Chair

Chair (pronounced cherr)

(1) A seat, especially if designed for one person, usually with four legs (though other designs are not uncommon) for support and a rest for the back, sometimes with rests for the arms (as distinct from a sofa, stool, bench etc).

(2) Something which serves as a chair or provides chair-like support (often used in of specialized medical devices) and coined as required (chairlift, sedan chair, wheelchair etc).

(3) A seat of office or authority; a position of authority such as a judge.

(4) In academic use, a descriptor of a professorship.

(5) The person occupying a seat of office, especially the chairperson (the nominally gendered term “chairman” sometimes still used, even of female or non-defined chairs).

(6) In an orchestra, the position of a player, assigned by rank (1^st chair, 2^nd chair etc).

(7) In informal use, an ellipsis of electric chair (often in the phrase “Got the chair” (ie received a death sentence)).

(8) In structural engineering, the device used in reinforced-concrete construction to maintain the position of reinforcing rods or strands during the pouring operation.

(9) In glass-blowing, a glassmaker's bench having extended arms on which a blowpipe is rolled in shaping glass.

(10) In railroad construction, a metal block for supporting a rail and securing it to a crosstie or the like (mostly UK).

(11) To place or seat in a chair.

(12) To install in office.

(13) To preside over a committee, board, tribunal etc or some ad hoc gathering; to act as a chairperson.

(14) To carry someone aloft in a sitting position after a triumph or great achievement (mostly UK and performed after victories in sport).

(15) In chemistry, one of two possible conformers of cyclohexane rings (the other being boat), shaped roughly like a chair.

(16) A vehicle for one person; either a sedan chair borne upon poles, or a two-wheeled carriage drawn by one horse (also called a gig) (now rare).

(17) To award a chair to the winning poet at an eisteddfod (exclusive to Wales).

1250-1300: From the Middle English chayer, chaire, chaiere, chaere, chayre & chayere, from the Old French chaiere & chaere (chair, seat, throne), from the Latin cathedra (seat), from the Ancient Greek καθέδρα (kathédra), the construct being κατά (katá) (down) + ἕδρα (hédra) (seat).  It displaced the native stool and settle, which shifted to specific meanings.  The twelfth century modern French chaire (pulpit, throne) in the sixteenth century separated in meaning when the more furniture came to be known as a chaise (chair).  Chair is a noun & verb and chaired & chairing are verbs; the noun plural is chairs.

The figurative sense of "seat of office or authority" emerged at the turn of the fourteenth century and originally was used of professors & bishops (there once being rather more overlap between universities and the Church).  That use persisted despite the structural changes in both institutions but it wasn’t until 1816 the meaning “office of a professor” was extended from the mid-fifteenth century sense of the literal seat from which a professor conducted his lectures.  Borrowing from academic practice, the general sense of “seat of a person presiding at meeting” emerged during the 1640s and from this developed the idea of a chairman, although earliest use of the verb form “to chair a meeting” appears as late as 1921.  Although sometimes cited as indicative of the “top-down” approach taken by second-wave feminism, although it was in the 1980s that the term chairwoman (woman who leads a formal meeting) first attained general currency, it had actually been in use since 1699, a coining apparently thought needed for mere descriptive accuracy rather than an early shot in the culture wars, chairman (occupier of a chair of authority) having been in use since the 1650s and by circa 1730 it had gained the familiar meaning “member of a corporate body appointed to preside at meetings of boards or other supervisor bodies”.  By the 1970s however, the culture wars had started and the once innocuous “chairwoman” was to some controversial, as was the gender-neutral alternative “chairperson” which seems first to have appeared in 1971.  Now, most seem to have settled on “chair" which seems unobjectionable although presumably, linguistic structuralists could claim it’s a clipping of (and therefore implies) “chairman”.

Chairbox offers a range of “last shift” coffin-themed chairs, said to be ideal for those "stuck in a dead-end job, sitting on a chair in a cubicle".  The available finishes include walnut (left) and for those who enjoy being reminded of cremation, charcoal wood can be used for the seating area (right).  An indicative list price is Stg£8300 (US$10,400) for a Last Shift trimmed in velvet.

The slang use as a short form of electric chair dates from 1900 and was used to refer both to the physical device and the capital sentence.  In interior decorating, the chair-rail was a timber molding fastened to a wall at such a height as would prevent the wall being damaged by the backs of chairs.  First documented in 1822, chair rails are now made also from synthetic materials.  The noun wheelchair (also wheel-chair) dates from circa 1700, and one so confined is said sometimes to be “chair bound”.  The high-chair (an infant’s seat designed to make feeding easier) had probably been improvised for centuries but was first advertised in 1848.  The term easy chair (a chair designed especially for comfort) dates from 1707.  The armchair (also arm-chair), a "chair with rests for the elbows", although a design of long-standing, was first so-described in the 1630s and the name outlasted the contemporary alternative (elbow-chair).  The adjectival sense, in reference to “criticism of matters in which the critic takes no active part” (armchair critic, armchair general etc) dates from 1879.  In academic use, although in the English-speaking world the use of “professor” seems gradually to be changing to align with US practice, the term “chair” continues in its traditional forms: There are chairs (established professorships), named chairs (which can be ancient or more recent creations which acknowledge the individual, family or institution providing the endowment which funds the position), personal chairs (whereby the title professor (in some form) is conferred on an individual although no established position exists), honorary chairs (unpaid appointments) and even temporary chairs (which means whatever the institution from time-to-time says it means).

In universities, the term “named chair” refers usually to a professorship endowed with funds from a donor, typically bearing the name of the donor or whatever title they nominate and the institution agrees is appropriate.  On rare occasions, named chairs have been created to honor an academic figure of great distinction (usually someone with a strong connection with the institution) but more often the system exists to encourage endowments which provide financial support for the chair holder's salary, research, and other academic activities.  For a donor, it’s a matter both of legacy & philanthropy in that a named chair is one of the more subtle and potentially respectable forms of public relations and a way to contribute to teaching & research in a field of some interest or with a previous association.

