Objectivity of Justice in the Death of Bin Laden

Most left wing commentaries consider firstly the demonstrations of joy in America distasteful, and the killing of Obama not a delight but one form of resolution.

As Geoffrey Robinson comments in the i paper, Bin Laden should have been put on trial.

Even I, in my cynicism, listened to Obama's speech and wondered if the American version of mission accomplished was intended to be death. When he ordered the millitary make locating Bin Laden a priority, did he in fact mean the death of Bin Laden is a priority.

It is clear from Obama's speech he ordered capture or death, but this is (relatively) easy to state retrospectively.

Osama Bin Laden's death could be viewed as an appropriate ending, he started a 'war' with slaughter and it ended with slaughter.

But a trial, whcih Robertson argues would have put more nails in the coffin of Al Queda, would have been farcical at best. There is no objectivity to be had, and it would have inflamed the West and the East as the dance was played out.

Of course Osama could not be found innocent, by any judge. But by having him proclaiming fundementalist justification, he would have increased his messaniac range and sparked more support, extending the end of the decade of terror.

This is largely what happened with the trial of Saddam, and his death at the end simply provided further martyrdom.

However, I would still prefer justice in court to a video camera death, which still leaves a nasty taste in my throat as America rejoices.

--
Sent from my mobile device

How Britain is Failing Their Older People - Sheltered Housing

Resident Wardens have been removed from rented Sheltered Housing and this has left vulnerable, elderly residents to suffer serious consequences

In reading this please bear in mind that approximately 70% of the residents of rented Sheltered Housing are in receipt of Housing Benefit. The remaining 30% are what is termed “self funding”. Problems are arising in the Housing Benefit group and they have a knock on effect for all residents.

Prior to 2003, for those in receipt of Housing Benefit it also paid for the services of the Warden.

In 2002 the Government took out a Judicial Review to determine if it was legal to pay for the Warden from Housing benefit. The answer was it was not. In response the Government split the housing benefit for residents, one portion still paid in Housing Benefit for what is termed “bricks and mortar” . The other portion was called “support services”. This latter portion was re-located into the Supporting People budgets

There are approximately 149 Supporting People commissioners across the country and they are usually located with local government. Inter alia, their remit includes drug addicts and people with learning difficulties. The services provided by Supporting People are needs based, aimed at a specific problem which, when solved, they moves on. This brings Supporting People Commissioners into conflict with Sheltered Housing which is a tenure based support service and is for the life of the tenant.

Rather than amending the Supporting People needs based remit, to accommodate Sheltered Housing, the alternative solution of attempting to engineer Sheltered Housing resident needs to fall into line with Supporting People has become the only option.

Initially Sheltered Housing was ring fenced within the Supporting People budget, but this ceased in 2010 and Sheltered Housing became a part of the annual bidding wars for funds within specific local authorities.

There is a possibility that Housing Providers can opt out of supplying a Warden a service altogether. In the event Supporting People can provide what is termed 'Floating Support'.

This is not an alternative Warden service but is a community wide service. Many residents do not qualify according to the qualifying criterion set by Supporting People and receive no visits at all. In most cases Floating Support is provided on the basis of , usually, a visit once a week, once every two weeks, or once a month. As mentioned before it is only needs based and it is not envisaged that this type of support would be for a period of more than two years.

The contract to furnish Floating Support does not necessarily belong to the providers of Sheltered Housing, it can now be contracted outside of ownership.

Trickery is being used in asking residents to fill in a Support Plan, without discussing the full implications, and this is later used to reduce Supporting People reimbursements to Housing Providers.

Sheltered Housing UK say that residents made their own Support Plan, which consisted of the service on offer to them when they opted to live in Sheltered Housing, and this support is a part of their contract.

Usually Floating Support is managed on a staff rota system, thus its operatives never get to know the people they are dealing with. In Kent, we have heard of one such operative who had one hundred visits per day. Locally they call it the knock and run service.

People who moved into Sheltered Housing, and, according to our statistics many have sold up or given up their own home because they expected the security of a Warden, have virtually been stabbed in the back and they are not normally of sufficient wealth, or health to reverse their choice now.

The providers of Sheltered Housing who, hitherto, gleaned Housing Benefit for the provision of Wardens from the 70% of their residents who received it, have suffered a loss of income. Their response has been to remove or curtail their Warden service, against the wishes of a majority of their residents.

Section 105 of the Housing Act, 1985 calls upon social landlords to hold consultations with their residents before they make changes to the management of the properties they live in. Many Housing Providers did not consult at all, going ahead and removed, or changed Warden duties to suit their profit expectations.

