Wednesday 21st September. Midnight GMT. The world seemed to stop and cry together while it waited for news of the barbaric execution of Troy Davis by the American state of Georgia.
In a sickening and heart wrenching few minutes it seems that the right thinking people of this world united in grief, not only grief for the man about to die but grief for a lost moral code that could have prevented this from happening in the first place. Yes, while Troy Davis was strapped to a gurney awaiting death by lethal injection, I was watching my twitter feed.
I have never before felt so close to an execution and it is utterly soul destroying - god only knows what it must feel like to actually be there; I hope that I never find out. As I watched, I cried bucket loads of tears, I felt physically sick and I did something I haven't done for many, many years - I said a prayer (blame the catholic upbringing, it appears to kick in when I feel completely helpless).
I doubt very much that it was my prayer which did it but Troy Davis has been granted a temporary reprieve. It seems though that this in itself is nothing short of torture, reportedly being the 4th time and, just to make it even better, i'm currently watching various reports that the poor soul may still be in the execution chamber waiting to hear whether or not the state intend to kill him tonight. I feel sick again.
Currently #thewholeworldiswatching is trending, right up there at the top of the list, and the whole world is watching.
Whatever the outcome tonight, tomorrow, next week, next year, the world needs to keep watching and keep shouting and put an end to this barbaric practice once and for all.
I said earlier this evening that I was hanging my head in shame for not making a difference when it was needed. I was told that it wasn't my fault but it is. It is the responsibility of each and every one of us to keep watching and to put this right.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Guilt by association?
Am I guilty? Am I corrupt? Am I lacking morals and am I failing to adhere appropriately to the Code of Conduct I have agreed to be bound by? These are the questions that keep flying around my head. Disturbing questions that may make you wonder exactly what I could have done to warrant them being asked at all.
What I have done is be a member of the legal profession.
I am, at the moment, deeply disturbed by the apparent readiness of others in my profession to ignore the rules and guidelines that have been carefully considered and written down over time, in favour of unquestioningly accepting the demands of political leaders. Yep, i'm talking of the sentencing guidelines and the manner in which they are being currently disregarded by Magistrates...Magistrates who are advised by people like me (though, I hasten to add, not me).
Now its a long time since I first studied the law but I do recall one of the first things I was taught was the need for there to be a level of certainty in how the law is applied and what sentences are passed. As its been such an age, I thought I should check so I wandered off to the website of the Sentencing Council. The Council, on the homepage of their website state:
I am far from an expert in this area, having studied it only as part of my academic legal training in the dim and distant past. I have never practiced criminal law. What I can offer is some level of understanding of how legislation and guidelines operate along with some basic commonsense. Applying these, I find the current situation lacking, seriously lacking.
I fail to understand how it can be considered acceptable to apply the harshest possible sentences to cases where there are no clearly aggravating factors, such as the case of the single mum who received a 4 month custodial sentence for handling a pair of stolen shorts. Can the fact that someone else went into a looted store, in the middle of a riot, really be an aggravating factor in her handling charge? I don't know but it certainly feels very, very wrong.
I am ashamed right now to think of myself as part of a profession which is willing to not only allow this to happen but also willing to aid and abet those demanding this despicable kind of rough justice.
Special thanks to Vicky, one of the brightest legal minds I know, for being my sounding board and for always seeing the good. For the record, she keeps the faith in the judiciary which I am still struggling to grab hold of.
What I have done is be a member of the legal profession.
I am, at the moment, deeply disturbed by the apparent readiness of others in my profession to ignore the rules and guidelines that have been carefully considered and written down over time, in favour of unquestioningly accepting the demands of political leaders. Yep, i'm talking of the sentencing guidelines and the manner in which they are being currently disregarded by Magistrates...Magistrates who are advised by people like me (though, I hasten to add, not me).
Now its a long time since I first studied the law but I do recall one of the first things I was taught was the need for there to be a level of certainty in how the law is applied and what sentences are passed. As its been such an age, I thought I should check so I wandered off to the website of the Sentencing Council. The Council, on the homepage of their website state:
The Sentencing Council for England and Wales promotes greater consistency in sentencing, whilst maintaining the independence of the judiciary. The Council produces guidelines on sentencing for the judiciary and aims to increase public understanding of sentencing.Nowhere that I can see on that website, does it say that guidelines don't really matter if a politician says otherwise.
I am far from an expert in this area, having studied it only as part of my academic legal training in the dim and distant past. I have never practiced criminal law. What I can offer is some level of understanding of how legislation and guidelines operate along with some basic commonsense. Applying these, I find the current situation lacking, seriously lacking.
I fail to understand how it can be considered acceptable to apply the harshest possible sentences to cases where there are no clearly aggravating factors, such as the case of the single mum who received a 4 month custodial sentence for handling a pair of stolen shorts. Can the fact that someone else went into a looted store, in the middle of a riot, really be an aggravating factor in her handling charge? I don't know but it certainly feels very, very wrong.
I am ashamed right now to think of myself as part of a profession which is willing to not only allow this to happen but also willing to aid and abet those demanding this despicable kind of rough justice.
Special thanks to Vicky, one of the brightest legal minds I know, for being my sounding board and for always seeing the good. For the record, she keeps the faith in the judiciary which I am still struggling to grab hold of.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Too fast, too furious
Its a funny old world that we live in, particularly so over this past week. We've seen public disorder spread across England on a not too overwhelming scale though it appears to have caused prolific insanity among previously right-minded people along with that best-known of ailments that affects only those in authority, knee-jerkitis.
When I returned from an evening out and first saw the images of burning buildings, police in riot gear, kids smashing shop windows, I was shocked and saddened like everyone else but what I can admit which most don't, is that I also felt the lure of the riots. I felt the excitement of seeing something different happening on my telly, of thinking that maybe now is the time that the average people of the UK would find their voice, stand up and be counted. It may have been started by angry youths and initially spread by inane ones but I felt the potential for it to turn into something meaningful that would make those in power realise what they have done, over decades, to our society and that maybe, just maybe, the people could effect the change we all need. That possibility made for compulsive viewing...viewing which boosted the ever fantastical reporting and prompted a media frenzy and moral panic, the likes of which haven't been seen in this country since the death of LeahBetts.
Sadly, in my opinion at least, the revolution didn't arrive. Instead of meaningful protest and having our voices heard, the politicians came running home from their comfortable holidays to silence us. I do believe it was right for them to return home and act as the leaders they profess to be but I am disappointed by the clear lack of understanding of the society they claim to represent. I am equally disappointed by the generic stupidity of that society which largely seems only capable of perpetuating all of its bad traits and further diluting the good.
I am fed up of seeing politicians from all sides screaming for justice against a people who need understanding and help. I am sick of having to listen to the likes of Louise Mensch debating issues about which she clearly has no understanding and David Cameron preaching morality when he mixes daily with individuals who have none.
I am angry that the idea of swift and rough justice is being glorified and forced upon us, with courts staying open through the night to process the perpetrators of these terrible crimes. All I see here is a justice system which is as corrupt as the politicians who are manipulating it and by that, I am appalled.
It frightens me that in dealing with matters so quickly, important points may be missed and mitigating factors ignored simply because our Prime Minister has made clear his own view of justice and how that should be applied to all who are charged...that is, as long as they're not his mates who have fraudulently deprived this society of many thousands of pounds in recent years - very obviously a lesser crime than pilfering a bottle of wine from an already looted store, right under the noses of the police who are looking on quietly; or accepting a pair of shorts that somebody else stole while you weren't even present.
I've pondered long and hard over the possible motivation of those directly involved in the 'rioting' and my conclusion is that people, in general, are thoroughly pissed off, bored, angry and most importantly feel disenfranchised and unheard by those who are supposed to serve, lead and protect us. There is no single reason or even a main reason, it is a great big melting pot of ugly, angry everything.
