I, for my sins, cherish freedom of speech above most rights. I think it is the hallmark of our tolerant society that we are not afraid of criticism and are strong enough to endure the most ludicrous of ideas being circulated. Sadly people who share the views of the BNP are always going to lurk in our wings; they are the disenchanted, the disenfranchised and the down right stupid. Yet who are we to tell them how to think? If we accept that we can’t tell someone their thoughts are wrong, we accept that we cannot stop them banding together with like-minded people.

What concerns me is that the minute we ban them we are admitting they are a threat. We have had to use the force of the law to suppress them, drive them underground and make martyrs of them. In many ways I see the BNP as a necessary evil. They are a check and balance, a reflection from a circus mirror – the dark half of ying and yang. These are in many ways worrying times, comparisons can be drawn between now and the death throws of the Weimar Republic. The BNP should be a reminder to us all, more so to our politicians, of what lurks on the fringes.

So we ban them.  Who are ‘we’? Whose opinion is it that counts. Ban the BNP and what next? The Socialist Workers Party? The Communist Party? Maybe the Green Party? Under whose measure of acceptability do we operate?

Rather than ban them, look at the people who are being driven into their arms. What are their drivers? If it is pure racism, let them go, you can’t argue with lunatics. But if there is more, and I suspect there is, listen to them. As I said, we now have a class of the disenfranchised, people who have been forgotten and left out of the political process. These people need to be re-engaged.

Voltaire didn’t say: “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it” but if he had have done he would have had a point.

We have been kept in check by a cocktail of debt and aspiration. Both are related and are products of each other but are effective in keeping us from rocking the boat because we are scared. We aspire to be better off, to move up the social ladder, to be influential & etc. Debt is a symptom of this. We aspire to things we can’t afford so get in debt, debt that we aspire to pay off. Because we are saddled with this debt all we look to is the next pay-day, the next bonus or promotion. This cycle has been propagated by business and the free market – it is a cycle that has failed us and a system that we are now bailing out. But for what? So it can begin again.

The politicians we elect to represent us have lied and failed, putting their own agenda and that of the businesses they will consult for (Blair, JP Morgan etc etc) first. We contract with them to govern us as we want to be govern, we give them the mandate. But the contract has been broken. 1998 saw the introduction of the Human Rights Act. 2001 saw the beginning of a concerted effort to derogate those rights in a Schmittian state of exception. So we can vote them out and everything will be better, right? Wrong. Following the Belmarsh case the Tories openly condemned the courts with accusations of judicial activism, as did Herr Blair. Gordon Brown promised a written (his choice of words) constitution but now won’t even hold an election until he is obliged to (constitutionally).

Benjamin Franklin argued that the social contract/constitution should be renewed every generation. Is now not the time to do this? But how? We can’t vote them out. By them I mean the career politicians, those who are indistinguishable but for their tie colour. We have no real democracy. The Diceyan concept of Parliamentary sovereignty is now defunct. Parliament is self serving, its mandate is hollow and built on lies. It is time to put something above the cretins that milk their expenses, a code of conduct that is binding on everything they do – a codified constitution. By demanding that we change the method and form of our government we create the ‘event’ that the foundation of most constitutions spring from. In the way that Americans look to their founding fathers for inspiration, we should look to the Levellers, not the Glorious Revolution or Cromwell. We must change Hart’s rule of recognition to something we recognise and we re-write the contract. As I have said, we can’t vote them out. Turkeys won’t vote for Christmas (hackneyed, I know). I’m not advocating an uprising, more mass demonstrations, less velvet more cashmere or tweed.

I’ll be the one waving my umbrella at Parliament.

It is with great interest to me personally to find out about the proposed merger of Middle and Inner Temple libraries. It was only last week that I was looking into which inn to join. My motivation to do it early was the use of the inn libraries as I continue my studies, well that and the fact I will have to go in front of various committees to explain my dubious past. As luck would have it I was looking to join Inner Temple, I’d heard particularly good things about their library. Now I am not so sure and will be looking at Lincoln and Gray’s inn instead.