Consultations, on face value many take to mean that some kind of democratic process has, or is to take place, and they are wrong. Consultations cannot be legally enforced, and there is suspicion that some Housing Providers have held them to satisfy the Housing Act, as above, but have absolutely no intention of acceding to any residents views, unless they coincide exactly with the plan they have in mind.

There have been many Parliamentary Questions put by MPs in the past and; to each the Government field the same answer:- The Government cannot control local government and it is up to Local Government Supporting People, and the complainant must approach them.

This is a slight of hand, a fork of tongue, and buck passing. It was the previous Government, but compounded by the present coalition, which produced this legislation and neither of them carried out any impact assessment when they passed the support element of Sheltered Housing over to local area Supporting People, nor did they exercise a common duty of care.

Moreover, Supporting People is funded from central taxation, so it follows that Central Government, have every right to determine how that money is spent, indeed they have a duty to see how it is spent.

In the past, three of these cases have been taken to a Judicial Review, Eastbourne, Barnet, Portsmouth, and each was found against the Housing Provider. Judicial Reviews per se are investigations into the procedural processes which took place, and where these processes are found to be legally incorrect, the Judge can order that they be put right by going back to the beginning. Which was done, but that does not prevent the adjudged against from getting the procedures right and returning to their previous intention.


How the battle is being waged

The Sheltered Housing UK Association was formed at the end of 2008 when it was realised that individual Sheltered Homes throughout the UK were isolated and were being picked off one by one. The objective was to unite them so that they could be informed and form a counter pressure group to the political events which were affecting them.


At the moment we have 43, cross party, Members of Parliament who support us. Both Geoffrey Cox QC, MP, and Margot James, MP, at different times, have obtained Adjournment Debates in the House of Commons on the subject of Wardens in Sheltered Housing.

Last year we presented a 15,188 signature to No 10 Downing Street, calling upon the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown to save Wardens in Sheltered Housing. The number of signatures we obtained were only limited by the number of people fit enough to undertake the task for collecting them. In some places people actually queued to sign the petition. There have been two other demonstrations outside of Parliament and No 10 Downing Street.

We have had letters in The Times Newspaper and articles in The Observer, Independent, Times On Saturday and The Sunday Express; and we are supported by the, targeted at the elderly, magazines 'Yours', and 'The Mature Times'.

We carried out a national survey of residents needs and requirements in Sheltered Housing.

97% said they only moved into Sheltered Housing because of the anticipated Warden service.

91% said they would never have moved in at all if they had known that they would take the Warden away after they had moved in. Most had given up larger than needs housing, sold or rented, to move into Sheltered Housing.

Our Vice Chairman, as a constituent, of David Cameron, sought a face-to-face meeting with the Prime Minister in October 2010, and the 118 stalled Court cases was discussed, at which the Prime Minister seemed concerned. On other matters he agreed to speak with the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities , Eric Pickles MP and, or, Grant Shapps MP, the Minister for Housing on a possible meeting.

This meeting did not occur, and eventually a letter from Grant Schapps to the Prime Minister was copied to our Vice Chairman saying that Sheltered Housing was traditionally funded through Supporting People.

So apparently the Housing Minister was unaware that Sheltered Housing had been traditionally funded through Housing Benefit but more recently levered into the Supporting People budgets. Thus, demonstrated that not only the Housing Minister short on facts, but the Prime Minister has been misled too ! Since then our Vice Chairman has twiced E-mailed David Cameron in connection with his letter, but has not been dignfied with a response.

Cause and Effect

Many said that, where the Warden had been removed, the activities in their Sheltered Housing complex virtually ceased and the residents had become insular.

Deaths may occur in Sheltered Housing at any time, and in any given circumstances.

But, notably a few have occurred where, had there have been an alert site-specific Warden, who is aware of residents habits and normal demeanour, they could have been prevented.

There is no telling how long some of those people remained alive on the floor of their flat before they died alone. In one of the most recent of cases a trail of maggots led to the body being found.

The longest that we heard of a resident on the floor, yet did survive, was four days. How does the Health and Safety Executive stand on this? Clearly if a service is reduced and death comes as a result, then the Health and Safety Executive should be involved.

Along the way we came across solicitor Yvonne Hossack, whom we invited to take on the cases which were presented to us. It is she who brought and won the first three Judicial Reviews.

From the end of 2008, through 2009, we gathered cases where residents wished to bring their housing provider to Court for removing their Warden against their wishes and passed them on to Hossacks. By early 2010 these numbered c.118 cases and this has since grown to c.150 cases from across the country. The sheer magnitude of dissatisfaction is staggering. The c.118 cases were presented to Legal Aid system in early 2010 and were now for 'breach of contract', rather than Judicial Reviews

The distribution of Legal Aid, Family section, is made geographically and a minor fault had been made in submitting the applications by Hossacks, rsulting in the applications being all made out as if they pertained to the Wiltshire budget.

