Murder of Crows ~ literary, never intentional !!

 

கா கா கா  !   கா கா கா; ஆகாரம் உண்ண எல்லோரும்

ஒன்றாக ! அன்போடு ஓடிவாங்க 

-was a song from film Parasakthi, directed by Krishnan Panju and you will see Sivaji Ganesan feeding crows.  Like them or not, they are the city birds. If you ask children of Chennai apartments to name 5 birds – it would be ‘4 crows and 1 sparrow (kuruvi)’.

How superstitious are you !  ~ a few months back, when our students were preparing for their exams, I head them remarking – ‘One for sorrow – two for joy’ on spotting a crow on nearby compound wall.  One crow ! ~ for two (plural) it is Crows and what do you call a group of them ? – somehow the word ‘School of crows’ strikes mind!

To call a group – it is collective.  Collective nouns are names for a collection or a number of people or things. Words like group, herd, and array are collective noun examples.  Remember that nouns are words naming people, animals, places, and things. Collective nouns are in a class all their own.

•          Our class took  cut the studies and went to see a Cricket match.

•          The herd of buffaloes were roaming on the streets [reference to animal and not to the group out there]

•          in the significant case, the jury announced the verdict

•          IPL 2020  CSK team would have bubble

•          Pallava’s army defeated Chalukyas. 

Getting back, though we tend to spot an odd Kingfisher, Parrots, Pigeons, Cranes and some other birds – most common are the Crows and the ones with darker shade (full black அண்டங்காக்கை)   The term corvids -  includes  crows, magpies and ravens -  they're some of the most intelligent animals in the world.  But Crows and ravens are not the same.  A crow is a bird of the genus Corvus, or more broadly a synonym for all of Corvus.  

In our literature, Crows are social birds with tight-knight family structures that roost in huge numbers, so what do you call a group of crows? While most people call a group of birds a flock, crows, in particular, have been known by a number of terms. The most popular of these is known as a murder, but a group of crows can also be called a horde, mob, muster, or parcel.

Remember that in elementary school level, we had a lesson highlighting the intelligence of crows – that water at the jug would be too low.  Crow would collect pebbles and keep putting them inside. The water level would raise and crow would quench its thirst.  Miles away, in an  experiment   published in PLOS One, Scientists determined that crows can not only tell the difference between water and sand - they also understand water displacement.  The test involved tubes containing water and a treat floating on top out of reach. The crows filled the tubes with enough rocks or other heavy items to bring the food within reach. They were observed snapping twigs from trees, then stripping it of bark and leaves, and fashioned the node into a hook. They then used these tools to probe into small spaces for food.

Crows and ravens, although in the same genus (Corvus) are different birds. (Think of leopards and tigers; both are in the genus Panthera, and are obviously related, but they are quite distinct animals.) The words "crow" and "raven" themselves have little or no real taxonomic meaning.  

There is a specific word ‘Venery’ – a special type of Collective nouns that denote group of animals.    Although archaic by today's standards, venery can still be used to mean "the practice of hunting."   Some of the collective nouns for birds are :    aerie of eagles; hedge of herons;  herd of swans; host of sparrows; huddle of penguins; kettle of hawks; lamentation of swans; mob of emus; murder of crows; murmuration of starlings; muster of peacocks;  ascension of larks ; brood of hens;  charm of finches;  chattering of chicks

Terms of venery were often based on characteristics people perceived in the animals, not from their intrinsic nature. A "piteousness of doves," for example, refers to the fact that the bird holds a special place in religion.   Perhaps Crows lacked PR and got the collective noun ‘murder’ assigned to them or was it the bias of mankind in being unkind to crows !!  

Crows are omnivorous scavengers and will eat just about anything — insects, seeds, fruits, eggs, and small animals.   Folklore and superstitions further fueled the belief.  