Professor Michael Simons (official photograph issued by Yale University's School of Medicine).

So it can be a win-win situation but institutions do need to practice due diligence in the process of naming or making appointments to named chairs as a long running matter at Yale University demonstrates.  In 2013, an enquiry convened by Yale found Professor Michael Simons (b 1957) guilty of sexual harassment and suspended him as Chief of Cardiology at the School of Medicine.  Five years on, the professor accused Yale of “punishing him again” for the same conduct in a gender-discriminatory effort to appease campus supporters of the #MeToo movement which had achieved national prominence.  That complaint was prompted when Professor Simons was in 2018 appointed to, and then asked to resign from a named chair, the Robert W Berliner Professor of Medicine, endowed by an annual grant of US$500,000 from the family of renal physiologist, Robert Berliner (1915-2002).  Professor Simons took his case to court and early in 2024 at a sitting of federal court ruled, he obtained a ruling in his favour, permitting him to move to trial, Yale’s motion seeing a summary judgment in all matters denied, the judge fining it appropriate that two of his complaints (one on the basis of gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) and one under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act (1972)) should be heard before a jury.  The trial judge noted in his judgment that there appeared to be a denial of due process in 1918 and that happened at a time when (as was not disputed), Yale was “the subject of news reports criticizing its decision to reward a sexual harasser with an endowed chair.”

What the documents presented in Federal court revealed was that Yale’s handling of the matter had even within the institution not without criticism.  In 2013 the University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct found the professor guilty of sexual harassment and he was suspended (but not removed) as chief of cardiology at the School of Medicine.  Internal documents subsequently leaked to the New York Times (NYT) revealed there were 18 faculty members dissatisfied with that outcome and a week after the NYT sought comment from Yale, it was announced Simons would be removed from the position entirely and in November 2014, the paper reported that Yale had also removed him from his position as director of its Cardiovascular Research Center.  Simons alleges that these two additional actions were taken in response to public reaction to the stories published by the NYT but the university disputed that, arguing the subsequent moves were pursuant to the findings of an internal “360 review” of his job performance.  In 2018, Simons was asked to relinquish the Berliner chair on the basis he would be appointed instead to another endowed chair.  In the documents Simons filed in Federal Court, this request came after “one or more persons … sympathetic to the #MeToo movement” contacted the Berliner family encouraging them to demand that the University remove Simons from the professorship, prompting Yale, “fearing a backlash from the #MeToo activists and hoping to placate them,” to “began exploring” his removal from the chair.

School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Later in 2018, Simons was duly appointed to another named chair, prompting faculty members, students and alumni to send an open letter to Yale’s president expressing “disgust and disappointment” at the appointment.  The president responded with a formal notice to Simmons informing him he had 24 hours to resign from the chair, and Simmons also alleges he was told by the president of “concerns” the institution had about the public criticism.  In October 2019, Simons filed suit against Yale (and a number of individuals) on seven counts: breach of contract, breach of the implied warranty of fair dealing, wrongful discharge, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of privacy, and discrimination on the basis of gender under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.   Three of these (wrongful discharge, negligent infliction of emotional distress and breach of privacy) were in 2020 struck-out in Federal Court and this was the point at which Yale sought summary judgment for the remainder.  This was partially granted but the judge held that the matter of gender discrimination in violation of Title VII and Title IX needed to be decided by a jury.  A trial date has not yet been set but it will be followed with some interest.  While all cases are decided on the facts presented, it’s expected the matter may be an indication of the current state of the relative strength of “black letter law” versus “prevailing community expectations”.

Personal chair: Lindsay Lohan adorning a chair.

The Roman Catholic Church’s dogma of papal infallibility holds that a pope’s rulings on matters of faith and doctrine are infallibility correct and cannot be questioned.  When making such statements, a pope is said to be speaking ex cathedra (literally “from the chair” (of the Apostle St Peter, the first pope)).  Although ex cathedra pronouncements had been issued since medieval times, as a point of canon law, the doctrine was codified first at the First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican (Vatican I; 1869–1870) in the document Pastor aeternus (shepherd forever).  Since Vatican I, the only ex cathedra decree has been Munificentissimus Deus (The most bountiful God), issued by Pius XII (1876–1958; pope 1939-1958) in 1950, in which was declared the dogma of the Assumption; that the Virgin Mary "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory".  Pius XII never made explicit whether the assumption preceded or followed earthly death, a point no pope has since discussed although it would seem of some theological significance.  Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, there had been decrees issued ex cathedra.  In Ineffabilis Deus (Ineffable God (1854)), Pius IX (1792–1878; pope 1846-1878) defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, an important point because of the theological necessity of Christ being born free of sin, a notion built upon by later theologians as the perpetual virginity of Mary.  It asserts that Mary "always a virgin, before, during and after the birth of Jesus Christ", explaining the biblical references to brothers of Jesus either as children of Joseph from a previous marriage, cousins of Jesus, or just folk closely associated with the Holy Family.

Technically, papal infallibility may have been invoked only the once since codification but since the early post-war years, pontiffs have found ways to achieve the same effect, John Paul II (1920–2005; pope 1978-2005) & Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) both adept at using what was in effect a personal decree a power available to one who sits at the apex of what is in constitutional terms an absolute theocracy.  Critics have called this phenomenon "creeping infallibility" and its intellectual underpinnings own much to the tireless efforts of Benedict XVI while he was head of the Inquisition (by then called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and now renamed the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF)) during the late twentieth century.  The Holy See probably doesn't care but DDF is also the acronym, inter-alia, for "drug & disease free" and (in gaming) "Doom definition file".  There's also the DDF Network which is an aggregator of pornography content.