An easy and correctable mistake. A terse letter from the Legal Services Commission, in about late September, noted this and responded that all the cases had been rejected save the one for Wiltshire. In other words there was just one word wrong in the remaining 117 Applications. Their letter continued 'There is no appeal against this decision'.

We found the assumptive divine right implied in this latter wording is unbelievable.

The Legal Services Commission are a public body and they have no powers whatsoever to state that the public cannot appeal against their decisions. They are paid by the taxpayer, and likewise accountable to the tax payer.

The Sheltered Housing UK consequently embarked on a petition to them noting, within it, that residents were aware that murderers, foreign terrorists, prisoners and villains were all entitled and apparently received Legal Aid, even for the right to be called 'Mr' in prison. Yet, these 2000 residents and 117 cases had been rejected, and for the flimsiest of reasons. We pointed out that they, the LSC, had the telephone, fax and the internet to seek corrections to the Applications, and a bottle of Tippex did not cost a lot. A little applied common sense costs nothing at all !

Under the Freedom of Information Act I asked the LSC how many other solicitors applications had they rejected on the basis of a word wrong in the document and with the added words there is no appeal against this decision. I asked them for their response to the petition as well. Their reply was that the petition letters they had received from residents across the country would make no difference to their decision and they declined to answer the other FOI questions on the basis that they were sub-judice and could harm their commercial operations to reveal them.

Commercial operations ? They are a public body, any operations they indulge in are de facto 'public operations'.

--

This briefing is provided by Sheltered Housing UK Association, Registered Charity Number 1137806

In short, we are failing our older people.

More than 500,000 people in the UK reside in Sheltered Housing.

In 2012, there will be more people aged 50 or above than under. These people may need the temporary and reassuring care of a warden, a cost saving measure in comparison to individual care budgets, and shown by studies to reduce the need for and subsequent time spent in a Care Home.

People who move in to Sheltered Housing often come from Council Housing, thereby freeing up two, three and four bedroom houses for the 2 year + waiting lists of families needing somewhere to live.

People who move into Sheltered Housing are less isolated than those who live alone or in changing neighbourhoods. Their mental health, their well being, and their capabilities increase with the reassuring presence of a warden in Shelteres Housing.

But Older People are not demonstrators. They cannot invade Conservative Headquarters and throw fire extinguishers to make their points. They have health problems to worry about.

And yet our country is denying them resident wardens on a technicality.

And as a result, those approaching old age are refusing sheltered housing due to the lack of wardens, which is costing the government more in Supporting People grants, in wasting properties that could house families and in shifting costs to other agencies.

When a fire alarm goes off in a Sheltered Unit now, instead of the Warden recognising it is Mrs Smith burning her toast, the fire engine has to come out.

If Mr Brown takes a fall, he has to call an ambulance. If he can get to the phone of course.

We need more support to help support these people and stop treating our Older People as if they are invisible.

Sheltered Housing UK is seeking donations to help fund cases, seeking people to help collect FOI requests from their local authorities and to help us continue to reach out to people in Sheltered Housing.

Protecting the Stakeholders of the Sex Industry

I have a significant issue with the way women are represented in mainstream media as sexualised objects. Not only does it condone the sex industry, significantly harm gender relations and provide poor role models for young girls, but is also increases the risk of dehumanising women and increases the risk of sexual crimes and violence against women.

A number of Feminist not-for-profit organisations have conducted reviews into the objectification of women as sex objects which identify rising levels of pornographic poses, vacant expressions and harmful messages to society. In turn this also provides “hypermasculine” role models for men and advocates strong gender divide relationships which damaged society as a whole.

There is a significant rise in aspirations among young girls and young teams to be Glamour models with media stars endorsing sexualisation of women by posing in “lads mags” or simply being Jordan.

The presentation of the One Dimensional Woman has a cascade effect to younger generations, As OBJECT identifies with WH Smith selling pink Playboy pencil cases and Amazon sell pole dancing kits with paper money as toys. Alongside more negative gender stereotypes such as the Domestic Goddess and few female role models in Parliament and big business, Society is effectively rolling back decades in gender equality.

There is a significant separation between content and advertising and it is the portrayal of the content of advertising that is the issue. Advertising will continue to increase all the time there is a demand and nobody steps up to say the representation of women in this respect is wrong.

OBJECT runs a Feminists Friday campaign to promote the covering up of “lads mags” with anti-sexist slogans. The more attention that can be created through this, the more likely it is that the presentation of women as sexual objects in mainstream media will stop.

However, there is still a requirement for a socially responsible media in relation to the sexualisation of women. I would encourage you to lobby your Councillors, lobby your MP and lobby the national government to prevent further damage to gender relations.

