Paul Marsden

Link: http://www.quora.com/Paul-Marsden

Feed: Paul Marsden on Quora

• Paul Marsden followed the board Davranice. | 12.05.2012

• Was Tony Blair a good Prime Minister? | 07.05.2012
  Paul Marsden voted up an answer.
  
  
  Rupert Baines,

  Fascinated by politics; passionate debater; int...

  
  He did a lot of good things - and one spectacularly bad.  
  
  It is almost Shakesperian: how the War on Iraq defines and destroyed his reputation.
  
  There is probably a parallel with LBJ: domestic policy, Civil Rights & The Great Society, but all he is remembered for is Vietnam.
  
  Some of the good things:
  

  • Minimum Wage
  • Devolution for Scoland & Wales
  • Good Friday agreement & peace in Northern Ireland
  • Freedom of Information Act
  • Human Rights Act
  • Independent Bank of England
  • Civil partnerships (although he wimped on full 'marriage' this was progress)
  • Progress in reducing Child Poverty
  • Huge investment in education
  • Huge investment in NHS (+25% increase in real terms)
  • Longest period of uninterrupted growth in UK history
  • Lowest unemployment for 50 years
  • Lowest inflation in decades
  • Lowest debt in decades (in 2007 debt was 2nd lowest in G8)
  • Some people would say 'banning fox-hunting'. Personally I'm not over-bothered either way, but for those who do care it is a big one.
  • Kosovo & Sierra Leone.  Not wholly good and definitely controversial, but many people would say (at least at the time) they were 'good interventions''
    h/t Daniel Walker

  
  
  New  Statesman: The Tragedy of Tony Blair, What he was & What he became
  

  Yet let us not forget what Mr Blair once represented, nor what he achieved. The early years in power were defined by bold liberal and social-democratic reform - witness the introduction of the minimum wage, the windfall tax on the privatised utilities, devolution in Scotland, Wales and London, the Human Rights Act and independence for the Bank of England.

  
  [1]
  
  Polly Toynbee
  

  Although she has been consistently critical of many of Tony Blair's reforms, she said in 2005 that his government "remains the best government of my political lifetime".[2]

  
  
  I agree with Steven Ford and Phil Jones on many of the points, but I think they are too harsh in wholly overlooking the good achievements.
  
  
  [1]  
  http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-p...
  
  [2]   http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/elec...
  
  See question on Quora

• Is the Prime Minister too powerful in the United Kingdom? | 07.05.2012
  Paul Marsden added an answer.
  
  
  Paul Marsden,

  Proud Brit.

  
  The British Prime Minister is a very powerful individual. They have significant powers of leverage to exert on their party, parliament and the organs of government. I would suggest that in a parliamentary democracy and in spite of the modifications to the power of the Prime Minister by the Coalition amendments, the Prime Minister is still too powerful.
  Whilst theoretically H.M. The Queen is Head of State, it is these days a nominal role without any day to day power. Only In extremis would she ever even think of  over ruling the Prime Minister triggering a constitutional crisis. A very important check and balance but nevertheless day to day it is little impact on the Prime Minister.
  The Ram Doctrine from 1945 sets out that a Minister (including the Prime Minister) may take any action unless it is limited by Statute (not take actions according to Statute).http://www.publications.parliame...
  The Royal Prerogative allows the Prime Minister to take as if they were the Monarch.
  Lord Hennessy spelt out the role and powers of the Prime Minister in his submission to the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee's inquiry in March 2011:-
  Constitutional and procedural
  1: Managing the relationship between the Government and the Monarch and the Heir to the Throne.
  2: Managing the relationship between the Government and the Opposition on a Privy Counsellor basis.
  3: Managing the relationships between UK Central Government and devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  4: Establishing order of precedence in Cabinet.
  5: Interpretation and content of procedural and conduct guidelines for ministers as outlined in the Ministerial Code and the draft Cabinet Manual.
  6: Oversight, with the Cabinet Secretary advising, of the Civil Service Code as enshrined in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
  7: Decisions, with the Justice Secretary, on whether and when to use the ministerial override on disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
  8: Requesting the Sovereign to grant a dissolution of Parliament (unless and until Parliament passes the Fixed-Term Parliament Bill.)
  9: Authorising the Cabinet Secretary to facilitate negotiations between the political parties in the event of a ‘hung’ General Election result.
  10: Managing intra-Coalition relationships with the Deputy Prime Minister.
  Appointments
  (Made in the name of the Sovereign but chosen by the Prime Minister).
  1: Appointment and dismissal of ministers (final approval of their parliamentary private secretaries and special advisers) in consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister for Liberal Democrat appointments and the appointment of the Law Officers.
  2: Top appointments to the headships of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters.
  3: Top appointments to the Home Civil Service; and, in collaboration with the Foreign Secretary to the Diplomatic Service; and, with the Defence Secretary, to the Armed Forces.
  4: Top ecclesiastical appointments (though since Gordon Brown’s premierships, the Prime Minister has conveyed the preference of the Church of England’s selectors to the Monarch without interference).
  5: Residual academic appointments: the Mastership of Trinity College, Cambridge; the Principalship of King’s College, London; a small number of regius professorships in Oxford and Cambridge (the First Minister in Edinburgh is responsible for the Scottish regius chairs). Since the Blair premiership the No 10 practice has been to convey the wishes of the institutions to the Queen without interference.
  6: Top public sector appointments and regulators (with some informal parliamentary oversight).
  7: Appointments to committees of inquiry and royal commissions.
  8: The award of party political honours.
  9: Party political appointments to the House of Lords (independent crossbench peers are selected by the House of Lords Appointments Commission and the Prime Minister conveys the recommendations to the Monarch without interference).
  Conduct of cabinet and parliamentary business
  1: Calling meetings of Cabinet and its committees. Fixing their agenda and, in the case of committees their membership in consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister.
  2: The calling of ‘Political Cabinets’ with no officials present.
  3: Deciding issues where Cabinet or Cabinet committees are unable to agree.
  4: Deciding, with the Deputy Prime Minister, when the Cabinet is allowed an ‘opt out’ on collective responsibility and subsequent whipping arrangements in Parliament.
  5: Granting ministers permission to miss Cabinet meetings or leave the country.
  6: Ultimate responsibility (with the Deputy Prime Minister and the leaders of the House of Commons and the House of Lords) for the government’s legislative programme and the use of government time in the chambers of both Houses.
  7: Answering questions for 30 minutes on Wednesdays when the House of Commons is sitting on nearly the whole range of government activity.
  8: Appearing twice a year to give evidence before the House of Commons Liaision Committee.
  Policy strategy and communications
  1: Keeper, with the Deputy Prime Minister, of the Coalition’s overall Political Strategy.
  2: Oversight of No 10 Communications Strategy and work of the Government Communication Network.
  3: Pursuit and promulgation of special overarching policies particularly associated with the Prime Minister eg. the ‘Big Society.’
  Organisational and efficiency questions
  1: Organisation and Staffing of No 10 and the Cabinet Office (including the Prime Minister’s relationship with the Deputy Prime Minister and the two senior Cabinet Office ministers dealing with policy strategy and public service reform).
  2: Size of Cabinet, workload on ministers and the Civil Service.
  3: The creation and merger of government departments and executive agencies.
  Budget and market-sensitive decisions
  1: Determining with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary of the Treasury the detailed contents of the Budget. By tradition, the full Cabinet is only apprised of the full contents the morning before the Budget statement is delivered.
  2: Interest rates are now set by the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer possess an override under the Bank of England Act 1998 if the ‘public interest’ requires and ‘by extreme economic circumstances’ but this has never been used.
  National security
  1: Chairing the weekly meetings of the National Security Council (which also serves, when needed, as a ‘War Cabinet’).
  2: Oversight of the production and implementation of the National Security Strategy.
  3: Oversight of counter-terrorist policies and arrangements.
  4: Overall efficiency of the secret agencies, their operations, budgets and oversight and the intelligence assessments process in the Cabinet Office.
  5: Preparation of the ‘War Book’.
  6: Contingency planning to cope with threats to essential services and national health from whatever sources.
  7: With the Foreign and Defence Secretaries the use of the royal prerogative to deploy Her Majesty’s Forces in action (with Parliament, by convention, being consulted if time allows).
  8: With the Foreign Secretary the use of the royal prerogative to ratify or annul treaties, to recognise or derecognise countries (though in certain circumstances, the House of Commons can block treaty ratification under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010).
  Special personal responsibilities
  1: Representing the UK at a range of international meetings and ‘summits.’
  2: The maintenance of the special intelligence and nuclear relationships with the US President under the terms of the 1946 Communications Agreement, the 1958 Agreement for Co-operation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes and the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement.
  3: The decision to shoot down a hijacked aircraft or an unidentified civil aircraft which responds neither to radio contact nor the signals of RAF interceptor jets, before it reaches a conurbation or a key target on UK territory (plus the appointment of two or three deputies for this purpose).
  4: Authorisation of the use of UK nuclear weapons including the preparation of four ‘last resort’ letters for installation in the inner safes of each Royal Navy Trident submarine and the appointment, on a personal basis rather than the Cabinet’s order of precedence, of the ‘nuclear deputies’ lest the Prime Minister should be out of reach or indisposed during an emergency.
  http://www.publications.parliame...
  
