Just Obey The Rules Like Everyone Else Has To!

A barrister, who asked not to be named, told The Mail on Sunday that security guards at the court behave like 'night club bouncers'. Another barrister added: 'Some are thinking of a boycott here.'

Like you'd ever pass up money. Just bloody do as you're told, you're not special.  

Defence solicitor Dele Johnson said guards wrestled him to the ground after he refused to take off his shoes in a security search. Mr Johnson, 37, said it was like the ordeal of George Floyd, whose murder by Minneapolis police, as he protested 'I can't breathe', sparked the Black Lives Matter movement.

'I never thought I'd also be saying 'I can't breathe',' said Mr Johnson. 'I was just trying to do my job.'

What do you think the security guards were trying to do then? When someone tries to circumvent security?  

Mr Johnson's identification card was checked when he arrived as a duty youth court solicitor last Wednesday. After leaving the building to have a cigarette, he agreed to a pat-down search when he returned but refused to take off his shoes, which he said resulted in four guards forcibly removing him.

With a defendant waiting for him, he re-entered the building via a side door but was blocked from entering a court and allegedly grabbed by 'four or five' guards.

'I started swinging, I felt I was fighting for my life against five men to stop them grabbing me,' he said.

You deliberately evaded security and started fighting with them when they tried to stop you. I guess standards have fallen further than anyone thought if someone like you can be a solicitor. 

Never Mind, Dafydd, Better Luck Next Time...

Dafydd Roberts, defending, told the court: "It is clear alcohol was an inhibiting factor in relation to the offending. He no longer drinks any alcohol. His mental health was problematic during the course of this relationship. Since then he has improved his mental health significant (sic) and he feels in a far more stable position.

"There is a very distinct difference between the Louis Costes who appears before the court today and the one who behaved in the way he did. He has been slow to grow up but he is now showing elements that he is growing up and changing his ways."

Oh, right, well, I suppose that's just this side of plausi... 

A statement read out on Ms Jones' behalf said: "Before, I was a happy young mother who enjoyed spending time with her child and family. At the beginning of the relationship, we were happy and we got along like a house on fire.

"It wasn't long, after a couple of months or so, that it all began to go downhill. I got so stressed and anxious I would throw up."

But Costes interrupted, saying "this is all f***ing lies, I'm sick of this s*** - joke" while sat with his arms folded. He then began crying.

Whoops! 

Sentencing, Recorder Mark Ford KC said: "It is apparent to me that your remorse is rather limited and that you have sought throughout this case to minimise the nature of your conduct. You reacted with distain to what she said.

"I have no doubt that, at the time, the victim of your offending was terrified. You are a jealous, impulsive man unable to control yourself - as you demonstrated all too clearly before me."

I bet Dafydd has used that same argument every time. I wonder if he will again? 

Doesn't She Have An Equally Strong Case Against Her Mother...?

A human rights lawyer who was groomed, raped and made pregnant at 14 by her mother's boyfriend has received a payout by her former school after claiming staff failed to protect her.

Her case against the college, which charges fees of up to £35,000 a year, surrounded the belief that if staff had fulfilled their safeguarding responsibilities, she could have been spared months of abuse.

Or does mummy not have such deep pockets?

In 2020 insurers for Ellesmere College settled out of court and paid Miss Fawcett a sum without an admission of liability.

Thought so...

Shakespeare was right, wasn't he?

Stick To Dipping A Paintbrush, Not Your Hands In Our Pockets...

A successful artist is seeking £33.6million in damages claiming he now paints too slowly after being run over by a stolen moped in central London - preventing him from creating 14 extra masterpieces per year.

Wow! Isn't he lucky the chap who hit him is a billionaire! That is what happened, right?

...he is now suing Mr Hinds and insurers Aviva ...

Ah. Of course.  

However lawyers for Aviva at the High Court in London today branded the claim 'extraordinary' and 'overstated', and suggested the collision had actually helped Mr Mathieu's career, citing interviews in which the artist discussed the 'positive impact of the accident' which 'influenced his subject matter.'

Whoops! 

They also argued that he often fails to sell a 'sizeable portion' of his work at events, undermining his claim that he could sell more works every year. And while not disputing some liability, they are challenging the amount of the payout demanded, arguing the claim is 'inflated' and 'based on hypothetical guess work'.

It's based on what he - and his lawyers - think he can get away with... 

Mrs Justice Hill is considering arguments at a High Court trial in London due to last about two weeks.

That long? 

Sorry, Essex County Council, There's No 'No Smoke Without Fire' Clause In Employment Law...

A former primary school headteacher who was cleared of sexually abusing seven children could receive compensation after a tribunal ruled he was unfairly sacked.

He was sacked before the trial? That's unusual, isn't it?  

He faced six charges of sexual offences against children at the unnamed school in Essex in June 2018, but due to the way the youngsters were interviewed the case was dropped when it reached the crown court. Despite being acquitted when the CPS offered no further evidence in May 2019, the teacher was still dismissed by Essex County Council.

Ah! There was no trial. 

A tribunal judge criticised Essex Police's handling of the case as well as Essex County Council that took over the disciplinary proceedings from the school governors over fears they would not be impartial. But the authority's executive director for corporate and customer services, Margaret Lee, was slammed for 'shooting from the hip' and not reading the teacher's legal statement from his QC.

Another council investigator who carried out the disciplinary probe did not look at any of the adult witnesses' statements and ignored that many of the children making the allegations were friends, according to the tribunal.

So...if there was no offence, why was he sacked? In fact, why was he even charged?

