A warning for all those MPs who claim it was a mistake
Teacher jailed after spending £43,000 paid to her by mistake
A primary schoolteacher who was paid £43,000 in a council error has been jailed for 15 months after a court heard she and her family spent the money to fund a lifestyle that was "not justified".
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Site Meter
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Hull man's fight for prisoners right to vote a step closer
Hull man's fight for prisoners right to vote a step closer
A Hull man's controversial fight to get prisoners the right to vote has moved a step closer.
John Hirst, who's been in prison for 20 years himself, petitioned to the European Parliament.
It's now told the Government something must be done in the next 6 months.
Mr Hirst told us voting is someone's human right - no matter what they do and prisoners shouldn't be denied that.
Comment: Whilst I have submitted a petition to the Committee on Petitions at the EU Parliament, which has been declared admissible on both aspects; (a) Convicted prisoners should be able to vote in EU elections in spite of UK legislation to the contrary; and (b) The Life Licence scheme which means lifers still serve out their sentence in the community and lifers are subject to recall, and lifers must seek permission of the Minister of Justice to travel to Europe, is only governed by a Prison Service Order (secondary legislation) is against EU legislation.
The Viking FM news report confuses the decision made by the Committee of Ministers which has given the UK until December to take concrete measures to implement the decision in the Prisoners Votes Case Hirst v UK(No2).
A Hull man's controversial fight to get prisoners the right to vote has moved a step closer.
John Hirst, who's been in prison for 20 years himself, petitioned to the European Parliament.
It's now told the Government something must be done in the next 6 months.
Mr Hirst told us voting is someone's human right - no matter what they do and prisoners shouldn't be denied that.
Comment: Whilst I have submitted a petition to the Committee on Petitions at the EU Parliament, which has been declared admissible on both aspects; (a) Convicted prisoners should be able to vote in EU elections in spite of UK legislation to the contrary; and (b) The Life Licence scheme which means lifers still serve out their sentence in the community and lifers are subject to recall, and lifers must seek permission of the Minister of Justice to travel to Europe, is only governed by a Prison Service Order (secondary legislation) is against EU legislation.
The Viking FM news report confuses the decision made by the Committee of Ministers which has given the UK until December to take concrete measures to implement the decision in the Prisoners Votes Case Hirst v UK(No2).
Convicted killer could be freed
Convicted killer could be freed
A convicted murderer who has spent eight years in prison could have his conviction quashed later.
Ian Lawless, 47, was jailed for life in 2002 after confessing to the murder of retired sea captain Alf Wilkins on the Yarborough estate in Grimsby.
Lawless's solicitors will tell the Court of Appeal that the confession was unreliable because of his medical condition at the time.
The Crown Prosecution Service has said it will not resist the appeal.
Lawless and another man were convicted of firebombing Mr Wilkins's flat after wrongly suspecting him of being a paedophile.
The former tugboat skipper's body was found in the kitchen of his smoke-damaged flat with his 12-year-old black Alsatian dog Lucky lying nearby.
I think it says something when the CPS ststes it will not resist the appeal. It still appears that the police are prepared to fit any body up to secure a conviction.
UPDATE:
Court quashes murder conviction
A man who has spent eight years in prison for murder has won an appeal against his conviction.
A convicted murderer who has spent eight years in prison could have his conviction quashed later.
Ian Lawless, 47, was jailed for life in 2002 after confessing to the murder of retired sea captain Alf Wilkins on the Yarborough estate in Grimsby.
Lawless's solicitors will tell the Court of Appeal that the confession was unreliable because of his medical condition at the time.
The Crown Prosecution Service has said it will not resist the appeal.
Lawless and another man were convicted of firebombing Mr Wilkins's flat after wrongly suspecting him of being a paedophile.
The former tugboat skipper's body was found in the kitchen of his smoke-damaged flat with his 12-year-old black Alsatian dog Lucky lying nearby.
I think it says something when the CPS ststes it will not resist the appeal. It still appears that the police are prepared to fit any body up to secure a conviction.
UPDATE:
Court quashes murder conviction
A man who has spent eight years in prison for murder has won an appeal against his conviction.
Monday, June 15, 2009
How the public interest test is applied
How the public interest test is applied
The inherent public interest test in the duty of confidence is the reverse of that normally applied under the FOIA. This is because the FOIA public interest test for qualified exemptions assumes that information should be disclosed unless the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
However, the public interest test within the duty of confidence assumes that information should be withheld unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the duty of confidence.
In my post below it is reported that the Guardian sought information from the government using the Freedom Of Information Act. The Guardian lost that battle and in the related content the Guardian is miffed at the decision to refuse disclosure. In my view, the Guardian is right to be miffed.
As you can see from the public interest test above, the public interest is set against the public interest and the public interest loses. Given that a public authority is hiding behind this and designed this smokescreen, it is not in the public interest for the public authority to use the public against itself whilst hiding behind this pathetic defence. The public authority should be accountable to the public, however, the public authority is claiming it is not in the public interest for the public authority to be exposed. I beg to differ.
Public confidence in the system is being manipulated by deception. The government keeps telling us if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear. By the same token, if the government has nothing to fear why is it intent on hiding information? And more to the point, why is it doing so in the public's name?
The issue here is public authority interest v public interest and not competing public interests as claimed by the public authority.
The inherent public interest test in the duty of confidence is the reverse of that normally applied under the FOIA. This is because the FOIA public interest test for qualified exemptions assumes that information should be disclosed unless the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
However, the public interest test within the duty of confidence assumes that information should be withheld unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the duty of confidence.
In my post below it is reported that the Guardian sought information from the government using the Freedom Of Information Act. The Guardian lost that battle and in the related content the Guardian is miffed at the decision to refuse disclosure. In my view, the Guardian is right to be miffed.
As you can see from the public interest test above, the public interest is set against the public interest and the public interest loses. Given that a public authority is hiding behind this and designed this smokescreen, it is not in the public interest for the public authority to use the public against itself whilst hiding behind this pathetic defence. The public authority should be accountable to the public, however, the public authority is claiming it is not in the public interest for the public authority to be exposed. I beg to differ.
Public confidence in the system is being manipulated by deception. The government keeps telling us if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear. By the same token, if the government has nothing to fear why is it intent on hiding information? And more to the point, why is it doing so in the public's name?
The issue here is public authority interest v public interest and not competing public interests as claimed by the public authority.
Judges decide to cover up for guilty judges
Judges decide to cover up for guilty judges
Names of judges found guilty of misconduct to stay secret
• Straw wins four-year battle to keep identities hidden
• Challenge by Guardian rejected by tribunal
The government and the judiciary can continue to conceal the names of more than 170 misbehaving judges, a freedom of information tribunal has ruled.
The judge heading the tribunal decided that some members of the judiciary who have been sacked or reprimanded for misconduct would suffer "great distress" if details of their misdemeanours were made public.
The judges' authority in the courtroom would be undermined, and their privacy unjustifiably invaded, if the public were allowed to know how they had been disciplined, according to the tribunal.
The ruling came out in favour of justice secretary, Jack Straw, and the judiciary as they have fought a four-year battle to hide the identities of miscreants.
I think it is disgusting that 170 dishonest judges have their bad reputations protected so the public will be fooled into believing that they are honest!
Related content...
Justices should be seen to be done
A ruling that the disciplining of judges can remain secret is an outrageous departure from the trend towards transparency
Names of judges found guilty of misconduct to stay secret
• Straw wins four-year battle to keep identities hidden
• Challenge by Guardian rejected by tribunal
The government and the judiciary can continue to conceal the names of more than 170 misbehaving judges, a freedom of information tribunal has ruled.
The judge heading the tribunal decided that some members of the judiciary who have been sacked or reprimanded for misconduct would suffer "great distress" if details of their misdemeanours were made public.
The judges' authority in the courtroom would be undermined, and their privacy unjustifiably invaded, if the public were allowed to know how they had been disciplined, according to the tribunal.
The ruling came out in favour of justice secretary, Jack Straw, and the judiciary as they have fought a four-year battle to hide the identities of miscreants.
I think it is disgusting that 170 dishonest judges have their bad reputations protected so the public will be fooled into believing that they are honest!
Related content...
Justices should be seen to be done
A ruling that the disciplining of judges can remain secret is an outrageous departure from the trend towards transparency
Michael Gove to sue John Lewis for faulty tanning lamp
Michael Gove to sue John Lewis for faulty tanning lamp
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Australian Aboriginal prisoner 'cooked to death' in van
Australian Aboriginal prisoner 'cooked to death' in van
Security guards failed to check on man who died travelling 250 miles in back of van in 47C heat
A coroner has found that an Aboriginal man was "cooked to death" after he spent four hours in the back of a security van in searing heat with no air conditioning as it drove across the goldfields of south-west Australia.
The 46-year-old Aboriginal elder suffered third degree burns after collapsing in the heat and falling to the floor of the van while it travelled 250 miles from Laverton to Kalgoorlie in 47C heat.
Ward, whose first name cannot be used because of an Aboriginal cultural prohibition that forbids relatives from naming their dead, had been arrested a day earlier in January 2008 for drink driving.
He was given 600ml (one pint) of water before boarding the van but the coroner found he died before he could finish drinking it.
Security guards failed to check on man who died travelling 250 miles in back of van in 47C heat
A coroner has found that an Aboriginal man was "cooked to death" after he spent four hours in the back of a security van in searing heat with no air conditioning as it drove across the goldfields of south-west Australia.
The 46-year-old Aboriginal elder suffered third degree burns after collapsing in the heat and falling to the floor of the van while it travelled 250 miles from Laverton to Kalgoorlie in 47C heat.
Ward, whose first name cannot be used because of an Aboriginal cultural prohibition that forbids relatives from naming their dead, had been arrested a day earlier in January 2008 for drink driving.
He was given 600ml (one pint) of water before boarding the van but the coroner found he died before he could finish drinking it.
Suo Gan-Vienna Boys' Choir
Suo Gan-Vienna Boys' Choir
This stood out for me in the film Empire of the Sun. Hauntingly beautiful...
This stood out for me in the film Empire of the Sun. Hauntingly beautiful...
Photos on Sunday: wildlife
Photos on Sunday: wildlife
Barn owl Picture: BILL THORNTON
Dinah Goom of Gimingham, Norfolk, took this photo of a hare in a field of barley near Holt North Picture: DINAH GOOM
A photograph of a robin catching a worm, which was taken by Claire Carter of Kidderminster, Worcestershire Picture: CLAIRE CARTER
Dot Lines of Hastings says: "This is a photograph that I took of a young fox cub looking very inquisitive" Picture: DOT LINES
Barn owl Picture: BILL THORNTON
Dinah Goom of Gimingham, Norfolk, took this photo of a hare in a field of barley near Holt North Picture: DINAH GOOM
A photograph of a robin catching a worm, which was taken by Claire Carter of Kidderminster, Worcestershire Picture: CLAIRE CARTER
Dot Lines of Hastings says: "This is a photograph that I took of a young fox cub looking very inquisitive" Picture: DOT LINES
Mayor of Doncaster in car crash radio interview
Mayor of Doncaster in car crash radio interview
Peter Davies, English Democrats, newly elected Mayor of Doncaster, in how not to do a radio interview if you haven't got a clue what your election manifesto is all about.
Or, if you would prefer, you can read the transcript of the interview below...
(from BBC Radio Sheffield, 8th June 2009)
Toby Foster (BBC Radio Sheffield): Thanks very much for joining us. I said that we didn’t see it coming - did you see it coming? Did you expect to win?
Peter Davies: Well, well not really. A great friend of mine told me the night before I was going to get a great shock, and that I would win. I was thinking of saving the deposit at the time.
TF: I can imagine. What was it you think that made people vote for you?
PD: Well we were the only party who gave a distinctive agenda to the electorate. All the others talked waffle. I looked at all the leaflets, I couldn’t make anything of them all, they were all the same.
TF: You did give a distinctive agenda, you’re absolutely right, you made some real points on that. Let’s just have a look - let’s have a look at them shall we? The first one of course I think’s an easy one - you’re going to cut the mayor’s salary.
PD: That’s the first thing this morning
TF: Down to £30,000 a year. Now, some people could look at that Peter and say, well, you get more than that for running a supermarket these days. Surely a council deserves… a bit more respect?
PD: No, the council deserves somebody who’s going to run it properly, and it deserves somebody who’s prepared to give their services partly free, in a sense - at one time all local government councillors did all the free, er, it’s become a gravy train and I’m not prepared to be part of that.
TF: So what about the people who work for you? The deputy mayor, other people in the departments - are you cutting their wages as well?
PD: Er, well, I’ve discussed that with-, well not- not the people in the departments, I can’t- I’ve no control over what they’ve been given, but the deputy mayor and the rest of the cabinet will discuss that at, at the earliest opportunity.
TF: Well, you say you’ve no control over people in the departments, one of the big things on your campaign was that you’re going to cut ‘PC jobs’.
PD: Oh yeah, that’s a different thing altogether, er-
TF: Which jobs are those?
PD: Well, er, I’m going to look into that. Things like Diversity Officers, er, the things that are usually advertised in the Manchester-, well, it’s not the Manchester Guardian now - in the Guardian…
TF: Right, so have-, so, so hang on, so so there are politically…
PD: I mean, I can’t give you a full list at the moment, but I will…
TF: But that’s what you put on your manifesto - you must have had an idea on your manifesto what you were talking about?
PD: Yeah, yeah, all these people who are, sort of, controlling thought processes and this sort of thing, and er, erm… every department is riddled with this sort of nonsense these days.
TF: So currently then, this morning, Doncaster Council is riddled with people who are, who are doing this kind of nonsense, ah… and they’re on notice, are they? People are going to lose their jobs?
PD: Er, very likely.
TF: But we don’t know who they are, yeah? But certainly Diversity Officers…
PD: Obviously I… I’m… well, that sort of thing, yes.
TF: So, the Diversity Officer who’s getting ready for work this morning at Doncaster might as well not bother?
PD: Well, he’s… he’s in employment at the moment…
TF: But he won’t be for long?
PD: …I think, I think we ought to be talking about what we’re going to do sort of, er, now and, er, what I’ve discovered - that might be a more fruitful discussion.
TF: Well, I mean… these are the reasons people voted for you. Very bold points, as you said. Er, you’re going to cut translation services for non-English speakers - that’s a very bold point. It’s more than likely illegal, isn’t it?
PD: I dunno… again, I’ve got to find this out. It’s-
TF: Well it is - let me tell you it is, under the European Court of Human Rights it’s illegal.
PD: -Well, well, well let… we’ll look into this - we’re getting council’s opinion on what I can do and what I can’t do, and that’s…
TF: No, no, you said in your manifesto you would definitely do it.
PD: Yeah, well, I… well, I, er, if, if somebody comes in the way and stops me doing these things, then that is an insult to democracy.
TF: So what was the point of your manifesto? You might as well have said you were going to fly to the moon if you’re just going to say now that you can’t do it.
PD: No, look… I’m going to do my best to do it. If I can’t, I shall tell the electorate why I’ve not been able to do it, and who’s stood in the way of it. The-
TF: Well, the law’s standing in the way of it.
PD: -Just a minute, just a minute. The electorate clearly want me to do that. The law needs changing, then, doesn’t it?
TF: Well, you say the law needs changing-
PD: If we get a new government, then we might get rid of some of this ludicrous legislation, and be able to run our own country again.
TF: Okay, now you’re going to cut the number of councillors from 60 to 20.
PD: That is another difficulty, and the first-
TF: Can’t do it, can you?
PD: Er, well, we can appeal to their moral consciences-
TF: So you can’t do it, can you?
PD: Look, you keep telling me what I can’t do. I’ll find out what I can’t do, and if I can’t do-
TF: You are finding out now, I’m telling you, Peter, you can’t do it. You’d have thought you’d have thought of this before you started.
PD: This is quite a pointless discussion. Completely pointless.
TF: Why?
PD: Well - I’m sitting here telling you what I want to do, you’re telling me I can’t do it. I’ll find out - not from you, from other people - if I can do it or not.
TF: Why didn’t you look at to see-
PD: That’s where we go. And then we tell the electorate what’s going on.
TF: Why didn’t you look to see if you could do it before you asked people to vote on it?
PD: Because people want this to happen. And it’s time we-
TF: We all want free speech, Peter, but why didn’t you look into it to see if it could happen before you asked 14,000 people to vote on it? You know what’s going to happen - they got upset with the political processes in Doncaster before, they disliked Martin Winter. You’ve come along, you’ve waved this flag, knowing you can’t back any of it up and they’ve voted for you. How are they going to feel when they realise they’ve been hoodwinked?
PD: They’ve not been hoodwinked, I’m a man of my word, and I shall do everything that I can to put this into practice. And that is something that Doncaster’s not had before.
TF: You’re going to cut the Gay Pride funding.
PD: Yep.
TF: Erm, how much did Doncaster Council fund Gay Pride?
PD: Haven’t got a clue, I haven’t looked into… I haven’t got the details, I… I haven’t even started-
TF: Well that’s bright, isn’t it? So how much did… how much was it worth to Doncaster?
PD: How…er, what?
TF: The Gay Pride march. 8,000 people in town for a day.
PD: I don’t know. They can still come. There’s nobody stopping them coming.
TF: So you don’t know what it costs, you don’t know what it earns, but you’re banning it?
PD: I’m saying that… hard-pressed taxpayers money should not be spent on promoting any type of sexuality whether it’s straight or gay.
TF: But for all you-, but for all you know it could be making a fortune for the town - you don’t know, you’ve not even looked at it.
PD: Well, it, er… it may, it may or it may not, I’m telling you what I’m not doing, and again it was on the manifesto, it was quite clear people appeared to like what I was saying.
TF: Yeah, but the stuff on the manifesto we’ve already realised - you can’t do anything about it.
PD: I think it’s time we finished this interview, it’s quite pointless. I’ve… I… It’s really wasted… I wanted to say a few things this morning that might have been-
TF: Tell me what you want to say.
PD: …that people might have wanted to listen to.
TF: Tell me what you want to say.
PD: Well, I wanted to point out that this morning I was going to, er, see that two social workers were returned to the childrens hospital, er, which were taken away some time ago for some unaccountable reason. I was going to say we’re getting rid of Doncaster News at the earliest opportunity, and I also wanted to point out that this very weekend I’ve discovered that Doncaster is twinned with nine separate towns, er, that the Mayor… the ex-Mayor had a car, for what reason I don’t know. It’s quite reasonable that the Civic Mayor has a car, but why the elected Mayor has one, God only knows, er, and it looks to me like a Daily Telegraph moment, where I shall be discovering things every day that, er, can be got rid of.
TF: Okay… none of that really means anything, does it? Let’s have a look at Doncaster News. You’re getting rid of Doncaster News, that’s a, er, flyer… er, paper that goes to every home in the borough isn’t it, to tell them what you’re doing?
PD: Well, it was to distort… er, what Mayor Winter was doing, yes.
TF: So now you’re stopping communication with the people of Doncaster?
PD: No - communication will be through the Doncaster Free Press, though Radio Sheffield if we can get some sensible interviews-
TF: Heh.
PD: -and, er, the free newspapers.
TF: So the people who work on Doncaster News, then, are they out of work as well?
PD: I don’t know, I don’t… I, I, don’t know what their full… I’ve… I… I’ve not even got… been in the office yet, I’ve… I’ve not even-
TF: This is the problem, isn’t it-
PD: -had the briefing from the Chief Executive-
TF: You actually don’t understand the laws, you don’t understand-
PD: Okay, I’m stopping this interview, it’s a complete waste of time, er, you’re not asking any sensible questions, and er, I really don’t want to continue.
TF: Peter, all I’m asking is how you’re going to deliver on your election manifesto?
>Silence<
TF: Well, I can assure you, that’s going to be one of the easiest he gets.
Hat-Tip to Charon QC
Peter Davies, English Democrats, newly elected Mayor of Doncaster, in how not to do a radio interview if you haven't got a clue what your election manifesto is all about.
Or, if you would prefer, you can read the transcript of the interview below...
(from BBC Radio Sheffield, 8th June 2009)
Toby Foster (BBC Radio Sheffield): Thanks very much for joining us. I said that we didn’t see it coming - did you see it coming? Did you expect to win?
Peter Davies: Well, well not really. A great friend of mine told me the night before I was going to get a great shock, and that I would win. I was thinking of saving the deposit at the time.
TF: I can imagine. What was it you think that made people vote for you?
PD: Well we were the only party who gave a distinctive agenda to the electorate. All the others talked waffle. I looked at all the leaflets, I couldn’t make anything of them all, they were all the same.
TF: You did give a distinctive agenda, you’re absolutely right, you made some real points on that. Let’s just have a look - let’s have a look at them shall we? The first one of course I think’s an easy one - you’re going to cut the mayor’s salary.
PD: That’s the first thing this morning
TF: Down to £30,000 a year. Now, some people could look at that Peter and say, well, you get more than that for running a supermarket these days. Surely a council deserves… a bit more respect?
PD: No, the council deserves somebody who’s going to run it properly, and it deserves somebody who’s prepared to give their services partly free, in a sense - at one time all local government councillors did all the free, er, it’s become a gravy train and I’m not prepared to be part of that.
TF: So what about the people who work for you? The deputy mayor, other people in the departments - are you cutting their wages as well?
PD: Er, well, I’ve discussed that with-, well not- not the people in the departments, I can’t- I’ve no control over what they’ve been given, but the deputy mayor and the rest of the cabinet will discuss that at, at the earliest opportunity.
TF: Well, you say you’ve no control over people in the departments, one of the big things on your campaign was that you’re going to cut ‘PC jobs’.
PD: Oh yeah, that’s a different thing altogether, er-
TF: Which jobs are those?
PD: Well, er, I’m going to look into that. Things like Diversity Officers, er, the things that are usually advertised in the Manchester-, well, it’s not the Manchester Guardian now - in the Guardian…
TF: Right, so have-, so, so hang on, so so there are politically…
PD: I mean, I can’t give you a full list at the moment, but I will…
TF: But that’s what you put on your manifesto - you must have had an idea on your manifesto what you were talking about?
PD: Yeah, yeah, all these people who are, sort of, controlling thought processes and this sort of thing, and er, erm… every department is riddled with this sort of nonsense these days.
TF: So currently then, this morning, Doncaster Council is riddled with people who are, who are doing this kind of nonsense, ah… and they’re on notice, are they? People are going to lose their jobs?
PD: Er, very likely.
TF: But we don’t know who they are, yeah? But certainly Diversity Officers…
PD: Obviously I… I’m… well, that sort of thing, yes.
TF: So, the Diversity Officer who’s getting ready for work this morning at Doncaster might as well not bother?
PD: Well, he’s… he’s in employment at the moment…
TF: But he won’t be for long?
PD: …I think, I think we ought to be talking about what we’re going to do sort of, er, now and, er, what I’ve discovered - that might be a more fruitful discussion.
TF: Well, I mean… these are the reasons people voted for you. Very bold points, as you said. Er, you’re going to cut translation services for non-English speakers - that’s a very bold point. It’s more than likely illegal, isn’t it?
PD: I dunno… again, I’ve got to find this out. It’s-
TF: Well it is - let me tell you it is, under the European Court of Human Rights it’s illegal.
PD: -Well, well, well let… we’ll look into this - we’re getting council’s opinion on what I can do and what I can’t do, and that’s…
TF: No, no, you said in your manifesto you would definitely do it.
PD: Yeah, well, I… well, I, er, if, if somebody comes in the way and stops me doing these things, then that is an insult to democracy.
TF: So what was the point of your manifesto? You might as well have said you were going to fly to the moon if you’re just going to say now that you can’t do it.
PD: No, look… I’m going to do my best to do it. If I can’t, I shall tell the electorate why I’ve not been able to do it, and who’s stood in the way of it. The-
TF: Well, the law’s standing in the way of it.
PD: -Just a minute, just a minute. The electorate clearly want me to do that. The law needs changing, then, doesn’t it?
TF: Well, you say the law needs changing-
PD: If we get a new government, then we might get rid of some of this ludicrous legislation, and be able to run our own country again.
TF: Okay, now you’re going to cut the number of councillors from 60 to 20.
PD: That is another difficulty, and the first-
TF: Can’t do it, can you?
PD: Er, well, we can appeal to their moral consciences-
TF: So you can’t do it, can you?
PD: Look, you keep telling me what I can’t do. I’ll find out what I can’t do, and if I can’t do-
TF: You are finding out now, I’m telling you, Peter, you can’t do it. You’d have thought you’d have thought of this before you started.
PD: This is quite a pointless discussion. Completely pointless.
TF: Why?
PD: Well - I’m sitting here telling you what I want to do, you’re telling me I can’t do it. I’ll find out - not from you, from other people - if I can do it or not.
TF: Why didn’t you look at to see-
PD: That’s where we go. And then we tell the electorate what’s going on.
TF: Why didn’t you look to see if you could do it before you asked people to vote on it?
PD: Because people want this to happen. And it’s time we-
TF: We all want free speech, Peter, but why didn’t you look into it to see if it could happen before you asked 14,000 people to vote on it? You know what’s going to happen - they got upset with the political processes in Doncaster before, they disliked Martin Winter. You’ve come along, you’ve waved this flag, knowing you can’t back any of it up and they’ve voted for you. How are they going to feel when they realise they’ve been hoodwinked?
PD: They’ve not been hoodwinked, I’m a man of my word, and I shall do everything that I can to put this into practice. And that is something that Doncaster’s not had before.
TF: You’re going to cut the Gay Pride funding.
PD: Yep.
TF: Erm, how much did Doncaster Council fund Gay Pride?
PD: Haven’t got a clue, I haven’t looked into… I haven’t got the details, I… I haven’t even started-
TF: Well that’s bright, isn’t it? So how much did… how much was it worth to Doncaster?
PD: How…er, what?
TF: The Gay Pride march. 8,000 people in town for a day.
PD: I don’t know. They can still come. There’s nobody stopping them coming.
TF: So you don’t know what it costs, you don’t know what it earns, but you’re banning it?
PD: I’m saying that… hard-pressed taxpayers money should not be spent on promoting any type of sexuality whether it’s straight or gay.
TF: But for all you-, but for all you know it could be making a fortune for the town - you don’t know, you’ve not even looked at it.
PD: Well, it, er… it may, it may or it may not, I’m telling you what I’m not doing, and again it was on the manifesto, it was quite clear people appeared to like what I was saying.
TF: Yeah, but the stuff on the manifesto we’ve already realised - you can’t do anything about it.
PD: I think it’s time we finished this interview, it’s quite pointless. I’ve… I… It’s really wasted… I wanted to say a few things this morning that might have been-
TF: Tell me what you want to say.
PD: …that people might have wanted to listen to.
TF: Tell me what you want to say.
PD: Well, I wanted to point out that this morning I was going to, er, see that two social workers were returned to the childrens hospital, er, which were taken away some time ago for some unaccountable reason. I was going to say we’re getting rid of Doncaster News at the earliest opportunity, and I also wanted to point out that this very weekend I’ve discovered that Doncaster is twinned with nine separate towns, er, that the Mayor… the ex-Mayor had a car, for what reason I don’t know. It’s quite reasonable that the Civic Mayor has a car, but why the elected Mayor has one, God only knows, er, and it looks to me like a Daily Telegraph moment, where I shall be discovering things every day that, er, can be got rid of.