  See question on Quora

• What are the consequences of Labour holding the greatest single share of council seats, whilst there is a Lib-Tory coalition in parliament? | 07.05.2012
  In Labour (UK Political Party): Paul Marsden added an answer.
  
  
  Paul Marsden,

  Proud Brit.

  
  The consequences are:
  1. It gives the perception that Labour is more popular than the Coalition Government and this perception of strength gives credibility to Labour when voters weigh up who to support at the next General Election.
  2. It provides a larger grass roots army for the Labour Party when it comes to campaigning on the door steps. Credibility is enhanced to a small degree when a Councillor sends out a press release or knocks on a voter's door.
  3. As Sean Padraig rightly mentions, it gives greater credibility to the leader, Ed Milliband supporting his claim to be a Prime Minister in waiting.
  4. There is likely to be a drip feed affect through daily briefings to the press and activities that Labour Councils and Labour Councillors blame the Government for the public sector cuts in services. The sheer number of local government figures blaming the Coalition Government will solidify in the minds of voters who takes the greater share of blame for these job losses and reductions in school budgets and care services for the elderly.
  5. It is easier to organise local demonstrations and protests that will attract media coverage.
  
  Conversely, the larger the number of Labour Councils and Councillors will:
  1. raise expectations of a Labour victory in 2015 thereby motivating the Conservatives and Liberal Democrat supporters to mobilise and campaign.
  2. motivate sections of the right wing media to aim to expose and criticise Labour and its leader to undermine the threat of victory.
  
  See question on Quora

• What is a "three-line whip"? | 07.05.2012
  In UK Politics: Paul Marsden added an answer.
  
  
  Paul Marsden,

  British Member of Parliament between 1997 and 2...

  
  The term the whip was derived from hunting terminology; the whipper-in, defined as ‘a huntsman's assistant who keeps the hounds from straying by driving them back with the whip into the main body of the pack.'
  The first reference to the parliament use occurred in P.D.G. Thomas' book, 'The House of Commons in the Eighteenth Century':
  'on 18 November 1742 Heneage Finch remarked in a letter to Lord Malton that 'the Whips for once in their lives have whipped in better than the Tories'.
  These 'Whips' are Parliamentary Secretaries to the Treasury of H.M. Government. Larger political parties will appoint several Whips who will be allocated technical and geographical areas to cover. Technical subjects will usually reflect the Cabinet departments such as Health and Transport. Geographic areas usually cover regions where a Whip is locally based. For example, a Nottingham MP appointed as a Whip may cover the East Midlands region of the UK of local MPs for his or her party.
  The 'Chief Whip' sits in the Cabinet and their primary function is to get the Government's business through Parliament.
  Deryck Abel, in 'The Whips in History' pronounced that the Whips had six purposes:
  'First, they “make” a House.  Secondly, they “keep” a House to vote supply, and usage of a quorum of forty dates from 1640.  Thirdly, they “cheer the Minister”.  Fourthly, they furnish the only regularly constituted party organization within the House of Commons. Fifthly, they facilitate and execute plans, devised by the Leader of the House, in fulfilment of his own specific duty, for  the expeditious despatch of Government business.  …  Sixthly, it is the Chief Whip who draws up the sessional programme of parliamentary business for the approbation  of the Home Affairs Committee of the Cabinet and of the Cabinet itself.'
  A Member of Parliament, who is a member of a political party, will usually receive the weekly circular or 'whip' each week traditionally by post and these days by email. It is an A4 size of paper listing under each day the business of the House with one, two or three lines drawn underneath.
  One line means that that the business is not deemed very important or that the Opposition are not opposing it so it can pass through the House unimpeded and the member is not required to attend.
  Two lines means that the a vote might be expected but the Government is unlikely to lose that vote. Loyalist MP's will most likely still attend to ingratiate themselves with the Chief Whip.
  Three lines is a specific instruction to attend and vote with the Government 'line' or policy.
  Not to vote on a three line whip is a potentially disciplinary matter, however, if good reasons are given to the Regional Whip then by permission the MP may be released from the appropriate division. 'Pairing' is a traditional method of allowing MP's to be released from a three line Whip where opposite 'Pairing Whips agree to pair off the same number of MP's so that the majority is not affected in the House. However, on 17 December 1996, it was claimed that during Prime Minister John Major's Government that the Conservative Whips had paired three of their MP's with both Labour and the Liberal Democrats (6:3 instead of 3:3), thereby giving them an advantage of three extra votes. As such, pairing was officially brought to an end although older MP's continue to use the practice with a nod from their Whips.
  The biggest postwar backbench three line rebellion occurred on 24 October 2011, occurred when 81 Conservative MPs supported a referendum motion on the European Union in defiance of Prime Minister David Cameron.
  
  References
  The Whips -
  http://www.parliament.uk/about/m...
  The Whip's Office - http://www.parliament.uk/documen...
  
  See question on Quora

• Paul Marsden followed the topic Open University. | 07.05.2012

• Paul Marsden followed the topic Teesside University. | 07.05.2012

• Paul Marsden followed the topic Mid-cheshire College. | 07.05.2012

• Paul Marsden followed Stefano Frigerio. | 07.05.2012

• Paul Marsden followed John Cass. | 07.05.2012

Link: http://friendfeed.com/paulwbmarsden

Link: http://earthday.ning.com/friends/PaulMarsden

Link: http://twitter.com/CommsPWBM

Feed: Twitter / CommsPWBM

• CommsPWBM: RT @UN: UN peacekeeper & 2 contractors shot dead by insurgents in DR Congo http://bit.ly/b65FhV #UN #news | 06.04.2010

  CommsPWBM: RT @UN: UN peacekeeper & 2 contractors shot dead by insurgents in DR Congo http://bit.ly/b65FhV #UN #news

• CommsPWBM: Brown to call election for 6 May: http://digg.com/d31NakH?t | 06.04.2010

  CommsPWBM: Brown to call election for 6 May: http://digg.com/d31NakH?t

• CommsPWBM: RT @SallyBercow: RT @LabourList: YouGov tonight: Con 38% (nc) Lab 32% (+1) LD 19% (nc) <<< Labour +1. Send in the Neighbourhood ... | 01.04.2010

  CommsPWBM: RT @SallyBercow: RT @LabourList: YouGov tonight: Con 38% (nc) Lab 32% (+1) LD 19% (nc) <<< Labour +1. Send in the Neighbourhood ...

