My new Kernel column
Following my departure from Pinsent Masons, I've agreed to start writing an occasional column in new online technology magazine, The Kernel.
My first column is called "Why I left the law".
Using the power of the internet to share the musings and the occassional profound opinion of an amateur Conservative blogger. Thanks for dropping by.
Labels: Kernel, law, Privax, technology
The Guardian newspaper has just broken a story which confirms that Anne Darwin, the wife of the "missing canoeist", had her emailed hacked by Sky News, and some of the emails discovered had incriminating materials in them which were passed to the police and used in her trial for assisting in her husband's fraud.
Sky News is claiming that it acted in the public interest and therefore should not face any consequences for the hacking, which is, of course, an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
The report in the Guardian quotes me as follows:
Danvers Baillieu, a specialist internet lawyer with Pinsent Masons, said that while there was no public interest defence "it doesn't mean that a jury would convict a person, or a judge would punish them, because there is usually a discretion in such cases". However, he added that "the difficulty for news organisations is the question of where do you draw the line: would it be legitimate to break into somebody's house who is suspected of committing a crime? The issue with computer offences is that people can do it from their offices, and believe it is a lesser offence than any other type of intrusion."Sky News likened the case to the occassions where reporters have had to break the law (in one case buying an Uzi and in another, breaching security at Heathrow) "in the public interest" for the purposes of their investigation.
Labels: Al Jazeera English, civil liberties, Guardian, law, Press
This week I was back on my favourite Middle Eastern television channel, talking about the UK government's plan to monitor the internet. I'm against it.
I've been fairly quiet on the media front lately, but the nice people at Al Jazeera English TV decided to get me back last week to discuss the news that Twitter has announced it now has the capability to delete tweets on a country by country basis.
Labels: Al Jazeera English, twitter, Wael Abbas
Labels: freedom of speech, privacy, super-injunctions, twitter, Web 2.0
Yesterday I joined Pinsent Masons LLP, an international law firm based in the UK, as a senior associate in their Technology Group. I had been at Winston & Strawn since June 2003 and I had an amazing 7 and a half years there, making many friends and travelling to exotic parts of the world - but all good things come to an end and it was time to move on.
If you'd like to get in touch with me in the office, my new contact details are:
danvers.baillieu [at] pinsentmasons.com
tel: +44 (0) 20 7490 9379
I am a bit fearful that due to her status as a successful editor and journalist, my sister's new blog is going to have far more traffic than my humble offering. Luckily I have still a head start of several years and some 145 posts, so I am happy to give her a bit of free publicity.
Also, I love the name:
Labels: Family
"Fox attacks babies ? Sure ! And monkeys will fly ...... out of my butt. Ha ha. And I suppose there is proof ? !!! What a piece of work is Man. love Bri".As of now, 238 people "liked" this note and 241 commented. Once Brian had established that there was in fact proof he wrote a more "serious" note which started:
"Well, I don't have enough information to know whether this is an attempt by somebody to turn people against foxes, or not."This note opened the floodgates to a further 213 comments ("likes" down to 126) many of which were sceptical about the truth of the original story on the basis that foxes simply DO NOT attack humans.
Labels: policy, political theory, statistics
Election night 2010 (May) was an excruciating kind of tourture for those of us who had been waiting all our adult lives to vote for a Tory government. What started off so well in Sunderland and Kingswood quickly turned into concern in Torbay, disappointment in Tooting, despair in Westminster North finally disaster in Wells and Eastbourne. Not that there weren't any bright spots in the evening as some friends and colleagues from long ago entered Parliament for the first time but as the sun came up on Friday morning all hopes of an historic car journey from Notting Hill to Buckingham Palace were dashed.
Having been a party activist in my time, I resolved to do more at the next election, which could be very soon (this year perhaps) and wondered what difference I could have made had I done more this time around. Or whether I was better off staying well out.
Looking at my record, it must admitted, it is bleak and it may be that I do more harm than good.
