now I’ve had my own beefs at Google for various things, but here’s a bit of good news to brighten some people’s day (But not everyones). In the UK, a new court ruling has been made that Google is not a ‘publisher’ and therefore not responsible for posted content. In the words of Mr Justice Eady;

“I would conclude, therefore, that if I am incorrect, or unduly precipitate, in reaching my earlier conclusion that Google Inc should not be regarded as a publisher of the offending words at all, in accordance with common law principles, I would hold in any event that it would be exempted from liability in accordance with [the provisions set out in the Regulations]”,

Go on, pop over to Out-Law and read the whole thing. If Google is exempt, then this judgement should protect WordPress users as well.

A small act of rebellion

See picture below. This just under the external electricity meter for our little domicile. The notice below was posted there by our landlord.

These notices have been appearing all over BC. According to some sources at as many as one in 12-15 households. Gossip has it that Bill Van Der Zalm, ex Provincial Premier, is just one of the many voices behind this campaign, including the Greens oddly enough (As ‘Smart Meters’ are supposed to be a ‘Green’ power solution). Rumours also abound about the Meters reliability and safety.

Gossip has it that the Corix installers are instructed to leave meters or premises with this notice on alone.

Gossip has it that BC Hydro, when the rollout of ‘Smart Meters’ is complete, will cut off the electricity supply of any premises that do not have a ‘Smart Meter’ installed.

Gossip also has it that BC Hydro has only three people in the entire Province capable of fixing ‘Smart Meters’ if they go wrong. Apparently they fired the rest.

Word is that the threats are baseless, and premises will not be disconnected, as legal challenges are already prepared to hit the courts.

Now as far as the health concerns go, I’m of the mind that they are baseless and with about as much credence as the ‘Cell phone radiation causes Cancer’. However, I personally am opposed to the idea of Smart Meters on purely economic and Health and Safety grounds. Some of the models being installed have had issues with overheating, and there is a very real fire risk. Especially where wood frame building methods are the norm. On economic grounds because BC Hydro are reported to have doubled or tripled the electricity bills of premises equipped with Smart Meters. On the basis that this will increase my rent and other base living costs for no good reason, I am further opposed to the installation of Smart Meters.

Despite the growing opposition, the current BC leadership have brushed off dissenting voices as being of the tinfoil hat persuasion. Yet the opposition grows. If I was the current BC leadership, I’d be looking for a fallback strategy over this issue, because this is how they lost the HST referendum. It may well be how they lose the next Provincial and Federal Elections.

Whatever happens, it’s going to get really interesting really quickly. Log store topped up, propane tank full, generator ready……

Update: The head of BC Hydro has just resigned, seemingly over political interference from the Provincial Government. Well, well, well.

Tweeting is a two edged sword

We’re hearing a lot of heated rhetoric about ‘shutting down social media’ because of the use some rioters have been putting it to. On the whole, I’d say this is a mistake, and proof positive that ignorant politicians who don’t understand the uses of technology should back off and let the Police get on with the tough job of keeping the peace.

Like the MPS used to keep the lid on the recent situation in central London. They couldn’t catch it all, as evinced by the copy cat riots around the country, but from all accounts it could have been worse. Much worse.

As for the rioters, don’t they understand all this public domain stuff is available to the Police? I mean posting ‘Going to xxxxx to nick stuff’ on Twatter is an invitation to arrest. Dozy lot. Especially if the cops have got your number, or even one of your mates Blackberries. Same epithet can be used for senior coppers who can’t understand what a useful tool Social Media is.

Can you imagine Rent-a-mob tweeting “To the barricades, Comrades!” Only to find a line of tooled up riot Police waiting for them? (Evil snigger) Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.

Well, well, well.

Nice pussyI’ve never been a fan of the Murdoch owned press, least of all the tabloid section, but my goodness isn’t the current state of affairs interesting? Ofcom going after the big guys for a change, and the notorious News of the World disappearing. If you’ll forgive the schadenfreude, the Times and associated tabloid media have done a lot of harm over the years. Reputations unjustly trashed, bloggers ‘outed’, people unjustly fingered for crimes they didn’t commit. The unthinking mob set on innocents. Whatever is coming to them couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.

