Catallaxy Files

Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog

Stuart Littlemore

61 comments

Here is Stuart Littlemore attacking the IPA and Murdoch

Now Littlemore is defending Eddie Obeid.

 

 

Written by Samuel J

February 4th, 2013 at 10:32 pm

Posted in Freedom of speech,SJ

Tagged with

«
»

61 Responses to 'Stuart Littlemore'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Stuart Littlemore'.

  1. Now Littlemore is defending Eddie Obeid.

    Maybe he’s the one that got the mining data “off Jesus Christ”, as Moses Obeid said?

    .

    4 Feb 13 at 10:35 pm

  2. Now Littlemore is defending Eddie Obeid.

    from the evil-doings of the people.

    stackja

    4 Feb 13 at 10:37 pm

  3. I’ve thought him insufferable since Media Watch. Prissy holier than thou old lefty. Seems like they’re a dime a dozen these days unfortunately. A thought though, Labor lawyers must be experiencing something of a boom time recently. With no let up on the horizon it would seem.

    Yoda

    4 Feb 13 at 10:43 pm

  4. Feet of clay.

    anonandon

    4 Feb 13 at 11:02 pm

  5. Twelve years later – nothing has changed. Sell it.

    H B Bear

    4 Feb 13 at 11:05 pm

  6. How ‘More Little’ can you get.

    3d1k

    4 Feb 13 at 11:26 pm

  7. In defence of Stuart Littlemore, barristers can only refuse briefs in the rarest of circumstances and likeability of the person or the heinous nature of his or her crime aren’t examples of them. There is no contractual relationship between a barrister and the client either. The well-named ‘cab rank rule’ describes the gist of how this works.

    M Ryutin

    4 Feb 13 at 11:44 pm

  8. M R – sounds like prostitution.

    Chris M

    5 Feb 13 at 1:00 am

  9. Could you imagine the howls that would issue forth from this mob if the roles were reversed?

    Unfortunately the vacuous intellects of those like Richard Littlemore are incapable of comprehending that thought experiment, or understanding the dangers a state owned taxpayer funded propaganda outlet poses for Australia’s democracy and freedom.

    ….. and why do I get the impression that he thinks he’s Hannibal Lecter?. I kept waiting for the Fava bean and Chianti scene… honest to God!

    J.H.

    5 Feb 13 at 3:57 am

  10. MR is right though. A barrister is a member of the court providing “honorary” services to a client on the payment by any solicitor of the appropriate fee. May not seem right, commercial or very modern, but there are some benefits to what is, essentially, an access regime: anyone can have access to the counsel of their choice, subject only to paying the fee.

    Pyrmonter

    5 Feb 13 at 7:24 am

  11. Stuart Littlemore is a pain in the arse. Message ends.

    Popular Front

    5 Feb 13 at 7:27 am

  12. Time has provided us with copious evidence that the IPA side were right, and that Littlemore was little more than a supercilious advocate, himself a creature of the ABC. The hit piece is well constructed, but shows a bile-filled mind and a snaky obsession with one of the ABC’s core articles of faith: business is bad, corrupt, corrupting. Unlike Labor politicians and their government subsidised cheer squad. To have an organised group taking pot shots at you had to be stopped! Individual complaints can be largely ignored, but this was serious!
    Footnote: the small point about getting names wrong reminded me that just yesterday I heard what should amount to a sacking offence from someone working in the classical music branch of the ABC. The lady (no names, no concentration camp) pronounced Haydn as Hayden.

    Blogstrop

    5 Feb 13 at 7:39 am

  13. P..S. if we wnt to play follow the money trail, I think that the main backers of The Climate Institute might be found to be wealthy individuals whose money is not entirely disconnected with the Murdoch family? Therefore another branch of evil according to Littlemore, although in ABC eyes that support would pass muster because they approve of the “really big lie” it is disseminating.

    Blogstrop

    5 Feb 13 at 7:47 am

  14. …snaky obsession with one of the ABC’s core articles of faith: business is bad, corrupt, corrupting.

    By contrast to the lobbying by the ABC itself for TV Australia which most ministers refused to get involved in due to the dubious legality and ethical nature under the covering legislation.

    Token

    5 Feb 13 at 8:01 am

  15. Pompous Git.

    Rabz

    5 Feb 13 at 8:21 am

  16. Does Littlemore realise how much this piece justifies the IPA’s concerns?! He did make a couple of good points – e.g. reporting a phone box sized conference as news is dodgy journalism. However, how many times has the ABC reported a couple of communists chaining themselves to a detention centre as news? Littlemore is at his best when picking up on typos and apostrophe abuse. But why did a public broadcaster give him free rein to pontificate on whatever he cared to? That decision hardly serves to disprove the IPA’s points.