TF: Okay… none of that really means anything, does it? Let’s have a look at Doncaster News. You’re getting rid of Doncaster News, that’s a, er, flyer… er, paper that goes to every home in the borough isn’t it, to tell them what you’re doing?
PD: Well, it was to distort… er, what Mayor Winter was doing, yes.
TF: So now you’re stopping communication with the people of Doncaster?
PD: No - communication will be through the Doncaster Free Press, though Radio Sheffield if we can get some sensible interviews-
TF: Heh.
PD: -and, er, the free newspapers.
TF: So the people who work on Doncaster News, then, are they out of work as well?
PD: I don’t know, I don’t… I, I, don’t know what their full… I’ve… I… I’ve not even got… been in the office yet, I’ve… I’ve not even-
TF: This is the problem, isn’t it-
PD: -had the briefing from the Chief Executive-
TF: You actually don’t understand the laws, you don’t understand-
PD: Okay, I’m stopping this interview, it’s a complete waste of time, er, you’re not asking any sensible questions, and er, I really don’t want to continue.
TF: Peter, all I’m asking is how you’re going to deliver on your election manifesto?
>Silence<
TF: Well, I can assure you, that’s going to be one of the easiest he gets.
Hat-Tip to Charon QC
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Doctor kills sister with unlicenced drug
Doctor kills sister with unlicenced drug
Oxford graduate died after being injected with experimental drug by sister
Scotland Yard has investigated the death of a 22-year-old Oxford University graduate who collapsed after being injected with an experimental anti-ageing drug by her sister.
If there is not a law to cover this sort of situation why isn't there?
The last person I would have thought needed an anti-ageing drug is a 22-year-old woman. That a doctor administered a drug which the person did not need for medical reasons must be questionable. The drug is unlicenced, still in the experimental stage. "Dr Pambakian rejected the suggestion that they were taking part in a drugs trial". However, I would suggest that that is exactly the case because there is not any other logical explanation for the conduct of the participants. That the doctor also had links to the drug company shows a conflict of interests. Even if it is legal I would say it is highly unethical and the conduct should be condemned by the Medical Council of Great Britain.
Administering Offences
Oxford graduate died after being injected with experimental drug by sister
Scotland Yard has investigated the death of a 22-year-old Oxford University graduate who collapsed after being injected with an experimental anti-ageing drug by her sister.
If there is not a law to cover this sort of situation why isn't there?
The last person I would have thought needed an anti-ageing drug is a 22-year-old woman. That a doctor administered a drug which the person did not need for medical reasons must be questionable. The drug is unlicenced, still in the experimental stage. "Dr Pambakian rejected the suggestion that they were taking part in a drugs trial". However, I would suggest that that is exactly the case because there is not any other logical explanation for the conduct of the participants. That the doctor also had links to the drug company shows a conflict of interests. Even if it is legal I would say it is highly unethical and the conduct should be condemned by the Medical Council of Great Britain.
Administering Offences
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Left Honourable John Hirst MP
The Left Honourable John Hirst MP
I must admit that I had not got as far as considering standing in a local or General Election, one step at a time meant that I focused on getting the franchise for all convicted prisoners.
However, this article got me thinking...
Move to ban BNP policy on ‘whites only’
Move to ban BNP policy on ‘whites only’
The British National party’s “whites-only” membership policy would be made illegal under new equality legislation being pushed through parliament, Harriet Harman, the deputy Labour leader and equality minister, said on Thursday.
Ms Harman’s decision to include a clause related to political party membership in the Equality Act is the first government attempt to confront the BNP directly after its capture this week of two European parliament seats, representing north-west England and Yorkshire and Humberside.
The BNP claims it is not a racist party, although it is openly “anti-Islam” and only allows “indigenous Caucasians” to become members.
I would rather that the BNP became a banned organisation and entered on the proscribed list of terrorist threats.
The British National party’s “whites-only” membership policy would be made illegal under new equality legislation being pushed through parliament, Harriet Harman, the deputy Labour leader and equality minister, said on Thursday.
Ms Harman’s decision to include a clause related to political party membership in the Equality Act is the first government attempt to confront the BNP directly after its capture this week of two European parliament seats, representing north-west England and Yorkshire and Humberside.
The BNP claims it is not a racist party, although it is openly “anti-Islam” and only allows “indigenous Caucasians” to become members.