It is held scientific that   common cuckoo uses a sneaky strategy to raise its babies. A  female cuckoo finds a nest built by a bird of a different species, mostly crows, sneaks into the   nest, lays an egg and flies away. The crow often accepts the new egg and brings it up !!

"One for Sorrow" is a traditional children's nursery rhyme that was gifted by our colonial cousins. According to an old superstition, the number of magpies seen tells if one will have bad or good luck.:-

One for sorrow, Two for joy, Three for a girl, Four for a boy, Five for silver, Six for gold, Seven for a secret - Never to be told, Eight for a wish, Nine for a kiss, Ten for a bird, Eleven is worse; Twelve for a dastardly curse.  In Britain, this has been old belief and in  1780,  a note in John Brand's Observations on Popular Antiquities on Lincolnshire has this lyric.  A version of the rhyme became familiar to many UK children when it became the theme tune of an ITV children's TV show called Magpie, which ran from 1968 to 1980. The popularity of this version is thought to have displaced the many regional versions that had previously existed.

 

Interesting !

 

With regards – S. Sampathkumar

3^rd Sept. 2020.

 

boat stolen on Thames river ! ~ Hull Insurance coverage

The River Thames  is also known as Isis -   flows through southern England including London. At 215 miles (346 km), it is the longest river entirely in England and the second-longest in the United Kingdom, after the River Severn. It flows through Oxford  and rises at Thames Head in Gloucestershire, and flows into the North Sea via the Thames Estuary. The Thames drains the whole of Greater London.

London River Services Limited is a division of Transport for London (TfL), which manages passenger transport—leisure-oriented tourist services and commuter services—on the River Thames in London.  River service had been a common means of transport in London for centuries, but died off in the early 1900s, as transportation was enhanced (and river traffic somewhat blocked) with a proliferation of bridges and tunnels. With these numerous north-south crossings of the Thames, which is generally no more than 300m wide as it runs through central London, the revival of river boat services in London therefore mostly travel east or west along the Thames rather than across it; the only major cross-river ferry services are to be found further downstream where the river is wider, and there are far fewer bridge/tunnel crossings.

Marine can be broadly classified into Cargo and Hull Insurance. Marine Hull Insurance covers loss or damage to hull [ie., ship / boat] and machinery. The hull is the structure of the vessel. Machinery is the equipment that generates the power to move the vessel and control the lighting and temperature system such as boiler, engine, cooler and electricity generator.  Just like Institute Cargo Clauses to Cargo Insurance, it is Institute Time Clauses for Marine Hull.  ITC are generally time policies for a period of 12 months.    As the nature and degree of risks which the Insurer run vary according to the kind of vessel, there exist a number of categories in the Time Clauses.

Until 1824, Lloyd's and two insurance companies, the London Assurance and the Royal Exchange Insurance, were the only entities allowed by law to conduct marine insurance business in the United Kingdom.  Lot evolved after that with the expansion in the no. of companies and types offered.  For long it was the  historic S.G. form, which had its own origins in the 17th Century.  From 1883 onwards,  considerable number of Lloyd's clauses were adopted for general use and in 1884 the Institute of London Underwriters was formed. The first full set of Institute Time Clauses were introduced by  1888. As trade and other circumstances changed, new versions were introduced, latterly consisting of Hull Clauses dated 1.10.52, 22.7.59, 1.10.69, 1.10.70, 1.10.83 and 1.11.95 & 2003.  In 1983, although the cover did not change materially, radical revision of the clauses was undertaken. The time honoured S.G. form disappeared and its key features were incorporated into the Institute Time Clauses, to produce a unified core policy document. Using the same format, a further set of clauses (1.11.95) were published, but found little favour.

While vehicles on road even  with costly gadgets for protection get stolen, will that happen to a Ship or boat on water ?  .. .. MailOnline reports that a man in 20s jumped wharf security gate and stole Thames Clipper river bus before leading Marine Police on a dramatic chase along the River Thames!  Interesting !!

