Tag Archives: Western Circuit

Diary Blog, 11 September 2024, including reminiscence about the “9/11” attack in 2001

Morning music

11 September 2001

Well, here we are again. On the “original” 11 September, meaning “9/11” 2001 (in the American format), I was in the back of a taxi driving down the Strand in London, with an American colleague. Mid-morning. He received a call from his wife in Charleston, South Carolina. Something about a plane crashing into the World Trade Center in Manhattan.

My colleague relayed the news to me, and the typically know-all London taxi driver told us that he already knew all about it.

My American colleague asked me where we could get to a TV. I replied that our office in London (off Berkeley Square in Mayfair) had one, but that there used to be a Dixons (electronics and home electrical goods store) in the Strand. We saw it, disembarked and went into that store. Hundreds of TV sets, all showing what looked like a disaster movie. A few customers wandering around, looking at the goods, seemingly unaware of the enormity of what was happening, vicariously, in front of them.

After about 10 minutes looking and listening, we left and went to my then office. The staff there were getting the latest on-the-ground and diplomatic news.

My American colleague was both grim and angry, and muttered something about how “we” should respond in the same way the Israelis always did. Needless to say, I disagreed, though as politely as I could. For one thing, the origins and motives of the perpetrators had not yet been established (he was saying that it must be the Iraqis, which of course turned out to be wrong). I do recall remarking that if a state was proven to have been behind the attack, then it was undoubtedly an act of war in terms of international law.

Of course, the 2001 WTC attack was used as the fuel for the American-led invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I well remember my American colleague’s anger, which I think was general across the USA, from what I not only saw on TV but also what I noted once or twice in the USA not long afterward; I flew to Washington about a week or so after the attacks.

I myself was relatively unemotional about it, despite the horrible images and evident suffering etc. That’s just me, I suppose. After all, many horrible things happen in the world, and the Americans themselves perpetrate quite a few of them. Having said that, the attack was an appalling outrage from almost any point of view.

Since then, of course, the Trade Center attack has spawned a hundred “conspiracy theories”, including the so-called “Dancing Israelis”: see https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12768362.five-israelis-were-seen-filming-as-jet-liners-ploughed-into-the-twin-towers-on-september-11-2001/.

That report is really worth reading. The Israeli intelligence connection to the “9/11” attack is more than a simple “conspiracy theory” that can be simply laughed off.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories.

After the attacks on New York and Washington, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was asked what the terrorist strikes would mean for US-Israeli relations. He said: “It’s very good.” Then he corrected himself, adding: “Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy for Israel from Americans.”

[Herald Scotland]

As with the Kennedy assassination, some of the “9/11” conspiracy theories, mutually contradictory as some are, cannot be entirely discounted.

One thing that I found odd at the time was that members of the bin Laden family living in the USA at the time were flown out of US airspace on private jets only a day or two after the attacks (the Pentagon also having been hit), and authorized in person, it seems, by George W. Bush, the U.S. President, and at a time before ordinary commercial flights were allowed to resume.

Of course, since the attacks of 2001, the area of the attack has been redeveloped.

The original “Twin Towers” complex was a very powerful architectural statement, partly because of the two almost identical main buildings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973%E2%80%932001)

In fact, there were minor differences. I went up both towers. Once only, in 1989, onto the open observation deck of the South Tower:

…and also once only to the Hors d’Oeuvrerie and Cellar in the Sky near the top of the North Tower, where I enjoyed the view and a couple of glasses of Californian Chardonnay with my first wife, an employee of the Federal Government. That would have been in 1990 or 1991.

In fact, during the years 1989-1993 I was occasionally at the World Trade Center, but only because I sometimes used the PATH line from Newark (New Jersey) into Manhattan, a service that terminated either at the WTC or at 33rd Street/Herald Square in Midtown (I more often went to Midtown).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PATH_(rail_system)

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein#September_11_attacks

The rebuilt area is still quite striking but perhaps not quite so much as the original:

[the redeveloped area of the World Trade Center]
[by night]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(2001%E2%80%93present)

Incidentally, one of the things I noticed about the South Tower was the speed of the very large express lift/elevator (the size of a room), which transported tourists to the floor below the Observation Deck in a matter of only a couple of minutes, if I recall aright. I think 107 floors. There was a staircase from there to the outside Observation Deck.

Tweets seen

I did not see the U.S. Presidential TV debate. Such “debates” are always rubbish (going back as far as the famous Nixon-Kennedy ones). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_debates.