The Sex Industry

The discreet patriarchal argument that working in the sex industry is the “choice” and the misrepresentation of careers from the globally successful Belle De Jour and Playboy Simply allow corroboration with the idea of “choice” and further degrade and dehumanise women. If you attempt to argue against it you are generally questioned as to whether you work in the sex industry and if not then your argument is not valid.

However, an independent study conducted by OBJECT reports that 75% of women working in the sex industry were drawn into it as children and the other Life events have a significant impact on on the so-called choice of sex industry workers.

There is a growing rise in violence against women at work in the sex industry where it is implicit that the right to buy sex also allows the right to perpetrate sexual crime.

And while the studies reported are not peer-reviewed, they identify serious concerns with the promotion of women sexualised objects within society.

The Netherlands provides what they call a failed legislative experiment whereby legislating on the sex industry has failed to ensure safety and actually promoted higher levels of sexual crime of violence towards women. It ultimately provides a market where the desire for the market grows with legitimisation and therefore the trafficking and abuse of women who work in this industry increases.

The issues in the sex industry are not limited to sexual crimes, but there are also issues around trafficking.

In order to prevent trafficking in the UK section 14 of the Police and Crime Act 2009 states that men who purchase sexual services where they are aware that the woman is traffic are liable to be charged. This is a strict liability offence. However, since the implementation of the section in April 2010 only three men have received cautions for such a crime. Men have telephoned crime reporting lines to report within being trafficked, but when questioned, in the majority of instances they have already slept with a woman who was trafficked and are simply reporting it as a consciousness issue afterwards. This further legitimises the market of trafficking in the work of women in the sex industry.

Local authorities are currently taking the lead and challenging qualification in their area. OBJECT is running a campaign to ensure that people can lobby their local councils to license sex industry venues appropriately, i.e. by going through a magistrates court to ensure the welfare of women and the crease the risks of harm, trafficking and destruction to gender balance relationships.

However, this essentially absolves central government of any responsibility to preventing a growing mainstream media concept of sexualisation of women.

It is up to people to act and stop the objectification of women in the media, in the sex industry and in society as a whole to prevent the cascading damage to young people.

Part Time MPs and Gender Equality

Much discussion has been had recently within the party about the potential for part time MPs to allow women between 30 and 50 to enter the proffession while raising children.

For more information see Lib Dem Voice's view on "Make politics fit women’s lives, not vice-versa".

However, while I applaud this debate happening, I have always felt that the issues with gender stereotypes are addressed reactively.

This therefore provides me with the perfect opportunity to undertake an entire discursive on gender stereotyping from birth to the grave.

Gender inequality may be entrenched but even this word does not synopsify the extent to which it infiltrates all areas of life. While parents may raise children to respect gender equality, the issues of femininity and masculinity are thrust upon children from the moment they can interact. Pink clothes and teddies verus blue teddies and dolls. Schools project the concepts of marriage and child-rearing, (and there is a different interwoven discursive here on relgion and class issues), children are stereotyped by the media that targets them and this embraced at large. Common issues are the merchandise aimed at children, from Barbies and Power Rangers to magazines and tv shows.

In order to unify a concept of gender equality all areas need to be tackled. Not just the concepts of the employment sector, but schooling, media, education at large, television etc. This will in turn take a generation (10 years) to filter through and if continued derrogative images of feminism (being shaved headed, braless lesbians, for example) are allowed to continue then the same negativity will prevail.

I also feel that the issue of "science" and media projected scientific fact ought to be regulated. We have reached a point in society where the word "hormonal" has become synonymous with "Hysterical" (overlaying from Freud's degredation of women) and as the media continues to publish ill founded reserach into the stereotypes of women, childrearing and breast feeding too, the idea of "Superwoman" (as "having it all" translates into, meaning woman are expected to have children, jobs and housework) will continue to pertain. For example the recent European studies on childcare stated that children benefit from staying at home until 3 years of age with their mother than going to a communal unit. This study failed to address single care givers such as fathers or nannies or au pairs, or the result may have been differently presented.

There are significant issues with gender inequality in employment. The reason that the paid divide maintains a wide gap is due to poor regulation of contracts of employment law. In a great deal of employment situations people with unequal wages have contracts stipulating they will be fired if they discuss their salaries with other employees. There should be greater regulation on this through the Tribunals to ensure wage discrimination can be addressed sensibly.

There is also a great deal of poor management which allows empoyees to blame part time and flexi workers. In a recent radio discussion on Radio 5 Live members of the public complained they had to "pick up slack" off of part time female employees. This is a management and regulation issue. While companies are encouraged to allow flexible working to encourage more women in the work place, they are not adotping a sensible approach to job shares and responsibilities. This is in turn caising resentment in those who work full time, and this is not just limited to men, but women without children too. this is clearly a result of European directives on equal opportunity in employment and gender discrimination being implemented too fast and without regulation in this country. This needs to be reviewed in depth and more care needs to be taken when implementing similar strategies in the future.

