Nick Hogan - target reached!!!
Friday, March 5, 2010 I am delighted to report that our combined efforts to raise £8,669 to release former landlord Nick Hogan from jail have succeeded. And it took less than seven days. Old Holborn has an update HERE.
Please note: the nature of PayPal is such that it will take a few working days to access the money - and as I reported a couple of days ago, the authorities want the money in cash before they will release Nick.
Everything has gone very smoothly. Anna Raccoon, who wrote the post that kick started the campaign last Saturday, has spoken every day to Nick's wife Denise. Nick too has been kept informed and all is well. We look forward to seeing him when he is released next week.
Congratulations to Anna Raccoon and Old Holborn for a fantastic effort, and thanks to everyone who made a donation or publicised the campaign on their blog or website.
More to follow next week when Nick is released from jail. The process is well under way. Please be patient - and please leave everything to OH and Anna Raccoon.
PS. As Anna says elsewhere, thanks too to Guido Fawkes for help with the final push.
Reader Comments (110)
What is more important, the health of Nick and Denise or the publicitiy to be gained from Nick's release? I would put their health first.
Ano -
I don't suppose for one minute that Archie's views were based upon a consideration of the rival claims of Natural Justice, Legal Positivism, Dworkin etc - do you ?
The problems we face in the Anglosphere derive in large measure (IMHO) from the decline of the Common Law - one of England's greatest contributions to Western Civilisation - and the irresistible rise of Legislation.
The former is organic, evolutionary, and seeks to justify itself contuously through rational argument and precedent.
The latter is synthetic, potentially revolutionary, and feels NO need to justify itself or allow itself to be submitted to constant scrutiny (beyond a hurried press release).
Thus - at the mere stroke of a pen - the Tyrant, the Dictator, and the Despotic Government can unmake the freedoms it has taken generations to develop.
Which now includes the power of an entire people and an entire nation to determine its own laws.
And when one of us is punished for NOT revealing the presence of a Jewish family in the cellar at No 39, or the presence of cigarette smoke in the saloon bar of the 'Dog And Duck', we are simply informed that 'The Law is the Law'.
And - like Nick Hogan - we should have known better.
One doesn't need the Intellect of Aristotle to figure out the dangers inherent in THAT argument.
Nor the bomb-throwing nihilism of a Cartoon Anarchist to question it.
Even a card-carrying Atheist could appreciate the notion of the Government's being beneath God.
Now, the Government IS God.
Another thing that SHOULD be taught in schools..........
@Martin V.......especially when Government dismantles the checks and balances of the second chamber!
Archie, you are a fool. A bad law demands to be broken. It is the citizen's public duty to do so.
In any democracy, we get the government we deserve and I can see why that should be true when sheep like yourself are given a vote. You support the Conservatives you say? You think they're any better? Don't make me laugh, Archie. Your supine attitude to being shat on would be laughable were it not so tragic for its wider implications.
I'll respect the law when I see it being applied evenly and equally to all. This is not the case in the UK today and maybe it never was. Smoking, like theft, is still customary in the Houses of Parliament, Archie. And nothing gets done about it. By implication you clearly support double standards, Archie.
Joyce -
Yes - Blair's Master-stroke: seven hundred years of English History wiped out, and Peter Jay's 'ex' sent to deliver the coup de grace.
And ANOTHER Restoration Project for Dave the Brave ?
He might even qualify for a Lottery Grant.
Mustn't grumble though: at least we now have a 'Ministry of Justice' - unlike EVERY other Banana Republic on the face of our benighted planet.
And Real People (ie failed trade unionists and political counter-jumpers) on the Red Benches.
"A New Dawn has broken, has it not ?"
Martin - it feels to me like a permanent solar eclipse.
What. Am. I. Saying!!! We should be celebrating after the Nick's fund's success!!
Dear Ano,
With respect, you have misunderstood Fuller and the debate between him and Hart in the 1950's.
Fuller's thesis was that Nazi Law was bad because it did not adhere to what he identified as 8 principles of the 'inner morality of law'. These principles included a requirement that laws should be promulgated, law should not be retroactive, laws should not require the impossible etc... They do not directly relate to the moral content of the rules themselves and are better described as requirements of procedural justice.
The anti-smoking legislation does not contravene any of these principles.
Living in manchester I am surprised at the vitriol levelled against freedom2choose who did indeed raise the money needed to get Nick released from that horrible place. For your information the money that was loaned by the "3rd party", against the clearance of the donated fund amount collected, has now been returned to that person so that it can go back in the appropriate bank account. That kind person was quite happy to wait until next weekend to receive payment of that loan to get Nick out. All credit to freedom2choose & the anonymous donor.
