Financial and business news and articles
Posts tagged Law
Climate change adverts draw mild rebuke from advertising watchdog
Mar 13th
Leaked adjudication largely clears government over campaign that some thought ’scary, inaccurate and too political’
Read the full text of the ASA adjudication
The advertising watchdog has mildly rebuked the government over the phrasing of a claim in two advertisements on the danger of climate change, while dismissing the rest of the complaints against the controversial television and newspaper campaign.
The campaign, run by the Department of Environment and Climate Change last winter, brought in 939 complaints. Various groups said the adverts were political, too scary, and factually misleading.
The vast majority of these complaints have now been dismissed by the authority.
The Advertising Standards Authority’s only criticism was that a claim that “flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense” should have be phrased more tentatively.
The environment secretary, Ed Miliband, said the authority had “comprehensively vindicated” the accuracy of the department’s TV advert and had rebuffed those who attempted to use the advertising standards process to question the reality of man-made climate change.
“Science tells us it is more than 90% likely there will be more extreme weather events if we don’t act.
“In any future campaign, as requested by the ASA, we will make clear the nature of this prediction.”
Sent to jail for throwing a single bottle
Mar 13th
Last year, during protests against the attack on Gaza, a mixed group of demonstrators clashed with police. But when the alleged culprits were arrested in dawn raids, nearly all those taken were young Muslims
Badi Tebani and his wife were sleeping peacefully when all hell broke loose. He shudders at the memory. The front door was forced open, and then came the screaming. “Wah, wah, wah, get down, get down, you are under arrest.” Any number of voices. He thought it was a nightmare – that he was back in Algeria in the bad old days before he was granted political asylum in Britain, and that the military had broken into the house. When he opened his eyes, his bedroom was full of police officers. “I have diabetes and high blood pressure,” he says quietly. “It was worse than Algeria, even. I became very depressed.”
It was 5am, April 2009. Badi’s eldest son Hamza, 23, takes up the story. “I woke up and tried to get out of bed. The next thing is three police officers jump on top of me with their knees, and they handcuffed me so hard I screamed. That’s when I really woke up.” Hamza had been sleeping in shorts. When he asked if he could put a shirt on the police said no and opened the window. “It was freezing. I was shaking.”
His three brothers, the youngest of whom was 15 at the time, were also handcuffed. Hamza says there were too many officers to count – somewhere between 20 and 30. They took computers, clothes, iPhones, everything. “I’ve never been in trouble, never been to the police station except when my car was broken into, and they were treating me as a criminal. One of the officers was playing card games with my iPhone, another was just ordering coffee.”
Badi, an Arabic teacher, tuts. “They make our house into a coffee shop.”
But it wasn’t Badi or Hamza the police were after. It was Yahia, one of Hamza’s younger brothers. When Yahia heard that the police were looking for him he was confounded. “I didn’t know why they were there, and then I hear my name and I’m shocked.”
Three months earlier, in January last year, Yahia had been outside the Israeli embassy on a fractious demonstration against Israel’s sustained bombing of Gaza. The British foreign secretary, David Milliband, had condemned the “unacceptable” loss of life caused by the Israeli strikes on Gaza, saying the “dark and dangerous” events could fuel extremism, and had called for an immediate ceasefire from both Israel and Hamas.
Protesters complained that the demonstration was policed provocatively and that they had been “kettled” inside a tunnel and beaten. Meanwhile, the police complained that they had been assaulted by demonstrators.
Yahia, 18, says both accounts are true. He claims that the policing was aggressive and intimidatory, and that demonstrators responded by throwing sticks and bottles at the embassy and the officers, who were wearing full-body shields. Yahia picked up a few sticks from discarded banners and flung them in the direction of the police. He was one of approximately 50,000 demonstrators, many of whom threw objects. It was a mixed bunch – white and black, Muslim and Christian, Stop the War Coalition, CND, all sorts. This was one of a number of Gaza demonstrations covered on television news, and it was reported there had been some trouble – but nothing on the scale of, say, the G20 protests or the poll tax riots.
Yahia, who was studying media technology at Kingston University, had gone on the march for two reasons – to protest, and to interview fellow demonstrators for a project on Gaza. The crowd was held by the police for four hours and eventually released. Some people were filmed and had to give their name and address to the police, some were arrested. Yahia simply left of his own accord, and eventually got home at midnight.
He told Hamza it had been a difficult day, it had given him plenty of food for thought, and that was that – until the police broke into the family home in Finsbury Park, north London, three months later. Yahia was arrested in March and charged with violent disorder and burglary – at one point during the demo, he says, he had taken a chair from the nearby Starbucks to sit on, but police reports said the Starbucks was trashed and mugs and chairs were used as weapons. He was advised that the burglary charge would be dropped if he pleaded guilty to violent disorder, for which he would probably receive a suspended sentence or community service. He thought a lesser charge of affray would have been fairer, but agreed to the compromise. “It would always look bad in the future if it says burglary. People won’t know what really happened, so I couldn’t risk that being on my file.”
