Mitt Romney might be right

He maintains we can’t run an Olympics. We certainly can’t run a legal system.

Haiku sends a Techdirt article on the Mail archiving details of Simon Harwood’s previous, re violence. However:

As a result of that requirement to withhold information about the earlier allegations, Associated Newspapers, which owns the Daily Mail, was found by a British judge to be in breach of the strict liability rule of the UK’s Contempt of Court Act because of two stories about Harwood that it continued to hold in its archive, as this Press Gazette post explains:

Both articles were published in 2010, and had been available on the Mail Online archive since then, but only if a would-be reader actually searched for them, either on the website itself, or via a search engine.

The judge nonetheless held that the Mail Online was in contempt of court because of his interpretation of a key section in the relevant legislation:

Mr Justice Fulford held that the phrase “at the time of the publication” actually “encompasses the entire period during which the material is available on the website from the moment of its first appearance through to when it was withdrawn”.

That is either insanity, the country gone potty … or else it is part of the insidious moves made of late, e.g. the snitching exhortations and the Ian Parker-Joseph revealed:

There are 81 000 ex policemen now in the National Association of Retired Police Officers NARPO (no I had not heard of them either until they started flexing their muscles), all on generous pensions, now employed by HMRC, VAT,Local Authorities, Business Innovation and Skills, Debt Collectors and Insurance Companies.

That is virtually the same size as the reduced army of 80,000 servicemen. Half of them imagine they are in an episode of ‘spooks’ and have a urge to carry on ‘policing’ the public.

That is quite worrying – all the recent moves have been.

4 Responses to “Mitt Romney might be right”

  1. A K Haart July 27, 2012 at 13:14 Permalink

    “That is quite worrying – all the recent moves have been.”

    I agree.

  2. penseivat July 28, 2012 at 10:07 Permalink

    All of those 81,000 members of NARPO will have contributed 11% of their salary for every year of Police service to obtain those ‘generous pensions’. Compare those contributions with central government politicians or local government/authority employees.

    The contributions are high to reflect the shorter than normal working life of Police officers, especially those who continued to work on the front line (unless you want 65 year old, arthritic, riot Police). The skills learnt as Police officers can be put to other uses though moving to HMRC, local authorities, et al, is not an automatic step.

    However, why not put those skills to use if able? During their Police service, the majority, though sadly not all, would have learned the art of common sense in dealing with legislation infractions so it is more likely to be the younger, university-educated, socialistic-indoctrinated, recruits who would abuse their powers.

    As a retired Police officer (who became self-employed on retirement) I continue to be concerned at the lack of perception by the public about Police pensions. Don’t forget that the average life span after retirement from the Police is 8 – 10 years, so just let them enjoy their ‘generous’ pensions. Please.

  3. James Higham July 28, 2012 at 10:11 Permalink

    Fair comment, Penseivat and thanks.

  4. dearieme July 28, 2012 at 20:04 Permalink

    Gershwin III

    Until I started searching for good recordings of Fascinating Rhythm I’d no idea that Percy Grainger wrote some Gershwin arrangements. Wotcha fink of ‘em?

    First ‘The Man I Love’.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHw9gfXE22g&feature=relmfu

    Then ‘Love Walked In’.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsDPrEnaB00&feature=related

    Then a two-hander (well, literally a four-hander) Porgy and Bess.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odFdQUGtwA8

    And now commenceth my Summer break.

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string leTd94 to the field below: