According to the Return of the Owners of Land of 1872, nobody in Ireland of my surname was, in 1872, the owner of one acre of land or more.

This is not exceptional. Most of the population of Ireland was in that position. In 1872, 98.7% of the population of Ireland owned no land at all. By 2006, this figure had fallen to 18%. (“Land�, in 2006, includes a residence).

In 1872 registration of ownership of land in Ireland was effected in the Registry of Deeds. This Registry commenced operation in 1707 and is currently located in part of the Kings Inns in Henrietta St., Dublin 7. The deed is brought to the Registry with a précis called a memorial. The date and time of registration are stamped on the deed, which is returned to the registrant, and the memorial is retained with the details of registration being entered onto the register. There had been an earlier system of registration of title but it was not until the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act 1891 that the modern system appeared, intended to replace the registration of deeds system as a record of ownership of land.

Even yet it has not done that.

It is not expressed anywhere, but the reason for that is that it is intended to be so. After all, it took only four years to record the ownership of all the land in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales in 1872. Neither the Registry of Deeds nor the Land Registry can now show what the Record of 1872 revealed. (The modern Act is the Registration of Title Act 1964).

If Greta Garbo were alive today and still of a mind to be alone she would take herself to County Leitrim. There, there are 15.2 acres per person, compared to .02 acres per person in Dublin.

It was not always thus.

In 1841 County Leitrim had 2.5 acres per person and a population of 155,297. The current population shows a fall of 83%.

The Department of Health and Children is in Hawkins St. in Dublin 2. Hawkins St. is a short street.

At the end of the street there is a memorial in Victorian style to Constable Patrick Sheehan who died, in 1905, trying to rescue a workman from a gas filled sewer.

The gas must be still there, affecting the Minister for Health.

The Health Service Executive is, currently, dysfunctional and a failure. It has failed on a number of fronts but consistently it has failed on the issue of hospital hygiene. The extreme cases of Ennis General Hospital and now St. Columcille’s Hospital where multiple deaths through nosocomial infections have taken place are representative of the general situation.

The Minister’s response to the situation is bizarre, and reported HERE:

She pointed out that the health service has a national plan to tackle health acquired infections which would see them reduced by 20% in the coming years, and MRSA in particular by 30%.

This would involve a reduction in the use of antibiotics, she said, of 20%.

The reference to antibiotics is a reference to her theory that health care infections are caused by the evolution of microbes. She attributes the evolution to excessive use of antibiotics.

She is not deterred in her assertions by any contrary evidence. Like the fact that Irish hospitals have a low standard of hygiene and that poor hospital hygiene is the cause of the infections. Or the fact that Clostridium difficile has not perceptibly evolved. Clostridium difficile is the infection that caused the deaths in Ennis and St. Columcille’s.

One can only feel, if the gas is not the explanation for her views, that she is motivated by the fact that no person or institution is answerable for excessive use of antibiotics and no legal liability would attach to the HSE if her view prevails.

Abuse of power is very old. King David arranged the death of Uriah to conceal the King’s rape of Bathseba.

Gordon Brown and his Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith say they want pre-charge detention of terror suspects to be extended from 28 to 42 days. The BBC reported the Home Secretary thus:

Ms Smith told the BBC there was a “serious and consistent threat from terrorism”.

She added: “In order to ensure we prosecute people who want to cause murder and mayhem on our streets, we may well need to hold them longer to do that.”

Ms Smith also said: “We need to legislate now for the exceptional circumstances that there might be in the future.”

We now know that there is and was no basis in fact for making these claims. The only support has come from Alex Carlile, a government appointee and Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, a man himself in need of political support and friends.

The proposal is a recipe for injustice. They are saying that they want to imprison people for up to 42 days while they search for evidence upon which they could charge them with an offence.

The claimed justification is an operational one. The preferring of charges is central to the operations.

The preferring of charges is the job of the Director of Prosecutions (“DPP�). The man with that job is Sir Ken Macdonald QC.

