There has been much written about the Damian McBride debacle, but I have to admit, the only thing that surprises me is that people are themselves surprised. When Gordon Brown was Chancellor, it was well known that his henchmen would often brief against anyone that was not firmly in the Brown camp. In fact, I am sure some journalists made their reputation off the back of such gossip and rumour. To find that GB still has people that are prepared to go to any lengths to promote and protect their boss comes as no surprise. Furthermore, to have them planning an attack on the opposition in advance of an election is also par for the course, even if it is normally a little more subtle. The so called Westminster Village survives on gossip, innuendo, character assassinations and leaks! However, I guess the only difference this time, is that what happens in political circles has become public and, of course, for the most part, the standards of the general public are much, much higher than those who are elected to represent us.

Truth be told, there are very few ‘investigative journalists’ nowadays, instead they rely on briefings and leaks. Deals are done all the time, with very few exceptions, we read what the politicians want us to, not what the journalists uncover. One positive outcome of this latest fiasco is that ordinary people will start to realise that there is an alternative to the dead tree press. Yes, the blogosphere is in its infancy, but it is getting better all the time and it is much more difficult to silence or influence.

New Labour tell us that there must be “no reward for failure”, yet these hypocrites have rewarded failed politicians with plum jobs in Europe (and elsewhere) and on occasion, even rewarded these wayward, but loyal subjects with a peerage. This is because there is one rule for them and their minions, with another for the rest of us.

Take their generous allowances. The clue is in the name! They are not expenses, they are allowances, therefore MP’s of all parties see them as a right. As a consequence, they maximise their income by claiming for whatever they can, meanwhile, from a tax perspective, they are not subject to the same rules as the rest of us. Because, in the private sector, HMRC would treat the vast majority of these allowances as a benefit in kind and they would be taxed as such. What about pensions? The private sector has seen some 70% of final salary pension schemes shut down or closed to new members, meanwhile, our MP’s continue to benefit from what has been described as on of the best pension schemes in the world.

Power corrupts, that is a fact and it happens in politics as much as anywhere else. I do not mean that people necessarily take backhanders, but their morals seem to change. Power to many means that they can get away with things that other mere mortals cannot. It is this that ultimately corrupts. I am sure, for example, that there are many people that entered politics with the very best intentions, but look at them now. Not all, but most have their snouts in the trough, instead of questioning why such generous expense allowances are made available, they have simply claimed them. Instead of asking why MP’s should receive pensions so much better than people in the private sector, they have voted to keep the pension scheme unchanged. The longer they have been MP’s or, the higher up the food chain they go, the more arrogant, self-assured and unpleasant they get. One reason for this is the way people bow and scrape to gain favour, this makes our MP’s feel powerful, invincible even and self-obsessed. They start to believe their own publicity.

As if to confirm that MP’s know they are making mistakes and could eventually face civil or criminal charges because of their actions, there is a new Bill, due for its 2nd reading on the 24th April that seeks to offer a legal ‘get out of jail free’  card. A Conservative MP has introduced a bill designed to provide all public servants, including MP’s, with a legal defence of ‘reasonable discretion’. In other words if they can legitimately claim that they exercised reasonable discretion, this would be an acceptable defence. For example, if an MP was told, incorrectly or otherwise, by a civil servant, that it was okay to claim certain allowances, he would have a strong defence by claiming he had shown reasonable discretion by consulting an official. In return the civil servant, who would benefit from the same protection, can argue that he acted in good faith because he merely followed the established precedent. Similarly, if this country were taken to war, based on ‘questionable’ intelligence, provided the Ministers can demonstrate that they exercised reasonable discretion, they cannot be held legally accountable for their actions.

The Exercise of Reasonable Discretion Bill is a clear indication that there is an ever-increasing gulf between the electorate and the people elected to serve us. If this Bill is passed into law, no MP and no civil servant will ever be held accountable for their actions unless there is a demonstrable case of negligence. We have already seen in the past few weeks how power corrupts, we must never allow politicians to then benefit from an Act that would provide them with immunity from prosecution. This will encourage recklessness in the same way that Diplomatic Immunity encourages foreign diplomats to ignore our traffic laws.