When looking at money, there is still the presumption of a single person dependent nuclear family, which are only in not viable in the current economic state, but also seeks to maintain the woman is the primary care giver and the man as the primary wage earner.

There are significant issues relating to legal status and women attempting to exit relationships. Not only charities such as the Citizens Advice Bureau not well marketed nor well identifiable as leaders in the advice in this area, but also there appears to be a lack of education at school level with regard to managing finances when exiting relationships. Considering the amount of media discussion on relationships in themselves, it's very strange that there are not more articles and motivation for this area.

In a patriarchal society, as unfortunately we still are, the idea that a man supports the woman and the ideal position for a woman is to be a wife who lunches prevails. Combined with sitcoms such as Sex in the City, the idea of feminist independence has become skewered and seems to be interpreted as being a WAG. an obvious discursive here is the female roles within the celebrity society are not particularly admirable nor provide good structures for women to aspire to.

There needs to be a reasonably thorough education policy implemented, not only to existing adults, but also to parents and children within schools identifying the positives in female independence, reversing the "Bridget Jones syndrome", identifying how to manage finances and reasonable aspirations in this area. it appears that fundamental to this idea is the concept that a woman cannot exist without a man, all exist outside of the partnership. There would, of course, the negative implications with regard to the welfare state. With the implementation of the new Well form Act, it is expected that there will be a baby boom as women who wish to remain on benefits continue to have children to ensure that they have a child under the age of seven is that they do not have to actively seek work. Therefore, along with the education policy on the ideas of monetary financing, independence and strong role models, the idea of supporting yourself should also be pushed to the overwhelming majority of schoolchildren to create a more stable society in the future.

As a final point, the concept of a civil partnership only being available to single sex/homosexual couples is abominable where we have legislation protecting people from discrimination. This is a form of discrimination in itself. If you combine this with the concept that there is legislation in place to protect us from religious discrimination, it is almost a parody that the only legitimate contract for a man and woman has bases under religious order! From my own perspective, I feel that civil partnerships ought to be available to heterosexual couples as well, but the civil partnership should also have the same recognizable rights as those in marriage, which is currently not true. Perhaps a more sensible way to go and would be to establish, as in America, prenuptial agreement style contracts between people that move in together. Currently assets are protected if you can prove ownership, deposits etc, but this is still a woefully weak area of law. rather than establishing prenuptial agreements in marriage, which under British law is completely futile, perhaps the system of contractual agreements the people cohabiting would allow people to feel more secure and at the same time benefit people when exiting relationships. Common areas of complaint included where one partner has the credit card and one partner has a car loan and when they separate the debts are not equally assigned. Rather than this being promoted as another way for lawyers to make money, there should be an acceptable pro forma pack, not unlike a tenancy contract or similar,but not complicated as the housing pack is locked by the current government. This would be completely enforceable within a fast track claims for financial recuperation. It will also protect rights with regards to when apartment becomes terminally ill, a partner dies, separation, children, assets, debts and future commitments.

Ultimately I feel very strongly about the gender equality in society in the UK.

A Superb Show That We will Reap Little Benefit from

In spite of what was considered on Twitter, The Guardian and Channel 4 opinion polls as a resounding success for Vince Cable, the BBC has seized control of the agenda once again by almost completely ignoring the Liberal Democrats.

I am watching Newsnight at the moment, and the generally stated that there are only a few occasions during the Ask The Chancellors Debate that the audience came to life, and showed the only clip where the audience came to life over something that Alistair Darling said as opposed to the other four times the audience burst into rounds of applause when Vince Cable spoke.

They are now showing clips of the bickering between Darling and Osborne.

Finally 10 minutes in, the BBC stated that Cable gained the most audience popularity.

An Analysis of the Transcribe

Cable's opening statement was a clear win for the Liberal Democrats, as he correctly identified the Liberal Democrats warned about the financial collapse and introduced the larger audience to the Liberal Democrats plan to increase the basic tax rate to £10,000.

The first question made me think that Cilla Black was about to emerge from behind a screen and start shrilly proclaiming to the audience what a wonderful evening tonight would be.

"What personal qualities do you have that would make you a better chancellor than your counterparts?"

Again Cable came out as the dominating force, identifying that he'd predicted the economic crash and illustrating how his policies have been embraced by the government to try and improve things.

In sharp comparison, Osborne could not provide any practical examples. From a Human Resources point of view, he immediately had lost points on the "interview". As one canny tweeter observed, "His only experience is managing his family Trust Fund".

Question two is a straightforward "what needs to be cut".