Sir Ken not only disagrees with Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith, he actually opposes them. He has no difficulty preferring charges within 28 days, the current limit and nobody, he says, has been held for longer than 14 days in the nine months prior to April 2008.

It is rumoured the Brown-Smith position is simply to draw a “favourable� contrast between the Labour position on “security� and the Conservative position.

Are there any standards by which to judge Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith?

Yes, and they are not moral. Jurisdiction aside, would they not be guilty of a breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), which makes it a crime for a person to “knowingly and willfully�:

• falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

• make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

• make or use any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry

�in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States.�

The punishment for violating section 1001 is a fine, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both.

I have written on the subject of standard contracts HERE and HERE.

The most valuable standard contract most often encountered in ordinary life is the one used by solicitors for the sale and purchase of a house. It is the work of the conveyancing committee of the Law Society.

It is the work of many people over many years. It embodies the experience gleaned from many thousands of transactions.

No solicitor will readily depart from the scheme it represents. It contemplates that the Vendor will hand over the title deeds and the key of the property in return for the purchase money. The desire of the purchaser to get possession and the desire of the Vendor to get the purchase money is what drives the transaction.

To hand over the key beforehand is to hand over possession. If a purchaser gets possession before parting with the purchase money there is a great temptation to evade or delay the handing over of the purchase money, at least until it suits the purchaser.

Thus, a prior representation that the Vendor will hand over the key before the closing of the transaction will not be complied with. It will be reneged on.

This is not a breach of agreement; the agreement is in the contract. If provision is not made in writing that possession will be furnished prior to the closing, there will be no obligation to do so.

Words are important. They matter.

I have tried to defend the correct use of the word “refute� before (several times).
It is too good a word to allow its destruction unopposed.

I have also criticised the Minister for Health and the Health Service Executive over the failure to address the problem that is Clostridium difficile infections and lack of hygiene in Irish hospitals, HERE and HERE and HERE.

That abuse of language, misrepresentation and Clostridium difficile deaths should all appear in one report, indeed in one single sentence, is vindication.

Here is the sentence:

…refuted the suggestion that a marginal reduction in the amount spent had any connection with the issue of C difficile�,

from THIS REPORT.

THE HIGH COURT
2006 No. 3785P

Between

DIGITAL RIGHTS IRELAND LIMITED

Plaintiff

And

THE MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE GARDA SIOCHANA, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

The Department of Justice has published the draft Statutory Instrument whereby Ireland proposes to transpose Directive 2006/24/EC into Irish law. See HERE.

The Irish Times is critical of the contents of the draft and doubtful as to its legality.

See HERE.

Sgt. Eros is a male entertainer of a vulgar kind. He has, consequently, opponents. His opponents reject him and, in plain language, hate him.

They found him walking in the street dressed in a uniform. It was like their uniform. His number was 0069. He had a truncheon. He entertained professionally. He got paid for it. The truncheon was a prop. A truncheon is a weapon, just like their truncheons.

While not being Sgt. Eros, he is a 25 year old genetics student. Dash it, are there no standards for geneticists? Is he not guilty of conduct tending to bring the profession into disrepute?

They charged him with possession of a truncheon without reasonable cause.

Significantly, they did not charge him with impersonating a police officer; that would involve asserting their likeness to a strip artist. Besides, he was presumably not a very convincing officer, for the benefit of his act.

Amazingly, the sheriff dismissed the charge; the State has appealed and judgment is now reserved.

Of course, a lesser offence can generate trouble. As it did for a man on a train in Italy. He has been convicted of sexual harassment. A woman passenger complained that he was looking at her.

Now that he is actually convicted there is no need to ascertain his profession to have him charged with some black-letter-law charge, like… conduct tending to bring his profession into disrepute.

Christine Lagarde, the French finance minister is on record as saying that France will use the presidency of the Council of Ministers in the EU to, effectively, change Ireland’s low corporate tax rate.

The Irish Government says this cannot happen: Ireland has a veto and will use it, therefore the Irish position is safe.

Mr. Barroso has made placatory noises on the same issue. (In fact he has started the process of undermining the Irish “veto”).

