"Are my fellow Muslims so weak in their faith that they think God needs their violence to defend His eternal truth? I believe that their weakness and ignorance of Islam is the reason that they fear honest debate."

Yahya Merchant

The BBC has highlighted a report prepared by Rob Allen on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies that claims that too many children are prosecuted and criminalised.  Previously Mr Allen had been engaged for eight years as a member of the Youth Justice Board and as such it is safe to assume that he is well versed in the realities of child offending.  He considers that there should be greater emphasis on the educational, social and mental health needs of younger offenders. Mr Allen believes that we have become preoccupied with protecting the public from young people and that there is a growing intolerance of teenage misbehaviour of all kinds.

It is easy to dismiss Mr Allen's views as typically air-headed, left-wing liberal and soft on crime, but I happen to agree with him. More children are badly behaved, or allowed to be badly behaved than when I was a child.  Similarly, a growing number of young adults no longer appear to know how to conduct themselves responsibly in public.  The rule and convention abiding public have come to feel besieged and the howls of the tabloid press purporting to speak on their behalf has bullied successive administrations Labour and Conservative into "doing something about it".  The "something" has borne all the hallmarks of being knee-jerk, rather than being calmly and coolly considered whilst in possession of all the material facts.  It was inevitable that once the age of criminal responsibility was lowered, an increasing number of younger children would be sucked into the criminal justice system and most unnecessarily.

There are offences so bad that even a child should know that they are wrong, but nuisance and silly offending should not be the subject of criminal sanction.  "Pecking order fights" in the school playground now result in prosecution.  That should not be so.  Such behaviour represents a phase of male development.  It is ridiculous and wrong-headed to apply the same opprobrium or a criminal sanction to a playground scrap between two thirteen year-old boys as to a bar room brawl involving two men.  Hormones or whatever, it is a phase boys "grown out of" as they mature.  Only males with serious problems still fight by the time they reach their late teens and early twenties.  It is those individuals with whom the State ought to concern itself.

The BBC, in its usual impartial and helpful way, reminds us in its report of the age of various offenders who committed very serious crimes, children such as Jon Venables and Robert Thomson, Danny and Rickie Preddie and Mary Bell. However, these children were the exception to the rule.  It is important to point out that crimes of that  gravity committed by children occur very rarely. The murder committed by Mary Bell took place in 1968.  James Bulger's murder by Venables and Thomson took place twenty-five years later in 1993 and Damilola Taylor's in 2000.

In essence, most child crime is very small beer and is committed largely for reasons other than just plain "badness" or "poor upbringing".  Children can be immature and silly, behave irrationally, empathise with others to a limited degree only or not at all.  They possess all manner of "flaws" caused by their lack of life experiences which can limit their being able to behave well or responsibly in each and every social situation.

The truth is that in most cases "kids" just grow up.  "Special intervention" by the Court system is more likely to do harm than good.  The Nanny State should heed this research and just butt out.  The Shadow Home Affairs minister Edward Garnier should take note.

In Brighton yesterday Sir Menzies Campbell used his first conference to proclaim that,

“the country was crying out for a political party with firm principles, but gave warning that the Liberal Democrats needed to grow up and “act as a party of government” if they wanted to advance in Parliament.”

This is an unequivocal admission that the Liberal Democrats currently are neither a party of principle or “grown up”.  Can a leopard change its spots?

A Government Man doing the Government’s business

New Labour has set its heart upon imprisoning more motorists

Bending rules to ensure higher conviction rates is fraught with danger

The NHS: It is time to return to basics

Is this the thin end of the wedge?

Valerie Elliott reports in The Times today about the cancellation of a planned chase involving an artificial scent[1] in Central London by members of the  “Connaught Square Squirrel Hunt”.  Threats had been made by animal rights activists against the event such that the Police feared that they would create a public order incident.

Once again angry, resentful fanatics threatening violence have  successfully curtailed a lawful activity.

