Justice Eady - what does he know ? - Page 3

I agree.

But the issue here is that when LA is asked to quantify and to explain his improvement, we get a series of excuses which don't quantify his improvement.
We get waffle about weight loss, we get waffle about hard work.
And in addition, we receive platitudes about his being clean.

Now if people accept his explanations and his platitudes - fine.

But others like me, do not accept his explanations nor do we have to listen to his platitudes either.

P1. They might well be, and obviously merit these rewards. Failed ones will become superfluous to the senior legal system.

P2. A lot of our failed barristers become MP's. The only political appointed person in our judicary is the Lord Chancellor, other than that the judicary is a self appointing body.

P3. By the time that a barrister becomes a senior judge money will not be an issue, as they have all been successful QC's.

We will be carrying on as normal in the judicary. We are not scrapping the Lord Chancellors position on the Woolsack, nor will be having a Supreme Court along American lines, and we are keeping the Law Lords.
So it will be impossible to have an Attorney General (Lord Chancellor) like that bastard Gonzalez, in fact he wouldn't have made it to be a Judge here in the UK.

__________________
The media is a self perpetuating publicity stunt.

Did you notice who represented the Times in the Armstrong case? None other than that useless woman Heather Rogers. Remember the useless one at the Hutton Enquiry?

__________________
The media is a self perpetuating publicity stunt.

Followed your lead and have just read Justice Eady's judgement (pages 1-21 were only provided - as for 22 and 23 Acrobat did not publish same, for some reason), at Lawtel.

It's a very comprehensive judgement - in this laymans opinion.

Justice Eady's rulling is very detailed - he goes through the article, line by line, and makes his judgement on the three tiers.
From my reading of it - Justice Eady allows certain sentances to stay intact and removes other sentances where he perceives there to be a defamatory aspect.

But he only judges on the ST article and not on the book LA Confidentiel.

I am so pleased that you have finally read rules of the game according to Law. Pages 22-23 are of no interest in the case to be heard, they only refer to cost capping, in that the representatives on both sides, that is for the claimant and the defendent do not exceed into the realms of the stratosphere from that time on. It does not include fiscal damages for either the claimant, or the defendent in a resolution, nor the amounts agreed.
The whole case in this issue is about the publication of an article in a newspaper, and not about a book named LA Confidential, that publication is a different matter altogether, and has no relevance. Although Rogers, who as far I can see from the list of representatives is not a QC.
Lim my old pal, that P2 and P3, are marking out the ground, and the ground rules to start the game in one the highest courts available.
The misconception you have is that Helen Rogers trawled all case law in Libel cases and came up with nothing at all, then she washed her knickers in a substance called vehemence to trawl again in a weak and polluted pond. None of her prospective challenges made any inroads to defend the Times against the publication of the offending article, and were dismissed before the case was heard.
The issues of privileges of 1,2,3 are only of concern to the the parties involved, and were struck out in general because there was no substantive evidence to make it an issue, and would hinder the progression of the case.
I note that there was no objection lodged by either party.
They are not sentances but points of law he refers to.
The issue in this case was an article published by the Times, and not a book.

__________________
The media is a self perpetuating publicity stunt.

I'm a layman - so please indulge me.

Sections 50-100, as I read them, Justice Eady takes the article line by line and says I can let this line remain but I cannot allow the inclusion of this line/that line.
Is he referring to the article ?
You seem to be saying that he's referring to points of law and not sentances from the article in the ST.

Eady goes to great lengths to explain the concept of suspicion and I can follow his thoughts.

I'll read the judgement again - I ain't a lawyer, I'm an accountant and I have little or no legal knowledge (Law of Contract, Law of Tort and the Companies
Act are about the extent of my limited legal knowledge).
But thanks for the link - most interesting reading.

Eady takes all the propositions put before him on due and propositions from either side in what is a debate, which incurs considerable gain or loss from either party, in legal practice this is known as a game before a referee, who in this and many other cases no party objects to his participation to toss up the coin.
I am sure that even you must agree that Eady kept his eye on the ball. Your opposite viewpoint would never succeed, as would a counter-claim in law by the Times.
All their spurious points of law were defeated by case law, and I doubt that they will contest their propositions to the contrary.

Be jasus Lim, Oim only an old boike roider, what the feck y'expectin. BRAINS?