Like many students studying law in London I find that there is often a run on books if there is a deadline on a particular subject. The fact I could go into a specialist library, with a good selection of books and knowledgeable librarians holds great appeal to me and, I imagine, many in my situation. And it is that many where the trouble for me lies. By effectively halving the amount of inns of court libraries those making these proposals are doubling the amount of people, practitioner and student, perusing the shelves. They are also halving the amount of highly trained personnel available to answer queries from people like me who frequently get lost among the shelves of books and if they are looking to cram two libraries into one, I imagine those shelves would be fairly cosy.

And there is another point. Both libraries hold collections of unspeakable value to the English legal community. What is to be done with them? Will they be crammed into the one building? Or will they be held in storage and have to be requested, thus adding delays to the accessibility of texts? How will this work if you have a particularly tight deadline and are due in court?

What about the distinct personalities of the two libraries? It was only last week when I was listening to two barrister friends arguing about whose inn library was the better. This made me think of the merging of British army infantry regiments and the detrimental effect it has had on morale. The bar is a profession with an uncertain future at the moment. Cuts to the legal aid budget and the introduction of solicitors with higher rights, coupled with the astronomical price of education have dented the morale of those thinking of entering the wacky world of advocacy. Will these proposals do anything to encourage us that we have a future? Probably not. My most learned friends Charon QC and Geeklawyer have blogged on this already and it would be worthwhile for my four readers to check out their opinions. I however will be looking elsewhere for an inn.

It appears the natives of the area are made up entirely of builders, perhaps it is some sort of post-soviet commune? It also appears that they don’t have kitchens and use places called ‘the caff’ as their only source of food. Being stuck in the place for several days I was forced to visit ‘the caff’. Luckily for me I had my boss with me, someone who shall henceforth be known as CWB (cockney wide boy). CWB decided on entering the ‘caff’ that he should do the talking, it was probably a fair assessment as the place had ground to a halt upon our entry. CWB was wearing a chalk stripe suit and doing his best impression of one of those nasty Essex boy futures traders. I’m glad that even the very poor could see this was sartorial bad form, he was wearing a belt FFS! I, on the other hand was resplendent in brown Chelsea boots, moleskins, a pink sweater and battered Barbour.

While I waited to be seated, CWB bowled straight to the counter and ordered ‘breakfast 1.’ I felt like going off-piste and ordering a la carte but thought it best to follow suit and go for the prix fixe. I actually wanted poached and not fried eggs but lost my nerve.

On sitting down I thought I would strike up a topical conversation with CWB so told him: ‘I’ll smell like Ian fucking Beale by the time I leave here’. It appears this wasn’t a good move. There was, once more, the sound of cutlery scraping to a halt on especially toughened plates. CWB gave me a look which said: ‘look at your Blackberry and don’t open your mouth again until we leave’. Our food arrived in record time and yes, everything was actually swimming in grease. CWB proceeded to cover everything in a red tomato sauce that looked neither sun dried nor organic. The meal itself was actually very good, it was very fatty but I imagine the locals need all the stodge they can get in order to insulate against the cruel estuary wind when roofing or sleeping rough, I tried to imagine I was soon heading for a day of carrying a hod up a ladder.

I wasn’t quite sure what to do with the thick tar like substance that resided in the mug placed in front of me. However, on glancing at the other table I quickly understood that you have to pour as much sugar as it takes to stand your spoon up straight. I thought this very cosmopolitan, a bit like Lebanese coffee.

My final faux pas of the meal was at the end; on attracting the attention of one of the waiting staff I asked for the bill, I thought it would do my career no harm if I bought the boss brekkie. It was during the resulting hilarity that CWB hussled me out and on to the mean, mean streets.

Overall I enjoyed my trip to the ‘caff’. Although I dropped the occasional cultural clanger I thought this to be expected when going ethnic, I had the same issue when trying to eat with my left hand in the middle east. Aesthetically the place was run down but I suspect this was on purpose, it must have cost them a fortune to get a designer to hit that soviet-sheet-steal-workers-canteen look. I wonder how long before we see these places popping up all over London?

Overall: 3/4. Meal £10 without wine or service.