As per the dominating headlines, Darling talks about cutting the debt while Osborne informs us that he's told us what they going to come (even though they haven't). Again, in sharp comparison, Vince Cable is able to identify £50 million worth cuts including Triton and ID cards.

The show begins to get going here, with a little of the bickering going on between Darling and Osborne, then Cable interjects with a cutting remark that the Tory cuts announced today are entirely fictional.

Questioned three is with regards to the NHS, which many activists will know is the number one topic when campaigning.

Osborne immediately launches into a political farce of not answering the question, instead buffering himself with "David Cameron's pledge" to protect the NHS.

Darling then seems to follow Osborne's cue, failing to answer the question and stating that the Labour Party have also pledged to protect NHS funding.

Cable then makes them both appear to be completely amateur, stating "it would be "totally irresponsible" for any of them to give cast-iron guarantees about the NHS".

Public sector pensions, a bit of a "Daily Fail" topic, forms the fourth question.

The Tory proposal of a £50,000 a year pension the senior public sector employees is hilarious when you consider the pension and "golden handshake" payoffs given to members of parliament not to mention peerages!

Darling commits an equivalent faux pas by, as Osborne points out, discussing the future as though his party had not held office for 13 years.

As the two major parties descend into secondary school bickering, Cable makes sensible remarks, commenting on the need to reform, the scandalous current situation and the need for cross-party consensus.

Discussing projected rises on income tax and national insurance, the petty bickering continues while Cable states the Lib Dems would cut income tax for many people.

Question six seemed so cleverly interwoven, that one cannot imagine that these questions were selected at random, and targets the the risks of people leaving the country if taxes change.

While the Tory and Labour parties quote their usual rhetoric, Cable received a round of applause for stating;

"Britain is being "held to ransom" by bankers threatenign to flee to Switzerland. In the 1970s Britain was held to ransom by Arthur Scargill. Now we have got these "pin-striped Scargills"."

Leading smoothly into question seven about bankers' bonuses, Cable states that the Liberal Democrats had always supported a bank tax, where is the two other parties had originally ruled this out. Why?

The final question, about students being unable to find jobs and buy houses turned into a fairly heated debate between Osborne and Darling and there is no opportunity for Cable to identify so many of the key policies that the Liberal Democrats hold in this field.

The Tragic Overreaching Conclusions

I know that I'm going to be slightly biased towards Vince Cable, I openly admit to being a liberal. But I cannot comprehend how anyone could watch the same programme that I watched and see anything good in what George Osborne presented, and although Alistair Darling projected a fairly comprehensive argument, it seemed very evident that Vince Cable was the overall winner.

And yet as I type this (or, yes, dictate this, if you want to be picky), there is a furore on Twitter about Michael Crick MP fervently insisting that George Osborne was a clear-cut winner within the Ask The Chancellors Debate.

And all of a sudden all of those united liberal dreams of the Party Leader Debates to come in May doing the Liberal Democrat party fantastic good, come crashing down around my ears.

The ultimate cause of all this appears to be the media. With the BBC Radio 4 Today Program establishing an agenda from which the majority of political software tools draw from on a daily basis and Newsnight deliberating whatever it chooses to hear, the battle to get the Liberal Democrat voice heard in the public domain seems a futile.

But on a positive note, we can continue to do what we do best. Which is making the most of volunteers and loyal supporters, continuously spreading the word on the anyways we can find, from leaflet drops to tweeting and blogging, and hope that one day message gets through.

Government Made off?

Listening to the Today programme this morning and the story in The Independent on the public sector pension deficit came up.

A synopsis is that pension funds within the civil service are "unfunded". Rather than putting pension contributions in an account or investement, they are spent. When the person(s) come to retire, the pension is payed direct from the tax payers' money.

In the business sector, this would be called a Ponzi Scheme.

Yet another inconsistancy between the real world and what the government does.

"Fraud is the ready minister of injustice"
Edmund Burke

Tyranny and Terrorism for Iceland

When the television and news revealed that the public of Iceland would be given a referendum to decide whether Britain would be repaid the money, I took the outcome of that decision as a foregone conclusion.

And surprise, surprise the people said no.

But their assets are still frozen by UK Anti terrorism Laws.

It appears that our country has decided that simply invading countries and enforcing "democracy" with all the zeal of the Roman slaughters BC is a waste of money.

Our government would rather draft all encompassing, detrimental legislation and use it to control from a far.

In the flux of a global financial crisis, the economy of Iceland is in serious trouble, with contractions around 7.7 percent last year and is expected to shrink again in 2010.

Due to the "Mareva Injunction" intended to prevent people from losing the cash when they have a claim lodged against them, seems a little ludicrously applied here.