• CommsPWBM: RT @TIME: How difficult is it to escape Britain's data-driven surveillance state? | http://su.pr/7blaij | 01.04.2010

  CommsPWBM: RT @TIME: How difficult is it to escape Britain's data-driven surveillance state? | http://su.pr/7blaij

• CommsPWBM: RT @politicshomeuk: Cameron FT interview: Britain is gagging for change http://tinyurl.com/ybkp6x8 | 01.04.2010

  CommsPWBM: RT @politicshomeuk: Cameron FT interview: Britain is gagging for change http://tinyurl.com/ybkp6x8

• CommsPWBM: RT @PoliticalTicker: Democrats raise money off of Biden's F-bomb http://bit.ly/asXt14 | 01.04.2010

  CommsPWBM: RT @PoliticalTicker: Democrats raise money off of Biden's F-bomb http://bit.ly/asXt14

• CommsPWBM: RT @POLITICSEDITOR: George Osborne getting a bit of a pasting today over National Insurance plan - unravelling ahead of C4 debate. | 29.03.2010

  CommsPWBM: RT @POLITICSEDITOR: George Osborne getting a bit of a pasting today over National Insurance plan - unravelling ahead of C4 debate.

• CommsPWBM: RT @TheGreenParty: RT @twodoctors 4000 more people have done http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ since I last looked, and Green policies are ... | 29.03.2010

  CommsPWBM: RT @TheGreenParty: RT @twodoctors 4000 more people have done http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ since I last looked, and Green policies are ...

• CommsPWBM: RT @MoscowTimes: Analysis: Bombings Look Like the Revenge of Black Widows http://goo.gl/fb/nBx9 | 29.03.2010

  CommsPWBM: RT @MoscowTimes: Analysis: Bombings Look Like the Revenge of Black Widows http://goo.gl/fb/nBx9

• CommsPWBM: RT @BBC_News_World: BBC News Americas: In pictures: The mysterious stone spheres of Costa Rica http://bit.ly/9sxeTh | 29.03.2010

  CommsPWBM: RT @BBC_News_World: BBC News Americas: In pictures: The mysterious stone spheres of Costa Rica http://bit.ly/9sxeTh

Link: http://paulmarsden.deviantart.com

Feed: paulmarsden's journals

• Environment and the media | 06.03.2010

Link: http://paulmarsden.skyrock.com

Feed: paulmarsden's blog

• Environment and the media | 06.03.2010

  Why do media websites rarely have an 'Environment' section on their front pages? http://paulwbmarsden.blogspot.com/2010/03/environment-and-media.html
  
  

Link: http://youtube.com/paulwbmarsden

Feed: Uploads by paulwbmarsden

Link: http://paulwbmarsden.blogspot.com

Feed: Paul Marsden

• What does Downing Street know about Phonegate? | 09.09.2011
  The Culture, Media and Sport's hearings into Phonegate revealed witnesses whose words and body language were filled with lies and crass arrogance.

  

  Watching Colin Myler (Former Editor of the News of the World) and Tom Crone (Former Legal Manager at News International) on 6th September in front of the Committee demonstrated the worst behaviour of people caught in a lie and still trying to talk their way out of appalling actions by their employer and other employees. Trying to wheedle out of admitting they had mislead the Committee and parliament previously, Crone was reduced to arguing over the definitions of 'secret' and 'confidential'.

  In the same way we had the haughty responses by some MPs caught stealing through the expenses system, greedy 'casino' bankers playing with the British economy like it was their own private bank and some police officers happily taking bribes, we saw individuals who would not accept that their past views were inconsistent and misleading to parliament and an utter failure to recognise the seriousness of phone hacking. Myler, Crone and others simply don't get it. Adopting the Nuremberg policy of 'we were only following orders' is pathetic. Looking at their faces you could see that they were going to fight tooth and nail in opposing inch by inch, the Committee's pursuit of the truth. Frankly, they were not believable witnesses and their words cannot be trusted.
  

  Tom Watson MP in pursuit of exposing one of the  biggest conspiracies in the past century

  On the other hand it was a pleasure watching Tom Watson MP in action tearing a part bit by bit the obfuscation. Tom has proved to be a doughty, terrier in pursuing the phone hacking and subsequent cover ups. He exudes the very finest qualities of the the best British parliamentarians. He deserves a medal for his pursuit of the truth of phone hacking and his refusal to go away when the Police, Solicitors and powerful media barons were telling him and the world that a single rogue operator was responsible for the phone hacking. Tom had rightly identified that the facts didn't stack up and sniffed out the leads and evidence to help blow open the affair.

  Andy Coulson has refused to appear before parliamentary committee

  At least Crone and Myler did show up in front of the Committee, which is more than can be said for Andy Coulson desperately fighting against appearing before the Committee. Questions remain as to what he told David Cameron. Did he hint or give any sort of impression that he thought the phone hacking extended past Goodman and Mulcaire? Did Coulson send emails or correspondence setting out what happened during his period as News of the World Editorship? Will any of the enquiries get to see those emails, notes or letters? Was a civil servant present in the discussions between Coulson and Cameron about phone hacking? If so, there would be a record made of that conversation. If there was no civil servant present, why did Cameron avoid the usual practice on such a sensitive, serious and criminal matter? What kind of Prime Minister avoids making a record? Those records could ultimately place David Cameron in a compromised position.

  What exactly did Coulson tell Cameron? Were records kept of their conversations?

  God speed the Committee and the police enquiries to put behind bars all those involved in this disgraceful conspiracy. I hope that Fleet Street will clean up its act and eradicate the illegal practices where they thought they could freely wade through people's private lives. However, seeing the attitude of Crone and Myler, the Government will need to take steps to enforce that cultural change. You can't trust these type of people to genuinely make the changes needed. 

  In the mean time, we are left wondering what records exist in Downing street about how much David Cameron knew about the extent of the phone hacking.

  
  
  

• Obama throws down gauntlet to Republicans | 09.09.2011
  
  

  An assertive President Obama set out his stall for Congress to back his American Jobs Act. The interesting part of that speech was the way it was delivered and the strong, resolute delivery of the speech. Here was a President facing a tough election battle as the economy has slowed and ground almost to a halt after previously showing signs of a recovery. But more than a simple desire to win, we saw Barack Obama demonstrating leadership and purpose which frankly has been missing at times as he has tried to grapple with the problems of the economy and the consistent right wing attacks by GOP contenders.

  Vice President Joe Biden

  A word of merit for Joe Biden who was just behind the President’s right shoulder at the Congressional speech; he is an unswerving, loyal lieutenant that has proven to be a first rate Vice President. He works tirelessly behind the scenes and backs the President to the hilt. He doesn't show signs of his own ambition or politicking to undermine the President. That is a rare example of what a Vice President should be. He was on his feet applauding the President and Obama can be sure that Biden will use his influence to try and bring Republicans on board to get the AJA through Congress. Nevertheless, it is certain to face a very difficult ride and given the strength of the Tea Party values amongst Republicans, the AJA may well fail to pass. If so, the Republicans will play into Obama's hands. On the other hand if they successfully amend the Bill to their liking they could turn it around as a weapon against the President, which could mean he has to veto his own Bill.

  There are fourteen months to go before the presidential election and the President needs the economy to improve. The hard truth though is that his proposed jobs act will only give a mild stimulus to the US economy and the underlying problems of the energy deficit and the artificial weakening of the Chinese yuan remain. It is difficult to force the Chinese to alter their exchange rate policy and unless there is a readiness to damage the environment then changes to the energy deficit are limited (electric vehicle technology is being proposed as one answer to the problem) . America needs to create jobs and more wealth through making its economy therefore, more dynamic, flexible and productive. There is still time for the trend to change towards reducing unemployment and increasing the money in the wallet and purse of the average American but time is running out.

  Governor Rick Perry

  Whilst the Republicans should be coming down the final stretch ten yards ahead of the president remarkably the voters are reticent of the GOP contenders. Even Texas Governor Rick Perry can only manage a small lead in the polls and that is during his current honeymoon period before the full scrutiny of his policies and past has been put under the microscope.  

  With some radical and even off the charts extreme policies being espoused by Perry on Social Security the field is still open for Romneyor even Palin (if she finally enters the race, which I think she will) to take the primaries. 

  US Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman Jr

  The President needs to ratchet up improvements in the economy where he can, hope for a radical GOP candidate to face him in the election and he needs a bit of luck. If those three things happen then Obama has a reasonable chance of success. He is a powerful campaigner and remains the favourite to win a re-election (but by a tiny margin).

  However, if a more sensible GOP candidate like Jon Huntsmanwas to pull off a miracle GOP nomination (he is polling around 1%) then I think Obama will lose. But with Rick Perry, Bachmann and Romney slugging it out that scenario of a centrist winning the nomination is not going to happen. Obama knows the GOP struggle of exposing weaknesses and extremes in the Republican candidates can only help his chances.
  

• Riot jail sentences need new radical jail life | 17.08.2011
  
  

  Don't just lock them up, make them work inside. Jail should be about changing them.

  
  

  The debateabout the length of jail sentences for those found guilty of involvement and incitement of the riots has begun to take off between the doves and hawks on restorative justice. At first glance, four years for urging a riot on Facebook (but nothing then happened) can seem harsh. Writing a few words on social media can result in a sentence twice as long as actually looting goods from shops may seem disproportionate. Likewise, six months prison for stealing bottles of water can seem too much to some. However, if we are serious about puncturing the arrogant, laid back views of a minority in society who do not fear jail then these cases may start to have an effect on their attitudes. 

  If the part of society that gave birth and nurtured the culture that created the looters, are alarmed at the length of sentence then the judge has succeeded in getting a message through to them. Over the past ten years, some social media users in society have become anesthetised to communicating responsibly. Especially on Facebook and Twitter, communicating has become contorted for some. What they write compared to what they would say face to face has become dysfunctional. The lonely and aloof aura as they type away on the keyboard has produced at times vicious, irresponsible and even deluded messaging. Perhaps the ‘Facebook Two’sentences will make people stop and think that they are writing in cold reality and they cannot write anything they feel in that split second.

  

  What is more important than arguing over the length of sentences is what goes on inside those jails. If they are holding pens and even training camps to improve the skills of robbers to rob better or increase the environment of aggression and hostility to inflame the gang culture, then those jails are failing. One British jail has a re-offending rate of 74%. That is a failed system.

  As I suggested in my previous poston the riots, we need to get those prisoners out of their cells where they languish for up to 23 hours and get them working and exercising for say 18 hours.

  The point of prison is yes to punish but also and this is crucial, to change that offender’s behaviour. We need people coming out of jail who will contribute back positively to society. There is no point whatsoever, ‘locking them up and throwing away the key’, because apart from the most violent crimes or severely mentally ill patients, the vast majority will come back out. We need them getting jobs and not living on benefits. We need them to have learnt from their spell in jail to teach youngsters to stay on the straight and narrow. We need those ex-offenders to be volunteering to help the local community. If they have few working skills, jail should be training them work and life skills to improve their chances of getting a job.

  That is the part of the debate, which seems to be missing. Long sentences? Fine (case by case) but we need to radically change our prisons and construct a justice system that transforms wrong doers into stable, working citizens. Does Cameron have the nuanced understanding of what happened in the riots to produce that radical transformation of our prisons?

  Does Cameron understand how to transform jails?

  
  
  

• Grim lives but squalid characters - time for hard work | 13.08.2011

  The faces of some alleged looters and rioters

  I lived and worked in North London between 2007 and 2008. I cycled for two hours each day through the streets not far from the Tottenham riots and I caught a glimpse of both proud, happy members of society and the sulky, bitter and introverted lives of others.

  I lived in Lea Valley and I used to cycle each day down to Islington. I was knocked off my bicycle twice by careless drivers cutting in front of me (once without any insurance or an up to date tax disc) and both times using bus lanes and when I once tried to stop off and leave my bicycle at Tottenham Hale tube station, my bike was inevitably stolen. There were times when I saw gangs roaming around the streets with little to do but I never felt threatened. In fact, the most worrying time was being caught up in a huge crowd of Arsenal fans on the way to the ground and me pushing my bike through the crowd down the streets and realising that dangling from my rucksack was my Liverpool Football Club scarf. I got a bit of stick that evening…

  David Starkey last night on BBC Newsnight proclaimed that the violence was down to a ‘black culture’ that had pervaded black and white, boy and girl. His bizarre and less than helpful idea does nothing to explain the reasons for the looting and that kind of pompous, ignorant and ‘white’ perspective will hardly help rebuild those communities scarred by the riots.
  

  'Shopping with violence' as one commentator said

  There are grim lives in some communities and that includes not just the cities but the towns and even parts of more rural areas. I have seen the pockets of hard deprivation in Shrewsbury when I was an MP. They are places where educational achievement is generally low, unemployment very high and the worshipping of celebrities and bling has intoxicated young minds. They seek a laser quick exit to their grim lives and have little discipline or role models to make them understand that through hard work they can reach for the stars. It sounds easy and it isn’t, it is very hard. There are few attractive jobs but if these young people with little self-worth (they create an artificial self-worth through gangs and wearing branded trainers, sunglasses and jewellery) can appreciate that if they truly put their minds to work they can slowly build decent, honest lives. The first job may not be up to much but if you work hard and put in the hours, go to college at night and get extra qualifications, save the little money you earn and invest in a car or a computer then over time you can get a better job and earn more money.

  I know it is difficult when there are temptations around through weak willed gang members offering a quick fix. When there is no money. When the police may seemingly harass you. But watching life past by feeling constantly angry is not going to change anything.

  The answers? Well for what it is worth, here is my two penn’eth:-

  1. The respect agenda needs to start consistently in every nursery school and be maintained throughout schooling. Teachers have an impossible task trying to control some teenagers and by then it is almost too late. Tolerance for others and an appreciation of everyone’s contribution to society is needed to be taught. Teaching responsibility is crucial to making children understand how they have to follow rules and undertake activities as part of growing up.
  2. The media should be urged to focus less on the minutiae of celebrity lives and more on success stories from our communities. Given the spotlight to young people who have create a business or excelled at school. To hell, with flash in the pan, can barely sing pop stars given fame and fortune. What about the quiet youngsters who put in hundreds of hours of voluntary work in communities or transform a broken down playground or simply go from ‘loser’ status to passing their GCSE’s? Media space and time should reward young people and not those who are undeserving and artificial. With all due respect, Big Brother contestants are not heroes and the slavish coverage of their lives should end. Newspaper editors should be shook up and told to stop hacking phones of private citizens and start using their powerful and influential companies to help grow our communities.
  3.  Parents should be held to account and there should be zero tolerance of the smallest problems at a very young age. The rioters and looters weren’t born rioters and looters, they became them. Some parents can’t cope with parenting. Fair enough; it’s a damned tough job at times. Some don’t have the skills to know how to raise a child. They should be offered help and when the child at the age of five is out breaking up a bus shelter, then it should the parents made to attend parenting classes. The ‘system’ should be there to help but with an iron fist in a velvet glove. If the parents don’t attend, then they should face stiff penalties. If they don’t co-operate when they do attend, they should face stiff penalties. But conversely if they genuinely learn new skills and seek to change the behaviour of their child they should be offered incentives. That should not mean money or materials goods (no gimmicks like film tickets as one bright spark tried to suggest under Labour) but rather more assistance finding work or a place doing community work with a recommendation on their CV. The focus should be on pushing children towards educational achievement (vocational and academic) and parents towards work, lifelong learning and a career path. It is changing the values away from quick ‘bling’ fixes to learning and hard work.
  4.  For those hard core, repeat offenders that are circulating through prison, the cycle must be broken and as a last resort, they need to be placed in a special facility which is a modified prison where there is very high staff ratios, high volumes of physical activities, a tough penalty system for misbehaviour and a reward system based on recommendations towards finding work after they leave. Instead of spending up to 23 hours locked in a prison cell, they should be spending 18 hours doing hard work. They should only be in a cell when they are sleeping. Some will call it a boot camp, but if it was run by ex-military staff these offenders would be placed in a tight disciplinary regime but one that recognises changed behaviour. It isn’t about scrubbing floors, breaking rocks or other boring, repetitive tasks. It is making sure that with a basic but decent diet and a huge amount of physical exercise they have no time to sit and lapse into routines of learned behaviour through gang culture. If they show an inclination to academic study they should face long hours of learning towards qualifications interspersed with the physical exercise. If they show an inclination towards vocational learning then they will be taught a trade; plumbing, painting, electrical, building and other useful skills. Doing nothing should not be an option. They should not leave without additional qualifications and an agreed plan of learning or work.
  5. For those with mental health problems in our communities, they should be under careful observation and support to identify their potential and find how they can still contribute to society whilst having intensive support and care to meet their needs. They need ‘buddies’ to help them day to day. They need counselling. They also need work. Whatever type of work that is, but still work. Studies repeatedly show that those with mental health problems function much better when they have something productive to do that builds self-confidence and self-worth and gives them a routine to enjoy each day.
  6.  We need to recognise youth workers who are paid a pittance and yet do fantastic leadership work in our communities. They live and breathe those streets and know who are the troublemakers and who have a great chance in life to move on up. They need to be given central roles in community projects and actual budgets to spend, to shake up the stale, frustrating routines in communities with innovative ways to involve young people and keep them busy. Close liaison with community leaders, teachers, probation officers, police officers and social workers should require weekly meetings to identify troublemakers, recognise the decent folk and give an impetus to being in control of those streets. Frankly it should be part of the Big Society agenda. They also should serve as an early warning system to trouble.
  7. Send those troublemakers who show improvement and are making progress, to places where there is genuine poverty (far worse than they face back home). I am not talking about free trips to sunny places to enjoy themselves but rather take them economy class to a country like Malawi and put them to work on building a clinic, classroom or planting crops. They should be sent to places a handful at a time and under supervision. Let them create something good. Let them sweat. Let them use their brain to figure out solutions to problems, where there is no builder’s merchant just around the corner. Where people are starving to death. Give them a shovel and tell them if they don’t dig a hole then that village of people will die of thirst. I’m certain that they will swallow their pride and start digging. They will receive a fantastic welcome and will receive great praise from wonderfully friendly people but there will be no hotel; they will live in the communities in mud huts and will work 16 hours a day. They will find out what it is really like to have little food and if you don’t plant crops or walk ten miles to the nearest water pump, you will die. It will leave an indelible impression on those young minds of how lucky they actually are. Two weeks sleeping on a mud hut floor, eating basic rice provisions and working hard to build a school may just puncture that swagger and arrogance.

  Kanyopola in Malawi, 2002 during famine

  For those that say, 'we shouldn’t be spending money on these troublemakers', well guess what, we already are spending money on them. We spend billions on welfare and placing them in prison. It costs up to £140,000 per year per young criminal.
  
  

  It is time to spend a little on strengthening core values in society:

  • Zero tolerance of bad behaviour
  • Teach respect and responsibility throughout life
  • Invest in youth and community workers
  • Reward academic and vocational achievement
  • Put the media spotlight on youngster success stories
  • Focus energy, time and money on making people work, work and work
  • Push the troublemakers into seeing and feeling those starving to death
  • Introduce new facilities to make criminals work 18 hours a day and they don’t leave until they have shown real progress in attitude by learning a new trade or achieving academic qualifications

  Malawi 2002 - hope with clean water

  
  
  

• Privacy vs Public Interest - Ryan Giggs vs Imogen Thomas | 09.08.2011
  Arguments continue to rage about whether super-injunctions should be allowed to protect any form of reporting about certain issues (including the fact an injunction even exits). It seems that the debate is polarised and causes immense passion on both sides. Sometimes super injunctions are needed to protect people from the worst excesses of the media. On the other hand, some of those super injunctions are designed by the rich to buy them greater legal protection than is available to the vast majority and there is not a sufficient reason to justify imposing such sweeping censorship.

  Imogen Thomas is unable to comment due to the court order

  Lately,  Ryan Giggs has allegedly secured a super injunction to stop any mention of an affair with Imogen Thomas. Yet Twitter users have apparently ignored the injunction and made a mockery of the courts and the system of super injunctions by naming him. We will wait and see if Giggs denies the allegations. If he does, then his name has been badly smeared. The worry is that it is left to the users of social media to push back against over zealous courts in an erratic, unregulated manner. Jemima Khan was left furiously denying any affair with Jeremy Clarkson after being falsely named on Twitter.

  Ryan Giggs has allegedly secured a super injunction against Imogen Thomas

  For those that argue that anyone in the public eye should be open to any form of press scrutiny, I can see the logic of their puritanical (if simplistic) argument but it would allow anyone even forced into the public domain, such as a rape victim, to have to put up with paparazzi photographs. That would be grotesque and outrageous. So after that simplistic argument, the question is where do you draw the line before you reach the other end of the spectrum with press censorship by the rich and the powerful?

  
  

  Hugh Grant has taken a tough stance against press intrusion

  Hugh Grant takes a view that if his job requires certain publicity such as attending a film premiere that should not give the automatic right to the press to be able to route through his bins and lie in wait outside his house or when he goes shopping. That sounds reasonable. Likewise, just because someone walks down the street and is photographed with their children, does not mean that they have necessarily invited the photographers to come and take their photo (although some celebrities and their agents apparently tip off the press on their whereabouts specifically so they can appear in magazines such as OK! and Hello).

  John Terry took out a super injunction in 2010

  However, the use of super injunctions does cause real concern. There is little doubt that only those who are rich and famous can afford to go to court and seek such overbearing and prescriptive orders. The argument that they are the only kinds of people who need them and Mrs Smith from Burnley who is a clerk in an office would never need one, is not the point. Mrs Smith should not be told that some parts of the law are off limits and that she had better pray that she doesn’t need to get a super injunction because she can’t afford one, is a dangerous precedent for a law that should be blind to who you are and the size of your wallet or purse. No, it would be better that parliament set the rules on privacy vs public interest rather than judges listening to super rich lawyers earning six figure salaries on behalf of rich people earning seven or eight figure salaries.
  Yet, Lord Neuberger's recent report on this issue seems to conclude that parliamentarians should be gagged by taking away their privilege to report any such injunction in parliament. That is a scary statement from a senior judge who is Master of the Rolls. MPs rarely use such privilege and understand the responsibility of using it. However, the fact a judge wishes to stop MPs openly challenging the courts demonstrates that it is the courts that need to be reminded that it is parliament who is the sovereign body in this country and not judges.
  

  Lord Neuberger wants to gag MPs in parliament

  Some will argue that there should be no right to telling the press what they can and cannot print given that sometimes individuals invite the press into their private lives and then five minutes later complain bitterly that they do not want to be photographed or door stepped. Well frankly, why not? Just because I agree to shop in Sainsbury’s one week should not force me to go next week. My ‘contract’ is in fact a freedom to choose who I do business with. Therefore, there should be a respect for when it is agreeable for the press to arrive to take photographs and when they are not welcome.