If you add frogs to a pan of boiling water they will immediately jump out to save their skins. If you add them to a pan of tepid, room temperature water and gently heat it, they will bask and enjoy the warmth without knowing they are slowly boiling to death.

She then went on to outline the themes of the day, namely:

• That the Magna Carta was a document very much of its day. There is nothing in there mentioning privacy.
• That while many question the European Court of Human Rights and its judgments, in continental Europe they still have strong memory of the Nazis and the Stasi.
• That people generally think Human Rights are for people like us and not dark skinned foreigners like Binyam Mohamed and that ID cards etc are being sold as a fight against terrorism.

She closed with the cute line: ‘No matter who you vote for the government always gets in!’

I was very much impressed with Helena Kennedy QC who took part in the first plenary along with Dominic Grieve, who I also thought was very good, Sir David Varney and Ken MacDonald QC. Helena raised some very pertinent points when she described the rush for security as a Dutch auction where everybody tries to be the toughest on security. She went on to point out that you cannot vacuum seal anti-terror laws. That once they are accepted they will seep into the general culture. Her insight into why our politicians are taking the road they have was also rather enlightening. She said that power turns the gentlest souls into Neros. Something that was buttressed by Ken MacDonald who as DPP spoke of the effect constant security briefings had on people.

There were eleven morning sessions and unfortunately you only got the chance to see one live. I naturally opted for ‘Judges and Politicians’, hosted by John Jackson of Mishcon de Reya. The usual arguments were put forward for a codified constitution by John Jackson and Juliet Gardiner (who I later sat next to). Keith Ewing, however (who I should hate due to the size of his textbook), argued strongly and convincingly for a stronger Parliament perhaps modelled on the Swedish model. He went on to add that the courts are not an effective vehicle to check Parliament and can only pick off cases that they were presented with. This was a theme reinforced by Lord Bingham. If you have the chance I strongly suggest you view his speech on the Modern Liberty website. David Davis, the closing speaker, stated that his was one of the best speeches he’d ever seen.

Lord Bingham’s first point was that liberty is a traditional British value that goes back through the ages. He argued that the 1947 Declaration of Human Rights was a direct response to WWII but that it did not foresee the use of databases and CCTV as 1984 had not yet been written. He then went on to argue that the British public did not cherish their liberty in the ways other countries do and that a programme of education is needed to rectify this. With regards to the constitution he echoed Lord Hailsham when he said that a party with a decent majority can do what it likes and that this is a defect in our constitution as Parliament should be the safeguard and bastion of our liberty, not an accomplice in its destruction. Interestingly, he was asked if he thought the new Supreme Court should be given wider responsibilities regarding constitutional interpretation. His response was that if the judiciary are to be the guardians of the constitution then this must be more firmly entrenched. He added that the public should realise that if this happens they may be giving away power that they might not get back. He went on to say that although the judges were not lobbying for more power, they were unlikely to turn it down.

The next talk I attended was titled: Liberty, Sovereignty and Republicanism: Can the Leveller tradition be revived in the 21st century. Quentin Skinner argued that our freedom is influenced without our rights being restricted, his point was that as the Levellers thought, under the constant fear of the arbitrary power you will self censor. In the modern day this arbitrary power is manifested by the Crown in Parliament. Geoffrey Robertson QC pointed out, like Lord Bingham, that this country has an amazing record of liberty dating back to the Civil War period. He mentioned the Ship Money case and the fact that the last torture warrant was issued in 1641 (but that it appears British MI5 agents were complicit in the torture of terror suspects) going on to state that the trial of Charles I was the first war crimes trial of a head of state. He compared this with our current monarchy whose powers break at least 4 articles of the ECHR. Melissa Lane stated that the Leveller movement was un-partisan and compared them to Obama’s post-partisan politics that we are seeing now. But, she argued, there must be core values which should not be discarded; British values of liberty are currently discarded through modern political pragmatism.

Next up was another key note address, this time by Philip Pullman. His strap line was one I saw instantly broadcast on Twitter and is worth mentioning:

‘We are better people than our government think we are’.