Right at this moment I’m enjoying a delightfully warm smug feeling of self righteous satisfaction. (Evil chuckle, strokes metaphorical white cat) There’s the added bonus that if Camerloon and his über green cohorts go down with the Murdoch ship you may hear raucous laughter echoing all the way from British Columbia.

News from the valley of the trolls

I often wander through the comment sections of the Tellytubbygraph just to see what the denizens are up to, and occasionally dropping my own world weary words into a comment. My favourites have to be Delingpoles blog, and Christopher Bookers articles because of the fruitloops they attract. A mere handful of commenters wage their own little war of words which I take the odd pot shot in just for fun.

One of the things I’ve been made aware of is the use of people actually being paid to troll opinions on said blogs. Well I’m wondering if all those paid trolls are aware that what they are doing may be illegal. Yes, that’s right, against the law and all that jazz. Now I wasn’t aware of this little point of law, but it appears that the paying of people to post opinions, or commission false reviews etc, known as ‘Astroturfing’ is actually illegal.

I almost fell of my chair laughing.

Oh, and my kids Uni exam results are in; decent 2:1’s for both, which is a vindication of everything we’ve helped them out with. All ahead smirk factor 12. Engage!

Vancouver rocks!

I have to say this. When the riots hit after the Canucks Bruins game the other night, my virtual heart had sunk into it’s dinky little cyber boots. My first thought; had leaving the UK to find a new and better future for me and mine been a hopeless quest? Had we just worked so hard to get here just to find the same old same old?

However, the local press and media today is full of stories where ordinary people stood up to the rioters, and are even actively helping to track the guilty down. Vancouverites demonstrated ownership of their own streets against hostile elements with messages of peace written on boarded store fronts, and handing videos of whack jobs smashing store windows to the Police to do what the cops should with said malefactors. There’s currently a big name and shame thing on Facebook where pictures of the offending low lifes have been posted.

Now I’m sure some tricksy defence lawyer might try to argue that this coverage makes a fair trial impossible, but I’m inclined to say that anyone trying to cop a ‘not guilty’ plea in the face of overwhelming evidence like that should serve double penalty anyway. I just hope the local judges and cops see it that way.

Today my rose tinted specs are sitting firmly across my face, and all I can say to the folks who stood up for their neighbourhoods in Vancouver against the vandals is; guys, you rock! You own your streets. God bless you.

I can only wish that if ever in the same situation I’d have the guts to do what you did. Thank you.

About this Magna Carter thingy

After my peregrinations about the ticking constitutional time bomb created by the Lisbon, Maastricht, Nice, and Rome treaties with the EU, I found myself wondering what there is a dissenting private citizen can do. Within the law of course.

After a brief comment conversation over at Orphans of Liberty with the erudite legal blogger Tom Paine on a related matter, I elected to do a little digging.   In doing so, I took time out to read the full English text of the Magna Carta, a key constitutional document which Queen Elizabeth swore to uphold in her coronation speech, as have so many of her forbears.  In amongst all the anachronistic stuff about Fish Weirs, etc, and the still valid rights of widows and right to a trial by your peers (Not by what is effectively a foreign power), I came across this little gem.

(61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:
     The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter.
     If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us – or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice – to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chiefjustice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.
    Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.
    If-one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is prevented in any other way from discharging his duties, the rest of them shall choose another baron in his place, at their discretion, who shall be duly sworn in as they were.
    In the event of disagreement among the twenty-five barons on any matter referred to them for decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-five, whether these were all present or some of those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear.
    The twenty-five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power.
   We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished.   Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.

Now even though this was signed almost eight hundred years ago in 1215 (As Tom rightly pointed out) at virtual sword point; because the reigning Monarch has sworn at her coronation to uphold the document, it remains valid. As with the Common Law in force before that date.

What I get from article 61 is the following;

  1. Although ‘Parliament is sovereign’ MP’s, their staff, and the Civil Service they direct are effective officers of the Crown, having sworn an oath to the reigning Monarch, and therefore legally bound to uphold the principles enshrined in Magna Carta
  2. If any such officer does not, there are clearly outlined procedures for a private individual to obtain redress, to begin with; taking an oath of allegiance to the committee of Barons.  Funnily enough, if you don’t, then the Crown can ‘compel’ you to. Not that I’ve ever heard of this happening. Nor is it likely.
  3. Taking such a binding oath is apparently not a ‘right’ or ‘entitlement’, but a duty of everyone who doesn’t agree with an English Governments actions in respect of the rest of the document, like ceding powers to a foreign authority

Then I came across this article where a committee of Barons had actually submitted such a petition on 7th February 2001. It seems the complaint was largely ignored, as the Treaty of Nice, and the Treaty of Lisbon were later signed and ratified. Yet according to the provisions of Magna Carta, these treaty signings were not legally valid. Unless of course the document is a complete anachronism, in which case the English Monarch is no longer the Monarch, and therefore all related constitutional bets (Including Government) are off. Because all of their power is devolved from the reigning Monarch. But wait a minute, that would mean… Oh dear.