  The BBC's Andrew Marr was embarrassed by taking out an injunction

  I have suffered first hand from a journalist screaming abuse at my young son through my letterbox threatening to print a story if he didn’t go and persuade his daddy to come to the door. I have seen the belligerent tactics of a press who have not a care in the world for family members. As an MP, I even had one heated conversation with a regional newspaper editor who said, “your wife is public property and I’ll print what I like about her”. A charming man. On other occasions I have endured a journalist from the News of the World repeatedly ringing a family member posing as a policeman from “Belgravia Police Station” and saying I was involved in a car accident and he urgently needed my address. Of course, I had not been involved in any accident and the 'policeman' upon checking, did not exist. Another time a journalist posed as my sister and rang up the hospital where a family member was seriously ill, to try and get medical information. Fortunately, a sharp minded nurse gave the woman short shrift.
  There are some members of the press who know no bounds of living in the gutter to get any information that they can use. They will twist around information to talk up to sound like a thriller story that will grip readers, regardless of facts. The trail of havoc though that they lead behind them, lasts forever. Would I have taken out a super injunction to protect my family in those circumstances and I had the money? Yes, in a heartbeat. But the injunction would be based on stopping photographs of my children appearing in the press, untrue liaisons with other women or medical details of my family. The problem lies in the way the press will gossip, smear and use innuendo which is not in the public interest. The rules are grey and unenforceable and every case is unique. That is where clarification is needed to cut through to say, "Is this story really in the public interest?".
  

  For those in the public eye being scrutinised under genuine public interest (and not because it is interesting to the public) then the rules are different. If a politician has defrauded the taxpayer then it is reasonable to investigate them and ask them for comment and take their photograph. If an actor stars as a policeman on TV and makes his name and fortune in a role that is demonstrating he is a law enforcer, then it seems perfectly reasonable to highlight the fact he was caught speeding in a car. If a footballer who makes money from his family image and pretends to be happily married and yet has a six month affair, then yes it is right the press explains to the public that he is misleading them.
  However, in each of those cases, I fear for the impact on the families of those individuals who are innocent victims. They will pay for the rest of their lives for the mistakes of the individuals and perhaps the tenacity of the media.

  For the record, I think most journalists in the UK are respectable, reputable professionals who are a true asset to our democracy. Unfortunately there is a small minority who are truly undesirable individuals who need to be reined in.

  The problem is that some in the media sometimes don’t just push against the boundaries of decent behaviour or slightly bend the rules in pursuit of a public interest agenda, they sometimes utterly disregard them and have no problem in wreaking people’s lives in order to get a story that will improve ratings on TV or sell more newspapers. It is the recklessness that some wish to curtail and given the repeated number of times some in the media over step the mark, a voluntary system of enforcement is worthless.
  

  David Cameron needs to come up with new legislation on the boundaries for protecting privacy

  The Government should look at now designing a sensible system of legislation that gets the balance right. Otherwise, more injunctions will be taken out by the rich and they will be able to protect more than their privacy and no doubt use the legal tactics to prevent the public finding out wrong doing. The leaking and breaches of court injunctions seem the only defence against the onerous court orders and yet it should be the responsibility of parliament to take action rather than those using social media. With rich footballers now hounding Twitter to reveal user information to pursue individuals that breach injunctions, this argument will continue to rage until the Government stops ducking the issue and takes action. The current situation is an utter mess and it will only spiral further out of control with even more zealous courts and social media users determined to name and shame regardless of the consequences. David Cameron needs to get off the sidelines and bring forward new legislation that sets out the red lines of where privacy should be protected.

  
  
  

• Super injunction absurdity | 09.08.2011
  After my Blog last Saturday, the cat was finally out of the bag yesterday when John Hemming MP mentioned in parliament the rich footballer as Ryan Giggs who had taken out a super injunction affecting Imogen Thomas about allegations that he had an affair with her. To date Giggs has apparently not denied it.

  John Hemmings MP

  At one point, there was the absurd situation with the Sunday Herald placing a huge photograph of Giggs wearing a Manchester United shirt, on their front page with a tiny blacked out strip across his eyes saying 'censored'. The Herald claimed they were unaffected by the super injunction in Scotland.

  Cameron also finally began to wake up to the mess and ordered a committee to convene to look at potential solutions to the current debacle of judges making up censorship laws as they go along and Twitterers blatantly ignoring them.

  Was it opportunistic of Hemming to mention Giggs and breach a court order knowing he was safe from prosecution under parliamentary privilege? Yes, of course, but frankly the surreal situation of thousands of people being criminalised by gossiping that Giggs may have taken out a super injunction was fast becoming untenable. Would the courts try to force Twitter to hand over user names and identify those who may have breached the order? 70,000 people could have ended up in court. It simply was not going to happen. The courts have better things to do with their time.

  Sunday Herald front page

  As I mentioned in my Blog on Saturday 21st May, there are rare circumstances when I think a private individual should have the right to take out a super injunction but those circumstances should be exceptional and not just for the super rich to protect them from gossip. My Blog hit the front page of searches over the weekend for people searching to find out who was the footballer at the centre of the controversy.

  I sincerely hope Cameron's new committee will rapidly come up with a set of proposals so that parliament can vote on them in the Autumn and gain Royal Assent by the end of the year. This issue is not going to go away sometime soon. There could still be various criminal cases involving Imogen Thomas, Piers Morgan, Dom Joly, Boy George, Toby Young and many others accused of allegedly leaking the information on Twitter and possibly others (your truly may be?).
  
  
  

  Banning the book simply pushed up sales

  The situation reminded me of the 'Spycatcher' affair. The book was banned in the UK and in the days before the Internet it was a lot harder to find a copy of it overseas.
  

  Nevertheless, I tracked down a copy to a book store in the US and purchased it. After reading it, I did wonder what the fuss was all about. Likewise, I am sure that Ryan Giggs will wonder whether the hyper-speculation over many weeks and the final outing has propelled his private life ironically into the spotlight far more than if he had taken the hit many months ago and issued a short statement about the alleged affair.

  
  

  
  

  Imogen Thomas

  It is interesting to draw an analogy between phone hacking and super injunctions. In 2006, the police refused to fully investigate obvious, serious breaches of privacy affecting hundreds of people when their phones were hacked on an 'industrial scale' and then covered up by Executives and senior managers in the News of the World and other newspapers.
  

  Now the CPS and police are being ordered by the courts to rapidly bring cases to try and criminalise anyone who even passes a view on an injunction (and not even on the substance of the allegation) which are currently designed to hush up indiscretions of the rich and the famous. Sorry but clearly the law is an ass. Don't get me started on gung ho judges wanting to shut up democratically elected MPs....

  
  
  

• Bring war criminals to justice | 09.08.2011

  General Ratko Mladic

  The news that Ratko Mladic has been found and arrested is a positive reminder of international justice working. Mladic was indicted for the slaughter of 7,500 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in 1995 and his day in court is long overdue. 

  Cemetery at Srebrenica-Potocari

  Just like the Nuremberg trials in 1945-46, it is very important to demonstrate that those who commit crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes are found and publicly tried.

  Nuremberg Trials

  I remember writing to the British Prime Minister, John Major demanding that something be done to end the massacre and receiving a typically bland reply and thinking that his weak, hand wringing was utterly unacceptable. I had grown up with the images of Jews being hunted and murdered by Nazi thugs and here on European soil was another genocide being practised. Major's letter to me was one of the galvanising forces that led me to throw my hat into the ring for the Labour candidacy a year or so later and led me to winning the seat of Shrewsbury and Atcham in 1997.