The last speaker of note was David Davis MP. It was a nice contrast to the opening by Shami Chakrabarti and perhaps a hat tip at the cross-partisan dimension the conference had. I thought he was excellent, but then he is paid to be. He quoted Jack Straw saying we are not living in a police state and neatly added:

 ’We’re not living in a police state yet but by the time we know we are it will be too late’.

My reasons for attending were perhaps a little different than most. Firstly education but secondly one which I was dying to tell the first sandal wearing muesli muncher I spoke to ( I didn’t in the end); I have actually fought in the ‘War on Terror’ in Iraq. I have arrested and searched people under the Terrorism Act 2000 in Northern Ireland. I was an intelligence officer and part of a covert surveillance team – I’ve spied on you. However, I am reformed. I have decided that I would much prefer to run the risk of freedom than the assurance of oppression. And so I found myself at this conference. I have just made reference to the sandal wearers and I was expecting to see many Guardianistas and Champagne socialists, I wasn’t to be disappointed. But also in attendance were people from every political persuasion in a very broad church, I made sure I had a Telegraph under my arm as I marched in and drew no disapproving glances (knew I should have worn the Barbour too). We had come together not as a group of bleeding heart liberals but as a united mass of concerned citizens/subjects (there was much debate about which we were). I left the conference inspired. I am sure that the shadow cabinet is a government in waiting and I was left with the impression that the Tories present had understood the message loud and clear. As Dominic Grieve QC MP put it:

‘Yes we have done some silly things but when we do we ask ourselves what would your grandfather have thought of the?’

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to Shami Chakrabarti. Last night I conducted a podcast with Charon QC, the eminent legal blogger (http://charonqc.wordpress.com/). I forgot her name then sounded a little dismissive when I was reminded of it, I can assure you this is not the case and I very much respect the vital work she carries out.

To close the piece I would like to quote Dr Evan Harris MP who made the following statement:

‘The litmus test is not the question of our rights but the rights of the difficult cases like the criminals, terrorists and failed asylum seekers’

Secondly, this Saturday is the Convention on Modern Liberties. Tickets are sold out but I am led to believe you can follow live web streaming at www.modernliberty.net.

There has been plenty that has interested me in the news recently and that I would have like to have waxed lyrical on: Geert Wilders, the Qatada case and the recent report by the Eminent Jurists Panel. However, it appears I have missed the boat and these subjects have been covered better than I ever could by my most learned of friends, Charon QC (see blog roll for link). So, I have decided that I should give you a brief run down on my travels in the sub-continent…enjoy, you lucky things!

My escapades started with a kind invitation to attend a wedding in Bangalore on a night out. Unfortunately on that same night out I decided that drinking and not eating was the way forward, made a fool of myself and ended up buying tickets the next day by way of apology to Mrs OL.

Our destination was Hampi. An area of some 2000 ruined Hindu temples. It was my first brush with the western hippies who would plague me for the rest of the trip, the place was stunning though. We toured around the area on a moped, which I managed to nearly crash into the shop we’d just hired it from. The next day Mrs OL decided that we should hire pedal bikes. As is my luck, it wasn’t until a mile or so in that I realised my saddle had dropped to very low. One of my pedals also broke. By this time it was hot, very hot. As I was considering how hot is was we looked up and saw a temple thingy on the top of a mountain. Given that it was midday and we are Brits, we decided that the only logical thing to do would be to climb it.

We left Hampi and took an overnight bus to Gokarna which is a little and very holy place on the coast, about an hour south of Goa. Naturally our bus was 7 hours late.

We stayed in a place called Om beach which, although dotted with more of those pesky hippies, was wonderfully chilled. The beach huts we stayed in cost less than £2 a night and I really think I could have stayed there for a few weeks. By the end of our time there I was unable to walk faster than 1 mph.

Sadly our time there was short and we had to catch another overnight bus back to Bangalore. To compensate we stayed in an amazing hotel on our last night, the 5 star Taj. It was genuine colonial splendour but boy did I pay for it!

Despite everything, I had an amazing time. I intend to go back in the next couple of years and spend a couple of months there. I am now also a hippy. Ommmmmmmmmmmmm.

