Rich Man's Law

The Law in the so called 'Free World' has always been skewed toward the rich and the celebrity - the main reason is that if you can pay a smart lawyer, you will get away with anything and if you are peer, you are assumed to be above the Law. As we hold up our system as a shining example to the 'undemocratised world' who we think do not understand the rule of law, ours is a system that is rotten at its core.

Yesterday, after killing a man with a blunt object known as a car, Lord Ahmed walked free with a suspended 12 month sentence. He killed a Slovakian driver, Mr. Gombar, who unfortunately had had an accident in his Audi and was facing the wrong way on a motorway at night. Lord Ahmed was found to have sent five texts from his mobile phone while driving on a 17 mile stretch of motorway just prior to the accident. At night, in the dark, in the outside lane of a motorway.

If this was anyone else other than a rich, peer of the realm, they would have been locked up for some considerable time and rightly so. The Appeal Court Judge, Lady Justice Hackett, ruled that there was 'little or nothing' he could have done to avoid killing the gentleman and that there was 'exceptional' personal mitigation in this case. Lord Ahmed's lawyer, Jermey Baker QC, had argued that the jail sentence would have 'irreparably and permanently' damaged his client's ability to carry out community work in the future.

Lady Justice Hackett, also pointed out that Lord Ahmed had never been accused or admitted to driving dangerously - such is the semantic of the Law in this case, texting while driving or driving while texting is deemed not dangerous. The appeal was hastily organised and such a foregone conclusion that Lord Ahmed did not even bother attending.

Rough Justice

The family of the Slovakian driver, whose life might have been spared had not a speeding (not enough to break the law, mind you) vehicle driven by a man not concentrating, could argue the same without such equivocation. For that man, there is no second chance, no mitigating circumstances, no nice Judge from the House of Lords, no justice - his crime was to have got in the way of a man who valued the safety of other individuals on the road no more than a fly hitting a windscreen.

For this Slovakian driver got in the way of a man on a mission, in the fast track of life and society in the free world, who could drive without due care and attention, who can kill through his negligence and have the money, power and arrogance to get away with it because he is of 'greater value to society'.

In this case, it is Mr. Gombar who was at fault for trying to interfere with Lord Ahmed's life. Perhaps, like Max Mosley, he has a case for suing Mr. Gombar's family for 'loss of dignity' having been unnecessarily dragged through the courts, to add insult to fatal injury.

For the thousands of motorists who get caught speeding who have had no accidents for years or killed anyone, this will come as some surprise. They are told regularly that they are not only breaking the law but they are potential killers - they are guilty without trial and have to pay the fine and serve the term.

They say that speed is a factor in 29% of road deaths and this will not be one of those statistics as he was driving within the speed limit - I would say it is driving with the arrogance not to care about the safety of others. There is no greater crime while sitting behind the wheel other than being incapable of driving due to a substance or incompetence.

The Wrong Message

Crime in this country is all about statistics and money. This only proves a very sad point. For the vast majority of drivers who may drive on the odd occasion above the supposed legal limit, they are easy targets for the Law as they do not argue - they accept their crime with humility and serve the sentence.

For Lord Ahmed, a peer of the realm and bastion of society, he lives in a different world. By virtue of the fact his car was moving, not even breaking the legal limit, his lack of care and negligence for other road users killed an innocent man whose only crime was to have crashed and stood in his way. We may never know why Lord Ahmed did not see him in time to prevent the crash or take avoiding action to spare his life.

What we do know is that his people got their texts and that he is able to 'serve' the community again as the shining example that he clearly is. His life goes on with impunity.

That's justice in Britain, in 2009, and it stinks.

The Clay Fist of The Law

A report out this week confirms what many people already knew, that the credibility of Community Sentences and Suspended Sentence Orders were laughable.

In a study which involved giving interviewees a £20 M&S voucher, which about summed it all up, around 25 Probation Officers and 16 Offenders were interviewed. The consensus was that offenders regularly left courts laughing and going back to tell their mates about their pathetic sentences and re-offend while Probation Officers think they are sending out the wrong message.

Soft Law - Hard Law

While many motorists who have unblemished records on insurance are targeted for speeding 10% above the limits and parkers who steal an extra few minutes are ruthlessly hounded for their offences by officers and modern technology, real criminals are actually set free under these useless schemes. Suspended Sentence Orders are particularly useless as they don't even carry a penalty if the offender re-offends as is often the case - they just get a further warning. The Community Sentences are pathetic as they just get to do some hours low-level community service and remain at large.

As so often in Britain, law abiding citizens who do not steal, cause damage or behave anti-socially are the people who are targeted by police in different ways because they are the people who will pay up without question, on time. Those who are real criminals have a habit of avoiding paying. So police methods, investment and resources are skewed toward this easy money collection to balance the books and away from preventing and solving real crime and bringing hardened criminals to justice to receive penalties which should deter them from repeat offences.

It's all part of the daft target system that the Government runs in the Public Sector - it's all about figures to prove points.

