Craven Conflict: free promotion on Saturday 27 August

Would you like a free download of Craven Conflict? For one day only, on Saturday 27 August, you have the chance to obtain one. Head over to Amazon - the links are on the right.

Nashville Cast, Black Sabbath, and online touts

Tuesday night’s Nashville Cast performance at Birmingham Symphony Hall was a great show. All credit to cast members Scarlett, Will, Deacon and Gunnar – otherwise Clare Bowen, Chris Carmack, Charles Esten and Sam Palladio – for taking the risk of arranging a UK tour based on a US TV series, all the more so when the two female leads Rayna and Juliette were not involved. The Birmingham show was a sell out.


But we almost didn’t go. Having only found out about the tour late in the day, when it was sold out, the only tickets available were from secondary sources (OK, let’s not beat about the bush, from online touts) at double and in one case treble their face value. No chance. Only the late availability of two unbelievably good tickets, at face value from the box office, meant we’d see the show after all.


Here’s another example of online touting in practice. In today’s Birmingham Mail, it is reported that even before tickets for the final Black Sabbath tour went on general release, they were already in the hands of online touts at inflated prices. No fault of the band, but their reputation will suffer as a result.


A few thoughts. The touts’ purchase of these tickets does not involve any adding of value to them. Not a penny of the mark-up finds its way back to the artists. And the subject matter of the tickets – an audio visual experience from a live concert on a specific date – is of no interest to the touts, but of great interest to genuine fans, who would not find comparable pleasure in a Justin Bieber concert, a Birmingham City home match or a Shakespeare play if they were unwilling to pay the touts’ prices.


Legislation may be the answer. Here’s a link to a petition from Royal Blood’s site with their own comments. But is it really beyond the ingenuity of the artists, their promoters and the venue owners to put a stop to online touting of their own initiative? Surely there is scope to print the purchaser’s name on show tickets and carry out random ID checks at the venue? And in the event that a purchaser was genuinely unable to go to the show, surely the artists would be happy to reimburse the venue for any unsold returns, if it meant that they were not tarred with the same brush as the online touts?


Come on, artists, get thinking. If it’s quick and easy in the digital age for independent authors to cut out the middlemen that stand between them and book publication, can’t you find a way to make online touts history?

EU Referendum: a hymn for Brexit

“Mighty EU, flexing muscles, trampling on democracy
Lording o’er us all from Brussels, bastion of bureaucracy
Yours are clouds of sinful madness, driving precious hope away
Giving such unending badness - regulate and make us pay!”

Well, that’s the first verse of a possible Brexit anthem. Three more to follow. And you might already have worked out the musical inspiration. Scroll down to the end for the rest now if you wish. But all good things come to those who wait. Let’s have a quick history lesson first.

The European Union’s official anthem is Beethoven’s “Ode To Joy”, adopted as such in 1972. But only the music. Why no lyrics? Because, as is confirmed on the EU’s official website, “In the universal language of music, this anthem expresses the European ideals of freedom, peace and solidarity.” Oh, what a relief. Just imagine having to write an appropriate set of lyrics that could in turn be rendered into meaningful and thematic rhyming couplets just as easily in Finnish as in Portuguese.

As far as the German and English speaking worlds are concerned, there are already lyrics available. If we go all the way back to 1785, we will find the work of Friedrich Schiller titled “An die Freude”, which begins ‘Freude, schöner Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium‘. Moving onwards to 1907, the American author and clergyman Henry van Dyke was evidently so moved by a visit to the Berkshire Mountains in Massachusetts that he wrote what came to be described as one of the most joyous expressions of hymn lyrics in the English language. His first verse (the link gives the other three): -

“Joyful, joyful, we adore Thee, God of glory, Lord of love;
Hearts unfold like flow'rs before Thee, opening to the Sun above,
Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away;
Giver of immortal gladness, fill us with the light of day!”

So how, we may ask, could those cheeky Eurocrats have had the brass neck to hijack such an uplifting composition, both in Beethoven’s music and van Dyke’s lyrics, and pass it off as the theme tune for their corrupt and ramshackle institution?

Let’s not get mad, though, let’s get even. We need to mark the occasion when those of us under the age of 60 finally heard that we would be given a chance to vote on UK membership of what was then the European Economic Community and what has now become the European Union. The Brexit campaign may be in need of an anthem, all the more so if it might now help unite the Leave factions against the common enemy. So why not take Ode to Joy and treat it to a good humoured and light hearted adaptation, as closely to van Dyke’s original as possible, for this very purpose?