Such a variety of people have been involved that the blame cannot be pinned solely on a lack of education or respect as much of the media and many politicians would like us to believe; nor can it be put down to any one of the other usual social targets - youth, unemployment, race or gang-culture. No, here we have seen people from all walks of life being enticed by the lure of what the politicians choose to refer to as criminality but what seems to me to be more akin to an opportunity to be seen, heard, understood and to release a lifetime of frustration.
EDIT: After 3 days of writing a mammoth blogpost, 'Blogger' decided to lose the entire thing. Above is about a third of the original which i'd written in Word and had saved. The essence of what is missing is that there is corruption in our society from the very top down to the very bottom. At the top we call it a mistake, at the bottom we call it a crime. It makes me very sad to see the gulf between the haves and the have nots ever widening and my fear is that it will soon be too great to ever be bridged.
When I returned from an evening out and first saw the images of burning buildings, police in riot gear, kids smashing shop windows, I was shocked and saddened like everyone else but what I can admit which most don't, is that I also felt the lure of the riots. I felt the excitement of seeing something different happening on my telly, of thinking that maybe now is the time that the average people of the UK would find their voice, stand up and be counted. It may have been started by angry youths and initially spread by inane ones but I felt the potential for it to turn into something meaningful that would make those in power realise what they have done, over decades, to our society and that maybe, just maybe, the people could effect the change we all need. That possibility made for compulsive viewing...viewing which boosted the ever fantastical reporting and prompted a media frenzy and moral panic, the likes of which haven't been seen in this country since the death of LeahBetts.
Sadly, in my opinion at least, the revolution didn't arrive. Instead of meaningful protest and having our voices heard, the politicians came running home from their comfortable holidays to silence us. I do believe it was right for them to return home and act as the leaders they profess to be but I am disappointed by the clear lack of understanding of the society they claim to represent. I am equally disappointed by the generic stupidity of that society which largely seems only capable of perpetuating all of its bad traits and further diluting the good.
I am fed up of seeing politicians from all sides screaming for justice against a people who need understanding and help. I am sick of having to listen to the likes of Louise Mensch debating issues about which she clearly has no understanding and David Cameron preaching morality when he mixes daily with individuals who have none.
I am angry that the idea of swift and rough justice is being glorified and forced upon us, with courts staying open through the night to process the perpetrators of these terrible crimes. All I see here is a justice system which is as corrupt as the politicians who are manipulating it and by that, I am appalled.
It frightens me that in dealing with matters so quickly, important points may be missed and mitigating factors ignored simply because our Prime Minister has made clear his own view of justice and how that should be applied to all who are charged...that is, as long as they're not his mates who have fraudulently deprived this society of many thousands of pounds in recent years - very obviously a lesser crime than pilfering a bottle of wine from an already looted store, right under the noses of the police who are looking on quietly; or accepting a pair of shorts that somebody else stole while you weren't even present.
I've pondered long and hard over the possible motivation of those directly involved in the 'rioting' and my conclusion is that people, in general, are thoroughly pissed off, bored, angry and most importantly feel disenfranchised and unheard by those who are supposed to serve, lead and protect us. There is no single reason or even a main reason, it is a great big melting pot of ugly, angry everything.
Such a variety of people have been involved that the blame cannot be pinned solely on a lack of education or respect as much of the media and many politicians would like us to believe; nor can it be put down to any one of the other usual social targets - youth, unemployment, race or gang-culture. No, here we have seen people from all walks of life being enticed by the lure of what the politicians choose to refer to as criminality but what seems to me to be more akin to an opportunity to be seen, heard, understood and to release a lifetime of frustration.
EDIT: After 3 days of writing a mammoth blogpost, 'Blogger' decided to lose the entire thing. Above is about a third of the original which i'd written in Word and had saved. The essence of what is missing is that there is corruption in our society from the very top down to the very bottom. At the top we call it a mistake, at the bottom we call it a crime. It makes me very sad to see the gulf between the haves and the have nots ever widening and my fear is that it will soon be too great to ever be bridged.
Monday, July 11, 2011
United we stand, divided we fall.
Over recent weeks, as the subject of legal aid reform has been hotly debated, there has been much opposition to sweeping reforms voiced from a variety of sources and this is, without question, very positive. Worryingly, one issue which is shining out above most others, is the disjointed approach to campaigning taken by the main players in this crucial battle against Ken Clarke and his Ministry.
The Law Society; The Bar Council; The Judges' Council; Justice for All; LAG; and so the list goes on. All standing up to be counted, all shouting for the right to access justice regardless of social or economic status and each appearing to act in isolation to the others. We have the Sound Off campaign website and the Justice for All campaign website which, whilst complementing each other and showing mutual support, do appear to almost be competing at first glance and that cannot be beneficial - if people feel faced with a choice, it is likely that they will be unsure who to support and may well ultimately decide to support neither. It is a similar story across the board.
Each and every voice that shouts, or group that campaigns is, without doubt, beneficial but how much louder would the voice of the vulnerable be if all of these groups presented a united front and took a truly joined up approach?
It is clear to those within the legal profession that the various voices are all on the same side and fighting, relentlessly, to achieve the same outcome; I do not dispute this. I am however convinced that united we will stand but divided, we fall.
Now is the time to step forward in complete unity, with a single Legal Aid campaign, and shout louder than ever before to protect our rights and our ability to enforce them without discrimination or prejudice.
The Law Society; The Bar Council; The Judges' Council; Justice for All; LAG; and so the list goes on. All standing up to be counted, all shouting for the right to access justice regardless of social or economic status and each appearing to act in isolation to the others. We have the Sound Off campaign website and the Justice for All campaign website which, whilst complementing each other and showing mutual support, do appear to almost be competing at first glance and that cannot be beneficial - if people feel faced with a choice, it is likely that they will be unsure who to support and may well ultimately decide to support neither. It is a similar story across the board.
Each and every voice that shouts, or group that campaigns is, without doubt, beneficial but how much louder would the voice of the vulnerable be if all of these groups presented a united front and took a truly joined up approach?
It is clear to those within the legal profession that the various voices are all on the same side and fighting, relentlessly, to achieve the same outcome; I do not dispute this. I am however convinced that united we will stand but divided, we fall.
Now is the time to step forward in complete unity, with a single Legal Aid campaign, and shout louder than ever before to protect our rights and our ability to enforce them without discrimination or prejudice.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Lynch mobs at dawn
The naming and shaming of convicted criminals online has been endorsed by Home Office Minister, Nick Herbert. This appears to be yet another government [knee-jerk] plan to appease the masses be seen to be tough on crime, which hasn't really been thought through, in the government's sustained attack on our justice system.
The idea, it seems, is to publish photographs of offenders on 'crime maps' covering England and Wales; the result of which will be to reduce crime. This of course is unlikely to cause a reduction in crime at all; it is likely to do one of two things: create an increase in unsafe convictions whilst pacifying Joe Bloggs and his media bloodhound; or cause a drop in the conviction rate.
Why do I think this? Well stop for a moment and think about what will happen when a person is prosecuted primarily due to them having been identified in a police line up. Its my guess that the CPS will charge blindly toward the easy conviction finish line and the defence will, at a timely moment, gallop up to the front of the race and ask the question "has the victim ever looked at the crime map?" Cue sweaty palmed prosecutor watching his easy conviction slipping through his fingers.
The naming and shaming of criminals in this way will simply serve the reckless wants of Mr Joe Bloggs, vigilante-style, victim. He will, quite naturally, take an interest in the criminals in his area, look at their images on the map and whether he realises it or not, will commit their faces to memory. When Joe is later required to identify the individual he spotted running away from his house at the time it was trashed by a thieving little toe-rag, he spots the young man from the map - it might be him, same hair, same sort of height, yep, must be that one. Result! When this is raised in the toe-rag's defence it is enough to cast reasonable doubt so he gets to walk out of court rather than taking a ride to HM Holiday Camp.
