Being upon 'joined up government'
Remember that? Here are a pair of examples showing just how core this is to the Government's daily operations:
#1 Ruth Kelly speaks on homelessness: "there should be no place for homelessness in 21st century Britain". (source)
(She also references 'Cathy Come Home', which aired when she was minus 2, so I wonder how she can know at first hand that it was a 'powerful drama documentary'?)
#2 John Reid speaks onshowing how he's tougher than Brown and wants to be the next PM turbo ASBOs: "Mr Reid said he wanted to create new powers to evict people rapidly from homes and other properties which cause persistent anti-social misery. 'I want to give the police powers to close down places which are the bane of a community,' he said". (source)
Impressive, huh?
Meanwhile, Reid's speech is bone-chilling: "The problem we face is what I call the justice shortfall. That is, the difference - sometimes big - between what you and I think is justice, and what a lawyer or legal academic might think it is. "My kind of justice is swift, effective and matches the crime. "To me, justice should work for the victims of crime, not against them. I suspect that's probably your idea of justice too"....I'm not arguing against people having a fair hearing. But...having a fair hearing doesn't always mean having your day in court, although there will be the option of a court hearing. It's common sense to me that if we can deliver swifter justice for a large number of community offences, then we can free up time in the courts for more serious crimes"
So, to hell with due process, let alone trial by jury. Maybe kneecapping and punishment beatings would prove even morepopular 'just'?
#1 Ruth Kelly speaks on homelessness: "there should be no place for homelessness in 21st century Britain". (source)
(She also references 'Cathy Come Home', which aired when she was minus 2, so I wonder how she can know at first hand that it was a 'powerful drama documentary'?)
#2 John Reid speaks on
Impressive, huh?
Meanwhile, Reid's speech is bone-chilling: "The problem we face is what I call the justice shortfall. That is, the difference - sometimes big - between what you and I think is justice, and what a lawyer or legal academic might think it is. "My kind of justice is swift, effective and matches the crime. "To me, justice should work for the victims of crime, not against them. I suspect that's probably your idea of justice too"....I'm not arguing against people having a fair hearing. But...having a fair hearing doesn't always mean having your day in court, although there will be the option of a court hearing. It's common sense to me that if we can deliver swifter justice for a large number of community offences, then we can free up time in the courts for more serious crimes"
So, to hell with due process, let alone trial by jury. Maybe kneecapping and punishment beatings would prove even more
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 at 2:38 pm.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Reid is one of the most sinister and potentially dangerous politicians to emerge from the NuLabour experiment. I believe he has the brute force and blood thirstiness needed to take on Gordo for the leadership(GB so dearly wants a coronation). I don't think Reid could win but he has ambitions, lots of 'em...a nasty piece of work, a stalinist in NuLabour clothing.
Agreed, but Reid has that rarer than a unicorn combination of high intellect and an instinct for 'dirty' populism. If anyone can push Broon over the edge and into pychosis, it is Reid.
Do you not have two subjects here C ? Housing and subsidised housing is a crucial social controller and , I would say , "the big issue " ( Not professionally of course). If we got that right the whole asbo thing which is for the desolation benefits /council harsing 1940s time warps they have built , would largely ,go away.
Or is that what you meant .
Old 'Reid between the lines' seemed to include private housing as up for grabs in the turbo ASBO arena too.
One point he makes is fair. Effective justice is swift. He might have gone on to say that the average time from arrest to conviction has lengthened by about 20 days since 1997, but that would not have been on-message. Of course he's toying with crackpot ideas, when his dep't is in crisis, but has had its funding frozen. Massive unwinding of the bureaucracy placed on the police service and judiciary is what is needed - but the root cause of that issue was Labour legislation.
Lets have done with it, and go back to trial by combat, that was fairly swift-
No it wasn`t I remember it in Startrek , it went on for ages.
Here is some not joined up governement .The fact the the Conservative Party keep on about re-empowering local governement but keep very quiet about the European regions that have slid over this green and pleasant land .
Conspiracy everywhere , everwyhere I tell you !!!
Still no PHITCH !! has he bought a pied-a-terre in the rue de la pathetique. How triste. Pas Verity umm.... as well
Guthrum - on going back to trial by combat. I like it. Cost efficient and brutal. No need for social workers or the prison/probation services. The Peoples's justice.
I agree that justice should be swifter, but the reformed lawyer in me gets very concerned about any diminution of die process. I'm not exacly keen on magistrates courts, for what that's worth, and would prefer trial by jury for anything beyonf minor traffic offences. Seems to work across the Pond, although one of my colleagues there seems to do jury service about once a quarter.
N - and not forgetting the dramatic music... I had to delete a rather unpleasant comment PH adressed to Verity on Sunday.
Or instead of combat, trial by orderal?
Has to be quicker though .I saw some figures about the length of time evrything takes and it has got longer under nu lab.
Due process . Ha! Commie
The Morning Star devotes its usual hysterical front page to attacking Dr Reid (obviously his working class accent is a problem for them). They quote a bloke from Statewatch who is under the impression that this stuff is already law, plus a biddy from Help the Aged (!) who also feels threatened on behalf, presumably, of 85 year old yobboes.
Being old-fashioned I shall wait a) to see if it becomes law
b) IF (IF) it does, whether it isn't soon forgotten.
Can anyone tell me, if ordinary people are so stupid when they ask for better protection, they aren't also too stupid to serve on juries, and, indeed, to vote?
PS - can you tell us, however vaguely, what PH said? Oh go on go on.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, is it not?
There are an awful lot of people who hold liberty very cheap, and will trade it for short term 'security'...
I would hope to see both of them back here, and engaging in the usual civil discourse interspersed with a touch of banter, so I will avoid pouring petrol on the flames. Sorry.
It's requirements like needing a psychiatric report to assess the "danger" of the suspect in certain cases that are creating new bottlenecks. These hoops are at best tangentially related to due process.
PT - Fair point. I am more concerned that in the rush to appease the 'something must be done' mob we will end up with a lot of law and order, but precious little justice. Allowing 'anti-social behaviour officers', the plod etc to levy on the spot punishments without any recourse to appeal or to laymen, whether (ideally) in the form of a jury, or (as a very poor second) the magistracy *does* set us on course for a police, rather than policed, state. We should be worried. Very worried.
But what about my pt on juries?
Surely, since ordinary people are the Mob and prejudiced against yobs and in favour of law-n-order, surely juries should be replaced with a panel of Guardian readers?
S - That's the beauty of a properly constituted jury - it ends up representing the will of a cross section of society.
» Post a Comment