“Mighty EU, flexing muscles, trampling on democracy
Lording o’er us all from Brussels, bastion of bureaucracy
Yours are clouds of sinful madness, driving precious hope away
Giving such unending badness - regulate and make us pay!

Lobbyists with joy surround thee, auditors reject thy books
Cash rich fonctionnaires around thee, brushing off our helpless looks
London, Dublin, Copenhagen, Athens desperate to be free
Let’s bring on this referendum, cast this deadweight corpse of thee!

Thou art taking and forsaking, ever cursing, ever cursed
Wellspring of fake global warming, open borders, it gets worse
Thou our Emperor, Jean Claude Juncker – not much choice, it might be Blair –
You just make us loathe each other, leaving us in dark despair!

Voters, join the rising chorus, smash that cursed ring of stars
Stop the EU reigning o’er us, bureaucrats and commissars
Ever singing, let’s march onward, free ourselves from Brussels strife
Time to lead the UK sunward – Brexit now for joyful life!”

Craven Conflict - half price on Kindle Countdown

For the next seven days, Craven Conflict is going to be half price on the Kindle Countdown deal.

If you're searching for a good legal suspense drama, and you've already read every one of John Grisham's novels, or if you'd rather read something set in the UK, look no further.

Here's the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B015GGRUBE

A Brexit speech for Penny Mordaunt?

One claim to fame for Penny Mordaunt MP, undoubtedly a rising star in Parliament, is that she once made a rather unorthodox speech in the Commons about poultry welfare in satisfaction of a forfeit that she incurred as a Royal Navy reservist. Specifically, she managed to use the word "cock" within that speech on more than one occasion, without arousing undue suspicion at the time. Here's a link: -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvLcYUXBBuc

Now that she has nailed her colours firmly to the mast of the Brexit campaign, she might be in need of another inspirational speech. It might go something like this...

"Fellow British patriots, we should no longer tolerate the Prime Minister’s cock and bull stories about his EU reforms. His shuttlecock diplomacy has achieved nothing.

The Remain camp can do little more than strut around like peacocks and peddle the arrogant propaganda of Project Fear. They know full well that we Brexiteers can use reason and common sense to knock their scaremongering into a cocked hat.

We can now see what a cock-eyed scheme the EU was all along, serving a hideous cocktail of regulation and waste.  It is high time we commandeered the stopcock and diverted the flow against its legislating cockroaches.

Just take a look at the almighty Cockaigne in Brussels. Do we want to take orders from that cockalorum Jean Claude Juncker? Or from that cockatrice Angela Merkel? Is it befitting for our Prime Minister to solicit their treats like a cocker spaniel before returning home to cock his leg against Parliament?

The battle ahead will be more than just a cockfight. I call upon my Conservative colleagues not to spin aimlessly like weathercocks in a gale. I call upon Scousers and Geordies, Brummies and Cockneys, to climb into the Brexit campaign cockpit. Let us cock a snook at the powers that be, and reject their poppycock for once and for all. Let us ensure that we will be cock a hoop on Referendum Day. Victory will warm the cockles of our heart.

One final word for our cocksure Prime Minister. If you really think you are cock of the walk, take me on in a debate. And if you don’t have the courage, send Matthew Hancock."

Pointless Professional Awards - with hidden extras

Last week I was treated to the news, via an unsolicited email, that following months of research by the in-house awards team at the Spennymoor & Cricklewood Combined Pigeon Fanciers’ Association International*, my law practice had been named the “Most Innovative Law Firm of 2016, your region”.

Well, whoopeedoo. There’s something to crow about. Even if they were so bird brained as to omit a specific reference to the West Midlands. If they really want to describe us as one of the UK’s “most competitive, cutting-edge and inventive law firms…most deserving of one of our prestigious awards”, who are we to bury our heads in the sand? Especially when we are reminded that we can put a further feather in our cap by announcing this news publicly?