What about jurors who, before or even during a trial, decide to take a look at the crime map? There is clearly the potential for them to convict on the basis that the accused had previously been handed a custodial sentence for a different crime, rather than ensuring a conviction on the facts of the case before them.
Yet again we find ourselves looking at the proposals of a bunch of halfwits who have failed to consider the negative connotations of their hair-brained schemes.
Note to government: Its not big and its not clever to undermine our justice system in any of the ways you have thus far attempted!
*The author knows little about criminal law but does have a bit of commonsense.
The idea, it seems, is to publish photographs of offenders on 'crime maps' covering England and Wales; the result of which will be to reduce crime. This of course is unlikely to cause a reduction in crime at all; it is likely to do one of two things: create an increase in unsafe convictions whilst pacifying Joe Bloggs and his media bloodhound; or cause a drop in the conviction rate.
Why do I think this? Well stop for a moment and think about what will happen when a person is prosecuted primarily due to them having been identified in a police line up. Its my guess that the CPS will charge blindly toward the easy conviction finish line and the defence will, at a timely moment, gallop up to the front of the race and ask the question "has the victim ever looked at the crime map?" Cue sweaty palmed prosecutor watching his easy conviction slipping through his fingers.
The naming and shaming of criminals in this way will simply serve the reckless wants of Mr Joe Bloggs, vigilante-style, victim. He will, quite naturally, take an interest in the criminals in his area, look at their images on the map and whether he realises it or not, will commit their faces to memory. When Joe is later required to identify the individual he spotted running away from his house at the time it was trashed by a thieving little toe-rag, he spots the young man from the map - it might be him, same hair, same sort of height, yep, must be that one. Result! When this is raised in the toe-rag's defence it is enough to cast reasonable doubt so he gets to walk out of court rather than taking a ride to HM Holiday Camp.
What about jurors who, before or even during a trial, decide to take a look at the crime map? There is clearly the potential for them to convict on the basis that the accused had previously been handed a custodial sentence for a different crime, rather than ensuring a conviction on the facts of the case before them.
Yet again we find ourselves looking at the proposals of a bunch of halfwits who have failed to consider the negative connotations of their hair-brained schemes.
Note to government: Its not big and its not clever to undermine our justice system in any of the ways you have thus far attempted!
*The author knows little about criminal law but does have a bit of commonsense.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Day 2 Letter to Ben
Dear Moron,
Following your recent comments regarding lawyers, the Legal Aid consultation and the resulting Bill, I would like to point out the following:
I will expect my personal apology by return of post.
Alice.
Following your recent comments regarding lawyers, the Legal Aid consultation and the resulting Bill, I would like to point out the following:
- I am a lawyer currently earning under £25,000 per year, employed in the not-for-profit sector.
- I have been subject to a pay freeze for 2 years because my pay is linked to that of the public sector.
- I studied and worked for 10 years to obtain my professional status, coming from a disadvantaged background and winning a scholarship to complete my legal education on the basis of excellence and my commitment to access to justice.
- I often work long hours, work weekends and evenings and rarely have time to spend with my family because of my duty to the members of the public that I serve.
- I care, passionately, about the work that I do with some of the most vulnerable members of society and am disgusted by your inference that I care only about myself.
- The publication of this idiotic Bill reduced me to tears of despair because it will stop me helping the people who need my help the most.
- I don't give a damn about money, save for the fact that I must exist and provide food and accommodation for my family.
- I have no self-interest at all, much less self-interest that is being dressed up as something else.
- I am adversarial and with good cause. I am trained to be that way when there is a case to fight and a client to defend, as is the case here.
- I do not whinge and whine, I fight my corner and the corners of those who are unable to fight for themselves. Politicians should do the same.
- You are clearly one of the government's leading Numpties and may wish to consider putting your brain in gear before trying to discuss matters that you very obviously do not fully understand.
I will expect my personal apology by return of post.
Alice.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Day1 Letter to Ken
Dear Mr Clarke,
I have read, with interest, your response to the consultation on Legal Aid reforms and the resulting Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. I note that, whilst you profess to have listened to all concerns raised, you have actually done little to take those concerns on board and make relevant changes to improve your imbecilic proposals.
You aim, so you say, to reform the system in order to ensure access to public funding in those cases that most require it and to ensure the early resolution of disputes in order to avoid unnecessary conflict. Having now read your consultation response and the resulting Bill in their entirety, I can say, with some certainty, that you are either entirely out of touch with reality and have no understanding of what is required to ensure your aims are met; or you have an alternate political agenda to perform.
I would agree entirely with your assertion that legal recourse should be the last port of call rather than the first. Unfortunately, your Bill fails entirely to recognise that approach by denying public funding to people wishing to resolve their disputes at an early stage; instead you see fit to only allow funding to be accessed long after court proceedings are issued - prime example of this being your suggestion that debt cases may only be funded where the home is at immediate risk and an order for sale is sought. This is a bizarre proposal from one so keen to resolve issues before they reach a court room. If you were to allow people legal assistance at the outset in this sort of situation, it would probably never get as far as a court room. I wonder if you have actually considered why cases like these even get to court? It isn't generally because the individuals want them to, more often it is because the corporate bodies involved refuse to negotiate reasonably and insist on forcing the matter before a judge to protect their interests (and why shouldn't they make use of the legal redress freely available to them). What I want to know is why don't you choose to regulate that type of behaviour rather than remove access to a proper defence from the already under-privileged?
You point out in your consultation response that individuals will be able to seek guidance from other sources at an early stage - I assume that you refer to services such as CABx which, whilst doing an excellent job providing generalist, low level, guidance, are often unable to do anything more than signpost users on to providers of legal services - even at the earliest of stages. As an individual who regularly mops up CABx mess, I can assure you that I am correct and even extend an invitation to you to come and see for yourself (I of course accept that facing the reality of your incompetence may not be something you wish to do, so I won't bother putting the kettle on any time soon).
You have stated that the government supports the simplification of the legal system but that these reforms are not dependent on those measures, they should be. The current system is not easy for lawyers to navigate after years of training and in the vast majority of cases it would be unthinkable for a lay person to navigate their way through the system successfully. I fear your implication that the legal system could be accessed by litigants in person as the norm may be somewhat delusional and misguided.
Much of your rhetoric is directed at the current expense of Legal Aid in the UK compared to that of other countries and the need to reduce that spending. I absolutely agree with you on this general point. I think that the reason we are spending so much is a matter of societal values - ours are so far eroded that they barely exist. May you, perhaps, be better off concerning yourself with ensuring that rules and policing are tightened up rather than denying those already victims of the system access to justice and legal recourse? #Justsayin.
Mr. Clarke, you claim to have considered carefully the impact of your reforms on the more vulnerable members of our (yes, our, not your) society yet you fail to appropriately acknowledge what vulnerability can amount to - instead restricting your definition to older people, those with disabilities and those experiencing traumatising circumstances in which the proceedings are being brought. Whilst I accept that you do not categorically state no other vulnerability should be taken into account, your failure to use the broadest of definitions clearly has dramatic and devastating implications for the majority of vulnerable people, including those with physical and mental health issues. I do not accept that you have understood the wider implications of your proposals and I do not accept that you are acting in a manner which will offer protection to those members of our society which need it the most.
I was somewhat relieved to note in your response that you were to widen the criteria for family proceedings where domestic violence is present. I then read and digested your proposals. Domestic abuse is terrifying. It affects the victim's ability to function as a 'normal' person might. It is absurd to insist on objective evidence of abuse being present and all that this will be likely to achieve is more abused women staying in relationships under fear and duress because they can't afford to access the legal system. This will undoubtedly have an effect on the well-being of any children involved - aren't you supposed to protect the interests of the child? Perhaps i'm confused. In reality here Mr. Clarke, what you are going to achieve is ensuring that women have to beaten to the point of no return before they will be entitled to public funding to help remove them from their situation. I personally find that incomprehensible but then I know what it feels like.