SPREAD THE WORD:

A Conservative MP is seeking a second reading for a new Bill, titled ‘Exercise of Reasonable Discretion’. If passed into law, this will allow every public servant, including MP, civil servants, local government officers, the police etc., a legal defence of ‘reasonable discretion’ in any civil or criminal case brought about as a consequence of their actions. All they would have to prove, is that they acted in good faith, this as anyone in the know will understand, is a catch-all defence.

In essence, it could allow MP’s to argue that they made certain decisions, such as going to war, based on advice where they were required to use reasonable discretion, officials entering into multi-million pound contracts which are subsequently cancelled or overrun, will also be able to claim that they exercised reasonable discretion. It is effectively a get out of jail free card for any public servant. Effectively removing accountability and increasing risk, because of course, if there is no effective punishment, there is no need to be careful. We should all shout as loud as we can to ensure that this type of legislation never sees the light of day.

If evidence was needed that members of parliament fear a public backlash, here it is, in the form of a new Bill, Exercise of Reasonable Discretion Bill 2008-09, which is due to get a second reading on the 24th April 2009. Below is a summary of what the Bill sets out to achieve;

The Bill aims to ensure that public authorities and public servants would not be subject to any criminal or civil penalty as a result of the exercise of reasonable discretion in the performance of their functions. Its provisions would cover public authorities, public servants and contracts for public services. The term public authority is defined by the Bill and includes the NHS, the police, local and central and devolved Government and non-departmental public bodies. The formal intent of the Bill is to indemnify public servants, central government, local government and other public agencies from legal action if they take decisions in good faith, as a result of the exercise of reasonable discretion, in the public interest.

In other words, MP’s amongst other public servants which include the Police, local officials and even the NHS, will be able to claim that in effect they acted in good faith, or in the words of the Bill, exercised ‘reasonable discretion’. Any lawyer will tell you that such a defence is subjective, therefore it offer enormous scope for any public servant (including, of course, MP’s) seeking to defend their actions.

So, hypothetically, any Minister taking this country to war on dubious grounds could claim that they had exercised ‘reasonable discretion’ by, for example, commissioning a security assessment of the threat to this country. The information they act on does not have to be factually correct, so long as the Ministers can claim that they acted in good faith. The public would have no right of criminal or civil recourse. No longer will public servants be accountable to the public…and this is a democracy?

Reasonable discretion is defined as being either, in the public interest or in the performance of their functions, in other words, it covers everything. The Bill seeks to include cover for all civil servants (and of course Ministers), for any mistakes they have made related to contracts for public services. Therefore, the civil servants responsible for ordering the new NHS database, which was originally budgeted to cost £2.3bn, has now spiralled to £12bn and is expected to result in a total bill of £32bn, will be able to claim that they exercised reasonable discretion.

What about the Department of Work and Pensions where officials wasted £300m on two cancelled IT projects In 5 years the DWP managed to spend £2.14bn on IT projects, both ongoing and cancelled, with over £500m going to consultants alone. Was reasonable discretion exercised? You decide, because it is unlikely the courts could do anything about it.

Would a Police officer be able to argue that he or she exercised reasonable discretion when they shoot an innocent bystander? Or could a Doctor claim that he or she exercised reasonable discretion when they removed the kidneys of a patient because they pick-up the wrong patients notes? Remember, there is no right of criminal OR civil recourse. Will this prevent people from suing the NHS and/or Doctors for criminal negligence?

This legislation is a danger to all of us, given it is a Rogues Charter that seeks to protect all public servants from accountability to the people they are supposed to serve or represent. It is, perhaps, the most draconian and self-serving legislation ever devised by our parliament. Worst of all, it prevents the public from taking any action (civil or criminal) against MP’s or Ministers, because in virtually every instance, other than a direct and proven lie, they will be able to claim they had exercised reasonable discretion. In fact, even in their lied, they could claim that they did so ‘in the public interest’.

