Mark's Blog

Its never an easy decision to strike for anyone especially not this close to Christmas when every penny counts especially after the mess the condem government have made of the economy. I really don’t think the union members wanted to strike, I am fairly sure they know they cannot win, however if all they do is timidly sit back and take it the government will just keep coming back for more. We keep hearing the same old lies comparing the deficit to a “large credit card” and that it was all labour’s fault. Now on the first point this is wrong, we are a nation state not some middle income person who wants the latest ipad and a new TV. When you spend money on your credit card its just money that goes out and doesn’t generate income with a nation state economy its an accepted and known part of the cycle that governments operate deficits in times of financial crisis and hardship. If it hadn’t been for bailing out the banks then our national debt and the deficit(which many people don’t seem to understand a deficit is the difference between the amount the government makes through taxation and other means and the amount it spends the deficit is NOT THE NATIONAL DEBT although a higher national debt contributes to a higher deficit as the country has to pay a return on the money it borrows.) Now as I said the deficit is not the national debt by lowering the deficit we are in effect taking money out of the economy which makes people and business more cautious about spending money with most playing it safe and not planning any major expansion or big purchases. If our government doesn’t have any faith in our economy why should small businesses and the man on the street? There are two ways to reduce a deficit one of which is about the only thing the current government talk about which is to cut spending. The other way is to increase revenue. IE you have to spend money show some optimism and that money and optimism trickles down creating growth. The other lie is that it was labour that caused this problem, and whilst even as a labour supporter I have to be honest and agree that labour could have done a lot more to prevent this from happening, it was not labour that deregulated the markets in the first place which enabled the banks to overstretch themselves using any old cheap trick to make it appear that they were generating vast sums of money, you will find it was the conservatives back in the 1980s and early 1990′s that removed a whole host of regulation that enabled the banks to get into this state. It was also a result of successive governments and most notably the conservatives that destroyed a lot of the traditional industries in this country and allowed the wholesale shipment of industry to China and the far east with no plan on what to replace it with.

Now I think even the most ardent Daily Mail reader will realise that the banks started this awful mess. The tactics they have used in the past if you put to most sane right minded people would sound dodgy if not an outright scam. The banking crisis was not started by the ordinary people in this country, it wasn’t even started by the politicians although they did put in place the situation where it could happen.

Which brings me back to the public sector workers maybe their pensions compared to the junk that is given to private sector now appear to be over generous, but to my mind the problem is not that public sector pensions are so good, its that private sector pensions are so bad! We are supposed to be a richer country than we were how then can we not afford decent pensions, affordable homes and a decent standard of living for the average worker in this country?

If the government want the moral authority to adjust public sector “gold plated” pensions then maybe they should also tackle there own pensions which are far more generous before pointing fingers at the public sector. I notice that last year whilst imposing a pay freeze on the vast majority of public sector workers MPs voted to give themselves the 1.5% pay rise recommended by the independent board that scrutinizes MP pay and benefits. Did they follow independent panel advice when freezing the pay of public sector workers? I think not.

We have two banks that are effectively owned by the state. The greed at these banks was appalling and it has been calculated that if these banks had given out 10% less in bonuses over the 5-10 years before the banking crisis they would not have needed a bailout. Have there been pay freezes, no bonuses and pension and working changes there? No again I think not.

If the government want the moral authority to push through tough and negative changes to pay and conditions to public sector workers they need to be first in line to accept negative changes and they need to say to the banks that still owe the country billions to show a little more austerity in there pay and bonuses to the so called wizz kids that infect the city of London. Maybe then the unions and public sector may feel more inclined to listen. But asking a politician to take there nose out of the trough seems to be like asking the impossible!

It doesn’t matter what you do for a living its pretty much universal that you are accountable to someone. Politicians have to be re-elected and even CEOs of major companies have to be approved and can be removed or censured by the company’s shareholders. Even if you own your own business you will pay a price if you make a mistake. You will lose business, could possibly be charged with various offences if someone is hurt or injured as a result of your negligence. It seems near universal that in some way you are accountable for your actions. Except there is a group of people that don’t seem accountable in any way and that is judges. We hear time and time again of judges releasing violent offenders on bail despite the advice of the police or the Crown Prosecution Service. Or we hear them giving out laughably lenient sentences such as a fifteen year old boy who was ordered to give the girl he raped a bit of money(I cant remember the exact amount now but it was a paltry figure) to “have a nice holiday.”

