Quietly Introducing Armed Police on Tubes

Justification of arming British Police forces grows stronger every day.

This week, it is arming British Transport Police on the Tube.

The justification, it seems, is the threat of a Mumbai-style terrorism attack.

We could of course, nod sagely and accept the carrying of guns by our police on such spurious arguments, because, they know best. And I do think the police resolve some terrorism threats without the issue ever coming to the public knowledge.

But I also feel terrorism is used as a whip with which to supress public objection to procedure, the banning of protesting on parliament square, for example.

The last time armed officers were on the tube, they killed an innocent man because of significant and terribe miscommunications. Charles de Menezes and the protection of civillians is an on going.

On the basis that guns protect people, we should all be locked up, have ID cards and be monitored every second by a government to "protect us".

Britain has managed to get so far without armed police, and I am loathe to see such a freedom erroded by spurious claims of terrorist threats.

And let's look at those threats, shall we?

Mumbai Terrorist Attacks in 2008 were cordinated threats across the city, targeting hotels, taxis and a port. At no point did they attack the city's transport infrastructure.

By this reasoning, should we not be arming police on the docks, and at every hotel?

The threat and the justification is weak and unrealistic, and, I fear, an excuse to gradually introduce more and more weapons in to national security.

Reviving Maddie Cynicism

Want to ensure police take the disappearance of your daughter seriously?

Employ a PR officer.

Yesterday's Standard revealed the McCanns were appealing to Cameron to get Scotland Yard on board.

While I appreciate it must be a distressing situation for any family to go through, one wonders why Cameron does not invest the Met in any other of the millions of missing persons enquiries.

However, it clearly helps if you are from the same class structure and can employ your own media handling as well as, off the back, write a book for publication.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

(The Guardian Claims) Police Brutality Towards UK Uncut

Most people find it hard to understand why I am cyanical over the latest footage from The Guardian about the protests on Saturday 26th March.

Further to my blog post being published on The New Current, a lot of people have critcised me for not automatically backing the protestors, and for, quite outrageously in their opinion, not criticising the police.

The Guardian has provided a really stunning video, with an article steeped in perjorative language about Police Actions towards UK Uncut.

My immediate response is that the video is very carefully edited. Clips cut and pasted together. I counted eleven separate pieces of footage.

Other people, predominately on Twitter, which is my main debating channel, have stated that Police Officers are saying that the people will not be arrested, and that they are told they will not be kettled, and then they are kettled.

However, word geek that I am, I studied the language used very carefully. It should be observed that the police officer states in the initial footage that she doesnt beleive that they will be contained, but it is not "an absolute definite".

Let's turn this on it's head, shall we?

If you take police officers, who have watched colleagues be set on fire outside, had amonia filled lightbulbs thrown at them and seen from the footage, the violent people outside break into Fortnum and Mason and apparently join the sit-in, they will feel the need to identify all persons to take the aggressive protestors into custody.

UK Uncut claim they had a peaceful demonstration (although how it could be peaceful with bagpipes is beyond me!). However, it is clear from the footage outside the store that members of nefarious balaclava clad gang entered the store and potentially joined in with the UK Uncut group.

When you then see the protestors marching and chanting, note the amount of people in all black, ominous outfits with their faces covered. The police would have noticed this too, and considered processing of all people to be of necessity of public safety.

Take into account also the haste and energy within the march, within the officers hard at work and the pressure from media, politics and other groups, the only practical way to identify the main perpetraitors of violence, criminal damage and offences against the person is to process everyone there.

The Actual Video Footage

There is, quite clearly, parts of the video that have been edited. The video is carefully edited to place the burden of responsibility of bad behaviour on members of the Police and present UK Uncut as the parragons of virtue they claim to be.

The subtle lawyer language used by the officer, nuanced deliberately, is enough to say that this officer is not incharge of what will happen outside and she states she cannot guarantee safe passage, per se.

The language is crafted as such, that you cannot deduce from her statements what the intended outcome of UK Uncut protestors leaving the store will be. Consdier that Police understand a Kettle to be a "safe place" contained with which to defuse violence, the colloquial and actual definitions blur significantly.

Now consider that every fade out to black is a change in footage. What cannot be determined, therefore, is the actions of protestors through out these "black outs" Arguably this could be because the video is long and tedious and full of students reciting some appauling march theme, which wouldnt really engage with the Guardian Audience.