I would urge all fellow bloggers with an interest in justice to use their blogs to publicise this outrageous attempt provide public servants, especially MP’s with a ‘get out of jail free’ card. If this legislation gets through, as it undoubtedly will, then no public servant can truly be held accountable to the public, because a ‘good faith’ defence will always be available!

Whilst I am not surprised that two of the most inept women in politics (Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman) are pushing a bill to allow a prosecution without intent, I am shocked that the rest of the cabinet have allowed them to announce it. I am of course referring to the proposal to change the law relating to prostitution and trafficking.

Now let me put my cards on the table. I do not and have never used a prostitute. Nor, do I pretend to understand why a woman would want to sell her body or a man pay for sex without the usual intimacy. That may make me a little square or old fashioned and I will accept that criticsm, albeit I have a right to my opinion. However, I do respect a woman’s right to sell her body if she wishes and a man’s to pay for sex if that is his will. Two consenting adults conducting a transaction that hurts no-one is none of my business. Therefore, whilst I must confess I do not fully understand the motivation for the two parties, I do not judge either party, nor do I say they should have the right to make that choice removed.

My concern here is the fact that these two cabinet ministers a peddling a piece of legislation that if introduced in its current form, will change some of the fundamentals of our criminal laws in this country and add nothing to the cause of vulnerable prostitutes. This is because Smith and Harman now intend to introduce legislation that will make it an offence if a man has sex with a woman who is under the control of a third party, such as a pimp, or has been trafficked or forced into prostitution against her will. Here is the issue, The home secretary has made clear that under the proposed legislation it will not be enough for a man to say “I didn’t know”. The new offence will include a “strict liability” test so that police will only have to prove that the man paid for sex, and that the woman had been trafficked. There will be no need to prove he knew it at the time.

In other words, even if the man asked the prostitute if she had been trafficked, was working under duress, or for a pimp and she says NO, if he pays for sex with her, he will still be guilty of an offence, which could even result in a prosecution for rape, which comes with a potential life tariff. Therefore, in spite of the fact that it could be argued that the man was diligent and had no intent, he could still be found guilty of one of the most serious offences on the statute book. Not only that, but if the Metropolitan Police figures are to believed, some 70% of prostitutes would fall into this category, which means a man seeking out the services of a prostitute has, in effect, a 70% chance of committing an imprisonable offence.

I am no law expert, but by introducing a “strict liability” clause into criminal law, (I believe it is already used in civil law), means a serious criminal offence can be committed without there being any intent. Now I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but this legislation means that even if a man asked the necessary questions and was given the appropriate responses, he is still playing a game of Russian Roulette, with odds that would not be lawful in a casino! Worst still, the man doesn’t even need to have sex in order to commit the offence, he just has to conduct the transaction. This type of law is without precedence in a developed country.

My other concern is, what message does it send out to women who have been raped in the conventionally accepted sense (sorry I couldn’t find a better way of describing this). Rape is one of the most abhorrent crimes on the statute book, yet here, a man can be charged and found guilty of rape, for having sex with a prostitute that has been trafficked or is under the control of a pimp, even if he believed this was not the case. Now compare this with a man that stalks and rapes his victim, or one where a young girl is fed with a date rape drug and subsequently raped, are these offences the same? Because theoretically the charge and sentence would be identical, just brought under different criminal Acts.

Without wishing to be melodramatic about the whole issue, is it not possible that some men will take the view that if they have a 2 in 3 chance of being charged with rape for having sex with a prostitute, that they may as well take their chances elsewhere? A ridiculous or plausible suggestion? This proposed legislation, it will achieve nothing. I strongly suspect that if the Police do bring prosecutions, that even though the judges are only there to intepret and implement the law, they may well demonstrate their contempt for this legislation when it comes to sentencing.

