This month my house has been abuzz with Australian election chatter while the papal conclave looms large as the next big election contest to find the next Vicar of Christ.
The Henry VIII did his damnedest to extract England from the Catholic Church in 1534, the current monarch posted social media condolences and sent Prince Willy to the Sistine farewell.
According to the movie Conclave the cardinal electors will convene at the Vatican and sequester themselves from the outside world (no social media for days) to consider whether Stanley Tucci is popular enough to be pope.
In order to vote, each cardinal writes their chosen candidate’s name on a ballot, disguising his handwriting, then walks to the alter at the front of the Sistine Chapel and places the paper onto a ceremonial plate, tipping the ballot from the plate into a chalice-urn.
I was disappointed when I visited the Australian High Commission in London to cast my vote in the Australian federal election that they simply placed it into a plastic box – no incense, no divine intervention and likely no white smoke coming from Parliament House.
Many of the faithful are itching to know which pontifical name the new pope will choose. Past favourites include, Innocent, Simplicius and Hilarius.
Speaking of Hilarius, there have been a few funny updates in the London legal world this month.
Too many jobs
Civil servant Kashim Chowdhury has been accused of holding down three full-time jobs simultaneously within different government departments.
How he did it, no one quite knows. Either he got hold of the Time-Turner that Hermione Granger used in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban or government jobs are far too lax (it’s still unbelievable they officially recognise time-in-lieu!?)
Chowdhury faces charges for alleged dishonesty about his work history at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), and Tower Hamlets council.
How he remembers the names of all three work places is quite impressive. After Chowdhury’s ruse was discovered, he was fired from all three jobs – he must have felt like he had broken up with all partners in a polyamorous relationship. Brutal.
Appearing at the Southwark Crown Court, the judge asked: “What’s your secret?”
Kidding – but that is what I would’ve asked! Chowdhury denies all nine counts of fraud, stating he was not “providing services to any other third party during his contracted hours”.
An unnamed government spokesperson said it had “stepped up efforts” to strengthen detection procedures and prevent this type of fraud from occurring again. Given the spokesperson was unnamed, my bet is that Kashim Chowdhury covered that one too.
LibDem silent disco
The Liberal Democrats have proposed new laws that would punish those who play music out loud in public. These “headphone dodgers” would face penalties of up to £1,000 in a proposed crackdown on antisocial behaviour in public.
I think the laws do not go far enough – bring back the guillotine for anyone blasting James Blunt from their iPhone speaker.
This change in the law would explicitly ban playing music and videos out loud on UK public transport.
Why stop there? Running clubs with speakers in the park? £5,000 fine please. An American tourist taking a call on speaker phone? £20,000, surely.
However, the policy wasn’t backed by just a finger in the air. The Liberal Democrats commissioned a poll, which revealed that more than half of Brits said they would not feel empowered to ask somebody to turn down their music on public transport.
They’ve clearly never been on the tube with my mother.
While the idea has some cross-party traction, without government support it is unlikely to succeed.
Should the Lib Dems seek similar policies aimed at disgruntled commuters, I’d happily offer further suggestions – fines for those not wearing deodorant in summer, criminal records for anyone wearing crocs and socks, and the death penalty for anyone who thinks it’s okay to bite your nails and spit them out on the Circle and District Line.
A failed cover-up
A paralegal has been barred from working in the legal profession after falsifying an email in an attempt to conceal an error that resulted in a case being struck out.
Chaida Aboobakar, who handled personal injury claims for Cardiff-based NewLaw Solicitors, was at the time on secondment to Ageas Law, a partner firm of NewLaw.
You know what they say, fake it till you make it … to court.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) noted that one of Ms Aboobakar’s cases was thrown out due to non-payment of a court fee.
Ms Aboobakar believed she had made the payment but had mistakenly entered an incorrect case number on the payment form.
In an attempt to hide her mistake, she submitted a fake email to the court, making it appear that the correct claim number had always been used. However, this fabricated email differed from the original email held by the court.
Some might think it nigh impossible to gaslight the legal system … but instead of correcting the wrong, Ms Aboobakar decided to double down.
She went further by filing an application for relief from sanctions, attaching a witness statement that included the false email and wrongly blamed the court for the non-payment.
Following an internal review conducted by NewLaw, it was determined that the only email sent by Ms Aboobakar contained the incorrect case number.
The SRA sanctioned her – preventing her from maintaining any position at a law firm and ordering her to pay £600 in costs.