Judge Samantha Leigh (Ed: and if you can't win over 'soft touch Samantha'..!) at Basildon Crown Court said had the full extent of the initial interviews with the children been known the teacher would probably not have been charged with any criminal offences.

/facepalm 

Employment Judge John Crosfill in his ruling said, 'there was evidence from children that suggested some inappropriate behaviour'. But he added: 'Against that there was considerable evidence that went the other way.

'What was required was a reasonable and careful evaluation of that evidence. I regret to say that the combined efforts of Norma Howes, Jo Reed, Clare Kershaw and Margaret Lee fell far short of that.'

Norma Howes, a child protection expert, Jo Reed, an external HR advisor, Clare Kershaw, director of education at Essex County Council and Margaret Lee, carried out the authority's probe.

Badly, clearly!

And let's hope that any compensation due to the wronged man comes directly out of their pockets, and not that of the poor long-suffering Essex taxpayer... 

Essex County Council said it would take legal advice about the judge's ruling.

Dig deep, Essex ratepayers, there's more money to shell out! 

"Let Me Through, I'm An Employment Tribunal Judge..."

"That's nice, madam, but this person needs a doctor..."

A factory worker who was sacked for attacking a colleague has won a disability discrimination claim after a tribunal ruled he was suffering from 'diabetic rage'.

Wait, that's a thing? Really? Well, I guess he had a doctor to prove his...

Oh, maybe not: 

At the tribunal, Mr Dytkowski was 'very frank' that he had sought but failed to get evidence from his clinicians which supported his view, explaining doctors 'could not say for sure'.

Yeah, I guess that doesn't matter though, because who needs medical experts?  

But Employment Judge Joanne Dunlop agreed with him and ruled that he was discriminated on grounds of his disability and unfairly dismissed.

'He is not a medical expert but, at least to some extent, we are entitled to treat him as an expert on his own condition and how he experiences the effects of it.'

/facepalm 

Are Some Judges Waking Up..?

A judge has slammed 'nonsensical and very wrong' sentencing laws after he was forced to let off a Spice-addled thug who beat up a boy with a shorter jail term.

Welcome to our world, your honour! What took you so long? 

He told Davies: 'You loaded a crack pipe with Spice, smoked it and then, whilst hallucinating, you set on a defenceless 10-year-old boy.

'You physically assaulted him in a deranged way, in a scene akin to a horror film. This is a child who has suffered serious psychological harm.

'It is obvious to anyone with any common sense that your actions towards that child would have put them in fear.

'Every type of sentence has been tried in your case from community orders to suspended sentences, but you have failed to respond to them.

'On this occasion you went out and bought spice when your release note setting out the terms and conditions was still in your pocket. You treated it with utter contempt.'

Of course he did. And why not? It is, after all, worthy of contempt, is it not? 

Davies served 19 months of his sentence including time served on remand before being freed on December 18 last year with 20 months to go of his sentence.

I bet his brief didn't have to work too hard: 

In mitigation Davies's defence counsel Anthony Morris said: 'A report on him recognises there has been a significant emotional impact on the child but there is no suggestion it is the most serious type of harm.

'Medical evidence suggests the victim was clinically well and medically fit when he was last seen.

'While the defendant has been a regular spice user this is the first occasion where he has responded with violence.'

Oh, really? What say the prosecution? 

'He has two previous convictions for battery in 2012 and 2016.

'This was a sustained assault by an adult on a child who ended up having to lock himself in the bathroom.

'This 10-year-old child must have been affected by what was an ordeal for him.'

Hmmm. Maybe the judge should be looking at all the people treating the justice system with contempt... 

Leeches...

An old term for doctors. Perhaps we should use it for another profession instead? 

Three victims of trafficking and modern slavery who were subcontracted to sort rubbish for the national waste and recycling firm Biffa Waste Services are to launch legal proceedings to sue the firm for damages.

Did Biffa kidnap these unfortunates and put them to work, then? Well, no. Of course not. 

The claimants, who spoke no English, were trafficked from Poland to the UK in 2014 and 2015 and were placed in work with Biffa, sorting rubbish on a conveyor belt, via an employment agency. Although they were paid for their work by the company, their wages were transferred into bank accounts that the organised crime group had opened in their names, and which they were unable to access. Solicitors acting for the two men and one woman said they received about £5 a week in cash for their work.

How, exactly, were the company responsible here, then, rather than the gang? What slimy, opportunistic little worms think they are, or is it just that they have deep pockets and the lawyers involved know that a Briffa employee won't be tasked with putting a bomb under their Mercedes should they win? 

A pre-action letter sent to Biffa by Leigh Day solicitors (Ed: Oh. Them. Of course...) on behalf of the three victims states that the company has a responsibility to prevent forced labour within its workforce. Parallel proceedings will be launched against Smart Solutions, the employment agency which placed the workers in jobs in Biffa recycling plants.

Both look as though they aren't just going to roll over for this, thankfully: 

A spokesperson for Biffa said: “Biffa takes a zero tolerance approach to modern slavery. We cooperated fully with West Midlands police at the time of this investigation in 2016. We regularly review our practices and protocols to ensure we continually follow best practice … All allegations against Biffa are denied and will be defended in any court proceedings.”

Smart Solutions said it had been working with West Midlands police since 2015 to assist investigations. “Since we were first made aware that our workforce had been infiltrated, we have worked tirelessly to ensure that we are continuously developing in our approach to hidden labour exploitation. We work to educate our clients, supply chains and external businesses so, as a collective, we can try and put an end to Modern Day slavery,” a spokesperson said.

Meanwhile, the usual suspects are nestling at the teat, settling in for a big feed. Because no matter who wins this one, they always get their meal.