    Plato Sandilands

    5 Feb 13 at 8:27 am

  17. He did make a couple of good points – e.g. reporting a phone box sized conference as news is dodgy journalism. However, how many times has the ABC reported a couple of communists chaining themselves to a detention centre as news?

    Yes. Remember Combet’s fake press conference.

    What an empty suit.

    .

    5 Feb 13 at 8:30 am

  18. Indeed MR … Ambulance chasers like Littlemore are remarkably non-judgemental when it comes to trousering cash from crooks. Why is it then, that Littlemore and his fellow travellers feel the need to pass judgement so readily on the innocent and the good?

    Leigh Lowe

    5 Feb 13 at 8:30 am

  19. the main backers of The Climate Institute

    I thought the Climate Institute gets much of its funding from the Gubbermint?

    Cold-Hands

    5 Feb 13 at 8:31 am

  20. I thought legal ethics (to the extent such a term exists) means that Littlemore is obliged to act as legal counsel if requested.

    The cab rank rule.

    Grey

    5 Feb 13 at 8:43 am

  21. What a precious little hypocritical bounder.

    And the intellectual decay of the ABC has grown apace since 2001; (briefly) tune in to breakfast ABC RN, 7:30, LNL, Q&A, Faine, AM, The Science Report ..

    James of the Glens

    5 Feb 13 at 8:54 am

  22. Climate Institute Funding
    http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/private-philanthropy.html

    We ensure the majority of our funding comes from independent, philanthropic sources and have strict governance policies at a board level. In 2010-11, 81 per cent of our overall income came from philanthropic sources, 6 per cent from business partnerships, 10.5 per cent from government and 2.5 per cent from miscellaneous sources (primarily online donations and speaker fees).

    Good to see another fake charity moving in the right direction, it should be encouraged. The ALPBC could follow their lead.

    Forester

    5 Feb 13 at 8:58 am

  23. Ahh, the old ‘monied’ propaganda. Nothing like left wing government backed propaganda. Not like the ‘ultra right’ IPA has a point, not like people can see the facts for what they are or anything. It just evil propaganda against the poor little old $1b abc.

    Mattr

    5 Feb 13 at 9:17 am

  24. Littlemore than another brown-tongued A.L.P. toadie.

    Up The Workers!

    5 Feb 13 at 9:30 am

  25. I thought legal ethics (to the extent such a term exists) means that Littlemore is obliged to act as legal counsel if requested.

    The cab rank rule.

    Yeah sure. I’m sure he would have jetted off to London to assist Murdoch as his counsel.

    You chucklehead.

    .

    5 Feb 13 at 9:33 am

  26. Eddie Obeid has VERY deep pockets.

    Why SHOULDN’T Stuart Littlemore reside in one?

    Half the politicians in the A.L.P. already do!

    Up The Workers!

    5 Feb 13 at 9:44 am

  27. Littlemore than innuendo.

    JJP

    5 Feb 13 at 9:46 am

  28. Yeah sure. I’m sure he would have jetted off to London to assist Murdoch as his counsel.

    You chucklehead.

    It is remarkable the legal professional has not figured out in the smartphone/blog world that the old tricks based upon smoke & mirrors no longer works.

    Token

    5 Feb 13 at 9:49 am

  29. The Murdoch money trail leading to the Climate Institute is detailed here.

    blogstrop

    5 Feb 13 at 9:49 am

  30. Just for clarity, there are many reasons why a barrister may refuse a brief – the fee isn’t to their liking, the area is outside their expertise, they are otherwise engaged.

    The rule is honoured more in the breach.

    JJP

    5 Feb 13 at 10:04 am

  31. “Just for clarity, there are many reasons why a barrister may refuse a brief – the fee isn’t to their liking, the area is outside their expertise, they are otherwise engaged.”

    Yes, Littlemore is beyond reproach, he always has an excuse.

    .

    5 Feb 13 at 10:21 am

  32. Forget the cab rank principle, are you arguing that accused criminals, guilty or not, should be denied legal representation?

    Rob

    5 Feb 13 at 10:24 am

  33. Yes Rob, serial pest JJP says the cab rank rule can be justified to support whatever causes you like and excuses a.-c. etc., can be used to justify denying legal representation.

    So wait are the Obeids accused criminals yet?

    .

    5 Feb 13 at 10:34 am

  34. Rob, that sounds distinctly like a Strawman.

    As if Obeid could not find representation if Littlemore was not aviable.

    Token

    5 Feb 13 at 10:34 am

  35. I think we need to remember the cab-rank rule.

    JJP says it justifies hosting media watch and having a smarmy left wing bias.

