My risk not yours

4262

my-risk-not-yours

Your average man, woman or child on the street partakes of risk on a daily basis. It's life. Ninety nine percent of us accept this and glibly stroll into the road safe in the knowledge that having looked both ways there's no traffic. What of that other one percent? Mainly the ones that work for the Health & Safety Executive.

In their bureaucratic fantasy land of the anaesthetised office, cleverly covered in bubble wrap (the office not the desk jockey), including the paper, can't be too careful with that stuff might take your hand off) they dream up more rules and regulations. Attempting to ensure that during any day in Great Britain no one will so much as have a hair on their head bent out of shape. And, no, you can't order everyone to lie in bed all day (yet) as that's cheating, and don't forget bedsores are a risk. For them risk is everywhere: from standing in the shower, to putting on socks, to walking, eating, using your car, your phone...etc. Yet, the majority of us decide not to put our socks on in the shower while attempting to drill through a wall. Why? Because someone else attempted this and managed to pass through the bottom of the bath to the other side.

Anything could happen to anyone at anytime. It doesn't mean that we need an HSE officer standing over us with a clipboard loudly and sharply inhaling every time we raise the level risk. Risk belongs to us. We gather information in the hope of limiting risk. If we choose to ram a knife into the live toaster, then we accept that as we have raised the chances of removing ourselves from the gene pool. Deserving the consequences should the toaster shockingly reject the unwanted metallic intrusion. This is natural selection, not an opportunity for some faceless office wonk to call for a ban of toasters, knives, bread and electricity.

All of which is comparable to asking the police force not to take any risks while protecting the public. Yes, they have.

Gun control

4245

gun-control-

The country's top judge has demanded an increase in penalties to those arrested in possession of firearms. The Lord Chief Justice stated that, “Guns kill and maim, terrorise and intimidate" and that public safety must be paramount above all else. The main argument used by Lord Judge is one of deterrence, stating “deterrent and punitive sentences are required and should be imposed" such as mandatory minimum sentences for offenders including life sentences for distributors even if there was no intent to endanger life. In the debate over gun control there are a two major issues people often find themselves divided over: Firstly, where to draw the line between public protection and public dominion, and second, the trade-off between public and private deterrence.

At what point does the government change from protecting its citizens to controlling them? This is not an easy question, and it is one too often ignored by both citizens and governments. Government has a duty to protect its citizens from enemies and at times from each other. However, it is a slippery slope that leads governments down the path to total social control in the interest of protecting everyone everywhere all the time. Although the government should indeed be able to police its own citizens it should never be allowed to absolutely remove any single right. Does the government have a right to outlaw the possession of firearms by its citizens in the interest of protection if it means that they are severely limited in their own ability to protect themselves? Absolutely not.

The other question is that of deterrence. Is public or private deterrence a more useful method in fighting crime? In many crimes the use of public deterrence by the government is most often the best means. The government can do things not available to ordinary citizens such as fines and jail time. But in cases dealing with public or personal safety many times the best deterrence is private. A gun wielding criminal will be more afraid of a gun wielding citizen than of the possibility of incarceration. Private citizens concerned only for their own safety and not held back by court proceedings, warrants, or properly reading someone their rights can be the biggest deterrent of violent crime available.

If you discount the use of air-guns and only count real firearms, the use of firearms in violent crimes has continued to increase in the UK despite them being illegal (as reported by the Home Office Statistical Report on Firearms Offenses, pg 34). In a knee jerk reaction to horrific crimes committed in the past, the government is now controlling people instead of allowing them to protect themselves. Although it may be more difficult for criminals to get guns many will still get them. The problem is that the biggest deterrent against gun crime is no longer available.

Denmark's knife

4239

denmarks-knife-

More than 53 people have been put to prison in Denmark because they had a knife on them or had it lying in their car. This is the consequences of a new law the Danish government have implemented in order to prevent crimes committed with knifes.

In most of the cases, the defendants have been craftsmen forgetting to take their tools out of the car after work, anglers coming home from a fishing trip, or just people with a multitool in their car in case something should happen (with the car). An overwhelming majority of those put in prison are peaceful people that offer no threat to anyone else. Now they are convicted criminals because the (Conservative – Liberal) government doesn’t understand the consequences of letting the “Big Brother State" loose.

In Denmark this injustice is putting innocent people in jail. How constructive is that I may ask?

The fashion police

4224

the-fashion-police

Police cover-up at the Joy fashion chain in London sends a message to Cameron that he needs to strip our laws down to their foundations.

Yes, the fuzz have done it again. The new Islington, London store of fashion chain Joy enterprisingly launched a promotion, in which the first 25 customers to turn up in their underwear would get free outfits. Rather a fun idea.

But no sooner were 25 lucky ladies assembled outside the door in their smalls than the bluebottles (in the now-standard body armour) turned up to accuse them all of committing pubic indecency. That's an arrestable offence – actually, everything is an arrestable offence these days, as you'll find if you drop an apple core. Faced with the prospect of being marched in handcuffs down to the nick, swabbed, fingerprinted, cautioned, charged, and taken to court, everyone grumpily covered up, saying that our bobbies lost their sense of humour.

No, they haven't. They are just doing their job. And that's the problem. Politicians, in their anxiety to stamp out anti-social behaviour, hate crime, indecency, offensiveness and litter, have passed laws that give the cops powers to arrest (swab, fingerprint...) people for almost anything. No problem, you might think, if the Old Bill use common sense.

But you can't expect them too. It's simple bureaucrat economics. If they don't intervene and people are offended (or worse), they will get pilloried and people will demand they lose their jobs. If they do intervene, the worst that happens (to them) is that we complain they are a bit heavy-handed. Give bureaucrats – officials, rozzers, whoever – a power, and they will use it. All the time. It's just self-preservation.

That's why these powers should not exist in the first place. Sure, the peelers need authority to protect the public against terrorism, or stop breaches of the peace. But – note to Cameron & Co – if we want to make sure we don't face arrest for over-filling our wheelie bins, our politicians need to be much more precise about exactly what the law is there for. They won't, of course, because they like having the powers and think they will apply them sensibly. But for the reason I gave above, that's a fat chance. (Or can I be arrested for hate crime for using the word 'fat' in an abusing manner? When everything is unlawful, it's hard to know what to do.)

Dr Butler's book The Rotten State of Britain is now in paperback.

"Go" Orders: Guilty without charge

4210

qgoq-orders-guilty-without-charge

During the Labour party conference Home Secretary Alan Johnson revealed yet another reason to boot the party out at the next election.

Renewing Labour’s pledge to ‘clampdown on crime’ (read: creating more punishments and bureaucracy under the pretence of ‘action’), he has unveiled plans to bar alleged wife beaters from their homes through the Domestic Violence Protection Order. “Go" Orders can be placed on suspects, banning them from their homes for up to two weeks, while allowing victims of abuse time to consider legal action.

Apparently, this has been dreamt up to close a ‘loophole’ in legislation whereby the Police can only ‘protect’ a victim of domestic violence if a suspect has been charged with a crime. This ‘loophole’ sounds horribly similar to the long-standing practice in the UK of no-one having their liberty infringed upon without sufficient evidence to suggest it is in the public interest to do so.

If the police cannot prove a crime has been committed and an alleged suspect has not been charged, let alone convicted of an act, then that suspect has every right to be treated as a law-abiding citizen. It is inevitable that some of those banned from their own home will be guiltless and that some people affected by this order will not have charges brought against them. These people would be seriously wronged by such measure.

The breaking of a “Go" Order could land you in the magistrates for Contempt of Court and risking imprisonment. In practise, Johnson is stating that someone who has not even been charged with a crime could face a spell in jail, simply for breaking an order that was imposed without evidence and without justification.

Whilst in power New Labour has continually undermined a major right in the UK legal system: the presumption of the accused’s innocence until proven guilty. They have treated those yet to be tried as convicts through the use of Control Orders and treated those proven innocent as guilty through the retention of details on the DNA database. They are now seeking to treat as guilty those who are yet to be even charged with a crime.

