Archive for July, 2009
Sabotaging Tories Totnes nomination – who wins?
- Image by street_spirit909 via Flickr
The Conservative Association in Totnes have decided to run what is effectively a British version of the American Nomination system for their prospective parliamentary candidate. As so often when ideas from the US are brought over to the UK, they are a watered down and less effective version, but that aside, it is an attempt by a political party to be more responsive to the electorate, as was the case with the nomination process which eventually saw Boris Johnson become the London Mayor.
The issues of Steen, the previous candidate and his crass comments about people being jealous of him may well have driven Tory Central Office to foist the nomination election on to the local party, but for whatever reason, it is at least a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately the sour side of British Politics has reared its ugly head, in the form of the local Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, who have both indicated that they are considering what they like to term ‘mischievous’ tactical voting.
The idea of this is that because the Tories have opened the vote to all of the electorate in the constituency, they are in a position to sway voting so that the ‘worst’ candidate wins the nomination.
To the Politico jamboree this may all sound like a smart move, as theoretically it will make it harder for the Tories to win the seat at the election, but to many people outside the circus tent, this is yet another indication of the vacuous state of British mainstream politics.
While opposition party organisers are seeking to sabotage a democratic election on a short term strategic decision, what happens if the ‘worst’ candidate wins not only the nomination, but also the election to Parliament, who is the winner? The Labour unelected candidate, the Lib/Dem unelected candidate, the people ofTotnes, the people in the UK? No, the only winner is the PR machine for the Labour and Lib/Dem machines.
Assuming that the Labour and Lib/Dems can actually identify a weak candidate, why on earth do they wish this person to potentially become their elected representative?
The continual opposition bashing across all of the major parties and increasingly seen in smaller political affiliations, serves no-one. It sounds like a bunch of children in a playground blaming each other when they are caught late for class by the Head Master.
If they could spend as much effort in not only putting forward their policies plans and objectives, as they do in telling everyone why the other parties are not right, the electorate may feel some form of engagement.
Would any Politico actually buy a product from a salesman who refused to tell them anything about the product they were interested in finding out about, but expounding why every other product was rubbish? I doubt it, so why do they think that their PR machine should be any different?
We hear continual bleats from all the parties about what happened 30 years ago, what relevance does this have. 30 years ago the only personal computers you could purchase, had tiny memories, were slow and unreliable, do we judge computer purchases on that basis now? Bill Gates is still at Microsoft, but obviously he and his company couldn’t have changed in the intervening 30 years, could they? While busy knocking views from years ago, these same politicians wish us to believe they have all changed their attitude to abusing expenses, within a matter of weeks of being found out, isn’t that wanting to have their cake and eat it?
For a politician to change their mind and develop an idea, is jumped on by opposition political camps and the Westminster media tribe, as a sign of weakness, what absolute rubbish.
Let Lib/Dems and Labour party activists have their vote in the Totnes Tory nomination election, but please, shut up.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=af16f7d5-58fb-4f18-b743-e21da0574f78)
Tanning beds and skin cancer
- Image via Wikipedia
The report released by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, moving UV tanning beds to its highest cancer risk category – ‘carcinogenic to humans.’, is being hyped by mainstream media today as if we were all dropping like flies. The added headline, that the risks are increased by 75% through the use of tanning beds achieving nothing more than a more prominent headline.
Whilst the report is a welcome addition to research in to the effects of tanning beds, it is only by looking behind the headlines, that the ‘risk’ factor can be assessed.
The latest information from Skin cancer – UK shows the incidence of melanoma skin cancer running at 2.6 per 100 000 population, in other words 0.0026% of the population are affected.
To put it in to context with an activity which many of us undertake:
2 042 people died of melanoma skin cancer, 1 500 car drivers and adult passengers die in road crashes.
Number of new cases of non-melanoma skin cancer (UK 2006)
Males Females Persons
44,684 36,998 81,682
Rate per 100,000 population*
121.7 75.5 94.9
Number of deaths from non-melanoma skin cancer (UK 2007)
334 243 577
Rate per 100,000 population*
0.8 0.4 0.6
Number of new cases of malignant melanoma (UK 2006)
4,803 5,607 10,410
Rate per 100,000 population* 14.3 15.4 14.7
Number of deaths from malignant melanoma (UK 2007)
1,104 938 2,042
Rate per 100,000 population*
3.1 2.1 2.6
Five-year survival rate for malignant melanoma (for patients diagnosed 2000-2001**, England & Wales)
78% 91%
*age-standardised to the European population **period estimates
It is the sixth most common form of cancer in women and the eighth most common form of cancer in men.