I was born in 1976, so could not have had an impact on any election prior to that. The first three elections of my life were in 1979, 1983 and 1987. These were all great elections for the Tories but I was far too young to have been involved. By 1992, aged 16, I was interested in politics and was keen to see John Major re-elected. However, any chance of campaigning was scuppered by a school trip to Australia. I missed the excitement of election night and only picked up the results and tit bits such as the loss of Chris Patten from Australian National Radio.
By 1997 I was old enough to vote and had become firmly involved with the Conservatives. I was chairman of the student branch at Bristol University and spent most of my Easter holidays (and the first few weeks of the summer term) campaigning, if not for a Tory win, at least to save Bristol West and its sitting MP, cabinet minister William Waldegrave. I could not have done more but we fell short by around 1500 votes and the seat went red in the massive landslide which swept Blair to power.
2001 was another bleak year for the Tories. I had started work in the City but had been hired to build websites for seven Tory candidates. Six of those candidates lost, including one in Ludlow which had been held in 1997, and was regained again in 2005. My only winner was in Taunton, which was promptly lost again in 2005....
My involvement was scaled back in 2005 and although Labour returned to power, it was with a reduced majority.
Which brings us to 2010 - the best Tory result in years but not quite good enough. I went to at least one fundraiser, gave money to various candidates and evangelised to friends and my wider network and enthusiastically tweeted in support.
I'm now wondering if I jinxed it.
Labels: General Election
Earlier this afternoon I read this story on Guido Fawkes' blog about my former young Tory sparring partner, Donal Blaney, being given permission to serve an injunction via Twitter.
Labels: BBC News, blogging, Donal Blaney, twitter
I try to read a range of opinions and my feedreader contains a decent cross section of political bloggers, although sometimes I cannot remember why a particular one ends up in there. Nevertheless, I do follow the slightly pretentiously named "Letters from A Tory" and this morning a post (or "letter") did catch my eye as the title pretty much betrayed the author's opinion on its own: "Tories will bring back fox hunting by the back door" - of course there was a chance that "A Tory" would be enthusiastically arguing for hunting to be restored through the front door, but my interest was piqued by a seemingly rightwing blogger going against fox hunting.
Labels: political theory
All credit to the Guardian which today launched a web application which had been built in the space of about a week, allowing its audience to collaborate with its journalists in analysing the newly released MP expenses documents. Charles Arthur explains how they did it here.
Labels: MP Expenses, Web 2.0
The furore over Prince Charles' intervention in the Chelsea Barracks development has been building for a number of weeks and I have been following the coverage of it in Building Design (which has a story about the new competition here) and elsewhere. Things came to a head earlier this week when Lord Rogers well and truly threw his toys out of his pram, calling Charles' actions "undemocratic".
I was going to wite a lengthy post arguing that a decision of a private landowner to withdraw a planning application has nothing to do with democracy. Rogers is effectively suggesting that because something has gone through planning it must be built - surely that cannot be right?
And in relation to Rogers' criticism that Charles was abusing his (unelected) influence, I was simply going to question what influence Rogers asserted to get the project in the first place and then to get it through planning - and ask how they are really any different?
It is probably just as well I haven't written such a post, as no doubt it would irritate those members of my family who are members (associate or otherwise) of the RIBA, and in any event, Alice Thomson in the Times has written a much better articles which is better argued than anything I would have written.
PS - what is also quite fun, knowing where Rogers lives (very nearby the Barracks as it happens), using Google Streetmap, it is possible to get this shot of his sitting room, complete with sight of his Mao Tse Tung by Andy Warhol.
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
I would still like to make a contribution as a campaigner, helping you to lead Labour into the next general election, which I know we both believe Labour can and must win. We both came into politics for the same reasons; a passionate belief in decency, justice and fairness for ordinary people and an equally certain conviction that only Labour has the courage and the competence to make it happen.
That is why I will remain alongside you as we fight and win the next election under your leadership. Though not, with some wistful regret, as a member of your government.