One can only imagine Lord Denning's opinion from beyond the grave, at the abject use of his renegade common law to keep a country in a recession.

Iceland is a country of just 320,000 people hoping to join the European Union, but with a shattered economy, the injunction can only further damage their livelihoods and prolong their financial difficulties. Further details are identified by the Financial Times.

There is something rather amoral about using any legislation to control an entire country's economy when our own government is not going to be taking the debts incurred by our own banks back.

And it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth when it is anti-terror legislation.

As that great resource Wikipedia states "the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.

Wikipedia goes on to say;

"As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore""

Yet it seems the only thing terrorist about the legislation used to freeze Icelandic accounts is the country implementing that legislation.

A Hollistic Approach to Bullying?

I feel this is becoming a Catch 22.

The arresting information about National Bullying Helpline and alleged bullying offences is raising many interesting facts, none of which are about bullying or Number 10.

There is a growing trend of boredom amoung the public about political issues. With the Tories releasing a policy a day and Labour following up with appropriate adjectives such as "lambasting", and the Liberal Democrats getting fewer minutes of press coverage than usual, I am not surprised.

Data Protection

Max Clifford's decision to defend Ms Pratt amid allegations of corrupt Tory pay offs is suicide for her company and her charity.

While she may be willing to locate the emails detailing the information she was given, to do so would further contravene
Data Protection legislation.

The lateral implications for charities managing helplines are very concerning. I would be interested to see statistics in calling trends, as I would anticipate they will fall in the next week. Not only for bullying, but domestic violence, rape, child abuse et al.

This could be far more damaging to society if people think their data protection will be negotiable in public interest.

This is turn could lead to more crimes and social damage if people cannot trust the help lines therefore do not seek advice.

A corrupt help line would have as much effect as no helpline at all.

Third Sector Partnerships

There are also severe implications arising from Ms Pratt's consultancy business.

The assertion that her business,HR Diversity and Management which is refered clients from the National Bullying Helpline is an arrangement that is accepted by The Law Society is one that rings alarm bells in modern "it was within the rules" petulism.

A fantastic blog entry details the truth of the liaison between The National Bullying Helpline and HR and Diversity.

"the fairest way to have your grievance dealt with is for HR & Diversity Management to conduct an independent investigation"

I would certainly be calling for an inquiry into the management of the Charity if I were a politician.

Establishing Assited Suicide Arguments

I have listened to the discussions on assisted suicide on the radio today in earnest.

When the discussions began many years ago, I think I would have immediately answered that Assisted Suicide should be at the very least decriminalised.

However, the recent court cases have made me think about the proposals in a more detailed way.

Panorama this evening is covering the case of Bridget Gilderdale and the judgement clearing her of attempted murder of her daughter Lynn after Lynn asked her to help her commit suicide as Lynn no longer wished to live with ME.

With the high profile discussion by author Terry Prachet on Radio 4's Today Programme on legislating on Assisted Suicide, the usual floodgates of discussion have opened once again.

However, the soundbite the BBC have announced on their news programme has been publicised as a proposal on legislating for Assisted Suicide for those with incurable diseases.

And my immediate response is there is a significant difference between "incurable" and "terminal".

Diabetes is an incurable disease. Ecsma is an incurable condition. But I consider someone's inability to live with such conditions indicative of failings in our health service, not a reason to commit suicide.

To suffer from a terminal disease means you will eventually succumb to the disease within a period of time. This could be Multiple Sclerosis, aggressive cancer or another debilitating illness.

The ultimate issue here is that a terminal disease has a term or length. An incurable disease can be maintained, managed, and will not result in death in spite of medical attention.

As the House of Lords have stated, the potential danger of opening up legislation to allow Assisted Suicide will result in abuse of the system. The current recommendations are to observe the level of public interest in prosecuting those who assist suicide.

When you start examining cases of mental health, the situation becomes even more contentious. Once the issue of depression or related disorders enter the mainframe, it is impossible to determine whether the patient with an "incurable" disease is acting as a result of the suffering from the pain or through the suffering of the depression.

Principally, ME sufferers generally suffer from depression. Therefore, to assist them in Suicide may be infact to assist in a mental health suicide and have little or nothing to do with ME.

This creates such a moral dilemma, I feel I must disagree with legislating on Assisted Suicide.

I cannot justify suicide for sufferers from mental health, especially as studies indicate the correct amount of psychological and medicine therapies can help the condition become manageable.

I am quite open to discussion on this, feel free to convince me otherwise. I think the current guidelines are satisfactory as they review public interest in prosecution, something we use far too little in the UK. But that's another discursive.

A few views on Frig's Day 2010

Hell Boys

I have run one or two diatribes on the "hell boys" so far so I need not impress my opinion on the illogical systems of criminal culpability and social care in this country any more. I will, however, say that no man is without merit, and if I had any faith in our British Psychology, Rehabilitiation or Young Offenders Institutes, I may be more forth coming about their ages.