However, the man’s luck ran out sooner as Specialist marine police officers swooped on the stolen river bus and seized control during a dramatic chase on the River Thames, near to London's Tower Bridge.  It is reported that Marine support units intercepted the Thames Clippers vessel in the early hours of Saturday morning after police received reports of a man jumping a security gate and stealing a river bus from Trinity Buoy Wharf in Poplar, east London.  Police say the marine support units, who had their blue lights illuminated, attempted to stop the vessel, which slowed but did not come to a stop. Marine officers instead decided to board the Thames Clippers vessel, which was said to be travelling 'at speed' prior to police intercepting it, and took control of it. The vessel was then taken to Canary Wharf dock, where Metropolitan Police officers arrested a man in his 20s.

The man, who is thought may be a former employee of Thames Clipper, was arrested on suspicion of burglary and theft. Police say he remains in custody at this time and that investigations continue. A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police today told MailOnline: 'On Saturday August 29, at 3:10am, marine support units were called to reports that a man jumped over a security gate and stolen a Thames Clipper boat from Trinity Buoy Wharf.

Thames Clippers is a river bus service on the River Thames in London. It runs commuter services between eastern and central London, as well as tourist services. Around 10,000 passengers use the service each day. In June this year, America company Uber won the naming rights to the service, which has since been re-branded 'Uber Boat by Thames Clippers'.

Before concluding  ITC Hulls (though provides broad coverage) are named perils policies and relevant section of the recent clauses in vogue read under 2 : Perils : 

2.1 This insurance covers loss of or damage to the subject-matter insured caused by 2.1.1 perils of the seas, rivers, lakes or other navigable waters 2.1.2 fire, explosion 2.1.3 violent theft by persons from outside the vessel 2.1.4 jettison 2.1.5 piracy 2.1.6 contact with land conveyance, dock or harbour equipment or installation 2.1.7 earthquake, volcanic eruption or lightning 2.1.8 accidents in loading, discharging or shifting cargo, fuel, stores or parts 2.1.9 contact with satellites, aircraft, helicopters or similar objects, or objects falling therefrom.

Another interesting thing of note is that Clause 2.1.9 now includes specific reference to satellites and helicopters, and such air-borne perils have now been separated from those relating to land conveyances and harbour installations (2.1.6). 

With regards – S. Sampathkumar

30.08.2020.

magnanimity of Institution comes to the fore in sentencing contemnor Re.1 fine

 

It is a clear case of sentencing fully backed by magnanimity of the great Institution – nothing otherwise as projected ! 

The role of a lawyer is indispensable in the system of delivery of justice. He is bound by the professional ethics and to maintain the high standard. His duty is to the court, to his own client, to the opposite side, and to maintain the respect of opposite party counsel also. 

ஒத்த ரூபா உனக்கு தாரேன் பத்தாட்டியும் எடுத்து தாரேன்

முத்தாரம் நீ ஒன்னு தந்தாக்கா என் முன்னாடி கொஞ்சம் வந்தாக்கா  

Not many would remember this song ! from Bhadrakali, released in 1976 starring Sivakumar, Rani Chandra and Bhavani in the lead roles. Produced and directed by A. C. Tirulokchandar, the film’s  soundtrack and film score were composed by  Illayaraja and had some good hits catapulting Raja into Tamil tinseldom.  This song was sung by  Malaysia Vasudevan  &  S. Janaki

The Rupee Coin value perhaps differs with reference to the time and to the person requiring it – there were times one rupee coin could fetch stomach filling idlies – may not be any longer as today, it is the least of the coinage.  The   1-rupee coin   is hundred paisas [paisa ! – not in vogue any longer !!]. Currently, one rupee coin is the smallest Indian coin in circulation. Since 1992, one Indian rupee coins are minted from stainless steel. Round in shape, the one rupee coins weighs 3.76 grams (58.0 grains), has a diameter of 21.93-millimetre (0.863 in) and thickness of 1.45-millimetre (0.057 in). In independent India, one rupee coins was first minted in 1950. 

