Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Gups]

I guess Sheilbhs point is that if you think X will help the country then that's your ideology.

I am rather more skeptical of a lot of the Tories motives than wanting to do what is actually best for the entire country rather than just a certain subset of it.

The same could be said about any political group o rperson, right or left, including you I suspect. Most policies are trade offs, befitting some (higher salaries for public sector workers, new housing and hurting others (higher taxes for otehrs, NIMBYs).

[Josquius]

I guess Sheilbhs point is that if you think X will help the country then that's your ideology.

I am rather more skeptical of a lot of the Tories motives than wanting to do what is actually best for the entire country rather than just a certain subset of it.

The same could be said about any political group o rperson, right or left, including you I suspect. Most policies are trade offs, befitting some (higher salaries for public sector workers, new housing and hurting others (higher taxes for otehrs, NIMBYs).

To an extent.
Though I'd argue if you're helping the overwhelming majority of people whilst slightly hurting people who won't even feel the hurt then that's overall in the best interests of the country.
Its definitely my left of centre basis talking, but I would say there's a correct balance of trade offs, and its not in favouring the already comfortable whilst screwing the poor.

Also there's the self-interest factor. I do think there's a fundamental right and wrong there. Through the history of the world definitely get politicians on the left guilty of this too. But in the modern UK....

[Tamas]

The point is that the policies you suggest are based on your ideology. That doesn't make them a bad policy.

[Sheilbh]

Bone has been suspended from the Commons for six weeks which is enough to trigger a recall petition. If he doesn't resign (and he absolutely rejects all the allegations), I'd expect that recall petition to be successful and cause a byelection. I think so far ever recall petition in GB has been successful, the only one that failed was in Northern Ireland and even it came close.

Sorry got this wrong the recommendation was a six week suspension. Commons looked at it today and not a single "no" so it didn't even require a vote. He's suspended for six weeks which will trigger an automatic recall petition which I'd very much expect to be successful.

He got 62% of the vote at the last election with Labour on 26%. Given the recent by-elections (and national polls) I think you'd expect Labour to win at the by-election.

And there'll be a by-election. 13% of his constituents signed a recall petition so it met the threshold.

From the last election:


Labour will need about 18,000 votes which is an 18% swing to win. Based on previous by-elections this parliament (and the national polls) that feels do-able.

[Sheilbh]

Been thinking about the Prince Harry ruling because I think there's a bit of a tension there.

Basically Harry won his case against the Mirror which did invade his privacy through unlawful means like voicemail hacking, blagging etc. The judgement also, as an aside, found that Piers Morgan who was editor at the time was aware of those practices. The thing that struck me was that to an extent this is an open secret. I believe on their accounts the Mirror Group have been paying more to settle phone-hacking cases than News UK (which shut down The News of the World). Harry is separately suing every other paper in the UK (with the exception of the Guardian, FT and Telegraph) for various intrusions etc.

My understanding is that News took one big case of phone-hacking to trial (I think the Sienna Miller/Jude Law one) and were then able to use that to size what appropriate settlement offers are. And then the English justice system kicks in - our civil procedure rules have an "overriding objective" which is basically to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. Supporting that there are rules that basically encourage settlement - so from my understanding at a high level, if you're suing and get one of these formal settlement offers you can refuse it but if the final judgement of the court is the same as or less than the settlement offer then you are responsible for costs after the point of the offer. Going back to that overriding objective, it's to encourage everyone to reduce costs by getting the just settlement (or better) that you would have got at full trial.

But it feels like this is an example of where it is a problem. Becuase following that one test case by News the media companies who were engaged in these practices have been able to basically settle everything - they have a marker of how much they need to offer to close the case down. On the one hand that's good in that, from my understanding, all of the records have had to be disclosed to various claimant firms and then basically if your name is in any of those records you will get an offer based on an assessment framework of what you would get at trial. Obviously the thing you don't get is your day in court or a finding of fact about what happened - which I'm not sure is delivering justice, even if it's delivering the same results and keeping costs down (both very important objectives).

It also means as in this case that you need someone rich and willing to take the potential hit on costs to push things to trial - as I think outside of legal/media circles it wasn't really well known that the Mirror had been hacking on a similar scale to News UK. That's now a big news story (albeit about a decade or two old). In these cases, Harry is suing every newspaper in the country and they won't forget that so there's also that cost. But it's not just these cases - it's lots of claims that don't get their day in court with a public ruling because of the technical means of encouraging "just" settlements.

But I'm not sure what I think. On the one hand you do want to encouarge settlements, if they are equivalent or better than someone would have won then it's not a bad result from them and it is important to keep costs down in the justice system. On the other some of the value is in the trial and decision itself and perhaps without that the case isn't treated "justly"

I also wonder if it is tied to a separate thing I've read about which is judges becoming concerned that English law is not developing - primarily because of alternative dispute resolution for big commercial contracts but also settlements. So they're overworked and stretched but also they're not getting the right type of cases, cases they used to get which allowed the law to develop.

[HVC]

Are settlements closed? Would other news papers catch wind of all the settlements and release stories? Or is it a I'll shut up about yours if you shut up about ours type situation?

[Admiral Yi]

I had to look up blagging.

[Sheilbh]

I think that's between the parties - so they wouldn't be able to talk.

If other newspapers caught wind, I din't think there's any reason they couldn't publish. The terms of the settlement aren't binding on the world. There may be separate reporting restrictions relating to that case which are binding on the rest of the media.

And worth noting the courts have discretion so if they think the offer/settlement was unjust they can veto the effect of the rules. But it's fairly exceptional.

[HVC]

I had to look up blagging.

Same. Kind of like British phishing.

[HVC]

I think that's between the parties - so they wouldn't be able to talk.

fix that and most of your concerns are fixed. Add extra salt to the wound by making it compulsory for news organisations to print/broadcast announcements of their settlements and offence (persons name can be omited). Though not sure of that second part if workable in a legal  sense.

[Sheilbh]

That's the approach for regulatory settlements. I'm not sure it'd necessarily work for generral civil cases (and as I say this isn't specific to media - it's the civil procedure rules) because I think that might undermine one of the benefits of settlement. I think it would work if it was like an ombudsman scheme (which you often get with consumer claims).

But with a settlement in a civil case, there's no finding of facts (unlike with a regulator) or necesssarily agreed facts. So it's not clear what would be admitted as part of the settlement. From memory you can make one of these formal offers at basically any point (and civil litigators will spend a lot of time on the strategy of when to make one). And on the other hand I don't really see how the courts can or should be able to force two parties to go to trial just because it would be in the public interest.

For example, my understanding is that basically the news organisations had to provide huge amounts of disclosure (notebooks, invoices etc) to claimant solicitors. If your name is in the notebook you can go to News UK, say, and get £1k even if there's no other evidence. Your name was in the notebook of a reporter who used illegal methods. No-one incurs any costs and the claimant gets money they probably wouldn't win at trial. Change that so News UK or Mirror Group have to print names or numbers - and I'd guess the incentive for them is actually to challenge claimants to prove it.

[HVC]

That's different then how I understand settlements. Sounds more like lawfully sanctioned hush money if there are no agreed facts. But then again I'm not a lawyer so my understanding of settlements is probably wrong

[Sheilbh]

That's different then how I understand settlements. Sounds more like lawfully sanctioned hush money if there are no agreed facts. But then again I'm not a lawyer so my understanding of settlements is probably wrong

I could be wrong but I don't think settlements often include agreed facts - they'll basically in respect of x, y and z you basically trade away your claim for this fee. My understanding is that you can settle at any point (and there is strategy in that) so you may not even fully know the facts but would rather pay for the issue to go away (especially if you think that would be lower than the legal costs you'd have to incur on full disclosure). But obviously that's a risky approach and it'll depend on how much the other side things their case is worth.

I just checked and I don't think settlements are confidential but there is an alternative proceudre a "Tomlin Order" that does allow confidentiality.

I think there's also areas where you can't really include a confidentiality clause - so I think group litigation, ombudsman schemes, increasingly I think it's very much frowned upon (but not illegal) in an employment context. So the areas where confidentiality would normally come up is in big commercial disputes.

[Tamas]

I have mostly made my peace with the inside (closest to the middle) lane of the motorway being called the outside one here and vice versa.

But why is the passenger side of a car called the nearside? Because it was closer to the noble lord entering the car?

[Sheilbh]

Never heard that. But I'd guess isn't it because it's the side normally next to the pavement when you park?