And I think Blair was just taking the piss of that very subtext in statements like “this guy’s a riot”

Although it does make you think of what his assessment of the jury’s mentality is (and I note the judge has an interesting track record)

Depends entirely on your perspective, doesn’t it.

But in order to defend someone from a terrorism trial, it is not necessary to come out with the sort of things Van der Weil is saying. He is not “just doing his job”.

In fact, such comments are irrelevant to the question of whether the jury believes as a matter of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the prosecution has been able to prove the men were prepared to use explosives or weapons for an undisclosed terrorist act, with the intention of coercing a government or intimidating the public.

Alleging as a matter of fact that Bin Laden was not responsible for the September 11 attacks is irrelevant and inappropriate, in my opinion, because this is not a question of fact which can properly be resolved in that context.

To be fair, perhaps some understanding of Benbrika’s view of the world is necessary to understanding the actions and words of the man. But in my opinion, it would be more appropriate if Van der Weil had prefaced his comments with, “My client’s view is that…” “I am instructed that his frustration stems from his belief that…” That way, it’s just simply Benbrika’s belief, not something which is alleged as a matter of fact.

From a more pragmatic point of view, an unpleasant subtext to Van der Weil’s address could be, “Well if my client did talk about wanting to plan a terrorist operation, that’s understandable, because America and Australia are evil.” I agree, Ken: it seems counterproductive to me. It infers that Benbrika was the sort of man who might feel aggrieved enough to want to plan a terrorist action!

Well, Niall… *clears throat* …

I guess it’s okay to reneg on an opinion and be forgiven if you’re a conservative lawyer in an increasingly progressively liberal jihadist world.

That said, my favourite (if equally unrepresentative) memory of him is his threatening to punch Gore Vidal, who was at least at that time an absolutely slimely caricature of a toffy pretentious lefty twat, after Vidal called him (what sounded like) a ‘crypto-Nazi’.

I’m not sure if that is good or bad for our legal system.

Now I am thinking I’d really like to see a transcript.

Bizarre (even if funny in a perverse sort of way)

I noted a couple of comments on this work and compared the estimates Stiglitz-Bilmes made of the cost of the Iraq war with those of others. I wasn’t however primarily interested in criticising it - I think it is useful work.

My main point was to point out that Stiglitz was linking problems in the world economy - the current credit crunch - with problems of financing the Iraq war. In the 1970s the same sorts of comments were made linking Lyndon Johnson’s funding of the Vietnam war with the emergence of global inflation.

Stiglitz is proposing a bold and interesting linkage.

Perhaps you’re right, certainly according to this blogger anyway:

Despite this dismal stance, Buckley did in fact change and renounce racism by the mid-1960s, in part because his horror at the terrorist tactics used by white supremacists to fight the civil rights movement, in part because of the moral witness of friends like Garry Wills who confronted Buckley with the immorality of his politics. Buckley’s change was by no means pre-ordained. Some of his friends from the 1950s, notably Revilo Oliver remained adamant racialists (Oliver moved from National Review to the John Birch Society to the fringes of neo-Nazism). There are a host of other issues on which Buckley moderated his politics. In the 1980s, he said that if he were a black South African he would probably support the ANC, a statement that shocked fellow conservatives. This independence of mind continued to the end of his life. Not too long ago, he admitted that the Iraq war was a ghastly mistake, again annoying his intellectual fellow travelers. He was learning until his last days.

First up, propping up at least the child care arm of ABC would do no more than continue the status quo established under the Howard government - ABC became the world’s largest provider of childcare services on the back of the Howard Government’s Child Care rebate.

ABC also worked very aggressively to establish and maintain itself as a monopoly provider. Stephen Mayne describing Eddy Grove on Lateline:

He’s well known to lodge objections when community centres, or other centres, council run centres put up proposals to create a new centre. He’s been known to lodge many dozens of objections to try and stop competitors opening up near him.

Now, that’s the sort of tactic you see in the shopping centre business or in the hotel business, but it’s a bit unusual to see that in something like child care.

