The long arm of the law is getting longer and needs to be amputated!
It has been widely reported in the last couple of days (see, inter alia, here and here) that the Government wants to abolish Police cautions and instead allow the Police to fine people directly for most minor offences.
Like many others I see this summary justice as an erosion of our liberties and another move towards a police state.
Just because, according to the Police Inspectorate, around a third of cautions are issued incorrectly doesn’t mean they should be replaced with a more draconian measure. If anything it suggests the scheme doesn’t work and should be abolished. Yes, I dislike the notion of Police cautions as a piece of instant justice as much as I do summary fines.
A Police caution still gives the offender a criminal record. However the person concerned has had no opportunity to have their side of the case properly heard, in court, as the Police are acting as prosecutor and either magistrate or judge and jury. This to me is an infringement of the justice system which is based on the principle that everyone has the right to be heard in court by their peers (either in the persons of magistrates or a jury).
And allowing the Police even greater powers to fine offenders makes that far far worse.
We know why the government want to do it. They see Police cautions as a “soft option”, which it isn’t as it gives the offender a criminal record. Moreover it will probably save money which would otherwise have to be spent on the magistrates’ courts (already severely cut back) and will likely bring in extra revenue — in the way speed cameras and parking wardens have done.
But it means that many people will accept the caution or fine — often when they shouldn’t — because they don’t want to have to go to court for whatever reason; possibly because the Police have used scare tactics on them.
Out of court disposals (by which I understand cautions and the proposed fines) are incredibly problematic in terms of giving someone a criminal record without any form of legal procedure or check and balance. Both summary fines and cautions should, in my mind, be abolished: either the offence is serious enough to put the suspect before a magistrate or it isn’t.
Instant justice like this cannot be a good thing in a democratic, supposedly free, country. It all smacks too much of the Police state!
Category Archives: current affairs
"Cleansing the stock" and Other Euphemisms
While we’re on about politicians, George Monbiot had another side-swipe on Tuesday 21 October in his Guardian column: ‘Cleansing the stock’ and other ways governments talk about human beings.
Basically he’s on about the euphemisms that politicians, governments, and indeed companies, use to disguise — from themselves and (they think) us — the horrors of what they get up to. For example:
The [Dept of Work & Pensions can talk of] using “credit reference agency data to cleanse the stock of fraud and error”
Hills, forests and rivers are described … as “green infrastructure”
Wildlife and habitats are “asset classes” in an “ecosystems market”.
Israeli military commanders described the massacre of 2,100 Palestinians … in Gaza this summer as “mowing the lawn”.
People, aka. human beings, can be referred to as “personnel targets”. And then there are the old favourites: “neutralising”, collateral damage” and “extraordinary rendition”.
Dictatorships, and those wishing to conceal what they’re up to have always spoken thus: for example look at Communist Russia and Communist China.
Gawdelpus!
Ebola Panic
This article from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian on 17 October takes a swipe at politicians’ panic over Ebola — a classic case of the politics of fear.
But in amongst it all he has another couple of telling comments.
… air travel which, in the digital age, is almost all non-essential …
Ah, someone else has woken up to this! It’s time business and politicians did too and realised they can operate just as efficiently and more productively using electronic communication, teleconferences etc. and not flying people around the world. Hey look! Even Joe Public uses Skype!
Oh and no, holidays in the Maldives, Morocco or Thailand are NOT essential either!
The political scientist Louise Richardson wrote in “What Terrorists Want” that it is precisely what western politicians seem happiest to give them: they want to make us fear them. “By declaring war on terror,” she says, “far from denying al-Qaida its objectives we are conceding its objectives. That is why a war on terror can never be won.” It is a terminological admission of defeat.
Yes! Something else I keep saying. Stop giving the “terrorists” the oxygen of publicity. Stop splashing every threat, murder, bombing all over the front pages f every newspaper and news bulletin. All you’re doing is giving them publicity, which is precisely what they need.