What Yahia didn’t realise was nearly all the protesters who pleaded guilty to violent disorder would end up receiving immediate prison sentences. His friend Sidali is serving two years. Yahia was in court the day Sidali was sentenced. “He didn’t even throw sticks,” he claims. “He just pushed or something, and his clothes were ripped a bit. In court he was crying. The shock on his face, I’ve never seen anything like that. Pah!” He blows his lips together in dismay.
Yahia is to be sentenced this month. How’s he feeling? “Stressed. Pah. Just waiting to go in. I’ve been asking my friend what it’s like. He says time goes quick – he doesn’t want to scare me.”
It’s not just the prospect of prison that terrifies him, it’s what comes after. “If I’ve got ‘ex-prisoner’ on my file, how am I going to get a job? It will destroy my career.”
At Isleworth crown court in London, where the cases are being heard, a disturbing pattern is emerging. Most of the 78 protesters charged with public order offences were young men in their late teens or 20s. Many were students. And nearly all were Muslim. Some 22 protesters have already received prison terms of up to two and a half years for public order offences, and more cases are due to come before the courts in the coming months.
The Gaza Protesters Defence Campaign has been formed by the families of some of those arrested, together with sympathetic MPs, the Stop the War Coalition and CND. The campaign aims to highlight the perceived injustice, and has launched a petition which will be presented to the attorney general and the director of public prosecutions.
Earlier this month, families queued up outside committee room 15 in the House of Commons for a campaign meeting. Many feel bewildered by the sentences the courts have passed on their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. When Joanna Gilmore, a researcher at the University of Manchester’s law school who has monitored the cases, gets to her feet the room is already full, and latecomers are forced to listen from the corridor. “The vast majority of the people involved here are of exemplary character,” she says, to mutters of approval. “The demonstrations were overwhelmingly peaceful and if you compare the relatively minor disturbances that took place with the violence on other demonstrations these sentences are very severe.”
Gilmore, who has followed all the court cases, says the police arrested more people at the Gaza protests than at any political demonstration since the poll tax riots, when about 90 were charged with public order offences. At last year’s G20 demonstrations, during which a branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland was looted, 20 were charged.
“Many were on their first demonstration and were protesting because they were appalled about what was happening in Gaza,” Gilmore says. “These people and their families are in shock and say that they will never take part in political demonstrations again.”
Bruce Kent, a former general secretary of CND and long-time peace activist, gets to his feet to address the packed meeting. Kent, 80, had been on the demonstration and says he was “amazed and indignant” about the reaction of the police and the courts.
“I don’t know why there isn’t absolute outrage … All this will do is solidify in people’s minds the idea that there is a persecution of Muslims which is determined and organised and will result in some young people being radicalised.”
He says there is a huge discrepancy in the way different people are treated by the law, and recalls a time in 1986 when he had been convicted of criminal damage after cutting a wire fence during a protest at a nuclear base. “I was in the crown court waiting with my toothbrush packed. I thought I was off to one of her majesty’s holiday camps. Not at all, not even a fine. Why? Because I am middle-class and white.”
Like Yahia Tebani, 24-year-old Ashir was in bed when the police raided her west London flat at 4am. The strange thing is, she says, her brother, who is due to be sentenced for his part in the demonstrations this month, has never been interested in “politics or religion” and only joined the protest because he was at his cousins’ house when they decided to go.
Although Ashir says her younger sibling did not throw any missiles, she admits he did protect himself when the “police people started fighting”. He left as soon as he could, giving his details to officers. Two months later the police made their unannounced visit.
“We heard a disturbance at the neighbour’s flat first and I heard loads of banging and shouting,” she says. “I looked out of the window but no one had police uniforms on so I didn’t know what was happening. A few minutes later when we were getting back into bed we heard people running up the stairs and then our door burst open. I was so scared because I had no idea what was happening or who these people were.”
Every detail chimes with Yahia’s experience – the family were handcuffed for two and a half hours, Ashir only had her nightclothes on and was not allowed to get dressed and her computer was taken. “They said I may have weapons in the house, but I didn’t understand – what weapons could I have? I am not a criminal. They went through everything. They said they were looking for evidence, for clothes that my brother had been wearing on the demonstration. They took my laptop which had my university dissertation on spa tourism on it because they said he had had access to it. I asked if I could at least email the dissertation to myself but they said I wasn’t allowed to touch it. I still have not got it back almost a year later even though I keep asking for it. I had to start my dissertation from where I had last saved it on a uni computer.”