   

Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Monday said that he “gracefully” accepted the Supreme Court verdict in the contempt case and added that the Re 1 fine levied on him was contributed by lawyer and colleague Rajiv Dhavan. Bhushan was found guilty of criminal contempt of court on August 14 over his tweets against the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of India SA Bobde. “My lawyer & senior colleague Rajiv Dhavan contributed 1 Re immediately after the contempt judgement today which I gratefully accepted,” Bhushan tweeted. 

What is graceful acceptance ? – the Supreme Court has sentenced the contemnor and imposed a fine – albeit of the lowest value – but perhaps the value be Re 1 or a Crore does not matter.  The Apex Court categorically  adjudged Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, guilty of contempt vide judgment dated 14.08.2020, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan and  Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the contemnor Prashant Bhushan  among their arguments raised that the copy of the petition on the basis of which the suo motu cognizance was taken by the Court with respect to first tweet, filed by  Mahek Maheshwari, was not furnished, in spite of the application having been filed by the contemnor. Thus, it could not be ascertained whether the complaint was mala fide or even personally or politically motivated.  It was argued by Dr. Dhavan, learned senior counsel, that in case the contemnor is sent to the imprisonment, he will attain martyrdom, and he also should not be debarred from the practice. He further stated that the Court could not pass an order debarring the contemnor from practicing unless a prior notice was issued to him and an opportunity of hearing was given in that regard.  

A three-judge bench had said in the order that if Bhushan fails to deposit the amount by September 15, he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and will be barred from practising for three years. While finding him guilty in a strongly-worded judgment, the court had said that Bhushan’s tweets were based on distorted facts and have the effect of destabilising the foundation of the judiciary. It added that such conduct was not expected from Bhushan, who is a lawyer of 20 years standing at the Bar. The first tweet for which Bhushan was held guilty, criticised the functioning of the SC in the past six years. He alleged that the historians would mark the role of the apex court in contributing to what Bhushan said will be considered as destruction of democracy.

                      All this happened and has been recorded in the 82 page long judgment of the  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu Contempt petition CRL no. 1 of 2020.  

The Court came down heavily stating that pursuant to the conviction in a criminal case, the Bar Council of India can suspend the enrolment, if it so desires. It is also open to this Court to debar from practicing in a Court, as held in Supreme Court Bar Association (supra). We are not afraid of sentencing the contemnor either with imprisonment or from debarring him from the practice. His conduct reflects adamance and ego, which has no place to exist in the system of administration of justice and in noble profession, and no remorse is shown for the harm done to the institution to which he belongs. At the same time, we cannot retaliate merely because the contemnor has made a statement that he is neither invoking the magnanimity or the mercy of this Court and he is ready to submit to the penalty that can be lawfully be inflicted upon him for what the Court has determined to be an offence. He has even invoked the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi’s statement, which was made by Mahatma Gandhi at the conclusion of the trial against him.   

There can be no doubt about the principle that any member of the public has a right to criticize in good faith in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. However, the members of the public are required to abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice.   Right to fair criticism is contrasted  against acting in malice or attempting to bring down the reputation of the institution of  administration of justice.   We find that even  after recording the judgment of conviction, no remorse has been expressed by the contemnor, nor apology has been submitted.  

The  order specifically states, “We have given time to the contemnor to submit unconditional apology, if he so desires.”   We find that by now it is a settled position of law that the Court speaks through its judgments and orders.  Virtual exchange during the course of the proceedings is not what is the order of the Court but it could be a tentative expression of that exchange during the course of hearing.  However, ultimately what is final is the order of the Court, which has the seal of it.   