No, I’m not saying shut our eyes to what they’re doing and/or don’t report it. Just make it low key, as in “In other news …”.
And finally …
A democracy must know what it should fear … [but] … Freedom from fear is a human right. We pay politicians to guard us from terror by not terrifying us.
Jenkins’s article is worth a read.
Human Rights Act II
Just a quick follow-up on my post of a couple of days ago on the Tories proposals to change the UK’s human rights landscape (see Legally Illiterate). As expected this has continued to attract vociferous attacks.
Also as promised the Law and Lawyers blog has posted two further, more in depth, articles:
Human Rights protection in Britain ~ 10 key points
Human Rights ~ the Conservative Party proposals.
Two other pieces worth reading are:
Head of Legal — Full of sound and fury on human rights
UK Human Rights blog — Incoherent, incomplete and disrespectful: The Conservative plans for human rights.
If we care at all about our rights then we all need to be concerned and keep working to halt these appalling proposals.
Legally Illiterate
So, the Conservatives, if they win the next election, propose repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 and renegotiating, or failing that withdrawing from, the European Convention on Human Rights — as has been widely reported in the media over the last few days (see, inter alia, here).
Just about everyone except the Tories (and probably UKIP) is saying some variant of how crass a move this is. Many are openly hostile to the very idea. And many are pointing out the numerous flaws, stupidities, misunderstandings and sheer impracticality of such a move.
I’m not going to reprise the arguments here; others have done so far better than I can …
Needless to say Labour’s Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan has come out against the proposals, as has the Liberal Democrat’s Simon Hughes.
Even Dominic Grieve, a former Conservative Attorney General, isn’t impressed; he describes the ideas as “unworkable” and “almost puerile”.
Jessica Elgot at Huffington Post picks 10 pretty large holes and howlers in the proposals, as well as pointing out that they have self-evidently not been drafted by a lawyer!
The Law and Lawyers blog opinion is “Don’t make me laugh”! He promises a more in depth look at the proposals at a later date.
If you do nothing else read this from barrister Isabella Sankey for Liberty. It is the most considered response I’ve seen so far. Sankey picks apart each strand of the proposals and points out the legal misunderstandings and legal impracticalities. I just love her overall comment on the proposals as “legally illiterate“. That’s really telling it how it is!
This one could run and run. Except that I doubt it will because I’ll be very surprised if the Tories get a large enough majority at the next election. Though that doesn’t mean there is any room for complacency. The time for rebellion approaches …
Reductio ad absurdum — but he has a point!
I’m not a natural Guardian reader. I view it as a bit of a rag, like almost all the media. But I can’t help reading George Monbiot’s column in the Guardian every Tuesday. He invariably lifts the lid on something our political masters would rather remained out of sight and mind. Monbiot’s articles are well argued and he always posts a fully referenced version on his weblog.
This week is no exception. In Why stop at Isis when we could bomb the whole Muslim world? Monbiot totally destroys any pretence our masters have for their actions in the Middle East. I give you a few extracts:
Let’s bomb the Muslim world — all of it — to save the lives of its people. Surely this is the only consistent moral course? Why stop at Islamic State (Isis), when the Syrian government has murdered and tortured so many? This, after all, was last year’s moral imperative. What’s changed?
…
The humanitarian arguments aired in parliament last week, if consistently applied, could be used to flatten the entire Middle East and west Asia … Perhaps this is the plan: Barack Obama has now bombed seven largely Muslim countries, in each case citing a moral imperative.
…
Now we have a new target, and a new reason to dispense mercy from the sky, with similar prospects of success. Yes, the agenda and practices of Isis are disgusting. It murders and tortures, terrorises and threatens. As Obama says, it is a “network of death”. But it’s one of many networks of death. Worse still, a western crusade appears to be exactly what Isis wants.
…
More than 6,000 fighters have joined Isis since the bombardment began. They dangled the heads of their victims in front of the cameras as bait for war planes. And our governments were stupid enough to take it.