Ashir, who does not want to give her real name because she fears going public might result in her brother being given a bigger sentence, still has panic attacks about what happened that night. “I am scared if I see any police anywhere. Even if I was angry about something I would never go on a demonstration now because I have seen what can happen.”
Muhammad Sawalha, president of the British Muslim Initiative anti-racist group, has two questions: why were such a high proportion of those arrested Muslim, and why have they been dealt with so heavy-handedly?
Actually, Judge John Denniss has been quite clear about sentencing policy. He has said, more than once, the draconian sentences are meant to act as a deterrent to future protesters. But, because of the fact that the people being brought before the courts are disproportionately Muslim, Sawalha says, the consequences could be disastrous: “The British Muslim Initiative encourages Muslims to express their feelings and ambitions and frustrations only through political and legal processes. But if anything sends the message that Muslims cannot express themselves through political processes, and they will not be dealt with like others, it will give more strength to the fringes within the community who say democracy and the political system doesn’t apply to Muslims in this country. This will only increase the frustration and sense of alienation among these people.”
Dr Khalil al-Ani says his son Mosab was one of the lucky ones. There was no pre-dawn raid, no handcuffs, no ransacking. He was simply asked to surrender his passport to the police. Months after throwing an empty Orangina bottle – the police said it was at them, Mosab said it was at the Israeli embassy gates – he was charged. Mosab, who was on a medical access course, hoped to be a dentist or dental technician. He is now in prison serving a one-year sentence.
It was the first demonstration Mosab had been on since his family marched against the Iraq war in 2003. Al-Ani, an Iraqi who works as a GP in Wakefield and Leeds, was pleased his son would be on the march. His two sisters were also going, and Al-Ani felt Mosab, then 20, would protect them.
Mosab was arrested on the day and taken to a police station where he admitted throwing the bottle, apologised, and stressed that he had not aimed it at the police. He was released and returned to Yorkshire, but didn’t tell his father what had happened – he didn’t want to worry him, and he assumed it was the last he would hear of it.
“He didn’t think it was serious because how many times have you seen something like this or more serious, and nothing happens.” Al-Ani stops, and apologises for his tears. “I’m sorry I get so emotional. I came to this country in 1981. You can hear by the way I speak my accent is not purely British. It is a foreign accent after all these years. But Mosab was born here in 1988 – he is British in every sense. This is the first time I feel that because he’s a Muslim he’s been discriminated against. What he did was certainly wrong, but he should be treated similar to a British citizen. He’s gone to prison for a single bottle that didn’t hurt anybody.”
The astonishing thing is, he says, that the judge gave Mosab a flawless character reference. “He said, ‘I know you came here peacefully, I know you have an excellent character, I know you were not armed, you said sorry to the police.’” He was sure his son would go free. “I was so pleased. Then the judge says, ‘I’m going to give you this sentence to deter other people.’”
Back in north London, Badi Tebani is looking at the door the police forced open. As they left the house, they made a point of telling him it was still in one piece. “When they finished their work, the police officers show me the door and say, ‘It’s not broken, look, look,’ and they took a photograph. I told him, it doesn’t matter if you broke the door, you broke my life.”
The bigger picture on asylum | Diane Taylor
Mar 12th
It’s good news that abuse against detained asylum seekers is being reviewed. But we need to ask why they’re detained at all
The top brass at the UK Border Agency (UKBA) have pronounced themselves satisfied with the findings of a report they commissioned into allegations of “outsourcing abuse” against immigration detainees. In the adversarial climate that exists between government and human rights campaigners over the treatment of asylum seekers, this report has been welcomed by the government as some kind of victory.
It was commissioned in response to a report by Medical Justice, Birnberg Peirce solicitors and the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns, which found systemic abuse against immigration detainees, by some of the staff tasked with their care. The author of today’s report, Lady O’Loan, found no evidence of systemic abuse, a vindication of the government line. Diane Abbott MP says O’Loan was not able to identify systemic abuse because incidences were so widespread.
O’Loan did find a failure to properly investigate claims of mistreatment. Troubling cases include a woman who was handcuffed while undergoing a biopsy on a breast lump and several serious injuries including a punctured lung, a dislocated knee and a broken finger. Of 29 cases she reviewed, more than two thirds were not properly investigated or not investigated at all. She concludes that private security companies inadequately managed use of force by their staff. Ministers are to review the use of force against detainees.
In a foreword to O’Loan’s report Lin Homer, chief executive of UKBA, accuses Medical Justice et al of “seeking to damage the reputation of our contractors”. This point-scoring approach shrinks the debate and fails to acknowledge that the first report was prompted by profound concern for the welfare of detained asylum seekers. O’Loan’s remit was narrow – she was asked only to look at whether complaints of abuse had been properly investigated, rather than the wider concerns surrounding detention. Focusing attention on one specific area diverts attention from the bigger picture, but today’s report must be read with those wider concerns centre stage.