__________________
The media is a self perpetuating publicity stunt.

hats off to Eady - he discusses Ferrari, LeMond etc.
He does keep his eye on the ball.

Brains and cycling.
Interesting story coming up.

The founder of the Ras Tailteann here in Ireland was a guy called Joe Christle.
Who's he ?
Well he was a guy born in a working class area of Dublin, who became involved in republicanism at a young age and conducted the 1956-1962 Northern Campaign for the old IRA.

At the same time, he also managed to study and qualify as a barrister and an accountant.
Was called to the Bar but never practiced because he said he wanted to prove a point by getting to the finish.

He was the dean of my alma mater, when I crossed paths with him.
The single greatest influence on my life, outside of family.
I never agreed with his Republican viewpoint but I respected his achievement and his energy to progress himself, from what was a tough start in life.

The man was a socialist - advocated free access to education.
Also he was a great cyclist.
He started and organised the Ras from scratch in 1953.
His three sons all qualified in the professions (Mel is a barrister, Joe is a doc and Terry is a surgeon).
His sons boxed for Ireland - two of them won the Merkin Golden Gloves (beating, I think, Tyson in one instance. They also boxed ABA - one of them beat Bruno. Mel also cycled the Ras at the age of 14 !!).

BRF and yourself may have come across him - although he wasn't too keen about British riders given his background.
He did allow John "Gino" Goddard, from England, to cycle in the 1963 Ras and subsequent races.
Christle would have opposed McQuaid and Co.

Great man.
brains and cycling.

He sounds OK to me, I was not evolved enough in 1963 to ride the Ras. Oi wouldnt moind a good row wi'im. Oil tell him how many I caught after the Deal Bombing in Holland. C'mon now wave ye fist about Christie oive got better friends than you from the sod.

__________________
The media is a self perpetuating publicity stunt.

His views moderated somewhat by the time I met him.

He died six years ago - worryingly the provos posted a commemoration for him in "An Phoblacht".
P O'Neill acknowledged his great work in blowing up B Special barracks in 1956.
(He sat his Bar exams in Dublin on the morning of the attacks - and then travelled North to take part in attacks - no one was killed in these actions).

I wanted to go to the funeral but the Special Branch swarm over all those Republican funerals and you don't need to be identified with the Provos.

I'm w/ you Lim- "What false allegations - he's a dopeur, a cheat." but we better watch out for Murkian nationalist sentiment.

__________________
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin
US comedian and actor (1937 - )

The cancer did help LA. He weighed about 175# before, with a big upper body from swimming and triathlons. After the cancer he is 157#, and the weight loss would make a huge difference in climbing.

You would have to be naive not to suspect him, but you think someone would come up with something solid by now.

I don't know about law in the Uk but know a fair bit about US courts.
In regard to "a girl making a remark" it is not admissable unless the person is named and these statements generally can not be used as evidence even if in writing unless the witness appears to testify and verify the information.

Unsubstantiated documents are generally not allowed into evidence unless they are the basis of the claim or charge and parts of documents can be withheld at the discretion of the court.
At least that is a portion of how it works here but each judge has their own style of interpretation of the law.

__________________
Dope,when training and talent just aren't enough.

No, not quite, the three tiers are of qualified privilege.
Eady strikes out the applications that will not succeed because there is nothing in this case that they refer to, and he leaves in applications that can be heard that might have some relevance as to the eventual outcome. He has no interest at all (not quite true) in the perception of the particulars of defamation. This is the battleground for the Claimant and the Defendent to substantiate their cases, and for him to eventually decide according to law.

__________________
The media is a self perpetuating publicity stunt.

Although this is not the case. Look at it this way, a female in this case goes to collect a packet of dope. It doesn't mean that it was LA's use. It's a bit like a vegetarian going to the butchers for some meat, it doesn't mean that the vegetarian ate it.
In our country Judges might have their own little idiosyncrasies, but they cannot make up the law on the hoof. Unlike your Attorney General Gonzalez. We have a few top libel judges Lord Justice Gray is another one, but the outcome would have been the same. Both good men, and they don't believe it's OK for prisoners to have their organs pulverised. Hey where's Judge Roy Bean, in the White House?
I'll tell you something else, if that LAConfidential book is published here in it's present form Lance will get a fortune, It's more than likely he'll appear before the same Judge as well, or Gray.

__________________
The media is a self perpetuating publicity stunt.