There appear to be so many paradoxes floating around the current constitutional situation underpinning the UK that it violates the rules of causality. As well as blowing the basic rule of contracts and other formal agreements out of the water. An agreement (or Oath) between ruler and ruled is only an agreement so long as no one violates the terms and conditions, of which Magna Carta forms one. If the terms and conditions are ignored, such as in any contract, any stakeholder can be said to be no longer bound by it. Rather like with a contract of employment; you break the terms and conditions, you get disciplined or fired, or your Boss violates those terms, then you walk and claim ‘constructive dismissal’.

A broken oath cannot be considered valid. No valid oath means no agreement, which means no Monarch or Sovereign, so how can the UK Parliament (Which derives devolved power from the institution of Monarchy) have any sovereignty at all? Or any of the treaties and arrangements it makes any validity? This is the can of worms the ceding of authority to the European Union has opened up, as it is a clear violation of the Monarchs oath of office, as laid out in the basic documents.

From where I stand, the only real rule seems to be “Sed quoniam inquam sic.” (Because I say so). To which the answer is; “Vos quod cuius exercitus.” (You and whose army?) Usually quickly followed by; “Ut exercitus illac.” (That Army over there). Which rather makes a nonsense of the oft repeated claims by politicians about living in a Democracy. In a real democracy, the threat of coercive force would not be an option. However, this is the real world.

I may be wrong, but on the other hand……..

Might as well say “Hang ’em all” and go do my own sweet thing.

After the fact…

Sometimes when I read the legal news I find my credulity stretched past its elastic limit. One such item pitched up on Out-law today. Apparently UK web sites will have to ask for their users permission to collect traffic information via tracking cookies in line with the latest EU directive.

Okay, so what’s wrong with that? You might quite reasonably ask. Well, some dozy item calling himself the culture secretary says that it’s okay to request said users permission after the data has been collected.

Forgive me for being terribly dense here, but doesn’t ‘permission’ have to be granted before an act takes place? Or it’s almost like someone nicking your drivers licence, selling the data on, before handing your licence back with a smile and a “You didn’t mind, did you?”

/Headdesk

Don’t rush though. All you UK web site owners who use tracking cookies have a year to comply.

A quick constitutional ramble

I’ve been following a tiny news item via Captain Ranty’s site about a matter of constitutional import. Now just about every country in the Anglosphere has a legal system based on what is known as Common Law, which derives from the Magna Carta, signed in 1215 by the then Monarch and his Barons. The key words here being the Monarch and his (or her) Barons.

Common law forms the basis of the legal system on a globe spanning basis, apart from in countries where the authorities routinely rape young women just to make it okay to put them to death, that is. Wherever the British Empire touched, there is common law. Generally speaking. Mostly. Kind of. Sometimes.

Now there’s a problem in the offing which may come as close to a Casus Belli as any since the English Civil war. It’s mostly New Labour’s fault of course, with their usual less than competent approach to framing legislation. Although the mission creep of the European Union has grown since Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Rome and told everyone it was all about free trade between European Nations, the lying toad.

Here goes; a Baron Mereworth, whose family has held Letters Patent from the crown for centuries, was and is miffed at not being summoned to the House of Lords following his succession to the title. He tried to take the Ministry of Justice to the High Court over the matter, only to be dismissed with a brusque “We can’t deal with this.” response. In essence, they gave him the brush off. Go ‘way son, you bother me patronizing style of thing.

This little High Court tiff is a direct result of the New Labour 2005 Constitutional ‘reform’ act. With a stroke of the pen there was an effective coup d’etat in England. No wonder the penalty for Treason was scaled back to a maximum of life imprisonment. Those New Labour shits knew exactly what they were going to do, and like much of their other legislation, it has left a steaming, barnyard smothering pile of legal poo behind.

All right, so what, you might say. All these Lords and stuff is soo old hat. Weren’t they abolished in 2005 or something? Like that Magner Carter thingy. Load of old bollocks. It’s History right? Doesn’t apply any more. We’re all equal Europeans now, yeah?

You might say that, and in some ways you’d be perfectly right, and in others so terribly, awfully wrong. In effect ceding sovereignty to the European Union, Parliament has essentially given up the last of HM Queens powers of state. Which leaves the rest of the Commonwealth, Canada, New Zealand, Australia in a bit of a cleft stick. Who appoints their Governor Generals? More to the point, as the Governor General of each Commonwealth Nation is effectively powerless, it begs the question of who pays his / her wages? The Crown? Who dat den? Without an effective Monarch there can be no Crown offices. There is also the question of legality, as, to quote this article;

Given that the last Labour government was in the habit of not obtaining assent from the Queen, when placing their laws onto the Statute Books, the hope is that Hereditary Peers will challenge the government in High Court and restore their access to the House of Lords. They can then take on the difficult task of bringing Blair’s government to account for its treachery and treason.

WTF! Hang on. I was always taught that a bill passed by Parliament cannot become law unless it receives Royal Assent. You mean to tell me that there are laws being enforced that are not actually laws at all because they have not got the official Royal signature on them? Well fuck me rigid.

Confused? Well I certainly am. Although I have the distinct feeling that under this legal mess is a number of political grenades with pins pulled. Whoever manages to penetrate the steaming heaps of obfuscation and confusion may see the whole lot go up in a constitutional detonation causing all sorts of casualties.

To quote Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, a High Court Judge most recently involved with ’super’ injunctions; “The danger is you muck around with a constitution like the British Constitution at your peril because you do not know what the consequences of any change will be.”

Watch this space. This might get really interesting. From a distance that is.

This post might appear at Orphans of Liberty shortly. Possibly.

Privacy vs. The right to know

It’s a contentious issue, these gagging orders. Apparently some witless footballer (No names, no injunctions; but everybody knows who the idiot is) who couldn’t keep his trousers zipped up and had an extra marital affair, is taking legal action against Twitter. Now this guy didn’t come to court with ‘clean hands’ as Raedwald so pithily observes, yet said ‘sports personality’ is taking a metaphorical dive outside the penalty box and yelling “foul!”, even though he committed the first bad tackle with his tackle. I suppose we owe him a grudging gift of thanks, because without his lawyers heavy handed tactics, maybe his story wouldn’t be breaking so hard it’s shattering, and likewise a number of other illiberal gagging orders.

See Sky news discussion below.

Now the courts might try and identify the person who blew the lid off the super injunction scandal on Twitter, but I have the feeling they might just get the following response;

BTW: For those interested in the super injunction preventing Ex Model and Trainer Vicky Haigh currently in Ireland hiding from UK Social Services who apparently want to take her new born baby, she has her own WordPress blog. She links to a number of other blogs telling similar, untold stories. Dispiriting reading for those who believe in freedom and the rights of the individual.

It all just begs the question; Just what on Earth are the courts up to in the UK? Never mind the Internet being ‘out of control’, in the words of one Judge. At least the Internet doesn’t threaten anyone with incarceration for speaking out against injustice.

The mighty falling

Watching the furore over the downfall and arrest of the current IMF chief with a grim smile.  Apparently this guy has had four highly placed media people covering up, obfuscating and tacitly condoning his alleged sexual misbehaviours.  First thought; he won’t be the only one.  Second thought; exactly how many of these people are there, covering up the misdeeds of the rich and powerful and who are they? 

Now if it’s any consolation, I’m usually firmly against ‘outing’ if it serves no useful purpose. However, I think in this case the public interest would be served by exposing those who ‘bury bad news’ about their masters and hauling the harm they hide struggling and flapping out of the murk, into the light of public scrutiny.

Now I’ve read the various volumes published by the Marquis de Sade (He was a Frenchman too), and know that sex and power often go together (I mean, how else did John Prescott get away with it?). So why should we be surprised, or think that the rich and powerful need shielding from the consequences of their own actions?