What is the reality?

It is to be found in the occasion when Ireland used its veto and was ignored.

This happened on 15th March 2006. The issue was the adoption by the Council of Ministers of what became Directive 2006/24/EC. Ireland voted against its adoption, casting a veto thereby. Ireland’s veto was effective if, as was Ireland’s view, the issue fell within “the 3rd Pillar�. Otherwise it was not.

The issue was driven by Charles Clarke, the UK minister. His brief in the UK was police and security. He tied the issue to the bombing of London. Issues such as that are 3rd Pillar issues. The Council adopted the proposal as a 1st Pillar issue, basing it on Article 95 of the EC Treaty. Ireland disagrees with this and its opinion is shared by the European Data Protection Supervisor.

Ireland has challenged the legal base for the adoption of Directive 2006/24/EC in the European Court of Justice. The case is pending. If Ireland is successful the Directive will be struck down.

(Mr. Barroso was president of the Commission in 2006).

Surely tax is more important than privacy?

Wrong question.

In 2006 the question was, is Ireland more important than the UK?

Now the question is, is Ireland more important than France?

Words matter.

Mr. Barroso’s definition of a veto is not a veto in Europe. Therefore it is not a veto.

I do not think anyone ever defined “3rd Pillar” and we now see the consequences of allowing woolly speech where precision was required.

It seems my post on bidding for public contracts in the construction industry missed one element – bid-rigging. See HERE.

Reading of Lord Goldsmith’s interventions in the BAE scandal brings to mind Blossom Dearie’s rendition of “My Attorney Bernie�.

Here are the words, but it’s essential to hear Blossom singing it to appreciate it.

My Attorney Bernie
(Words and Music by Dave Frishberg)

I’m impressed, with my attorney Bernie
I’m impressed, with his influential friends
He’s got very big connections
and I follow his directions
Bernie knows his way around
and so I always do what Bernie recommends.

I am blessed, with my attorney Bernie
I’m impressed, with the way he runs the store
He’s got Dodger season boxes
and an office full of foxes
It’s amazing all the different things
your average guy might need a lawyer for.

[Chorus:]
Bernie tells me what to do
Bernie always lays it on the line
Bernie says we sue, we sue
Bernie says we sign… we sign.

I’m in touch, with my attorney Bernie
In a clutch, he can speed right to the scene
and if I’m locked up in the jail
with just one phone call for my bail
he said to call his club collect
or deal directly with his answering machine

When I dine, with my attorney Bernie
He buys wine, from the rare imported rack
That’s cause Bernie is a purist
not your polyester tourist
Bernie waves the glass around awhile
then takes a sip and always sends it back

[Chorus:]
Bernie tells me what to do
Bernie always lays it on the line
Bernie says we sue, we sue
Bernie says we sign… we sign.

I admire, my attorney Bernie
I admire, any guy who knows his stuff
Sure we blew a couple ventures
with a counterfeit debenture
But you win a few, you lose a few
and like Bernie says you keep on hanging tough

Thanks to you, my attorney Bernie
Thanks to you, I’m considered well-to-do
Sure I made out like a bandit
Just exactly like you planned it
But like Murray my accountant
told me yesterday, I owe it all to you.

[Chorus]
On the dotted line.

Oddly, Lord Goldsmith, former UK Attorney General, denies complicity (he didn’t eschew that word) in the concealment of facts from an OECD corruption investigation. He claims the head of the Serious Fraud Office did that bit.

Lord Goldsmith, the legal advisor to the UK government took one view of the payment of huge bribes to Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, The Corner House took another and the UK High Court agreed with The Corner House.

Lord Goldsmith’s successor is reportedly fighting the good fight, which the Independent coyly reports thus:

The plan caused disquiet in the Cabinet but Baroness Scotland of Asthal, the current Attorney General, fought off suggestions that her powers should be limited.�

What she is resisting is the curtailment of a claimed “right� to ensure that no effective investigation and consequently no prosecution of corrupt payments by BAE will take place in the future.

Being Attorney General seems to involve a person in surprising things.