Now for the catch. Publicity from the makers of the award comes at a price. It starts at £300 for a basic package comprising a listing in print and online, a trophy, and a “Most Innovative Law Firm” logo. The creative package, a bargain at £800, would bring a “full page inclusion” of an article that we were evidently expected to write. If we really wanted to push the boat out, we could go for the cutting edge package with a front cover headline and a double page spread, which we would again evidently be expected to write. Quite a lot for £1,400?

Well, perhaps not. Even if it could be taken on trust that the makers of this prestigious award did in fact have over 100,000 subscribers and 40,000 monthly website visitors, it’s still a lot of money to pay for some here today gone tomorrow advertising. Especially without any guarantee of a worthwhile return that was actually generated by the advertising.

“Oh, but it’s not just advertising! Don’t forget the award!” But let’s get some sense of perspective here. It’s not the Oscars. And many potential clients would quite reasonably think that professional advisers’ awards were, frankly, not that much of a reliable illustration of true quality and skill, but were more comparable to an exercise in mutual backslapping and self congratulation, often fuelled by an excess of food and drink.

That may be the main reason why the Most Innovative Law Firm award will, deservedly, fall flat on its face. Not the Nigerian scam undercurrent of the unsolicited email. Not even the unfortunate acronym that the award’s trophy would no doubt graphically illustrate. Think again, lads. If you’re going to give us the perfect chance to waste money for your benefit, at least give us an excuse for a booze up.

 

*Name changed to protect the innocent/guilty. For all the commercial benefit likely to have been generated from the award, it may as well have made by the SCCPFAI. One small clue: the award peddlers’ actual name is two words, the second of which is International, and it sounds remarkably similar to one ending in Monthly.

Canine Claims: is the law an ass? Who struck the dogs out?

Hat tip to Legal Cheek for spotting the judgment in the Moosun case that no doubt livened up an otherwise dull day in the High Court Chancery Division two weeks ago. Mrs Moosun, having evidently spotted a clear opportunity to further her quest to be declared a vexatious litigant, chose not only to add her infant children to her £5.5 million claim against HSBC and solicitors’ firm Shoosmiths, but also her two dogs, identified for the record by Mr Justice Snowden as Goldie, aged 18 months, and Diamond, aged 2 years.

In deciding the outcome of HSBC’s application to strike the claim out, Snowden J demonstrated ample reserves of patience. He observed for the record that Mrs Moosun had not appeared “and neither do any of the other persons and animals named as claimants in the proceedings”. Moving on, he dispensed with the canine claimants in succinct fashion: -

“Miss Wilmot-Smith also makes the obvious point that dogs are not capable of bringing legal proceedings. Among other things, Part 2.3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules defines ‘claimant’ as a person who makes a claim, and a dog is not a person. I also cannot see how a dog could give instructions for a claim to be brought on its behalf or be liable for any orders made against it. There are a whole host of other reasons why proceedings by dogs must be void, and accordingly I am satisfied that in so far as the claim purports to be made on behalf of the two dogs it should also be struck out.”

The things judges have to do to make their judgments appeal proof. And to ensure that they are not seen to have dispensed ruff justice. (I will permit myself one hideous canine pun and leave it at that.)

But Mrs Moosun, and indeed Goldie and Diamond, may have missed a trick. If they had made the effort to attend court, they could have drawn the judge’s attention to the 1979 judgment* of the great Lord Denning M.R. in Grenouille v National Union of Seamen, in which he determined that a frog was a person in law and accordingly had the necessary standing to bring injunction proceedings before the courts, especially where the respondent was a wicked and irresponsible trade union. In particular: -

“The decent member of the community – frog or human – who has fallen victim to injustice at the hands of dangerous, unchristian, wicked and irresponsible conglomerations of power…..must have the right to seek help from the courts, and the courts must offer a remedy. For them to do otherwise would be to betray those revered men who, so many centuries ago, gathered in that silent meadow at Runnymede. To those who said that frogs were beyond the law, the answer was that if frogs were beyond the law, then the rule of law existed no longer. [I am] in no doubt that that could not be so, and that frogs, for all legal purposes, were persons able to sue and be sued in the courts of Her Majesty.”

Had Goldie and Diamond fallen victim to injustice? Were the bank and the law firm irresponsible conglomerations of power? We will never know…

*A piece of classic satire from the law reports section of Not Yet The Times, published when The Times was not appearing because of a strike, reflecting the distinctive literary style and content of Denning judgments. Would Mrs Moosun have realised this? Again, we will never know…