Links

[liadnan]

Two minor placeholders of interest: Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LibDem peer, not to be confused with Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, now LCJ) on ID Card Bill amendments (via Nosemonkey):

"The amendment to be debated today will tap into cross-chamber insistence that resisting calls for estimates of the full costs of such a massive initiative not only prevents proper scrutiny but aborts discussion of alternatives. It also seems to be unprecedented. The Home Office minister Baroness Scotland tried to justify the intransigence on the grounds of commercial secrecy during the tendering process. Besides wondering at the presumption of embarking on tenders long before the bill is through, to think that commercial convenience trumps parliament's right to know is a baleful reflection on our democratic ill-health.

Although the government seeks to pretend otherwise, our ID card project is uniquely vast, complex and intrusive. It risks outscandalising the Eurofighter, the Millennium Dome, the Scottish parliament, the driving licence and NHS computer projects and a host of other less daunting cock-ups. No other nation has essayed a single central database with a file on every citizen over 15.

ETA: and the Lords have indeed put a spanner in the works. Good. I would very much like to see the costing for a start.

And, entirely unconnected, Michael Barrymore is likely to be served with a private prosecution on CBB. Worth noting that the "former solicitor" (and note the former there) is a known nutjob, once described by Nigel Farrage of UKIP (with whom he shares political views) as "eccentric".

ETA: the BBC story has been updated and indicates that Bennett has now delivered the papers to the producers for service. So it may very well be a case of "would Michael please come to the diary room...."

Incidentally, it's vaguely irritating when you link to a BBC story at some time and it's later altered under the same URL, either because of the story developing or because of some error. I can understand why from their point of view they do it, but there should be some way of archiving what the story said at first.

ETFA: This gets better. I am informed, though no link as yet, that the update to the BBC story is incorrect and Channel 4 are refusing to accept service on Barrymore's behalf. Since he has lawyers acting for him, and a known normal residential address I don't see why they can't serve there. Can't be that they really want to serve on prime time television, surely?

Nosemonkey rounds up Bennett's CV here

Comments

[nicnac.livejournal.com]

Trying to get him on a balance of probabilities? Interesting timing.

[liadnan]

No, it still has to be reasonable doubt for a private prosecution: it's still a criminal suit, not suing for damages in tort. Bennet wouldn't have the standing to do an OJ and sue (and can't represent Lubbock's father as he's not on the Roll). To be honest I'm a bit surprised he can bring a private prosecution but not my area.

Channel 4/Endemol/whoever must be wetting themselves.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I'm no lawyer but I know my 18th century history. Back then, anyone could bring a prosecution and representation wasn't required (in fact defendants could not be represented). So, unless the law in this regard has been changed there is nothing to stop any individual prosecuting a criminal action.

[liadnan]

Yes, you're quite correct about the 18th century, but I'd be exceedingly surprised in the law on private prosecutions hadn't changed drastically since then.
Will be interesting to see if the AG steps in, which he certainly has power to do.

[liadnan]

(Actually, having checked, it seems Lubbock Snr did commence an action for damages against Barrymore in 2004. I don't know what became of that.)

[deililly.livejournal.com]

I am a bit confused. Is 'being in talks with' mean the same as representing him?

Am I being stupid?

[liadnan]

No, it's not, and it's far from stupid to spot that Bennett is not representing Lubbock snr. He can't, as he's not a person entitled to represent others in court.

[deililly.livejournal.com]

So it isn't the family and this guy is bringing it while Barrymore is in the Big Brother house. Ok.

Hmmm.

[coughingbear]

The BBC site this morning has a story which describes him as a solicitor (no former) and definitely implies he's acting on behalf of the family - is that just wrong?

[liadnan]

Yep. He's definitely not on the roll (I checked, there is one "Anthony Bennett" and two "something Anthony Bennetts" and none of them can be him), and googling for him brings up most of his antics, most articles describing him as "former" or "retired".