    .

    5 Feb 13 at 10:36 am

  36. Rob, that sounds distinctly like a Strawman.
    As if Obeid could not find representation if Littlemore was not aviable.

    Token
    5 Feb 13 at 10:34 am

    What on earth are you talking about? Straw man? You guys are the ones implying Littlemore shouldnt represent Obeid. Justify why any barrister Littlemore included should pick and choose clients based on whether the clients are nice people or not. Some Israeli defended Eichmann after all.

    And no I’m not claiming the Obeids are accused of anything, as far as I know Littlemore specialises in defamation doesnt he?

    Rob

    5 Feb 13 at 11:04 am

  37. You guys are the ones implying Littlemore shouldnt represent Obeid.

    No. The criticism is that he uses the same cover of integrity to push his barrow privately.

    That’s a crock of shit, pal.

    And no I’m not claiming the Obeids are accused of anything, as far as I know Littlemore specialises in defamation doesnt he?

    So Obeid is threatening people with defamation? Or are you accusing the ICAC of false allegations and defamation?

    .

    5 Feb 13 at 11:07 am

  38. I think the last post could serve as a dictionary example of the word “tendentious”. No and no, obviously

    Rob

    5 Feb 13 at 11:10 am

  39. For heavens sake the issue is obviously that whatever and whoever a barrister represents in court cannot be used to criticise his character.

    Rob

    5 Feb 13 at 11:12 am

  40. …are you arguing that accused criminals, guilty or not, should be denied legal representation?

    Talking about “tendentious”, as if that is what we are arguing. As I noted above, it has the smell of a strawman argument.

    Token

    5 Feb 13 at 11:12 am

  41. Serial pest?

    I also think we all need to take a breath and understand that the right to legal representation is not the right to select whomever you would like to represent you.

    The right to legal representation extends as far as guaranteeing representation which is merely competent and would not place the accused in a position which is worse than would have been had they no representation to begin with.

    JJP

    5 Feb 13 at 11:13 am

  42. Everything you have said on this thread is disingenuous and tendentious.

    Play the game, expect the usual results.

    .

    5 Feb 13 at 11:13 am

  43. I also think we all need to take a breath and understand that the right to legal representation is not the right to select whomever you would like to represent you.

    But…but…but…you just know that Littlemore is representing Obeid…because of the cab-rank rule and nothing else.

    What a crock of shit. This might pass in an old folks home under the eyes of the senile.

    It seems Rob mightn’t be a troll after all…

    Just for clarity, there are many reasons why a barrister may refuse a brief – the fee isn’t to their liking, the area is outside their expertise, they are otherwise engaged.

    So did everyone else charge too much? Was everyone else too busy? What is Littlemore’s expertise?

    .

    5 Feb 13 at 11:18 am

  44. But…but…but…you just know that Littlemore is representing Obeid…because of the cab-rank rule and nothing else.

    What a crock of shit. This might pass in an old folks home under the eyes of the senile.

    …and if you don’t believe that is true, you must be stating…

    …that accused criminals, guilty or not, should be denied legal representation

    As I said, some people need to move beyond the smoke & mirror parlor tricks of previous eras, they no longer work.

    Token

    5 Feb 13 at 11:20 am

  45. For heavens sake the issue is obviously that whatever and whoever a barrister represents in court cannot be used to criticise his character.

    No no no no no.

    That isn’t the issue at all.

    The issue is thus:

    The criticism is that he uses the same cover of integrity to push his barrow privately.

    .

    5 Feb 13 at 11:20 am

  46. These guys probably think retired MPs in the UK are actually Stewards of the Chiltern Hundreds.

    Google “legal fiction”, guys.

    The cab rank rule only ever existed because the legal profession had high barriers to entry and was in short supply.

    We do not have an under supply of lawyers who can represent you in legal proceedings. To suggest such a thing in this day in age in any Anglo country would be decried as a bad joke.

    “Oh but I must represent Mr Obeid”

    How noble. How about holding the ABC to the same standards as Murdoch? Or not pushing your own private barrow on taxpayer funded TV under the cloak and mantle of nobility you hide under?

    .

    5 Feb 13 at 11:27 am

  47. Cab rank has nothing to do with it, obviously. This isnt a case of some random person wandering in thanks to Legal Aid.

    It is a high profile situation with a client who can pay, and Littlemore is a barrister who does this for a living. What else do you expect?

    Rob

    5 Feb 13 at 11:43 am

  48. I’m not arguing about that, as I’ve already told you twice.

    .

    5 Feb 13 at 11:44 am

  49. . I would take the time to go back and look at what I’ve written in this thread. I have never suggested that Mr Littlemore was correct in representing Obeid.