Sexism has nothing to do with it

4201

sexism-has-nothing-to-do-with-it

According to the Financial Times, Jack Straw, the UK's justice secretary, believes that "the media and political firestorm engulfing Baroness Scotland is motivated by sexism". Let's review the circumstances of the case:

• Baroness Scotland, now attorney general, was the Home Office minister responsible for amending Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which meant that businesses and individuals that employed illegal immigrants would face harsher penalties.
• It turns out that that Baroness Scotland has, in fact, been employing an illegal immigrant herself.
• She claims that she saw documents which led her to believe the employee was entitled to work in the UK, but is apparently unaware that the law requires employers to have checked and copied the documents in question – otherwise they have no defence.
• The employee in question, Tongan Loloahi Tapui, tells the Mail on Sunday that Baroness Scotland made no enquiries as to whether she was eligible to work in the UK, and that she "didn't have any of the 6 documents that entitled her to work in Britain". If true, this would mean that Baroness Scotland had not only failed to comply with a law that she herself had introduced, but that she had also lied to the UK Border Agency to cover it up.

On that basis, I'd say it is: (a) clear why people are calling for Baroness Scotland's resignation; (b) clear that sexism has nothing whatsoever to do with it; and (c) clear that Jack Straw's assertion to the contrary is pretty pathetic.

Of course, the Asylum and Immigration Act is bad, onerous, illiberal law. This case is a perfect illustration of that fact. But when a government minister is caught breaking a law that they were themselves responsible for introducing, then surely they must resign. There is nothing more to it than that.

Free to die

4190

free-to-die

On Wednesday Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions, released new guidelines to be used in consideration of cases of assisted suicide. Although they bring no change in the Suicide Act of 1961, they provide a much clearer framework for the likelihood of a prosecution arising from an act of euthanasia. For the most part the guidelines are sensible, measured and sensitive, suggesting that those assisting suicide are unlikely to face prosecution if who they are helping conveyed a “clear, settled and informed wish" to die.

There seems little reason such guidelines could not and should not be incorporated into existing law. As humans, one of the most important rights we feel we possess is that of our right to life. A second is our right to liberty – the freedom to make our own choices, free from the coercion of others. Such important entitlements should not be snatched away from us when we become sick or dependent on others; they should be ours in matters of death just as they are in life. If an individual alone has the ownership of their life, than it is logical that – provided they are in a state to do so – they also have the right to decide when that life should end. And if due to physical weakness a person is unable to commit suicide, than another should be able to assist them in ending their life – not because the assister stands to gain from the act, but because they are doing it on behalf of and in the sole interest of one they care deeply about. As the DPP has signalled, acting with compassion for someone you love is not an action that should be criminalized.

If legalizing assisted suicide causes a rise in the deaths of the terminally ill or incurable, it is simply because those who no longer wished to live are able to end their lives without the worry and guilt of their loved ones being prosecuted for their ‘crime’. Human beings are unique creatures; while some may wish to end their suffering prematurely, many will remain determined to live out the whole of their natural life. Adjusting the law to provide choice will not force the sick to die. People that pressurize and coerce the ill into committing suicide or take advantage of diminished mental capacity have not committed suicide; they wrongly taken another’s life and should be punished for it.

3 years and 9 months for Ramsay Scott

4181

3-years-and-9-months-for-ramsay-scott

Take pity on Ramsay Scott, a 21 year-old man sentenced on Wednesday to 3 years and 9 months in prison for firearms possession. The student, who has been diagnosed as suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome or a schizoid personality disorder, had bought £20,000 worth of gun components on the internet, and amassed a collection including pistols, sub-machine gun parts and ammunition.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Scott had ever harmed anyone else with these weapons, nor that he had any intention of doing so. As Lord Uist remarked to the High Court in Edinburgh on sentencing him:

It is probably impossible to say what, if anything, you would have done with the weapons had the police not intervened.

He explained that Scott was guilty not because he had actually hurt someone else, but because:

There must have been at least the possibility that you would have used them to cause injury to others.

The law that supports this judgment is grossly unfair in three respects.