The Court has to act only in the case where the attack is beyond a permissible limit, the strong arm of the law strikes a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream. We have applied the aforesaid guidelines and standards.    Learned Attorney General submitted that the Court should exhibit magnanimity.   Dr.   Dhavan,   learned   senior   counsel,   invoked   the statesmanship from this Court.  Learned Attorney General stated that if  there is an expression of regret and if the affidavit is withdrawn, perhaps a quietus can be given to the proceeding.   However, the contemnor declined   to   do   so.      In spite of learned Attorney General appealing that it was not too late for the contemnor to express regret as he did in the other case regarding contempt filed by learned Attorney General and one more chance be given, but that was virtually declined flatly by Dr. Dhavan, learned senior counsel, in the presence of the contemnor.  It is apparent that in both the statements made by the contemnor, he is sticking to his ground, and he is not at all realizing that any wrong was done by him to the institution.  At the same time, he has expressed the faith in the institution and he has submitted that an apology cannot be a mere incantation and an apology has to be as the Court itself put be sincerely made.   Prashant Bhushan being a person well versed with law ought to have given due weightage to the advice rendered by the learned Attorney General who has pleaded not to sentence him, at the same time maintained that the statements made in the affidavit in reply could not be taken into consideration for considering the case of Mr. Prashant Bhushan of truth as a defence.   

It was argued by Dr. Dhavan, learned senior counsel, that in case the contemnor is sent to the imprisonment, he will attain martyrdom, and he also should not be debarred from the practice.  He further stated that the Court could not pass an order debarring the contemnor from practicing unless a prior notice was issued to him and an opportunity of hearing was given in that regard.   Pursuant to the conviction in a criminal case, the Bar Council of India can suspend the enrolment, if it so desires.  It is also open to this Court to debar from practicing in a Court, as held in Supreme Court Bar Association (supra).   We are not afraid of sentencing the contemnor either with imprisonment or from debarring him from the practice. His  conduct reflects adamance and ego, which has no place to exist in the system  of   administration   of   justice   and   in   noble   profession,   and   no remorse is shown  for the harm done to  the institution to which he belongs.   At   the   same   time,   we   cannot   retaliate   merely   because   the contemnor   has   made   a   statement   that   he   is   neither   invoking   the magnanimity or the mercy of this Court and he is ready to submit to the penalty that can be lawfully be inflicted upon him for what the Court has determined to be an offence.   

                     Duly balancing the factors urged by Dr. Dhavan as to the offender, offence, the convicting judgment and the defence taken we have to decide the question of sentence.  In our considered view, the act committed by the contemnor is a very serious one.  He has attempted to denigrate the  reputation of the institution of administration of justice of which he himself is a part.  At the cost of repetition, we have to state that the faith of the citizens of the country in the institution of justice is the foundation for rule of law which is an essential factor in the democratic set up. We   have   given   deep   thought   as   to   what   sentence   should   be imposed on the contemnor.  The conduct of the present contemnor also needs to be taken into consideration.  This Court in Tehseen Poonawala (supra)   has  observed   that  the   said   matter  was   a  fit  matter  wherein criminal contempt proceedings were required to be initiated. However, the court stopped at doing so observing that it would have been an unequal fight.   

The contemnor   not   only   gave   wide   publicity   to   the   second   statement submitted   before   this   Court   on   24.08.2020   prior  to   the   same   being tendered to the Court, but also gave various interviews with regard to sub-judice   matter,   thereby   further   attempting   to   bring   down   the reputation of this Court.  If we do not take cognizance of such conduct it will give a wrong message to the lawyers and litigants throughout the country.   However, by showing magnanimity, instead of imposing any severe punishment, we are sentencing the contemnor with a nominal fine of  Re.1/¬ (Rupee one).  We, therefore, sentence the contemnor with a fine or Re.1/¬ (Rupee one) to be deposited with the Registry of this Court by 15.09.2020, failing which he shall undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months and further be debarred from practising in this Court for a period of three years.  