SGLB
Dear Martin V,
1. I am not sure whether you are opposed to all legislation on the basis that it is despotic or just those statutes which do not appeal to you.
2. You are incredibly naive if you believe that prior to the growth of legislation in the early 19th century, the 'entire people and an entire nation" had "the power to determine its own laws."
3. I think you may be confusing 'natural justice' with 'natural law'
4. Positivism is concerned solely with identifying the tests of pedigree of a legal system and rejects the notion that an immoral law is not a law.
5. Dworkin argues that there is a general duty to obey the law.
Joyce -
You're right, of course !
And solar eclipses are always very BRIEF events.
DUM SPIRO, SPERO.
(Especially in a Smoke-Free Environment)
Some chap,
My understanding was that although the legislation does not apply to the Houses of Parliament - due its status as Crown property - there is a self-imposed ban on smoking in enclosed spaces in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I will check with the Palace of Westminster on Monday.
It seems to me that 'good' law is law that is fair and reasonable and arises out of and merely formally codifies the principles of natural justice, one of which is to 'do unto others...'.
If we agree that as property owners, we should have the right to control the use of our property without interference, then a law that overturns that principle is in breach of natural justice and is, therefore, a 'bad' law.
Of course, there is still the issue of whether one should or shouldn't disobey bad law. I'd want to argue that there is no moral imperative to obey bad law.
Yes, Archie, there is a self-imposed ban but, if a member chose not to comply, the full weight of the law would not rain down on him, as it would - and has - on the rest of us. The MPs, being honourable gentlemen, will, of course, adhere to their self-imposed rule. They will behave, in fact, as we proles would have behaved had they shown us, as property owners and customers, the latitude to voluntarily subscribe to such a rule.
Joyce,
1. The rules of 'natural justice' are concerned with the conduct of legal proceedings and not with the moral content of law. It has nothing to do with the moral imperative - 'do unto others'
2. No-one has an absolute right to do what they wish on their own property. Can you think of examples limiting your right to do what you wish on your own property or would you like me to give you some?
3. Do you think publicans should be entitled to sell alcohol to 10 year olds on the basis that the pub is their property?
4. Who should be the arbiter of whether a law is a bad law?
5. If a person were to believe that taxation was being used for immoral purposes do they cease to have an obligation to pay taxation?
Joyce,
Regarding your second point:
I understand that MPs agreed a self-imposed ban on ALL enclosed spaces within the Houses of Parliament.
It is unlikely that the general public would have agreed on a similar ban on ALL enclosed public spaces outside Parliament.
Archie. Have you ever heard of Emmeline Pankhurst?
Archie - It's tempting to immediately respond to your points about natural justice but they deserve consideration and I have other things to do. But I will come back to them.
WRT the HOC ban, had every private property owner in the country voluntarily outlawed smoking or every private members club agreed that smoking shouldn't be allowed, then their customers and members would have complied because people respect the rules of the house and the club.
Archie,
No, I don't think that's what Fuller was saying. Certainly, he developed his eight routes to failure of a legal system, some of which were logical and some were "moral", however he developed these later on in one of his books, after the exchanges with Hart.
I believe that he actually argued that the acceptance by society in general and the German courts, in particular, of legal positivism was an essential element in the Nazis coming to power. Additionally, to call the Nazi system "legal" and to call its rules "laws" was a false description of what they were. They were instruments of an arbitrary and tyrannical regime.
[For those who don't know, legal positivism is the philosophy which states that the law is the law, and there are no "moral" elements in the law. If it is passed by a valid government, you must abide by it, unless it is not possible to do so.]
Anyway, that's a side point. As I said before, where you see a silly duffer who broke the law, I see a man of principle and character, who stood against a very, very bad law.
We will not convince each other of the wisdom of our respective points of view, just as Fuller and Hart never settled their debate.
I wonder, are there any rules which you ignore? Or do you follow them all?
For information, since Freedom to Choose (Scotland) offered the facility to accept cheques for the Nick Hogan fund, we have received six cheques totalling £120. This includes cheques from Hairy Chestnuts and Bill C.
On second thoughts, Archie, don't think I'll waste my time as I believe that you're the mischievous "Baz" who haunts Pat Nurse's blog ('fraid the 'alcohol to 10 year olds' which you keep trotting out gave you away!)
Chas,
Yes I have heard of Emmeline Pankhurst. Have you ever heard of the poll tax rioters?
