http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1370661_protestors_turn_out_as_bnp_leader_nick_griffins_contempt_hearing_gets_underway_at_the_high_court?rss=yes&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+menews%2Fnews+%28News+-+Manchester+Evening+News+-+RSS+Feed%29&utm_content=Twitter
The solicitors acting for the Chairman at the time are no longer acting for him. He is suing them for negligence, apparently, and they could be called as witnesses for the EHRC, presumably on the question of whether he understood the terms of the order as well as how he was made to understand the terms of the order.
David Reade for the BNP seemed bent on arguing that service on the Chairman of the order requiring him to comply with what the EHRC demanded was somehow not valid service. A mere technicality may not be quite strong enough to remove the "persistent offender" impression he has given to perhaps too many people.
Moore-Bick LJ did more than once hint that Counsel for the Respondent should perhaps be addressing other issues other than "historic breaches" which have now been remedied to save on costs, but David Reade appeared not to be listening, or if he was failed to understand this point.
Sometimes it is cheaper and quicker to admit it's a fair cop rather than argue endlessly and dig a hole rather deeper than the one the client originally fell in, ie save on costs, for your client's sake rather than win a Pyrrhic victory because you have already prepared those particular arguments and would rather like to use them whether or not they do your client any good.
Being a libertarian who believes in the principle of freedom of association, I am against the state dictating to a political party whom they can or cannot exclude, even if it is supposedly for their own good.
However, since such a law has come into force, the Chairman should have adopted one or other of the following strategies.
1. Comply with whatever the EHRC required to stay out of trouble.
2. Defy the EHRC and dare them to do their worst while appealing to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that their freedom of association has been infringed. Article 11. http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/ENG_CONV.pdf
If the party win they are vindicated.
If the party lose then it proves that the law is an ass.
Instead, he adopted a zigzagging middle way of quasi-compliance and mickey-taking.
If I were leader I would have done one or the other. The incompetent and ruinous mismanagement of this legal action has to be heard in court to be believed. Perhaps Nick Griffin is himself really a Searchlight spy sent to destroy and bankrupt the party? (This is only half a joke.)
Below is Eddy's version:
http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/2010/11/day-one-at-high-court.html?spref=fb
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IN LONDON
COURT 1
Before LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK and MR JUSTICE RAMSEY
Monday 8 November, 2010
At half past 10
Applications for Permission
CO/9651/2010 Commission For Equality And Human Rights v Griffin
Before LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK and MR JUSTICE RAMSEY
Monday 8 November, 2010
At half past 10
Applications for Permission
CO/9651/2010 Commission For Equality And Human Rights v Griffin
Lord Justice Moore-Bick (who enjoys music, literature and gardening) is never more dangerous than when he smiles benignly upon counsel with a suggestion or a question. Gracious, patient, polite and fair, he was the embodiment of the kind of Englishman I feared had become extinct.
While a Nationalist behind me was at times gargling rather audibly with boredom, incomprehension and frustration at the sheer length of the evidence and arguments, there were times when the court was positively electric with excitement to those who were following it. These were the moments when Lord Justice Moore-Bick would be smiling at counsel.
He was being rather dangerous when he suggested to counsel for the EHRC that "suspended animation" of the offending clauses may not necessarily mean non-compliance, bless him.
Robin Allen QC for the EHRC led the court through the evidence with courtly competence though I was frankly a little surprised to learn that the barrister representing the party was in fact a QC, so unimpressed was I by him. I had simply assumed he was a cheaper junior because the party couldn't afford to find someone better.
At the end of it, it seemed to be game, set and match for the EHRC. The Chairman was clearly guilty as charged in the sense that he clearly was dragging its feet as regards compliance, in way that was clearly "tardy, reluctant and partial". We were taken chronologically through the events that constituted serial offending as regards non-compliance and it was shown that the Chairman was quite clearly "playing" with the Commission in
1. not deleting a clearly directly discriminatory clause after giving an undertaking to do so
2. not deleting a clearly indirectly discriminatory clause after giving an undertaking to do so
3. confusing them with the many versions of the constitution they were using
4. claiming that he had not been properly served with the order
5. claiming he did not understand the terms of the order (when it could be inferred that he had understood its terms because of his reluctant, tardy and partial attempts to comply with it)
David Reade for the BNP seemed bent on arguing that service on the Chairman of the order requiring him to comply with what the EHRC demanded was somehow not valid service. A mere technicality may not be quite strong enough to remove the "persistent offender" impression he has given to perhaps too many people.