The government argues that only those who have no legal right to be in the UK are removed. But many of those incarcerated in detention centres do have a legal right to be here – at least 16 of the 46 claimants whose cases were highlighted in the report now have leave to remain in the UK. There are many more cases across the detention estate of people wrongly incarcerated who are ultimately acknowledged to be genuine refugees. The percentage of detainees nationally who are granted the right to remain here after a period of detention plus the number who are survivors of torture and/or have serious mental health problems and so are not supposed to be detained at all, constitute a significant percentage of the detained population.
Detention is only part of the story for asylum seekers. A common trajectory begins with persecution in their home country, the loss of loved ones in war or conflict, a perilous journey in the hope of finding sanctuary, followed by disbelief when they tell their story to immigration officials, a period of destitution when their asylum claim is refused and then arrest and detention.
It is good news that ministers are reviewing the use of force against detainees, but a much wider review needs to take place; one that asks some serious questions about why so many innocent and vulnerable adults and children who have fled torture and other forms of persecution back home are detained at all.
What’s the point of legal aid? | Rebecca Omonira-Oyekanmi
Mar 12th
Legal aid should ensure everyone has access to justice, not be wasted on tackling government mismanagement
According to legal aid campaigners, axing the Legal Services Commission (LSC), the body responsible for legal aid in England and Wales, could undermine the justice system. They argue that as a result, the interests of justice could be “conflated with political expedience, public opinion and resources”.
Bringing legal aid delivery in-house will give the Ministry of Justice the power to decide who gets funding for legal action. For example, a prisoner who has been mistreated might seek legal aid to sue the MoJ – the same ministry who will decide on the status of their funding application. In such cases, the government will in effect have a right of veto over cases brought against it.
Such fears are undoubtedly pressing and it is crucial they are addressed during upcoming consultations. But it should not be overlooked that getting rid of the LSC might present a good opportunity for the government to engage the public in a long-overdue debate about what legal aid is for.
Legal aid was 60 last year and its recent history has been fraught with numerous reviews tasked with keeping costs down. In this respect, New Labour has proved little different to previous governments, managing to increase the budget by just £500m since it came to power – paltry compared to record levels of spending in other areas of social welfare. At £2.1bn, legal aid spend is just 0.04% of the government spending, a sum that would only keep the NHS running for two weeks. While lawyers’ fees get disproportionate press attention, the biggest losers are the British public: just 36% of the population are eligible for free legal help. Government ministers have justified this by arguing that the rising costs of legal aid are simply too high and rates of growth unsustainable. But is this all down to lawyers’ fees and rising demand?
In his review of legal aid delivery published last week, Sir Ian Magee pointed out that “Legal aid is interconnected with other legal and social provision, and decisions beyond the remit of the LSC, and indeed of the MoJ, can impact upon it”. This is something legal aid lawyers have been saying for some time; the binding decisions made by central government often have a direct legal cost. Take the rise in the number of new criminal offences since 1997 (more than 3,000). More crimes mean more criminals, and more lawyers needed to represent them in court.
Legal aid is also being used to mop up the collateral damage from the administration of public services. Magee, for example, refers to errors of admin in the delivery of working families’ tax credits, leading to more people seeking welfare benefits advice. Legal aid lawyers then have to chase these government departments and agencies, who put budgetary pressures before delivering a good service. “People come to lawyers as a last resort to get their repairs done. As soon as the heating stops or water is coming through the ceiling – they go to their housing officers and it is only when nothing has been done and they become desperate that they come to us,” says Ole Hansen, partner at Hansen Palomares solicitors. “What would we do if they [government departments] sorted themselves out? We would have to find some other way of making a living!”
On devising the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949, Lord Rushcliffe, a barrister and former Conservative MP, surely did not envisage this. Legal aid plays an essential role in holding public bodies to account, but its resources should not be wasted on picking up after poor governance. Rushcliffe said at the time that legal aid was to ensure equal access to justice for those not wealthy enough to be able to afford a lawyer. Accordingly in 1949, 80% of the population was eligible for legal aid; it is now seen as something only for the poor and the marginalised.
Yet a large chunk of those on middle incomes could probably not afford to pay thousands of pounds charged by private lawyers. Many might argue that most people would not get themselves into difficult situations. But anybody could find themselves unfairly dismissed or facing repossession, and these are situations where money is tightest. It is when legal aid is most needed that it becomes unavailable.
Now is the time for change. As the government decides what changes will be made to the legal aid system, top of the list should be to increase eligibility and a bigger budget. Legal aid is not supposed to rectify mismanagement – it is there to ensure that everyone, not just the very poor, has access to justice.
• This article was commissioned after we were contacted by the author via a You tell us thread
MPs and peer charged with expenses offences deserve fair trial | Michael White
Mar 12th
When I was a regular court reporter in Queen Victoria’s day we took contempt of court seriously. Some papers today ought to refresh their memories
A wholesome public figure whom we all know said in my hearing this week “there’s a crisis of public life”. By that he meant that the politics of relentless scrutiny, which prefers to play the man, not the ball, is driving good people out of responsible positions.
That’s fine if you want “monks or millionaires” running the country, he said. I didn’t give it further thought until I opened this morning’s papers and saw three MPs and a Tory peer all over some front pages.
They were all appearing at Westminster magistrates court on expenses-related charges. Guilty? I don’t know and nor do you, though we both probably have views. That’s my point.
The Daily Mail’s splash headline is “‘Thieves’ who think they’re above the law”. Note those delicate quotation marks around “thieves”. It’s a perfunctory nod to the law, which requires court reports to reflect the proper presumption of innocence, even for rapists, child molesters and politicians.
When I was a regular court reporter, under Queen Victoria, we took it seriously. Woe betide papers that didn’t.
But in 2010 the Mail’s strap line gives the game away. “With brazen cynicism, three Labour MPs [where's that Tory peer gone, I ask myself?] charged with expenses fraud argue a court has no right to put them on trial.”
Actually it’s not quite brazen cynicism. But it’s certainly prejudicial to say so in a court report. On radio, TV and in print there was plenty more. Some papers, including this one, sent their sketchwriters.
Thus my old friend, Simon Hoggart, has written an uncharacteristically testy piece that takes a passing swipe at costly and overdue renovation work at the Palace of Westminster.
You would never know from the article that the authorities have just spent millions renovating the Commons press gallery where we all work rent-free. The office under Big Ben where Simon and I have worked for years in Stygian darkness now has a window, two actually. Daylight at last! Few reporters wanted the upgrade; we were happy in our squalor. Few MPs wanted to upgrade us. Officialdom and our old mate ‘ealth and safety drove the project.
Back to the magistrates court. Surely, we have spent a lot of the past week debating the need to ensure that Jon Venables gets a fair trial for whatever offence he’s allegedly committed under whatever name he lives under? The mob is in full cry over him too and his rights deserve defending.
But they have been abused, roundly so by great swathes of reporting – as Simon Jenkins also pointed out this week. It happens all the time. Will anything be done about it? I doubt it, and there’s an election coming.
The politicians are afraid of the press, which can do truly scary things to them. I don’t need to remind Guardian regulars about the News of the World phone-hacking, far more extensive than admitted, as becomes clearer by the week.
When Nick Davies and Rob Evans reported that the NoW had paid out another £1m to buy off Max Clifford’s phone-hacking law suit – not a man to cross is Max – how many other papers picked up the report? None that I saw.
It didn’t suit them, as it would have if an MP had been – allegedly – drunk at the wheel and they’d been tipped off for money by a copper.
Why not? Plenty blag for information too, so the information commissioner concluded. You won’t have read much about that either. Professor Brian Cathcart explained it well in MediaGuardian the other day.
And while we’re on the subject, there’s another little report in today’s Guardian which you might usefully read. Facebook is threatening to sue the Mail for tweaking a scary piece written by Mark Williams-Thomas, an ex-police detective specialising in paedophile cases.
He’d (allegedly) told the paper that the social network on which he’d posed as a teenage girl – and been inundated with dirty propositions – was not Facebook, but they said it was anyway. It fitted the story they were writing about poor Ashleigh Hall.
That happens a lot too; take my word for it. Make the facts fit the story. But it needn’t happen. In many years at the Guardian I can only recall one instance of a “fact” (which later proved untrue) being inserted late at night against the advice of the reporter whose name was on the story. There was a big fuss afterwards.
So let’s go easy on unconvicted MPs once they’ve been charged, on Venables too. Due process matters. And don’t tell me that applies to Tony Blair’s deficient handling of the Iraq war, as demonstrated (again) by the Chilcot inquiry. I agree.
But before you get too smug read this. It’s a rare take on the Iraq war by a rare kind of witness. Nigel Biggar is regius professor of moral and pastoral theology at Oxford and he marshals a powerful case against the “Bliar Blair’s illegal and murderous war” brigade.
Whether or not Biggar knows what he’s doing raising his head above the parapet is another matter. Doesn’t he know what happens to people in public life who cross the prejudices of the Daily Beast?
If readers in the quiet streets of north Oxford hear unusual noises just before dawn it may be a freelance trawling through the Biggar family bins on behalf of the Beast. And change your mobile phone number, Prof.
Good luck.