Archie,
You could not spend the time to donate a few pennies to help get this
man out of prison but you are prepared to put the effort into making sure that it does not happen again!!
Maybe you should quit smoking!
If you want to be a quitter and be a smokefree crusader, these games will help pass the time!
You mischievous chap!
Archie. Both got the law or policies changed.
Joyce,
Oh dear!
1. I am not Baz. I do not know who Pat Nurse is and have never visited his/her blog. I am who I have said I am. The fact that I chose to frame my question in similar terms to another of your adversaries is I assume a coincidence.
2. That is the second time you have refused, on spurious grounds, to answer questions. It looks like you are opposed to debate.
3. I am opposed to the smoking ban but not with Nick Hogan's methods. There can be disagreements within a group you know!
Chas,
Do you believe that the poll tax rioters were morally justified in the action they took?
Dear Frederick,
If all law-abiding smokers were to quit the number of smokers in this country would be a tiny fraction of what it currently is.
To those of you who believe that the anti-smoking law is not only unjust but so unjust that there is no moral duty to obey it:
Why don't you publicly disobey the law? If such an important moral principle is involved why don't you take direct public action ?
Anyway - you can see the pictures of Nick's release at:
http://www.theinsider.com/news/1279001_Nick_Hogan_Released_From_Jail_Greeted_by_Sister_Brooke
His spell in nick (no pun intended) doesn't seem to have done him any harm...
Archie,
Did you not like the games? The best one is "Escape From Planet Smokey". It's a great game, where people have to go about their daily routine of jumping on the heads of smokers! You can even clear smoke from a pub in readiness for it to close or turn into yet another smokefree restaurant! And, in this game, smoke from the breath of a smoker will cost you a life! Deadly stuff!
You should give it a whirl!
Here is the URL...
http://tiny.cc/EkBYa
Archie -
Thank you for your considered response.
However, I was certainly not attempting an academic thesis on the Law-versus-Conscience debate – relevant as it may be to Mr Hogan’s stance.
To take (briefly) your points in order:
1. Naturally, I’m not opposed to ‘all legislation’ (eg the US Constitution), but regret its dominance in almost every aspect of our private and national life, its exponential proliferation since the War, and its inherent tendency to serve Despotic Masters – especially through the now-widespread use of subordinate legislation (or Executive Order), which escapes even the casual scrutiny of our ‘Parliament’ (or Congress).
2. I am not, please believe me, some Rousseauesque naïf. The comment about a nation’s ability to determine its own laws was, of course, aimed at the treacherous role of double-dealing politicians in sacrificing OUR sovereignty on the altar of the European Project. This attitude derives from the unremarkable belief (since the 1770s, at any rate) that the Sovereignty of a Nation resides ultimately in its People – and not its Sovereign. It is not a mere commodity to trade on the open market - like Soybeans. Everything changed in 1972.
3. I DO understand the distinction between Natural Law and Natural Justice, thank you ! Though I confess a certain instinctive sympathy for the former.
4. It is PRECISELY because the Legal Positivist tends to argue as you suggest that I am not entirely in sympathy with it: what the Nazis did was (for the most part) ENTIRELY ‘legal’ in this narrow sense. Ditto the Authorities in Nick’s case.
5. Nor would I dissent from what you claim to be Dworkin’s view (Discuss) that there is a ‘GENERAL duty to obey the Law’. This does NOT, however, undermine any counter-argument ( the Natural Law argument, if you like) that there is also a GENERAL duty to DISOBEY a SPECIFICALLY unjust or oppressive law. Under the Third Reich, the Conscionable Citizen would thus be RIGHT to obey laws on theft, rape, murder etc – but WRONG to implement the Race Laws. That, at any rate, is MY position. And yes - I am willing to face the consequences (like any good Positivist, in fact).
In short, the specific law covering Nick’s behaviour was reasonably clear, and the Authorities (probably) interpreted it correctly. Whether or not they used their DISCRETION rightly in enforcing that law is, however, debatable. Conversely, Nick was RIGHT to oppose it (IMHO), just as WE were right to help him out of his entirely predictable plight.
A sensible and humane AMENDMENT of the law would accomodate the principles of both the Natural Lawyer AND the Legal Positivist.
In the end, however, we ALL have to answer to the Highest Tribunal in our Personal Space.: our Conscience.
And to suggest that Nick should now be deprived of his license tends to smack somewhat of vindictiveness, if you'll forgive my saying so.
He has, after all, already Paid A Price - which few of us would dare even to consider....................
