"Being Johnny" by Nigel Gordon

[Nigel Gordon]

On 3/16/2022 at 8:13 PM, Rutabaga said:

For that matter, what business did the police have in staking a constable at a "former crime scene"?  How is it that no one has found anything suspicious about that?

Highbury and Islington have some of the highest levels of police patrols in England. Not because of the high crime rate. There is hardly any. It because so many politicians live around that area, so if anything goes wrong the police really get it in the neck from their political masters. Not to have a policeman to have a policeman patrolling an Islington square would be suspicious. Finding one there is quite normal.

[Rutabaga]

53 minutes ago, Nigel Gordon said:

Not to have a policeman to have a policeman patrolling an Islington square would be suspicious. Finding one there is quite normal.

I guess with all the evident corruption in the police force near Mike and Johnny my suspicion radar is on constant alert.

R

[Rutabaga]

And now this latest chapter sent me running to Google to figure out what UCAS points were.  

It's funny to read about that while here in the U.S. the admissions standards for higher education are being systematically dismantled.

R

[Nigel Gordon]

On 3/19/2022 at 3:45 PM, Rutabaga said:

And now this latest chapter sent me running to Google to figure out what UCAS points were.  

As a response to an email I got from one of my readers, I had to check how many points a US Advanced Placement examination was worth. It turns out to be half that of an A-Level, roughly equal to an AS paper.

[Rutabaga]

Johnny's familiarity with Cockney money slang obviously betrays his misspent youth skiving off to the streets to London.  But it surprises me that he would not have become aware of the Thompson family and its influence in the area from those times.  

R

[Nigel Gordon]

8 hours ago, Rutabaga said:

Johnny's familiarity with Cockney money slang obviously betrays his misspent youth skiving off to the streets to London.  But it surprises me that he would not have become aware of the Thompson family and its influence in the area from those times.  

 

What makes you think he was not aware of them. He just had not been in contact with them. Unfortunately, you are going to have to wait for "An Interesting Young Lady", to find an explanation about that and I'll not get around to working on that book till I have completed both Joey and Johnny 3.

[Rutabaga]

Ah, Joseph.  Can you say "high maintenance"?

R

[Colin1409]

I’m really enjoying this story, and the many twists and turns in it.

There is, however, a minor error in the latest chapter, which, while not affecting the story, jumped out at me…

If, in snooker, you took the blue as your first colour, your break would be 145, not 146. 146 would be the pink. (Blue = 5, Pink = 6)

[Rutabaga]

I wonder what Joseph and Tony were whispering about?

R

[Rutabaga]

the maths involved made my eyes water

Now there's an observation I can relate to.

R

[Colin1409]

[duplicate post - didn't realise the one I'd made before I joined had posted!]

[Nigel Gordon]

Just to make something clear, there is no legal drinking age in the UK. I have had a couple of emails asking about this. We do have a minimum age for buying alcohol, that is 18. A person under the age of 18 but over the age of 14 may consume alcohol of certain types (wine, cider, beer and porter) on licensed premises, if they are consuming a meal and the alcohol is purchased by a person who is over 18. It is illegal to buy alcohol to be consumed by a person under 18, however, it is not illegal for them to consume it.

In the home, it is up to the parents when children are allowed to drink alcohol, though giving alcohol to a child under five years of age has been deemed to be abuse. It is quite common for teenagers to be served wine, beer or cider with certain meals. When I had Sunday dinner at a friends last year, his grandchildren (13 & 14) were offered a choice of cider or wine to drink with the meal. They both opted for cider. In the UK cider is alcoholic. This would be normal in many households. 

[Merkin]

I don't say this often enough, Nigel, but I'm loving this story.  Not only is it fascinating to watch Johnny grow and mature and take more and more control of himself and his prospects, but also I am enjoying the bonus of learning so much about English law and financial matters.  I hope this tale will go on and on and on.

[Rutabaga]

Ah, at last things are happening rather than extended discussion about future plans and what will happen.  

Being a Yank I have no experience of mushy peas, although I note that Amazon carries a canned version imported from the British Isles.  I like split pea soup so I suspect I would like mushy peas, although the name could be more inviting.  In fact, in my research I ran across this article about classic British dishes that have not spread around the world.  

Meanwhile, we must wait to find out what the mysterious Anthony is up to, and whether those coded entries that Johnny is finding in the diaries relate to numbered Swiss (or other tax haven) accounts.  I still think they need to keep those diaries under much better protection.