    The argument I’ve been making is that Littlemore could have avoided being Obeid’s counsel if he wanted to – by claiming that he was too busy or that he was not being paid sufficiently for the task or that he did not consider himself up to the task.

    Moreover, I have pointed out that reliance on the notion that people ‘deserve’ a standard of defence is bunk. They are entitled to legal representation of a basic competence, not anyone they choose and Littlemore cannot rely upon the notion that he is required because of a particular ability that he may possess.

    An apology might be appropriate.

    JJP

    5 Feb 13 at 11:56 am

  50. Stuart Littlemore is a caricature of a smug, intellectually insular, ivory tower leftist. I almost wonder whether he is a real person or a character someone made up. But what professional actor could do a better job?

    Littlemore’s media profile and influence was at its peak during the 1990s, when political correctness was more generally at the peak of its stranglehold on the public debate. He is a reminder of a bygone era.

    Monkey's Uncle

    5 Feb 13 at 11:59 am

  51. Well JJP it turns out I was wrong, I apologise.

    Rob is still trying to ignore the actual criticism of Littlemore made here.

    .

    5 Feb 13 at 12:02 pm

  52. I couldn’t find the Obeid defence. It required me to sit through voluminous vomit presented as sanctimonious intellectualism, a task too great for a mere mortal such as I.

    Why do I get the impression that Littlemore was a bullied schoolkid who got him own room with a camera as an adult with the bullies kept out? He reminds me of the know-it-all from Good Will Hunting (no, not Matt Damon, the guy in the bar) who isn’t nearly as smart as he pretends to be or wishes he was.

    Like the tough guy who stays away from the tough end of town, Littlemore mouths off safe in the knowledge that no one is there to answer back.

    Littlemore vs Steyn -bring it on!

    The Beer Whisperer

    5 Feb 13 at 12:04 pm

  53. You really feel you’ve done something when you get the guilty off.

    Stuart Littlemore 1995

    jupes

    5 Feb 13 at 2:13 pm

  54. barristers routinely defend the unpopular and the unpleasant.

    Lord Denning in 1966 identified the duties of a Barrister in the following way:

    A barrister cannot pick and choose his clients. He is bound to accept a brief for any man who comes before the Courts. No matter how great a rascal the man may be. No matter how given to complaining. No matter how undeserving or unpopular his cause.

    The barrister must defend him to the end. Provided only that he is paid a proper fee…. he must accept the brief and do all he honourably can on behalf of his client.

    Jim Rose

    5 Feb 13 at 5:33 pm

  55. His wikipedia page says he acted for Merceds Corby, also for Pauline Hanson, in defamation actions against Australian media corporations.

    In each of those cases he secured out of court settlements favourable to his client.

    One can see why Obeid wanted Littlemore.

    Steve at the Pub

    5 Feb 13 at 5:58 pm

  56. He complained of the IPA spending $1m on propaganda indeed. Oh, to rule the world on a shoestring budget.

    Jim Rose

    5 Feb 13 at 6:31 pm

  57. Lord Denning in 1966 identified the duties of a Barrister in the following way

    Ah yes, what else did the eminent Lord Denning have to say:

    I wasn’t concerned so much with the rightness of the cause, I was only concerned as a member of the Bar, to win it if I could.

    It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned.

    We shouldn’t have all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they’d been hanged. They’d have been forgotten, and the whole community would be satisfied …

    And there in a nutshell is the problem with the legal system. The innocent get put away while the guilty get off. It’s all in a day’s work to a barrister. The bloviating buffoons are much more concerned with winning than finding the truth.

    jupes

    5 Feb 13 at 6:33 pm

  58. I think you are perhaps giving them too much credit Jupes.

    The answer doesn’t run that deep. They actually are more concerned in the technicalities of the legal process.

    Legal Eagle (who lectured in law), who blogs at Skepticlawer wrote a couple of revealing posts about the psychology of turning law students from thinking like “people” into thinking like “lawyers”.

    Steve at the Pub

    5 Feb 13 at 6:48 pm

  59. They actually are more concerned in the technicalities of the legal process.

    I doubt it. They like to win. Check out my quote of Littlemore himself above at 2:13.

    Nevertheless making the legal process more technical is very important to the legal profession as a whole. The more technical and complex a document/policy is, the more lawyers required to interpret it. It’s also how they expand their power into other areas.

    jupes

    5 Feb 13 at 7:06 pm

  60. Bang on Jupes.

    Steve at the Pub

    5 Feb 13 at 7:34 pm

  61. No wonder so many go on into politics.

    blogstrop

    5 Feb 13 at 8:40 pm

Leave a Reply