Law

CoffeeHousers may like to see the full leaked letter (pasted below) to which I referred in The Spectator’s cover story this week. It shows how the NUT is using Freedom of Information to try and force school heads to hand over a list of names of anyone who might support a campaign to opt out of local authority control and become quasi-independent Academies. We have blacked out any information that may reveal the source. This letter helps explain why Michael Gove will have so few names next week, when he lists the list of schools who have succeeded in their fast-track application. Out of the 3,000 eligible, a few dozen

Has Mark Hoban just become the first victim of the New Labour landmines? He was asked on the Today Programme whether the Treasury had conducted a formal study assessing the impact of the cuts on ethnic minorities. Hoban was speechless – as well you might be. But the assessment, he was told, is required under Harriet Harman’s Equalities Act. Has it been carried out? He avoided the question and was asked it again. And so it continued, a la Paxman v Howard. When Labour retreated, it sewed several landmines in the political territory it was about to cede. One of them was Harman’s Equalities Act, which – as Pete blogged

David Cameron’s so-called “referendum lock” is supposed to ensure no more powers are handed to the EU. His thinking, bless him, is that if he just keeps a low profile and doesn’t sign any extra treaties then things won’t get worse. This fundamentally mistakes the way the EU works. As we say in the leader for this week’s magazine, ever-greater integration is hardwired into the system. An example we cite is the coming European Investigatory Order, which Theresa May has naively described to other ministers as a tidying up exercise (Jack Straw said the same about the EU constitution).  As we put it: “Another power grab is looming. Plans are

Before such fripperies were banned, al-Qaeda terrorists were given lessons in stand-up comedy while in high-security prisons. I’d have thought that the exploding underpants fraternity had natural advantages in comedy, but never mind. What I want to know is who gave the lessons? It’d be ironic if it was a voluntary group. The Mail has worked itself into a panicked fury about that the ban on prison parties would be revoked. To be fair to the Mail, Crispin Blunt, the Prisons Minister claimed as much in speech last night, and he vowed to abolish Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection – orders that incarcerate the sort of charmers who butcher you

Very little is my immediate answer. The President’s approval ratings are biting the dust. Powerless to stem the tide of oil and unpopularity, Obama can only victimise a ‘foreign’ oil company. Obama may be embattled at home, but if any doubt the US President’s ability to influence global events, they need only look at BP’s share value and the pension funds derived thereof. BP is mired in an expensive oil disaster, but the President’s rhetoric about the ‘habitual environmental criminal’ and threatening BP with criminal proceedings demolishes market confidence. If the British government had condemned AIG, Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch in similar tones, the US administration would have retorted.

I would like to defend the coalition from allegations that there has been a deplorable Tory concession on the Human Rights Act. Tearing it up was never in the Tory manifesto. Dominic Grieve, who drafted the Tory plan, is one of those lawyers who is rather passionate about the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and praised it in his maiden speech. I had many conversations with him about this: for Britain to pull out of it, he said, would send an “odd” signal to the countries on the fringes of Europe whom we were trying to pull into our orbit. Grieve’s plan was to propose a Bill of Rights

The four members are before a magistrate, attempting to clear their names. I’m not sure if it’s more preposterous than it is shaming to claim that conventions protecting free speech apply to false accounting. If only Enron’s lawyers had been as ingenious. In addition to Morley et al’s abuse of parliamentary privilege, Alan and Ann Keen have been fined £1,500 today, which, as Paul Waugh notes, is lenient compared to the Parliamentary Privileges and Standards Committee’s damning verdict. Expect to hear more on that decision as public anger over expenses remains unabated. Some time ago, I thought the expenses scandal would only be resolved by the catharsis of a General

The spin machines are gearing up as we amble towards an election, and strategists’ latest hobby-horse is self-defence. Following the sentencing of Munir Hussain, Alan Johnson admitted feeling “uncomfortable” about Judge Reddihough’s decision. Never one to miss the bus, Chris Grayling went further and faster, suggesting that householders should be immune from prosecution unless they had responded in a “grossly disproportionate” fashion.   It’s rather unfair, but deliciously cutting, of cartoonists to portray Grayling as a plump second hand car salesman posing as James Bond, but Grayling deserves criticism because “grossly disproportionate” is as ill-defined as the “reasonable force” that current legislation describes. Conservative proposals would still leave decisions entirely