The “chair” photo (1963) of Christine Keeler (1942-2017) by Hong Kong Chinese photographer Lewis Morley (1925-2013) (left) and Joanne Whalley-Kilmer (b 1961) in Scandal (1989, a Harvey Weinstein (b 1952) production) (centre).  The motif was reprised by Taiwanese-American photographer Yu Tsai (b 1975) in his sessions for the Lindsay Lohan Playboy photo-shoot; it was used for the cover of the magazine’s January/February 2012 issue (right).  Ms Lohan wore shoes for some of the shoot but these were still "nudes" because "shoes don't count"; everybody knows that. 

The Profumo affair was one of those fits of morality which from time-to-time would afflict English society in the twentieth century and was a marvellous mix of class, sex, spying & money, all things which make an already good scandal especially juicy.  The famous image of model Christine Keeler, nude and artfully positioned sitting backwards on an unexceptional (actually a knock-off) plywood chair, was taken in May 1963 when the moral panic over the disclosure Ms Keeler simultaneously was enjoying the affection of both a member of the British cabinet and a Soviet spy.  John Profumo (1915-2006) was the UK’s Minister for War (the UK cabinet retained the position until 1964 although it was disestablished in the US in 1947) who, then 46, was found to be conducting an adulterous affair with the then 19 year old topless model at the same time she (presumably as her obviously crowded schedule permitted) fitted in trysts with a KGB agent, attached to the Soviet embassy with the cover of naval attaché.  Although there are to this day differing interpretations of the scandal, there have never been any doubts this potential Cold-War conduit between Moscow and Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for War represented at least a potential conflict of interest.  The fallout from the scandal ended Profumo’s political career, contributed to the fall of Harold Macmillan’s (1894–1986; UK prime-minister 1957-1963) government and was one of a number of the factors in the social changes which marked English society in the 1960s.  Woken from his sleep to be told the scandal was about to break, Macmillan remarked: "Well, at least it was with a woman".

Commercially & technically, photography then was a different business and the “chair” image was the last shot on a 12-exposure film, all taken in less than five minutes at the end of a session which hurriedly had been arranged because Ms Keeler had signed a contract which included a “nudity” clause for photos to be used as “publicity stills” for a proposed film about the scandal.  As things turned out, the film was never released (not until Scandal (1989) one would appear) but the photograph was leaked to the tabloid press, becoming one of the more famous of the era although later feminist critiques would deconstruct the issues of exploitation they claimed were inherent.  Playboy’s editors would not be unaware of the criticism but the use of a chair to render a nude image SFW (suitable for work) remains in the SOP (standard operating procedures) manual.

Contact sheet from photoshoot, Victoria and Albert (V&A) Museum: exhibit E.2830-2016.

Before the “nude” part which concluded the session, two rolls of film had already been shot with the subject sitting in various positions (on the chair and the floor) while “wearing” a small leather jerkin.  At that point the film’s producers mentioned the “nude” clause.  Ms Keeler wasn’t enthusiastic but the producers insisted so all except subject and photographer left the room and the last roll was shot, some of the earlier poses reprised while others were staged, the last, taken with the camera a little further away with the subject in what Mr Morley described as “a perfect positioning”, was the “chair” shot.

The “Keeler Chair” (left) and an Arne Jacobsen Model 3107 (right).

Both chair & the gelatin-silver print of the photograph are now in the collections of London’s Victoria and Albert (V&A) Museum (the photograph exhibit E.2-2002; the chair W.10-2013).  Although often wrongly identified a Model 3107 (1955) by Danish modernist architect & furniture designer Arne Jacobsen (1902-1971), it’s actually an example of one of a number of inexpensive knock-offs produced in the era.  Mr Morley in 1962 bought six (at five shillings (50c) apiece) for his studio and it’s believed his were made in Denmark although the identity of the designer or manufacturer are unknown.  Unlike a genuine 3107, the knock-off has a handle cut-out (in a shape close to a regular trapezoid) high on the back, an addition both functional and ploy typical of those used by knock-off producers seeking to evade accusations of violations of copyright.  Structurally, a 3017 uses a thinner grade of plywood and a more subtle molding.  The half-dozen chairs in Mr Morley’s studio were mostly unnoticed office furniture until Ms Keeler lent one its infamy although they did appear in others of his shoots including those from his session with television personality & interviewer Sir David Frost (1939–2013) and it’s claimed the same chair was used for both.  In London’s second-hand shops it’s still common to see the knock-offs (there were many) described as “Keeler” chairs and Ms Lohan’s playboy shoot was one of many in which the motif has been used.  The obvious choice of pose for Joanne Whalley-Kilmer’s promotional shots for the 1989 film in which she played Ms Keeler, it appeared also on the the covers of the DVD & Blu-ray releases 

Old Smoky, the electric chair once used in the Tennessee prison system, Alcatraz East Crime Museum.  "Old Sparky" was once the preferred but in modern use "the chair" seems to have prevailed.

"Then we'd get the chair": The Simpsons, season six.

Crooked Hillary Clinton in pantsuit.

Although the numbers did bounce around a little, polling by politico.com found that typically about half of Republican voters believe crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) should be locked up while fewer than 2% think she should “get the chair”, apparently on the basis of her being guilty of something although some might just find her “really annoying” and take the pragmatic view a death sentence would remove at least that problem from their life.  The term “electric chair” is most associated with the device used for executions but is also common slang to describe other machinery including electric wheelchairs and powered (heat, cooling or movement) seats or chairs of many types.  First used in the US during the 1890s, like the guillotine, the electric chair was designed as a more humane (ie faster) method of execution compared with the then common hanging where death could take minutes.  Now rarely used (and in some cases declared unconstitutional as a “cruel & unusual punishment”), in some US states, technically it remains available including as an option the condemned may choose in preference to lethal injection or the firing squad.