Then there’s this:

And even things like Larry Anthony joining the board. He was the children’s minister if the Howard government. The government was giving Eddy Groves’ company $1 million a day in subsidies for it’s child care operations, creating an unprecedented company market share in the world. And five months after he stops being the children’s minister, Larry Anthony jumps on to the board of ABC Learning, taking all that knowledge with him.

There are a lot of serious issues here that deserve the sort of informed analysis that bloggers continually complain isn’t being provided by the MSM - all we get on any issue is the usual ranters. Libertarian snark about Rudd’s obsession with “working families” isn’t informed analysis, however entertaining and initially appealing it might at first appear.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going back over the hill - if people are going to be wrong on the Internet, it’s not my job to put them right. I’d rather spend the rest of today drawing.

Barristers operate on a “taxi rank” basis i.e. if they’re available and a brief comes their way in their area of practice, they’re supposedly meant to accept it (although it’s a rule often honoured in the breach).

Having accepted it, counsel is certainly expected to follow the client’s instructions. However, counsel is also not permitted to mislead the court, and if a client instructs him to put something to the court that he positively knows to be false then he must not follow that instruction. Short of that, if a client instructs counsel to advance arguments that counsel regards as extremely unwise, then at the very least counsel would normally make it clear to the court that he is “instructed to submit that …”, thereby signalling that the argument wasn’t his idea. Moreover, if counsel forms the view that the extent of unwise arguments the client is requiring him to advance will result in his being unable to defend the client in a competent professional manner, then counsel would be entitled to withdraw from the case. The fact that Van der Weil hasn’t done either of the above things rather suggests either that the arguments are his own or that he doesn’t have any significant reservations about presenting them.

I should declare an element of bias here. Van der Weil was the defence counsel in the murder trial of the man charged with (and ultimately convicted of) the murder of my daughter Rebecca’s grandmother in Bec’s presence. Fortunately (from our viewpoint), I was unimpressed with his efforts then just as I am with his conduct of Benbrika’s defence now (at least as they’re reported in the media). However, he’s senior counsel nowadays and you don’t reach those professional heights without displaying a fair measure of professional competence. So perhaps there’s more to it than meets the eye.

I frankly don’t see why the Lateline transcript you linked should provide any basis whatever to think that it would be a good idea for the government to prop up ABC Learning with taxpayers’ money in any way, shape or form.

ABC achieved its rapid expansion largely by buying existing child care centres from “mum and dad” operators at premium prices. If it goes broke and a liquidator/receiver puts them back on the market, why would you begrudge someone else (especially the previous mum and dad operator who may well be in the best position to capitalise) doing a Kerry Packer and reacquiring it at a bargain basement price? Only ABC’s shareholder and financiers would suffer, and is it really the Rudd government’s job to protect them?

How would propping up ABC be assisting “working families” anyway? If there’s a market demand in a particular locality for a child care centre, then the ABC centre will find a willing buyer without any problem, and the buyer would be likely to provide at least as good a service as ABC has done. And if there’s any doubt about that, it’s surely an issue for improved regulatory oversight rather than middle class welfare. With respect, I think your comment involves some woolly thinking.

I don’t know how defence lawyers work or determine their strategies. My question is this: do they have to follow their clients instructions? Is it possible that Van der Weil was just spouting the line given to him by Benbrika, who, knowing how much attention this case would get, hopes to use der Weil as a defacto megaphone (I mean the prosecution insisted that jurors not think all Muslims are terrorists,etc before describing these dudes jihadist theology etc., but the opening statement by the defence -with analogies to Peter Costello, Howard hating unionists, Haneef, dumb male heterosexual men, Old Testament fanatical god etc just didn’t sound like a reasoned much less vaguely plausible argument of a QC (mind you, how do you defend a dingbat like Benbrika, even against a parking fine, is beyond me, but fair trial etc etc.)

So is this a QC speaking or more likely Benbrika speaking throug Van der Weil. How does it work?