header-logo header-logo

30 September 2011 / Roger Smith
Issue: 7483 / Categories: Opinion , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Double talk

Roger Smith reports on some recent issues of language

Labour’s former minister, Adam Ingram, escaped rather more lightly in Sir William Gage’s report into the death of Baha Mousa than Richard Norton-Taylor’s recent dramatisation of its proceedings (Tactical Questioning: Scenes from the Baha Mousa Inquiry, shown at the Tricycle Theatre). The latter culminated in a very funny passage where Ingram squirmed under cross-examination.

Ingram’s problem is that he gave repeated assurances that the UK did not torture: it did not even intimidate prisoners by “hooding” them. Thus, he told the chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights: “Hooding was only used during the transit of prisoners; it was not used as an interrogation technique.” This assurance was somewhat at odds with a report from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) which had been previously received by Ingram. This said that: “Inmates were routinely treated by their guards with general contempt…Hooding appeared to be…part of standard intimidation techniques used by military intelligence personnel to frighten inmates into co-operating.”

Ingram was

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll