Another Tory disaster
What they are effectively doing is saying:
It is ok to beat a man into a vegative state, hitting him so hard with a baseball bat that they break it on his head. (Munir Hussain)
It is fine to chase someone running away, being a marksman, and shoot them in the back four times to result in his death. Oh, and after doing this, go to the pub before telling the police.( Tony Martin)
[P]rosecutions and convictions should only happen in cases where courts judge the actions involved to be 'grossly disproportionate'"
Well given that the two high profile cases are grossly disproportionate, there seems to be very little point in changing the legislation.
It is reasonable to hit someone that is threatening you, your immediate family or your home. It is not reasonable, or in any way not grossly disproportionate to chase a running man in a car, and then, with your cousin, cause grievous bodily harm.
However, the key words in this article are "A Conservative government would consider strengthening the rights of householders"
In other words, they wont actually do anything, this is just another attempt at vote winning.
20 Dec 2009
13 Dec 2009
Well done Cameron.
Today you have managed to identify a potential policy that may distract from your Conservative MPs moat and bell tower fiasco.
While I applaud the policy that will state that all MPs should the residents of the United Kingdom and pay the respective taxes, my memory is not so sure as to forget the extremes of the expenses scandal, nor the lack of social responsibility and the rich, and in particular the Conservative party, show.
If you were serious on making a "fairer society" then you would have embraced the Liberal Democrat policies of raising aCapital Gains tax, you would not be insisting that older people required sheltered accommodation they would have to fork out of their own pockets, you would have straightforward proposals on reforming the expenses scandals, you would be supporting the taxation on the bankers and insisting on further changes to our society to prevent the rich getting richer and the poor staying poor.
Stop providing us with bite sized headlines intended to distract from your own party's failings and attempts to distract from the real news.
Today you have managed to identify a potential policy that may distract from your Conservative MPs moat and bell tower fiasco.
While I applaud the policy that will state that all MPs should the residents of the United Kingdom and pay the respective taxes, my memory is not so sure as to forget the extremes of the expenses scandal, nor the lack of social responsibility and the rich, and in particular the Conservative party, show.
If you were serious on making a "fairer society" then you would have embraced the Liberal Democrat policies of raising aCapital Gains tax, you would not be insisting that older people required sheltered accommodation they would have to fork out of their own pockets, you would have straightforward proposals on reforming the expenses scandals, you would be supporting the taxation on the bankers and insisting on further changes to our society to prevent the rich getting richer and the poor staying poor.
Stop providing us with bite sized headlines intended to distract from your own party's failings and attempts to distract from the real news.
What We Don't Hear
More and more, I find myself becoming disillusioned by the providers of "news" in this country.
What has my goat today is the United Against Fascism demonstration planned today in Harrow.
This came to my attention while I was having a chat online last night with a friend. I've certainly heard of the growing racist parties such as the BNP, the English Defence League and related Nazi extremist groups with anti-Muslim and racist vibes.
Certainly, it has always made me think of JG Ballard's Kingdom Come with a macabre rising of "public" policing of society, complete with St Georges crosses and British Bulldogs.
However, I am genuinely shocked by how little news coverage these potentially dangerous and implicitly uncivilised clashing of extremist groups receive.
I appreciate that too much media presence provided to the horrendous groups like the English Defence Plea would have the effect of inciting further membership and publicity, akin to having Nick Griffin on Question Time.
But that does not mean that riots around mosques where little is done to protect civil liberties is not news.
All perhaps it is an example of journalists protecting Middle England from the nastiness beneath the surface?
(To digress on that, imagine a novel based around Neil Gaiman's Neverwear where the underworld of society is not a sublime fairylike kingdom but rather a bitter combination of all that is wrong with human nature. Actually, that would make an interesting take on A Midsummer Nights Dream)
What has my goat today is the United Against Fascism demonstration planned today in Harrow.
This came to my attention while I was having a chat online last night with a friend. I've certainly heard of the growing racist parties such as the BNP, the English Defence League and related Nazi extremist groups with anti-Muslim and racist vibes.
Certainly, it has always made me think of JG Ballard's Kingdom Come with a macabre rising of "public" policing of society, complete with St Georges crosses and British Bulldogs.
However, I am genuinely shocked by how little news coverage these potentially dangerous and implicitly uncivilised clashing of extremist groups receive.
I appreciate that too much media presence provided to the horrendous groups like the English Defence Plea would have the effect of inciting further membership and publicity, akin to having Nick Griffin on Question Time.
But that does not mean that riots around mosques where little is done to protect civil liberties is not news.
All perhaps it is an example of journalists protecting Middle England from the nastiness beneath the surface?
(To digress on that, imagine a novel based around Neil Gaiman's Neverwear where the underworld of society is not a sublime fairylike kingdom but rather a bitter combination of all that is wrong with human nature. Actually, that would make an interesting take on A Midsummer Nights Dream)
11 Dec 2009
Where exactly is the choice in the NHS?
Listening to a discussion on BBC Radio Four this morning between the Labour and Conservative Health Secretaries, I have to note that there appears to be a huge misconception by the government about people's desires for health public services.
Recent prebudget report announcements indicate severe cuts to NHS funding.
The discussion this morning, as ever with a mediocre chairmanship by James Naughtie, surrounded the concepts of choices within the NHS. Blunkett discussed how he considered that choice in the NHS was now a perceived fundamental right of the people.
Is it?
The last time I checked, living in Ashford, in the centre of Kent, I am required to go to Canterbury to get my teeth looks at in an emergency, if I break something I have to go to Ashford to have it operated on, if I need dialysis I have to go to Folkestone, I only have the options of Ashford, Tunbridge Wells and Greater London boroughs for a full A&E service and if I were to be diagnosed with a terminal cancer it is dependent on what part of the body it is in as to what hospital I would need to attend. Having a baby would also be difficult, not to mention locating a GP surgery is actually allowing NHS patients.
As far as I understand, the majority of people require the NHS to be nearby in situations of necessity. If someone breaks a limb, they reasonably expect to be able to access an A&E department where all their needs can be catered for. When a friend of mine broke their leg in Canterbury three years ago, they were rather surprised to be informed that although KCH could take x-rays, they would need to be sent to Ashford to get it reset and then back to Canterbury to have the cast put on.
I am failing to see the choice that we apparently have by right.
I would rather see services in every major town that catered for the majority of health needs such as dialysis, scans, operations, maternity wards and cancer treatments than the current system of pick and choose when you might need medical attention in order to receive the best treatment.
The only choice that I have encountered within the NHS has been when I've required a more detailed scan such as an MRI. I had the choice of Margate, Ashford or Maidstone. However the choice was really based on how soon I could be seen. And, of course, if I could actually get to the location where the scan was available.
A two hour drive to Margate may get me seen six weeks earlier but unless I have the petrol money or someone willing to give me a lift, I am far more likely be seen in 14 weeks in my local town.
Or perhaps, the choice is in fact on how much you pay for the services.
When seeking dental treatment due to an addiction to toffees, I was informed that the only dental surgery accepting NHS patients would not allow instalment payments and all costs had to be paid for before they were down. My only other choice was to go private for the treatment, so I had a choice of locating £400 for NHS treatment or £1700 for private treatment.
Actually, I think here, my choice within whether or not I ate the toffees!
Joking aside, we need a National Health Service with a Bentham approach. Not an 80% administrative force surrounding key performance indicators and quality frameworks that nobody needs or cares about when they are in dire need of medical treatment and informed that they allegedly have "the choice" as to where this treatment is delivered.
Recent prebudget report announcements indicate severe cuts to NHS funding.
The discussion this morning, as ever with a mediocre chairmanship by James Naughtie, surrounded the concepts of choices within the NHS. Blunkett discussed how he considered that choice in the NHS was now a perceived fundamental right of the people.
Is it?
The last time I checked, living in Ashford, in the centre of Kent, I am required to go to Canterbury to get my teeth looks at in an emergency, if I break something I have to go to Ashford to have it operated on, if I need dialysis I have to go to Folkestone, I only have the options of Ashford, Tunbridge Wells and Greater London boroughs for a full A&E service and if I were to be diagnosed with a terminal cancer it is dependent on what part of the body it is in as to what hospital I would need to attend. Having a baby would also be difficult, not to mention locating a GP surgery is actually allowing NHS patients.
As far as I understand, the majority of people require the NHS to be nearby in situations of necessity. If someone breaks a limb, they reasonably expect to be able to access an A&E department where all their needs can be catered for. When a friend of mine broke their leg in Canterbury three years ago, they were rather surprised to be informed that although KCH could take x-rays, they would need to be sent to Ashford to get it reset and then back to Canterbury to have the cast put on.
I am failing to see the choice that we apparently have by right.
I would rather see services in every major town that catered for the majority of health needs such as dialysis, scans, operations, maternity wards and cancer treatments than the current system of pick and choose when you might need medical attention in order to receive the best treatment.
The only choice that I have encountered within the NHS has been when I've required a more detailed scan such as an MRI. I had the choice of Margate, Ashford or Maidstone. However the choice was really based on how soon I could be seen. And, of course, if I could actually get to the location where the scan was available.
A two hour drive to Margate may get me seen six weeks earlier but unless I have the petrol money or someone willing to give me a lift, I am far more likely be seen in 14 weeks in my local town.
Or perhaps, the choice is in fact on how much you pay for the services.
When seeking dental treatment due to an addiction to toffees, I was informed that the only dental surgery accepting NHS patients would not allow instalment payments and all costs had to be paid for before they were down. My only other choice was to go private for the treatment, so I had a choice of locating £400 for NHS treatment or £1700 for private treatment.
Actually, I think here, my choice within whether or not I ate the toffees!
Joking aside, we need a National Health Service with a Bentham approach. Not an 80% administrative force surrounding key performance indicators and quality frameworks that nobody needs or cares about when they are in dire need of medical treatment and informed that they allegedly have "the choice" as to where this treatment is delivered.
10 Dec 2009
An Analysis of the Poor Quality Policing Services Ashford Provides
Now let's have some local news.
Further democratic participation has been removed from the residents in Ashford in Kent with the announcement today that the custody suite in Ashford station will in fact be rendered useless.
Notice I do not say "removed".
When the story was first announced a few months ago there was public uproar in the town that the custody suite would be moved to Folkestone (Bouverie Station) which would allegedly free up more officers to work in the town centre.
Many members of the public pointed out in the Kentish Express that Ashford has a larger population than Folkestone, that police officers would need to drive perpetrators from Ashford to Folkestone (24 mile round trip) and that the custody suite at Ashford provides access to the court that could not be accessed from cells at Folkestone.
Further investigations with local services unveiled that we only ever had three beat officers on duty at Ashford at any one time, and that community policing across the town is evidently poor given the amount of hotspots for antisocial behaviour, arson, criminal damage, assault related offences, burglary, and drug dealing. Anyone attending a community forum within any of the wards of Ashford will come across a range of these offences let alone reading the Kentish Express or Kent Online.
This is its self suggests that the custody cells are only half full because the officers we do have are not deployed properly in the first place.
However, today's article reveals that the custody cells are not going to be removed or developed into any form of office space for the allegedly new community police officers who will gain, but will be used sporadically for court attendance or needs must.
I would hazard a guess that Kent Police wish to knock the building down to make way for the shiny and useless Gateway Plus development in the years to come.
In addition to this, horrific scaremongering figures are bandied about to try and make an excuse for the cut in services within Ashford town centre.
"On average it takes an hour and a half to book a prisoner into custody with an officer off the streets and behind a desk for about four hours filling out paperwork."
Given the Kent Police changed to civilian staff completing paperwork with the merging of the Criminal Justice Units across the county when Chief Constable Mike Fuller took over, and the desks are manned by civilian custody staff, this does not count for the alleged volume of officers that are needed within the Ashford custody suite.
"Police say the suite ... required 314 Sergeant and 219 detention officer shifts to run it"
314 sergeants works out at 2512 hours. There are 8736 hours a year. Therefore we can assume that sergeants only covered one eight-hour shift a day.
Given the detention officers are civilian staff, we can also deduce from this reporting that the only officers actually involved in the custody suite with the sergeants who didn't even have eight hours a day there within one whole year. So how this will free up an additional five beat officers is unknown.
As staff will be redeployed across the county none of the alleged £200,000 that the custody suite costs to operate will in fact be saved.
I suppose that the (costly and bureacratic) business managers within Kent Police would argue that the budget that they have allocated for staff can now be reallocated within Ashford's business plan, but ultimately the shift of responsibility is being passed to other areas.
Further democratic participation has been removed from the residents in Ashford in Kent with the announcement today that the custody suite in Ashford station will in fact be rendered useless.
Notice I do not say "removed".
When the story was first announced a few months ago there was public uproar in the town that the custody suite would be moved to Folkestone (Bouverie Station) which would allegedly free up more officers to work in the town centre.
Many members of the public pointed out in the Kentish Express that Ashford has a larger population than Folkestone, that police officers would need to drive perpetrators from Ashford to Folkestone (24 mile round trip) and that the custody suite at Ashford provides access to the court that could not be accessed from cells at Folkestone.
Further investigations with local services unveiled that we only ever had three beat officers on duty at Ashford at any one time, and that community policing across the town is evidently poor given the amount of hotspots for antisocial behaviour, arson, criminal damage, assault related offences, burglary, and drug dealing. Anyone attending a community forum within any of the wards of Ashford will come across a range of these offences let alone reading the Kentish Express or Kent Online.
This is its self suggests that the custody cells are only half full because the officers we do have are not deployed properly in the first place.
However, today's article reveals that the custody cells are not going to be removed or developed into any form of office space for the allegedly new community police officers who will gain, but will be used sporadically for court attendance or needs must.
I would hazard a guess that Kent Police wish to knock the building down to make way for the shiny and useless Gateway Plus development in the years to come.
In addition to this, horrific scaremongering figures are bandied about to try and make an excuse for the cut in services within Ashford town centre.
"On average it takes an hour and a half to book a prisoner into custody with an officer off the streets and behind a desk for about four hours filling out paperwork."
Given the Kent Police changed to civilian staff completing paperwork with the merging of the Criminal Justice Units across the county when Chief Constable Mike Fuller took over, and the desks are manned by civilian custody staff, this does not count for the alleged volume of officers that are needed within the Ashford custody suite.
"Police say the suite ... required 314 Sergeant and 219 detention officer shifts to run it"
314 sergeants works out at 2512 hours. There are 8736 hours a year. Therefore we can assume that sergeants only covered one eight-hour shift a day.
Given the detention officers are civilian staff, we can also deduce from this reporting that the only officers actually involved in the custody suite with the sergeants who didn't even have eight hours a day there within one whole year. So how this will free up an additional five beat officers is unknown.
As staff will be redeployed across the county none of the alleged £200,000 that the custody suite costs to operate will in fact be saved.
I suppose that the (costly and bureacratic) business managers within Kent Police would argue that the budget that they have allocated for staff can now be reallocated within Ashford's business plan, but ultimately the shift of responsibility is being passed to other areas.
1 Dec 2009
Pointless Passion from Cameron
Cameron is on on his high horse again.
I don't think that I would be as generous as to call his announcements today "half-truths".
I have very limited time availability today, so below is an argument that I had with the radio on my brief lunch break;
Cameron: (paraphrase)I will put an end to the ludicrous health and safety legislation that dominates public and private sectors in the UK
Me: Oh really Cameron? How exactly?
Cameron: (paraphrase) It is ludicrous that trainee hairdressers are not allowed to use scissors in the classroom...etc etc etc
Me: Ahhhhhh.... you're appealing to Daily Mail readers then, so how exactly are you going to reform it Cameron?
Cameron: (paraphrase) we live in a society where people have no responsibility for and their actions... etc etc etc
Me: yes Cameron, okay but how are you going to reform it?
Cameron: (paraphrase) public bodies are paying out due to people suing them... etc etc etc
Me: okay, so we've established that you don't know how you're meant to reform it and this is just a piece of electioneering win you votse after the Euro issue... are ultimately how on earth would you know what people sue people for?
You've never had a real job.
I don't think that I would be as generous as to call his announcements today "half-truths".
I have very limited time availability today, so below is an argument that I had with the radio on my brief lunch break;
Cameron: (paraphrase)I will put an end to the ludicrous health and safety legislation that dominates public and private sectors in the UK
Me: Oh really Cameron? How exactly?
Cameron: (paraphrase) It is ludicrous that trainee hairdressers are not allowed to use scissors in the classroom...etc etc etc
Me: Ahhhhhh.... you're appealing to Daily Mail readers then, so how exactly are you going to reform it Cameron?
Cameron: (paraphrase) we live in a society where people have no responsibility for and their actions... etc etc etc
Me: yes Cameron, okay but how are you going to reform it?
Cameron: (paraphrase) public bodies are paying out due to people suing them... etc etc etc
Me: okay, so we've established that you don't know how you're meant to reform it and this is just a piece of electioneering win you votse after the Euro issue... are ultimately how on earth would you know what people sue people for?
You've never had a real job.
28 Nov 2009
Perplexing and Illogical Proceedues #742
Two friend of mine, a married couple, recently moved back from working in Antwerp for a couple of years following the collapse of one of the companies outt there.
Unfortunately, while abroad, the wife's passport had expired.
In order to get back into the UK, she had to get an emergency passport from Brussels. Today this she had to get photographs.
On a return to the UK, she applied for a new passport. However, the photographs that she had provided for her emergency passport were not adequate for a normal passport.
This implies that anyone wishing to get an emergency passport from the British Embassy or Brussels can do so without regulation photographs and gain access to the country.
However, the sad tale of bureaucracy and Britain's inability to function properly in identifying its citizens and helping and protecting them continues.
Having accessed Britain, the couple moved to the residents of their parents in Scotland. The wife then had to apply for a permanent passport. Not only was she informed her photographs were inadequate, she would be charged a ludicrous amount of money to obtain it.
She would also have to provide identification to establish who she was. However, her address on her driving licence was inaccurate, due to her working abroad. Therefore she couldn't supply a driving licence with the correct address and utility bill to go with it. As a result, this was unacceptable.
In order to pay for a passport, she needed to access her bank account. in order to do so, that she was using a bank in an area where she had used one for a long time, the bank stopped her card. When she spoke in thanking people she was informed she would have to supply a photograph identification of who she was. Without a passport or a driving licence for the relevant address, she was unable to do this. Her birth certificate is apparently not proof of who she is.
Then why on earth do we have to be registered at birth in this country? If it is not proof of who we are?
Because she didn't utilise their bank account, she didn't have her passport in order to receive money from British benefit systems, she would need to have a bank account. In order to claim the benefits, she would need have identification.
Luckily, she had been lent money by relatives in order to fund the acquisition of new passport, which will, when it is returned, allow her to change her driving licence, access her bank account and claim benefits.
But ultimately this is simply diabolical state of affairs.
In research on the situation, I discovered that it is very frightening to google the words "British passport" and identify just how many premium rate numbers and companies there are allegedly supplying advice on how to claim passports for entrance into Britain. I appreciate Internet crime makes it impossible to trace the people, tracked them down, or prevent their sites being hosted, it is frightening how easy it is, apparently, to earn money off people pretending to enter the country.
I would imagine that all of this bureaucracy and nonsensical procedures are an attempt by the government to appease scaremongering about immigration and migration issues that are topical in the country.
The irony is, *some* people seem to think if we withdraw from Europe completely, then we will have a significant chance to prevent immigration and migration and get a hold on the fluctuating British public.
However, if we hadn't opted out of the Maastricht Treaty, we would be able to stop the over dramatised flow of immigration in this country. Immigrants will be forced to stop at the first European country they reached that is providing asylum and not be able to continue to Britain.
We would also not have to have ludicrous bureaucracy that we seem to have around proving who we are. We would be able to travel around Europe without the ludicrous protocols and costs, and without scaremongering ineffective legislation in this country that is created without scrutiny.
Unfortunately, while abroad, the wife's passport had expired.
In order to get back into the UK, she had to get an emergency passport from Brussels. Today this she had to get photographs.
On a return to the UK, she applied for a new passport. However, the photographs that she had provided for her emergency passport were not adequate for a normal passport.
This implies that anyone wishing to get an emergency passport from the British Embassy or Brussels can do so without regulation photographs and gain access to the country.
However, the sad tale of bureaucracy and Britain's inability to function properly in identifying its citizens and helping and protecting them continues.
Having accessed Britain, the couple moved to the residents of their parents in Scotland. The wife then had to apply for a permanent passport. Not only was she informed her photographs were inadequate, she would be charged a ludicrous amount of money to obtain it.
She would also have to provide identification to establish who she was. However, her address on her driving licence was inaccurate, due to her working abroad. Therefore she couldn't supply a driving licence with the correct address and utility bill to go with it. As a result, this was unacceptable.
In order to pay for a passport, she needed to access her bank account. in order to do so, that she was using a bank in an area where she had used one for a long time, the bank stopped her card. When she spoke in thanking people she was informed she would have to supply a photograph identification of who she was. Without a passport or a driving licence for the relevant address, she was unable to do this. Her birth certificate is apparently not proof of who she is.
Then why on earth do we have to be registered at birth in this country? If it is not proof of who we are?
Because she didn't utilise their bank account, she didn't have her passport in order to receive money from British benefit systems, she would need to have a bank account. In order to claim the benefits, she would need have identification.
Luckily, she had been lent money by relatives in order to fund the acquisition of new passport, which will, when it is returned, allow her to change her driving licence, access her bank account and claim benefits.
But ultimately this is simply diabolical state of affairs.
In research on the situation, I discovered that it is very frightening to google the words "British passport" and identify just how many premium rate numbers and companies there are allegedly supplying advice on how to claim passports for entrance into Britain. I appreciate Internet crime makes it impossible to trace the people, tracked them down, or prevent their sites being hosted, it is frightening how easy it is, apparently, to earn money off people pretending to enter the country.
I would imagine that all of this bureaucracy and nonsensical procedures are an attempt by the government to appease scaremongering about immigration and migration issues that are topical in the country.
The irony is, *some* people seem to think if we withdraw from Europe completely, then we will have a significant chance to prevent immigration and migration and get a hold on the fluctuating British public.
However, if we hadn't opted out of the Maastricht Treaty, we would be able to stop the over dramatised flow of immigration in this country. Immigrants will be forced to stop at the first European country they reached that is providing asylum and not be able to continue to Britain.
We would also not have to have ludicrous bureaucracy that we seem to have around proving who we are. We would be able to travel around Europe without the ludicrous protocols and costs, and without scaremongering ineffective legislation in this country that is created without scrutiny.
19 Nov 2009
The Gradual Erosion Of Public Rights
Another little "Internet virus" story that has come to my attention is the allegedly at the new Digital Economy Bill .
I found the comments underneath very interesting. people were questioning why on earth the government would take away the power of MPs in this way. But if the matter is that they would not be taking away the powers of MPs by implementing this bill, but in fact only take away the rights of the public to scrutinise the powers of government.
It is something that they implemented in the Tory party in 1992 to do with refugees and asylum. the Home Secretary now has the power to legislate on how we treat asylum seekers and refugees without consulting publicly elected members. This means that the government can quite happily electronically tag anyone seeking asylum who enters the UK, take and retain their DNA for life, provide them with less than 60% of income support to live on and deny them the opportunity to work or integrate with society until their asylum claim has been assessed.
This is a completely abysmal state of affairs for a democratic oligarchy.
The proposed bill to prevent pirating movies and music is also atrocious.
How can we have a country that called itself democratic and yet it regularly allows politicians to remove scrutiny from the public and instils bodies that are essentially government whip to review their behaviour under the ludicrous name "quango"? people talk about the removal of freedom of speech in a loose an inappropriate way in this country. Indeed, defining it is extremely difficult.
However it seems that reporting this is inconceivable to local papers and people are not encouraged to question will challenge the decision in any way shape or form.
I found the comments underneath very interesting. people were questioning why on earth the government would take away the power of MPs in this way. But if the matter is that they would not be taking away the powers of MPs by implementing this bill, but in fact only take away the rights of the public to scrutinise the powers of government.
It is something that they implemented in the Tory party in 1992 to do with refugees and asylum. the Home Secretary now has the power to legislate on how we treat asylum seekers and refugees without consulting publicly elected members. This means that the government can quite happily electronically tag anyone seeking asylum who enters the UK, take and retain their DNA for life, provide them with less than 60% of income support to live on and deny them the opportunity to work or integrate with society until their asylum claim has been assessed.
This is a completely abysmal state of affairs for a democratic oligarchy.
The proposed bill to prevent pirating movies and music is also atrocious.
How can we have a country that called itself democratic and yet it regularly allows politicians to remove scrutiny from the public and instils bodies that are essentially government whip to review their behaviour under the ludicrous name "quango"? people talk about the removal of freedom of speech in a loose an inappropriate way in this country. Indeed, defining it is extremely difficult.
However it seems that reporting this is inconceivable to local papers and people are not encouraged to question will challenge the decision in any way shape or form.
NICE (sarcasm)
Is quite tragic that we live in a country that justifies the cost effectiveness over quality of service.
The leading example today, of course, the medication that could prolong the life of liver cancer patients has been rejected by the NICE committee on the grounds that it is not cost-effective.
I refer to the BBC in my link because it provides a nice bite sized chunk of the arguments being bandied around. If you want to know more about the arguments you can attempt to read the papers, but the premise is much the same. Nexavar is simply too expensive.
The figures provided by the NICE executive on the Today programme on BBC Radio Four do you indicate a rather ludicrously high level of spending. It medication prolongs the life of the liver patient three year, we can assume that it will cost a minimum of £36,000 to supply the drug alone. When taking into account that we will also have to supply pain medication, potentially further radiotherapy, benefits and a care service. when the person finally succumbs to the disease, there is a chance of the necessary procedure to supply funeral costs, court costs to resolve will disputes and at the same time the government is not earning any tax revenue from this person.
This is ultimately the "business case" that I would imagine the NICE committee discussed at length before deciding that spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on TV one person alive three year when they could dispose of the responsibility Far swifter by refusing to supply the medication.
Sadly, people suffering from terminal liver cancer are not the only ones to the subject of this standard of quantifiable cost versus benefit the public services in this country run on. These one of the lateral effects are they "target culture" taken from the private sector that fails to address the purpose and in need of the public sector.
Other services subject to this ludicrous decision on social care include the Crown Prosecution Service, where they will not prosecute unless there is a 99% chance of conviction otherwise it would be a waste of money. After all, public safety is not a target of the CPS.
Another example would be sheltered accommodation, as mentioned in my previous post. Councils will remove Resident wardens who provide companionship, support, maintenance and help prevent emergency situations for over 2000 people in one borough and replace the 13 permanent resident wardens with one travelling warden to cover and nearly 800 mi.² area.
We need a return in this country to public services being for the public
Not simply to cut corners so that ministers can be paid more, pen pushers can be given bonuses or on local levels rubbish recycling collections can be reduced.
The leading example today, of course, the medication that could prolong the life of liver cancer patients has been rejected by the NICE committee on the grounds that it is not cost-effective.
I refer to the BBC in my link because it provides a nice bite sized chunk of the arguments being bandied around. If you want to know more about the arguments you can attempt to read the papers, but the premise is much the same. Nexavar is simply too expensive.
The figures provided by the NICE executive on the Today programme on BBC Radio Four do you indicate a rather ludicrously high level of spending. It medication prolongs the life of the liver patient three year, we can assume that it will cost a minimum of £36,000 to supply the drug alone. When taking into account that we will also have to supply pain medication, potentially further radiotherapy, benefits and a care service. when the person finally succumbs to the disease, there is a chance of the necessary procedure to supply funeral costs, court costs to resolve will disputes and at the same time the government is not earning any tax revenue from this person.
This is ultimately the "business case" that I would imagine the NICE committee discussed at length before deciding that spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on TV one person alive three year when they could dispose of the responsibility Far swifter by refusing to supply the medication.
Sadly, people suffering from terminal liver cancer are not the only ones to the subject of this standard of quantifiable cost versus benefit the public services in this country run on. These one of the lateral effects are they "target culture" taken from the private sector that fails to address the purpose and in need of the public sector.
Other services subject to this ludicrous decision on social care include the Crown Prosecution Service, where they will not prosecute unless there is a 99% chance of conviction otherwise it would be a waste of money. After all, public safety is not a target of the CPS.
Another example would be sheltered accommodation, as mentioned in my previous post. Councils will remove Resident wardens who provide companionship, support, maintenance and help prevent emergency situations for over 2000 people in one borough and replace the 13 permanent resident wardens with one travelling warden to cover and nearly 800 mi.² area.
We need a return in this country to public services being for the public
Not simply to cut corners so that ministers can be paid more, pen pushers can be given bonuses or on local levels rubbish recycling collections can be reduced.
18 Nov 2009
Defending Assailable Elderly Residents
I felt that the Queen's speech today fell far short of what I had expected from a "National Care Service" that Labour have been deliberating for some time. it is terrible that they are preparing to provide free care services for the elderly in their own homes yet those who are residing within sheltered accommodation will not be entitled to any additional support, let alone resident wardens. I genuinely can't decide which proposal is worse or more unfair, this, or the Conservative proposal that the elderly residents pay £6,000 they will be entitled sheltered accommodation if they require it in their retirement. I can't believe that we live in one of the leading Western nations and then yet we cannot provide a reasonable standard of care for those who have served our society.
People who follow me regularly on Facebook (Kelly-Marie Blundell) or Ashford Liberal Democrats will be aware of my dedication to the campaign Sheltered Housing UK Association to retain or reinstate resident wardens in sheltered accommodation across the country.
As a synopsis, Barnet Council are being taken to the High Court for removing resident wardens and the Association is waiting on a Judicial Review to see if the action will be deemed illegal, which will effectively forced Borough and County Councils to return to resident wardens across the country. A petition is being submitted to the Prime Minister seven of December 2009 following a March from Trafalgar Square to Downing Street.
A society is judged by the way we treat the most vulnerable members of that society, the way that we have treated those living in sheltered housing, by removing their wardens, is nothing short of atrocious
Anyone who would like to provide support, information or stories, please feel free to contact me.
People who follow me regularly on Facebook (Kelly-Marie Blundell) or Ashford Liberal Democrats will be aware of my dedication to the campaign Sheltered Housing UK Association to retain or reinstate resident wardens in sheltered accommodation across the country.
As a synopsis, Barnet Council are being taken to the High Court for removing resident wardens and the Association is waiting on a Judicial Review to see if the action will be deemed illegal, which will effectively forced Borough and County Councils to return to resident wardens across the country. A petition is being submitted to the Prime Minister seven of December 2009 following a March from Trafalgar Square to Downing Street.
A society is judged by the way we treat the most vulnerable members of that society, the way that we have treated those living in sheltered housing, by removing their wardens, is nothing short of atrocious
Anyone who would like to provide support, information or stories, please feel free to contact me.
14 Nov 2009
Attrition of Public Rights
A rather unusual case which has the potential to spiral into one of those small Internet obsessions where everyone has to have their say.
Paul Clark has been found guilty of possession of an illegal firearm (such as assault rifles) after apparently discovering the gun in his garden and taking it to the police station.
However, either his lawyers had not interpreted the legislation correctly, or this is an exceptionally good example of the court system forcing Parliament to make a change in the law.
It is illegal to be in possession of a firearm. Either an illegal firearm or to possess one without a licence. This of course means that anyone discovering a gun, the moment they appropriate contact with the gun, is guilty of a triable either way offence.
The judges are not allowed to change the law, merely interpret it. Therefore by applying the law as rigidly, and ludicrously, as possible, this is done with the intention that they will cause a public outcry that will force Parliament to change the law.
Whether or not Labour, with their fixation on gun crime that is continuously promoted by the media, will see it necessary to implement an amendment to the Firearms Act 1994 that states something along the lines of "it is illegal to possess a firearm unless you are transferring it to the police", is another matter.
In spite of living in a democratic country, is becoming vastly clear that petitions, publication of articles and demonstrations against government policy, legislation and illogical and irrational persecution, has little or no effect. We're then reminded of countries where oppression of the people is terrible, such as Iran, and made to feel that what we have is good so why should we protest against it.
We need to challenge this mentality as much loss will and increase the remit the freedom of speech in order to force governments and force publicly elected bodies to respond to public disquiet and dissatisfaction. until we do this, ludicrous indication of legislation by one of the third executives is unlikely to have any effect.
Paul Clark has been found guilty of possession of an illegal firearm (such as assault rifles) after apparently discovering the gun in his garden and taking it to the police station.
However, either his lawyers had not interpreted the legislation correctly, or this is an exceptionally good example of the court system forcing Parliament to make a change in the law.
It is illegal to be in possession of a firearm. Either an illegal firearm or to possess one without a licence. This of course means that anyone discovering a gun, the moment they appropriate contact with the gun, is guilty of a triable either way offence.
The judges are not allowed to change the law, merely interpret it. Therefore by applying the law as rigidly, and ludicrously, as possible, this is done with the intention that they will cause a public outcry that will force Parliament to change the law.
Whether or not Labour, with their fixation on gun crime that is continuously promoted by the media, will see it necessary to implement an amendment to the Firearms Act 1994 that states something along the lines of "it is illegal to possess a firearm unless you are transferring it to the police", is another matter.
In spite of living in a democratic country, is becoming vastly clear that petitions, publication of articles and demonstrations against government policy, legislation and illogical and irrational persecution, has little or no effect. We're then reminded of countries where oppression of the people is terrible, such as Iran, and made to feel that what we have is good so why should we protest against it.
We need to challenge this mentality as much loss will and increase the remit the freedom of speech in order to force governments and force publicly elected bodies to respond to public disquiet and dissatisfaction. until we do this, ludicrous indication of legislation by one of the third executives is unlikely to have any effect.
13 Nov 2009
An Illogical Proposal of an Unrealistic Peace
I only caught parts of Brown's scintillating discussion on Radio 4 this morning, mainly because I had it on a portable media system I purchased my milk and cereal, but I can't say that the first message that I took from it was Brown's commitment sending more troops to Afghanistan. Nor was it that Brown concluded that troops will not be in Afghanistan for eternity” . Both are, of course, huge headline grabbers with current public unease surrounding the war in Afghanistan.
While there is evidently a great deal of unease surrounding Obama's "alleged" stuttering and stammering over American involvement in Afghanistan, this did not seem to be the focus of Brown's announcement today.
Instead, what leapt out to me, was Brown's announcement of an attempt to coerce the Taliban into holding shares of full political office on the grounds that the violence and insurgency would cease.
The Analysis presented by The Times attempts to suggest that this is a good thing.
Currently the Taliban maintain their presence through aggressive oppression of the people of Afghanistan, drug and weapon crime and general hatred of Western culture. By strategically manoeuvring them into a political position, judging by the current government regime, they would therefore be able to oppress the people of Afghanistan, maintain drug and weapon crime and perpetuate general hatred of Western culture in the name of "democracy" and "Western culture". We would effectively be sanctioning their behaviour and attempting somehow suggest that we had successfully aided their communities.
While this is not a direct correlation with Northern Ireland, one can see the perpetual state of constant conflict that could be continued for just as long with just as much terrorist fallout.
While there is evidently a great deal of unease surrounding Obama's "alleged" stuttering and stammering over American involvement in Afghanistan, this did not seem to be the focus of Brown's announcement today.
Instead, what leapt out to me, was Brown's announcement of an attempt to coerce the Taliban into holding shares of full political office on the grounds that the violence and insurgency would cease.
The Analysis presented by The Times attempts to suggest that this is a good thing.
Currently the Taliban maintain their presence through aggressive oppression of the people of Afghanistan, drug and weapon crime and general hatred of Western culture. By strategically manoeuvring them into a political position, judging by the current government regime, they would therefore be able to oppress the people of Afghanistan, maintain drug and weapon crime and perpetuate general hatred of Western culture in the name of "democracy" and "Western culture". We would effectively be sanctioning their behaviour and attempting somehow suggest that we had successfully aided their communities.
While this is not a direct correlation with Northern Ireland, one can see the perpetual state of constant conflict that could be continued for just as long with just as much terrorist fallout.
11 Nov 2009
A Disappointing DNA Decision
there's been much discussion on the news this morning in regards of the decision to remove people's DNA from the databases maintained by the police
This is sent off the number of predictable arguments about why it's unfair (because innocent people have not been proved guilty) and why it's there (because rapists and murderers may not be caught otherwise).
However the thing that jumped out at me from the information provided on DNA databases is that there are no announcements as to what will be done immediately about the vast number of people's DNA is kept on file. Given that they cannot provide statistics on the amount of people convicted on the basis of the DNA evidence, I would be extremely surprised if they know how many people as DNA they've kept how long and therefore delete the relevant information that has been held for six years. now that the decision has been made, I want to know what they are going to do NOW. Not the rhetoric of arguments we have been presented with the several years.
It is also interesting how many issues it shows with our police forces.
There are no reliable figures on how many crimes have been solved solely because someone cleared of one offence has been later linked to another through their DNA.
Why on earth not? the police, similarly to other public bodies such as the NHS, consisted of nearly 60% administrative staff. how, among all of these people, is in not people working on statistics utilising national databases to find out who has been convicted of a crime and what evidence is being used to convict them. It would be easy to tally the number of people have been convicted of a separate crime other than the crime for which their DNA was first taken.
My argument with DNA bed databases has always been that all of the time for the national police forces work targets, from penalty notice signs (and did you see panorama?)we should not maintain a database of any form.
The police force get financial remuneration that meeting targets, be it issuing penalty notice times for rape, or recording the DNA of any witness to the events that comes through their doors.
Holding information on six years will not change this. The police will continue to appropriate people's DNA for whatever reason they find to ensure that they get the right amount of money for their business units. And people will continue to be convicted of offences of which they had not committed and have their DNA used inappropriately whatever the motivation.
This is sent off the number of predictable arguments about why it's unfair (because innocent people have not been proved guilty) and why it's there (because rapists and murderers may not be caught otherwise).
However the thing that jumped out at me from the information provided on DNA databases is that there are no announcements as to what will be done immediately about the vast number of people's DNA is kept on file. Given that they cannot provide statistics on the amount of people convicted on the basis of the DNA evidence, I would be extremely surprised if they know how many people as DNA they've kept how long and therefore delete the relevant information that has been held for six years. now that the decision has been made, I want to know what they are going to do NOW. Not the rhetoric of arguments we have been presented with the several years.
It is also interesting how many issues it shows with our police forces.
There are no reliable figures on how many crimes have been solved solely because someone cleared of one offence has been later linked to another through their DNA.
Why on earth not? the police, similarly to other public bodies such as the NHS, consisted of nearly 60% administrative staff. how, among all of these people, is in not people working on statistics utilising national databases to find out who has been convicted of a crime and what evidence is being used to convict them. It would be easy to tally the number of people have been convicted of a separate crime other than the crime for which their DNA was first taken.
My argument with DNA bed databases has always been that all of the time for the national police forces work targets, from penalty notice signs (and did you see panorama?)we should not maintain a database of any form.
The police force get financial remuneration that meeting targets, be it issuing penalty notice times for rape, or recording the DNA of any witness to the events that comes through their doors.
Holding information on six years will not change this. The police will continue to appropriate people's DNA for whatever reason they find to ensure that they get the right amount of money for their business units. And people will continue to be convicted of offences of which they had not committed and have their DNA used inappropriately whatever the motivation.
5 Nov 2009
Remove the Rose Tinted Glasses of the Postal Strike Propaganda
The ongoing postal strikes have been sent to the side columns of the Nationals and I would doubt raise a title in the tabloids, but I think it is an exceptionally sad situation.
The summary of the case is now;
"At the heart of the dispute is union concerns over the extent of job cuts, and conditions for staff who remain."[IBID]
Instead of millions of people joining the public outrage over working conditions reduced to such meagre standards that it breaches several employment law legislatures, the issue is being shelved in the hope it will simply go away.
I am not being a sentimentalist "golden era" enthusiast. I do not know my postman's name. But I would support his right to keep his job, his pension, not be forced to work additional unpaid hours, not be subject to ludicrous demands and nonsensical modernisation concepts such as electric trolleys and his right to maintain a service that people rely on.
Royal Mail has always been one of the employers that encourages flexible working, works well with working parents and disabled persons and has a wonderful sense of employee institution that we value in Britain. Now, like a morally inept TUPE transfer, they want the postal workers to stop flexible working, make it a 9-5 job and combine all the part time posts into full time posts to save money. While shelling out on inefficient managerialisation and bureaucracy a Thatcher government would be proud of.
I adore the internet, I rarely write letters and I am often guilty of not opening envelopes I know are bills but I still like getting post. I do not want electronic mailing systems for everything. Paperless livelihoods that are futile when orange juice goes on the computer, or requires you to print the item when you need it as evidence anyway.
I have never understood why Royal Mail didn't enter contracts with the major supermarkets to run offices there. This would allow the majority of customers to get to them, in convinience and I am sure promote the ever growing range of services Tesco et al supply. It would also continue with collections and deliveries, and the service industry that for all our love of consumerism, we still depend on.
The summary of the case is now;
"At the heart of the dispute is union concerns over the extent of job cuts, and conditions for staff who remain."[IBID]
Instead of millions of people joining the public outrage over working conditions reduced to such meagre standards that it breaches several employment law legislatures, the issue is being shelved in the hope it will simply go away.
I am not being a sentimentalist "golden era" enthusiast. I do not know my postman's name. But I would support his right to keep his job, his pension, not be forced to work additional unpaid hours, not be subject to ludicrous demands and nonsensical modernisation concepts such as electric trolleys and his right to maintain a service that people rely on.
Royal Mail has always been one of the employers that encourages flexible working, works well with working parents and disabled persons and has a wonderful sense of employee institution that we value in Britain. Now, like a morally inept TUPE transfer, they want the postal workers to stop flexible working, make it a 9-5 job and combine all the part time posts into full time posts to save money. While shelling out on inefficient managerialisation and bureaucracy a Thatcher government would be proud of.
I adore the internet, I rarely write letters and I am often guilty of not opening envelopes I know are bills but I still like getting post. I do not want electronic mailing systems for everything. Paperless livelihoods that are futile when orange juice goes on the computer, or requires you to print the item when you need it as evidence anyway.
I have never understood why Royal Mail didn't enter contracts with the major supermarkets to run offices there. This would allow the majority of customers to get to them, in convinience and I am sure promote the ever growing range of services Tesco et al supply. It would also continue with collections and deliveries, and the service industry that for all our love of consumerism, we still depend on.
The Clear and Concise Cameron
Just an aside on Cameron;
If Obama's catch phrase was
"Can we do it, yes we can"
Cameron's rather whimpering utterance is
"Well we said we'd do it, and now we don't have to, and even if we had said it, we didn't have to follow it anyway, but if I insert a crescendo of inflection, you mugs will all vote for me for some gawd forsaken reason. Mwah ha ha ha."
[Anyone else have a bizarre concept of a bad guy in a scifi spoof?]
If Obama's catch phrase was
"Can we do it, yes we can"
Cameron's rather whimpering utterance is
"Well we said we'd do it, and now we don't have to, and even if we had said it, we didn't have to follow it anyway, but if I insert a crescendo of inflection
[Anyone else have a bizarre concept of a bad guy in a scifi spoof?]
News
BBC Radio 5L is reporting a NATO rocket strike on an Afghanistan Village with nine victims including children.
The internet is strangely bare.
Yesterday the BBC radio stations reported on Iran protests. There is far more about this, but it is not on mainstream British news sites. Yet the resignation of Danial Hannan is huge news.
It's a silly irritated rant I know, but I am so sick of the media dumbing down news and misrepresenting importance right now.
The internet is strangely bare.
Yesterday the BBC radio stations reported on Iran protests. There is far more about this, but it is not on mainstream British news sites. Yet the resignation of Danial Hannan is huge news.
It's a silly irritated rant I know, but I am so sick of the media dumbing down news and misrepresenting importance right now.
30 Oct 2009
Question Time... the most recent one
Having watched Griffen and various other MPs utilise QT as a political tool last week, I was interested in reviewing this week's one to see if there would be a return to form or a further desire to manipulate and persuade the public as they engage in the gladiatorial arena of politics in the duration of unrest.
Given that Jackie Smith effctively threw a fit about Proffessor Nut on yesterday's QT, I was none the less surprised to see they had managed to get rid of him so quickly. The accusations being bandied about miss the point that Quangos and "advisory bodies" are merely additional wage earners for people to publish whatever the government wants. I cannot agree with Proffessor Nut's comments on drug use (when did it become *misuse* by the way? Surely any indulgence of ecstasy and heroin is a misuse?!)
I admit I was disappointed with Lembit Opik's rather weak argument on decriminalisation of drugs. I completely support the policies on drug management the Liberal Democrats put forward, but I have to say if you are going to go onto national television and make an outrageously contentious comment, you ought to have the facts, figures and arguments to back you up.
Given that Jackie Smith effctively threw a fit about Proffessor Nut on yesterday's QT, I was none the less surprised to see they had managed to get rid of him so quickly. The accusations being bandied about miss the point that Quangos and "advisory bodies" are merely additional wage earners for people to publish whatever the government wants. I cannot agree with Proffessor Nut's comments on drug use (when did it become *misuse* by the way? Surely any indulgence of ecstasy and heroin is a misuse?!)
I admit I was disappointed with Lembit Opik's rather weak argument on decriminalisation of drugs. I completely support the policies on drug management the Liberal Democrats put forward, but I have to say if you are going to go onto national television and make an outrageously contentious comment, you ought to have the facts, figures and arguments to back you up.
16 Oct 2009
"Gay bashing" Accusations
While I would never miss an opportunity to slate the Daily Mail and the bigoted, biased approach to reporting it takes, the recent furore over this comment on Stephen Gately does not seem entirely justified.
Charlie Brooker of The Guardian has provided an even more sensationalist diatribe on Jan Moir than the Daily Mail was ever achieved on refugees and asylum seekers.
The entire media coverage of Gately's death has been immense, you only have to look at news results on google to ascertain that. But the key facts are hard to find and there is a vast amount of speculation without basis.
He died from a pulmonary oedema. Fluid on the lungs. But the cause of the fluid of the lungs has been associated with a variety of nefarious activities, from mild drug use and drinking to, in Jan Moir's case, alleged, speculated hedonistic sexual acts.
I agree that her comment is presumptuous and entrenched with misconceptions of homosexuals, celebrities and a consiracy mentality an American would be proud of. Not to mention being a poorly structured, nonsensical argument that would have been slated by any GCSE teacher. Or utilised by Brown as a constructive argument at the Labour conference (the structure, not the content).
But in the true essence of the hyperreality media constructs such as twittter, the issue has been blown into a state of apoplexy where the true meaning has been lost.
I think more people should remove their advertising from the Daily Mail, and leave those who read the extremist waste of print to look at pictures of vinegar cures and plates with dead celebrities on them. But they should do so because the majority of the paper is prejudiced, partisan and entrenched with rightwing exclusion propaganda, not because of a poorly executed column that most people only read because they have Stephen Fry on Twitter.
Rant over.
Charlie Brooker of The Guardian has provided an even more sensationalist diatribe on Jan Moir than the Daily Mail was ever achieved on refugees and asylum seekers.
The entire media coverage of Gately's death has been immense, you only have to look at news results on google to ascertain that. But the key facts are hard to find and there is a vast amount of speculation without basis.
He died from a pulmonary oedema. Fluid on the lungs. But the cause of the fluid of the lungs has been associated with a variety of nefarious activities, from mild drug use and drinking to, in Jan Moir's case, alleged, speculated hedonistic sexual acts.
I agree that her comment is presumptuous and entrenched with misconceptions of homosexuals, celebrities and a consiracy mentality an American would be proud of. Not to mention being a poorly structured, nonsensical argument that would have been slated by any GCSE teacher. Or utilised by Brown as a constructive argument at the Labour conference (the structure, not the content).
But in the true essence of the hyperreality media constructs such as twittter, the issue has been blown into a state of apoplexy where the true meaning has been lost.
I think more people should remove their advertising from the Daily Mail, and leave those who read the extremist waste of print to look at pictures of vinegar cures and plates with dead celebrities on them. But they should do so because the majority of the paper is prejudiced, partisan and entrenched with rightwing exclusion propaganda, not because of a poorly executed column that most people only read because they have Stephen Fry on Twitter.
Rant over.
15 Oct 2009
Discrimination Masquerading as Politics
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."
Cicero
I am looking forward to Nick Griffen on Question Time
Cicero
I am looking forward to Nick Griffen on Question Time
12 Oct 2009
Political Memories May The Short But...
With the return of Parliament from the summer recess today, numerous stories have hit the news to give a synopsis of the disasters that have affected parliament in the last year.
In addition to this campaigners had a variety of innovative ways to remind MPs that while their memories may be short, the public's aren't.
It was rather pleasing to listen to the furore over MPs expenses taking off once again with members of the public, journalists and MPs alike across the broad range of radio stations we now have.
However, it was the desperate news article to amend Damian Green MP's debacle that caught my attention.
This is 'desperate' in the way that it attempts to conjure the image that Damian Green has done nothing wrong by leaking information because it is considered by the Enquiry that the leak was not a risk to public security. That does not prevent it from being an immoral act nor from it being wrong.
While this will not takes centre stage in the public consciousness, I personally consider it diabolical that an MP should breach confidentiality of the House of Commons and that this says a lot about the integrity of the MPs we currently have in parliament.
It is a risk to security if police funding is allocated to reading MPs offices as this is a matter of funding that could be targeted elsewhere to more necessary services. With the current Labour government reducing the budgeting for policing across the country on a regular basis, it is rather distressing to think that one entire group was allocated to raiding Damian Green's office instead of protecting the public and "fighting crime".
One of the issues we face in Ashford Borough with local reporting is that the newspapers are predominantly Conservative and therefore generally won't allow any criticism or review of Conservative MPs, County Councillors or Borough Councillors (for example). Personally, I consider that £140,000 is quite a substantial amount for a gravy train for an MP, especially one that is rarely seen within the constituency other than at large corporate dinners that he hosts or when giving talks to elitist groups.
But I would like people to keep in mind that our current MP, Shadow Immigration Secretary for the Conservative Party, is someone who is willing to leak information through civil servants, and this demonstrates an utter lack of integrity.
In addition to this campaigners had a variety of innovative ways to remind MPs that while their memories may be short, the public's aren't.
It was rather pleasing to listen to the furore over MPs expenses taking off once again with members of the public, journalists and MPs alike across the broad range of radio stations we now have.
However, it was the desperate news article to amend Damian Green MP's debacle that caught my attention.
This is 'desperate' in the way that it attempts to conjure the image that Damian Green has done nothing wrong by leaking information because it is considered by the Enquiry that the leak was not a risk to public security. That does not prevent it from being an immoral act nor from it being wrong.
While this will not takes centre stage in the public consciousness, I personally consider it diabolical that an MP should breach confidentiality of the House of Commons and that this says a lot about the integrity of the MPs we currently have in parliament.
It is a risk to security if police funding is allocated to reading MPs offices as this is a matter of funding that could be targeted elsewhere to more necessary services. With the current Labour government reducing the budgeting for policing across the country on a regular basis, it is rather distressing to think that one entire group was allocated to raiding Damian Green's office instead of protecting the public and "fighting crime".
One of the issues we face in Ashford Borough with local reporting is that the newspapers are predominantly Conservative and therefore generally won't allow any criticism or review of Conservative MPs, County Councillors or Borough Councillors (for example). Personally, I consider that £140,000 is quite a substantial amount for a gravy train for an MP, especially one that is rarely seen within the constituency other than at large corporate dinners that he hosts or when giving talks to elitist groups.
But I would like people to keep in mind that our current MP, Shadow Immigration Secretary for the Conservative Party, is someone who is willing to leak information through civil servants, and this demonstrates an utter lack of integrity.
3 Oct 2009
Tory policy projections are as expected.
So the Tories have finally announced a policy and it is utterly elitist.
Ministers have dismissed the voluntary scheme as "flawed and hasty"
This is quite a good summary in my opinion. Having listened to discussions about on this morning's Radio Four Today Programme, the Tory MP stated that people are needed to go into immediate residential care would not qualify to donate the requisite £8,000, therefore you can only enter the scheme if you were aware you did not at this time need residential care, and if you never needed residential care you'd never be able to get the £8,000 back.
First indicator that having a strong right-centre government will savour only those who have managed to accrue vast amount of savings was their announcement on inheritance tax. Today's announcement does nothing to combat the elitist regime Cameron projects.
Living under a Tory borough council and the Tory county council I can only assume that their intention is to take £8,000 from all of the richest pensioners and then introduce a travelling warden scheme as they have done in our area.
For the 13 sheltered accommodation sites in the Ashford Borough there is only one warden on duty at any one time. Is anticipated that feasibility studies into the effectiveness of the scheme will identify the sheer range of risks this that older people under.
So in essence, the potential Tory government are announcing that they would like to take even more money from old people (considering that one in three pensioners are in poverty anyway) with a view to providing substandard, inadequate care in the event that you don't need is immediately but you potentially may need it the future.
Ministers have dismissed the voluntary scheme as "flawed and hasty"
This is quite a good summary in my opinion. Having listened to discussions about on this morning's Radio Four Today Programme, the Tory MP stated that people are needed to go into immediate residential care would not qualify to donate the requisite £8,000, therefore you can only enter the scheme if you were aware you did not at this time need residential care, and if you never needed residential care you'd never be able to get the £8,000 back.
First indicator that having a strong right-centre government will savour only those who have managed to accrue vast amount of savings was their announcement on inheritance tax. Today's announcement does nothing to combat the elitist regime Cameron projects.
Living under a Tory borough council and the Tory county council I can only assume that their intention is to take £8,000 from all of the richest pensioners and then introduce a travelling warden scheme as they have done in our area.
For the 13 sheltered accommodation sites in the Ashford Borough there is only one warden on duty at any one time. Is anticipated that feasibility studies into the effectiveness of the scheme will identify the sheer range of risks this that older people under.
So in essence, the potential Tory government are announcing that they would like to take even more money from old people (considering that one in three pensioners are in poverty anyway) with a view to providing substandard, inadequate care in the event that you don't need is immediately but you potentially may need it the future.
2 Oct 2009
Gurkhas Burial Section
The Gurkhas Burial Section
Further to the Kentish Express article on the Gurka section of the graveyard, I observed the origin of this petition has not been announced. I consider it cowardly and a subversive form of incitement of racial hatred to submit a petition to the Council without actively engaging a community in the initiative.
Many arguments have arisen over the issue within Kennington, including the fact that the Gurkhas have fought on behalf of Britain and been given leave to stay here on that basis. A motion that over 60% of the population agreed with earlier on in the year.
The assertion it “is not the way a graveyard is run” and that the sign excludes other sections of community. This fails to take into account the demarcations of Christian burials, the War memorials and vast secularised society we embrace.
It is clear that some feel it is unfair that Gurkas have their own area, therefore let us establish areas for all relgions and beliefs in graveyards and crematoriums to prevent exclusion. But people should not be actively discriminating against one paticular group and at the same time be unwilling to present the courgae of their conviction.
Further to the Kentish Express article on the Gurka section of the graveyard, I observed the origin of this petition has not been announced. I consider it cowardly and a subversive form of incitement of racial hatred to submit a petition to the Council without actively engaging a community in the initiative.
Many arguments have arisen over the issue within Kennington, including the fact that the Gurkhas have fought on behalf of Britain and been given leave to stay here on that basis. A motion that over 60% of the population agreed with earlier on in the year.
The assertion it “is not the way a graveyard is run” and that the sign excludes other sections of community. This fails to take into account the demarcations of Christian burials, the War memorials and vast secularised society we embrace.
It is clear that some feel it is unfair that Gurkas have their own area, therefore let us establish areas for all relgions and beliefs in graveyards and crematoriums to prevent exclusion. But people should not be actively discriminating against one paticular group and at the same time be unwilling to present the courgae of their conviction.
29 Sept 2009
Insert Anti Feminism Attention Grabbing Headline Here
The assertion today that mothers damage their children by working is another blow to feminism and equality in this country.
Alongside ludicrous assertions of what does and does not cause cancer, attention grabbing headlines like this continuously undermine the hard work done in the last century.
There is a significant outcry about people misinterpreting reporting on health scares. But there is far less publicity about how the media translates to gender equality accross the nation. The obvious exception is the "plus size model" and anorexia debate, but very rarely are there comments on how studies into child rearing cause and effect detrimentalise women everywhere.
I could spend a day linking statistics that highlight how few people read an actual article, yet still respond to headlines. This will influence so many more women to return to some archaic misrepresntation of cave wife status; uneducated, lonely, socially enept and preoccupied with consumerism to project image and fallibility.
More and more young women are asserting that they have no significant role models outside of popular culture and modernity. Therefore the concept that women ideally want to shop, stay at home and gossip prevails.
Girls in secondary school planning careers have an nurture idea of acheivement followed by childbirth followed by some fairy tale concept of being a stay at home mother.
One thing that changed gender equality was the union battles in 1980s. By stepping down, unions prevented a person from demanding the right to be able to support a famiy on one wage. This means, whether you agree women should or should not work, they have to work in order to manage a family. But it is the WOMEN who get the short straw, as they are the ones made to feel guilty for "abandoning" their children.
Studies into this kind of childrearing debate never discuss whether a child with a saty at home DAD is healthier. Or whether children in nurseries and young education programmes are healthier. The onus is on the woman to fulfil her projected role as a care giver and home maker.
We need to get rid of this repressive and ludicrous ideology before we erase all of the social equality evolution steps.
Alongside ludicrous assertions of what does and does not cause cancer, attention grabbing headlines like this continuously undermine the hard work done in the last century.
There is a significant outcry about people misinterpreting reporting on health scares. But there is far less publicity about how the media translates to gender equality accross the nation. The obvious exception is the "plus size model" and anorexia debate, but very rarely are there comments on how studies into child rearing cause and effect detrimentalise women everywhere.
I could spend a day linking statistics that highlight how few people read an actual article, yet still respond to headlines. This will influence so many more women to return to some archaic misrepresntation of cave wife status; uneducated, lonely, socially enept and preoccupied with consumerism to project image and fallibility.
More and more young women are asserting that they have no significant role models outside of popular culture and modernity. Therefore the concept that women ideally want to shop, stay at home and gossip prevails.
Girls in secondary school planning careers have an nurture idea of acheivement followed by childbirth followed by some fairy tale concept of being a stay at home mother.
One thing that changed gender equality was the union battles in 1980s. By stepping down, unions prevented a person from demanding the right to be able to support a famiy on one wage. This means, whether you agree women should or should not work, they have to work in order to manage a family. But it is the WOMEN who get the short straw, as they are the ones made to feel guilty for "abandoning" their children.
Studies into this kind of childrearing debate never discuss whether a child with a saty at home DAD is healthier. Or whether children in nurseries and young education programmes are healthier. The onus is on the woman to fulfil her projected role as a care giver and home maker.
We need to get rid of this repressive and ludicrous ideology before we erase all of the social equality evolution steps.
25 Sept 2009
Freedom of Speech
I cannot be the only person that is completely fed up with the BBC's politically biased reporting in every situation.
As an aside quip, in the last week during the Liberal Democrats Conference it seems that Nick Clegg has become the fox to the BBC's hounds.
While I appreciate that reporters must be tenacious, aggressive and able to question every argument, the complete disregard for any policies and proclamations that are not Labour or Tory helps sustain the two horse race that is politics in this country, and not to the good of its citizens.
Given that police officers, civil servants and the variety of other professional public service employees are prevented from having political allegiance while employed by the government, one would think that the same rules would apply to the BBC. I certainly think that they should
In fact, given that, they should also apply to the banks!
As an aside quip, in the last week during the Liberal Democrats Conference it seems that Nick Clegg has become the fox to the BBC's hounds.
While I appreciate that reporters must be tenacious, aggressive and able to question every argument, the complete disregard for any policies and proclamations that are not Labour or Tory helps sustain the two horse race that is politics in this country, and not to the good of its citizens.
Given that police officers, civil servants and the variety of other professional public service employees are prevented from having political allegiance while employed by the government, one would think that the same rules would apply to the BBC. I certainly think that they should
In fact, given that, they should also apply to the banks!
KCC and Grammar Schools
The great privelleged debate about access to education is highlighted in the this recent news article.
In paticular, the Tory strong hold has deliberated the point that
"Twenty two schools in Kent failed this year to reach the government's target of 30% of pupils reaching five GCSE A-C grades"
This is apparently one of the worst records in the country for performance levels.
However, this has revealed that the Tory-led council provide grammar schools with double the funding the comprehensives get.
The great marmite debate of grammar schools is one that is being battled all over the country. But in essence, whether you are pro or anti, it has to be recognised that if KCC are pouring money into grammars, it stands to reason that the comprehensives and secondary moderns will display poor results in comparison.
Equal or similar levels of funding would allow a greater meritocracy in the schools systems and improve academic performance in comprehensives.
In paticular, the Tory strong hold has deliberated the point that
"Twenty two schools in Kent failed this year to reach the government's target of 30% of pupils reaching five GCSE A-C grades"
This is apparently one of the worst records in the country for performance levels.
However, this has revealed that the Tory-led council provide grammar schools with double the funding the comprehensives get.
The great marmite debate of grammar schools is one that is being battled all over the country. But in essence, whether you are pro or anti, it has to be recognised that if KCC are pouring money into grammars, it stands to reason that the comprehensives and secondary moderns will display poor results in comparison.
Equal or similar levels of funding would allow a greater meritocracy in the schools systems and improve academic performance in comprehensives.
Why the Attourney General Should Resign
If you want to be a lawyer; solicitor or barrister, you cannot get affiliated if you have a civil sanction against your name. Much less a criminal record.
If you are a barrister or solicitor, you can be disbarred or struck off the register for having a civil or criminal sanction against your name.
But apparently, if you are the Attourney General, and you break the law, recklessly*, then it doesn't matter. Carry on.
After all, you are one of the "boys", the "elite"**.
*Reckless has two definitions in criminal law, but both require either the intent to commit the crime, or lack of foresight as to the damage to be caused. In this instance, it is irrelevant if she did not intend to employ an illegal immigrant, she gave no thought to the risk she might be employing an illegal immigrant, therefore was reckless, therefore is guilty.
**She will not resign for this precise point. Brown has reiterrated he does not think she needs to, therefore to go against the PM would be a travesty. Don't offend the leader of the boys.
If you are a barrister or solicitor, you can be disbarred or struck off the register for having a civil or criminal sanction against your name.
But apparently, if you are the Attourney General, and you break the law, recklessly*, then it doesn't matter. Carry on.
After all, you are one of the "boys", the "elite"**.
*Reckless has two definitions in criminal law, but both require either the intent to commit the crime, or lack of foresight as to the damage to be caused. In this instance, it is irrelevant if she did not intend to employ an illegal immigrant, she gave no thought to the risk she might be employing an illegal immigrant, therefore was reckless, therefore is guilty.
**She will not resign for this precise point. Brown has reiterrated he does not think she needs to, therefore to go against the PM would be a travesty. Don't offend the leader of the boys.
Hospitals and Sales Staff should NOT be combined
Not content with turning local governments and the police into marketing and business development, the government is now initiating sales techniques in hospitals.
"95% of your time will be actively spent on the wards ... Promoting & selling the use of bedside media entertainment TV, Phone, Internet, Radio and Games"
I am literally appauled to discover that patients, or to get the government lingo correct, clients, are being sold technolgy.
Hospitals are suffering enough with the NHS being composed of 68% administrative (read bureaucracy) staff.
One member of my ward informed me last week when he had to take his elderly mother to the William Harvey Hospital in Ashford, he was told she was not from this area and therefore they may not be able to keep her. It was actually recommended he take his mother to her own PCT in London with her broken arm to get treated.
And now while patients are recovering from surgery, injury and disease, they are being cajouled and manipulated by sales assistants?
I have tagged people to whom this may be of interest directly
"95% of your time will be actively spent on the wards ... Promoting & selling the use of bedside media entertainment TV, Phone, Internet, Radio and Games"
I am literally appauled to discover that patients, or to get the government lingo correct, clients, are being sold technolgy.
Hospitals are suffering enough with the NHS being composed of 68% administrative (read bureaucracy) staff.
One member of my ward informed me last week when he had to take his elderly mother to the William Harvey Hospital in Ashford, he was told she was not from this area and therefore they may not be able to keep her. It was actually recommended he take his mother to her own PCT in London with her broken arm to get treated.
And now while patients are recovering from surgery, injury and disease, they are being cajouled and manipulated by sales assistants?
I have tagged people to whom this may be of interest directly
Enforcing Child Protection
12/9/09
The stringent regulations on CRB checking adults raise some serious questions.
If the government are working towards a state where anyone who has contact with someone else's children, how long will it be before we have regulations on who is allowed to reproduce?
The majority of voluntary organisations I work with crb check all members of staff, and this will not change. But parents will stop allowing friends to collect their children, creating more traffic, more nanny state mollycoddling and more hyper parenting that is developing a society adults without social skils, a generation of kidults who have never catered for themselves. These are the generations that cannot manager debt, that understand the pure rules of consumerism and nothing of civilisation, that respond to emotion not rationale and live life on demand, not contentment.
Further to this, the entire ridiculous scheme is prompted by the Ian Huntley murders. However, Ian Huntly only had one conviction on his CRB, for burglary 18 years previously. If we are preventing everyone from being in touch with children who have committed an offence, espeically those that are completely separate from sexual offences, then we may as well impose life sentences on anyone who commits an offence, from drunken affray to speeding tickets, as they will never be able to partake in society where contact with anyone else is forbidden.
The stringent regulations on CRB checking adults raise some serious questions.
If the government are working towards a state where anyone who has contact with someone else's children, how long will it be before we have regulations on who is allowed to reproduce?
The majority of voluntary organisations I work with crb check all members of staff, and this will not change. But parents will stop allowing friends to collect their children, creating more traffic, more nanny state mollycoddling and more hyper parenting that is developing a society adults without social skils, a generation of kidults who have never catered for themselves. These are the generations that cannot manager debt, that understand the pure rules of consumerism and nothing of civilisation, that respond to emotion not rationale and live life on demand, not contentment.
Further to this, the entire ridiculous scheme is prompted by the Ian Huntley murders. However, Ian Huntly only had one conviction on his CRB, for burglary 18 years previously. If we are preventing everyone from being in touch with children who have committed an offence, espeically those that are completely separate from sexual offences, then we may as well impose life sentences on anyone who commits an offence, from drunken affray to speeding tickets, as they will never be able to partake in society where contact with anyone else is forbidden.
Section 18 with Intent
3/9/09
You can hardly avoid the news today with the two boys who have pleaded guilty to the lesser charge above as well as numerous other offences rather than attempted murder.
The "Jamie Bulger" case of this generation, hopefully it will provoke much needed changes to law for children and young people in the United Kingdom.
If the two boys were found or plead guilty to attempted murder, they would have carried that offence on their record for the rest of their lives. Unfortunantly, as the CPS has reduced the charge, once they reach 16 their criminal records will be wiped clean and inaccessible.
The idea in this legilsation was to allow rehabilitation and clean slate mentality to allow young offenders to reform. The reality is that the legislation is allowed to be abused, with children committing numerous serious offences, sometimes in the hundreds, then being treated as first time offenders when they are caught as late teens. The cycle perpetuates and the offenders get a less severe treatment and continue in a course of violence.
This clearly needs to be reviewed.
The case also raises serious questions about social care. One of the hot topics of the year, with numerous child abuse cases in the news, the issue of children's homes and foster care is one rarely addressed. The concept that it is better for a child to remain with his or her natural parents is the preferred approach, the result being that when they leave this and enter the LAC system, they often have pavlovian behviour that is very hard to break.
Theorectically community, LAC and foster care should be as good an environment as a a happy stable family. There is certainly the potential for it to be as good if not a better initiative than the nuclear family concept. However, there is a preconception of children in care or from a care background are "damaged" and less able and generally destined to have little ambition or social development.
This preconception needs to be challenged and the forms of care we provide need to be reformed to prevent further disenfranchised generations with mentall health disorders and low level crime to continue.
You can hardly avoid the news today with the two boys who have pleaded guilty to the lesser charge above as well as numerous other offences rather than attempted murder.
The "Jamie Bulger" case of this generation, hopefully it will provoke much needed changes to law for children and young people in the United Kingdom.
If the two boys were found or plead guilty to attempted murder, they would have carried that offence on their record for the rest of their lives. Unfortunantly, as the CPS has reduced the charge, once they reach 16 their criminal records will be wiped clean and inaccessible.
The idea in this legilsation was to allow rehabilitation and clean slate mentality to allow young offenders to reform. The reality is that the legislation is allowed to be abused, with children committing numerous serious offences, sometimes in the hundreds, then being treated as first time offenders when they are caught as late teens. The cycle perpetuates and the offenders get a less severe treatment and continue in a course of violence.
This clearly needs to be reviewed.
The case also raises serious questions about social care. One of the hot topics of the year, with numerous child abuse cases in the news, the issue of children's homes and foster care is one rarely addressed. The concept that it is better for a child to remain with his or her natural parents is the preferred approach, the result being that when they leave this and enter the LAC system, they often have pavlovian behviour that is very hard to break.
Theorectically community, LAC and foster care should be as good an environment as a a happy stable family. There is certainly the potential for it to be as good if not a better initiative than the nuclear family concept. However, there is a preconception of children in care or from a care background are "damaged" and less able and generally destined to have little ambition or social development.
This preconception needs to be challenged and the forms of care we provide need to be reformed to prevent further disenfranchised generations with mentall health disorders and low level crime to continue.
Megrahi's Release
30/8/09
The Lockerbi Bomber fiasco has been front page news for a while now.
I have generally refrained from commenting because I think the British Justice System wastes time holding foreign nationals in British Custodial Facilities when we should simply export them and ban them from reentering the country if they have committed indictable (serious) offences.
We would, after all, save circa £38,000 per year per prisoner, not to mention all the facilities they are entitled to such as relevant cultural, ethnic and religious paraphenalia (and according to prison guards at Canterbury Foreign National Prison this includes Ghetto Blasters playing reggae etc).
However, following today's revelations in The Sunday Times of letters from Jack Straw identifying plans to send Megrahi back at least two years ago for financial and fuel benefit, one has to wonder if he has even got Prostate Cancer.
Given that two days ago it was reported that he was given three months by a GP and not a specialist, the plot thickens as to the nature of his cancer and his release.
Having done one of my dissertations on healthcare in prisons in the UK six years ago, I am well aware of the atrocious nature of the health service in HMPS facilities, considered to be 80% less effective in male prisons and 150% less effective in female prisons than the NHS. WHich is staggeringly bad.
Rather like the Telegraph revelations on MP's expenses, the Lockerbi Bomber scenario appears to be a saga of staggered revelations that are damning this government further. Will the truth ever be discovered?
(And this is without getting into the debate about whether he was guilty or not!)
The Lockerbi Bomber fiasco has been front page news for a while now.
I have generally refrained from commenting because I think the British Justice System wastes time holding foreign nationals in British Custodial Facilities when we should simply export them and ban them from reentering the country if they have committed indictable (serious) offences.
We would, after all, save circa £38,000 per year per prisoner, not to mention all the facilities they are entitled to such as relevant cultural, ethnic and religious paraphenalia (and according to prison guards at Canterbury Foreign National Prison this includes Ghetto Blasters playing reggae etc).
However, following today's revelations in The Sunday Times of letters from Jack Straw identifying plans to send Megrahi back at least two years ago for financial and fuel benefit, one has to wonder if he has even got Prostate Cancer.
Given that two days ago it was reported that he was given three months by a GP and not a specialist, the plot thickens as to the nature of his cancer and his release.
Having done one of my dissertations on healthcare in prisons in the UK six years ago, I am well aware of the atrocious nature of the health service in HMPS facilities, considered to be 80% less effective in male prisons and 150% less effective in female prisons than the NHS. WHich is staggeringly bad.
Rather like the Telegraph revelations on MP's expenses, the Lockerbi Bomber scenario appears to be a saga of staggered revelations that are damning this government further. Will the truth ever be discovered?
(And this is without getting into the debate about whether he was guilty or not!)
1,000,000 Children with Criminal Convictions
27/8/09
Nick Clegg commented today that 1,000,000 children undeer the labour government have criminal convictions.
Discussion on the post range from aggressive deterence mindsets to challenge offending rates to the injustice of prosecuting children.
While we can accuse Labour of nurturing a disenfranchised generation, it is important to note that these figures MAY reflect higher policing success or a detrimental society of maladpative families.
On Asbos
50% of ASBOs given to young persons (below 25) are breached within 3 years
The majority of ASBOs issued are given to men aged between 42 and 65, generally for neighbourhood dispute (University of Kent Criminology PhD Research).
Finally getting an ASBO is not being convicted of a criminal offence It is the equivilent of a
penalty fine.
Therefore the report that 1ml children have been convicted is children that have gone thru the youth court system. Perhaps it also identifies a police force catching youth criminals. Or perhaps it represents a society that is lacking respect and conditioning, morality and civilised behaviour.
On Punishment
Conviction of child criminals results in poorer sanction which does not act as a deterent, due to the changes to the Children and Young Persons Act, following the introduction of the Youth Justice system.
Rehabilitation in Youth Institutions is one of the most productive systems for reforming social malaise in young people BUT ... Read moreLabour decided the funding wasn't worth it (although it had a 4% reoffence rate as opposed to normal youth institutions 95% reoffence rate).
Some youths are prosecuted 15 times before they face custodial sentence.
Further to this, because of afore mentioned Act, as soon as a child criminal turns 16 their record is abolished, intending to give them a clean start but IN FACT allowing them to build up further indictable offences with lower sanctions for first offences.
On the injustice of prosecuting children
The law defines a child as below the age of 10 years. These cannot be prosecuted. The two boys who stabbed Damiola Taylor had 169 offences between them.
The law IS lenient on children/youth offenders - this is why the Jamie Bulger Killers were released in 2004 and given new identities after abducting, sexually abusing and murdering a three year old. These cases and a million others identify why we need stringer sanctions against "children" and their parents.
Nick Clegg commented today that 1,000,000 children undeer the labour government have criminal convictions.
Discussion on the post range from aggressive deterence mindsets to challenge offending rates to the injustice of prosecuting children.
While we can accuse Labour of nurturing a disenfranchised generation, it is important to note that these figures MAY reflect higher policing success or a detrimental society of maladpative families.
On Asbos
50% of ASBOs given to young persons (below 25) are breached within 3 years
The majority of ASBOs issued are given to men aged between 42 and 65, generally for neighbourhood dispute (University of Kent Criminology PhD Research).
Finally getting an ASBO is not being convicted of a criminal offence It is the equivilent of a
penalty fine.
Therefore the report that 1ml children have been convicted is children that have gone thru the youth court system. Perhaps it also identifies a police force catching youth criminals. Or perhaps it represents a society that is lacking respect and conditioning, morality and civilised behaviour.
On Punishment
Conviction of child criminals results in poorer sanction which does not act as a deterent, due to the changes to the Children and Young Persons Act, following the introduction of the Youth Justice system.
Rehabilitation in Youth Institutions is one of the most productive systems for reforming social malaise in young people BUT ... Read moreLabour decided the funding wasn't worth it (although it had a 4% reoffence rate as opposed to normal youth institutions 95% reoffence rate).
Some youths are prosecuted 15 times before they face custodial sentence.
Further to this, because of afore mentioned Act, as soon as a child criminal turns 16 their record is abolished, intending to give them a clean start but IN FACT allowing them to build up further indictable offences with lower sanctions for first offences.
On the injustice of prosecuting children
The law defines a child as below the age of 10 years. These cannot be prosecuted. The two boys who stabbed Damiola Taylor had 169 offences between them.
The law IS lenient on children/youth offenders - this is why the Jamie Bulger Killers were released in 2004 and given new identities after abducting, sexually abusing and murdering a three year old. These cases and a million others identify why we need stringer sanctions against "children" and their parents.
Ronnie Biggs
I am fed up with certain comments on the subject, reiterated by Any Questions today on Radio 4.
Firstly:
Ronnie Biggs took part in a train robbery. He was the getaway driver. This does not negate his offence. The law on assisting offenders states "Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as the principle offender" He aided and abeted, knew people were being stolen from, knew people were being hurt and still continued. He is to be punished as a full participant of the act. One trapeze artist is no less important because they only catch the other, not do the flip themselves.
Secondly:
He has not served 30 years of his sentence. He escaped and spent 25 years in luxury. He has served 18 months of a life sentence. He has not payed his dues.
I will say as he is dying, it was right to release him. But not because he is dying. It is well known that medical care in the Criminal Justice System is well below the standard of the NHS. This is a human right as far as I am concerned, entitlement to medical care with no discrimination. So yes, releasing him to the care of a hospital was right in the circumstances, BUT we need better services in Prisons and the Government should use this opportunity to read the miles of research into poor quality offender care and rectify it so they are not forced by public opinion to release people serving sentences due.
Firstly:
Ronnie Biggs took part in a train robbery. He was the getaway driver. This does not negate his offence. The law on assisting offenders states "Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be tried, indicted and punished as the principle offender" He aided and abeted, knew people were being stolen from, knew people were being hurt and still continued. He is to be punished as a full participant of the act. One trapeze artist is no less important because they only catch the other, not do the flip themselves.
Secondly:
He has not served 30 years of his sentence. He escaped and spent 25 years in luxury. He has served 18 months of a life sentence. He has not payed his dues.
I will say as he is dying, it was right to release him. But not because he is dying. It is well known that medical care in the Criminal Justice System is well below the standard of the NHS. This is a human right as far as I am concerned, entitlement to medical care with no discrimination. So yes, releasing him to the care of a hospital was right in the circumstances, BUT we need better services in Prisons and the Government should use this opportunity to read the miles of research into poor quality offender care and rectify it so they are not forced by public opinion to release people serving sentences due.
30 Jun 2009
Sociopolitical Analysis
Listening to The Reith Lectures on Radio 4 at the moment, and quite impressed by Prof Michael Sandel's lateral application of phillosophy to sociopolitical matters.
He mentions re USA something I think is pertinent to democracy here. In Iraq there are more out contracted millitia and companies than there are American Troops. He states that the USA never had a debate over whether they should out-contract public services.
This is an area in UK social policy I have had much issue with in recent years. While I do not know if we out contract the army, certainly there is evidence to suggest that a government that runs it's self as a market business, as Thatcher and Blair did, has led to a severe decline in public services due to external agencies cutting costs to make the cheapest bid.
Examples include;
The Education System. In Gloucestershire the schools are run by external companies leading to a rise in NEETs and reduction in acheived qualifications.
The Care Industry. Anyone who has caught recent BBC programmes on carers will be aware of the abysmal services to those with care needs, from elderly disabled being left alone for 48 hours to undertrained and immature staff.
Public Transport; it really goes without saying that our public transport in this country is atrocious.
At what point did the British Public agree to allow cheap and shoddy services to replace the services provided by elected representatives? And how are we going to change it?
He mentions re USA something I think is pertinent to democracy here. In Iraq there are more out contracted millitia and companies than there are American Troops. He states that the USA never had a debate over whether they should out-contract public services.
This is an area in UK social policy I have had much issue with in recent years. While I do not know if we out contract the army, certainly there is evidence to suggest that a government that runs it's self as a market business, as Thatcher and Blair did, has led to a severe decline in public services due to external agencies cutting costs to make the cheapest bid.
Examples include;
The Education System. In Gloucestershire the schools are run by external companies leading to a rise in NEETs and reduction in acheived qualifications.
The Care Industry. Anyone who has caught recent BBC programmes on carers will be aware of the abysmal services to those with care needs, from elderly disabled being left alone for 48 hours to undertrained and immature staff.
Public Transport; it really goes without saying that our public transport in this country is atrocious.
At what point did the British Public agree to allow cheap and shoddy services to replace the services provided by elected representatives? And how are we going to change it?
22 Jun 2009
Protesters' depserate attempt to gain newsworthy coverage
The Telegraph ruins political careers.
The Guardian sticks to ambiguous attacks on the police
In an obvious attempt to gain readership back after the Telegraph's recent domination of the Press, the Guardian has produced a neatly spliced footage/interview sample that puts them thoroughly in the Protester's camp.
The nature of this article, while raising many valid points about police actions at protests, is one sided sensationalism. Convenient revisionism of a event no one really remembers because it was so quiet and banal within the many protests that summer.
The last comments on the video can be decided in a court if the Police breached PACE legislation. But the video as a whole only clips the necessary points to uphold the protester's arguments. We see the officers chaining the protester's ankles, but we cannot ascertain if she was being raucous and whether they had probable cause.
Do The Guardian expect the public to suddenly down tools and renege all police officers countrywide? Perhaps they were hoping to gain more coverage akin to the Ian Tomalinson video, hence they had the same voice over artist. But the Tomalinson video was just footage, clearly identifying poor execution of police powers. All I see in this one is evidence of police failing to identify themselves. And a few witness statements denouncing their behaviour with carefully selected footage.
But, lets be honest, if the Guardian hadn't published this story we would hear nothing about it. Like the Tomalinson affair, and the De Menezes and so on, the matter will be swept under the carpet and dealt with on a suitably notorious day like August 27th when no one is interested in a small police complaints review if Diana is on the front page. Credit where credit is due, but the Guardian still wins no awards for biased reporting.
The Guardian sticks to ambiguous attacks on the police
In an obvious attempt to gain readership back after the Telegraph's recent domination of the Press, the Guardian has produced a neatly spliced footage/interview sample that puts them thoroughly in the Protester's camp.
The nature of this article, while raising many valid points about police actions at protests, is one sided sensationalism. Convenient revisionism of a event no one really remembers because it was so quiet and banal within the many protests that summer.
The last comments on the video can be decided in a court if the Police breached PACE legislation. But the video as a whole only clips the necessary points to uphold the protester's arguments. We see the officers chaining the protester's ankles, but we cannot ascertain if she was being raucous and whether they had probable cause.
Do The Guardian expect the public to suddenly down tools and renege all police officers countrywide? Perhaps they were hoping to gain more coverage akin to the Ian Tomalinson video, hence they had the same voice over artist. But the Tomalinson video was just footage, clearly identifying poor execution of police powers. All I see in this one is evidence of police failing to identify themselves. And a few witness statements denouncing their behaviour with carefully selected footage.
But, lets be honest, if the Guardian hadn't published this story we would hear nothing about it. Like the Tomalinson affair, and the De Menezes and so on, the matter will be swept under the carpet and dealt with on a suitably notorious day like August 27th when no one is interested in a small police complaints review if Diana is on the front page. Credit where credit is due, but the Guardian still wins no awards for biased reporting.
18 Jun 2009
Women suffer less in recessions
This is the sort of article I loathe from a feminist perspective.
The tone is derrogotary, the implications perjorative and there is the horrendous assumption that this is a good thing.
In a recent survey by the career portal and networking site, many of the female technologists questioned commented that their strong people skills set them apart from their male counterparts.
The implication is that women are more caring, sensitive and delicate. The truth is that a company is likely to keep women on above men as they get away with paying them less.
“Women bring a different set of skills to the table; skills that are vital in challenging times such as these” says Maggie Berry, Director of womenintechnology.co.uk.
Challenging times?! As opposed to times that are less challenging that render women useless?
Do women suffer less in recessions? No, they suffer more because they accept more sacrifices without challenge. And then get pushed to the back seat again when it comes to receiving honours.
The tone is derrogotary, the implications perjorative and there is the horrendous assumption that this is a good thing.
In a recent survey by the career portal and networking site, many of the female technologists questioned commented that their strong people skills set them apart from their male counterparts.
The implication is that women are more caring, sensitive and delicate. The truth is that a company is likely to keep women on above men as they get away with paying them less.
“Women bring a different set of skills to the table; skills that are vital in challenging times such as these” says Maggie Berry, Director of womenintechnology.co.uk.
Challenging times?! As opposed to times that are less challenging that render women useless?
Do women suffer less in recessions? No, they suffer more because they accept more sacrifices without challenge. And then get pushed to the back seat again when it comes to receiving honours.
Give them an inch and they will take a mile
The recent information on racist and xenophobic attacks in Ireland has disturbed me greatly. It epitomises not only the state of secularisation without enforcement but also the lack of respect and simple morality people demonstrate.
It is even more disturbing to look deeper and discover that this is not a "one-off". A synopsis in the Irish Times identifies a catalogue of attacks that have not reached mainstream news in the UK.
Then, this morning, catching up on my feminist blogs, this caught my eye;
We can't "hate masquerade as legitimate politics through the guise of immigration "reform" just like we can't let it slip into mainstream dialogue about women's rights or the right to choose."
I am not the only one to observe the link between extreme violence in America and this behaviour in Ireland. IndyMedia refers to this;
"The house in which the Eastern Europeans lived was attacked and daubed with Swastikas and KKK symbols after the violence. Local Gardai called to the scene were attacked with missiles and forced to retreat.
We do not seem to be hosting similar media responses to the BNP and the hate crimes in this country. We should be or we are simply justifying their behaviour and subsequent actions.
It is even more disturbing to look deeper and discover that this is not a "one-off". A synopsis in the Irish Times identifies a catalogue of attacks that have not reached mainstream news in the UK.
Then, this morning, catching up on my feminist blogs, this caught my eye;
We can't "hate masquerade as legitimate politics through the guise of immigration "reform" just like we can't let it slip into mainstream dialogue about women's rights or the right to choose."
I am not the only one to observe the link between extreme violence in America and this behaviour in Ireland. IndyMedia refers to this;
"The house in which the Eastern Europeans lived was attacked and daubed with Swastikas and KKK symbols after the violence. Local Gardai called to the scene were attacked with missiles and forced to retreat.
We do not seem to be hosting similar media responses to the BNP and the hate crimes in this country. We should be or we are simply justifying their behaviour and subsequent actions.
16 Jun 2009
Didgi get ripped off Britain?
Not content with plunging the country into recession, finding every excuse to invent stealth taxes, failure to get petrol prices down or get any one jobs or anyone off benefits and allowing MPs to claim blue murder on expenses, now Brown reckons we, the struggling public, should "levy an extra 50p a month" to fund the digital era.
Any savy reader of new reforms to social policy will be aware of how important this alleged digital era is being forced into every area and box possible. The "Wellform" legislation encourages the use of pc at family learning days to stop children in underacheiving families from not catching up with their class mates. It encourages flat screen tv advertising in sink estates. Internet access in public services.
What planet is Labour on? Are they not aware of rising unemployment figures? How about rising burglary and vandalism figures?
So while we are being confused by new Employment Support Allowance processes, we must not expect the flat screen tvs to be stolen or vandalised by families trying to pay the extra 50p a month for the digital era?
The MPs expenses issue was a collection of evidence showing how out of touch politicians are with the real world. This is simply more fuel for an already unhappy public.
Any savy reader of new reforms to social policy will be aware of how important this alleged digital era is being forced into every area and box possible. The "Wellform" legislation encourages the use of pc at family learning days to stop children in underacheiving families from not catching up with their class mates. It encourages flat screen tv advertising in sink estates. Internet access in public services.
What planet is Labour on? Are they not aware of rising unemployment figures? How about rising burglary and vandalism figures?
So while we are being confused by new Employment Support Allowance processes, we must not expect the flat screen tvs to be stolen or vandalised by families trying to pay the extra 50p a month for the digital era?
The MPs expenses issue was a collection of evidence showing how out of touch politicians are with the real world. This is simply more fuel for an already unhappy public.
13 Jun 2009
The Prison Policies need Overhauling NOW
The reclassification of prisoners, a diabolical move by Labour to adjust their targets on rehabilitation, has resulted in a number of disasters from riots to those convicted of serious offences casually walking out.
Following the riots in May the management of prisons has reduced to such a degree that even the treatment of that was "political" (as in answered no questions and made no sense).
In spite of Colin Moses, of the Prison Officers' Association, stating in May;
"We have seen a rise in violence, bullying and intimidation, all because people who do not appear suitable for category C prisons are being put through too early."
the Prison Service insisted that prisoners were not "wrongly downgraded" and this is true. By new prison classifications, they are not wrongly downgraded. This stinks of 'but it was within the rules' ideals of politicians and identifies how some people cannot see the wood for the trees. Of course, Prisons Minister David Hanlon rejects claims that the downgrading is incorrect in true political style.
I can not be the only person to spot the illogical and irrational nature of this matter. Of course it is dangerous to put murderers in open prisons less than a third into their sentence. Quite simply; the reclassification of prisoners has allowed a concatenation of events that has resulted in the most recent escape of murderers on life sentences walking out of an open prison.
The latest in this series of aberrations seems to underline the need for policy review. It is situations like this that allow right wing fascist parties to steal middle class votes when people are fearful of crime and fearful that criminals are not being punished.
There is a reason crimes are broken into summary, triable-either-way and serious. The government needs to act accordingly before we descend into the anarchy that is seen in American prisons where gang violence and drug smuggling are common place. There must be a better way to categorise prisoners and rehabilitate them. Making the security more lax on serious offenders is not only irresponsible but downright dangerous.
As a final point, why did they walk out on Sunday 7 June and it was only reported today? Hazel Blear's whinging yesterday was a waste of news space in itself yesterday, but apparently far more news worthy?
Following the riots in May the management of prisons has reduced to such a degree that even the treatment of that was "political" (as in answered no questions and made no sense).
In spite of Colin Moses, of the Prison Officers' Association, stating in May;
"We have seen a rise in violence, bullying and intimidation, all because people who do not appear suitable for category C prisons are being put through too early."
the Prison Service insisted that prisoners were not "wrongly downgraded" and this is true. By new prison classifications, they are not wrongly downgraded. This stinks of 'but it was within the rules' ideals of politicians and identifies how some people cannot see the wood for the trees. Of course, Prisons Minister David Hanlon rejects claims that the downgrading is incorrect in true political style.
I can not be the only person to spot the illogical and irrational nature of this matter. Of course it is dangerous to put murderers in open prisons less than a third into their sentence. Quite simply; the reclassification of prisoners has allowed a concatenation of events that has resulted in the most recent escape of murderers on life sentences walking out of an open prison.
The latest in this series of aberrations seems to underline the need for policy review. It is situations like this that allow right wing fascist parties to steal middle class votes when people are fearful of crime and fearful that criminals are not being punished.
There is a reason crimes are broken into summary, triable-either-way and serious. The government needs to act accordingly before we descend into the anarchy that is seen in American prisons where gang violence and drug smuggling are common place. There must be a better way to categorise prisoners and rehabilitate them. Making the security more lax on serious offenders is not only irresponsible but downright dangerous.
As a final point, why did they walk out on Sunday 7 June and it was only reported today? Hazel Blear's whinging yesterday was a waste of news space in itself yesterday, but apparently far more news worthy?
7 Jun 2009
Paper Selling Politics
Having watched the media campaign on MPs expenses are like a rubbernecker at a car accident, the last five days have been like a horror film. By Rob Zombie.
We have seen unfathomable expense claims, from gold monogrammed well covers to packets of ginger nuts. A montage of quotes about "being within the rules" and the media equivalent of a social revolt.
Then, we've seen a predictable fallout within Parliament. Resignations approximately every 12 hours, interspersed with defences of the Prime Minister, public opinion and pitiful triage attempts by civil servants. we may as well have industrial metal running over the top, how about March of the Pigs by Nine Inch Nails?
Is Mandelson's e-mail debacle today is the icing on the top, a Spielberg ending or a circular reference to the earlier e-mail scandal this year with Guido Fawkes?
Or is this a cleverly executed plan by Brown himself to attempts to make politics the forefront of people's minds and not the MPs expenses?!! (of course the final analogy for this is a poorly written and ludicrously plotted Dan Brown movie).
On that note, naturally Tom Hanks should play Peter Mandelson in the film, an unconvincing Brutus planning Caesar's death.
We have seen unfathomable expense claims, from gold monogrammed well covers to packets of ginger nuts. A montage of quotes about "being within the rules" and the media equivalent of a social revolt.
Then, we've seen a predictable fallout within Parliament. Resignations approximately every 12 hours, interspersed with defences of the Prime Minister, public opinion and pitiful triage attempts by civil servants. we may as well have industrial metal running over the top, how about March of the Pigs by Nine Inch Nails?
Is Mandelson's e-mail debacle today is the icing on the top, a Spielberg ending or a circular reference to the earlier e-mail scandal this year with Guido Fawkes?
Or is this a cleverly executed plan by Brown himself to attempts to make politics the forefront of people's minds and not the MPs expenses?!! (of course the final analogy for this is a poorly written and ludicrously plotted Dan Brown movie).
On that note, naturally Tom Hanks should play Peter Mandelson in the film, an unconvincing Brutus planning Caesar's death.
Ludicrous Wastes of Money in Public Services,
This is simply unfathomable.
The government has slashed frontline officer spending. The country is crying out for more police officers. And what does the Police Authority do? Spend money on speed cameras that will not even result in prosecution.
Just another string to the bow.
The government has slashed frontline officer spending. The country is crying out for more police officers. And what does the Police Authority do? Spend money on speed cameras that will not even result in prosecution.
Just another string to the bow.
4 Jun 2009
Once Upon A Time...
There was a woman who went to be judged on her death and her sins and good deeds were equal. So she was given a choice between Heaven and Hell. She went to both for a day. Heaven was glorious, there were friends, scenary etc. When she went to Hell she was surprised to find this was also lovely. There seemed to be nothing to chose between them. In the end she chose Helll as she knew more people there. When she opened the gates she saw the worst suffering and torture imaginable. She asked, regretfully, why it was different. The devil replied, "we were recruiting then".
This is a good analogy for the BNP and UKIP.
This is a good analogy for the BNP and UKIP.
1 Jun 2009
Is there a media black out on North Korea?
I have been away at a wedding without Internet access and dubious radio coverage. The last i heard was this.
Now all I can find is rehash stories.
I would have assumed this was slightly more news worthy than Alistair Darling and the tedious and banal obsession with BGT.
Now all I can find is rehash stories.
I would have assumed this was slightly more news worthy than Alistair Darling and the tedious and banal obsession with BGT.
25 May 2009
Rebel Insurgents
We have a new kitten. You put her on the floor and she doesnt know where to start, just that EVERYTHING is her enemy and it must all be killed. As quickly, ruthlessly and quickly as possible. Rather like Danny Boyle's DV footage in 28 Days Later, she is staccato and furious.
This is my analogy of Pakistan
This is my analogy of Pakistan
Ah the great joy of speculation
Why on earth do we have a Chancellor who cannot manage his own money?
The relentless contention of the MP Expenses is wearing thin, but with each new publication of the Telegraph I do wonder what they have as the grande finale?
Blears having cheekbone implants to make her look more chipmunk like?
Cameron buying self help books on Politics for Dummies?
Brown in Psychiatric help for issues with assertiveness and inability to trust his decisions?
The relentless contention of the MP Expenses is wearing thin, but with each new publication of the Telegraph I do wonder what they have as the grande finale?
Blears having cheekbone implants to make her look more chipmunk like?
Cameron buying self help books on Politics for Dummies?
Brown in Psychiatric help for issues with assertiveness and inability to trust his decisions?
13 May 2009
In the Interests of Public Safety
In the midst of the furore of MP's Expenses, has anyone else noticed the police shootings that have occurred in the last week? (here and here)
One I can understand, but is it reasonable to have police shooting people dead within a matter of days unrelated?
It seems that shooting people dead is becoming another nasty development in Police Brutality that is apparently a "justified" response.
If duress is not a defence to murder or manslaughter, how is it a justification that you were "doing your job"?
These cases were not even as contentious as Charles de Menezes. This was not mislaid information over a terrorist. It was an old man in a retirement flat and a pissed maniac at one in the morning. Not exactly a huge threat to public safety?
"Just after 01:20 BST, armed officers fired at the man, before entering the house where they discovered the man with injuries."
Injuries he subsequently died from.
Other reports state he was firing indiscriminately. Not at police. Not at people. Not with intention.
It makes me so angry that the police are allowed to act like this without transparency. Oh yes, the IPCC will investigate and the officers involved will pen push for a while, and in the mean time other officers will shoot other civilians and we will all nod our heads and say "oh it was in the interest of public safety".
One I can understand, but is it reasonable to have police shooting people dead within a matter of days unrelated?
It seems that shooting people dead is becoming another nasty development in Police Brutality that is apparently a "justified" response.
If duress is not a defence to murder or manslaughter, how is it a justification that you were "doing your job"?
These cases were not even as contentious as Charles de Menezes. This was not mislaid information over a terrorist. It was an old man in a retirement flat and a pissed maniac at one in the morning. Not exactly a huge threat to public safety?
"Just after 01:20 BST, armed officers fired at the man, before entering the house where they discovered the man with injuries."
Injuries he subsequently died from.
Other reports state he was firing indiscriminately. Not at police. Not at people. Not with intention.
It makes me so angry that the police are allowed to act like this without transparency. Oh yes, the IPCC will investigate and the officers involved will pen push for a while, and in the mean time other officers will shoot other civilians and we will all nod our heads and say "oh it was in the interest of public safety".
10 May 2009
Abominable Lack of Suffering
MP's expenses are leaving a bitter taste in everyone's mouths this week.
Not least of all the MPs who realise how much they could have got away with claiming if they'd followed their colleague's examples.
If Brown valued his job, or, if Cameron really wanted to be elected, they would be up in public forum [NOT YouTube] apologising to the public and giving ideas of how this could be reconciled.
They would be pleading to understand the bitter betrayal of public trust at a time when more than 2 million are unemployed and the financial crisis is moss on a rolling stone.
They would be identifying the suffering off those on pensions, those in chronic debt, those with no career or job prospects, those who are living hand to mouth because of fuel price rises.
The list of people suffering financial hardship at the hands of this government AND the shadow cabinet and their lack of empathy, compassion and commitment is unexhaustable. The expenses issue is a cherry on the cake off the suffering of the British public at the hands of their MPs. And the images of an antique fireplace is the epitome of this.
I have learned two lessons in my life: first, there are no sufficient literary, psychological, or historical answers to human tragedy, only moral ones. Second, just as despair can come to one another only from other human beings, hope, too, can be given to one only by other human beings.
Elie Wiesel
Not least of all the MPs who realise how much they could have got away with claiming if they'd followed their colleague's examples.
If Brown valued his job, or, if Cameron really wanted to be elected, they would be up in public forum [NOT YouTube] apologising to the public and giving ideas of how this could be reconciled.
They would be pleading to understand the bitter betrayal of public trust at a time when more than 2 million are unemployed and the financial crisis is moss on a rolling stone.
They would be identifying the suffering off those on pensions, those in chronic debt, those with no career or job prospects, those who are living hand to mouth because of fuel price rises.
The list of people suffering financial hardship at the hands of this government AND the shadow cabinet and their lack of empathy, compassion and commitment is unexhaustable. The expenses issue is a cherry on the cake off the suffering of the British public at the hands of their MPs. And the images of an antique fireplace is the epitome of this.
I have learned two lessons in my life: first, there are no sufficient literary, psychological, or historical answers to human tragedy, only moral ones. Second, just as despair can come to one another only from other human beings, hope, too, can be given to one only by other human beings.
Elie Wiesel
9 May 2009
Before we can condone holding information of innocent people, we must review the systems
While MP expenses are stealing the headlines with "cheque book journalism", I think the leak is potentially a well positioned distraction from the concepts of DNA Databases and ID Cards.
I happen to be a supporter of DNA databases and ID Cards. But I do not advocate them in a country where the Police Service are maintained by target meeting. If we provide the police with a DNA database of every citizen, you can gurrantee that the hierarchy of the Police will feel the pressure to induce more and more use of the system in order to gain funding each year.
But a system that provides a deterrent in both evidence collection and in punishment is of practical use for a democracy.
The other conditions ought to be that DNA evidence is maintained correctly in the chain of command before being submitted, that correct PACE proceedures are met and that DNA evidence is NOT the sole evidence on which to base a prosecution case. Any more than a single witness or character evidence should be.
But the police and the CPS are without morals when faced with the options of hitting targets and getting good press or not hitting targets.
The same applies to the Local Authorities and NHS. Public services should be based on quality and fairness, not revenue and quantative data. This is one Thatcher Legacy I cannot support.
I happen to be a supporter of DNA databases and ID Cards. But I do not advocate them in a country where the Police Service are maintained by target meeting. If we provide the police with a DNA database of every citizen, you can gurrantee that the hierarchy of the Police will feel the pressure to induce more and more use of the system in order to gain funding each year.
But a system that provides a deterrent in both evidence collection and in punishment is of practical use for a democracy.
The other conditions ought to be that DNA evidence is maintained correctly in the chain of command before being submitted, that correct PACE proceedures are met and that DNA evidence is NOT the sole evidence on which to base a prosecution case. Any more than a single witness or character evidence should be.
But the police and the CPS are without morals when faced with the options of hitting targets and getting good press or not hitting targets.
The same applies to the Local Authorities and NHS. Public services should be based on quality and fairness, not revenue and quantative data. This is one Thatcher Legacy I cannot support.
8 May 2009
Football and Fanaticism
I'm not a football fan but no one could avoid this story yesterday.
What caught my attention was the number of media quotes demanding "more security" for referees. Referees should not need more security. As far as I am aware, death threats are a criminal offence and it is down to the public protection service to investigate.
We are in a recession. Recession breeds boredom, violence, and football hooliganism. For all the factors in Hillsborough, I sincerely doubt it would have occurred in a profligate period of time.
Other countries with poor economic climates provide a similar example, such as the levels of "Organised Hooliganism" seen in Poland with strong ties to Neo Nazi and fascist organisations.
Just as the middle class become more right wing in an economic downturn, so the working classes embrace aggression and fascist regime. Without wanting to digress into a sociological lateral analysis aggregating the negative impacts of a lack of money in society, I can sadly say that this will not be the last outburst in Football, nor the last BNP member to be voted in, nor the last ludicrous resolution plan to appease one person instead of maintaining risk.
I will, however, make the point that in every economic slump, governments slash public spending to within an inch of it's life. The result is a widening gap between the rich and the poor, resentment in the unemployed and welfare state and further inducement of aggression towards the welfare state. If the government had the sense to invest heavily in public spending, regulate and manage society so less people were deprived, more people were compensated during financial instability then this would temper aggression, right wing temperaments and illogical justifications for lack of development. Look at the Scandinavian States for example.
To surmise, football hooliganism is the problem, as a result of the economy. Not the levels of security Chelsea may or may not provide for their referees.
What caught my attention was the number of media quotes demanding "more security" for referees. Referees should not need more security. As far as I am aware, death threats are a criminal offence and it is down to the public protection service to investigate.
We are in a recession. Recession breeds boredom, violence, and football hooliganism. For all the factors in Hillsborough, I sincerely doubt it would have occurred in a profligate period of time.
Other countries with poor economic climates provide a similar example, such as the levels of "Organised Hooliganism" seen in Poland with strong ties to Neo Nazi and fascist organisations.
Just as the middle class become more right wing in an economic downturn, so the working classes embrace aggression and fascist regime. Without wanting to digress into a sociological lateral analysis aggregating the negative impacts of a lack of money in society, I can sadly say that this will not be the last outburst in Football, nor the last BNP member to be voted in, nor the last ludicrous resolution plan to appease one person instead of maintaining risk.
I will, however, make the point that in every economic slump, governments slash public spending to within an inch of it's life. The result is a widening gap between the rich and the poor, resentment in the unemployed and welfare state and further inducement of aggression towards the welfare state. If the government had the sense to invest heavily in public spending, regulate and manage society so less people were deprived, more people were compensated during financial instability then this would temper aggression, right wing temperaments and illogical justifications for lack of development. Look at the Scandinavian States for example.
To surmise, football hooliganism is the problem, as a result of the economy. Not the levels of security Chelsea may or may not provide for their referees.
27 Apr 2009
Causing Anguish and Distress in Pursuit of Crime
Torture, excrutiate, anguish, distress and make suffer
Without wishing to subscribe to Daily Mail syndrome, what is the world coming to?
Perhaps there is something in media violence perpetuating violence in the real world?
Or are we just seeing a paticular surge in the minority cases in the press at the moment?
Perhaps the time has come where people favour notoriety so much that murder is possible. After all, Big Brother is flagging.
Without wishing to subscribe to Daily Mail syndrome, what is the world coming to?
Perhaps there is something in media violence perpetuating violence in the real world?
Or are we just seeing a paticular surge in the minority cases in the press at the moment?
Perhaps the time has come where people favour notoriety so much that murder is possible. After all, Big Brother is flagging.
Convinient Scepticism
Imagine the Youtube Video now... a synopsis of our Prime Minister dealing with issues that matter.
Last week:
Journalist: "So, Mr Brown, what do you plan to do about the ludicrous and unpopular MP Expenses issue?"
Brown: "Uh, lets focus on the Budget"
This week:
Journalist: "So, Mr Brown, what do you plan to do about the ludicrous and unpopular MP Expenses issue?"
Brown: "Uh, Swine Flu
Tomorrow:
Journalist: "So, Mr Brown, what do you plan to do about the ludicrous and unpopular MP Expenses issue?"
Brown: "Um, Earth quake"
Last week:
Journalist: "So, Mr Brown, what do you plan to do about the ludicrous and unpopular MP Expenses issue?"
Brown: "Uh, lets focus on the Budget"
This week:
Journalist: "So, Mr Brown, what do you plan to do about the ludicrous and unpopular MP Expenses issue?"
Brown: "Uh, Swine Flu
Tomorrow:
Journalist: "So, Mr Brown, what do you plan to do about the ludicrous and unpopular MP Expenses issue?"
Brown: "Um, Earth quake"
The Ecumenical Media Pandemic
Confirmed panic.
Pestilence?
Won't do the American Economy any good, nor any other country in the global recession.
Pestilence?
Won't do the American Economy any good, nor any other country in the global recession.
18 Apr 2009
Lateral Applications of the Law (part two)
In one day we have seen a shift in common law that could bear dramatic implications on criminal law in this country.
The conviction of a paedophile without identifying the victim could negate the rights of victims.
If you can prosecute a man for rape when there is no identifiable victim, can you prosecute anyone without a victim? If two blokes have a drunken scuffle and get caught on cctv can they both be prosecuted without the other's consent for abh?
What about the implications of consent? If someone films a "rape fantasy" with his girlfriend and it is seized by police, can they prosecute him for rape?
[I know consent is a tentative issue with the new Criminal Justice Act and redefinitions of pornogrphy but this goes further]
How about if the victim comes forward? There cannot be a retrial. She can never get recompnse.
to make all crimes victimless is a frightening prospect,trial by jury requires both sides of the story, not some clever barristers and a confession.
[This is a bit left wing for me, but i believe in the maintenance of justice, and there is the potential here for justice to lose the basis of it's creation]
The conviction of a paedophile without identifying the victim could negate the rights of victims.
If you can prosecute a man for rape when there is no identifiable victim, can you prosecute anyone without a victim? If two blokes have a drunken scuffle and get caught on cctv can they both be prosecuted without the other's consent for abh?
What about the implications of consent? If someone films a "rape fantasy" with his girlfriend and it is seized by police, can they prosecute him for rape?
[I know consent is a tentative issue with the new Criminal Justice Act and redefinitions of pornogrphy but this goes further]
How about if the victim comes forward? There cannot be a retrial. She can never get recompnse.
to make all crimes victimless is a frightening prospect,trial by jury requires both sides of the story, not some clever barristers and a confession.
[This is a bit left wing for me, but i believe in the maintenance of justice, and there is the potential here for justice to lose the basis of it's creation]
Lateral Applications of the Law (part one)
Prosecution and regulation of technological advances are becoming woefullly inconsistant.
[T]he men were found guilty of providing a conduit for others to break the law, rather than breaching copyright themselves
In no other areas do we prosecute someone for providing a conduit. The most obvious correlation is with cars, a metaphor raised by a lawyer in the pirate bay case, with an interesting example of persecution as governments desperately attempt to keep control.
The idea that providing a server, or a hosting service for a website is ilegal even though you have no control over the content of the site is comparable for suing car manufacturers for making cars that can break the law. But noone is suing the car munufacturers, yet the government is insisting on further penalising motorists.
The power of the lateral application of the aw is previlant here. Will we see the judgement becoming more widely interpreted to prosecute the manufacturers of knives because someone is stabbed? Or the shops that stock the knives and provide the conduit to the public?
It's a frightening vague interpretation of law and should be reined in immediately.
[T]he men were found guilty of providing a conduit for others to break the law, rather than breaching copyright themselves
In no other areas do we prosecute someone for providing a conduit. The most obvious correlation is with cars, a metaphor raised by a lawyer in the pirate bay case, with an interesting example of persecution as governments desperately attempt to keep control.
The idea that providing a server, or a hosting service for a website is ilegal even though you have no control over the content of the site is comparable for suing car manufacturers for making cars that can break the law. But noone is suing the car munufacturers, yet the government is insisting on further penalising motorists.
The power of the lateral application of the aw is previlant here. Will we see the judgement becoming more widely interpreted to prosecute the manufacturers of knives because someone is stabbed? Or the shops that stock the knives and provide the conduit to the public?
It's a frightening vague interpretation of law and should be reined in immediately.
The American Tinder Box
The more crap I hear coming from "across the pond", the more I despair at how USA, a country far more interested in their politics than the UK, could have been so charmed into electing this man.
While "The president will have done as much as possible in the 10 months between his inauguration and Copenhagen", I wonder if any of it will actually happen?
[As an aside, if you google "Obama pledges" it reels off an inexhaustive, incomprehensive list of his statements, yet none of his pre election desires; and a whole load of media hype, eg "Obama Pledges Economic Stability"- that's as much of a feat as telekinesis. I won't hold my breath]
While "The president will have done as much as possible in the 10 months between his inauguration and Copenhagen", I wonder if any of it will actually happen?
[As an aside, if you google "Obama pledges" it reels off an inexhaustive, incomprehensive list of his statements, yet none of his pre election desires; and a whole load of media hype, eg "Obama Pledges Economic Stability"- that's as much of a feat as telekinesis. I won't hold my breath]
Battle Humour
When you see headlines in the news like "Body Parts Man was "overweight" you really have to wonder what some journalists do all day.
The story is basically a rehash of everything already known with some assumptions chucked in for good measure based on the forensics that most intelligent people potentially could have ascertained by themselves on discovery of said body parts.
Bets on for which British Crime Writer will get there first, or does Peter Robinson get first dibs because it happened in his chosen serialised county?!
The story is basically a rehash of everything already known with some assumptions chucked in for good measure based on the forensics that most intelligent people potentially could have ascertained by themselves on discovery of said body parts.
Bets on for which British Crime Writer will get there first, or does Peter Robinson get first dibs because it happened in his chosen serialised county?!
16 Apr 2009
The Nefarious Lows of what is becoming a Nazi State in the UK
The Queen may control the army by Royal Prerogative, but it seems Parliament control terrorist police squads for their own nefarious purposes.
The Damian Green fiasco, the smear scandal, the MP expenses issues, the G20 Meltdown, the Nottingham protesters arrests, these all demonstrate the diabolical lows this government have sunk to.
If Gordon Brown "took full responsibility" then he would call an election and step down.
The anti terrorist squads are no better than the Nazi SS and we should be doing something about the government that thinks it is justified to use the public services in such an autocratic manner.
The Damian Green fiasco, the smear scandal, the MP expenses issues, the G20 Meltdown, the Nottingham protesters arrests, these all demonstrate the diabolical lows this government have sunk to.
If Gordon Brown "took full responsibility" then he would call an election and step down.
The anti terrorist squads are no better than the Nazi SS and we should be doing something about the government that thinks it is justified to use the public services in such an autocratic manner.
Mourning Worthwhile Idols
It's a public loss that Sir Clement Freud passed away.
Truly someone who deserved the archaic term "magniloquent", he will be greatly missed by anyone with intellectual admiration.
Truly someone who deserved the archaic term "magniloquent", he will be greatly missed by anyone with intellectual admiration.
15 Apr 2009
Big Brother Bites Back
The G20 Meltdown has become a beacon of light in dealing with brutal police powers.
But the reporting on mainstream channels has already become subject to being dumbed down. The BBC report "alleged attacks". Even if the police are found to have acted with reasonable force, this does not negate the fact that it was an assault. It would just be a justified assault instead of a criminal assault. But there is obvious journalistic disquiet at projecting such inferences, after all, it is not like there is video evidence. Oh, wait.
While it is all very well to say "The public has a right to be able to identify any uniformed officer whilst performing their duty.", I would suspect that the woman struck round the face had other things on her mind than memorising the 4, 5 or 6 digit number on the Officer's shoulder.
As a number of radio stations have commented, the police are now fully aware they are under far more scrutiny than ever before, with the advent of photographic and internet technology. This is a delightful form of "Big Brother" style vigilance biting back, and I commend it all the way.
But the reporting on mainstream channels has already become subject to being dumbed down. The BBC report "alleged attacks". Even if the police are found to have acted with reasonable force, this does not negate the fact that it was an assault. It would just be a justified assault instead of a criminal assault. But there is obvious journalistic disquiet at projecting such inferences, after all, it is not like there is video evidence. Oh, wait.
While it is all very well to say "The public has a right to be able to identify any uniformed officer whilst performing their duty.", I would suspect that the woman struck round the face had other things on her mind than memorising the 4, 5 or 6 digit number on the Officer's shoulder.
As a number of radio stations have commented, the police are now fully aware they are under far more scrutiny than ever before, with the advent of photographic and internet technology. This is a delightful form of "Big Brother" style vigilance biting back, and I commend it all the way.
Trains and Disability
As an impaired person myself, I frequently suffer discrimination that I consider people without impairments wouldn't even consider.
The details on accessibility to trains today on You & Yours come under this category.
I have problems with my hands. Carrying, lifting and stability are paramount to me. The obvious things to effect me in public are shopping, driving, typing, etc. So what, you may ask, is affected at Train Stations?
When I first graduated I had to go to a remote station for work. I needed to take my laptop and files. But the train station had an over pass with stairs. No slopes. I developed a good relationship with the guard and he would carry my case over for me. But He was only in place from 6am to 2pm. So when I finished work I was effectively discriminated against as I could not get my case home.
Current legislation on UK trains are to allow impaired customers to prebook and therefore have accesibility needs met when arriving. I consider that this in itself is discrimination. Why should I have to be treated differently? It prevents me from spontenaity, attending meetings by public transport and makes me feel isolated in the presence of able bodied passengers.
Fascinatingly the EU does not impose legislation on this, merely advises. But if you compare, the UK is far behind services in other countries.
Not only that, but a number of charities and committees on the behalf of disability and accessibility quote statistics as high as a third of customers are failed by rail services, including being left on trains, left on empty platforms and generally not receiving the required assistance.
Take into account the highest train fares in Europe I do wonder what exactly customers are paying for, disabled or otherwise.
An aside, yes there are disability concessions IF you are the highest mobility rate but this actually means you need a 24hr carer and cannot be alone; so the likelihood of rail travel is greatly decreased.
It would be wonderful to see this changed, but the bitter truth is unless it is a pledge of a potential government, impaired persons do not have the demonstrative impact of other minority groups, let alone the energy.
The details on accessibility to trains today on You & Yours come under this category.
I have problems with my hands. Carrying, lifting and stability are paramount to me. The obvious things to effect me in public are shopping, driving, typing, etc. So what, you may ask, is affected at Train Stations?
When I first graduated I had to go to a remote station for work. I needed to take my laptop and files. But the train station had an over pass with stairs. No slopes. I developed a good relationship with the guard and he would carry my case over for me. But He was only in place from 6am to 2pm. So when I finished work I was effectively discriminated against as I could not get my case home.
Current legislation on UK trains are to allow impaired customers to prebook and therefore have accesibility needs met when arriving. I consider that this in itself is discrimination. Why should I have to be treated differently? It prevents me from spontenaity, attending meetings by public transport and makes me feel isolated in the presence of able bodied passengers.
Fascinatingly the EU does not impose legislation on this, merely advises. But if you compare, the UK is far behind services in other countries.
Not only that, but a number of charities and committees on the behalf of disability and accessibility quote statistics as high as a third of customers are failed by rail services, including being left on trains, left on empty platforms and generally not receiving the required assistance.
Take into account the highest train fares in Europe I do wonder what exactly customers are paying for, disabled or otherwise.
An aside, yes there are disability concessions IF you are the highest mobility rate but this actually means you need a 24hr carer and cannot be alone; so the likelihood of rail travel is greatly decreased.
It would be wonderful to see this changed, but the bitter truth is unless it is a pledge of a potential government, impaired persons do not have the demonstrative impact of other minority groups, let alone the energy.
Stay at Home and Stop Moaning
Home Births as Safe as Hospitals
Am I the only one to read this as hospitals have descended so far you may as well have your baby at home?!
While a study in the Netherlands may reveal interesting information about their birthing services, the abhorrent system in the UK cannot be compared, nor any conclusions drawn from this.
Interesting comparison statistics identify the issues with the UK's maternity units, and from this I would conclude it is safer to give birth in a public toilet as your child would have the same chance of survival.
While this will encourage people to take weight off the nhs, I have to question why this comes as such news worthy information. Women ha vent been going into hospital to give birth for thousands of years. Therefore it is fair to assume unless a woman has a severe problem with her child, eg breech, record of gestational diabetes etc then she should be able to give birth as confidently at home as in a hospital.
Am I the only one to read this as hospitals have descended so far you may as well have your baby at home?!
While a study in the Netherlands may reveal interesting information about their birthing services, the abhorrent system in the UK cannot be compared, nor any conclusions drawn from this.
Interesting comparison statistics identify the issues with the UK's maternity units, and from this I would conclude it is safer to give birth in a public toilet as your child would have the same chance of survival.
While this will encourage people to take weight off the nhs, I have to question why this comes as such news worthy information. Women ha vent been going into hospital to give birth for thousands of years. Therefore it is fair to assume unless a woman has a severe problem with her child, eg breech, record of gestational diabetes etc then she should be able to give birth as confidently at home as in a hospital.
14 Apr 2009
A Few Thoughts on Legislating on Alcoholism
Labour spin continues in the sidelines to the email scandal.
This current initiative, while not as detrimental to freedom as the enforced community service for adolescents, is illogical and impractical. The assertion that Labour "are going to look at the arrangements for alcoholics on benefits, just as [we] did for problem drug users, so that people get the help they need to get sober" is missing fundamental information about both drug users and alcoholics.
Measuring the "treatment" of heroin addicts is quantifiable. They go to the doctors once a week and get methadone. This replaces the heroin in their system and they are "ticked off". I they fail to collect methadone then it is assumed they are back on heroin (unless they are in work of course) and the benefits are ceased.
What exactly are the government prescribing to subsidise the addiction of alcohol?
They also fail to consider that alcohol is readily and cheaply available. All the time, thanks to the 24 hour drinking scheme initiative.
How can they tell if someone is off alcohol if there are not regular visits to a professional?
Is there even a measurable form of alcoholism? I know plenty of people who may drink every day, and plenty of people who consume so much alcohol in short periods they should be pickled.
This is without touching on the expense, bureaucracy and time investment that it will weight the NHS down with even further. Let alone valid points made by Theresa May and Steve Webb.
Looking at the story in more detail also reveals that it will be the Job centres that will refer the alcoholics for treatment. Ironically at the same time the Scotsman reports that alcoholics have the right to claim disability benefits such as Incapacity. So they wont be going to the job centre anyway will they?
Although alcoholism is cited as the main reason for claiming benefits, alcoholics getting disability benefits are also likely to have other health problems, such as mental health issues, which prevent them working.
So would being an alcoholic with mental health problems negate the removal of benefits if they refuse treatment? And which is the greater problem anyway? Will this extend to removing benefits of people with serious mental heath impairments if they refuse to attend counselling?
As an aside, the constant degradation of smokers aggravates me. I used to manage wine merchants. It always confused me that smokers were penalised more heavily than drinkers, and as staff, I would be penalised to the tune of £5000 if I sold cigs to an underage smoker. But if I sold a bottle of whisky to someone under 18 and they got in a car and killed someone I would only be fined £2000. This seems illogical. The argument, of course, is that smoking causes long term irreversible damage. Although, getting killed in a car accident is not exactly reparable!
This current initiative, while not as detrimental to freedom as the enforced community service for adolescents, is illogical and impractical. The assertion that Labour "are going to look at the arrangements for alcoholics on benefits, just as [we] did for problem drug users, so that people get the help they need to get sober" is missing fundamental information about both drug users and alcoholics.
Measuring the "treatment" of heroin addicts is quantifiable. They go to the doctors once a week and get methadone. This replaces the heroin in their system and they are "ticked off". I they fail to collect methadone then it is assumed they are back on heroin (unless they are in work of course) and the benefits are ceased.
What exactly are the government prescribing to subsidise the addiction of alcohol?
They also fail to consider that alcohol is readily and cheaply available. All the time, thanks to the 24 hour drinking scheme initiative.
How can they tell if someone is off alcohol if there are not regular visits to a professional?
Is there even a measurable form of alcoholism? I know plenty of people who may drink every day, and plenty of people who consume so much alcohol in short periods they should be pickled.
This is without touching on the expense, bureaucracy and time investment that it will weight the NHS down with even further. Let alone valid points made by Theresa May and Steve Webb.
Looking at the story in more detail also reveals that it will be the Job centres that will refer the alcoholics for treatment. Ironically at the same time the Scotsman reports that alcoholics have the right to claim disability benefits such as Incapacity. So they wont be going to the job centre anyway will they?
Although alcoholism is cited as the main reason for claiming benefits, alcoholics getting disability benefits are also likely to have other health problems, such as mental health issues, which prevent them working.
So would being an alcoholic with mental health problems negate the removal of benefits if they refuse treatment? And which is the greater problem anyway? Will this extend to removing benefits of people with serious mental heath impairments if they refuse to attend counselling?
As an aside, the constant degradation of smokers aggravates me. I used to manage wine merchants. It always confused me that smokers were penalised more heavily than drinkers, and as staff, I would be penalised to the tune of £5000 if I sold cigs to an underage smoker. But if I sold a bottle of whisky to someone under 18 and they got in a car and killed someone I would only be fined £2000. This seems illogical. The argument, of course, is that smoking causes long term irreversible damage. Although, getting killed in a car accident is not exactly reparable!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