Having said that, such shouting matches and trivia do have their effect on voter response.

At this point, I have no idea who supposedly “won” the TV debate, or who is going to come out on top in the election.

The “Twitterati”, or Twitter/X twits, heavily pro-Kamala Harris, think that she has “won” the TV debate, but that is near-meaningless: they were also sure that the Remain side would win the Brexit Referendum, and that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

America is now so polarized that it would take a President ten times better than the two present contenders rolled together to patch it up.

Starmer-Labour is a Labour Friends of Israel project.

More reminiscences

It seems that today is a day for Memory Lane.

I notice that Larkbeare House in Exeter, not far from the barristers’ chambers where I was professionally based during the years 2002-2008 (though actually resident much of the time after 2005 and until mid-2009 in France), is up for sale.

Larkbeare House was, at that time (and, indeed, since 1876), the Judges’ Lodgings. High Court and Circuit Judges on the Western Circuit of the Bar [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuits_of_England_and_Wales] would stay there when sitting at Exeter.

I attended a couple of receptions there in 2006/2007.

Judges’ Lodgings, which go back hundreds of years, came into existence as a way of isolating judges from the opinions and potential pressures of the local populations, and also protecting them from potential intimidation or protest.

The sale is a sign of the times. The misgovernment of David Cameron-Levita and George Osborne decided to sell off most of the remaining Judges’ Lodgings. Judges now often stay in hotels when on circuit; to my mind not entirely satisfactory.

Incidentally, if anyone wants to buy the property, the “guide price” is £4M.

More tweets

More tweets

Listen to that little bastard (Hamish Falconer MP). Parroting the exact same words that many “Conservative” MPs did 2010-2024. No difference whatsoever. “Tough choices” etc. The little bastard has never had to make a “tough choice” in his life, let alone one that impacted him personally.

Incidentally:

The son of Charlie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton, who served as Lord Chancellor under Tony Blair, Falconer attended Westminster School and then St. John’s College, Cambridge, graduating in 2008 in Human, Social and Political Science,[4] before joining the diplomatic service. Falconer worked in the UK government’s Department for International Development from 2009 to 2013, and then the Foreign and Commonwealth Office until 2022.[5] His diplomatic career centred on national security and humanitarian relief, including hostage recovery.[6][7] Whilst in the Foreign Office, he spent a year at Yale University as a “World Fellow”.[8]

Since leaving the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office, Falconer worked as an associate fellow at the IPPR,[6] and was a Policy Fellow at the think tank Labour Together alongside standing as a candidate for Parliament.

[Wikipedia].

A horrible little System-careerist bastard, in short. Moreover, one born with a double-size silver spoon in his mouth.

Starmer and his cohorts, including the said horrible little careerist bastard, are sending £3 BILLION a year to the brutal Jewish dictatorship in Kiev, apart from anything else. More than they are confiscating from British pensioners.

The “Conservative” government of that little Indian money-juggler had to go, had to be binned, but what has replaced it (as I predicted, though not alone) is a kind of useless, pointless, sleazy, box-ticking Blair Mark Two government of would-be dictatorial idiots, headed by chief idiot Starmer.

Everyone and every organization helping to facilitate evil rubbish of that sort should be purged.

Also seen there, jeering, is bad-joke “Lord Chancellor” and Secretary of State for Justice, Shabana Mahmood, a Pakistani woman whose entire “legal career” (even including Bar pupillage) lasted for only about 3 years, mostly spent being a “gopher” at a firm of solicitors.

What a line-up of unpleasant individuals. Look at sour-faced would-be dictator Yvette Cooper! Has she been told that her Labour Friends of Israel subscription is due? Have some of her latest fake expenses claims been queried?

They are already worse. Starmer-Labour, Friends of Israel-Labour, has nothing it really wants to do, except sit as a “government”, get paid well, make connections with big business, and “govern “, punishing anyone who expresses alternative views of the world.

They have no policies worth a plugged nickel, and they have no mandate— only 4 out of every 20 eligible voters voted for them, and most of those were people wanting only to bin the “Conservative” Party.

[No, wait! I voted Labour!“]

Starmer-Labour has a list of people they want to kill off or at least imprison and/or silence: pensioners (hardly any of whom vote Labour now), alternative political voices, those opposed to Israeli war crimes and the UK Jewish lobby.

This is a (barely-)”elected” dictatorship, composed mainly of people who can fairly, if loosely, be described as traitors.