While the media love to kick up a good storm, to raise their ratings and politicians always love a reason to regulate, let’s have some perspective.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9d814e4d-0144-4150-bb9b-d5d1181a8f3b)
A guide to members allowances
A guide to Members allowances
The current Green Book, A guide to members allowances, entitles MPs to receive a daily un-receipted allowance of £25 a day as a ’subsistence’ allowance.
MPs will just have to state how many nights they have spent away from their main home ‘on parliamentary business’ to receive the flat-rate sum.
The new rules emerged under the watch of John Bercow, the new Speaker, who promised to reform the system. The new rules, were not discussed in open, rather by the secretive Members Estimate Committee, (minutes of meeting 21st May 2009) which is chaired by Bercow and made up of MPs, including Harriet Harman, Alan Duncan, her Conservative shadow, Sir Stuart Bell, a Labour MP, David Maclean, a Tory MP, and Nick Harvey, a Liberal Democrat.
Bercow, was exposed as a house flipper, Harman claimed more than £10,000 for a media communications expert in consultancy costs, Duncan felt the need to claim thousands for gardening costs, Bell was a food allowance claimer including having a one month £750 food claim reduced to £400, MacLean renovated a farm house before selling it for £750 000 and Harvey couldn’t always remember to submit his receipts to substantiate claims.
What a great bunch to review expenses.
The volte-face by Harman, who stated earlier in the year that: ‘…There would need to be receipts for all claims. I really do think that that is something sensible which we could decide for ourselves now…’ should come as no surprise.
While Bercow may argue this change was agreed prior to him becoming speaker, that really doesn’t wash, as he had it in his powers, as the newly elected Speaker with a mandate for change, to have had this disgraceful payment to be knocked on its head.
The so called ‘cleansing’ appears to be little more than a splash of water on the face, the dirt behind the ears becomes yet more odious.
It will be interesting to see, which of the MPs now claim this new allowance and how they justify so doing.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=fc9e2b1f-4e86-4f53-ad30-e5d621393199)
Assisted suicide
Assisted suicide raises considerable dilemmas, but pretending the issue doesn’t need addressing is futile.
I have reservations about the issue here in the UK, simply because I would expect there to be considerable abuse.
Unfortunately this country has become one in which large sections of Society believe they have an entitlement to everything and in a particular an entitlement to their parents money.
We also have a Government which shows scant regard for the old and infirm, seeking to create a Society in which Pensioners are viewed as scroungers and resourcehoggers. As evidenced by Gordon Brown and the 50p pension increase and the continued pumping of propaganda about how there are too many old people in Society relative to those of working age, with no coherent strategy, other than it would be far better for Society if the elderly slipped this mortal coil.
Religious moral views from the established church and catholic church, should hold no sway in the debate. These are the groups who view paedophilia as a slightaberration by a few of their priests, when evidence indicates this to be extremely common. Their views on suicide are as relevant as their views on sexuality.
The argument that medical staff would be put in to an complex situation, is one with which I do have sympathy. Undoubtedly there are many who would not wish to be involved in the stark choice of administering or providing drugs to kill someone. However, I would balance this with conflicting evidence. People are now dying in the UK because staff shortages, finances and time will not permit operations, or medication to be prescribed, leaving patients to die. Morphine is regularly prescribed as a painkiller for people in severe pain withincurable conditions. The morphine administered, as required, which is effectively administering a drug to assist with death. Life support machines are switched off, effectively ending a life. I can see no reason why medical staff are not able to opt-out of assisted suicide procedures.
To argue that this is counter to medical training is to obfuscate the truth. Every day Veterinary staff make these decisions.
Undoubtedly there should be safety valves and I would like to see a system in place, in which people desiring assisted suicide are permitted to do so under supervision, not to keep the State happy, but to ensure the State and family are not pressurising someone in to a decision they do not wish to make.
In much the same way that people sign up for organ donation, people should sign up for assisted suicide. This signature, not to be ongoing authorisation, but a confirmation that an individual would be prepared to consider assisted suicide at some point in their life. This would need to be registered at least a year prior to an intervention. The purpose of this registration, would be to ensure people were not being coerced at the last moment into making a decision.
Before the suicide, the individual would need to be in a medical ward, or hospice, where they can talk through their condition, the procedure and the options prior to undertaking the procedure, for a period of two weeks, prior to finally agreeing the procedure. All visits with the patient during this two week period to be accompanied visits, thereby minimising the risks of pressure being put on individuals. Representatives of the State, including Social workers, Mental health professionals and Police Officers being barred from visiting the individual during this two week period.