However, by not providing full, solid, unedited footage, it is impossible to draw guilty and innocent verdicts on the scenes shown. It is impossible to test the validity or credibility of the footage given, even the boy accusing police of brutatlity when he is "a legal observer" and "was doing nothing".

We only see a "kettle" at the end of the video, in the last 12 seconds. The missing links may show unfair treatment, but they may as equally show criminal behaviour by protestors.

Prior to this, we see Protestors marching, shouting, clinging to each other and their face masks, while Police stand back and let them walk through. This is not, in any interprestation, a "Kettle".

Finally, we see evidence of kettling, with opportunistic protestors carrying thousands of pounds worth of camera equipment (sorry, more cuts did you say?!) to photograoh apparent brutality, as enthusiastic voices yell over the footage.

However, what we do not see is the footage between the little march and the kettle.
The ranting could have escalated to antagonistic proportions, but we will never know as the footage was edited.

I am not in the habit of jumping on The Guardian Bandwagons when presented with such flimsy evidence. But I question the presentation of a story where the facts are so conviniently arranged in black and white for all to leap on the defensive to protect those who protest (even when they break the law).

By doing so, of course, The Guardian is stirring up the potential for more money to be wasted on several years worth of inquries from which there will be no conclusion.

I would remind readers not to be so quick to judge, unless the full facts are presented. Without editing.

Electronic Tags

I thought I would have a look this morning and see what the statistics there are on interferrence with electronic tags placed on prisoners and refugees.

This is the first google search result:

Persuading Belief in the Conservative Facade

I don't usually review the columns in the daily papers, but this one in The Telegraph, “The Conservatives have The Vision but not the Nerve", caught my eye and I decided to have a thorough critique.

The gist of the article is that Conservative members are in some way intimidated or inhibited by the media labour and the public and are therefore failed to reveal their policies cohesively or sensibly, when in fact the policies they have are rather good.

In other words, it is an entirely subjective article attempting to persuade the more intelligent voter why voting Conservative is a good thing! Can you hear me champing at the bit?

Upholding My Own Disbelief In the Validity of Tory Policies

Believe it or not, the Conservatives actually have quite a compelling vision for government, in which spending cuts could be made to play a constructive role, public services would be more responsive to the real needs of the people who use them, and the state would be an enabling force rather than an oppressive one.

Personally I would say that the Conservatives are playing down the details of their policies in order to generate the idea that they are demure and humble, lacking in the arrogance, and indeed hubris, that the Conservative Party after usually associated with.

The concept that spending cuts would play a “constructive role” begins to unravel when interviews such as Andrew Lansley MP's on the Today Programme identify an across-the-board 10% spending cut within almost all public services. If spending cuts were truly constructive, and indeed, a compelling vision, then the cuts would differ according to the needs of the various departments. Money would be reinvested according to the needs of people, and they would be determined to cut the bureaucracy and consultancy that dominates public services and wastes so much of this money.

However, given the Andrew Lansley repeatedly used the phrase “spending restraints”, it is clear that the party has no intention of reducing buzzwords, bureaucracy and confabulation within public services.

This in turn indicates that Public services are not going to be more responsive to the real needs of people who use.

As for the state providing an “enabling force”, the Conservative track history on a refusal to allow democratic participation are both at local level and at national level, makes the statement almost laughable. As indeed the campaign Vote for A Change identifies, the Conservative party are keen to push the agenda to vote for change but they are not willing to hold referendums to allow the people to decide to change.

An Innovative Philosophy?

Honestly. The reason that you are almost entirely unaware of this philosophy is because the party thinks that you will either be frightened by it or that it will be too difficult for you to understand.

No, quite simply the reason that we are unaware of this philosophy is because it doesn't exist.

Apparent Fear of Criticism

Very occasionally, they allow you a glimpse of an aspect of their programme: Michael Gove's plan for "free schools", or the "co-operative" model in which public agencies would be run by their own staff. But then some television interviewer starts to ask wider questions, or a Labour frontbencher tosses out some predictable, brain-dead jibe, and the shutters come down.

The glimpses that have been provided of the Conservative programme have been contradicted at every turn by Conservative Members of Parliament. Such as providing inconsistent arguments for getting people back to work while supporting those who need to be benefits, a desire to invest in during joining the European Union combined with a desire to protect the British public from the European Union.