  Slobodan Milosevic

  In 2003 on the second anniversary of 9/11, I visited The Hague to see the trial of Milosevic and watched him behind the glass screen. He was brazen, confident and tried to impose his personality and will on the court. The judges were not impressed and would repeatedly correct his behaviour. The mistake was to allow the trial to drag on for more than five years and give the former President of Serbia so much air time. His early death of natural causes in custody robbed his victims of seeing him found guilty but at least he was forced to endure a trial and face his accusers in court.
  Justice can still be done if proceedings are clearly given boundaries and a trial of even one year should have been enough. I was incredibly impressed meeting the legal team for the prosecution who were working with very limited budgets and having to fly witness around the world from for instance Sarajevo to Geneva to Paris and then The Hague so that the neighbours back home did not know they were appearing as witnesses against Milosevic. It took a huge amount of resource to make justice work and for it to be seen to be working.

  But what remains in my mind is the terstimony of one witness who appeared cloaked behind a curtain. She was crying and whispered the story of how the Serbian soldiers had arrived in her village and picked out men and boys to kill. They then found two women hiding in a toilet block and casually tossed in two hand grenades. They walked away laughing to the screams of the women dying an awful death. 

  Humans can be the most amazingly kind, generous protective creatures who can love and care for the vulnerable and the sick. Yet the same species can also be unspeakably cruel, devious and wicked. What happened in the Former Yugoslavia (on all sides) were acts of genocide and crimes against humanity. It is right and proper to hunt down those responsible. They can and will have a fair trial and the opportunity to defend themselves but that is the best way to deal with them.

  Osama Bin Laden

  The killing of Osama Bin Laden was different. American Special Forces had split seconds to decide on foreign soil if they could take him alive and President Obama had made clear in his orders (no one could imagine President Bush seriously considering international law) that if possible he should be arrested. It was highly likely that given the risks involved the most likely outcome was that Bin Laden, a self confessed terrorist, would be shot and killed with the clock ticking down until all Hell let loose in Pakistan.
  

  ICTY building in The Hague

  Mladic will hopefully be handed over to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [corrected from original article that stated International Criminal Court] in The Hague peacefully, just like Milosevic was before him. There is time to carry out the indictment and time for justice to be smoothly practised. 

  It has been a bumpy road but I trust that the trend towards indicting, arresting and putting on trial where-ever possible will continue for those who carry out atrocities. As democracy flourishes and grows the values of justice under the auspices of the United Nations, will push back the evil that humans do until one day I hope such acts will banished into the mists of time.
  

• News of the World closes but 'Phonegate' goes on | 09.08.2011
  After years of denial, obfuscation and lies, News of the World has been forceably closed down by James Murdoch, Chairman of News International today. Phonegate had degenerated into hourly revelations of gratuitous phone hacking of 7/7 victims, Milly Dowler's phone and servicemen and women.  

  

  The British press has taken a rightful battering for the industrial scale use of direct phone hacking and the use of private investigators to listen into private voice-mails to glean a quick story or a morsel of information.

  The police must also be brought to account for the grossly incompetent and negligent first investigation in 2006 that repeatedly denied any wrong doing outside the original court case of two men. The reality was that evidence was hidden and ignored implicating many others. After hearing that police officers were indeed on the payroll of the News of the World, British justice has also taken a hammering. Can the police be trusted to carry out their work and not take bribes?

  Police officers may have accepted over £100,000 in bribes, although Met Commission (above) Sir Paul Stephenson had said the sums were 'small'

  The Guardian has revealed that perhaps 4,000 victims are listed in the evidence and after the then Assistant John Yates had dismissed the newspaper for claiming in 2009 that between 2,000 and 3,000 might have been victims, it shows the deliberate misleading and perhaps untruths that were told by senior police officers.

  Now the heat will be turned up on Rebekah Brooks and whether she knew more than she claims about the scandal. It seems like a question of time before she will be forced out. Murdoch has had enough and is now purging his media empire of those tarnished by Phonegate.

  Rebekah Brooks with Rupert and James Murdoch - clock ticks to her firing?

  The repercussions of this scandal will reverberate for generations to come but maybe it will be the catalyst to clean up journalism and end the dirty tactics of dish the dirt on anyone at any cost. However, it will take a long time for the public to forgive the excesses of this scandal. With ongoing police enquiries involving dozens of police officers sifting the evidence and new charges being brought regularly against employees of News International, this is far from over. Perhaps the worst is still to come out about what these disgraceful individuals did to the innocent? How many lives have they ruined in pursuit of a so called 'exclusive'?

  News of the World - the end but the scandal goes on

  

• Phonegate - John Yates should resign | 09.08.2011

  John Yates listing his excuses to the Home Affairs Committee for not looking at 11,000 pages of evidence in 2009

  Assistant Commissioner John Yates failed miserably to adequately investigate systematic, widespread criminal phone hacking on a massive scale. His pathetic excuses in front of the Home Affairs Committee today must assume that MPs are idiots. 

  To point the finger at News International and say "It is a matter of great concern that for whatever reason the NOTW failed to cooperate... with the relevant police inquiries... they have only recently provided evidence that would have had a significant impact". Poppycock Mr Yates, you are a police officer. Politicians can try and wriggle around and point the blame at others, but you were paid by the public to investigate. When you are sitting on 11,000 pages of evidence that is a pretty good start to join up the dots and haul in journalists and private investigators to demand answers. If you thought that the evidence was too big to handle for your officers you should have asked for more resources and asked for more time. You didn't. You ignored criminal activities and misled the public, parliament and the rest of the media that there were no other phone hacking other than the original Mulcaire-Goodman case. 

  At best, the Met officer was grossly incompetent and negligent in overseeing the investigation in 2009 or (given the recent allegations of £130,000 of bribes paid to police officers) was dissuaded from investigating by vested interests, which makes him a fool. Either way, the man is not someone the British public should have in a senior position protecting them from criminals. John Yates should resign or be sacked.

  The police found 11,000 pages of evidence from the original phone hacking cases and a cursory glance shows that there were many other victims who may have had their phones hacked. Andy Hayman was in charge of the 2009 investigation on the ground and promised to "leave no stone unturned". He then brazenly and misleadingly stated that: "The Guardian has said it understands that the police file shows that between 2,000 and 3,000 individuals had their mobile phones hacked into, far more than was ever officially admitted during the investigation and prosecution of Clive Goodman. Yet, my recollection is different. As I recall the list of those targeted, which was put together from records kept by Glen Mulcaire, ran to several hundred names. Of these, there was a small number — perhaps a handful — where there was evidence that the phones had actually been tampered with."

  Clearly that is not the truth, when the Met have now admitted 4,000 names are in the evidence and after a thorough investigation it is likely that a substantial number will be found to be directly hacked or attempted to be hacked.

  Former Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman grossly misled the public

  Mr Hayman no longer works for the Met so can't be sacked but he too should face an investigation for either blatant lies or at best, grossly misleading the public. However Mr Yates is still in place and needs to be held to account. Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the Home Affairs Committee was withering in his dismissal of the credibility of Yates as a witness today and warned him about misleading parliament. Yates is likely to be recalled to the enquiry.

  Yates supplied a letter to the Home Affairs Committee prior to attending and giving oral evidence today. He stated (in reference to advice from the Prosecution Counsel about the 2009 investigation) that: "It is appreciated that such a review is always undertaken in relation to relevance in respect of the indictment. However, in a written memorandum, dated 14th July 2009, Counsel stated: (the underlined aspects are my emphasis)

  
  

  …'we did enquire of the police at a conference whether there was any evidence that the Editor of the News of the World was involved in the Goodman-Mulcaire offences. We were told that there was not (and we never saw such evidence).We also enquired whether there was any evidence connecting Mulcaire to other News of the World journalists. Again, we were told that there was not (and we never saw such evidence).'

  
  

  In other words, in whatever guise - relevance to the indictment or otherwise - that Counsel considered the unused material, they stated then in unequivocal terms that they were neither told about nor did they see any matters that appeared to merit further investigation.

  On 16th July 2009, in his own statement on the matter, the DPP stated 'it would not be appropriate to re-open the cases against Goodman and Mulcaire, or to revisit the decisions taken in the course of investigating and prosecuting them'. This led to the case remaining closed until January this year when new evidence was provided by News International which resulted in the launch of Operation Weeting."

