As an accompaniment to the unique photo-history of the Egyptian revolution currently being shown on the Books Blog, here is Channel 4’s latest footage of the invalid Hosni Mubarak being brought to trial. This is a momentous moment in Egypt’s rebirth as a nation, but one denuded of dignity if these images are anything to go by.
Yesterday’s leak of Vince Cable’s response to the Hargreaves report into the Digital Economy Act (DEA) set tongues wagging. The headline was as expected: ‘web-blocking’, the practice whereby copyright infringers are barred from internet access, will be dropped because it is unworkable. In line with Hargreaves’ recommendations, Cable also plans to remove restrictions on using copyright material to create parodies, which is excellent news for Downfall enthusiasts. And he will rationalise copyright law to legalise supposedly forbidden practices like copying CDs onto an i-Pod. Finally, Cable has permitted an exception from copyright for data mining for research purposes. The Business Department and the Treasury believe that these reforms will net the economy an extra
Westminster is rife this afternoon with rumours that there’ll soon be a high-profile arrest in the phone hacking case. For David Cameron, this issue is going to remain incredibly difficult as long as the focus remains narrowly on News International. But Cameron has one tool he can use to try and broaden out the issue, the inquiries he mentioned yesterday at PMQs. If Cameron were to move quickly on setting up judge-led public inquiries into the police and into journalistic abuses, he would regain some of the initiative. These inquiries are really the only tool he has, given that the government is hemmed in on the takeover of BSkyB as
The judges are judging the judges, or at least judging by the cover of this morning’s Times (£) they are. “Radical reform of the selection of judges,” some leading figures tell the paper, “is needed to break the stranglehold of white Oxbridge males at the top of the judiciary.” The story continues inside the paper, with a tranche of statistics on just how white, Oxbridge and male the judiciary actually is (i.e. very). It all reminded me of a table we put together for Coffee House some months ago, and which I thought I’d excavate this morning. Here it is, with judges sitting firmly at the bottom: Of course, some
Jack Straw’s column in the Times today (£) contains the following revelation: ‘Our records indicate that you may be entitled to £3,450 for the accident you had. To claim free reply CLAIM to this message,” went the text that my pal Phil Riley received last week. This “accident” was, in truth, a minor prang. Phil had stopped in traffic. The chap behind drove into him, with minor damage to Phil’s car; no personal injuries. The other driver’s insurer paid Phil’s repair bill. Within days of this prang, 18 months ago, Phil was bombarded with texts and personal calls to tell him that if he would make a claim, three or
Activity in Whitehall becomes more fevered as the day itself approaches. Michael Gove wants to see off the NUT with as little bloodshed as possible, honouring David Cameron’s decree that ministers tread softly. To that end, he has already written to headmasters urging them to keep calm and carry on. And this morning, news emerges that Gove is asking parents and retired teachers who have passed CRB checks to fill in on Thursday to ensure that children have a constructive day at school. The Department of Education has not yet approached former members of the flagship Teach First scheme to return to school for a day; it’s probably too late
A letter is bouncing around Whitehall, and I thought CoffeeHousers might care to see a copy. It has been penned by Michael Gove, and is being dispatched to all headmasters today. It urges them to Keep Calm and Carry On during the impending strikes over teachers’ pensions. “My view,” pens the education secretary, “is that we all have a strong moral duty to pupils and parents to keep schools open, and the Government wants to help you achieve that.” You can read the full thing below. While much of this missive is dry, dry stuff — certainly drier than Gove’s usual prose — it’s also quite revealing of the government’s
One of the many problems with the equalities act is that it requires a level of consultation and a number of equalities impact assessments that are not compatible with speedy decision making. Word is seeping out tonight that the coalition is now having to ‘reconsider’ its decision on Academy funding because the Treasury, the Department of Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government did not tick all the right boxes before announcing the new settlement. The reverse is the result of a legal challenge by various local authorities. But this is a pyrrhic victory as the likely result of it is that local authorities actually receive less money
The Business Secretary’s words to the GMB union today about the government’s reluctance to reform Britain’s antiquated trade unions laws could hardly have been more modest. He called for a ‘mature and productive relationship’ with the trade union movement. Given the reception he received, this seems like wishful thinking (we at Policy Exchange had a dose of the GMB’s approach when it described our recent report on public sector pay as ‘propoganda [sic] in the tradition of reports by Joseph Goebbels’). Despite the heckles, Vince Cable was keen to emphasise that the government has no plans to reform strike laws and that it would only do so if pushed. It
As Ratko Mladic faces his accusers at the Hague, it’s instructive to revisit the fallout from one of the atrocities he is alleged to have committed. The Srebrenica massacre was both a horrendous tragedy and a horrendous failure of internationalism – a point the Spectator made cautiously as news of the war crime emerged. No End of a Lesson, The Spectator, 22 July 1995 The tragedy in Bosnia is so harrowing, the United Nations’ failure so all-embracing, the West’s humiliation so total that it is difficult as yet to see beyond them. But for the Bosnians themselves, the worst may now be passed. Whether the defeated international powers stage some