Whilst the Police seem to be very willing to protect our rights when a lawful pursuit is followed by the majority or a pet minority, when a pursuit by the unfavoured is involved, it is just too much trouble to police.  I can well imagine that the drag hunt organisers were warned darkly that if the event proceeded and any trouble erupted, everyone would be arrested, including the riders, for “public disorder.”

The animal rights activists have shown their true colours.  This was nothing to do with animal welfare.  They don’t like the sort of people comprising the Connaught Square Squirrel Hunt and they are going to stop them doing anything they do, just because. I shall leave the last word to Duncan Macpherson, joint master of the hunt, who is reported to have said:

“These activists are clearly even more absurd than I thought if they were going to protest about huntsmen and dogs chasing a smelly sock.”

“It will no longer be credible for Liberal Democrats to appeal for votes, as so often we do, on the basis that we would be better managers. It will no longer be credible to campaign, as sometimes we do, on a disparate series of populist gimmicks… Our party has been guilty of such populism at all levels of government. Other parties can repair cracked paving stones or improve local eyesores as well as we can, and campaign on a platform of doing so just as effectively.”

So says Graham Watson MEP, the leader of Liberal Democrats and allied groups in the European Parliament.  He mentioned also that the Liberal Democrats, “had relied upon populist gimmicks for too long and failed to put forward a coherent policy agenda.”

I should remark that had the Liberal Democrats not said one thing to one set of voters and something completely different to others elsewhere, their party could not have been anywhere near as successful during the course of the past fifteen years. How else are Lib Dem candidates going to appeal to Labour voters in the north and Conservative voters in the south?

‘Out of touch’ Campbell attacked by senior Lib Dems -  Sam Coates

“The tragedy of the episode is that the Pope was arguing against the idea that violence can be justified in any religion. He was making the case for the compatibility of reason with religion at a time when fundamentalism is gaining terrifying ground across the religious spectrum.

The irony is that the Islamic response illustrates how desperately the world needs to hear his message.”

Ruth Gledhill

The sight of violent Muslim-hothead reaction to the ill-chosen words of the Pope is galvanising further anti-Islamic sentiment in the West.  It is time for moderate Islam to make its voice heard.

Michael Horsnell reports in The Times today about the case of Warren Blackwell who was convicted in October 1999 of indecent assault after a woman claimed that she had been attacked by him in the early hours of New Year’s Day, 1999. Initially Mr Blackwell had been sentenced to a three-year term of imprisonment. In March 2002 the Court of Appeal refused him permission to appeal and upon a cross-application by the Attorney-General arguing that that sentence was “unduly lenient”, increased the sentence to one of five years’ imprisonment. Following the involvement of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and fresh evidence coming to light, the case was referred back the Court of Appeal and yesterday Mr Blackwell’s conviction was declared unsafe.  The new evidence disclosed that the complainant had made “strikingly similar allegations” about other sex attacks, had an ability to lie and a possible propensity to self-harm.

The Government is very likely to change the law to make it easier to convict a defendant in cases of this nature.  In effect, the new rules that are being proposed will make it more difficult for defence lawyers to test an alleged victim’s veracity.

Better for ten innocent men to be convicted, than for one guilty man to go free.

Professor Jennifer Temkin rides again: devious barristers and ignorant judges

Bending rules to ensure higher conviction rates is fraught with danger

ContraTory rides again (or the case of a woman scorned?)

The Daily Telegraph

You have to hand it to the Liberal Democrats.  They are never more self-righteous or sanctimonious than when they themselves have something they would prefer to be swept under the carpet.  The next few weeks and months are going to prove very embarrassing for them as the tsunami proportioned ripples caused by their erstwhile donor Michael Brown inexorably spread ever wider, and in their direction. After being exposed recently for having concealed their leader's alcoholism from the electorate for years, you might have thought they would keep their heads down for a respectable period.  Alas (for them) it is not their way.