When a footballer who parked his willy where his wife wot not of can demand to see the emails of a media outlet over alleged ‘blackmail’ perhaps it’s the right moment to call ‘Time out’ on gagging orders that can only affect those under the jurisdiction of that particular judiciary. Although a ‘privacy law’ will probably lead to the situation where the powerful may indulge their sexual predilections hidden from public gaze, no matter how unpleasant. Rather like with the French.

Not being a prude, let’s face it, sex is sex, but there is a line here, and a fairly well defined one. That line is harm. By that definition I mean that no one is physically abused without their full consent, and then with no lasting damage.

For ‘abuse’, read against volition. As abuse can be a pretty subjective matter. There are few, or no moral absolutes in this area. An extreme feminist might define ‘abuse’ as non kowtowing to her personal prejudices, or in the case of a rich man’s wife, finding her credit card spending curtailed. Yet either might be in, let’s say a BDSM relationship involving the willing receipt of pain. From something as mild as a little hanky spanking in leather to full on whips and barbed wire underpants. So who defines what is ‘abuse’ if both parties in such a relationship are willing participants? We all have our own personal definitions. Permanent harm might simply be defined for example as a visible mark or symptom, excluding the purely decorative (Tattoo’s and piercings), and of course death.

That sexual crimes are known to have happened and subject to suppression is common currency. For example, the children of rich families are known to have murdered, then expected their family to cover up their wrongdoing. Politicians have moved heaven and the courts to suppress leakage about their misdeeds (e.g. Kennedy, Clinton). That those with money and power have such appetites should come as no surprise, but that they should have the means to suppress the information about such behaviour steps over the line to willing evil.

This isn’t to say that everyone who reports on such matters is blameless. There are incidences where the tabloid press have ruined people’s lives for exposure for mere peccadilloes. Where false witness has been given, and the victim(s) left with no means of redress but a mealy mouthed half paragraph apology buried on page seven.

I believe that the only real libertarian position on this matter can be “Do what you want, but don’t try to hide the truth.” For those who would willingly hide the truth are as guilty as those who commit the crime in the first place.

Cross posted to Orphans of Liberty

Not so super injunctions

Now no names, no pack drill, but the celebrity misdeeds that the super injunctions were meant to suppress are embarrassingly now all over the Internet.  Embarrassing deeds by Actors, TV Chefs, Footballers, TV Motoring show presenters, and people who are at risk of having newborn children stolen by social services, the names are all public domain.  You can almost hear the widespread guffaws and shocked gasps of  “but he seemed so normal” from all over the planet.  Not to mention the outraged expostulations of “How the fuck do they get away with this shit?”

I’m sure there were days not long before the French Revolution, when the sans-culottes heard the latest gossip from inside the gilded palaces of state and said much the same thing (Only in French of course).   Shortly before the whole shooting match went pear shaped and a number of previously privileged people began turning up twenty to thirty centimetres shorter than they were that morning.

Of course I haven’t read the injunctions in question, or I’d be bound by the terms and conditions, or else be held in contempt of court.  As I haven’t had the injunction served upon me, I am officially not aware of the terms and conditions, since nobody is supposedly allowed to tell anybody anything.  Nor should they, ergo I can’t know because no one is supposed to have told me, or anyone else.  Although there are those who have heard and plainly don’t give a shit and publish anyway.

No doubt a great deal of public money will be spent trying to ‘bring the perpetrators of contempt to justice’ but this isn’t justice we’re seeing, this is the law in its full tyrannical aspect.  The courts and judiciary, by defending people who have allegedly perpetrated various wrongs, bring themselves into disrepute.  Just because the people concerned have fifty to a hundred grand to spare on lawyers fees.  Maybe they’re being paid too much.

Justice this ain’t, because real justice does not come with a price tag.

Facebook again

Is there no such thing as a privacy setting worth the candle on Facebook?   I know my eldest has recently deleted her profile, but that’s more for personal reasons.

This morning I found out that Facebook granted advertisers access to members sites, even the ‘friends only’.  For a company that allegedly tried to smear Google, I wonder what planet these guys are on.  This rather vindicates my decision to erase my Facebook profile,  although it keeps coming back like a bad curry.  I’m rapidly developing the opinion that Facebook is a social vampire, sucking your real life away.  Well, it’s as bloody hard to kill.  I thought I’d finally disposed of mine after following the detailed instructions, then finding the bloody thing had risen from the crypt more times than Dracula.