It is way too easy to get a fine for a small motoring offence like parking 2 minutes extra while a person who wilfully causes damage, steals or hurts another individual or their property will get a tiny, stupid sentence if at all.

But that's this Government and modern Britain for you. Crime pays nicely for some.

Funfzig lashes if you please, Judge

Max Mosley is some guy. If secretly filmed in a sordid sex session with a bunch of dominatrix paid-for ladies I would wager most people would be horrified and embarrassed, and possibly shrink from public life. It surely would be difficult to look loved ones in the eye and friends too - and goodness knows about work colleagues and business associates. Wouldn't we? Or am I living in a different world?

Not so Mr. Mosley. He actually turned the tables and made the whole thing a breach of his privacy. That takes some chin, but then again he's from a family not short of sticking its neck out and indulging in something repellent to most sane and decent-minded individuals.

What Are The Real Implications?

It was a bizarre affair that you couldn't have made up.

When a key witness did not show up the Judge in the case, Mr. Justice Eady, invoked the Human Rights Act to support legal action against the News of The World which had published the story and film to effectively expose his moral shortcomings, an age-old right of newspapers. Former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer stuck with his old chum and said the Judge did the right thing. Interesting.

Mr. Justice Eady ruled that the paper had breached Mr. Mosley's privacy while he had taken part in a sado-masochistic sex session with five prostitutes, in the process falsely claiming that it had a Nazi theme - which confused all of us who actually looked at the thing. I wonder why Max and the ladies didn't speak in menacing West Wales accents - surely it would have had a similar effects or perhaps we should ask the Judge.

In fact Justice Eady claimed Mr. Mosley was entitled to privacy for consensual 'sexual activities (albeit unconventional)'. It seemed to omit the fact he paid the ladies for the consensual activities, but no matter.

Enter The Daily Mail

I don't have a massive amount of time for newspapers editors, I think they do regularly overstep the boundaries of privacy. But in this instance, frankly Mosley had it coming. Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief at the Daily Mail, at the Society of Editors annual conference contended most people would consider Mr. Mosley's activities to be perverted and depraved.

I would draw readers' attention to my previous blogs on Denial as a Coping Mechanism. Psychopaths use the power of denial to distance themselves from their actions otherwise they surely would be overcome by their enormity while we regularly use denial to cope with deal with bereavement or similar. Mr. Mosley uses denial to make us believe the problem is with a warped newspaper who think his privacy is more sacrosanct than his depraved activities.

Dacre rightly points out the particular Judge has 'Form' on such rulings and contends that he is effectively passing laws. Even the PM would have had to set out a bill and get it passed by both Houses, a passage which everyone knows is no 'slam dunk'. Not so Justice Eady, asserts Dacre.

'...one judge with a subjective and highly relativist moral sense can do the same with a stroke of his pen,' said Dacre. 'I would personally would rather have never heard of Max Mosley and the squalid purgatory he inhabits. It is the others I care about - the crooks, the liars, the cheats, the rich and the corrupt sheltering behind a law of privacy being created by an unaccountable judge.'

Do We Agree?

Clearly the power of the vote of motorsport's governing body for whom Mr. Mosley works, do not agree - they gave him a vote of confidence although it might be alleged Mr. Mosley was happy to have accepted lashes instead.

I do agree this has a an implication for newspapers and society generally. If we extend Justice Eady's judgement then we may never know if politicians like Mandelson, Mellor, Blunkett, Conway, Hamilton or others far worse are doing anything which we ought to know about. It does have implications - it's called trust. While sexual activities may be a private matter in general, if you are in a high profile position or indeed in any where your actions may be construed by others as odd, depraved or unusual, do not be surprised if you take a fall. This applies to everyone when you think about it.

But here's the rub. Max Mosley slipped out of the situation because he has money. A great deal of it. If an employee, whatever rank in a company, had a video of his or herself published on YouTube of even an embarrassing incident let alone sexually depraved act they might possibly be disciplined or worse if their employers got to know. While they might argue a breach of privacy, the fact is they took the risk knowing the repercussions.

As usual in life, just as Formula One getting dispensation to get cigarette advertising a special dispensation even when it is clinically proven smoking harms health and can kill possibly with a greater risk than driving an F1 car, money talks.

Conclusion

All senses of morals say that a man in his position has betrayed the trust of his employer, wife, family and friends but that doesn't mean a jot and it outraged a lot of people who cannot understand how he keeps such a highly paid, high profile, ambassadorial job in a sport we love - in year when we have a British world champion to be proud of.

It makes you think it's a sport, much like banking, that is unhealthily in the hands of very few people who make more money than we could imagine. Perhaps it's time they joined the real world and got some sense of values and perspective, then they may actually realise this wasn't about privacy it was about trust.

The Jean Charles De Menezes Inquest - Will it Achieve Anything?

Today sees the opening of the Inquest into the death of Jean Charles De Menezes, the Brazilian electrician who was shot dead by special officers in the wake of the failed 21/7 bombings in London.

After all the cover ups regarding the David Kelly death, the legal decision for Britain to go to war in Iraq and others, do we really expect anything of use to come of this inquest? Should there be some sort of retribution for the neglect and incompetence that led to Mr. De Menezes death in any case?

