- From Russia without love again - 5th June 2026
- Law unto himself - 3rd June 2026
- Crime pays unfortunately - 3rd June 2026
During 23 years with the BBC, and in a 42 year journalistic career (when he was trained to use clear and simple language, avoiding jargon), for our Editor, Welshman Phil Parry, legal issues have always been paramount, with stories ‘run past the lawyer’, and now this is highlighted by Donald Trump announcing new tariffs on dozens of countries after the US Supreme Court struck down many of his previous duties.
It is unwise to try and get round the law.
I know this only too well, as my stories on The Eye are run past a specialist lawyer who checks for things like defamation, and the breaking of privacy laws.
Indeed I am in a legal dispute at the moment, even though the items had been checked before publication.
However the controversial United States of America (USA) President Donald Trump has announced new tariffs on dozens of countries of 10-12.5 per cent over concerns they are not doing enough to tackle forced labour, and it is the SECOND time that his administration has announced new import taxes since many were struck down by the Supreme Court in February because they were illegal!
The 60 trading partners listed – including the UK, the EU, Canada, India and Japan – account for almost all of the goods sold to the US, and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has said this must be done because the present situation “creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field”.
At the time of the Supreme Court ruling, Mr Trump said it was “terrible” and that the justices who rejected his trade policy were “fools”.
Yet Mr Trump has been no stranger to brushes with the law in the past, and in many of them the Supreme Court has taken centre stage.
At his election, he was the first former president in US history to be criminally convicted, having been found guilty of falsifying business records.
Federal prosecutors also alleged that he had pressured officials to reverse the results of the election, knowingly spread lies about election fraud and sought to exploit the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021 to delay the certification of Joe Biden’s victory and stay in power. He was charged with four criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the US and conspiracy against the rights of citizens.
Some had speculated he would even be charged with insurrection, or aiding insurrection, but that was not one of the charges.
US prosecutors issued revised charges in an attempt to navigate a ruling from the Supreme Court that had thrown the case into doubt, which had said presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts they undertake.
The revised indictment left in place the four criminal counts, but these related to Mr Trump’s status as a political candidate rather than as a sitting president.
It argued that he had acted as a private citizen and not as a president when he undertook the alleged scheme to sway the election. Mr Trump has always denied wrongdoing claiming the Biden administration was behind the prosecution anyway. He previously pleaded not guilty to all charges.
On a very much smaller scale, this latest extraordinary action over tariffs highlights what I must face constantly when abuse or heavy-sounding legal threats are hurled at me.
Here are two recent one I have received:
“I am currently preparing an evidence file, with legal input, for submission to South Wales Police (this would be a civil case anyway, NOT a criminal one!)“.
This individual has also proclaimed menacingly: “I am writing to formally notify you of my intention to pursue legal action against you for defamation in connection with articles published about me on The Eye website, and to raise serious concerns that your conduct may also constitute harassment under the Online Safety Act 2023
“To avoid formal legal proceedings, I require the following actions to be taken within 14days of the date of this letter:
- Immediate removal of all articles about me from The Eye website.
- A written undertaking that you will not republish any material concerning me”.
In an earlier notice to The Eye it was said: “The tone and content of… articles are overtly malicious and have caused significant harm to my reputation, hindering my ability to secure employment and professional engagements. As a self-employed single parent, this defamation has severely impacted my livelihood and mental well-being. Despite previous requests for removal (There had been NONE!), these damaging articles remain accessible, perpetuating undue harm (The Eye’s lawyers have informed us that any harm or reputational damage comes from her OWN behaviour!)
(We have been advised that a ‘right of reply’ was not needed in these circumstances).
“Failure to comply with this request may constitute a violation of the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), subjecting you to potential regulatory action and penalties.” (Our lawyers specialising in libel and data protection rules [GDPR] were consulted before publication, and all information is in the public domain).
Unlike Mr Trump, I am not having a second go to get round a legal ruling.
I have to abide by the LAW and so should he…
Details of Phil’s, astonishing decades-long journalistic career (when legal checks were often made on stories), as he was gripped by the rare neurological condition Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia (HSP), have been released in an important book ‘A GOOD STORY’. Order it now.