For a snapshot of these inconsistencies have a look at the Conservative website “Responsibility Agenda”.

The only thing I can determine from this is that the entire party is confused as to where they would go if they were in government.

The Tory spokesman who had, ever so cautiously, begun to hint at what could be a genuinely progressive new relationship between the state and the people, scurries away into the darkness again, like a small animal terrified of being caught in the open.

A Tory spokesperson who ha,s ever so cautiously, hinted at a genuinely progressive relationship between the state and the people would probably be considered an epiphany within the centre-right party.

Indeed the ones that have, seemed to have come to this conclusion and joined the Liberal Democrats.

The result? The Tories look vacuous: like a party with half-hearted convictions, half-baked policies and with no overarching theme to distinguish it in any fundamental way from Labour.

And indeed Nick Clegg stated yesterday following the strange political speech stand-off between Brown and Cameron that their election pledges were “vacuous”. This is not a result of a humble Tory MP concerned that their opinions may scare the public, this is because they do have half-hearted convictions, half baked policies and no true substantive difference from Labour's pledges.

And so, ironically, a leadership that is so afraid of damaging questions leaves itself wide open to the most dangerous ones of all: what real difference is there between you and your opponents, and why should anyone be inspired to vote for you?

Again, I reiterate, if Cameron and his party had leadership and inspirational qualities, they would not be afraid of any questions, they would appeal to the intelligent voters and they would present substantial arguments in the face of criticism from the press and from the other parties.

A Truly Insulting View of Voters

”You may be asking yourself at this point whether the patronising assumption that you are either too timid or too dumb to grasp the potential of this message is actually justified.”

I'm just confused by the assumption that this is the real reason for the Tories inability To communicate their election pledges without discrepancies, contradictions or confusion. This has nothing to do with my intelligent, nor any other member of the public's.

Apparently, the crux of the argument is;

Janet Daley goes on to state that the apparent reasons the Conservatives are unable to respond coherently to questions about their policy is because they are aware the “government run things badly”.

If that was truly their position than they would be proclaiming, as indeed the Liberal Democrats are stating, that they would review the way in which the government runs things and how this filters down to public services. If they had confidence in their argument then this would not mean a difficult announcement to make.

“by cutting back the power of central government and making the agencies that deliver services accountable to the people who use them rather than to politicians, we would get better, cheaper and more productive results”

If this was truly the case, then I would not have issues in my area is where public services without contracted to the cheapest company thereby causing and perpetuating the suffering of people who require carers. This is the extent of the Tory policy proposals on “coalitions”.

Out contracting services and minimising government input so the government can not be held responsible when people are harmed as a result.

Community Engagement?

”Second, the more power and authority that the state seizes, the less people feel the need to take responsibility for themselves and for each other. Many of the problems that now corrode the quality of life in Britain – anti-social behaviour, irresponsible parenting and the feckless refusal to accept any idea of civic duty – have their roots in the emergence of government as the only source of moral authority and the only provider of social protection.”

Ah. What this convoluted statement actually means is that the Conservatives feel that Britain has become a overly left wing nanny state. And how do they propose to challenge that? Well the arguments they present so contradictory, I genuinely cannot tell.

”Communities, families and individuals, whose ethical judgments are likely to be more sound and more effective, have been dwarfed by the gargantuan intrusiveness of this expensive, impersonal monster which, as often as not, interferes without understanding and meddles without sensitivity. So by pulling central government's tentacles off the most personal and local areas of people's lives – by giving them the power to run their neighbourhoods, schools, health services and benefits agencies according to their own priorities – we can restore self-determination and pride while improving public services.”

And at what point disease differentiate from Brown's pledge Fairness in the Community? Indeed, where local public services have been allowed to grant more responsibility communities, we have seen an upward rise in charity is funded entirely by public state grants which, while being run on a not-for-profit basis, are concerned only with the bureaucracy and illogical targets and public services provide.

One example that I continuously come across is Illogical use of volunteers within the public-and- charitable sector. Company-cum-charities are encouraged to let go of the little old lady who gives an hour of her time once a week because the younger person to give four hours and be far more productive. Or the funding that they are granted is so heavily ringed fence that it sits in bank accounts the years until the exact measurement of the grant is decided to be met at the funding can be released.