Talking point

Britain (and some other countries, such as Sweden) in 2024?

More tweets seen

That Dunt individual is not objective. I believe that he tweeted or retweeted about me a few times in the past. Unpleasant, and usually wrong in his views.

Starmer and his cabal think that the recent protests and their “riotous” offshoots are as bad as it gets for him and Labour. Think again. 4+ years of this type of quasi-tyrannical misgovernment and anything could happen.

From the newspapers

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13838731/Keir-Starmer-Rachel-Reeves-energy-bill-hikes-cap-costs-Downing-Street-flats-winter-fuel.html

Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are set to be insulated from the impact of energy bill hikes as pensioners face a struggle without winter fuel payments. 

The PM and Chancellor only pay a taxable benefit on running costs at the grace-and-favour apartments – capped at 10 per cent of their ministerial salaries.

It means that they contribute around £3,000 to cover all utilities and other expenses, and the sum will not go up when the Ofgem cap increases by 10 per cent next month.

…critics have warned that thousands of pensioners on low-incomes could die through lack of heating when the weather turns.”

[Daily Mail]

Late tweets

Well, here she is: aged about 28, and her only work experience has been a bit of “intern” and “volunteer” activity: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Dollimore#Political_career.

These are the know-nothings that purport to rule over us (of course, just lobby-fodder; and a kind of much better-paid advice centre worker).

As I have said, Iran’s tactics of uncertainty keep Israel off-balance, but such tactics cannot be kept in deployment forever. In the end, Iran will have to either put up or shut up.

The way things are going, Britain’s future looks very dark (literally), but I should still much prefer this country not to be blasted and irradiated by nuclear war…

The UK must withdraw all support from the Kiev regime.

Tell me about it!

A few of my own experiences of persecution over the past decade:

I shall have a little more to say about all that either tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.

Late music

[c.1941: Wehrmacht soldier chats with a Parisienne on the promenade of the Palais de Chaillot, by the gardens of the Trocadero, and across the river from the Champ de Mars and Eiffel Tower]

Paid Bar Pupillages

There is, currently, discussion yet again at the Bar of England and Wales about whether all sets of chambers should “tax” their members in order to pay pupils (i.e. trainee barristers) a certain minimum during their year of pupillage. The figure mooted has been put by some at £25,000; others put it at £12,000, i.e. about where the present legal “minimum wage” is set. Not all barristers agree. I saw a contrary-leaning article by Jew-Zionist silk Simon Myerson QC. I expect that this is the only issue on which I would ever agree with him (I attach his views at the bottom of this blog post).

I understand that chambers are currently not forced to have pupils, but if they have them they must be paid £12,000 p.a. Apologies if that misrepresents the current position; I have little contact now with affairs at the Bar. [update: see below]

Many who know me or of me may wonder why I am bothering to write about this. After all, I ceased Bar practice in 2008, and was actually disbarred –for political reasons– in 2016, after a pack of malicious Jews cobbled together a complaint to the Bar Standards Board about my socio-political tweets. My answer to such a query would be that I have a view and the time in which to express it. Simply that. I can revisit Memory Lane, too.

The idea that all chambers must fund at least one pupil has superficial appeal to many. Poorer people of merit would be assisted etc. The problem with that is that most young (as most are) Bar pupils are not very poor anyway, and many come from families with considerable incomes and capital. In short, from affluent families. No-one forces chambers to take poor pupils rather than rich ones. In other words, chambers might be forced to pay for pupils who do not even need the money.

When I myself was looking for pupillage in the late 1980s and then early 1990s (interrupted by my going to live in the USA and travelling back and forth in those years), I had handicaps: apart from lack of money, I was, having been born in 1956, about a decade older than most candidates, and (worse) until late 1988 had a beard. That last might seem a small matter, but at least two barristers who interviewed me mentioned it…

I found that, at that time, the Bar was even less well-run than most things in the UK. We (students at the Inns of Court School of Law, at the time the only place where the Bar Finals course was offered) were told by some stuffy blue-stocking administratrix that we should write our applications by hand and preferably in ink, using a fountain pen (though CVs could be typed)! By some miracle, quill pens and parchment had been superseded. Well, I laboured to write maybe a hundred applications (though not with a fountain pen). Most went unanswered. Imagine that… that a letter written in good faith on a quite usual subject (after all, it happens at least annually that people apply to such places) will simply be ignored. Arrogant. Rude.