  
  

  The utter baloney that he has written to the Home Affairs Committee is staggering. Yates looked at 11,000 pages of evidence and he and his officers decided on the narrow confines of a brief not to look for any other possible leads of criminal activity. A cursory glance would have shown highly suspicious evidence. They must though have come across examples of wrong doing but decided not to offer it up as a viable case to the CPS. The question is; why? They didn't tell the victims that their phones had been hacked or were likely to have been hacked. They didn't take even samples of the evidence to chase down to see if there could be hard evidence of hacking. They walked a tight rope of ignoring everything apart from the original case to see if there was a water tight case of further wrong doing by journalists linked only to Mulcaire and the specific case for which he was found guilty. Staggering. Absolutely staggering. By blatantly and openly ignoring the mountain of evidence, Yates gave a further green light to the media to carry on as before to hack and blag their way through people's private lives. Yates has a greater responsibility to ensure that the excesses and criminal activities of those that live in the shadows are routed out and prosecuted. He has failed miserably and should go now.
  

• Gaddafi's son's desperate pleas point to Rebel victory | 09.08.2011
  

  
  

  After months of decrying the democratic rebellion in Libya as an Islamist plot, Gaddafi’s son, Saif now gives an interview urging that the extremists should support his father. Here is another reason to get rid of Gaddafi where a secular state will be replaced by a puritannical, radical state of religious madness.

  NATO and the West must continue to support the Rebels and step up training and weapons supplied to them. If Gaddafi was serious about a ceasefire that would lead to a stable peace then it should be genuinely considered but he is an untrustworthy snake who will not abide by any ceasefire terms and will inevitably seek to overthrow an Eastern half of a democratic Libya.

  Another of Gaddafi’s sons has been proclaimed dead. Khamis was a key military leader in charge of 32^ndBrigade and has seemingly perished in a NATO airstrike. However, this was denied in Tripoli. It may be taking much longer than originally thought but Gaddafi’s infrastructure and military command and control is systematically been destroyed.

  

  It is difficult to accurately assess the progress of the war. After the crazy first few weeks following NATO involvement when the Rebels were pushing back there followed months of stalemate with each side losing and then winning ground in a see saw backwards and forwards over the same ground in Ras Lanuf, Brega and Ajdabia. In the East, the inhabitants of Misrata suffered a brutal onslaught besieged day after day and yet their strength eventually and steadily broke out of the enclave and reinforced the belief that the upper hand was with the Rebels.

  Rebels are slowly pushing Gaddafi's army back

  The war could be over quickly, if NATO allows commanders to train the Rebel forces and modernise its equipment and weaponry. There is no sense in offering minimum air strikes and keeping fingers crossed that the Rebels will get to Tripoli. They will get there, but how many more have to die before they succeed. A swift, uplift in support by NATO could overwhelm Gaddafi's remaining forces and once a momentum builds the army will collapse into the desert. That doesn't mean it will be easy but a clear tide of support for the Rebels will swing the majority onside. Once the Rebels are in Tripoli and can demonstrate that they are fair, and just the vast majority will then begin to trust them and the fighting will end. Only then, can Libyans start to rebuild their country into a prosperous nation with a strong economy and a great future for today's sons and daughters.
  

Link: http://www.reddit.com/user/paulwbmarsden

Feed: reddit: the front page of the internet

• England close on series victory | 06.01.2011

  submitted by paulwbmarsden to reddit.com
  [link] [comment]

• New Year, new rant against MPs by IPSA | 05.01.2011

  submitted by paulwbmarsden to reddit.com
  [link] [comment]

• paulwbmarsden on Paul Marsden: BA strike could damage Labour | 20.03.2010

  Next 2 years could see the worst period for strikes for nearly thirty years. Labour best placed to negotiate New Deal for industrial relations, otherwise there could be chaos.

• Paul Marsden: BA strike could damage Labour | 20.03.2010

  submitted by paulwbmarsden to reddit.com
  [link] [1 comment]

• paulwbmarsden on How realistic is The Ghost? | 19.03.2010

  Truth can be stranger than fiction...

• How realistic is The Ghost? | 19.03.2010

  submitted by paulwbmarsden to reddit.com
  [link] [1 comment]

• paulwbmarsden on 5 Things You Should Know About SEO | 09.03.2010

  Search engine optimization is about setting realistic goals within respectable guidelines, seeing past short-term setbacks and targeting the phrases with the most significance (and traffic) within your market. Websites do not optimize themselves, but knowing what to expect is instrumental prior to embarking on the journey of targeting competitive keyword verticals.

• 5 Things You Should Know About SEO | 09.03.2010

  submitted by paulwbmarsden to reddit.com
  [link] [1 comment]

• paulwbmarsden on Brazil puts trade sanctions on US | 09.03.2010

  The Brazilian government has announced trade sanctions against a variety of American goods in retaliation for illegal US subsidies to cotton farmers. The World Trade Organization (WTO) approved the sanctions in a rare move.

• Brazil puts trade sanctions on US | 09.03.2010

  submitted by paulwbmarsden to reddit.com
  [link] [1 comment]

Link: http://digg.com/users/paulwbmarsden

Feed: All activity by paulwbmarsden

Link: https://www.xing.com/profile/Paul_Marsden2

Link: http://newstrust.net/members/paul-marsden

Feed: NewsTrust - Paul Marsden's Reviews

Link: http://www.ecademy.com/user/paulmarsden5

Feed: Paul Marsden's blog at Ecademy

Link: http://paulmarsden.newsvine.com/

Feed: Newsvine - Paul Marsden's Column - Articles and Seeds

• Greenland ice sheet future grim, | 07.01.2011

  A glaciologist is warning that the Greenland ice sheet is "retreating and thinning extensively" after a year of record-breaking high temperatures.

• How Will We Know if 2010 Was the Warmest Year on Record? | 22.12.2010

  Earlier this month, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) announced that November was the warmest such month in its record books — and that 2010 overall may well turn out to be the warmest year ever.

• UK Banking Reform | 13.06.2010

  Risk-free "safe haven" accounts guaranteed by the government should be set up as part of a "profound reform of the banking system", a report says. The UK's Future of Banking Commission wants improvements in saver protection and restructuring of banks.

• Polar science | 13.06.2010

  Science writer and broadcaster Sue Nelson is at the world's largest polar science conference, which is taking place in Oslo, Norway from 8-12 June. Experts have gathered to discuss everything polar - from penguins and sea ice to permafrost and Inuit communities.

• Time to withdraw from Afghanistan | 11.06.2010

  A troubled land

• New UN climate chief calls for more ambition | 09.06.2010

  The incoming head of the UN climate convention has said rich nations must pledge bigger emission cuts if climate change is to be tackled effectively. But Christiana Figueres said she was confident that leaders would meet the challenge "because humanity has to meet it - we don't  …

• Simon Hughes elected Lib Dem deputy leader in UK | 09.06.2010

  Simon Hughes has won the contest to be deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats. The Bermondsey and Old Southwark MP saw off a challenge from Tim Farron, taking the votes of 38 of the party's 57 MPs. Mr Hughes replaces Vince Cable, who stood down from the deputy leadership role l …

• Fabio Capello; gilt edged record | 09.06.2010

  Oh to be the England football Manager in the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.

• England to win World Cup 2010? | 07.06.2010

  The time draws near. The questions are being asked (again and again).

• Israel diverts Gaza aid ship Rachel Corrie to Ashdod | 05.06.2010

  An aid ship intercepted by the Israeli military while trying to break the blockade of Gaza has arrived in the Israeli port of Ashdod. Israel says its soldiers boarded the Irish-owned Rachel Corrie from the sea and did not meet any resistance.

Link: http://www.google.com/profiles/marsdenpwb