My suspicion is that in order to serve Gordon Brown more effectively, Watson has had to ditch his ministerial role. As a minister, Watson had civil servants who had be shielded from his political activity, he had ministerial responsibilities to undertake (the ministerial trip to New York written about below which was curtailed by the political mini-crisis in September 2008) and so on. He's free from those responsibilities and restrictions from now on and can dedicate himself fully to Brown, who is of course, a bit short-staffed since the departure of McBride.
Labels: Tom Watson
Much of the discussion around MPs pay and expenses has made reference to the "average wage" in the UK. This got me thinking and I started to do some research, but immediately ran into a fog of adjusted numbers, put out in the main by the Institute of Fiscal Studies. The IFS's statistics, which were picked up by the BBC News website and were the basis for a number of graphs that have been repeated elsewhere, including by Guido Fawkes, such as this one:
Even on the IFS's own figures, the "typical weekly income" quoted here is the median figure of £393 per week, when perhaps the more relevant MEAN average figure of £487 should have been quoted (see: IFS report on poverty and inequality for these figures) - no doubt the BBC journalists were looking for the biggest spread. Furthermore, these numbers are adjusted for tax (including council tax) and number of dependent children, which makes them hard to link back to annual salaries.
Personally, I am better able to deal with annual gross amounts when talking about salary, because that's the basis of what I earn and what it says in my employment contract. Luckily, help is at hand from the Office of National Statistics, which gives these number in all sorts of formats.
For the record, the mean average annual gross salary in Great Britain in 2008 was £26,020.
However, if this is the basis of a meaningful comparison with MPs salaries, it is notable that the mean average annual gross salary for men in full time employment in 2008 was £35,122.
Of course, many men are at the start of their careers when they are earning less money, bringing down the average, so I looked up the breakdown by age and the highest earning group are men between 40 and 49 (which is probably the typical age of an MP and therefore perhaps a fairer comparison), and the average wage for this group was £40,786.
If we put him on the BBC graph, it looks like this:
So, against the figure of £40,786, an MP's salary of £65,000 or so no longer looks quite so excessive - it is certainly not a multiple of that figure.
But what sparked all this off, was considering that fiendishly complicated New Labour innovation: working family tax credits. These are means tested credits which taper off, but are still of value to a family whose combined income is less than £58,000 per year.
I thought that was an interesting figure to bear in mind, on the basis that the government makes the judgement on behalf of "ordinary people" with a family that if their combined earnings are less than £58,000 - only marginally less than an MP's earnings, they are entitled to state benefit.
I am not suggesting for one moment that this is an excuse for Scamalot or even an argument to pay MPs more, but I do think these figures could help inform that debate.
Labels: MP Expenses, statistics
Blog Service Announcement:
I really love the service provided by Disqus and have had its commenting system on this blog for some time now. I recently became aware that there were a number of new features available, but assumed that there would be some cumbersome process required to activate them on here.
Not so: in around five minutes flat, I have updated the features, which means you can now sign in to comment using Facebook Connect or Twitter OAuth, and this included the time it took me to set up my own Facebook App, which is required for the Facebook Connect function to work specifically for this blog.
It may be form over substance, but I hope it encourages you to "join in the conversation", as they say, and make this a more vibrant blog.
/Blog Service Announcement
This blog belongs to me, Danvers Baillieu. All the opinions expressed on this blog (except for the comments) are mine and mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinion of anyone else, in particular, other members of my family or my employers. Any copyright subsisting in this blog is also mine, and mine alone, and no posts should be reproduced in part or in whole without my permission. I am a lawyer and I know my rights. Comments are moderated to remove offensive or defamatory language at my sole discretion. If you feel any post or comment is defamatory to you or you find it offensive, please contact me in the first instance. Nothing written on this blog constitutes legal advice. If you require legal advice from me or another lawyer, you will most likely have to pay for it. Thank you very much for reading this legal blurb. Carry on.