Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, who once described himself, quite flatteringly, as a buffoon, appears to have been elected Mayor of London, displacing the competent but unpleasant Ken Livingsone.
I never even thought he was that funny on the radio.
I predict that Londoners will regret this, although not as much as we regret Bush — but only because the Mayor of London doesn't have as much power as even the Mayor of New York.
From The Magistrate's Blog:
It is reported that after the second time that a mobile phone had rung in the public gallery the Judge put down his pen, and glared across at the flustered-looking owner of the phone. “If that happens again” said His Honour, “you may discover why they are known as cell phones”.
UK ISPs to Spy on Google Users (and Others):
Greetings. Given the CCTV surveillance fetish in the UK these days, it seems somehow sickly appropriate that British ISPs are in the forefront when it comes to spying on the content of their subscribers' Web browsing — and it appears that Google users are in the bull's-eye.
Most of the related media attention so far has revolved around the manner in which the three largest UK ISPs have gone to bed with “Phorm” — toward the goal of monetizing Web browsing habits of subscribers and providing targeted ads ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/phorm_roundup/ ).
Of course, there's a lot “soothing” promotional blather on the BT site claiming that the data collected regarding the sites that you visit is quickly deleted or anonymized. And while officially the ISPs claim that they haven't made a decision about opt-out vs. opt-in, the current British Telecom limited deployment — they call the “service” “Webwise” ( http://webwise.bt.com/webwise/index.html ) and promote it as mainly an anti-phishing system — appears to be opt-out (requiring either maintaining a special cookie in your browser or blocking all cookies from a particular site).
Third-party tracking of the Web sites that you visit is bad enough, but Webwise (and presumably the other incarnations of the Phorm system) go one big step farther — they actually spy on your Web content and extract for their own use the search terms that you enter into search engines:
“We [Webwise] use the website address, keywords and search terms from the page viewed to match a category or area of interest (e.g., travel or finance).”
Given that the vast majority of searches these days are conducted with Google, it's obvious that this ISP-based system will be attempting to monetize the vast number of search transactions between users and Google, in a technical manner that seems eerily similar to wiretapping.
What is this, an epidemic?
In what can only be described as a close shave for civil rights, an English Judge has rebuffed an attempt by the UK government to get him to exercise for the first time the statutory power to try a criminal case without a jury.
Details of the request are at Judge may sit alone in drugs case deemed too dangerous for a jury. England long ago dispensed with the civil jury for the large majority of cases (libel being one notorious exception) and the Brown government is apparently contemplating using the Parliament Act 1949 to force through a law allowing the most complex fraud cases to be tried without a jury.
The power to waive a jury in criminal cases is relatively new and so far never used. And, it appears, despite the prosecution's request, this time the UK has dodged the bullet:
A judge has rejected the first attempt in England and Wales to hold a big criminal trial without a jury. Prosecution lawyers applied for the case to be tried by a judge alone because of fears that jurors could intimidated or bribed. The judge ruled that steps could be put in place to ensure the jury was protected, and that he could still discharge the jury and hear the case if evidence of tampering emerged.
Brian Eno has agreed to serve as adviser on youth affairs to the UK Liberal Democratic Party.
Good for both of them.
I know we have at least one blogging ex-judge in the US. There's the judge who collects legal humor. And, of course, there's Judge Posner, something of a law unto himself, who give his views online (mostly with his law & economics professor hat on), but do we have any serving judges with a full-time blog who discuss matters at all close to their service on the bench?
England (allegedly) does. See the (pseudonymous) The Magistrate's Blog. [In fact, I've just realized as I was editing this post, there's more than one, as the View From The Bench plausibly claims to “Being the thoughts, rants, speculations and anecdotes of a magistrate on a northern bench.”]
An English magistrate is a judge of limited jurisdiction, mostly petty offenses punishable by up to six months in gaol. Interestingly, many magistrates are not trained lawyers, although they do have legal advisers. (See the Wikipedia entry for more comprehensive, and perhaps even accurate, information.)
Whoever “Bystander” is, real magistrate or not, The Magistrate's Blog is an erudite and interesting blog. Yet there are some obvious ethical issues raised by a judge commenting on things that touch on past cases; these concerns are perhaps lessened by the magistrate's historical role as something of a representative of community values, or (traditionally) at least of the values of the better and rather more upper-crust elements of the community.
The magistrate, if that s/he be, deals with these with this self-description and disclaimer:
Musings and Snippets from an English Magistrate This blog is anonymous, and Bystander's views are his and his alone. Where his views differ from the letter of the law, he will enforce the letter of the law because that is what he has sworn to do. If you think that you can identify a particular case from one of the posts you are wrong. Enough facts are changed to preserve the truth of the tale but to disguise its exact source.
And perhaps that is enough.
Even so, I don't think that a sitting US judge would dare do anything like this. We've seen a prosecutor get in trouble for blogging. And of course there was the defendant who blogged about his own case pseudonymously — and lost the case when opposing counsel figured out who he was.
There are also a host of juror-bloggers. There's nothing wrong with a (petit) juror blogging after the trial is over, but it's obviously a ground for major concern if it happens during the trial as it provides a conduit for juror to lawyer/party communications which (a) might give one side an unfair advantage if only one side is learning what arguments are working ; (b) facilitate jury tampering; (c) provides fertile grounds for appeals. (More on blogging jurors here and here and no doubt elsewhere.)
Don't get me wrong, as a reader, I'm a fan. And I'm prepared to agree that the world is better off with the Magistrate's Blog than without it — so long as it's being true to its promise to change enough facts “to preserve the truth of the tale but to disguise its exact source”. But that is very difficult to do consistently over a long period of time. How, I wonder, was it done in this post, for example? (In the comments, Bystander even states that counsel read a particular case to the court!) If indeed the blog is by an actual Magistrate, the danger of slipping, or even of discovery over time without any slipping, is all too real.
Would discovery be that bad? In principle there's no difference between a judge writing an academic article about law reform and a magistrate blogging about legal issues that come up in and around the court s/he serves on. Were I a judge, however, I don't think I'd blog, and I certainly wouldn't do it pseudonymously if only because people would be sure to see that — however unfairly — as a sign of a guilty conscience. More importantly, print usually has editors and always takes time, which gives one opportunities for reflection. Blogging is quick and usually unedited. Risky….
But meanwhile, I'm going to be reading what “Bystander” writes.
Jotwell Blenderlaw