The only way to prevent this getting worse, and, hopefully repair it, is to allow a greater hold over local public services by the government, to allow the government to supervise the implementation of these ideas and ensure that people are in fact benefiting from community initiatives, engagement and social cohesion.

Privatisation by Any Other Name

”When it comes to public services, the independent local outlet could offer a relationship of trust, familiarity and understanding to the consumer, and greater efficiency and productivity to the taxpayer.”

The only reason that the party is so “timorous” about these ideas is because they realise that the reality for people who use the pavement everyday is not as simple as saying we will enlist a separate body to provide good quality cheap services.

Anyone who has watched Panorama will be aware of diabolical care services where the business is out-contracted. Or how about the changes to waste collections by Borough services, based on productivity of the neighbourhood?

In a lot of cases central government is the last resort for those campaigning for a return to fair services, as my work with Sheltered Housing UK identifies.

Indeed Janet Daley herself acknowledges that “Only central government, the Left argues, can enforce uniformity and prevent disadvantage.” But she then goes on to say that Labour's approach has indeed been to this aim. When in fact, the opposite is true. Labour has actually increased opportunity for the poor, aided social deprivation with the introduction of tax credits and support, but at the same time has failed to address its use with local councils and local public services having so much control without any government input. There is also been too much of an emphasis on Labour's Park of providing everyone with the same benefits and matter what their background. This has led to middle-class mothers storing up Child Tax Credits for their summer holidays and rich students investing their student loans in tax-free isas. The only logical way to proceed is to introduce a more thorough means testing, rather than providing everyone with the same, provide those who are in the most need with what they need.

But the Conservatives are not pledging this. The Conservatives are pledging severe cuts across all public services, a fast repayment of debt without foresight or strategic development as to how this will impact on our economy.

Oh That Old Chestnut

Finally, for the article to bring up the embarrassing concept of “class war” that appears to divide both the Media support and the party squeeze tactics, is nothing short of ridiculous.

While there probably is something to be vindictive in the squeeze tactics between the two major parties and the presentation of a two horse race, there is a growing consensus amongst the public that they would like to hear less about whether their MP went to Eton or Joe Bloggs Comprehensive, are more about what they plan and how they plan to do it.

And, ultimately, how society as a whole will benefit.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sorry, is Protesting Ilegal Now?

There are a hundred articles on the 114 people arrested today in Nottingham in
"the biggest pre-emptive raid on environmental campaigners in UK history, arresting 114 people believed to be planning direct action at a coal-fired power station."

The Guardian lauches in with emotive statements such as the police "seized "specialist equipment" which turns out to be "bolt cutters". About as specialist as jodphurs are to a horse rider then.

People arranging to protest is not an arrestable offence, but as is becoming all to clear of late, the police use any legislative powers they can, including arresting people"on suspicion of planning to cause criminal damage to a power station.

Correct me if I am wrong, and I am not so subtley indicating my legal training here again, but inchoate offences require the offender to be within the proximity of committing the offence. The people arrested were not at the power station, they were not going to the power station and they are highly unlikely to be charged with anything given our waste of a prosecution service [note, while I do not think they *should* be arrested, the CPS are lacking in sufficient balls to charge anyone unless there is a 99% chance of convition]

So what we are seeing is a large demonstration of the public services to deter protests in the environmental sector. Because the Tomalinson situation wasnt a deterent!

It is NOT ilegal to protest in the UK and long may it remain so, but if the police have such wide ranging powers as provided by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 without regulation, we may see more and more of this sort of nonsense.

Heavy Handed Police Powers takes on a New Meaning

This was brought to my attention through that glorious media format face book.

My reaction is visceral.

Previously reported as natural causes, now synonymous with "being hit with a stick". Rather like De Menezes was a "Known Terrorist" for twelve hours (or just an ethnic minority in the wrong place at the wrong time)

I am absolutely seething.

The sad truth is we all know there will be five years of inquests that will rule that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Police's actions significantly affected his health state and it'll be ruled an open verdict.

Little Rant about Police Power Abuse
I still advocate that abuse of police powers is the minority of the British Police, but that this abuse is likely to increase if they continue to hire people straight out of schools that fail to teach, hire people with minimal qualifications (as A Levels are becoming) and pay more than the average graduate job so anyone who cant get work signs up for £25k a year.