Also meanwhile, it appears that Johnny's college continues to be a complete cesspit of corruption -- first at the commissary, now in the administration.  Wonder if this principal is related to one of the lowlife families we have encountered earlier . . . perhaps even complicit in the commissary crookedness?

R

[Rutabaga]

I have not gone back to confirm this recollection from the first series, but isn't Aunt Ruth the one who was going to set up a big trust for Johnny, with ( I think) Mike as trustee?  I have trouble keeping track of all the Aunts in this tale . . .

R

 

[Nigel Gordon]

No, that was Aunt Sarah, Issac's wife, Bernard's mother. Aunt Ruth is the one with the hairbrush!

[Rutabaga]

I am perplexed as to why an insurance carrier’s advocate would have standing to participate in an inquest. Seems irrelevant to the inquest’s purpose. 
 

R

[Nigel Gordon]

21 hours ago, Rutabaga said:

I am perplexed as to why an insurance carrier’s advocate would have standing to participate in an inquest. Seems irrelevant to the inquest’s purpose. 
 

R

An inquest is an inquiry into events. Under English and Welsh law any party who can show an interest in the outcome of an inquiry, be it an inquest or any other type of statutory inquiry, has the right to take part in the inquiry and question witnesses called before the inquiry. If it can be shown that Johnny's action in any way contributed to his mother's murder, the insurance company would have legitimate grounds to refuse all or part of his claim. As such they are a party who has an interest in the outcome of the inquest, so they are entitled to be a party to the inquest. 

[Rutabaga]

4 hours ago, Nigel Gordon said:

An inquest is an inquiry into events. Under English and Welsh law any party who can show an interest in the outcome of an inquiry, be it an inquest or any other type of statutory inquiry, has the right to take part in the inquiry and question witnesses called before the inquiry. If it can be shown that Johnny's action in any way contributed to his mother's murder, the insurance company would have legitimate grounds to refuse all or part of his claim. As such they are a party who has an interest in the outcome of the inquest, so they are entitled to be a party to the inquest. 

That seems to be more the province of a conventional civil claim.  The inquest should confine itself to determining that it was a death by violence, but not try to address civil or criminal liability for the death.  Certainly in the US such questioning would be out of order, especially in the criminal context, given the extensive criminal procedure protections for a putative defendant.

R

[Rutabaga]

Upon a further bit of research, I find that the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 has the following pertinent provisions:

5 Matters to be ascertained

(1) The purpose of an investigation under this Part into a person's death is to ascertain—

          (a) who the deceased was;

          (b) how, when and where the deceased came by his or her death;

          (c) the particulars (if any) required by the 1953 Act* to be registered concerning the death.

 

10 Determinations and findings to be made

(1) After hearing the evidence at an inquest into a death, the senior coroner (if there is no jury) or the jury (if there is one) must—

          (a) make a determination as to the questions mentioned in section 5(1)(a) and (b) (read with section 5(2) where applicable), and

          (b) if particulars are required by the 1953 Act* to be registered concerning the death, make a finding as to those particulars.

(2) A determination under subsection (1)(a) may not be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of—

          (a) criminal liability on the part of a named person, or

          (b) civil liability.

(Emphasis added.)

Under section 5, the coroner's duty is to confirm (a) who the deceased was, and (b) how, when, and where the deceased came by her death.  Quote clearly the evidence already adduced shows (a) that the deceased was Beryl Smith, and (b) that she was killed by assassins in her home on the evening of the final day of the Mayers trial.  That should end the inquiry, particularly in light of subsection (2) of section 10 that prohibits any finding that purports to determine criminal or civil liability.

Thus I remain firmly of the view that the question posed by the Yaland Insurance lawyer was out of order, especially in light of Section 10 quoted above.  Bernard or Martin should immediately object on the grounds that the question is beyond the proper scope of the hearing.

R

____________

*refers to section 23 of Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953

 

[Nigel Gordon]

5 hours ago, Rutabaga said:

Thus I remain firmly of the view that the question posed by the Yaland Insurance lawyer was out of order, especially in light of Section 10 quoted above.  Bernard or Martin should immediately object on the grounds that the question is beyond the proper scope of the hearing.

If they were in a court of law, then no doubt they would. However, they are not, they are in a court of inquiry. They have no right to object. The person who would have a right to object and strick out the question is the coroner. All Bernard or Martin could do would be raise a query with as to the appropriateness of the question with the coroner. However, is it in the interest of their client's to do so? 