So Harry said the P-word. Yep, it’s not big, it’s not clever and it’s not acceptable in polite society. But that’s it, he isn’t in polite society. To quote George Orwell: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” Harry is in the army and people in the army have very rude nicknames for each other. It has been said that if Napoleon’s army marched on its stomach then the British army marches on its sense of humour. Watching the video you can clearly see he is joking. The orders part where he is seen on the phone saying “love to the corgies, ya, ya, God save you grandma” is actually very funny. This guy is trying to be normal in a very surreal world. His mother and her memory have turned in to a circus, go to Harrods and look at the memorial if you are in any doubt. Add to this that he will never be king like his older brother. He is trying to make a life for himself in the army for real, unlike his uncles and father. He sneaked himself to Afghanistan for Pete’s sake.

Yes, he should set an example. Or should he? As I said, he’s never going to be king. He hasn’t asked to be there like our footballers or other slebs. His grandfather has turned insulting foreigners into a cult practice. I’m not excusing racism, I don’t condone the use of racist language, I just think this needs to be taken in context. He’s a young guy, in the army – a world the screws clearly have no understanding of. He’s trying to turn his freak show of a life into something worth while. Let’s do him a favour and lay off the kid eh? So he gets kicked out the army or is forced to resign his commission, what now? The royal circuit of engagements and more drunken nights at Whisky Mist. Excellent.

My first reaction was that the MOD had gone all out to find and persuade a top lawyer from Rue Civvi to act as their Witchfinder General. Following the most expensive courts martial in British military history and the acquittal of all the soldiers involved (one was prosecuted for a lesser offence which he admitted to), I was concerned the MOD would be putting conviction rates and figures above all else. However, in an interview with the Times Mr Houlder is keen to point out that this isn’t the case, pointing out that his job is:

“…not to protect individuals from prosecution, nor to second-guess an honest decision made in the circumstances of an armed conflict for good reason that turns out to be wrong when looked at in the cold light of day…”

There is no doubt he has a difficult job to do. His new world is one that operates in ways in which he must still be struggling to come to terms with. I am not necessarily talking about the difficulties of collecting evidence in a war zone, because believe it or not, most military investigations aren’t actually conducted in Afghanistan or Iraq, more the challenges in understanding the military culture. Mr Houlder has been given an ‘intensive induction’, apparently. (I wonder if his involved a top shelfer and dance of the flaming arse holes?) However, in the same Times article he displays some naivety when complaining about soldiers under investigation closing ranks and suffering from “regimental amnesia”.  I’m afraid to say, for better or for worse, the tight regimental bonds are the bonds that make the British Army the best pound for pound army in the world. I am in no way excusing the closing of ranks, just pointing out that is happens and is always going to happen. Soldiers fight not for Queen and country but for each other. It’s a hackneyed expression but a true one.

However, I digress. I am, by nature, suspicious of those who placed Mr Houlder in his new role. He reports to the Attorney General but who else? He is certainly no fool, far from it. As a former chairman of the criminal bar he knows a thing or two about how things ought to be. He does, though, need to be certain that he is not used to up conviction rates and ensure investigations end with a good result. The government caught a lot of flack in the aftermath of recent high profile military acquittals but satisfying elements of the media or human rights lobby is in no way conducive with the rule of law.

But…the more I read of Mr Houlder’s interview the more I realised what he could bring to military and the way it does law. The military already experiences excellent conviction rates, over 50% of those pleading not guilty. What he will bring is the professionalism of the independent bar to an organisation crying out for modernisation. He intends to make the process more efficient and increase training for officers involved this is as well as introducing CPS procedures (it’s not all positive!). By making these procedures more robust and by ensuring that investigations are as thorough as they can possibly be, Mr Houlder can bring an element of respectability to the courts martial process.

With one side clamouring for convictions and the other insisting protection for troops, Mr Houlder is no doubt walking a tight-rope. He needs to be very sure he is steering not only a middle course but a fair one. He has the tools to do the job, the skills to pay the bills, he needs to use them carefully. Although vastly experienced with the criminal bar, this is something beyond simply ensuring a guilty man is punished. National pride, that double edged sword, is on the line and things could get political very quickly.