Electric Chair Suite (1971) screen print decology by Andy Warhol.

Based on a newspaper photograph (published in 1953) of the death chamber at Sing Sing Prison in New York, where US citizens Julius (1918-1953) & Ethel Rosenberg (1915-1953) were that year executed as spies, Andy Warhol (1928–1987) produced a number of versions of Electric Chair, part of the artist’s Death and Disaster series which, beginning in 1963, depicted imagery such as car crashes, suicides and urban unrest.  The series was among the many which exploited his technique of transferring a photograph in glue onto silk, a method which meant each varied in some slight way.  His interest was two-fold: (1) what is the effect on the audience of render the same image with variations and (2) if truly gruesome pictures repeatedly are displayed, is the effect one of reinforcement or desensitization?  His second question was later revisited as the gratuitous repetition of disturbing images became more common as the substantially unmediated internet achieved critical mass.  The first of the Electric Chair works was created in 1964.

MRDA

MRDA (pronounced emm-ahr-dee-ey)

The abbreviation of “Mandy Rice-Davies Applies”, an aphorism used in law and politics to refer to any denial which is transparently self-interested.

1963: An allusion to the statement “Well he would, wouldn't he?”, said by Welsh model Mandy Rice-Davies (1944-2004) during cross-examination in a trial at the Old Bailey (the central criminal court for England & Wales) associated with the Profumo affair.

Lord Astor, Mandy Rice-Davies and the Profumo Affair

The context of Ms Rice-Davies’s answer was the question: “Are you aware that Lord Astor denies any impropriety in his relationship with you?” and the answer “Well he would, wouldn't he?” elicited from those in the court “some amusement”.  MDRA (Mandy Rice-Davies Applies) thus became in law and politics an aphorism used as “verbal shorthand” to refer to any denial which is transparently self-interested although it doesn’t of necessity imply a denial is untrue.  In general use, the fragment from the trial is often misquoted as “Well he would say that, wouldn't he?” because that better encapsulates the meaning without being misleading.

Mandy Rice-Davies (left) and Christine Keeler (right), London, 1963.  Note the leopard-print seat covers.

The Profumo affair was one of those fits of morality which from time-to-time would afflict English society in the twentieth century and was a marvellous mix of class, sex, spying & money, all things which make a good scandal especially juicy.  John Profumo (1915-2006) was the UK’s Minister for War (the UK cabinet retained the position until 1964 although it was disestablished in the US in 1947) who, then 46, was found to be conducting an adulterous affair with 19 year old topless model Christine Keeler (1942-2017) at the same time she was also enjoying trysts with a Russian spy, attached to the Soviet embassy with the cover of naval attaché.  Although there are to this day differing interpretations of the scandal, there have never been any doubts this potential Cold-War conduit between a KGB spy and Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for War represented at least a potential conflict of interest.

Dr Evatt (left), comrade Molotov (centre) and Soviet translator Alexei Pavlov, exchanging MRDAs in Russian & English, London, 1942.

MRDAs are common in courtrooms and among politicians but some became legends.  In 1954, Dr HV Evatt (1894–1965; Australian attorney-general & foreign minister 1941-1949, and leader of opposition 1951-1960), in the midst of a particularly febrile period during the Cold War, wrote a letter to comrade Vyacheslav Molotov (1890–1986; Soviet foreign minister 1939-1949 & 1953-1956) asking if allegations of Soviet espionage in Australia were true.  Comrade Molotov of course wrote back, politely denying the USSR engaged in spying anywhere.  Assured, Evatt read the letter to the parliament and the members sat for a moment stunned until, on both sides, loudly laughing.  It was a MRDA before there were MRDAs.

The Profumo affair is noted also for being at least an influence in the end of the “age of deference” in England and while that’s often probably overstated, the immediate reaction and the aftermath proved it wasn’t only across colonial Africa that a “wind of change” was blowing.  The second Lord Astor (1907–1966) was emblematic of the upper classes of England who once would have expected deference from someone like Ms Rice-Davies, someone “not of the better classes” as his lordship might have put it.  Although what came to be known as the “swinging sixties” didn’t really begin until a couple of years after the Profumo affair when the baby-boomers began to come of age, the generational shift had by then become apparent and it was something surprisingly sudden as the interest of the young switched from pop music to politics.  As recently as the 1959 election campaign, the patrician Harold Macmillan (1894–1986; UK prime-minister 1957-1963) had told the working classes “most of you have never had it so good” and for the last time they would express their gratitude to their betters, delivering the Tories an increased majority, an impressive achievement for "the last of the old Edwardians" who, upon assuming the premiership in 1957 in the wake of the Suez debacle, had told the Queen he doubted his administration would last six weeks.

In the matter of Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited [2024] FCA 369

Mr Justice Lee.

Justice Michael Lee (b 1965) in April 2024 handed down one of the more anticipated judgments of recent years, finding Bruce Lehrmann (b 1995), on the civil law test of the balance of probabilities, had raped Brittany Higgins (b 1993) on the sofa in a ministerial suite in Parliament House while the victim was affected by strong drink.  Apart from the heightened public interest in the verdict, lawyers were watching closely to see if there would be encouragement for those defending themselves in defamation cases, something which had been lent unexpected strength by an earlier judgment; although the matter of rape was central to the facts, Lehrmann v Network Ten was a defamation case.  However, for those who appreciate judicial findings for their use of language, Justice Lee didn’t disappoint and although neither Ms Rice-Davies nor MRDA were mentioned in his text, as he assessed the conduct and evidence of Mr Lehrmann, they may have come to mind.

Janet Albrechtsen in her study.

In his opening remarks, the judge acknowledged the case had become a cause celebre for many and that it was best described as “an omnishambles”, the construct being the Latin omni(s) (all) + shambles, from the Middle English schamels (plural of schamel), from the Old English sċeamol & sċamul (bench, stool), from the Proto-West Germanic skamul & skamil (stool, bench), from the Vulgar Latin scamellum, from the Classical Latin scamillum (little bench, ridge), from scamnum (bench, ridge, breadth of a field).  In English, shambles enjoyed a number of meanings including “a scene of great disorder or ruin”, “a cluttered or disorganized mess”, “a scene of bloodshed, carnage or devastation” or (most evocatively), “a slaughterhouse”.  As one read the judgement one could see why the judge was drawn to the word although, in the quiet of his chambers, “clusterfuck” may have been in his thoughts as he pondered the best euphemism.  Helpfully, one of the Murdoch press’s legal commentators, The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen (b 1966; by Barry Goldwater out of Ayn Rand) who had been one of the journalists most interested in the case, informed the word nerds omnishambles (1) dated from 2009 when it was coined for the BBC political satire The Thick Of It and (2) had endured well enough to be named the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) 2021 Word of the Year.  The judge's linguistic flourish was a hint of things to come in what was one of the more readable recent judgments.

Noting Mr Lehrmann’s original criminal trial on the rape charge had been aborted (after having already been delayed for reasons related to the defamation matter) because of jury misconduct with a subsequent retrial not pursued because of the prosecution’s concern about the fragile mental state of the complainant, the judge observed “Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back for his hat.”  In other words, Mr Lehrmann who could have walked away with no findings against him, lured by the millions of dollars to be gained, rolled the legal dice and was found to have committed rape.  He is of course not the first to fall victim to suffer self-inflicted legal injury in not dissimilar circumstances; the writers (from different literary traditions) Oscar Wilde (1854–1900) and Jeffrey Archer (b 1940) both were convicted and imprisoned as a consequence of them having initiated libel actions.  Whether Mr Lehrmann will now face a retrial in the matter of rape is in the hands of the Australian Capital Territory’s (ACT) Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).  In such a case, it would be necessary to prove the event happened under the usual test in criminal law: beyond reasonable doubt.  Even if that isn’t pursued by the DPP, his time in courtrooms may not be over because it’s possible he may face action because of his conduct in this trial with the handling of certain documents and another unrelated matter is pending in Queensland.

In considering the evidence offered by Mr Lehrmann, the judge appears to have found some great moments in the history of MRDAs:

Commenting on his claim to having returned (after midnight following Friday evening’s hours of convivial drinking) to his Parliament House office to write papers about the French submarines and related government matters, he observed Mr Lehrmann “…hitherto had demonstrated no outward signs of being a workaholic.”  “To remark that Mr Lehrmann was a poor witness is an exercise in understatement.”

Regarding the claim Mr Lehrmann had made to someone to whom he’d just been introduced that he was “…waiting on a clearance to come through so that he could go and work at Asis.” (the Australian Security Intelligence Service; the external intelligence service al la the UK SIS (MI6) or the US CIA (although without the assassinations… as far as is known)), the judge observed she “…kept her well-founded incredulity to herself.”, such “Walter Mitty-like imaginings” demonstrating he “…had no compunction about departing from the truth if he thought it expedient.”

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December, 2011.

The reading of the judgement was live-streamed and the passage which got the loudest chuckle was in the discussion of Mr Lehrmann’s deciding whether he found Ms Higgins attractive.  In an interview on commercial television broadcast in 2023, he’d denied finding the young lady attractive, despite the existence of comments dating from 2019 indicating the opposite.  Pausing only briefly, Justice Lee delivered this news with an arched eyebrow:  “When confronted by this inconsistency, his attempt to explain it away by suggesting the attraction he felt for Ms Higgins was ‘just like [the attraction] I can find [in] anybody else in this [court]room, irrespective of gender’ was as disconcerting as it was unconvincing.”  The judge ordered to audience to suppress their laughter.

Even regarding submarines as a likely topic over drinks, his honour was sceptical: “With the exception of Mr Lehrmann, no one who gave evidence as to their time at The Dock could recall discussing Australia’s submarine contracts with France at either table. The lack of recollection of any discussion of this topic is intuitively unsurprising.  Declaiming on the topics of who was building submarines and where they were being built was not quite the repartee one would usually expect to hear over a convivial drink on a Friday night between 20 [something]-year-olds out for a good time – even if (with respect) one would not expect the badinage of the Algonquin Round Table.” (an early twentieth century, shifting aggregation of men & women of letters who met over lunch in New York’s Algonquin Hotel, their barbs and thoughts often appearing in their newspaper & magazine columns; they dubbed themselves “The Vicious Circle” and were a sort of Cliveden set without the politics.  Cliveden was a stately home in Buckinghamshire, the country seat of Lord Astor and the scene of many of the events central to the Profumo affair).

The judge was forensic in his deconstruction of Mt Lehrmann’s MRDA he returned to Parliament House after being out drinking with Ms Higgins and others in order to retrieve his keys: “If the reason Mr Lehrmann needed to return to Parliament House was to collect his keys, he could have texted his girlfriend to have her meet him at the door or called her.  Mr Lehrmann asks me to accept the proposition that it was ‘a process to get in’ to his shared flat and that to avoid this complication, he preferred to: (a) go out of his way to go back to work in the early hours; (b) lie to Parliament House security; (c) sign the necessary register; (d) be issued with a pass; (e) go through a metal detector; (f) be escorted by a security guard to his office; (g) obtain his keys from his office; (h) book another Uber; (i) go back through a Parliamentary exit; (j) meet the ride-share car; and then (k) ride home.”

Bruce Lehrmann leaving the court after the verdict was delivered.