The state to have no rights or say in assisted suicide. ie. making decisions for those deemed mentally incapable, or otherwise incapacitated.
At the end of the two week period the individual to then make a decision and open visits to be resumed. If the individual decides they wish to continue with the procedure, that procedure to be administered with four weeks of that decision, at the time of the patients choosing. If the procedure is not administered with in that four weeks, then the individual to be taken out of the process for a period of six months before starting again with a two week assessment period.
These time frames are not intended to make assisted suicide a difficult procedure, but a way to protect the vulnerable from exploitation, which is my greatest concern.
I do not see any reason the procedure should preclude anyone from undertaking the procedure, on the proviso that they have registered at least twelve months prior to seeking medical assistance in their death.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=79f9c0f5-bb0f-41dd-ba12-2562f04f0b07)
Murky journalism
Phone hacking
The fascination many people have with the minutiae of other peoples lives has led some journalists to use a variety of strategies to obtain more and more salacious details.
The story of News of the World journalists hacking into phones is just one of many means used by these people to satisfy the insatiable desire by customers to read about the lives of other people.
It is certainly possible to argue, that the use of illegal and questionable tactics by journalists are unacceptable, but it is equally possible for a portion of the blame to lie squarely on the shoulders of the readership. This is not about absolving journalists from obnoxious tactics, which are a choice made by individual journalists to creep in to the illegal and questionable. It is however about individuals taking responsibility.
The UK has become riven with an unhealthy desire on the part of many people to obsess over other peoples lives. Magazines exist which offer nothing more than photographs of other peoples weddings, hairstyles, clothes, make-up etc. The television schedules are awash with the generic term ‘reality’ TV. Newspapers are purchased because of some gossip story about someone or other.
The fact is that mainstream media is driven by ratings, which in the case of print media can and do affect pricing as well as advertising rate cards. Broadcast media is driven by ratings which dictate rate card advertising costs. These are businesses which are seeking to make a profit. If people want salacious gossip, which journalists would argue is the case, which is evidenced by sales or viewership, then they will stoop to whatever level they personally feel necessary to meet that demand.
The moment people decide, enough is enough and stop purchasing print media or watching programmes which expose ever more personal and intimate information, will be the moment journalists stop snooping.
Many of those who appear in the press and subsequently moan about the coverage, need to take a look at their own responsibility in the chase for coverage. Courting media attention about personal information when it suits a PR campaign inevitably leads to journalists pursuing that person once they have used the media for their own end. If they don’t wish to be pursued in this way, they shouldn’t seek to manipulate journalists in the first place.
The consumers of this minutiae need to take a look at their own responsibility and recognize it is their choice whether to purchase or watch what is being broadcast and published.
Journalists should recognize that just because something sells, doesn’t mean it should be published, nor should personal moral lines be crossed in the chase for the dollar.
There are times, many times, when the role of a journalist does mean working within the grey area of the law and on occasion crossing in to illegal territory. The breaking of the MPs expenses allowances, the BBC continuing to reports from inside Zimbabwe, being just two recent examples. But hacking phones to obtain information about where someone may or may not be going out to dinner, doesn’t sit on any moral compass I know of.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c327292e-7ac6-459b-8a81-0b8c2acf93ce)
Parliamentary Standards – could do better
Parliamentary standards
We had a tremendous amount of breast beating by Politicians, as the scandal over their expenses broke, just a few months ago. Yet, the process of promised change, is grinding to an inevitable halt.
The political spin doctors are already hard at work, attempting to concentrate minds on, ‘far more important issues’, after all, as Jack Straw stated: Westminster is very clean and transparent compared to many other countries and that politicians in other countries looked on in amazement at the controversy caused by sums of a few thousand pounds. Adding that Winston Churchill would not have survived the scrutiny to which MPs are now exposed.
The Parliamentary Standards Bill being rushed through Parliament is becoming so watered down it is likely to be as effective as the previous system of control in Parliamentary Standards.
Brown in his new persona, as a listening and communicative Prime Minister, decided that the Parliamentary Standards Bill, setting up a new independent regulator for MPs cleared the House of Commons in three days, without any consultation.
Politicians are keen to pass the legislation prior to disappearing for their three month summer holiday, so that some token of ‘change’ can be proudly flown above the Palace of Westminster, as they soak up the sun at a friend of a friends summer home in the Algarve.
The proposed Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority which will, we are assured, be made up of five good, honest and upright citizens, appointed and funded by….. a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker. Independent? The Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly has stated that it may not accept the creation of the IPSA, which would make this yet another interim measure.
It had been proposed in the Bill that a would be an offence to fail to comply with the register of financial interests, but Peers really didn’t like the idea of criminalising MPs who didn’t declare their financial interests, hardly a surprise when those in the House of Lords were found to be taking cash for passing legislation, were sanctioned by having to undertake the demeaning task of apologising. Interesting that Peers feel that making an apology is more of a sanction than serving time in Prison, or being disbarred from Public Office. Oh no, not the dreaded apology….
The element in the Bill proposing that the IPSA would have a role in enforcing the allowances or financial conduct regime and the offence of paid advocacy has already been removed.
The House of Lords also tried to force the removal of the proposal in the Bill of creating an offence of an MP making a claim for an allowance using ‘false or misleading’ information.
The Parliamentary Standards Bill, is expected to be passed on Tuesday 20th July.
That the Bill is being undertaken without proper scrutiny is laughable, that it is being so diluted is pitiful, that it was even proposed is scandalous.
The fundamental flaw, is Politicians scrutinizing politicians and being in any way responsible for the appointment of their regulators demonstrates quite clearly Politicians do not understand the gravity of the situation.
Without a credible Government and political body, the power vacuum in this country will become highly volatile.
We already have the military criticising the Government, we have the General Public criticising the Government and increasingly the groundswell of opinion is that the Military are right and the Government are wrong, what does this sign post?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2d98fac1-800c-4c61-b2ec-096cabc2adec)
Balancing Government Expenditure
The new mantra spouted by politicians is ‘we have to make difficult decisions’, the use of the term ‘difficult decisions’ is nothing more than PR speak and has already worn thin, it is a way that Politicians can act as though this is something being foisted on them, over which they have no control and if only they could, they would spend unlimited amounts of money on everything.
The fact is that expenditure in the UK is higher than income and this is always a distinct possibility as potential demands for expenditure will always exceed income. These so called ‘difficult decisions’ are being taken all the time. The British people are not idiots and are well aware that cuts need to be made.
For many years the, spend now – pay later culture has pervaded both in personal households and also by Government. The abrupt collapse in the financial system has brought this failure to balance the books to the fore.
To argue about what should have been done and how to get out of this mess are a separate debate and should not be confused with the essential aspect. Finances in the UK are limited and should be spent more efficiently and in a more targeted manner.
On a personal level, individuals are reluctant to see taxes rise and a governmental level; politicians are reluctant to cut spending, so we have an imbalance.
The discussion needs to centre around what drives people to be so self focussed when it comes to their taxes, but so socially conscious when it comes to government expenditure. Efficiencies should be made across Government Departments and public sector expenditure. I am sure many people in the UK can identify examples of wasted money, be it in grandiose buildings, PFI inefficiencies, Quangos, etc. but these are issues tinkering around the edges.
The discussion needs to focus on the core expenditure of this country.
The NHS eats vast chunks of money in all sorts of programmes. We perhaps need to revise our expectations about the NHS, what is it and what is it not.
There is a debate to open as to whether the NHS should be spending money on treatments such as IVF, Cosmetic Surgery, and leading edge research. Should the NHS provide palliative care, or only treatments? Should parts of the NHS treatment process become means tested. Is the NHS responsible for treatment of those with self imposed conditions, such as drinkers, the obese, smokers etc?
It is ridiculous for the users of the NHS to demand ever increasing ranges of treatment, yet at the same time expect to pay ever decreasing taxes.
The Defence budget is another huge expenditure area. The UK continues to seek to play a role as a major world power, on a budget which doesn’t cover the costs. Should we be seeking to have a Military which is able to respond to conflict around the world, or should we scale back to become a defence of the country? Should the UK seek to remain a nuclear force, or should it move away from this?
Having a world class fighting force, requires money, can the country afford it and should we strive to have a military which is able to respond in a meaningful way to world conflicts.
The education system is another area with a large budget. What are the aims of our education system and why. Do we need larger schools, do we need more schools? Should children be made to stay in state funded education until the age of 18? Should University education be funded by the tax payer, or the student?
Looking at climate change, how should the country focus on the issue? Should it even focus on the issue? Should fossil fuels be taxed at a higher rate and the money invested in alternative sources of energy or should alternative energy research and development be funded through indirect taxes. Is there any need to focus on alternative energy? Should people be incentivised to become ‘greener’, or penalised for not becoming ‘greener’? Should any money needed to be spent on the issue of climate change or is this a choice individuals should be making?
There are other big areas of expenditure, this is only a short list and not necessarily the most important, until the ‘sacrosanct’ are identified, trying to balance budgets is nothing more than hot air. Not only do Politicians need to look at this issue, but individuals must accept their own financial responsibility in the process. Demanding more services yet throwing hands up in horror at the idea of higher taxes is a ridiculous starting point.
This country needs to limit expenditure and individuals needs to consider whether the reluctance of people and business to pay higher taxes, means we are absolving Public Services from the responsibility for providing services.
The discussion needs to be open and those with free market attitudes who would prefer to head towards a system of limited centrally provided services, need to be honest with themselves, about the reality of that type of society. Those who would prefer a system in which all services are freely available to all and provided centrally again need to step up to the plate and accept the reality of their position.
Burying heads in the sand and expecting the state to provide all to everyone for free at point of delivery yet refusing to pay for it is a road to nowhere and in reality is unachievable. There is limited income and therefore there has to be limited expenditure. The questions are what money should be spent on and how much are we prepared to pay, at that point budgets can actually be balanced.
Politicians have a role in this debate by being honest about cost implications; people have a responsibility to accept their role in funding those costs.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e550ab56-8df1-4a09-a7f2-4c1d882c9d90)
Saving time and killing people
Once again the safety of ferry passengers plays second fiddle to saving time, on this occasion one person was crushed between the water tight doors of a Ferry sailing from Ostend to Ramsgate.
The Marine Accident Investigation Board published its findings on today after an incident on November 3rd 2008, during which a fitter was crushed in a steel watertight door.
The accident happened on board Transeuropa Ferries’ Eurovoyager as it came into Ramsgate harbour.
The report revealed that watertight doors were routinely left open on the Eurovoyager as it sailed across the Channel.
Herald of Free Enterprise
The actions of some of those involved in the Cross Channel Ferry industry are unconscionable.
In March 1987, 193 people were killed, due to water entering the vehicle area of the Herald of Free Enterprise causing it to capsize, the report into the accident highlighted the importance of the watertight doors, in addition to recommending changes to ferry design.
‘…If substantial quantities of water reach the bulkhead deck, such a ferry may become totally unstable. The disaster to the HERALD was certainly unusual and it is to be hoped will never recur. Nevertheless, leaving the bow doors open is only one of several ways by which water in quantity may
gain access to the bulkhead deck….’
‘…The superstructure must have doors to allow access for the vehicles and these are usually, but not always, at the ends. Obviously the doors have to be weathertight when closed, to ensure the buoyancy of the superstructure….’
Twenty one years later little seems to have changed, with Ferry operators continuing to take short cuts for time expediency.
It appears that someone on-board this ferry at least, knew that the watertight doors should be closed, as the MAIB report into the Eurovoyager states:
‘…It was the usual practice on board for the watertight doors to be in local control. However, VDR data showed that many of the doors were routinely left open at sea, which potentially compromised the vessel’s watertight integrity. Remote control had been selected on this occasion to ensure that the doors remained closed while a Belgium Maritime Inspector was on board conducting an EU ferry inspection….’
Because a marine inspector was on-board, the doors were automatically closed, this leads to a natural conclusion, that although those on-board knew the doors should be closed, they really couldn’t be bothered and because not closing the doors was so routine, the only way to ensure the Inspector would be satistied, would be to make them close automatically.
Immediately after the incident, Transeuropa Ferries sent a circular reminding crew of correct safety procedures and ordering staff to keep watertight doors closed while at sea.
An on board training manual has been updated and all watertight doors now close in line with SOLAS requirements.
To use a poor analogy, sounds a little like shutting the door after the horse has bolted.
A flyer has also been sent out by the MAIB to the shipping industry, reminding them of what they should be doing routinely, including a further reminder of closing watertight doors.
‘…A Belgian Maritime Inspectorate surveyor was on board carrying out an in-service inspection. Although it was the on-board practice to keep the watertight doors in ‘local’ control when at sea, the master switched the doors to the ‘remote’ or ‘doors closed’ mode when leaving Ostend to ensure that none could be left open during the inspection. The master informed the crew of this action….’
‘…The decision to place the watertight doors in ‘remote’ mode was influenced by the crew’s lack of discipline in closing the doors when at sea. The sinking of the Greek ferry, Express Samina, with the loss of 82 lives, clearly shows why watertight doors must be closed at sea. Every effort must be made to ensure this is achieved….’