Rights are political – keep it that way | Fergal Davis
Mar 11th
Human rights are a political issue, and we should remind politicians we don’t want these to be dealt with by the courts
In the debate about the future of the Human Rights Act (HRA) the power of the home secretary to issue control orders poses significant difficulties for those who favour judicial and parliamentary restraint of executive power.
This series of cases might appear to demonstrate that judicial activism has turned the tide on excessive executive power. However, as Keith Ewing has pointed out, the effect of the control order cases is judicially sanctioned detention for up to 16 hours a day and I have previously argued that the decision in AF secures the unimpressive right that the subject of a control order should be told the “essence of the case against him”.
But, if I am left underwhelmed by the brilliance of the courts, I despair at the inability of parliament to hold this government to account. On 1 March the Commons voted 206 to 85 in favour of renewal of the home secretary’s power to issue control orders. This was despite a report by the joint committee on human rights (JCHR), which expressed “serious concerns” about the control order system and concluding that the “control order regime is no longer sustainable”.
In his 2006 book The Rebels: How Blair Lost His Majority, Philip Cowley establishes that backbench rebellion is actually far more frequent that we might sometimes assume. On that basis, it might have been hoped that, faced with a series of judicial criticisms of control orders and a report for the JCHR condemning the system, parliament might have voted against renewal of the orders – it might have effectively utilised its sunset clause. That did not happen: some familiar faces filed into the Noe’s lobby, but the Aye’s still had it.
The Lords did little better. They renewed the order but did at least express their dissatisfaction by tagging on an amendment stating their regret that the government has not found some other means of dealing with suspected terrorists.
I propose one partial explanation and one potential response to the failure of parliament to adequately secure our liberties.
Ewing argues that “the erosion of liberty has increased not diminished under the ‘culture of liberty’ created by the HRA” – this might be because the existence of an apparently activist judiciary has lulled parliament into a false sense of security. While parliamentary rebellion may be more common than is often thought, there are a number of reasons why parliamentarians may vote in favour of something about which they have serious misgivings – for example, the potential impact on one’s future career if one votes against the government. The belief that the judiciary will prevent executive abuse would provide an easy salve to any uneasy conscience unwilling to vote down a weakened government during an election year.
What we must do is ensure that parliamentarians have the incentive to rebel against their party whips when told to vote in favour of rights infringing measures. We, the electorate, must demonstrate that civil liberties matter to us and that they will matter to us when we vote in the election.
The courts have done their job – over time, they have ameliorated the worst elements of the control order system – but that is not enough. Judicial activism has arguably made things worse by providing apparent judicial approval for the slightly improved, still objectionable, control order system.
To secure our rights we must end the process of juridification – whereby political issues are professionalised and surrendered to the courts to be dealt with. Rights are political: we must remind the courts, our parliamentarians and ourselves of this in the weeks and months ahead.
The Tories’ cheap shot on privacy | Afua Hirsch
Mar 11th
Conservative attempts to pander to the tabloids by ‘rebalancing privacy with freedom of expression’ miss the legal point
One of the strangest thing about sitting in court is hearing judges who look like old-fashioned grandfathers grappling with the intimate details of sexual encounters. I remember, as a student, the first time I heard a crown court judge running through an unbelievably detailed chronology of how two young people liked to practise “sexual intercourse”, as they insist on calling it, squirming in my seat and wondering why no one else looked freaked out.
Anyone in doubt about the capacity of the civil courts to grapple with the ins and outs (forgive the phrase) of illicit sex could just flick through the judgment in the Max Mosley case. Mosley, “for reasons best known to himself, enjoyed having his bottom shaved” Mr Justice Eady, who judged the case, remarked. Mosley was having so much fun he was “shaking with laughter”, Eady went on, although sadly he couldn’t verify the F1 president’s facial expression because “in the DVD, it was not his face on display”.
There were a few giggles in the audience yesterday when Eady continued in a similar vein at the launch of a new centre for law, justice and journalism at City University. No doubt he is used to encountering more blind rage than laughter in response to some of his views. The specialist privacy judge has become famous for the ire he provokes among tabloids as for his judgments themselves. They accuse him of single-handedly creating a law on privacy, as if it were something he had plucked out of thin air. He says, not surprisingly, that the Human Rights Act did that – with parliament’s assent – by bringing in article 8 of the European convention into the UK’s law. And that tabloids have a vested interest in stunting the growth of privacy because they make a lot of money by routinely violating it.
Eady couldn’t resist a swipe at his tabloid critics last night. And just to make sure Paul Dacre and co are well and truly wound-up, he threw in a quote from Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, who has yet to fight a privacy case because the Guardian are not in the habit of splashing on sex sessions. Last summer Rusbridger told the select committee on culture, media and sport that privacy law had so far been a problem for the kiss-and-tell business of the tabloids, rather than serious or investigative journalism.