Martin,
To my knowledge there is no theorist who would suggest that merely because a law is unjust it should not be obeyed. Those that do advocate a place for civil disobedience caution that it is only justified in extreme cases where the law is so unjust that it has no moral force and where all other avenues are closed. I don't think the smoking ban is of that character.
As I have said I oppose the ban. My view is that the government could have instituted regulations requiring minimum standards of ventilation to ensure that the atmosphere in pubs was sufficiently clear of smoke as to cause no-one discomfort or other adverse effects. It cannot be beyond modern technology to develop reliable methods of monitoring. Although such a scheme might have put pubs to some expense it would have not resulted in some pubs being no-go areas for smokers or non-smokers. And perhaps both groups would have learnt to respect each other.
Archie,
I think you will find there is more than one Nick Hogan in this world!
And they don't all look the same here is one Nick Hogan and here is another, entirly different Nick Hogan.
Other than the facts that they are both male, both carbon based life froms and both called Nick Hogan - they are entirley different!
Thanks for creating the links and the clarification.
I was under the impression that Nick Hogan was an international recidivist with a remarkable gift for disguise.
Archie -
Re:
"I don't think the smoking ban is of that character."
And THAT, Archie, is PRECISELY the point at which we disagree, I think.
This leads back to the notion of Big Freedoms and Small Freedoms.
A distinction I do not make.
This mean-spirited little law has caused social disruption, personal distress, business failure, and has served to chip away at the innate respect for the Law upon which every civilised society depends for its continuance.
I DO consider this (legislation) an 'extreme case'.
And therefore reason enough to oppose it, both legally and otherwise.
You do not.
Our respective positions merely reflect our somewhat differing sets of values.
Which is, perhaps, as it should be - in a Free Society.
Without the need to refer to the arcana of Jurisprudence (Ancient or Modern).
Agreed ?
Very Droll!!!
PS:
Just in case someone brings it up:
I did NOT (dodge the brickbats, Martin !), incidentally, see the hated Poll Tax in the same light at all.
Not in PRINCIPLE, at any rate.
I WAS quite willing to pay it - not least to relieve elderly-but-impecunious property-owners of the requirement to subsidise MY use of local authority facilities.
Even so - jailing grannies was not necessarily the answer.
Again - a personal view.
Martin,
1. Although we disagree on the substance of the matter I respect your right to hold your view. It is through debate and discussion that we learn and develop our views.
Can I ask you: if you think the law is so unjust that morally it ought not to be obeyed, do you personally obey it or disobey it?
2. Some posters have not been willing to engage in debate but have preferred to dismiss me as Labour supporter and an anti-smoking impostor. I am neither. But even if I were the appropriate and productive response would be to tackle the views expressed. There is so much disrespect shown by some members of both the smoking/anti-smoking lobbies that prevents a mutually satisfactory outcome to this issue. For example, like many members of Forest I believe we should listen to the views of non smokers and not dismiss their complaints as whingeing. Similarly I try to conduct myself in a way that does not alienate non-smokers. If we are honest I think the mistake we made was not to have thought about non-smokers years ago - before the ban. We could perhaps have avoided it by finding voluntary solutions ourselves.
If your comment concerning "why don't you break the law yourself,then" was directed in part at me, Archie, then the simple answer is that I can't. I don't smoke and never have. I used to complain about coming home from a pub stinking of smoke. That doesn't happen any more (for which I am grateful). However, this law has also resulted in the heartbreaking sight of tons of pubs closing down. This law stinks far worse than my clothes did after a night out. It should be widely ignored with contempt, as indeed it routinely is in countries like Germany and Spain, where people continue to light up in pubs and bars regardless, and no adverse consequences ensue.
Archie -
That's a fair question.
I do NOT flout the Ban in pubs - for the simple reason that I no longer go to them.
Nor do I wish to embarrass my landlord by putting HIM in an uncomfortable position. I consider that it would be selfish of me thus to impose MY principles by forcing him into a Moral Dilemma not of his own making.
One goes to the pub principally to RELAX, after all.
That's just a personal view, and I appreciate that others may choose to adopt a different stance.
I DO, however, flout the law on railway platforms (though none too brazenly) and in hospital grounds (VERY brazenly).
And as for any putative ban in cars, they can BLOODY WELL GET KNOTTED !!
On the whole, moreover, I think that any such form of petty resistance should NOT be ALLOWED to be construed as The Smoker Making A Nuisance Of Himself, since this would be more likely to deter others from supporting our cause rather than embracing it.