Even the English Collective of Prostitutes has rang the alarm bells saying that they believe it will make prostitutes more, not less vulnerable and run the risk of driving prostitution underground. In fact a spokesperson for the Collective even stated that they believe the governments claim that “most” prostitutes have been trafficked is a “complete fabrication”. Nicki Adams from the Collective is quoted as saying: “What we do know is that women from all walks of life, also working as teachers and students, are also working in prostitution. It’s consenting sex.”

One question I have is that if 70% of the women working as prostitutes have been trafficked or are controlled by pimps, why can’t the police go in and rescue them? By implication, the police are suggesting that they know that 2 out of every 3 prostitutes they find, will have been trafficked or under the control of a pimp. By not ’saving’ these women, they are in effect, allowing them to act as an Agent Provocateur. Quite frankly the whole thing is a complete mess.

Surely there is no logic in introducing a new law that attempts to create a situation where a man can be found guilty of a serious charge even though there may well be no criminal intent. My own view, is that the government should have been more forthright. If they wanted to make prostitution illegal, then they should have done so. Of course they wouldn’t because there would have been a massive backlash in what is accepted as the oldest profession in the world. This legislation if passed, poses a massive risk that if two consenting adults conduct a transaction for sex, one could face very, very serious charges. What will these men do in the face of such dire consequences, will they accept the risk, will they look elsewhere? I would hate to speculate what the consequences of this ill-though out, draconian, unwanted law would be.

I have lived in a country where prostitution is legal. Women work from brothels which are licensed and controlled. This takes most, albeit not all, prostitutes off the street. It means the police know where they are and the authorities can keep an eye on things. Charities have access to the prostitutes and can raise the alarm if anything is untoward. The public do not have to put up with prostitutes walking the street or industrial estates at night. Prostitutes are in a relatively safe and protected environment. The prostitutes earn a living and the men get to have sex with a consenting partner, albeit for sex. Legislation can no more stop prostitution than it can prevent drug use. Introducing a law that seeks to criminalise sex with a prostitute in this way is an appalling use of the legislature and a clear abuse of power.

I am fortunate that I do not live in an area frequented by prostitutes. So I can say in all honesty, they don’t bother me. A transaction that takes place out of sight, between two consenting adults is okay with me. I don’t find it objectionable. On the other hand, girls that have been forced into prostitution by a pimp or trafficker are entitled to expect the protection of the law. The police have existing powers to prosecute the pimps and traffickers. If so many girls fall under this new legislation, then it must be easy pickings for the police. So why don’t they get off their backsides and prosecute the scum that would seek to profit at the expense of these victims of crime? The police in this country have gone soft, they don’t want to have the problem of investigating and proving crime anymore, they just want the laws changed so that virtually everything we do or say can lead to a prosecution and now, if this bill becomes law, there won’t even have to be intent.

I recently heard Harriet Harman give an interview in which I was reminded that her position in government is that of Minister of Women. Now, I have to confess that I can’t remember what subject she was being interviewed on because to be honest, whenever she comes on TV, I find she has little of interest to say and therefore, I just switch off, mentally that is!

Quite apart from whether or not Harriet Harman is the right person to represent women, other than of course the fact that she is one, I am left wondering why women need their own minister? If I were a woman, I would find it quite patronising that this politically correct Labour government felt that women were so weak or under-represented, that they needed their very own Minister for Women. The reality is, today more and more women are in powerful and highly influential positions, they have achieved this, with the notable exception of politics, on merit. So why did this government believe that women should be sectioned off and dealt with as if they were ‘different’ rather than equals? Surely this weakens the cause, if you can describe it as such, rather than strengthens it?

I believe it is as wrong to practice positive discrimination as it is to practice any form of discrimination. The implication that women need a minister to represent their individual interests whilst men do not is simply ludicrous. I ask myself, what next, a Minister for Fat People, a Minister for Drug Users, a Minister for Transsexuals? Quite frankly it is ridiculous. In my opinion, this is not about equality, it is about discrimination, it is to suggest that women are incapable of fighting their corner.