Look closely at the sections of the press most dependent on kiss-and-tell, or its less harmless contemporary equivalents (screw six dominatrix prostitutes and tell, for example) and there is an interesting correlation with vitriol towards the human rights act. The perception that the HRA is responsible for the growth in privacy is one of the major reasons why the Mail and the News of the World are so excited at the prospect of its demise. The Tories are not ones to miss a trick here. The shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve has lately included “the need to rebalance privacy with freedom of expression” in his list of things the Conservative party would do to “improve” the HRA.
But in the end, it all comes back down to sex. As a specialist judge on privacy, Eady has spent a disproportionate amount of his judicial career dealing with what people think they are doing behind closed doors but in fact end up doing on the front pages of the red-tops.
“Most applications in privacy cases concern sexual shenanigans of one sort or another,” Eady said. The law on privacy is designed to deal with the dilemmas these shenanigans throw up. Where does a paper’s right to freedom of expression give way to a footballer’s right to have extra-marital sex? Where do a golfer’s lucrative commercial contracts provide a valid limit to the rights of the media to report his – if only they could be more original! – extra-marital sex.
These are not straightforward questions to answer. Eady insists that they cannot be codified. “No parliamentary draftsman could have dreamt up in advance the facts of the Mosley case – or at least, if he did, he should have been doing it in his own time,” Eady joked.
The point is it is more than likely beyond the imagination of the Conservative party to account for every potential privacy case. To be honest the idea of any stiff-upper-lipped men of advanced years figuring out the circumstances in which sex is private and when it can be splashed by newspapers is less than palatable. But if someone has to do it, at least judges are used to it, even if curious newcomers to court will never stop finding it weird. And so there goes another argument for the Tory bill of rights.
These dogs are fashion victims | Zoe Williams
Mar 10th
For a well-adjusted pet, status dogs who hang out with teenagers beat nutty, Saturday-only labradors hands down
Right, conjure a picture of an open-jawed rottweiler, and we can begin: Alan Johnson (who has twice been bitten by a dog) this week unveiled plans to target dog-owners. Proposals include compulsory micro-chipping and compulsory insurance. The RSPCA is broadly in favour, since it throws responsibility back on to owners, after the misguided Dangerous Dogs Act branded some dogs as simply born badder than others. That legislation was framed by someone who had never met a dog: this consultation paper is more sophisticated.
There is an automatic acceptance that “status dogs” (essentially, bull breeds) in the control of young men (tacitly, who live on council estates) are a problem. Johnson said: “The vast majority of dog owners are responsible, but there is no doubt that some people breed and keep dogs for the sole purpose of intimidating others, in a sense using dogs as a weapon.” By vast majority, he doesn’t mean the vast majority of young men with staffordshire bull terriers, he means the vast majority of families with spaniels.
Reporters and commentators often ask why a young man would even have a tough-looking dog, as if the act of choosing that over a whippet signified evil intent. This is just not true. Everybody wears the uniform of the group to which they wish to state their belonging. Young men want to look cool, that’s why they smoke and motorbikes were invented. There is a world of difference between a young man who thinks he looks cool with a tough dog, and a young man training that dog, or even encouraging it to be vicious.
Furthermore, there’s a subtext here that responsible dog owning is affluent dog owning. Responsible owners automatically have third-party insurance because they have a pet policy (the leading insurer Petplan charges £33 per month to insure a staff-ridgeback cross); and they automatically have their dogs microchipped because they are so upstanding (I’ve yet to find a vet in London charging less than £25).
This easy assumption of equivalence between wealth and responsibility is not just insulting: in no area more than dogs is it so flagrantly wrong. Canines simply don’t buy the values of the market economy: they don’t want an owner with a good job – they would rather have a tramp or a teenager. I always notice how well-adjusted and biddable are the dogs of people who spend a lot of time with them – in contrast to nutty labradors who only see their owners on a Saturday and have the recall of a squirrel. Piers Claughton, the RSPCA’s senior local government adviser, points out: “This is part of the problem of banging on about youths with dogs. They can have a really positive impact. We talk to quite a lot of housing providers, particularly the ones who want to try to ban dogs from estates. But there are a multitude of benefits, from being good for a young person to learn responsibility, to helping them socialise, mix with other people; a dog is a great tool for all of that.”
Still, there are these figures showing a massive rise in status dogs, used as weapons or to intimidate: in London, according to recent figures, the number of dogs seized by the police went up from 263 in 2006-07 to 719 in 2008-09 and a thousand so far this year. The Metropolitan police’s status dog unit wouldn’t comment this week, but did issue a statement last November saying that in the seven months since its launch in March 2009 the unit had carried out 680 seizures.
