Sentencing is for the courts, not for public opinion

Dear TV news programmes. 

Please stop asking the relatives of murder victims what they think of the prison sentences served by murderers. They will almost always say they are not long enough, and may or may not support the death penalty. This isn't surprising, and they cannot be criticised for the fact that their opinion is informed by grief and anger. However, they are not experts in either the practice of the law or the study of criminology.

Sentences are properly determined by the courts, in accordance with the law of the land. Come the day when they are determined by tabloid headlines, politicians, public opinion, or by the families of victims, we will be well on the way to losing our right to calling ourselves a civilised society.

All Prime Ministers should be treated equally

If there is one day in all our lives on which we are entitled to expect unqualified praise, then surely it is the day of our funeral.

Who amongst us would anticipate, on that day, people to say ‘he was a nice chap, but made some stupid decisions and not many people liked him’ or ‘nice woman, but she was really rude and screwed up badly at work’?

So let it be for Baroness Thatcher. This is not the day to examine her record as Prime Minister, about which anyone who lived through the era will have strong views, either for or against. That’s not to say I won’t return to this at a later date.

No; what I want to consider is the appropriateness of her ceremonial funeral, with military honours, largely funded by the nation (us). I have read, but failed to grasp, the distinction between what happened this morning and a state funeral.  It was certainly the only funeral of a former Prime Minister attended by the Queen since that of Sir Winston Churchill in 1965, and few would begrudge Sir Winston the unique honour of his state funeral.

However, I believe that the decision taken by the Queen upon the advice, we are led to believe, of Gordon Brown, to grant Lady Thatcher a funeral of the same status as that of the Queen Mother and the Princess of Wales, raises a serious constitutional issue.

There have always been great Prime Ministers, average Prime Ministers and some who frankly will scarcely trouble the computer keyboards of future historians, and hopefully, as long as we have a democracy, there always will be. We, the voters, will decide which is which.

And that’s the point. The voters, not the monarch, are empowered to discern the wheat from the chaff. As soon as the sovereign head of state starts to decide that one Prime Minister is greater than another – in this case greater than all but one – we are on a slippery slope. One of the principal justifications of a constitutional monarch is her/his political neutrality, their ability to deal with Labour and Conservative leaders and to ‘treat those two imposters just the same’. I felt the same unease at the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, when Tony Blair – Prime Minister for a decade – was disgracefully omitted from the guest list when all other serving Prime Ministers were invited.

Once the Queen gives the appearance of being politically biased, it must fundamentally change the relationship between her and future Prime Ministers of all hues. And that would be bad for the country.

Now that the pomp and circumstance – immaculately executed as always –is  over, a protocol needs to be drawn up on how the deaths of current or former Prime Ministers should be handled in future. I don’t mind particularly what send-off is decided upon by those democratically elected to make such judgments, but what is essential is that they all get the same treatment. That’s what democracy is about.

Shirker or worker?

I spent most of this afternoon filling in a 20 page ATOS medical questionnaire, on the basis of which a decision will be made whether my wife, who has advanced dementia and epilepsy, should stop getting DLA and be told to look for a job. Shirker or worker? ATOS will decide.

While doing this, I had to listen to my wife shouting angrily and incomprehensibly to no-one in the next room. Then I had to break off to comfort her as she sobbed when the reality of how ill she is occasionally dawns on her. And again to take her to the toilet because she can't remember where it is or what to do when she gets there.

There must be a better way. A diagnosis of dementia and epilepsy, supported by a GP's letter, should surely be enough to enable ATOS to do Iain Duncan Smith's dirty work?

It doesn't surprise me that so many people drop their benefit claim rather than go through a stressful assessment, but please don't assume it's because there's nothing wrong with them.

I've got a little list...

Here's my list - please add your own or suggest improvements.

If some day it should happen that a bastard must be found,

I’ve got a little list, I’ve got a little list

Of coalition partners who might well be underground,

And who never would be missed;

They’d none of them be missed.

The irritating Gove whose features all desire to slap

Who interferes with schools and is a most annoying chap

He thinks he’s mastered teaching more than those who qualified

He chops and changes subjects so that all are mystified

But he backed down on the E-Bacc when all others did insist.

He never would be missed, I’m sure he’d not be missed.

He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed. 

The poor thank Iain Duncan-Smith for having much less cash

They say they feel much better as they share their ‘tater ‘ash

As they’re queuing for the food bank they all have a sense of doom

About what to do with Granny now they don’t have a spare room

Then they limp off for their medical as the Government insist

He never would be missed, no he never would be missed

He's got him on the list — he's got him on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed. 

The new health secretary the egregious Mr Hunt

Is generally perceived to be a nasty little man

He’s selling off the NHS to  private sector mates

So expect far fewer treatments and some much much longer waits

And just hope and pray the doctor will still put you on HIS list

That Hunt will not be missed, I know he won’t be missed

He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed. 

The number two at Downing Street is really rather thick

Does anybody now admit to “I agree with Nick”?