Of the interviews I had, a few stand out: there was one at a leading commercial set, in which interview I was interviewed by one Christian du Cann and some young woman who was obviously very junior. Du Cann was the son of perhaps the best Bar advocate I ever heard, Richard du Cann QC, who wrote one of the best books on the subject, The Art of the Advocate (highly recommended, by the way, if any Bar students are reading this). Du Cann junior was OK, even pleasant, but the young woman was unpleasant, scornful, contemptuous. Huge chip on shoulder from somewhere. I think that she felt inferior, so abused her half hour of power. Fortunately for her, I have forgotten her name.

Then there was the interview elsewhere, which obviously was not going very well, though in a low-intensity way. One barrister saw me out and made two suggestions: one, never shake hands with another barrister; two, beards are usually unacceptable.

Another interview that was (perhaps on purpose, to put one on one’s mettle) very hostile was with three then fairly well-known people, often in the newspapers: Michael Worsley QC [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/12118332/Michael-Worsley-barrister-obituary.html], who died in 2016; Roy Amlot (later QC) who was often seen prosecuting IRA bombers etc (and, later, defending in huge fraud trials such as Blue Arrow), now 75 and retired from the Bar; a blonde woman smoking like a chimney (I cannot quite recall after more than a quarter-century whether that was Joanna Korner, now QC and a judge, or Ann Curnow QC, now deceased). All in a room got up to look like a cross between a country sitting-room and a study: panelling, soft-ish lighting, leather sofa etc and a couple of desks. In summary, Worsley appeared to be a stuffed shirt (very different from the figure portrayed in the Daily Telegraph obit), Amlot a funereally-serious and hugely self-important little man, and the blonde woman someone whose interview style seemed to rely on ill-bred mockery.

I did have one interview which was almost Kafka-esque. At that time, my mother and brother were both Members at Ascot (my brother also owned a racehorse at the time). One frequently-encountered fellow-member was a woman whose son happened to be a head of chambers in the Temple. The two ladies arranged an interview for me. I was loath to go for interview under such conditions, but went out of politeness.

In those pre-Internet days, it was not always easy to find out what a particular set did in detail. I went thinking that it was a general Common Law set. On my arrival, on a Friday early evening, about 1800, the members were all enjoying glasses of champagne; bottles of Bollinger were everywhere. I was given a glass. Turned out that they did this every Friday at sundown. The head of chambers, obviously talking to me because his mother had asked him to do so, was not very pleasant and asked me what I knew of family law. I replied not much, never having studied it. He said “We only do family…” End of “interview”.

In the end, I went back to the USA, though I did get a pupillage in London in the end, in 1992, unfunded and making the first six months (when you are forbidden to accept fees) a trial of strength.

In my last few years at the practising Bar, I was based in Exeter. The head of those chambers decided that we should take pupils and (a year or two later) also fund them. At least one per year. Everyone would be “taxed” for this. I think that my share was about £50 a month, something like that. I thought that absurd. Those funded were not in real need of money (as I had been when a pupil) and I saw no need for us to have pupils in chambers anyway. I was there to make a living, not to provide the English middle classes with career or CV opportunities. My Head of Chambers disagreed though. He no doubt wanted to keep in with the the Bar Council etc, and I note that he has since then (in recent years) sat as a Recorder in civil cases.

Thus it is that, for once, I find myself in agreement with Myerson QC, whose view is linked hereinbelow:

Update (July 2018)

My one-time Head of Chambers has, since I penned the above, been elevated to the Bench as a Circuit Judge, I read somewhere or other. May he temper the law (of which he has an impressive grasp) with not only justice but also mercy…

Update, 23 August 2019

I saw this:

So those fortunate enough to find a pupillage at all (only about 1 in 10) will be paid the above sums per year (or pro rata— many pupils are in two different sets for the two halves of their pupillage year). Nice for them.

My objection to the above is not merely (in fact scarcely at all) that “I had to struggle; they should also struggle”, because in any case most Bar pupils are from relatively affluent (sometimes very wealthy) backgrounds. They do not really need the money.

There is another point: a Bar pupil is almost useless in the first 6 months. Barristers in chambers are therefore not only subsidizing people most of whom do not really require subsidy, but paying out for nothing (unless you regard it as akin to noblesse oblige). A Bar pupil may be helpful in terms of research etc, but the barrister who is pupilmaster has to be pretty sure of the pupil to rely on the results. In other words, the pupillage award is not quasi-pay for work done by the pupil, but a kind of de haut en bas largesse. Oh well, not my problem now!