But, in the true political prevaricating way, can I just say that Ed Balls on Radio 4 made an excellent point about the case being used for political gain by the Conservatives. The sound bite "broken Britain" is more Blairite than Hazel Blears.

The Pirates of Distraction Technique
Somewhere in the reports of bungled rescue attempts and removal of ring fenced budgeting, reporters seem to have forgotton the plight of Mr and Mrs Chandeler. It is almost as an afterthought in this article they add;

[The couple] "had been separated and beaten by the pirates and [Mr Chandler] expected to be killed within "three or four days".

I'm sure the local papers in Tunbridge Wells are clamouring for justice, but has the world got so big that we are blind to people suffering harm unless it is a mass disaster or a political tool? I hazard a cynical guess that were Cameron to take up their cause, it would be the main thrust of the BBC et al. However, "Chandler" does not make for a good soundbite, and he would only target the same story presented, blaming Labour spending cuts for the resulting harm the couple are suffering and may suffer still.

Perceived Terror Threat

This comes a little late in the day, would you say? Nearly four weeks after the event? The event that was farcical at best. The biggest fall out has been that the Dutch will be even more scrutinised in customs, and more personal freedoms will be erased with inept profiling based on stereotypes and masqueraded as UK Border Agency Security.

Brown's Debut at The Iraq Enquiry

Sir John Chilcott may have "said the committee was still concerned about the risk of the hearings being politicised in the run-up to the election. and we all knew it was inevitable.

I fail to understand why anyone would want to enter a ballot for tickets to see Blair dissemble arguments when we had that for 8 years with him as a Prime Minister.

And on the Iraq Enquiry, do they not have Lawyers and Judges because the cost of creating a logo eradicated their budget perhaps?

Munchausens Mother Jailed

While the facts of this case are terrible, it perhaps raises mroe concerns about our National Health System than I had initially perceived. With the advent of medical technology, one has to wonder how a child went through 8 years of medical examinations, in a high profile case, and was still diagnosed with conditions which require medical evidence. While I appreciate she put sugar in his urine samples to make him diabetic, I am not sure how anyone can fabricate cerebral palsy and cystic fibrosis without a level of incompetence in the diagnostacians involved.

It also raises an interesting point about coping with Disability.

"Andrew Macfarlane, prosecuting, told the court that Hayden-Johnson's... medical treatment meant that the child was socially stigmatised."

This in turn makes me think about how society responds to disability. We currently live in a society that pities disability and yet stigmatises those who suffer from it. People with disabilities are constantly pandered to in the worst possible way, with no responsibility, few friends and exclusion from society, yet renounced with charity and gifts. But I will leave this for another post I think.

The Kangeroo Court of Tory and Media Influence

The decision to reduce Munir Hussain's sentence for GBH is indicative of a regression in politics and law and a worrying announcement.

The BBC has provided shoddy reporting on this;

[the family] were tied up but the businessman escaped and enlisted his brother to help chase the offenders down the street, bringing one of them to the ground.

Let's be a bit more specific please.

The Businessman telephoned his brother which is the equivilant of planning an offence. Forethought means he cannot have acted in the heat of the moment therefore provocation is not a defence.

Forethought and equates to Mens Rea of the crime, therefore he intended to commit the crime.

Enlisting his brother made this a joint enterprise and they are equally liable for the commission of the offence.

Chasing the offender down, in a car.

The BBC does go on to say;

The pair left Salem with a permanent brain injury after hitting him with a cricket bat.

The force of the blow was so hard that it broke the bat into three pieces.

Now, as I blogged previously, this is Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent. Also known as the most serious offence against the person short of attempted murder.

Sentencing guidelines for GBH with Intent recommend a minimum of 3 years.

Therefore 2 years was a reasonable mitigation of an offence which could be considered excessive force in self defence.

However, I would argue that it was a premeditated offence, noted above, with a weapon, and this would usually acquire a 5 year custodial sentence.

If you had avoided a charge of attempted murder, and received a sentence far below the usual guidelines for that offence, you should keep your mouth shut and get out in a year for good behaviour.

The Court of Appeal did attempt to inform us that they were not bending to public or Conservative opinion.

Lord Judge said: "This trial had nothing to do with the right of the householder to defend themselves or their families or their homes.

"The burglary was over and the burglars had gone. No one was in any further danger from them."

So, if the burglary was over, this would imply it is not excessive self defence, and is in fact a joint enterprise of premeditated wounding with intent?

If we do not have a justice system that upholds the law as it stands, and bends to public opinion, we may as well have a court of public shouting aye or nay and remove all of Hansard immediately.