In psychiatry, distinction is made between the “habitual” and “compulsive” liar and while this wasn’t something Justice Lee explored, he did in one passage sum up his assessment of the likely relationship to truth in anything Mr Lehrmann might say: “I do not think Mr Lehrmann is a compulsive liar, and some of the untruths he told during his evidence may sometimes have been due to carelessness and confusion, but I am satisfied that in important respects he told deliberate lies. I would not accept anything he said except where it amounted to an admission, accorded with the inherent probabilities, or was corroborated by a contemporaneous document or a witness whose evidence I accept.”

One fun footnote from the case was a non-substantive matter, Ms Lisa Wilkinson (b 1959), the Network 10 journalist at the centre of the defamation claim, objecting to being characterized as a “tabloid journalist”.  It transpired her employment history included stints with Dolly, the Australian Women’s Weekly and commercial television including the Beauty & the Beast show.  Unfortunately, she wasn’t asked to define what she thought “tabloid journalism” meant; perhaps Justice Lee decided he’d heard enough MRDAs that day.

On the basis that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Lehrmann did rape Ms Higgins, his claim for damages against Network Ten for defamatory material earlier broadcast was dismissed.  The judge found the material indeed had the capacity to defame but because the imputations substantially were true, their defense was sustained.  So, the only millions of dollars now to be discussed concern the legal costs: who is to pay whom, the judge asking the party’s submission be handed to the court by 22 April.  Mr Lehrmann’s legal team has not indicated if they’re contemplating an appeal.

Despite many opportunities, Peter Dutton (b 1970; leader of the opposition and leader of the Australian Liberal Party since May 2022) has never denied being a Freemason.

Attaché

Attaché (pronounced a-ta-shey, at-uh-shey or uh-tash-ey)

(1) A diplomatic official attached to an embassy or legation, especially in a technical capacity (often as a commercial attaché, cultural attaché etc).

(2) A military officer who is assigned to a diplomatic post in a foreign country in order to gather military information (historically usually as air attaché; army attaché; naval attaché, military attaché).

(3) As attaché case, a type of briefcase intended for carrying documents.

1825–1835: From the French attaché (plural attachés, feminine attachée), (junior officer attached to the staff of an ambassador (literally “attached”)), noun use of the past participle of attacher (to attach), from the Old French atachier, a variant of estachier (bind), from estache (stick), from the Frankish stakka (stick) (which was cognate with the Old Occitan estacha, the Italian stacca and the Spanish estaca, from the Gothic stakka).  The attaché case (small leather case for carrying papers) dates from circa 1900.  English, typically, picked up attaché unaltered from the French (although the spelling attache is now common) as did German, Polish and Swedish but other languages adapted as was suited by tradition or pronunciation including Georgian (ატაშე (aṭaše)), Russian (атташе́ (attašé)), Serbo-Croatian (ataše) and Turkish (ataşe).  In sardonic diplomatic humor, attaché was long regarded as a euphemism for “spy” and that, the humor and the practice, remains afoot.  Attaché is a noun and the noun plural is attachés (use in attaché case is not adjectival).

The attaché case and the briefcase.

Meme of Lindsay Lohan in court, Los Angeles, 2013.

A Lindsay Lohan court appearance in Los Angeles in 2013 attracted the usual commentary (choice of hairstyle, clothes, shoes etc) but the attaché case carried by her lawyer inspired the meme community to create a spoof Louis Vuitton advertisement.  The mock-up, which appeared on the now defunct danielpianetti.com, used a courtroom image in which Ms Lohan’s seemed transfixed, eyes focused on the attaché case recumbent on the defense table.

Lawyer Mark Jay Heller with attaché case and rabbit’s foot.

Ms Lohan was represented by celebrity lawyer Mark Jay Heller (b 1945) who gained fame from representing “Son of Sam” serial killer David Berkowitz (b 1953) before becoming a staple of the paparazzi business and he recently resigned from the New York bar due to professional misconduct.  In 2013, his attaché case was notable for the white rabbit's foot key chain attached to the handle which Mr Heller said brought him good luck.  On 17 March 2022, a New York state appeals court accepted his resignation from the bar after he admitted several counts of misconduct including failing to communicate with one client and neglecting another.  The subject of a disciplinary investigation, he acknowledged to the court he had no defense to offer.  Luck had run out.  Mr Heller’s attaché case was a Louis Vuitton Serviette Conseiller Monogram Robusto, fabricated with a cross grain calf leather interior & a natural cowhide handle (part-number M53331).  It's no longer available but a similar item, suitable for tablets and smaller laptops is the Porte-Documents Voyage PM Monogram Macassar Canvas (part-number M52005) at US$1950.

The attaché case and briefcase have not dissimilar histories.  In the diplomatic establishment, attachés were originally junior members of staff (their dual role as covers for spying swiftly a parallel career path) who fulfilled administrative duties which included carrying the ambassador’s papers in as slim case which came to be known as an attaché case.  In the legal community, a brief was a summary of facts and legal positions supporting arguments in judicial proceedings, prepared by a solicitor and provided to the advocate who was to appear in court.  The “brief case” was originally a wooden box in the chambers of barristers in which the bound briefs were deposited but by the early twentieth century it had come to be used to describe the small, rigid bags which had become the usual device used by lawyers to carry stuff to court.  These quickly became an almost obligatory accessory for businessmen either successful or wishing to appear so and they remained part of the informal uniform until the 1990s when laptops and later tablets & smartphones began to supplant paper.  The look remains admired however and high-end laptop bags use many of the design cues from the briefcase, even down to that signature touch of the 1970s, the dual combination locks.