Robert Watts and Melissa Kite report today in The Sunday Telegraph about a story which is an attempt by the Liberal Democrats to divert attention away from themselves, onto the Conservatives.  The Liberal Democrat treasury spokesman, Lord Oakeshott, claims that a Westminster office block was sold to the Tories for millions less than it was worth.  The Conservatives bought Tufton Street in March for £15.6 million. Lord Oakeshott, who manages a property investment company, says the true market value would be at least £25m (but then of course, he would say that, wouldn't he?)  According to Lord Oakeshott the acquisition of the office block “looks like a purchase on very favourable terms, so that it could be in effect be a concealed donation.”  However a spokesman for the Conservatives has clarified that the party had not bought the property for substantially less than its market value and explained that the two properties acquired are situated next door to each other and are worth jointly more than if they belonged to separate owners.

It is only a few weeks since the Conservatives were "reported"  for a deal involving the sale of their former headquarters at Smith Square.  In that case, being sitting tenants, quite legitimately they had been able to purchase the freehold of the property for a lower significantly sum than the price at which they could sell it.  Foul! shouted cash strapped Labour and Liberal Democrats.

Of course, this is all pure politics and the moral of the story is not to let the Liberal Democrats (or anyone else for that matter) get away with diverting attention from the mote in their own eye.

Just make a note of this somewhere…

“But I really dislike both their smugness and the way they tailor their electoral appeal to smugness. The Liberal Democrats are far too self-satisfied. They don't just think they may be right. They know they're right. They look down on other parties as ignorant, corrupt or both. They believe without question that they alone occupy the moral high ground. There is nothing they like more than to sneer at Labour or the Tories.  At times it can be insufferable. They are the dinner party party.”

Martin Kettle

Jonathan Leake reports that the American mink, a lethal predator blamed for driving water voles to the brink of extinction, is being forced back by the resurgence of the native otter. 

“For thirty years mink, the descendants of escapees from fur farms, have been devastating Britain’s fish, aquatic birds and mammals, with conservationists losing hope they could ever be eradicated.”

A report from the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit at Oxford University, suggests that when otters return to an area they seem to be attacking the American mink and driving them out.

I loved the bit about “mink, the descendants of escapees from fur farms.”  This conjured a mental picture of mink cleverly building tunnels and gliders Colditz style, to escape their captors.  It is true that some mink escaped from fur farms, but not in such numbers as to have enabled them to inflict such carnage upon our native wildlife.  In truth, these vicious predators gained a hold in this country only by reason of Animal Rights activists “liberating” tens of thousands of them during raids upon fur farms over a number of years. Eight thousand were released from one farm alone in September 1998.  It curious that none of the news reports I heard or read today made that point. I am sure that angry finger pointing at the moment we learn that our native vole population is not (as had been thought) heading for extinction, was thought inappropriate. It is a point that has to be made, however. Animal rights activists don't know a lot about animals.  They don't know much about the environment either, for that matter.  They do know a lot about hating, threatening and hurting humans, on the other hand.

According to Greg Hurst in The Times today,

“Sir Menzies Campbell signalled a shift in strategy to target disaffected Labour voters yesterday ….taking votes and seats from Labour will now form the overwhelming thrust of the Lib Dems’ election planning as the party positions itself to gain from bitterness and divisions over Tony Blair’s departure plans.”

It was not so long ago that the Liberal Democrats were seeking to convince us that the Conservative Party was finished and that they were the only viable opposition to New Labour. It was upon this platform that they wrested successfully from Conservative control numerous seats in the south of England and elsewhere.  It is now conceded by the Liberal Democrats that they might lose a handful of seats to the Conservatives led by David Cameron in the next general election.