Firstly, no free society should lock up its citizens unless it can prove that they have harmed, or intend to harm, others. It is not enough for politicians and judges to talk about the ‘danger of guns’ or the ‘good of society’; they must justify making a free individual, Ramsay Scott, a man who has harmed no one, into a captive of the state for almost four years. If this principle is lost, then many of our freedoms go with it.

Secondly, if the government is going to lock up people for owning harmful objects, it should arrest anyone who has a carving knife, a petrol can or a pair of fists. It is not enough to argue that guns are ‘weapons’ or ‘designed to kill’: the evidence suggests that to Scott they were nothing more than a hobby; they were no more a weapon than his cricket bat.

Thirdly, the punishment is far severer than those handed down to terrible men who have actually harmed others. On the same day as Scott received his sentence, an unnamed 15-year old boy was sentenced to two years by Sheffield Crown Court after punching a man and killing him for not giving him a cigarette, while in Northern Ireland, Ciaran McFall was jailed for three years and 6 months by Antrim Crown Court for sexually assaulting a 13-year old girl.

The Firearms Act should be repealed.

Ending child labour

4153

ending-child-labour

Despite our reputation around here as market crazed fanatics whc would do and argue anything to further the interests of international capital there is indeed a method to our perceived extremism: no, not that we are in fact market crazed fanatics.

I certainly am driven to recommend markets as the solution to most problems most of the time simply because markets are indeed the solution to most problems most of the time.

Take for example the problem of child labour. Most certainly we would all prefer a better world in which the young go to school and prepare themselves for making the future world even better. But as Paul Krugman points out, this isn't actually one of the options available to those who currently labour in carpet factories, brickworks or upon garbage dumps. The options are work or starve.

So what might we do to try and reduce these pressures upon the young innocents? How about globalisation?

We examine the effects of trade liberalization on child work and schooling in Indonesia. (...) Our main findings show that increased exposure to trade liberalization is associated with a decrease in child work and an increase in enrolment among 10 to 15 year olds. The effects of tariff reductions are strongest for children from low skill backgrounds and in rural areas. However, a dynamic analysis suggests that these effects reflect the long term benefits of trade liberalization, through economic growth and subsequent income effects, while frictions and negative adjustment effects may occur in the short term.

Please note, this is not a result of us in the rich countries reducing our tariff barriers to Indonesian products. This is the result of the Indonesian government reducing tariff barriers to imports. Just another proof that imports are what make us all rich and that it is wealth that reduces child labour.

The policy prescription seems obvious as well. All those campaigning for the end of child labour (a worthy and noble goal) should in fact be campaigning for the poor countries where child labour exists to reduce their import tariffs. Sadly, of course, this is not what happens: all too many seem to be arguing for both the end of child labour and also that those nasty western products must be kept out of the poor countries so as to protect infant industries. A depressingly counter-productive course of action.

Baroness Scotland: hoist her by her own legislation

4151

baroness-scotland-hoist-her-by-her-own-legislation

I find Baroness Scotland odious and wish that she would be hoisted by her own legislation and extradited to the United States to face Racketeering charges for employing an illegal immigrant as a cleaner, with the same prospect of spending 30 years in a Texas slammer as the NatWest Three.

But I would be despondent if she lost her job as Britain's Attorney General simply because she didn't ask for the passport, work permit, or citizenship papers of her 'daily'. Who on earth does? At least she paid tax and national insurance on her cleaner's wages, which is far more than most other people would do. In politics, it's best to watch your back.

Equally, there would be a poetic irony. It's the government's job to make sure that people are not here illegally – not the job of innocent householders who haven't got the energy to clean their own homes because they have to work round the clock to meet Gordon Brown's tax demands. They pay handsomely for the government's much-vaunted promise to keep the streets of Britain free of illegal immigrants. As Attorney General, Baroness Scotland is a part of that, and if she is falling down on the job, then yes, she should go.

Not that the policy makes sense anyway. Many supposed asylum-seekers flood here because of our cushy welfare system. Maybe we should start there if we want to stem the tide. But many other immigrants come and are willing to work hard, in dirty jobs, in order to better the condition of themselves and their families. If anything, we should be congratulating businesses and householders – and even ministers – for giving a job and a home to such deserving folk.