I have seen a number of TV programmes recently where every successful women interviewed stated that gender was not an issue. Furthermore, they made clear that they did not want people (specifically men) to believe that they got where they were based on the fact that there were different rules for women. But based on the fact that their success was through merit. Quite rightly so. I can honestly state that when I was looking at recruiting or promoting people, I did so on ability and merit, not gender or race and I know many, many people that adopt a similar philosophy.

The other problem is when you create a job such as Minister for Women, you find that the minister is having to scratch around for something to do, in other words, they feel have to create new legislation to justify their jobs. In a recent example, I recall the Minister of Women speaking up for the rights of prostitutes and guess what? The prostitutes when asked, made clear that they felt the Minister of Women had no idea what they needed and worst still, the proposed legislation was likely to end up with the prostitutes being less protected than if the minister did nothing. Needless to say, in this particular example, the Minister of Women claimed she knew better because all the prostitutes she has spoken to said something different.

I do not deny that there was a need in the past to introduce legislation that ensured women were treated equally and I believe for the most part, that legislation and education has achieved that goal. There is now a risk that legislation for the sake of legislation will have a detrimental affect as will, for example, suggesting that women should be placed in certain positions based on gender rather than ability. It will weaken what was an otherwise perfectly reasonable, legitimate and worthwhile cause.

One example in terms of politics, is David Cameron’s suggestion that women should be selected to stand for parliament based on gender because they are under-represented, rather than because they are the best candidate. I can say, with all honesty and humility, that it would not bother me what race, or gender a candidate was, provided I felt that they could represent my interests. David Cameron’s actions may be politically correct, but they set back the cause of women by decades, the last thing women want to believe is that men are questioning whether they achieved their position based on being the best candidate or their gender. It is as much about perception as it is reality.

Just in case any women out there decide that this post is anti-women, I would ask them to read it again, I am for equality, not against and I am against any form of discrimination, be that against women or men.

As part of the process to speed up big developments, the government is attempting to introduce a bill which will provide developers a “blanket exemption” from complaints about smoke, odour, noise and light. The bill has already passed its House of Commons stages and is now with the House of Lords.

Within the bill is a new amendment which states that criminal or civil proceedings cannot be brought for nuisance over works “authorised by an order granting development consent”. The net effect, if passed in its current form, is this amendment will prevent local authorities acting on behalf of residents with legitimate concerns and amounts to the government, once again, attempting to run roughshod over the public interest.

Light and noise polution is a very serious issue and can have a severe effect on local residents quality of life. Their rights should not be removed in this way and it demonstrates how big business has so much more influence over government policy that the voting public. It would appear that the only time any form of lip service is paid to the concerns of the publice is when they are rebranded the “electorate” and are effectively sold to for the election!

Anyone that has ever lived and worked overseas will have a much better idea of what Quality of Life actually means. Here in the UK, we are forced to travel conjested roads, or use dirty public transport to go to work. Then we will be obliged to work the longest hours in Europe, doubtless to fund the workshy, then after a long day, return to our small homes(by international standards), adjacent to some large development, 24 hour garage or supermarket. The vast majority of the public simply haven’t got a clue what quality of life is, only a very small minority of people have and they don’t have to worry about the affects of local planning laws. Plainly the government would like to keep it this way.

I am personally sick to the back teeth of this government stamping all over the legitimate rights and concerns of the public, simply in order to appease big business. Little wonder that so many ex-ministers and MP’s get such cushy little number when they are removed from office. We should all strive for a decent quality of life, standards that many people in other first world countries actually take for granted. Little by little, this Labour government is taking away our rights to complain, to raise our legitimate concerns and our entitlement to a reasonable quality of life. Yet we stand by and let it happen, we must fight back, we must remind these ministers that they are supposed to represent our interests, they are placed in a position of trust and they are abusing it. We should not be sending this message once every 5 years, but everyday, we should fill the post bag of our local MP’s, send letters to the minister in charge and write to the prime minister. No longer can we accept this draconian law setting by ministers ignoring the long held rights of the public.

 Loading ...

 Loading ...