It’s a sleepy morning in Westminster. Fleet Street is exercised by the arrival of a new strain of e-coli in Britain and there’s also the promise of a sweltering day’s Test cricket at Lords. The Hague, by contrast, woke to the prospect of seeing Ratko Mladic, the Butcher of Belgrade, arraigned before the international court. Mladic was in hospital over night, being treated for his cancer. In view of Mladic’s ailing health, the chief prosecutor, Serge Brammertz, shortened the list of charges to ensure that the trial is shortened. In other words, those charges that might not easily stick are to be dropped so that sentence can be passed quickly. The same
Readers in England and other less-fortunate lands may not have been following the latest stushie in Scotia new and braw. This time it’s the law that’s the problem. Or rather, the UK Supreme Court’s ability to rule on Scottish appeals on Human Rights and other EU-related business. Last week this led to the conviction of Nat Fraser, imprisoned for the murder of his wife Arlene, being quashed on the not unreasonable grounds that the Crown had failed to disclose vital evidence that cast some doubt on the most important part of the case against Mr Fraser. Kenneth Roy, sage of Kilmarnock, has an excellent summary of the affair. Cue much
To present the government side in the Shoesmith case, former minister Kevin Brennan MP has written an extensive defence of Ed Balls’ decision to sack Sharon Shoesmith. Brennan’s argument is predicated on Ofsted’s report. Brennan writes: ‘Faced with such a report, the Secretary of State had to act decisively. Anyone who doubts for a moment the decision Ed Balls took should look again at that report and its implications for the leadership of child protection in that borough.’ Shoesmith has cast doubt on Ofsted’s report, asserting that its authors had been leant on after they had conducted their research and found her department to be under pressure but in good
Sharon Shoesmith cut into Ed Balls on the Today programme this morning. She said: “Why don’t we ask Ed Balls why he acted on November 12, 2008 when he knew for 15 months that Peter Connelly had died and I was working with his officials, I was going to the government office, they were reading the draft reports. Haringey council knew all about it. We examined the conduct of our social workers, we found a disciplinary against them, but they weren’t sacked – all of that was open and clear and on the table and everyone knew everything about that. It wasn’t until the spat in the House of Commons
Whitehall sources say Michael Gove will appeal the Court of Appeals judgement which decided Sharon Shoesmith’s dismissal was so ‘legally flawed as to be null and void’ to the Supreme Court. Although Gove recognises that Balls blundered in the way he dismissed her, he also believes that there are important constitutional principles at sake in this case about how Ministers make important and urgent decisions and what the role of the courts is in challenging such decisions. Gove wants the Supreme Court to consider these issues because of the huge importance of judicial reviews, which are being used repeatedly by opponents of the government to try and stymie its agenda.
Sharon Shoesmith, who was head of children services in Haringey at the time of the Baby Peter case, is set to receive a sum that could be as large as a million pounds in compensation. The Court of Appeal has ruled that the way Ed Balls, then the secretary of state, and Haringey took the decision to dismiss her was procedurally unfair to Shoesmith and so she was not lawfully removed, entitling her to compensation possibly including full pay and pension for the last couple of years. Shoesmith might be legally entitled to this money. But given the circumstances in which she is receiving it and the institutional flaws exposed
The sun shone on the deputy prime minister at DPMQs earlier today. Nick Clegg usually wears a grimace at the despatch box; but he was assured this morning, successfully defending a Labour onslaught on the NHS reforms. There were even flashes of, well, Flashman. He replied to a question from Chris Bryant by quipping, “Every time the Honourable member asks a question, I wonder why anyone bugged his phone.” Clegg also rebuked John Hemming for breaking the Giggs super-injunction yesterday; a popular move among those MPs who think Hemming degraded parliamentary privilege. Clegg said: “I don’t think anyone should be above the rule of law. And if we don’t like
‘Mr Speaker, With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter it is impractical to imprison them all and with reports that Giles Coren is facing imprisonment’ This was as far as John Hemming got in his question to the attorney general before the Speaker interrupted him to warn that he should be talking about the principles involved in super-injunctions not the people. But now that it has been said in parliament it can be reported by the press, although I do not believe any newspaper is allowed say which super injunction he has taken out or whether those naming Giggs on Twitter are correct. There were gasps in
I’m sure that all CoffeeHousers know who the footballer is with the super injunction preventing newspapers from publishing anything about his affair with the Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas. But if you didn’t, the papers would have made pretty odd reading over the past few days because the press keeps making little in jokes that are only funny if you know the player’s identity. David Cameron this morning announced that he knew the identity of the player. This highlights one of many ironies of the situation, which is that far more people are now aware of who the errant footballer is than would have been if the news had just