I find myself astounded by the level of ignorance displayed in your consultation response regarding the way that the lower echelons of society function on a daily basis. I am appalled by the lack of understanding of peoples' basic needs and more so by the clear lack of true commitment to the ideal of equality before the law. Freedom from persecution is a basic human right, did you forget that when making your declaration of compatibility?
I have much, much more to say regarding this farcical approach to reform and will return to haunt you soon with the next installment.
Yours in disgust,
Alice.
I have read, with interest, your response to the consultation on Legal Aid reforms and the resulting Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. I note that, whilst you profess to have listened to all concerns raised, you have actually done little to take those concerns on board and make relevant changes to improve your imbecilic proposals.
You aim, so you say, to reform the system in order to ensure access to public funding in those cases that most require it and to ensure the early resolution of disputes in order to avoid unnecessary conflict. Having now read your consultation response and the resulting Bill in their entirety, I can say, with some certainty, that you are either entirely out of touch with reality and have no understanding of what is required to ensure your aims are met; or you have an alternate political agenda to perform.
I would agree entirely with your assertion that legal recourse should be the last port of call rather than the first. Unfortunately, your Bill fails entirely to recognise that approach by denying public funding to people wishing to resolve their disputes at an early stage; instead you see fit to only allow funding to be accessed long after court proceedings are issued - prime example of this being your suggestion that debt cases may only be funded where the home is at immediate risk and an order for sale is sought. This is a bizarre proposal from one so keen to resolve issues before they reach a court room. If you were to allow people legal assistance at the outset in this sort of situation, it would probably never get as far as a court room. I wonder if you have actually considered why cases like these even get to court? It isn't generally because the individuals want them to, more often it is because the corporate bodies involved refuse to negotiate reasonably and insist on forcing the matter before a judge to protect their interests (and why shouldn't they make use of the legal redress freely available to them). What I want to know is why don't you choose to regulate that type of behaviour rather than remove access to a proper defence from the already under-privileged?
You point out in your consultation response that individuals will be able to seek guidance from other sources at an early stage - I assume that you refer to services such as CABx which, whilst doing an excellent job providing generalist, low level, guidance, are often unable to do anything more than signpost users on to providers of legal services - even at the earliest of stages. As an individual who regularly mops up CABx mess, I can assure you that I am correct and even extend an invitation to you to come and see for yourself (I of course accept that facing the reality of your incompetence may not be something you wish to do, so I won't bother putting the kettle on any time soon).
You have stated that the government supports the simplification of the legal system but that these reforms are not dependent on those measures, they should be. The current system is not easy for lawyers to navigate after years of training and in the vast majority of cases it would be unthinkable for a lay person to navigate their way through the system successfully. I fear your implication that the legal system could be accessed by litigants in person as the norm may be somewhat delusional and misguided.
Much of your rhetoric is directed at the current expense of Legal Aid in the UK compared to that of other countries and the need to reduce that spending. I absolutely agree with you on this general point. I think that the reason we are spending so much is a matter of societal values - ours are so far eroded that they barely exist. May you, perhaps, be better off concerning yourself with ensuring that rules and policing are tightened up rather than denying those already victims of the system access to justice and legal recourse? #Justsayin.
Mr. Clarke, you claim to have considered carefully the impact of your reforms on the more vulnerable members of our (yes, our, not your) society yet you fail to appropriately acknowledge what vulnerability can amount to - instead restricting your definition to older people, those with disabilities and those experiencing traumatising circumstances in which the proceedings are being brought. Whilst I accept that you do not categorically state no other vulnerability should be taken into account, your failure to use the broadest of definitions clearly has dramatic and devastating implications for the majority of vulnerable people, including those with physical and mental health issues. I do not accept that you have understood the wider implications of your proposals and I do not accept that you are acting in a manner which will offer protection to those members of our society which need it the most.
I was somewhat relieved to note in your response that you were to widen the criteria for family proceedings where domestic violence is present. I then read and digested your proposals. Domestic abuse is terrifying. It affects the victim's ability to function as a 'normal' person might. It is absurd to insist on objective evidence of abuse being present and all that this will be likely to achieve is more abused women staying in relationships under fear and duress because they can't afford to access the legal system. This will undoubtedly have an effect on the well-being of any children involved - aren't you supposed to protect the interests of the child? Perhaps i'm confused. In reality here Mr. Clarke, what you are going to achieve is ensuring that women have to beaten to the point of no return before they will be entitled to public funding to help remove them from their situation. I personally find that incomprehensible but then I know what it feels like.
I find myself astounded by the level of ignorance displayed in your consultation response regarding the way that the lower echelons of society function on a daily basis. I am appalled by the lack of understanding of peoples' basic needs and more so by the clear lack of true commitment to the ideal of equality before the law. Freedom from persecution is a basic human right, did you forget that when making your declaration of compatibility?
I have much, much more to say regarding this farcical approach to reform and will return to haunt you soon with the next installment.
Yours in disgust,
Alice.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Lucifer's Lizard cult strikes again
After reading a Bizzletastic blog post this evening I decided to wander off and take a look at the work of the Lizard nation for myself. What I found is frightening, funny, somewhat bizarre and very much a danger to those looking for a way to manage their debts without any legal advice or assistance.
The Lizard people are a bit like some freaky, bizarre cult (you really need to read the forums to get the feel of it). It is almost demonic in parts. Scary stuff – but have no fear, I have been practicing my Queen of Hearts chant and am ready to give the order “Off with their heads” while The Bizzle goes charging in.
I play on the opposite side of the fence to The Bizzle, for once though, we are in complete agreement; anyone trying out this insanity is just going to get themselves further into debt and probably land a criminal record to boot.
My favourite sample letter from the Lizard cult below for your amusement J
Notice of Public Declaration of Non-Jurisdiction – Denial of Service - Order to Dismiss Case
The Magicians Court, Lucifer Street, LH12XA.
Charge: Unlicensed Keeping of motor vehicle V245HBF on 15/10/2010
Allegedly authorised by John Dyson (electronic mark but not by his hand)
Summons Issue Date: 28 April 2011
Your Ref: 293SMK case calling 9th June 2011
My Ref: ChesterMagis02
Correspondance received by: John of the Doe Family (Authorised Agent and Affiant for MR JOHN DOE)
c/o House, Address, Town, [LH4 8FE], On Wales
DETAILS OF DECLARATION AND/OR DENIAL OF JURISDICTION:
I, John of the family Doe as the agent and representative & paramount security interest holder for MR JOHN DOE and I present this affirmation as a declaration and affidavit of truth to the court as evidence of the facts for and on the record:
• I do solemnly affirm that the facts contained herein are true, correct and certain
• I reserve all rights and waive all privileges.
• My vessel (person) is not bonded for the corporate legal arena.
• If your lawful authority is derived from QE2/THE CROWN then there is no case to answer as QE2 is not the legal Monarch and the legislation under which this case is being brought is fraudulent and unlawful and therefore null and void. Please refer to precedent case between REGINA/THE QUEEN/QE2 vs. JAH (John Anthony Hill ) Southwark Crown Court, 9-12 May 2011 where JAH was found not guilty.
• All Judges in the UK derive their authority from and swear an oath to Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg (QE2) who is now proven to not be a lawful sovereign and any Bill MUST have Royal Assent before it can become an Act of Parliament (law). It should therefore be obvious that no judge in the U.K. could be impartial in a matter that questions Elizabeth's authority and thus called into question the judge's authority as well which would be a blatant conflict of interest.
• Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg’s (QE2/REGINA/) Fraudulent Coronation where she was crowned on a fake coronation stone and she promised to uphold "The Laws of God", which forbid her, parliament, or anyone else from legislating. She has broken this binding contract, and thus the contract is voided, meaning she or her agents have no actual authority to bring victimless, legislated charges against anyone.
Exhibits:
a) the fake coronation stone used (ref: http://jahtruth.net/stone.htm), and
b) the broken coronation contract uphold the laws of God such as below verse. (Exhibit 1, enclosed) http://jahtruth.net/signed-o.jpg
Details of QE2's fraudulent authority from the case REGINA/THE QUEEN vs. JAH (John Anthony Hill ) Southwark Crown Court, London, SE1 2HU, England, 9-12 May 2011 :
1. Mrs. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg/Mountbatten; un-Lawfully residing in Buckingham Palace, London; also known by the criminal aliases Windsor and QE2, was knowingly and willfully, with malice-aforethought, fraudulently crowned on a fake Coronation Stone / Lia Fail / Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacob’s Pillar on June 2nd in 1953, and has been fraudulently masquerading as the rightful British Sovereign/Crown for the last 58 years, which the Defendent proved beyond doubt, and is a major part of why the fraudulent British so-called “crown” is attacking the the agent with this false, malicious, frivolous, ridiculous and politically motivated charge. It is Mrs. Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg who should be arrested and charged; for her innumerable acts of high-treason against the 'I AM' and his Christ, Whose church she falsely claims to head and in defiance of Whom she had herself fraudulently crowned, and Whom she has continued to rule in defiance of, and in opposition to, ever since; not the Defendent.
2. Allowing people to legislate in defiance of God’s Law (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32) that she swore and affirmed, in writing, to maintain to the utmost of her power (Exhibit 1), and, in many cases, actually reversing what The Law states into being the very opposite of it. She has fraudulently imprisoned and punished people for enforcing The Law themselves as God commands them to do, and thus un-Lawfully prevented or deterred others from doing so. She has given Royal-Assent to 3,401 Acts of Parliament (as of 24/03/2011) and thus broken The Law against legislating 3,401 times. The very first time she gave “Royal-Assent” to ANY “Act of Parliament”, or any other piece of legislation, or allowed Parliament or anyone to legislate, she broke her Coronation Oath and was thus no longer the monarch, with immediate effect, even if she had been Lawfully crowned in the first-place, which she most definitely was not.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the "I AM THAT I AM" your God which I COMMAND you.
Deuteronomy 11:1 Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep His charge, and His Statutes, and His Judgments, and His Commandments, always.
Deuteronomy 12:8 Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.
Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
• Is this a CRIMINAL action or a CIVIL action? If it is a criminal action, then who and where is the INJURED PARTY? or if it is a civil action, then where is the CONTRACT?
• The law of STATUTES is the law of CONTRACT. And we, as human beings, have the right to decline to contract.
Statutes do not apply, a STATUTE is a legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed – I do not give my consent, tacit or otherwise.
• I have no ‘UNDERSTANDING’ of this matter… I ‘UNDERSTAND’ no one.
• We are all equal in law however knowledge separates the governed from the masters. If we are all equal, do we not have the status of Sovereigns and Diplomats if we so choose?
• I will not allow a plea in my absence, anyone entering a plea without my written permission will be considered the defendant and responsible for all costs.
• This document does not form part of a negotiable instrument.
• We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have.
• I own no property nor do I claim title ownership to the name/trust Mr JOHN DOE .
• My law is the Holy Bible the words of the most high EHYEH ASHER EHYEH (I AM THAT I AM). “If righteousness is not made profitable, then corruption will prevail.”
EX Dolo malo non oritur actio - (Out of fraud no action arises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dismiss this case as there is no jurisdiction or injured party and this flesh blood sentient man has not agreed to contract with your Corporation and owns no property.
Should an attempt be made to involve an Admiralty Court, Commercial Court it would result in a trespass against the Affiant's rights where your assumed authority will be questioned, the above evidence presented and the below fee schedule will apply.
If you wish to still persue Mr JOHN DOE , you must contact the trustee of the Estate (THE CROWN).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEE SCHEDULE
I claim the right to charge a FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, de facto government principals, executives, officers, agents or justice system participants, as follows:
ONE THOUSAND (£1000) POUNDS GBP PER HOUR or portion thereof for court appearances including travelling to / from court and
FIVE HUNDRED (£500) POUNDS GBP PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated and
FIVE THOUSAND (£5000) POUNDS GBP PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process, and
FIFTY THOUSAND (£50,000) POUNDS GBP PER DAY if any personal items in my keeping are taken away from me without my express written and notarized consent and
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (£500,000) POUNDS GBP PER INDIVIDUAL reasonably involved, for any violence brought against me, my family or anyone under my care and if I am ever forced to suffer the effects of what has come to be known as non-lethal weapon such as a Taser, without my express written and Notarised consent.
FIVE MILLION (£5,000,000) POUNDS GBP PER INDIVIDUAL reasonably involved, without my express written and Notarised consent.
THIRTY THOUSAND UNITS OF ANY FUNCTIONAL CURRENCY of my choosing, per hour or portion thereof, if I or any member of my family is questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated,
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITS OF ANY FUNCTIONAL CURRENCY of my choosing, per hour or portion thereof, if I or any member of my family is handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process, and
THREE BILLION UNITS OF ANY FUNCTIONAL CURRENCY of my choosing, for any grievous or actual physical harm to my body or that of any member of my family.
I claim the right to use any and all lawful administrative and/or judicial processes I deem to be necessary in order to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE, against any and all transgressors, who, by their actions or omissions, harm me, my dependents or my family’s interests, directly or by proxy, in any way whatsoever.
Witness:------------------------------ By: ------------------------------------
Address: Authorised Representative of
JOHN DOE™
and any derivatives thereof.
Date:--------------------------------------
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse
- Non-Assumpsit Errors & Omissions Excepted
The Magicians Court, Lucifer Street, LH12XA.
Charge: Unlicensed Keeping of motor vehicle V245HBF on 15/10/2010
Allegedly authorised by John Dyson (electronic mark but not by his hand)
Summons Issue Date: 28 April 2011
Your Ref: 293SMK case calling 9th June 2011
My Ref: ChesterMagis02
Correspondance received by: John of the Doe Family (Authorised Agent and Affiant for MR JOHN DOE)
c/o House, Address, Town, [LH4 8FE], On Wales
DETAILS OF DECLARATION AND/OR DENIAL OF JURISDICTION:
I, John of the family Doe as the agent and representative & paramount security interest holder for MR JOHN DOE and I present this affirmation as a declaration and affidavit of truth to the court as evidence of the facts for and on the record:
• I do solemnly affirm that the facts contained herein are true, correct and certain
• I reserve all rights and waive all privileges.
• My vessel (person) is not bonded for the corporate legal arena.
• If your lawful authority is derived from QE2/THE CROWN then there is no case to answer as QE2 is not the legal Monarch and the legislation under which this case is being brought is fraudulent and unlawful and therefore null and void. Please refer to precedent case between REGINA/THE QUEEN/QE2 vs. JAH (John Anthony Hill ) Southwark Crown Court, 9-12 May 2011 where JAH was found not guilty.
• All Judges in the UK derive their authority from and swear an oath to Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg (QE2) who is now proven to not be a lawful sovereign and any Bill MUST have Royal Assent before it can become an Act of Parliament (law). It should therefore be obvious that no judge in the U.K. could be impartial in a matter that questions Elizabeth's authority and thus called into question the judge's authority as well which would be a blatant conflict of interest.
• Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg’s (QE2/REGINA/) Fraudulent Coronation where she was crowned on a fake coronation stone and she promised to uphold "The Laws of God", which forbid her, parliament, or anyone else from legislating. She has broken this binding contract, and thus the contract is voided, meaning she or her agents have no actual authority to bring victimless, legislated charges against anyone.
Exhibits:
a) the fake coronation stone used (ref: http://jahtruth.net/stone.htm), and
b) the broken coronation contract uphold the laws of God such as below verse. (Exhibit 1, enclosed) http://jahtruth.net/signed-o.jpg
Details of QE2's fraudulent authority from the case REGINA/THE QUEEN vs. JAH (John Anthony Hill ) Southwark Crown Court, London, SE1 2HU, England, 9-12 May 2011 :
1. Mrs. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg/Mountbatten; un-Lawfully residing in Buckingham Palace, London; also known by the criminal aliases Windsor and QE2, was knowingly and willfully, with malice-aforethought, fraudulently crowned on a fake Coronation Stone / Lia Fail / Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacob’s Pillar on June 2nd in 1953, and has been fraudulently masquerading as the rightful British Sovereign/Crown for the last 58 years, which the Defendent proved beyond doubt, and is a major part of why the fraudulent British so-called “crown” is attacking the the agent with this false, malicious, frivolous, ridiculous and politically motivated charge. It is Mrs. Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg who should be arrested and charged; for her innumerable acts of high-treason against the 'I AM' and his Christ, Whose church she falsely claims to head and in defiance of Whom she had herself fraudulently crowned, and Whom she has continued to rule in defiance of, and in opposition to, ever since; not the Defendent.
2. Allowing people to legislate in defiance of God’s Law (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32) that she swore and affirmed, in writing, to maintain to the utmost of her power (Exhibit 1), and, in many cases, actually reversing what The Law states into being the very opposite of it. She has fraudulently imprisoned and punished people for enforcing The Law themselves as God commands them to do, and thus un-Lawfully prevented or deterred others from doing so. She has given Royal-Assent to 3,401 Acts of Parliament (as of 24/03/2011) and thus broken The Law against legislating 3,401 times. The very first time she gave “Royal-Assent” to ANY “Act of Parliament”, or any other piece of legislation, or allowed Parliament or anyone to legislate, she broke her Coronation Oath and was thus no longer the monarch, with immediate effect, even if she had been Lawfully crowned in the first-place, which she most definitely was not.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the "I AM THAT I AM" your God which I COMMAND you.
Deuteronomy 11:1 Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep His charge, and His Statutes, and His Judgments, and His Commandments, always.
Deuteronomy 12:8 Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.
Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
• Is this a CRIMINAL action or a CIVIL action? If it is a criminal action, then who and where is the INJURED PARTY? or if it is a civil action, then where is the CONTRACT?
• The law of STATUTES is the law of CONTRACT. And we, as human beings, have the right to decline to contract.
Statutes do not apply, a STATUTE is a legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed – I do not give my consent, tacit or otherwise.
• I have no ‘UNDERSTANDING’ of this matter… I ‘UNDERSTAND’ no one.
• We are all equal in law however knowledge separates the governed from the masters. If we are all equal, do we not have the status of Sovereigns and Diplomats if we so choose?
• I will not allow a plea in my absence, anyone entering a plea without my written permission will be considered the defendant and responsible for all costs.
• This document does not form part of a negotiable instrument.
• We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have.
• I own no property nor do I claim title ownership to the name/trust Mr JOHN DOE .
• My law is the Holy Bible the words of the most high EHYEH ASHER EHYEH (I AM THAT I AM). “If righteousness is not made profitable, then corruption will prevail.”
EX Dolo malo non oritur actio - (Out of fraud no action arises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dismiss this case as there is no jurisdiction or injured party and this flesh blood sentient man has not agreed to contract with your Corporation and owns no property.
Should an attempt be made to involve an Admiralty Court, Commercial Court it would result in a trespass against the Affiant's rights where your assumed authority will be questioned, the above evidence presented and the below fee schedule will apply.
If you wish to still persue Mr JOHN DOE , you must contact the trustee of the Estate (THE CROWN).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEE SCHEDULE
I claim the right to charge a FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, de facto government principals, executives, officers, agents or justice system participants, as follows:
ONE THOUSAND (£1000) POUNDS GBP PER HOUR or portion thereof for court appearances including travelling to / from court and
FIVE HUNDRED (£500) POUNDS GBP PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated and
FIVE THOUSAND (£5000) POUNDS GBP PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process, and
FIFTY THOUSAND (£50,000) POUNDS GBP PER DAY if any personal items in my keeping are taken away from me without my express written and notarized consent and
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (£500,000) POUNDS GBP PER INDIVIDUAL reasonably involved, for any violence brought against me, my family or anyone under my care and if I am ever forced to suffer the effects of what has come to be known as non-lethal weapon such as a Taser, without my express written and Notarised consent.
FIVE MILLION (£5,000,000) POUNDS GBP PER INDIVIDUAL reasonably involved, without my express written and Notarised consent.
THIRTY THOUSAND UNITS OF ANY FUNCTIONAL CURRENCY of my choosing, per hour or portion thereof, if I or any member of my family is questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated,
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND UNITS OF ANY FUNCTIONAL CURRENCY of my choosing, per hour or portion thereof, if I or any member of my family is handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process, and
THREE BILLION UNITS OF ANY FUNCTIONAL CURRENCY of my choosing, for any grievous or actual physical harm to my body or that of any member of my family.
I claim the right to use any and all lawful administrative and/or judicial processes I deem to be necessary in order to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE, against any and all transgressors, who, by their actions or omissions, harm me, my dependents or my family’s interests, directly or by proxy, in any way whatsoever.
Witness:------------------------------ By: ------------------------------------
Address: Authorised Representative of
JOHN DOE™
and any derivatives thereof.
Date:--------------------------------------
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse
- Non-Assumpsit Errors & Omissions Excepted
Friday, May 13, 2011
What Katy Did
What did Katy do? She spoke to David, who waved his marmite sandwich and made all of the Kingdom's soldiers fall obediently into line to help the damsel in distress.
This morning I arose to the unsavoury news that Scotland Yard are going to be spending my hard earned cash looking at the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance. It was entirely unpalatable and resulted in the T.V dodging all manner of handy missiles as I rapidly vacated the room.
Not only do I think that my money would be better spent prosecuting the parents for neglect of their three small children, I also have grave concerns about politicians meddling in the operational actions of our police force; it is not their business, not their area of expertise and to be blunt, they should butt out.
I have to admit to being confused as to why Kate and Gerry McCann found it acceptable to go out and leave their young children alone, leaving them vulnerable to danger and abduction and I am even more confused by the fact that the British populous largely appears to consider this acceptable behaviour and continue to support these people.
In the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance I heard a number of people comment that they regularly leave their children to go 'somewhere' - I wonder, when and how did this become acceptable? Is it a class thing? Or perhaps a professional thing (all of those I heard this from were in the same profession)?
I know there have been equally distasteful cases reported of your unemployed, benefit claimant mum doing exactly the same but in those cases the public reaction has been different with no acceptance to be found, no public support and more often than not a host of damning reports by the media on the irresponsibility and negligent behaviour displayed by the parents - often intrinsically linked to their financial, educational or class status. The majority of those cases have also seen children being removed from their parents under the media spotlight. Why is it different for Kate and Gerry?
Without doubt, the McCanns have faced an horrific ordeal and I empathise with that but I do wonder whether part of their continuing fight is driven by guilt. It would be if it were me (not that it ever could be me because I am a responsible parent). I have kids. I know what its like not to ever get a night out because you have to take care of them - a glass of wine or a meal with friends can be out of the question for years. Its a choice you make when you accept the responsibility of being a parent. Love is tough but you get on with it and get over it. When you commit to being a parent, you accept that you are no longer the priority and that often your needs must go unmet, such is life.