…
Never mind the question, the answer is bombs. In the name of peace and the preservation of life, our governments wage perpetual war.
…
There are no good solutions that military intervention by the UK or the US can engineer. There are political solutions in which our governments could play a minor role … Whenever our armed forces have bombed or invaded Muslim nations, they have made life worse for those who live there.
…
Yet our politicians affect to learn nothing. Insisting that more killing will magically resolve deep-rooted conflicts, they scatter bombs like fairy dust.
He is pointing the finger at David Cameron and Barak Ombama, but previous governments — specifically Tony Blair and George W Bush — are at least as culpable.
The argument may be reductio ad absurdum, but he does have a very good point.
Independent or Not?
On the back of Scotland’s decision not to become an independent country, it occurs to me to ask …
How many “countries” (states, provinces, or whatever you want to call them) have ever voted in a free and fair election NOT to take independence from their “imperial masters”?
The only other which comes to mind is Quebec in 1980 and 1995. Are there any others since (say) 1800? One hears of so few that it seems to me that if independent sovereignty is sought, it is almost always attained.
Welsh Cannabis
Following on from the previous post about the liberalisation of prostitution, here’s another piece of unexpected sensible news.
The NHS in Wales will be the first in the UK to fund a cannabis-based medicine for people with multiple sclerosis. The drug in question is Sativex which has been on the market for some time.
Bravo for them as this is in line with current medical research, but directly contrary to the the recent draft NICE clinical guideline which rejected the drug for use on the NHS in Wales and England based, apparently, on a flawed assessment of its cost effectiveness.
You see, by chipping away, entrenched attitudes can be changed.
Wales 1, Blinkered Politicians 0
Internet Prostitution
There was a very interesting article in the Economist on 9 August under the headline “Prostitution: A Personal Choice”.
The first interesting thing is that such an august institution as the Economist does not support the UK government fetish of zero tolerance because the buying and selling of sex is dangerous, immoral etc. etc.
Instead the writer makes a number of points supported by recent research. First and foremost:
The internet is making the buying and selling of sex easier and safer. Governments should stop trying to ban it.
While they agree …
Some prostitutes do indeed suffer from trafficking, exploitation or violence; their abusers ought to end up in jail for their crimes. But for many, both male and female, sex work is just that: work.
This newspaper has never found it plausible that all prostitutes are victims … the commercial-sex trade [looks] more and more like a normal service industry.
They go on …
Moralisers will lament the shift online because it will cause the sex trade to grow strongly … But everyone else should cheer. Sex arranged online and sold from an apartment or hotel room is less bothersome for third parties than are brothels or red-light districts … the web will do more to make prostitution safer than any law has ever done. Pimps are less likely to be abusive if prostitutes have an alternative route to market. Specialist sites will enable buyers and sellers to assess risks more accurately. Apps and sites are springing up that will let them confirm each other’s identities and swap verified results from sexual-health tests. Schemes such as Britain’s Ugly Mugs allow prostitutes to circulate online details of clients to avoid.
Governments should seize the moment to rethink their policies. Prohibition, whether partial or total, has been a predictable dud. It has singularly failed to stamp out the sex trade.
Moreover …
The “Swedish model” [criminalising the purchase of sex instead of its sale] … is misguided, as a matter of both principle and practice. Banning the purchase of sex is as illiberal as banning its sale. Criminalisation of clients perpetuates the idea of all prostitutes as victims forced into the trade. Some certainly are — by violent partners, people-traffickers or drug addiction. But there are already harsh laws against assault and trafficking. Addicts need treatment, not a jail sentence …
Sweden’s avowed aim is to wipe out prostitution by eliminating demand. But the sex trade will always exist — and the new approach has done nothing to cut the harms associated with it.
And finally …
Prostitution is moving online whether governments like it or not. If they try to get in the way of the shift they will do harm … the unrealistic goal of ending the sex trade distracts the authorities from the genuine horrors of modern-day slavery … and child prostitution (better described as money changing hands to facilitate the rape of a child). Governments should focus on deterring and punishing such crimes — and leave consenting adults who wish to buy and sell sex to do so safely and privately online.