Between manufacturers, there’s no agreement on when the attaché case ends and the briefcase begins but it seems the attaché case is a small, slender suitcase which opens into two distinct and usually symmetrical compartments, made from leather or metal and definitely without a shoulder strap.  By contrast, a briefcase is a flat, rectangular container which opens to reveal one large compartment although the “lid” is likely to have pockets or gussets that expand to accommodate pens, phones and such, generating flexible storage functionality.  Historically a briefcase would not include a shoulder strap but many are now so equipped suggesting the laptop bag is a descendent of the briefcase rather than the attaché case.  For that reason, the attaché case would seem to be thought something slim and stylish while a briefcase must be bigger to accommodate not only documents but also the electronic devices of the modern age including accessories such as charges, power cords and cables.  Other manufactures however claim an attaché case is actually bigger than a briefcase and always includes a shoulder strap but this view seems unfashionable and may relate more to their product differentiation and naming conventions.  However, for those not bothered by fine distinctions in such matters, using the terms interchangeably will likely confuse few.

Although probably thought by many to be something which exists only in the imagination of spy novels, briefcase guns really have been a thing and along with other innovations like the poison-tipped umbrella, there are documented cases of them being used by Warsaw Pact counter-intelligence services.  Remarkably, though unsurprisingly, briefcase guns are available for purchase in the US and can in some jurisdictions lawfully be carried (being luggage this is most literal) provided it’s first registered under the National Firearms Act as an Any Other Weapon (AOW), the relevant clause being 26 U.S.C. § 5845(E): Any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive.

In this example, the weapon is a Heckler & Koch MP5 (Maschinenpistole 5), a 9x19mm Parabellum submachine gun, developed in the 1960s and there have been dozens of versions, both automatic and semi-automatic.  Widely used around the world by both the military and in law enforcement, the MP5 has survived the introduction of its supposed successor (the UMP) and remain popular, a familiar tale in military hardware.  The MP5K (the K stands for kurz (short)) is locked into a claw mount with the muzzle connected to a tubular firing port.  Loading a magazine is said to be a clumsy operation with the MP5 in place but is possible although it’s noted the recommended 30-round clip is a tight fit, barely clearing the bottom of the case.  The trigger is conveniently located in the handle and connected with a mechanical linkage.  There’s a knurled button on the handle which functions as a kind of external safety catch because the fire mode is set prior to closing the case and spent shells are deflected downward so they can’t cause a malfunction by bouncing into the action.  Within, there’s a holder for a spare magazine and the briefcase is lockable (which seems a sensible feature).  It’s said to take some practice to achieve anything like the accuracy one could attain with a conventionally held MP5 but for the section of the target market which wants a sudden, rapid fire over a wide field, it’s presumably ideal.

Sabotage

Sabotage (pronounced sab-uh-tahzh (U) or sab-oh-tahzh (non-U))

(1) Any underhand interference with production, work etc, in a plant, factory etc, as by enemy agents during wartime or by employees during a trade dispute; any similar action or behavior.

(2) In military use, an act or acts with intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the national defense of a country by willfully injuring or destroying, or attempting to injure or destroy, any national defense or war materiel, premises, or utilities, to include human and natural resources.

(3) Any undermining of a cause.

(4) To injure or attack by sabotage.

1907: From the French sabotage from saboter (to botch; to spoil through clumsiness (originally, to strike, shake up, harry and literally “to clatter in sabots (clog-like wooden soled shoes)”).

The noun sabotage is said to have been absorbed by English in 1907, having been used as a French borrowing since at least 1903.  The sense of the French usage was “malicious damaging or destruction of an employer's property by workmen", a development from the original idea of mere deliberate bungling and inefficiency as a form of ad-hoc industrial action.  Contemporary commentators in England noted "malicious mischief" was likely the “nearest explicit definition” of sabotage before point out “this new force in industry and morals” was definitely something associated with the continent.  As the meaning quickly shifted from mere lethargy in the means to physically damaging the tools of production, the story began to circulate that the origin of the word was related to instances of disgruntled strikers (something the English were apt to ascribe as habitual to French labour) tactic of throwing their sabots (clog-like wooden-soled shoes) into machinery.  There is no evidence this ever happened although it was such a vivid image that the tale spread widely and even enjoyed some currency as actual etymology but it was fake news.  Instead it was in the tradition of the French use in a variety of "bungling" senses including the poor delivery of a speech or a poorly played piece of music, the idea of a job botched or a discordant sound, like the clatter of many sabots on as a group walked on a hardwood floor.  The noun savate (a French method of fighting with the feet) from French savate (literally "a kind of shoe") is attested from 1862 and although linked to footwear, is unrelated to sabotage.

Prepared for sabotage: Lindsay Lohan in Gucci Black Patent Leather Hysteria Platform Clogs with wooden soles, Los Angeles, 2009.  The car is a 2009 (fifth generation) Maserati Quattroporte leased by her father.

What sabotage was depended also from where it was viewed.  In industry it was thought to be a substitute for striking in which the workers stayed in his place but proceeded to do his work slowly and badly, the aim being ultimately to displease his employer's customers and cause loss to his employer.  To the still embryonic unions seeking to organize labour, it was a reciprocal act of industrial democracy, going slow about the means of production and distribution in response to organized capital going slow in the matter of wages.  The extension by the military to describe the damage inflicted (especially clandestinely) to disrupt in some way the economy by damaging military or civilian infrastructure emerged during World War I (1914-1918).  The verb sabotage (to ruin or disable deliberately and maliciously) dates from 1912 and the noun saboteur (one who commits sabotage) was also first noted in the same year (although it had been used in English since 1909 as a French word); it was from the French agent noun from saboter and the feminine form was saboteuse.