In Favour of the Police

It has been argued the the UK was in a state of high alert after the bungled attempt by would-be Terrorists to again bomb the Tube Network on 21 July 2005. Mr De Menezes had been living at a block of flats which were under surveillance by undercover officers who believed one of the terrorists was indeed hiding on the premises.

Mr De Menezes, with his South American looks, was mistakenly identified as the terrorist in question and this was not corroborated by video as the person holding the camera was taking a 'comfort break'. From there a whole series of events went unchecked before Mr. De Menezes was finally shot while boarding a tube at Stockwell Station by two specially trained firearms officers acting under orders.

With the nation and authorities in a state of high alert, Mr. De Menezes was an unfortunate victim in the war against terror.

The Case Against

Chalk one up to the Terrorists after all, without even firing a shot or letting off a bomb. Britain throws caution to the wind and gun-toting, trigger-happy officers kill a man in cold blood in front of the public.

Reality and Myth

In the Independent Police Report several myths and pieces of disinformation were reviewed and explained and the worrying issue of a police cover up was raised. In fact all the officers who were to be named in the Report got lawyers paid for by public money and got an injunction against any of their names being mentioned. In the fall out, the police have shuffled shoulder to shoulder offering just one sacrificial lamb since the Report who was fired.

• At the time we all believed what we were told. Mr. De Menezes was behaving in an odd manner having boarded a bus to a tube station, got off and immediately got back on the bus to ride to Stockwell Tube. A cursory glance would have revealed what most saw, the tube station at which he originally disembarked was closed so he immediately got back on the bus.
• He was wearing a padded jacket. In fact it was a warm day and Mr. De Menezes was not wearing a jacket and indeed did not have the appearance of a man carrying explosives under his clothing.
• Mr. De Menezes vaulted the ticket barriers and fled from police. In fact Mr. De Menezes did not vault any barrier and no time did he break beyond walking pace. Video footage clearly sees him making his way to the train platform as any other commuter.
• Mr De Menezes was warned by officers they were carrying weapons but he still got on the train. In fact at no time did the special officers challenge Mr. De Menezes until he got the train, no warning was given and he was bodily pulled to the floor and restrained by one officer and then shot by the other officer a total of 7 times in the head.
• Mr. De Menezes was an illegal immigrant in the UK. It is true Mr. De Menezes was a foreign national in the UK under a visa to work as an electrician. To this day, being in the UK beyond the length of your visa is not a crime punishable by death.

The reality of that terrible day was that Mr. De Menezes was killed by serving officers who were acting on the wrong information that no one decided to corroborate and confirm and now people are trying to distance themselves from the command to kill without warning. The two officers who killed Mr. De Menezes and all the team involved that day except one still serve in the same roles and not one of them has been disciplined.

Subsequently, and perhaps this could only happen in Britain, the Metropolitan Police, were collectively found guilty of breaches of the Health and Safety Act.

Why is This Still Important?

Are we raking over this terrible affair just to give some semblance of closure to the parents? Are we doing it in the public interest - after all these police were only doing their job and sometimes you have to expect casualties?

Perversely, some have argued that as it was foreign national and one out staying his visa, then he deserved to die.

The simple fact is that a man was gunned down in cold blood having not had the courtesy of a warning at any point before he alighted the train or chance to explain who he was. And the only crime punishable by death in this country is treason and for that you require a trial and conviction. In reality, he was restrained and shot 7 times in the head in front of passengers. He had no bomb, no suspicious clothing, he was not even properly identified and it is not clear on whose orders he died. At no time, even though he was using public transport to get to Stockwell Station was Mr. De Menezes intercepted and detained when there was ample chance in the open air to do so, particularly as he was under suspicion? Why was he allowed to even enter the station let alone alight a train if he was deemed dangerous?

Subsequently, the police used the camouflage of myths and misinformation, never moving to quickly identify the man shot, what he was wearing, how he behaved even though the officers involved recovered Mr. De Menezes' wallet at the scene and knew within minutes that they had shot a Brazilian citizen. Since then, at the highest level, Sir Ian Blair even, have tried to distance themselves from the bungling incompetence and negligence that brought about Jean Charles De Menezes death that day.

The fact is, we the public, have placed our trust in the authorities to protect us. All we seem to get in return is spin, lies and incompetence. That a report which was plagiarised from an old PhD Thesis could be the basis of the dossier that took us to war with Iraq is mind blowing considering the loss of life to our troops and its cost, yet the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Intelligence, John Scarlett, was never questioned why he signed it off but instead was promoted.

So when an innocent person is killed by authorities in full public view, without challenge, then we really ought to know why it got that far and how everyone plans for it never to happen like that again. Only when we know the full facts, who did what and how the two officers came to fire the shots in a desperate attempt in their eyes to stop a suicide bomber, will we feel confident that the Police will act properly next time around. The only thing the daft HSE case against The Met proved is that review of process is critical when someone has died.

Jean Charles De Menezes could have been your son - the incompetence and negligence was that great.