I would rather that the BNP became a banned organisation and entered on the proscribed list of terrorist threats.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Prisoners to get vote in time for next General Election
Prisoners to get vote in time for next General Election
The government's best laid plan to delay legislating to give all convicted prisoners the vote until after the next General Election, has today been scuppered by the Committee of Ministers in the European Parliament. The Labour government has been found guilty of unacceptable delays since the judgment of Hirst v UK(No2) was handed down by the European Court of Human Rights 5 years ago. The Committee of Ministers was asked by myself, and solicitor Elkan Abrahamson of AS Law (Liverpool) and barrister Flo Krause of Meritz Chambers, and organisations such as Liberty, Prison Reform Trust, Unlock, and the AIRE Centre, for an interim resolution. What this means is that the government must resolve the issue by December, to the satifaction of the Committee of Ministers, or the case will be sent back to the ECtHR for a final resolution. What this means is that the ECtHR will expel the UK as a Member State of the European Union. All Member States have to agree to abide by the European Convention and the decisions of the ECtHR to become a Member State of the European Union.
On 5 June 2009, the Committee of Ministers was presented with evidence from those in support of the Prisoners Votes Case, and submissions were also made on behalf of the government. The Committee of Ministers rejected the government's submissions and instead accepted the evidence submitted by those in support of the Prisoners Votes Case. In other words, the government has been caugt out lying and employing delaying tactics in an attempt to ignore the ECtHR ruling.
The government has been put in check.
The next move is check mate!
The only question Gordon Brown and Jack Straw have to answer is, is it worth being expelled from the EU on this issue? The Eurosceptics, UKIP and the BNP and Dan Hannan, would all say "Yes". However, it has to be said that the vast majority would prefer being in the EU to being kicked out of it and therefore their answer is "No".
1059th DH meeting – 5 June 2009
Section 4.2
- 1 case against United Kingdom
74025/01 Hirst No. 2, judgment of 06/10/2005 - Grand Chamber
Decisions
The Deputies,
1. noted the action plan of the United Kingdom authorities and the recently published second-stage public consultation which will be followed by draft legislation;
2. expressed concern about the significant delay in implementing the action plan and recognised the pressing need to take concrete steps to implement the judgment particularly in light of upcoming United Kingdom elections which must take place by June 2010 at the latest;
3. noted that the second stage of the consultation will close in September 2009 and stressed the need to take the procedural steps following the consultation without delay in order to adopt the measures necessary to implement the judgment;
4. decided to resume consideration of this case at the latest at their 1072nd meeting (December 2009) (DH) in light of an interim resolution to be prepared by the Secretariat, if necessary.
The government's best laid plan to delay legislating to give all convicted prisoners the vote until after the next General Election, has today been scuppered by the Committee of Ministers in the European Parliament. The Labour government has been found guilty of unacceptable delays since the judgment of Hirst v UK(No2) was handed down by the European Court of Human Rights 5 years ago. The Committee of Ministers was asked by myself, and solicitor Elkan Abrahamson of AS Law (Liverpool) and barrister Flo Krause of Meritz Chambers, and organisations such as Liberty, Prison Reform Trust, Unlock, and the AIRE Centre, for an interim resolution. What this means is that the government must resolve the issue by December, to the satifaction of the Committee of Ministers, or the case will be sent back to the ECtHR for a final resolution. What this means is that the ECtHR will expel the UK as a Member State of the European Union. All Member States have to agree to abide by the European Convention and the decisions of the ECtHR to become a Member State of the European Union.
On 5 June 2009, the Committee of Ministers was presented with evidence from those in support of the Prisoners Votes Case, and submissions were also made on behalf of the government. The Committee of Ministers rejected the government's submissions and instead accepted the evidence submitted by those in support of the Prisoners Votes Case. In other words, the government has been caugt out lying and employing delaying tactics in an attempt to ignore the ECtHR ruling.
The government has been put in check.
The next move is check mate!
The only question Gordon Brown and Jack Straw have to answer is, is it worth being expelled from the EU on this issue? The Eurosceptics, UKIP and the BNP and Dan Hannan, would all say "Yes". However, it has to be said that the vast majority would prefer being in the EU to being kicked out of it and therefore their answer is "No".
1059th DH meeting – 5 June 2009
Section 4.2
- 1 case against United Kingdom
74025/01 Hirst No. 2, judgment of 06/10/2005 - Grand Chamber
Decisions
The Deputies,
1. noted the action plan of the United Kingdom authorities and the recently published second-stage public consultation which will be followed by draft legislation;
2. expressed concern about the significant delay in implementing the action plan and recognised the pressing need to take concrete steps to implement the judgment particularly in light of upcoming United Kingdom elections which must take place by June 2010 at the latest;
3. noted that the second stage of the consultation will close in September 2009 and stressed the need to take the procedural steps following the consultation without delay in order to adopt the measures necessary to implement the judgment;
4. decided to resume consideration of this case at the latest at their 1072nd meeting (December 2009) (DH) in light of an interim resolution to be prepared by the Secretariat, if necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)