Mr Johnson obviously has a major beef about Mr Justice Eady, and this has piqued my curiosity: is there a 'league table' of masters/judges and their judgements vis-a-vis their former chambers or subsequent associations with chambers? If not, why not? This goes beyond Freedom of Information requests, and, like it has done in parliament, the feeble hose that passes for cleaning the Augean Stables these days might just be well-trained if directed at the judiciary.

My interest is piqued by Mr Johnson's comment,heclearly has some serious issues with Mr Justice Eady. Is there a league table of masters and judges in terms of their judgements for and against those chambers with which they have been associated (or indeed, ARE associated, even if it's for the occasional lunch)? I thought those in charge of making judgements always had to recuse themselves if they had a personal involvement. Or am I being unutterably naive here? Is this ultimately a Freedom of Information issue, or much, much bigger than that? Parliament has taken a feeble hose to its Augean Stables, is it perhaps time for the judiciary to have a shufti at whether it ought to do the same?

I have reviewed the list of members of Lord Neuberger's committee. I'm very surprised that my name is not included, what with me being a typical Eady victim, a regular contributor to the DOJ’s public consultations on such matters, and a prolific communicator to our political masters regarding my personal viewpoint that Eady should be sacked. I do know Mr Justice Tugendhat quite well, and despite my feelings of personal animosity towards his brother Lord Tugendhat, I have nothing but praise for Mr Justice Tugendhat, since unlike other defamation judges he does not hesitate to rule against his own chambers, time and time again. A very fair and balanced judge in my opinion. I do however have my doubts regarding Lord Neuberger, since he is unable to tell the difference between One Brick Court lies, and Mr Justice Eady's basis for believing the One Brick Court bollocks, I mean lies. Shame I’m not invited, since my inclusion, as an Eady victim, would have added great value to the findings of this committee, and might have balanced the deliberations as well. I would have demanded that Eady was sacked of course, but my stance would have been balanced against the other legal profession lackeys. Oh well, this is the committee’s great loss. But one that they can correct if they just ask me!!!

UK Privacy Act = Eady ruling for One Brick Court Super Injunctions = Eady ruling for One Brick Court Daft Defamation judgments = Eady ruling for One Brick Court UK Libel Tourism = Eady ruling for One Brick Court Michael Johnson