[Rutabaga]

9 hours ago, Nigel Gordon said:

If they were in a court of law, then no doubt they would. However, they are not, they are in a court of inquiry. They have no right to object. The person who would have a right to object and strick out the question is the coroner. All Bernard or Martin could do would be raise a query with as to the appropriateness of the question with the coroner. However, is it in the interest of their client's to do so? 

Adducing recorded testimony when it is not necessary would always be risky, in my view.  Unless there was a very specific strategic reason to have Johnny  testify to something that was key to his claim, and he had been well prepared to deliver such testimony, I would err on the side of seeking to prevent such questioning.  I note particularly that in the UK, apparently, there is not a recognized tort claim against insurance carriers for bad faith settlement practices, including for consequential damages of bad faith delay in settlement (see the Sprung case).  Thus it appears that this insurance carrier has little downside to dragging its feet and playing games with the claim, because, if I understand the legal situation correctly, its only exposure is contractual, meaning that it would be liable for the amount due plus interest at the legal rate.  Although in the British system I take it the company would also be liable for Johnny's legal fees in pursuing a claim.  

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like Johnny's insurance claim is a lay-down hand.  Makes me wonder if Yaland has a solvency problem.

R

[Nigel Gordon]

2 hours ago, Rutabaga said:

Maybe I'm missing something

The thing you are missing is that if it can be shown that Johnny is in any way, directly or indirectly, responsible in whole or in part, for the death of his mother, then he cannot benefit from the insurance. You cannot benefit from a death in which you had culpability, even where such culpability does not expose you to criminal proceedings. Yeland will still have to pay out but the payout will be to the next heir, in this case Beryl's parents. Depending on the exact terms of the insurance contract, as a beneficial party was in part responsible for the events which gave rise to the double indemnity, that would be void, so they would only have to pay out ten million, not twenty. For that saving it is worth fighting the claim.

[Rutabaga]

1 hour ago, Nigel Gordon said:

The thing you are missing is that if it can be shown that Johnny is in any way, directly or indirectly, responsible in whole or in part, for the death of his mother, then he cannot benefit from the insurance. You cannot benefit from a death in which you had culpability, even where such culpability does not expose you to criminal proceedings. Yeland will still have to pay out but the payout will be to the next heir, in this case Beryl's parents. Depending on the exact terms of the insurance contract, as a beneficial party was in part responsible for the events which gave rise to the double indemnity, that would be void, so they would only have to pay out ten million, not twenty. For that saving it is worth fighting the claim.

I still think this issue is well beyond the statutory scope of an inquest, and the coroner would be justified in ruling such questioning out of order.  I also think the insurance company is grasping at straws.  But this is an issue that would ultimately need to be fought out in a conventional civil proceeding, and of course the insurance company wants to ambush Johnny now to create potential inconsistencies later.

Obviously we readers will find out shortly what Johnny has to say (assuming he is permitted to respond to the question).  Based on the story so far, I would expect him to state quite forcefully that he had no desire to see his mother dead; if anything, he wanted her alive to experience humiliation and obloquy from her activities.  Moreover, the evidence seems uncontradicted that the assassins were not motivated by (nor indeed even aware of) Johnny's actions, and their plans had already been set in motion long before.  Without an actual causal link between any action of Johnny and the assassination of his mother, I can't see how the insurance company's argument could fly, even if Johnny had evil thoughts in his mind.  

R

 

 

[Nigel Gordon]

13 hours ago, Rutabaga said:

I still think this issue is well beyond the statutory scope of an inquest, and the coroner would be justified in ruling such questioning out of order.  I also think the insurance company is grasping at straws.  But this is an issue that would ultimately need to be fought out in a conventional civil proceeding, and of course the insurance company wants to ambush Johnny now to create potential inconsistencies later.

Obviously we readers will find out shortly what Johnny has to say (assuming he is permitted to respond to the question).  Based on the story so far, I would expect him to state quite forcefully that he had no desire to see his mother dead; if anything, he wanted her alive to experience humiliation and obloquy from her activities.  Moreover, the evidence seems uncontradicted that the assassins were not motivated by (nor indeed even aware of) Johnny's actions, and their plans had already been set in motion long before.  Without an actual causal link between any action of Johnny and the assassination of his mother, I can't see how the insurance company's argument could fly, even if Johnny had evil thoughts in his mind.  

R

 

 

Yes, wait for tomorrow.