As a more sober reminder to those who decide the short cut is a good idea, we should see criminal charges brought against these people who endanger lives, because they, can’t be bothered.
The video below is a pertinent reminder of the reality of The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=bae36d76-8cd0-4b8e-af7c-582af8a1fe37)
Investigation into G20 Police actions
Ian Tomlinson pushed to his death
The Commons Home Affairs Committee has released its report into an investigation in to the policing at the G20 summit.
Whilst the report had some positive things to say about the policing, there are issues that really should have been addressed a long time ago and the fact that no Senior Officers are being hauled over the coals is a sad indictment of the way in which no-one is prepared to take responsibility, though they are more than happy to take the Salary, Pension and Gongs.
Once again the Police have been criticised for using inexperienced Police Officers on the front line.
The continued failure by Police Officers to display their identification is a continuing issue and as this is a common sights across protests throughout the UK, I doubt the veracity of the claim that Police Officers are told this is essential and appropriate disciplinary action is taken against those who do not display their ID at all times.
I wonder if not displaying ID is actively encouraged to those members of the police force with the most volatile tempers. The rhetoric about displaying ID is old and stale and the reality is that nothing changes.
The attitude by the Police to view protestors first and foremost as criminals was again criticised, again age old mantra, with absolutely no change in action.
The use of Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, is nothing more than a standard criticism of police activity, in relation to not only large scale protests, but in day to day policing, with the creep of the misuse of anti-terrorist legislation to justify the unjustifiable.
ACPO guidelines call for clear communication from the Police, yet as Commander Bob Broadhurst admitted to that this certainly was not the case at the G20. The issue of communication with large crowds goes back to the May Day protest of 2001 and prior, yet Broadhurst is happy to acknowledge once again the Police got it wrong, but doesn’t feel any need to resign. How can something as simple as communication take over 8 years to work out?
Containment tactics are once again a pressing issue for the Police to review, but they appear happy to continue using a practice, which is has a clear House of Lords ruling:
The Austin ruling says that containment as a strategy is lawful only in specific circumstances including: when the cordon is necessary for purely crowd control purposes and to protect people and property from injury, when many of the people contained were bent on violence; and those who were not demonstrators, or were seriously affected by being confined, were allowed to leave.
The use of containment is also before consideration at the European Court, yet the Police continue to use containment as a first option strategy, despite on many occasions being in breach of the House of Lords ruling. This attitude by the Police that they are above the law is not acceptable.
The use of ‘distraction’ techniques, took some in the Committee by surprise, which is no great shock as MPs don’t seem to know very much about the legislation they pass and is yet another example of committee members not having much of an idea about the subject they are investigating, making their findings fatuous, rather than incisive.
The fact that ‘distraction’, itself a misleading term, which makes it lawful for police officers to hit, kick and baton whip people in certain circumstances, is not widely known, is a concern, as it demonstrates that the lawful Power of the Police to abuse members of the Public is not widely enough understood, or appreciated.
The Metropolitan Police choose to ignore reports such as this and it will be no surprise if they choose to ignore this report. The investigation in to the Parliament Square demonstration suggested that officers’ batons that had been used, should be taken away for forensic use afterwards. The Metropolitan Police decided they didn’t like this suggestion, so decided not to comply.
Knowing full well that there are major events which occur in London, I found the statement made by Sir Paul Stephenson, to the committee astonishing:
… I then tried to place that in the context that there were 13,000 officer days during this operation. It was a remarkable operation planned over an incredibly short period of time that would normally take years and actually the vast majority of my officers did a remarkable job.
I really think this man has lost the plot. The Met handle demonstrations regularly and should be prepared to handle demonstrations regularly, yet according to Stephenson ‘It was a remarkable operation planned over an incredibly short period of time that would normally take years’ If that is the case, the Met is even more incompetent than many people think.
It is not acceptable that we hear time and time again the same issues raised with Policing, yet nothing changes. Police Officers need to understand that they are the ‘Servants of the people not Masters of the People’ and needs drumming in constantly.
The Northern Ireland Police Service has learnt rapidly how to build a relationship with protestors that does not lead to conflict and the fact that their lessons have not been widely implemented is neglect and incompetence at the top of the Police Forces around the Country.
It is time some of these fat cat Senior Officers got the boot and they should not be permitted to drift on until they receive their pension.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6419cbdb-fb00-4902-9a0f-80027a8703e5)