He sold out all the students and he gave up on the sick

While David Laws was fiddling and Chris Huhne went off to nick

He used to have some principles but they didn’t get too far

But now he has a title and a most impressive car

But it’s ‘on your bike’ the voters up in Sheffield will insist

He’s going on the list, he’s right up on the list

He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed. 

And over the Treasury young Gideon can be found

Struggling on his trust fund which is worth four million pound

He tells the poor they should be looking for a better job

While cutting back their cash and giving tax-cuts to the nobs

As he criticises skivers for not doing the right thing

He might have been a king-maker but never will be king

‘Cos off with him the country is considerably pissed!

He’s straight upon the list, he’s deffo on the list

He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed. 

And finally the man who sits in charge at number ten,

Through Eton, Oxford, Bullingdon, he is a prince of men

He’s never had a proper job, or paid a mortgage bill

And with him in charge you’d better hope you never do get ill,

Or unemployed or injured or summarily dismissed

Yes he’s heading up the list, at the top of any list.

Well that’s my little list, what a shower of a list,

And they’d NONE of them be missed, they’d none of them be missed.

Equal marriage - what's not to like?

Whilst I try to have a thought-through opinion on many issues, I always do my best to understand the arguments and thought-process of those with whom I disagree.

In this regard, I am completely flummoxed on the issue of equal marriage. Try as I might, I cannot understand why anyone would oppose the extension of the institution of marriage, by general consent a ‘good thing’, to those who wish, freely and willingly, to enter into it. Perhaps you can help me. As I understand it, the main arguments put forward are these…

Marriage has always been between men and women. Equal Marriage devalues the concept of marriage

The first part is, of course, factually accurate.  But lawful sex was defined as being between a man and a woman until the law changed in the UK in 1967. Marital rape was lawful in England and Wales until as recently as 1992, when it was recognised by the House of Lords. Civil Partnership was unheard of until it was created in 2004. My point is that the fact that something ‘has always been’ or ‘has never been’ is not an argument against change.

Civil marriage is a creation of the state (see the Marriage Act 1949). It can therefore be changed by the state through the democratically elected representatives of the people. That’s how it works. Indeed the rules surrounding civil marriage have changed considerably, notably in the licensing of a wide range of establishments for the conduct of marriages.

I really don’t understand how extending marriage to same sex couples in any way devalues marriage as an institution or has any impact on those of us in heterosexual marriages.

Marriage is for procreation and raising children

Of course, many marriages are blessed with children, but many are not either by choice or for other reasons. Are childless couples any less married? Of course not. Some are very happy about their situation, some not, and some choose to adopt.

So what’s the difference between a heterosexual couple adopting children, or choosing to remain childless and a gay couple doing the same thing? I genuinely don’t see it.

The legislation is flawed, so it isn’t equal

The argument here is that because the new legislation doesn’t contain the concept of consummation or provide for divorce by reason of adultery, it is fundamentally flawed. Stonewall points out that 98% of divorces are actually on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour, and that the definition of consummation can be developed through case law, as indeed it has been in the case of heterosexual marriage (W v W, 1967).

It’s not fair because straight couples can’t have a Civil Partnership

In my response to the consultation exercise, I argued that Civil Partnerships should be abolished, so that everyone had the same option of a civil or religious marriage. That didn’t happen, but I can’t see that that anomaly is of any great significance, and certainly not a reason to reject equal marriage.

Registrars and teachers who don’t agree with equal marriage will be sacked

The argument is that Registrars who disagree with equal marriage could be forced to conduct same sex ceremonies, and that teachers could be required to teach that equal marriage is acceptable, even if they believe that it isn’t.

I’m afraid I take an unsympathetic line on this. Registrars are employed to perform a range of ceremonies according to the laws of the country. It is not a matter of personal conscience. This has recently been confirmed by the European Court, which rejected the claim that the human rights of a Registrar had been infringed when he was required to be willing to register a Civil Partnership.

In the case of teachers, they are required to teach about the world as it is, not as they would like it to be. If children ask for their opinion, they are entitled to give it, but in the context that this is what parliament has agreed and this is the law. Some teachers no doubt believe in creationism, but are required to teach children about evolution.

Creating law according to the wishes of those who would be required to implement it would be the clearest possible example of the tail wagging the dog.

The Churches are opposed to Equal Marriage

It would be truer to say that some – probably most – churches are opposed. Others have made it clear that they welcome the change and wish to offer marriage to all. And that’s fine, it’s up to them. The legislation makes it clear that no religious institution will be compelled to carry out same sex marriages. Indeed in the case of the Church of England and Church in Wales it will be unlawful for them to do so. I understand that this could be changed without further primary legislation if at some future date the Church changes its stance.

So there you are. The Bill will pass through Parliament despite the opposition of a very vocal minority. In 20 years time, I wonder how many of those who vote against it will look back on this day with pride or will they realise, with the benefit of hindsight, that they were on the wrong side of history.

Police and Crime Commissioners - a bad idea, but vote anyway

Next week, we will be asked to go to the polls to elect 41 new Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). Optimistic commentators are predicting a turnout of 20%, or even less.