I have spent years hearing about the importance of the rights of the child. Children and their wellbeing are supposed to be one of our nation's priorities, rightly so. Note though that I specify children - not child. Our nation, including our politicians, have gone nuts over one particular missing child. Strings are being pulled in the highest of places to ensure that one child (and her parents) are catered for. What about all of the other missing children?
I saw today that Teresa May had asked that the Met look at this particular case because it is exceptional - it is not. It is no more or less exceptional than every other case of a missing child.
I consider Teresa May to have ignored her remit in favour of doing her boss's bidding and taking action to keep the public on side. What she should have done, if she was so concerned about the exceptional case of a missing child, was to channel time and finances into work which benefits all missing children and their families - that I don't mind her using my taxes for.
This morning I arose to the unsavoury news that Scotland Yard are going to be spending my hard earned cash looking at the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance. It was entirely unpalatable and resulted in the T.V dodging all manner of handy missiles as I rapidly vacated the room.
Not only do I think that my money would be better spent prosecuting the parents for neglect of their three small children, I also have grave concerns about politicians meddling in the operational actions of our police force; it is not their business, not their area of expertise and to be blunt, they should butt out.
I have to admit to being confused as to why Kate and Gerry McCann found it acceptable to go out and leave their young children alone, leaving them vulnerable to danger and abduction and I am even more confused by the fact that the British populous largely appears to consider this acceptable behaviour and continue to support these people.
In the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance I heard a number of people comment that they regularly leave their children to go 'somewhere' - I wonder, when and how did this become acceptable? Is it a class thing? Or perhaps a professional thing (all of those I heard this from were in the same profession)?
I know there have been equally distasteful cases reported of your unemployed, benefit claimant mum doing exactly the same but in those cases the public reaction has been different with no acceptance to be found, no public support and more often than not a host of damning reports by the media on the irresponsibility and negligent behaviour displayed by the parents - often intrinsically linked to their financial, educational or class status. The majority of those cases have also seen children being removed from their parents under the media spotlight. Why is it different for Kate and Gerry?
Without doubt, the McCanns have faced an horrific ordeal and I empathise with that but I do wonder whether part of their continuing fight is driven by guilt. It would be if it were me (not that it ever could be me because I am a responsible parent). I have kids. I know what its like not to ever get a night out because you have to take care of them - a glass of wine or a meal with friends can be out of the question for years. Its a choice you make when you accept the responsibility of being a parent. Love is tough but you get on with it and get over it. When you commit to being a parent, you accept that you are no longer the priority and that often your needs must go unmet, such is life.
I have spent years hearing about the importance of the rights of the child. Children and their wellbeing are supposed to be one of our nation's priorities, rightly so. Note though that I specify children - not child. Our nation, including our politicians, have gone nuts over one particular missing child. Strings are being pulled in the highest of places to ensure that one child (and her parents) are catered for. What about all of the other missing children?
I saw today that Teresa May had asked that the Met look at this particular case because it is exceptional - it is not. It is no more or less exceptional than every other case of a missing child.
I consider Teresa May to have ignored her remit in favour of doing her boss's bidding and taking action to keep the public on side. What she should have done, if she was so concerned about the exceptional case of a missing child, was to channel time and finances into work which benefits all missing children and their families - that I don't mind her using my taxes for.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Patriotic?
Despite myself, I have thoroughly enjoyed the wedding and all related festivities - street parties, flags and face painting, tiaras and shoes (particularly the shoes). I got up early, donned heels and a tiara and tottered off to position myself appropriately to view the full event with like-minded people - great fun and a glass or two of champagne to boot.
Hours of ogling hats and Christian Louboutins later, I have found little other than criticism of those who dare to enjoy a celebration of our monarchy, our country, our heritage or even just the fact that it was an extra day off work. Constant noises of disapproval, questions about how such an event can be appropriate with the country in economic crisis; complaints about the cost to the public purse; and so the list goes on...
Sadly, it seems that playful enjoyment of anything British is outlawed these days.
No it was not an expense free event. Yes, there was a serious case of overkill but, actually, it makes a pleasant change for the people of this country to have an excuse to throw a party, relax and legitimately revel in something that is ours.
I am no great fan of the monarchy. I am a hopeless romantic who loves a good wedding and can't resist snatching the chance to sit back and dream of what it must be like to be a real princess. The whingers of this country have stolen my right to legitimately speak my mind, to enjoy anything my country provides without the need to also offer justification, they have forced me to feel I must be independent and have convinced me that doing the washing is a man's job. Like hell am I going to sit quietly by while they steal this from me as well.
We are all entitled to our opinions and it is about time that they (yes, you know who you are) accepted that to object so vocally to those differing from their own is simply offensive. The volume of your disapproval does not make it more legitimate, if anything it makes it less so. Get over it. Move on and accept that freedom should apply to all.
Rant over.
Hours of ogling hats and Christian Louboutins later, I have found little other than criticism of those who dare to enjoy a celebration of our monarchy, our country, our heritage or even just the fact that it was an extra day off work. Constant noises of disapproval, questions about how such an event can be appropriate with the country in economic crisis; complaints about the cost to the public purse; and so the list goes on...
Sadly, it seems that playful enjoyment of anything British is outlawed these days.
No it was not an expense free event. Yes, there was a serious case of overkill but, actually, it makes a pleasant change for the people of this country to have an excuse to throw a party, relax and legitimately revel in something that is ours.
I am no great fan of the monarchy. I am a hopeless romantic who loves a good wedding and can't resist snatching the chance to sit back and dream of what it must be like to be a real princess. The whingers of this country have stolen my right to legitimately speak my mind, to enjoy anything my country provides without the need to also offer justification, they have forced me to feel I must be independent and have convinced me that doing the washing is a man's job. Like hell am I going to sit quietly by while they steal this from me as well.
We are all entitled to our opinions and it is about time that they (yes, you know who you are) accepted that to object so vocally to those differing from their own is simply offensive. The volume of your disapproval does not make it more legitimate, if anything it makes it less so. Get over it. Move on and accept that freedom should apply to all.
Rant over.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Births, deaths, marriages and a nervous breakdown
How time flies when you're having a breakdown!
In the blink of a weary eye, almost 3 months have passed since I last felt brave enough to tentatively dip my toe into the blogosphere. I've acquired a niece, lost an uncle, been bored to tears by a wedding and existed almost entirely in what can only be referred to as a lawless parallel universe whilst having a bit of a nervous breakdown and debating the social acceptance of swearing.
My time in the lawless place has become increasingly surreal, going from sublime to ridiculous, with allegations of abuse, victimisation and harassment, countered by further allegations of the same. Good old-fashioned summary justice meted out at every opportunity with such gusto that the accused is not informed until the sentence is handed down and no right of appeal exists.
Cracking stuff!
So, the legal bit...
A respected organisation, lacking robust policies and procedures and failing to appropriately apply those it does have, considers it good form to fail entirely to make the 'accused' aware of any case against them and proceed to issue judgment (who knows on what exactly) and enforce sentence with no true right of appeal. Accused suffers damage in a number of ways, including tarnished personal and professional reputation and ill health.
In the meantime there are allegations of harassment against said organisation and others which are apparently investigated (though not a soul is spoken to about it) and "no case to answer" is agreed...by those who are...err...accused. No true right of appeal on this one either. Hmm...Fair? I think not.
At one point in the parallel universe a comment was made which, I think, sums up the problem pretty well. " little actual relevance in the real world" [whilst discussing law and natural justice]. The intention was to point out that whilst the law and the rules of natural justice may be all well and good, they really don't apply 'in-house'. In the light of some pretty serious allegations such a position is surely untenable and, to be blunt, downright stupid.
The law is very clear as far as I can tell and where there is clear evidence of harassment of an individual [by an individual] and that harassment is then supported and furthered, by the actions of an organisation, that organisation can become liable under the law for the same offence. Do these people care? It seems not or, perhaps, they simply don't understand the implications.