It would be music to Arnott's sonic-detection devices (located either side of her head).
One further point: NON-smokers are NOT The Enemy. Some of my strongest allies tend to come from that quarter.
After all, we wish to make life pleasant for THEM, too (not least by bringing some vitality back to our pubs).
And therein lies our Moral Advantage, I believe.
As always, it is the ANTI-Smoker (who would deny EVERYONE the Freedom of Choice we argue for) whom I'm against.
Militantly.
PS:
Isn't it odd that NO-ONE ever refers to our belonging to 'The Smoking Community' ?
Heck, it it's 'appropriate' for Gays, Immigrants, Criminals, and the Religious..................
Smoking is still permitted in Spain but a ban will come into force by the end of this year. The Germany Lander are progressively strenghtening and enforcing the ban.
Archie – Never let it be said that I shy away from debate on grounds, spurious or otherwise! Nor am I usually guilty of discourtesy. Let me explain my thoughts again.
Our laws are framed –or should be – in order to avoid anarchy and the persecution of the weak by the strong. Who decides which behaviours need to be legally codified? We, the members of the society, either directly or through others whom we trust to represent our interests. Who decides whether a law is good or bad? We do, and use a number of criteria in the decision-making process. not least that the law conforms to our notion of natural justice. I don’t mean, by natural justice, the narrow definition relating to procedural fairness, but an idea of right and wrong, fairness and equity, and in the application of a just law we expect a certain weight of evidence, a fair trial, proportionate punishment and so on.
The comprehensive smoking ban is bad law in the way in which it’s been framed and applied.
Archie -
I have to say: there's something VERY, very strange about this World-wide hysteria (not too strong a word ?) regarding tobacco.
Surely, the WHO and the Chemical Brotherhood can't be THAT threatening to ALL the national governments of the Planet ?
Yet, from America to North Korea, and from Australia to Finland.................
I've lived well over half a century now, and this level of fanaticism is unprecedented in my lifetime.
It scares me far more than the Cold War (largely a charade, in any case) ever did.
I'm almost tempted to write to David Icke* for an explanation: all the RATIONAL ones - and there are many - still fail to explain the TOTALITY of this nonsense.
There HAS to be something more...............
*(Only teasing, David)
You also asked earlier, Archie, what I do in protest. I've written to MPs, I make a point of starting conversation with fellow smokers many of whom don't realise that dissent exists, I've made a point of commenting on press articles, I comment on MPs' blogs and raise the issue whenever I decently can and I flout the 'law' in car parks, hospital grounds and railway stations. Although I didn't enourage Nick Hogan to break the law, I made two donations to his fund because a) I think it's bad law b) he was harming no-one in breaking it c) his punishment was disproportionate and d) our lawmakers and media ignore lawful protest and campaigning (ask Simon Clark). In a state of extreme anger and frustration I recently posted that I was going to break the law myself. On cool reflection I realised that I would just be setting myself up as the architect of my own downfall in pursuing an ineffective, if personally gratifying, behaviour.
Perhaps you might now answer my earlier question.
Archie -
I echo Joyce above in EVERY particular (and I mean 'every').
We swim as best we can under this Deluge of Insanity.
And when we BEG Certain Others on the bank to hold out a hand to help us.............
Can't they SEE ?
Can't they HEAR ?
Can't they UNDERSTAND ?
Perhaps they're just scared of getting a little wet.
Bless......................
Lots of 'playing' going on here, I see.
Will he go gay when he comes out after all the batty sex in jail? Same thing happened to our landlord he was done for fraud though, when he got out one night his wife came in while he was getting shafted up the arse by another bloke. Had to give the pub to her and move out after the divorce.
Archie still not back to continue the debate that he asked for (or to answer my perfectly reasonable question)?
Archie, you’ve appeared from nowhere and have dominated this thread which reported a success in standing up to HMG/ASH. Despite being a smoker who is opposed to the blanket ban, you kicked off the comments on a sour note which is out of step with the tone and spirit of the blog post, guilty of the lack of manners of which you accuse others.
Thank goodness the blogosphere has in the past week proved that we don’t need the Archies of this world. What happened was remarkable: non-smokers as well as smokers coughing up their hard-earned to send to a blogger whose real name they don’t know to fund the release of a man many had never heard of. What a slap in the face to HMG and the odious ASH both of which have done much to undermine the goodwill and trust which used to be features of our society – it’s been left to the blogging community to exhibit those.
I won’t accept that we’re all utterly screwed until they regulate the Net.