Until the last few days, there has been little or no publicity given to these new jobs, so I thought I’d share my thoughts about why I think it’s a very bad idea, but why I still think we should all vote.

A deeply flawed concept…

On the face of it, it’s an attractive idea to abolish ‘bureaucratic’ police committees and replace them with one person who is directly accountable to the electorate. However, there are several reasons why this is not the case.

The current system is more democratic. Police Authorities (in my case the Greater Manchester Police Authority) is made up from councillors drawn from across the area and representing all political parties. The interests of different areas (e.g. Oldham and Manchester) are therefore represented. In future a single person, the PCC, will have the powers currently vested in those committees and will be expected to represent the views of the entire police force area, however diverse that might be. This is a retrograde step.

The PCCs will be politicians, whatever they say to the contrary. There has been much comment on the lack of high calibre candidates for these roles. The Lib-Dems, for example, are only fielding 24 candidates, and a quick glance down the lists of those standing reveals a large number of has-been and never-quite-were politicians. Some candidates are ex cops, or former army officers, who will no doubt say they are apolitical, but that’s rubbish. Once someone stands for election, and is put in charge of a multi-million pound budget, they are by definition politicians, so let’s not kid ourselves.

We are told that the PCCs will only concern themselves with strategy and will stay away from operational issues. Now, I’ve nothing against politicians per se, but I worked closely with them for nearly all of my working life, and I never met one who wasn’t primarily motivated by keeping the position they held and getting re-elected. There is no way that these politicians will not seek to influence strategy, budget priorities and operations in ways that enhance their popularity and re-electability. That will happen, it’s just a fact of political life. I’m not saying they will do anything improper, of course, but look at national and local  politicians and try to find one that doesn’t seek to benefit the people who vote for them. [I’m excluding from this argument the Lib Dem’s disgraceful volte-face on tuition fees which has alienated the entire student vote.]

The 192 candidates are not representative. I don’t have ethnicity figures, but 82% are male according to the ACPO website. I’d be willing to bet that very few are from minority ethnic communities. Given that these ‘stale, male and pale’ (according to Vera Baird QC, a Labour candidate)  PCCs will have the power to appoint Chief Constables and other very senior ranks, can we imagine that those appointments will improve diversity at the top of police forces? Can we imagine either that PCCs will appoint candidates who they know are going to disagree with them and hold very different views? I, for one, don’t want to see a series of yes-men, or women, appointed to run police forces.

But Vote Anyway…

So if PCCs are such a bad idea – and as I hope I’ve made it clear I think it is – why should you bother to vote? I’ve struggled with this question myself, and I think there are two main reasons.

Firstly, as a matter of principle I believe tha taking part in any election is a civic duty, part of the responsibilities we have as members of a democratic society.

Secondly, whether we vote or not, someone will get elected. Although the BNP decided at the last minute to boycott the elections, UKIP is fielding a significant number of candidates, including in Greater Manchester, and there are several ‘English Democrat’ candidates. I don’t know anything about the independents. The fewer people that vote, the greater the chances that an extremist candidate will be elected, and I don’t think anyone sensible would want that.

So there you are. A deeply flawed concept, destined, I believe, to fail. But it’s going to happen, so please take the trouble to vote.

Don't believe everything you read!

I read in The Times today that this week the cost of living hit its lowest level for two years.

A little later, I saw a TV advert saying that everything in a store was ‘up to half price’.

And when the Mail runs one of its almost daily health scare stories, it gets hysterical about the risks of an illness being ‘increased by 20%!!!’

Now, I only just scraped a pass at ‘O’ level maths (although, to be fair, according to Michael Gove that probably means I’d be A* at GCSE (I wouldn’t)) but I’d like to look at little more carefully at those statements.

Firstly, the level of inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index (the truncated index the Government uses to depress benefit and pension increases) stood at 2.2%, the lowest for two years. So far from the cost of living being at its lowest, it’s at its highest, just going up more slowly.

Secondly, when the store says ‘up to half price’ it doesn’t mean, as it’s saying, that half price is the most you’ll pay; it means, of course, just the opposite, that you’ll get up to half the price off.

My final example isn’t a lie, but is open to easy misinterpretation. A 20% in anything sounds like a lot, but if your chances of getting a particular illness are, say, 1 in 1000, this increase means your chances have gone up to 1.2 in 1000. Hardly a cause for mass panic

Now all of this isn’t just me being my usual picky, pedantic self. Having the time to watch and listen to a lot of news, I encounter almost daily statements that are misleading or inaccurate, misquotes, factual errors and so on.

Whether you think these are just genuine mistakes, made in the haste of having to meet the insatiable demand of 24 hour news reporting, or put a more sinister interpretation of deliberate misinformation, it is clear that we all need to be on our toes to scrutinise and check what we are told.

Now you, dear reader, know this and do it already. But we live in a society where people admit to their lack of numeracy almost as a badge of honour. Schools would do young people a great service by teaching them how to use the numerical skills they are gaining to question everything they hear or read to check that whether deliberately or accidentally, they are not having the wool pulled over their eyes.