One day governments will start taking real notice of research findings and start understanding.
NHS Funding
So. According to all the media reports, and the scaremongering from professional bodies, the NHS is in crisis and falling apart because it is significantly under-funded and a political football. It is barely “muddling by” [1,2,3].
Well maybe.
It cannot be denied that the NHS is in crisis. It is badly organised and badly managed. And yes it is a political football.
I’ve written about this before [4,5] and I make no apology for doing so again.
It cannot be denied that some sectors of the NHS are woefully under-funded. This is especially true of GP services where funding has fallen from a high of 11% of NHS budget in 2006 to around 8.3% today against a background of significant increases in the number of consultations and demands from politicians [6].
However overall I cannot believe that the NHS is under-funded. It seems to me the NHS has shed-loads of money to do everything you and I could reasonably want it to do. But that money is badly used, in large part because of the appalling level of wastage.
The NHS employs way more managers and administrators than it needs. That in itself is a huge waste of resources. Just take a look next time you visit a hospital at how many staff are wandering about apparently aimlessly. What do they do? Is it useful? How many are doing nothing but moving pieces of paper from A to B? In this day and age moving pieces of paper around by hand is an inexcusable waste. Do it electronically! Use email, or on-line documents, or database systems.
Yes, to get the NHS using pervasive electronic communication is going to take time, and will need an up-front investment. It will also need the Civil Service and government not to cut corners on cost by being constrained to choose the cheapest bidder, to understand how to manage a big IT project (like don’t keep changing the project scope) and to listen to advice from their trusted suppliers.
The NHS also has far too many managers. Their lives seem to be predicated on bullying staff and chasing meaningless government targets. If we could get rid of the pointless targets and teach the managers how to manage people the NHS would need far fewer of them. In doing this it will take the NHS quite a long way towards trusting and empowering its employees. Trust them to do their job. Trust them with the empowerment to do it efficiently. Empower them to change things sensibly if they can see a better way. In other words, act like a good private company.
Somewhere else the NHS wastes money is in the sheer waste of supplies. One hears stories of hospitals where Ward A needs supply Y but can’t buy it because there’s no money; yet Ward B has a cupboard full of the same supply but has to throw it away because it has gone out of date. In one instance I know of where this happened, and it was pointed out to the top brass by a junior nurse, just changing the procurement policy saved the hospital several million pounds in the first year. Practices like this are not uncommon.
And let’s not talk about hospital food. If patients were fed properly, not only would there be a lot less food waste but the patients might actually get better quicker so they could be discharged sooner.
This is all well and good but I fear it will never happen. For a start politicians, almost by definition, have to keep meddling. Not only is it ideological but it is the only thing they can do to try to show they are doing something.
The other reason it will never happen is that there is no-one at the top of the NHS who has the ability to grasp the whole organisation and energise it. That is not the Civil Service way. But without this there will be no change. The NHS needs someone highly skilled, robust, no-nonsense and bloody-minded to head it up. Someone who will energise the employees, from top to bottom. Who will empower from the top and support empowerment from below. Who will give his or her henchmen a job to do and expect them to get it done — or get out. And most importantly someone who will tell the politicians to butt-out and stay out.
Names like Richard Branson, Alan Sugar and Digby Jones come to mind. You may not like them, but they are the type of people who are needed. Badly needed.
Without someone like this, and without government getting a proper, business-like grip, the NHS is indeed going to go nowhere except, as predicted, down the tubes. And that is something the country cannot afford!
——————————
References:
[1] Observer; 28 June 2014
[2] Daily Telegraph; 18 June 2014
[3] Independent; 29 June 2014
[4] https://zenmischief.com/2014/02/transforming-the-nhs/
[5] https://zenmischief.com/2012/08/reforming-the-nhs/
[6] Royal College of General Practitioners; 27 June 2014