The word exists in many European languages including Catalan (sabotatge), Czech (sabotáž), Danish (sabotage), Dutch (sabotage), Galician (sabotaxe), German (Sabotage), Hungarian (szabotázs), Italian (sabotaggio), Polish (sabotaż), Portuguese (sabotagem), Russian (сабота́ж) (sabotáž), Spanish (sabotaje), Swedish (sabotage) & Turkish (sabotaj).  Sabotage is so specific that it has no direct single-word synonym although, depending on context, related words include destruction, disruption, subversion, treachery, treason, vandalism, cripple, destroy, disrupt, hamper, hinder, obstruct, subvert, torpedo, undermine, vandalize, wreck, demolition, impairment, injury & disable.  Sabotage is a noun & verb, sabotaged is a verb & adjective, saboteur is a noun, sabotaging is a verb and sabotagable is an adjectival conjecture; some sources maintain there is no plural of sabotage and the correct form is “acts of sabotage” while others list the third-person singular simple present indicative form as sabotages.

Franz von Papen.

Although his activities as German Military Attaché for Washington DC during 1914-1915 would be overshadowed by his later adventures, Franz von Papen’s (1879–1969) inept attempts at sabotaging the Allied war effort would help introduce the word to the military vocabulary.  He attempted to disrupt the supply of arms to the British, even setting up a munitions factory with the intension of buying up scare commodities to deny their use by the Allies, only to find the enemy had contracted ample quantities so his expensive activities had no appreciable effect on the shipments.  Then his closest aide, after falling asleep on a train, left behind a briefcase full of letters compromising Papen for his activities on behalf of the central powers.  Within days, a New York newspaper published details of Papen’s amateurish cloak & dagger operations including his attempt to induce workers of Austrian & German descent employed in plants engaged in war production for the Allies to slow down their output or damage the goods.  Also in the briefcase were copies of letters he sent revealing shipping movements.

Even this wasn’t enough for the US to expel him so he expanded his operations, setting up a spy network to conduct a sabotage and bombing campaign against businesses in New York owned by citizens from the Allied nations.  That absorbed much money for little benefit but, undeterred, he became involved with Indian nationalists living in the US, arranging with them for arms to be shipped to India where he hoped a revolt against the Raj might be fermented, a strategy he pursued also with the Irish nationalists.  Thinking big, he planned an invasion of Canada and tried to enlist Mexico as an ally of the Central Powers in the event of the US entering the war with the promise California and Arizona would be returned.  More practically, early in 1915 he hired agents to blow up the Vanceboro international rail bridge which linked the US and Canada between New Brunswick and Maine.  That wasn’t a success but of greater impact was that Papen had departed from the usual practices of espionage by paying the bombers by cheque.  It was only his diplomatic immunity which protected him from arrest but British intelligence had been monitoring his activities and provided a file to the US State Department which in December 1915 declared him persona non grata and expelled him.  Upon his arrival in Berlin, he was awarded the Iron Cross.

Hopelessly ineffective though his efforts had proved, by the time Papen left the US, the words sabotage and saboteur had come into common use including in warning posters and other propaganda.  Papen went on greater things, serving briefly as chancellor and even Hitler’s deputy, quite an illustrious career for one described as “uniquely, taken seriously by neither his opponents nor his supporters”.  When one of the Weimar Republic's many scheming king-makers suggested Papen as chancellor, others thought the noting absurd, pointing out: "Papen has no head for politics."  The response was: "He doesn't need a head, his job is to be a hat".  Despite his known limitations, he proved one of the Third Reich’s great survivors, escaping purges and assassination and, despite being held in contempt by Hitler, served the regime to the end.  Even its coda he survived, being one of the few defendants at the main Nuremberg trial (1945-1946) to be acquitted (to be fair he was one of the few Nazis with the odd redeeming feature and his sins were those of cynical opportunism rather than evil intent) although the German courts did briefly imprison him, albeit under rather pleasant conditions.

The Simple Sabotage Field Manual (SSFM) was published in 1944 by the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).  Its original purpose was as a resource for OSS field agents to use in motivating or recruiting potential foreign saboteurs and permission was granted permission to print and disseminate portions of the document as needed.  The idea was to provide tools and instructions so just about any member of society could inflict some degree of damage of a society and its economy, the rationale being that of a “death of a thousand cuts”.  In contrast, the more dramatic and violent acts of sabotage (high-risk activities like killings or blowing stuff up) were only ever practiced by a handful of citizens.  The SSFM was aimed at US sympathizers keen to disrupt war efforts against the allies during World War II (1939-1945) in ways that were barely detectable but, in cumulative effect, measurable and thus contains instructions for destabilizing or reducing progress and productivity by non-violent means. The booklet is separated into headings that correspond to specific audiences, including: Managers and Supervisors, Employees, Organizations and Conferences, Communications, Transportation (Railways, Automotive, and Water), General Devices for Lowering Morale and Creating Confusion & Electric Power.  The simplicity of approach was later adopted by the CIA when it distributed its Book of Dirty Tricks.

Of great amusement to students (amateur and professional) of corporate organizational behavior was that a number of the tactics the SSFM lists as being disruptive and tending to reduce efficiency are exactly those familiar to anyone working in a modern Western corporation.

Middle Management

(1) Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.

(2) Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences.

(3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committee as large as possible — never less than five.

(4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.

(5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.

(6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.

(7) Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.

Senior Management

(8) In making work assignments, always sign out the unimportant jobs first. See that important jobs are assigned to inefficient workers.

(9) Insist on perfect work in relatively unimportant products; send back for refinishing those which have the least flaw.

(10) To lower morale and with it, production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions.

(11) Hold conferences when there is more critical work to be done.

(12) Multiply the procedures and clearances involved in issuing instructions, pay checks, and so on. See that three people have to approve everything where one would do.

Employees

(13) Work slowly.

(14) Contrive as many interruptions to your work as you can.

(15) Do your work poorly and blame it on bad tools, machinery, or equipment. Complain that these things are preventing you from doing your job right.

(16) Never pass on your skill and experience to a new or less skillful worker.