Author: DB

  • Twitterers Revealed

    An article in the newspaper about one person’s complaint about the claimed libellous comments by another person, mentioned a Norwich Pharmacal order by which a wronged person can get the details of otherwise anonymous twitterers.

    A Norwich Pharmacal order is a court order for the disclosure of documents or information that is available in the United Kingdom and Ireland. It is granted against a third party which has been innocently mixed up in wrongdoing, forcing the disclosure of documents or information.

    The innocent party in this case would, of course, be Twitter.

    A Norwich Pharmacal order was first granted in 1974 by the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners, a case concerning the alleged violation of a patent by unknown importers of the chemical subject to the patent.

    Norwich Pharmacal orders are now granted in relation to other torts, including defamation, and breach of contract, as well as alleged criminal offences.

    By the Justice and Security Act 2013, Norwich Pharmacal orders cannot be granted by the UK courts where disclosure of the material in question would cause damage to the public interest.

    Who makes the case for what is and is not in the public interest? Can a third party, such as a representative of Government that is not a direct party to the action, ask that the identity not be revealed?

  • Coverture

    1. LITERARY– a protective or concealing covering.

    2. HISTORICAL – the legal status of a married woman, considered to be under her husband’s protection and authority.

    Coverture came from the legal fiction that a husband and wife were one person and that upon marriage, a woman’s legal rights and obligations were subsumed by those of her husband, in accordance with the wife’s legal status as a feme covert.

    The fictions was abolished by various Acts in the 1800s relating to women’s property rights.

    An unmarried woman, or feme sole, had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name.

  • Commons Select Committee On Standards and Owen Paterson

    Kathryn Stone is the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards of the House of Commons.

    The Commissioner is an independent officer of the House of Commons, and the Commissioner’s remit is to investigate allegations that MPs have breached the rules found in paragraphs 11-18 of the House of Commons’ Code of Conduct for Members.

    Once the investigation is concluded, the Commissioner reports to The Commons Select Committee On Standards.

    In October 2021 the Commissioner found that Owen Paterson had breached the paid advocacy rules for making three approaches to the Food Standards Agency and four approaches to the Department for International Development in relation to Randox and seven approaches to the Food Standards Agency relating to Lynn’s Country Foods.

    The Commissioner said Paterson had “repeatedly used his privileged position to benefit two companies for whom he was a paid consultant, and that this has brought the house into disrepute” and that “no previous case of paid advocacy has seen so many breaches or such a clear pattern of behaviour in failing to separate private and public interests”.

    Acting on her report, The Commons Select Committee on Standards recommended that Paterson be suspended from the Commons for 30 sitting days. The Government decided they didn’t like that and voted to overturn the suspension. The uproar that followed resulted in Own Paterson resigning as an MP.

    Before the uproar, the Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng told Sky News that he believed Kathryn Stone should review her position after her suspension of Owen Paterson was blocked by Parliament.

    But here’s the thing. She didn’t suspend him. She reported to the Committee and they suspended him.

    According to the Committees page of Parliament the current members of the Committee on Standards are:

    Chris Bryant MP Labour Rhondda Commons Chair
    Dr Arun Midha Lay Member
    Mrs Jane Burgess Lay Member
    Mr Paul Thorogood Lay Member
    Mrs Rita Dexter Lay Member
    Mrs Tammy Banks Lay Member
    Dr Michael Maguire Lay Member
    Mehmuda Mian Lay Member
    Andy Carter MP Conservative Warrington South
    Alberto Costa MP Conservative South Leicestershire
    Allan Dorans MP Scottish National Party Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock
    Mark Fletcher MP Conservative Bolsover
    Yvonne Fovarque MP Labour Makerfield
    Sir Bernard Jenkin MP Conservative Harwich and North Essex

    How did they arrive at their decision on the penalty to impose on Mr Paterson? There are four Conservative MPs on the Committee. How did they vote?

    Bearing in mind the Commissioner’s finding that “no previous case of paid advocacy has seen so many breaches” was as bad as Mr Paterson’s, it might have been more appropriate for the The Commons Select Committee on Standards to suspend Mr Paterson for the rest of the Parliament.

    If Parliament had not voted to overturn the suspension, then Mr Paterson would not have resigned and he would have been suspended for 30 sitting days.

    The Standing Orders of Parliament dictate the consequences of being suspended.

    1. Members suspended, etc., to withdraw from precincts
      (1) Members who are ordered to withdraw under Standing Order No. 43 (Disorderly conduct) or who are suspended from the service of the House shall forthwith withdraw from the precincts of the House.
      (2) Suspension from the service of the House shall not exempt the Member so suspended from serving on any committee for the consideration of a private bill to which he may have been appointed before the suspension.

    45A. Suspension of salary of Members suspended
    The salary of a Member suspended from the service of the House shall be withheld for the duration of his suspension.

    So there is a financial penalty, assuming ‘withheld’ means that it is never paid to the MP, rather than held back and paid later.

    So how much is it? The basic annual salary of an MP in the House of Commons is £81,932, as of April 2020. How does a withholding of pay for a sitting day tie into that? The Commons Library records the number of Commons sitting days by session since 1945, and from the latest figures (2015-2016) there seems to be around 150 sitting days. So would Owen Paterson have forfeited 30 of 150 of £81,932, which would be £16,800?

    Or would it be 30 of 365 of £81,932, which would be £6,700? Or something else?

    The newspapers reported that Mr Paterson made something around four times his MP’s salary as a consultant. So having his name in the public eye associated with sleaze may have hurt him more than it did his pocket. Or perhaps not. Without knowing Mr Paterson, one cannot say.

    All of which is blood under the bridge, because he resigned and lost all his pay. Who could have predicted that outcome? And bearing in mind the 80 seat majority that the Conservatives have in the Commons, what skin was it off their nose if one of their MPs was suspended for 30 days? It makes you wonder.

  • Anti-Vaxxers

    Why do they do take the position they do?

    I think it is fear. By seemingly taking a stand, they demonstrate superiority over the system and behind that, over the virus. And years of social media conditioning has robbed them of the ability to distinguish between social realities and biological realities.

  • Non U

    Apparently – From non +‎ U (“characteristic of the upper classes”), coined by British linguist Alan S. C. Ross (1907–1980) in a 1954 article, and popularized by the English journalist and writer Nancy Mitford (1904–1973).