We here this time and again but apart from some hollow sounding rebuttal from whichever MP they can get in front of a camera quick enough nothing really seems to happen. The judiciary have to be independent from the government that is a logical and absolutely necessary distinction and you cannot leave it in the hands of the government to decide who should and should not be a judge. However we do need some mechanism to make judges accountable to the public who ultimately judges should be serving. The concerns of the public with unduly lenient sentences or the release of violent offenders on bail when their is a significant chance that the defendant might re-offend and possibly tamper with the victim need to be addressed.

I return to this thought every now and again normally when I read in the paper of someone who has been murdered because of the negligence of one of these judges and it was the case of Jane Clough that I was reading about earlier that prompted me to write this, tragically this young lady who was a mother and dedicated nurse in Blackpool was murdered by her violent ex partner whilst he was on bail accused of raping and beating her. He was released on bail by judge Simon Newell despite both the Crown Prosecution Service and police objecting on the grounds he was both highly likely to abscond and also highly likely to tamper with the main witness.

Its time for a clamp down on dodgy decisions by judges and a clearer system for the public to have some confidence and control over judges that release violent offenders on bail and hand out unduly lenient sentences. The public should be protected from violent offenders and like in just about every other profession judges should be accountable for the bad decisions they make especially when it ends up in the death of a victim when they have been informed by the police and Crown Prosecution Service that this individual has a high probability of attacking said victim.

I personally would favour elected judges or a system of elected judges to local areas who then as a body appoint higher judges. Its either that or there needs to be a proper independent body that the public trusts to hold judges to account when they make negligent mistakes or just plain are not up-to the job. At the present time in the UK I don’t feel that anyone has any real confidence in the judiciary and this is something that needs to change.

I think I am lucky I am not famous I have no wish to be famous and I don’t have any particularly famous close friends or relatives. This suits me fine I have no wish to be in the limelight I like being anonymous! Some people obviously choose to be famous such as footballers, pop stars and actors. They put themselves into the spotlight and particularly when you get a hipocrit footballer who then complains about press intrusion when they are caught literally with there pants around there ankles carrying on an extra marital affair I can’t say as I particularly feel sorry for them. They chose to put themselves in the position where the press take an interest in them. They know they could be found out, and they choose to carry on with these affairs behind the backs of there wives. People do have a right to expect a certain degree of privacy and there are laws to protect us from unwarranted intrusions such as PC and phone hacking this is right and proper and as it should be. However you should not expect the courts to shut up people who know about your sorded little affair you knew you were in the limelight and you took a chance tough luck buddy you got exactly what you deserved!
I do however read the testimony of J K Rowling author of the Harry Potter books to the Leveson inquiry with some disgust. The way her children have been targetted by the press is appauling and should be illegal. Children have no choice who there parents are be it a shop worker, a reality TV star or an author. The press should not be able to in any way approach, photograph or use children based on who there parents are unless the parents have taken the decision to put there children in the spotlight. Now it does get a little more hazy when you are talking about the royal family as these children are potentially future king or queen of the country but as the royal family take money from the state they are giving a certain amount of permission here.

I really hope that the Leveson inquiry comes up with tougher laws to protect family, friends and especially children of the rich and famous unless they or there parents put them into the spot light. There also needs to be much tougher guidelines on how evidence and stories are obtained. The press have no automatic right to publish anything gained illegally ie phone hacking, PC hacking, hidden cameras or microphones. There does however need to be some protection for the publishing of details of official documents. The role of the whistleblower needs to be properly protected, this inquiry should not be stifle good and proper detective journalism which are bringing stories of public interest to the people. However public interest does not cover pictures of the children of J K Rowling or details of Max Mosley’s bizarre sexual practices!