Harassment of an individual can take many forms. In all forms it is distressing for the 'victim'. It is something which is often not treated with the appropriate level of seriousness - particularly it would seem, within bodies connected to higher education. I guess the rationale is that intelligent people just aren't victims and that lawyers are tough as old boots so can take what is thrown at them - not true! Discriminatory? Potentially.
Lawyers can be just as vulnerable as anyone else. Yes, we are argumentative, often forthright, have little time for irrelevancies and like to get straight to the point (and deal with it). This doesn't prevent us from also being human and needing to be treated as such - both legally and morally speaking - by those who are in positions of relative authority over us and in whom we place our trust.
The saga in the parallel universe is ongoing. Question is, will commonsense prevail? Will parallel universe organisation ask someone to interpret legal issues for it and will the victim have their faith restored without the need to seek legal recourse?
She bloody well hopes so!
Harassment is serious. It has killed. The law prohibits it. We should all play our part to ensure that it stops.
That is all.
In the blink of a weary eye, almost 3 months have passed since I last felt brave enough to tentatively dip my toe into the blogosphere. I've acquired a niece, lost an uncle, been bored to tears by a wedding and existed almost entirely in what can only be referred to as a lawless parallel universe whilst having a bit of a nervous breakdown and debating the social acceptance of swearing.
My time in the lawless place has become increasingly surreal, going from sublime to ridiculous, with allegations of abuse, victimisation and harassment, countered by further allegations of the same. Good old-fashioned summary justice meted out at every opportunity with such gusto that the accused is not informed until the sentence is handed down and no right of appeal exists.
Cracking stuff!
So, the legal bit...
A respected organisation, lacking robust policies and procedures and failing to appropriately apply those it does have, considers it good form to fail entirely to make the 'accused' aware of any case against them and proceed to issue judgment (who knows on what exactly) and enforce sentence with no true right of appeal. Accused suffers damage in a number of ways, including tarnished personal and professional reputation and ill health.
In the meantime there are allegations of harassment against said organisation and others which are apparently investigated (though not a soul is spoken to about it) and "no case to answer" is agreed...by those who are...err...accused. No true right of appeal on this one either. Hmm...Fair? I think not.
At one point in the parallel universe a comment was made which, I think, sums up the problem pretty well. " little actual relevance in the real world" [whilst discussing law and natural justice]. The intention was to point out that whilst the law and the rules of natural justice may be all well and good, they really don't apply 'in-house'. In the light of some pretty serious allegations such a position is surely untenable and, to be blunt, downright stupid.
The law is very clear as far as I can tell and where there is clear evidence of harassment of an individual [by an individual] and that harassment is then supported and furthered, by the actions of an organisation, that organisation can become liable under the law for the same offence. Do these people care? It seems not or, perhaps, they simply don't understand the implications.
Harassment of an individual can take many forms. In all forms it is distressing for the 'victim'. It is something which is often not treated with the appropriate level of seriousness - particularly it would seem, within bodies connected to higher education. I guess the rationale is that intelligent people just aren't victims and that lawyers are tough as old boots so can take what is thrown at them - not true! Discriminatory? Potentially.
Lawyers can be just as vulnerable as anyone else. Yes, we are argumentative, often forthright, have little time for irrelevancies and like to get straight to the point (and deal with it). This doesn't prevent us from also being human and needing to be treated as such - both legally and morally speaking - by those who are in positions of relative authority over us and in whom we place our trust.
The saga in the parallel universe is ongoing. Question is, will commonsense prevail? Will parallel universe organisation ask someone to interpret legal issues for it and will the victim have their faith restored without the need to seek legal recourse?
She bloody well hopes so!
Harassment is serious. It has killed. The law prohibits it. We should all play our part to ensure that it stops.
That is all.
Monday, February 7, 2011
The little people
Apparently the little people of this [not so] wonder[ful] land are about to be penalised even further by a Government that is crammed full of idiots detatched from reality and screwed over, yet again, by a society that quite simply doesn't give a shit (or at least doesn't have the balls to stand up and be counted).
What do the more vulnerable and economically challenged amongst us have to look forward to? Well, currently that would be the sweeping (and somewhat ludicrous) reforms to legal aid which have been proposed by the imbeciles who reside in Westminster.
The proposed reforms are likely to affect tens of thousands of people each year. Access to free specialist legal help would be severely restricted in the areas of:
What do the more vulnerable and economically challenged amongst us have to look forward to? Well, currently that would be the sweeping (and somewhat ludicrous) reforms to legal aid which have been proposed by the imbeciles who reside in Westminster.
The proposed reforms are likely to affect tens of thousands of people each year. Access to free specialist legal help would be severely restricted in the areas of:
Employment (other than in cases of discrimination);
Housing (unless the home is at immediate risk);
Immigration (other than detention cases);
Debt (unless the home is at immediate risk);
Welfare benefits;
Education; and
Consumer law advice.
Don't think it sounds important enough? Well think again. Cutting legal help across these areas of scope will be likely to cause untold damage across the sections of society who need help and support the most. It is likely to prevent true access, or indeed any access, to justice for anyone on a low income or in receipt of benefits if they have a problem which falls into one of the listed areas of 'scope'.
The impact of restricting free legal help may not seem too bad if you've got pots of money and a flash Ministerial post but if you are an unemployed victim of domestic abuse, with learning difficulties, huge debts and nowhere to turn for help then you might feel differently. You might feel the need to pop into a local advice agency to seek support, you might need to have things explained to you more than once, you might not be able to afford or cope with the intricacies of legal expenses insurance as the government would like and you might just find yourself in a right old pickle and with even more problems and greater vulnerability as a result.
In their infinite wisdom, the Ministry of Justice are proposing to slice and dice free specialist legal advice and representation, mix it all up in a big pot of telephone advice lines, legal expenses insurance and make-do generalist advice on the front line. They, in their ivory towers seem to think that people who have low earnings can somehow to afford to pay 30% of their income towards legal costs...this is before they start to think about paying their rent or mortgage and feeding themselves. Another option is apparently to purchase legal expenses insurance - what planet do these people live on because it sure as heck isn't the same one as me. I'd love them to let me in on the secret of how you can afford that on benefits or minimum wage - I can't and I earn what is considered an almost reasonable wage!
Having been so angered by the increasing injustice of the way justice is rationed in this, the armpit of the universe, it led me to ponder what alternative cost savings could be made by the MoJ? Perhaps scrapping the LSC and allowing solicitors to manage funds allocated to them direct by government? This would get rid of ridiculous amounts of administrative work and allow concentration on the provision of much needed legal advice. It would save time, it would save money and it would increase efficiency. Regulation for solicitors is already in place and accounting to the government could easily be accommodated - lets face it solicitors are obliged to account for their funds anyway.
Maybe its not the most workable idea, maybe it just requires a little more thought and fine tuning or maybe i'm mad as a hatter. Who knows.
I do know that what is happening is wrong and that somebody needs to make the voices of those who are not capable of shouting, heard.
Having been so angered by the increasing injustice of the way justice is rationed in this, the armpit of the universe, it led me to ponder what alternative cost savings could be made by the MoJ? Perhaps scrapping the LSC and allowing solicitors to manage funds allocated to them direct by government? This would get rid of ridiculous amounts of administrative work and allow concentration on the provision of much needed legal advice. It would save time, it would save money and it would increase efficiency. Regulation for solicitors is already in place and accounting to the government could easily be accommodated - lets face it solicitors are obliged to account for their funds anyway.
Maybe its not the most workable idea, maybe it just requires a little more thought and fine tuning or maybe i'm mad as a hatter. Who knows.
I do know that what is happening is wrong and that somebody needs to make the voices of those who are not capable of shouting, heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)