Contrary to some views being floated around, this appears to be categorical condemnation and punishment though not severe in any manner brought about by the magnanimity of the Institution.

 

With regards – S. Sampathkumar

1.9.2020.

Intolerance ~ Award wapsi ... JK Rowling this time !!

Harry James Potter is   the titular protagonist in  series of eponymous novels. The majority of the books' plot covers seven years in the life of the orphan Harry, who, on his eleventh birthday, learns he is a wizard. Thus, he attends Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry to practice magic under the guidance of the kindly headmaster Albus Dumbledore. Wait ! - Harry is  a fictional icon.

Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels written by British author J. K. Rowling. The novels chronicle the lives of a young wizard, Harry Potter, and his friends Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley, all of whom are students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The main stories are about Harry's struggle against Lord Voldemort, a dark wizard who intends to become immortal, overthrow the wizard governing body known as the Ministry of Magic and subjugate all wizards and Muggles (non-magical people).

Joanne Rowling CH, (1965), better known by her pen name J. K. Rowling, is a British author, screenwriter, producer. She is best known for writing the Harry Potter fantasy series, which has won multiple awards and sold more than 500 million copies, becoming the best-selling book series in history. The books are the basis of a popular film series, over which Rowling had overall approval on the scripts and was a producer on the final films.

Back home, there was a hypocritical protest by a group of people under the banner Indian writers whence a disgruntled group announced that they are returning the Sahitya Akademi Award to protest growing intolerance in the society.  They alleged that the intolerance had grown after change in Central Govt from Congress and many retorted questioning their silence when majority community was under attack.   Former Sahitya Akademi president Vishwanath Prasad Tiwari claimed that he has evidence to prove that the so-called “award wapsi” movement in 2015, when more than 50 writers returned their awards to protest alleged growth in intolerance under the Narendra Modi regime, were part of a politically motivated campaign organised by Marxist writers and a biased  Hindi poet to defame the government in the run-up to the Bihar assembly election.

This is about a different ‘award-wapsi’ that of JK Rowling protesting to return the  Ripple of Hope award from the US Kennedy family, coming as it does after Kerry Kennedy stating Rowling's views on gender 'diminished the identity' of transgender people.

'Harry Potter' creator JK Rowling said on Friday she would give back an award presented by the US Kennedy family after one of its members criticised her views on gender issues. The Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation gave Rowling its Ripple of Hope honour last year. But the group's president, Kerry Kennedy, said this month the British writer's outspoken views on gender 'diminished the identity' of trans people. 

'Kerry Kennedy recently felt it necessary to publish a statement denouncing my views,' Rowling said in a statement on her website. 'The statement incorrectly implied that I was transphobic, and that I am responsible for harm to trans people,' she added. 'I absolutely refute the accusation.  'In solidarity with those who have contacted me but who are struggling to make their voices heard, and because of the very serious conflict of views between myself and RFKHR, I feel I have no option but to return the Ripple of Hope Award.'

Rowling sparked controversy in June for tweeting about the use of the phrase 'people who menstruate' instead of women. 'I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?', she wrote. It led to a string of denunciations, including from the actor Daniel Radcliffe, who played Potter in the blockbuster film franchise, and other actors who starred in the series. Rowling had earlier expressed support for a woman who had lost her job over what her employer deemed to be 'transphobic' tweets. Rowling said 'accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline' ever since but she had also been 'overwhelmed' by private messages of support.

She said the 'toxicity' around the discussion was damaging and frightening for people within and outside the trans community. 'I've been particularly struck by the stories of brave detransitioned young women who've risked the opprobrium of activists by speaking up about a movement they say has harmed them,' she said on Friday.   'I've been forced to the unhappy conclusion that an ethical and medical scandal is brewing.' Rowling's comments are the latest controversy surrounding her work. In some parts of the world, they have been banned for being linked to witchcraft and the occult.

Interesting ! or controversial ! 

With regards – S. Sampathkumar

29.08.2020.