Moore-Bick LJ did more than once hint that Counsel for the Respondent should perhaps be addressing other issues other than "historic breaches" which have now been remedied to save on costs, but David Reade appeared not to be listening, or if he was failed to understand this point.
Sometimes it is cheaper and quicker to admit it's a fair cop rather than argue endlessly and dig a hole rather deeper than the one the client originally fell in, ie save on costs, for your client's sake rather than win a Pyrrhic victory because you have already prepared those particular arguments and would rather like to use them whether or not they do your client any good.
Being a libertarian who believes in the principle of freedom of association, I am against the state dictating to a political party whom they can or cannot exclude, even if it is supposedly for their own good.
However, since such a law has come into force, the Chairman should have adopted one or other of the following strategies.
1. Comply with whatever the EHRC required to stay out of trouble.
2. Defy the EHRC and dare them to do their worst while appealing to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that their freedom of association has been infringed. Article 11. http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/ENG_CONV.pdf
If the party win they are vindicated.
If the party lose then it proves that the law is an ass.
Instead, he adopted a zigzagging middle way of quasi-compliance and mickey-taking.
If I were leader I would have done one or the other. The incompetent and ruinous mismanagement of this legal action has to be heard in court to be believed. Perhaps Nick Griffin is himself really a Searchlight spy sent to destroy and bankrupt the party? (This is only half a joke.)
Below is Eddy's version:
http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/2010/11/day-one-at-high-court.html?spref=fb
1 comment:
"He was being rather dangerous when he suggested to counsel for the EHRC that "suspended animation" of the offending clauses may not necessarily mean non-compliance, bless him"
Indeed and perhaps also rather provocative when he suggested that even complete removal of the offending clauses would have offered no guarantee they could not have been replaced at some stage - a point Robin Allen conceded.
I failed to understand anything of what David Reede, the party QC, was saying in the final 40 minutes or so, observing only that Moore-Bick LJ time and time tried to convey to Reede that his prepared defence had now become redundant.
Perhaps if the Chairman had been there, instead of in hospital, he would have told Reede to shut up.
Outside, meanwhile, at the entrance to the Royal Courts of Justice, 100 or so determined nationalists demonstrated in the rain and cold throughout the day with Union flags and placards.
Passing vans, taxis and lorries honked now and then in support and tourists on open-topped buses took photographs.
I noticed almost no hostility from the public, except at one stage a passing motorcyclist went into a furious rage, for some reason.
He stopped at the zebra crossing and seemed about to leave his bike in the middle of the road in order to march into the demonstration and threaten one of the BNP supporters.
As he did so, his bike fell over on the crossing and cars behind sounded their horns. This enraged him even more. BNP supporters roared in derision. Then a policeman appeared, led him away from the demonstration and sent him on his way.
In about ten minutes a busload of riot police appeared and remained parked in the centre of the road. But there was no further incident.
Adam Walker, the organiser in charge, sensibly urged people to remember that it was a peaceful demonstration, although he seemed less concerned about the chanting of “Rights for Whites” which is surely somewhat off-message these days.
The splits in the party showed insofar as Reform Group activists were mostly inside watching proceedings, instead of outside in the cold, and they were seated some distance away from the defendants present, Simon Darby and Tanya Lumby, seated in the midst of their friends and supporters.
After the day’s proceedings, as Eddy Butler emerged into the demo ahead of us, I thought I heard a short burst of mild booing. At the same time a supporter at the door warmly greeted Sue Clapp, Eddy’s wife, showing how closely Griffin loyalist and Butlerite reformer are still interconnected.
A Liverpool activist I had spoken to earlier referred to the Reform Group as the Deformed Group and noted that in a coming council election in his area Reformers are helping campaign for the English Democrats and UKIP – which only went to prove they were trying to destroy the party, he said.
For those loyal to the party, no matter how badly it is being run, what matters seems to be the feeling of comradeship and defiance which can be mustered on occasions like these.
It may indeed be why Nick Griffin continually provokes and then exacerbates legal confrontations, for the party under pressure pulls together, no matter how expensive and self-destructive the process ultimately becomes.
Post a Comment