We can rest assured that the Liberal Democrats will seek to retain as many formerly Conservative seats in the south as possible, but it will not be “a handful” lost if they represent themselves as the alternative to Labour.  A slight of hand will be necessary; otherwise that handful might have to be counted not only upon the fingers of both hands, but the toes of each foot, too.  As has happened so often in the past, the Lib Dems are going to have to present themselves as being “all things to all men”. This is completely unprincipled. Such chicanery must not go unpunished. It is incumbent upon Labour and the Conservatives henceforth to spotlight  Liberal Democrat duplicity and question what the “third party” party really stands for.

Today, in a speech to be given in Edinburgh, the Chancellor Gordon Brown will accuse the Conservatives of wishing to break up the United Kingdom by pressing for a policy of “English votes for English laws”, whereby Scottish MPs would be excluded on voting on certain issues south of the Border.

Nobody mention the Scotland Act 1998.

Chancellor scotches idea he's not British

Two sisters, Joyce Burden 88, and her sister Sybil 81, are liable for a large bill in respect of inheritance tax when the first dies.  They have brought a test case against the Government before the European Court of Human Rights, claiming discrimination against heterosexuals.  The case is the first of its kind since the law was changed to allow gay and lesbian partners the same inheritance rights as married couples.

Property left by one spouse to the other or inherited by a married or civil partner is exempt from the tax. Close relatives, such as siblings and descendants, are not eligible to register as civil partners.  The sisters  claim that the inheritance tax laws breach their right to enjoy their property under the first protocol to the Human Rights Convention and the anti-discrimination provisions of Article 14.

The Government claims that,

“Couples enjoy a relationship of choice.  Siblings however, enjoy a relationship of consanguinity. Further, the relationship between siblings is for ever, whereas couples may part.”

Adding,

 “... a couple made a financial commitment by making a personal commitment to each other.  This was not the case with siblings.”

For political reasons, the European Court will find against the sisters but the Government's arguments are nonsense.  When the inheritance tax “breaks” applied only to the special relationship of marriage, there was a clear and obvious difference between “marrieds” and “the rest”. The only real difference between a married or civil partnership and that of the sisters is that it is presumed that there is or was a sexual element to the former.  Consanguinity is an irrelevance.  Here, the sisters chose to live together (initially to care for their parents) and have made a de facto personal commitment, including a financial commitment, to each other. As with all partners they could, if they wished, separate. Thus, there is no significant, material difference between them and any gay or lesbian couple living together.   In principle, they should win the case.   Once again this Government, in pursuit of its political agenda, has not thought through the blatantly obvious consequences of its legislation and caused considerable injustice.

Sisters go to court over 'gay bias' in tax laws

“When we were all younger, we knew who the pillars of our local community were: professional men and women such as doctors, teachers, bank managers and solicitors. Now, though, the cracks start to appear. A firm of solicitors in Wiltshire has decided to tout for business by asking local traders to recommend them when they hear about marital break-ups that might lead to the parties concerned requiring the services of a lawyer. Happily, one dignified local tradesman — a hairdresser — has pointed out that the integrity of his bond with his customers includes not betraying the confidences relayed in the sanctity of the salon, least of all in return for a commission — or should we say kick-back? — from a firm of ambulance-chasers. What is even more appalling is that the firm protests, and I have no doubt it is correct, that all this is being done in accordance with Law Society rules. Doesn't the Law Society appreciate how a majority of decent solicitors are having their reputations dragged down by such spivvery? And does it care?”

 

Simon Heffer

No, it does not care.  It is all part of The Law Society’s Brave New World.

“Yet public policy in this country likes to treat with Muslim citizens through self-appointed religious leaders, does little to encourage the use of English, stands aside at the oppression of women in many Muslim families, and allows preachers of hate to incite violence. Remarkably little thought is given to what it is like to be a Hindu or a Sikh or a Jew or a Muslim who resents clerical power or, increasingly, a Christian in a heavily Muslim area, in Britain today.”

Charles Moore

“No man but a fool ever wrote, except for money.”

Dr. Johnson

What does that make bloggers, then?