“The key benefit of the new unit is that it has made the [Met] response to the problem of dangerous dogs more efficient,” it said. Which is brilliant: but it means that more dogs are being seized because a special unit has been set up to seize dogs. It’s not a very exact science, this. The RSPCA has figures relating to an increase in complaints about dog fights – 24 in 2004, 36 in 2005, 137 in 2006, 358 in 2007 (including 132 calls about youths with dogs/fights in streets and parks) and 284 in 2008 (including 188 calls about youths with dogs/fights in streets and parks). First, these are nationwide figures, suggesting that those thousand dogs seized by London police this year were not dogs with youths hanging about looking threatening (more probably, dogs bred for violence in organised crime circles, a very different proposition, and likely to remain unaffected whether the law comes in to require microchipping or not). Second, the figures have spiked and are actually going down. Finally, this problem is not that large.
What we’re looking at, obviously, is not a dog problem but a British election.This is how our politicians fight battles: they introduce a meaningless opposition between the right-thinking and the wrong-uns, then frame overwrought plans to deal with this pilloried small group, whether it’s foxhunters or dog owners. It won’t make a great difference to anything, but it allows us to line up behind something that all sensible people would line up behind. And then we’re supposed to feel good. It’s so uninspiring. Come on, think big, little home secretary! What would Obama do? Would Obama be talking about dogs?
Jon Venables and dangerous dogs have more in common than you think
Mar 14th
Posted by David Mitchell in Politics
No comments
Animal stories and murders are interesting, but people read about them to be entertained, not because you can infer something important from them
Everyone likes an animal story. They fill up the nooks and crannies of newspapers like socks in a tightly packed suitcase. On TV, they’re a grace note between the empathic rage brought on by proper news and the despair induced by the weather.
Ducks that deliver letters, cats that like dogs, chimpanzees that play scrabble, squirrels that conquer assault courses and pandas that refuse to copulate. From the geese saving the capitol, to some chickens murdering a fox last week, they’ve always raised an eyebrow, albeit over a slightly glazed eye. Like Harry Potter and The One Show, they’re what passes for a massive hit in the 21st century: something to which nobody particularly objects.
Why don’t we scream “Stop telling me about some donkey that can count! I don’t care! It doesn’t matter!”? Until donkeys discover calculus or a gerbil finds the Higgs Boson, save it for an episode of Animals Do the Funniest Things, because all any of this really shows is that contact with the weird sophistication of human society can blow an animal’s tiny mind. The parrot that squawks the national anthem and the pitbull that savages a toddler are two sides of the same coin of bestial confusion.
This last type of animal story is increasingly common, with more than 100 people admitted to hospital every week after being attacked by dogs, hardly any of which subsequently said “Sausages!” This doesn’t surprise me. It seems to me there are more dogs about nowadays, and I don’t think that’s just an effect of getting older, like shadow chancellors looking younger. I’m convinced dog shit is back to early-80s levels and every street corner seems to have a scrawny teenager idly texting with one hand while a slavering wolf strains on a bit of string from the other.
So last week the government proposed a raft of new measures to deal with the problem, including the notion that every dog owner should have to take out insurance to cover the consequences of their dog attacking someone. That doesn’t make me feel any safer. I want dog owners to be thinking: “If my dog bites anyone, I’m for the high jump!” not: “Whatever Killer does, I’m covered.” The fact that I’d get a guaranteed cash bonus do
esn’t make me any keener to be penetrated by a Pedigree Chum-caked fang.
It’s insurance against irresponsibility. Where would it end? Adding 20p to the price of every pint of lager to cover your costs in case you glass someone later? Putting 10% on parking fines to deal with any issues arising from traffic wardens being bludgeoned to death? Still, it was the first animal story to arouse my interest since some wag at the BBC website came up with the headline: “Great tits cope well with warming”. I clicked on that like a sucker and now I’m a little better informed about the challenges facing the RSPB.
But the news isn’t just about informing people of things that matter. It’s also about entertainment. That’s why they’re called stories. Everyone likes a story before bedtime – some are funny, some are sweet, some are scary. Which brings me to Jon Venables.
The main reason that Jon Venables’s reincarceration has been all over the papers is that people enjoy reading about it – it’s another episode in a horrific but gripping story. The parts of people’s brains that it engages are, largely, the same parts that are turned on by a harrowing but compelling movie, and not a million miles away from those that flicker into life at an episode of Midsomer Murders.
Saying this is probably going to piss some people off. They could claim that I’m accusing them of enjoying child murder. Of course I’m not. But I am saying that many of us enjoy hearing the ghoulish details of horrible crimes, whether they’re real or not. Newspapers have always sold copies by sensationalising small-scale atrocities, and that’s fine. It’s perfectly possible to be appalled by a crime and its consequences – genuinely to empathise for the victims – and still to find hearing more about it fun. There’s no harm in that.
The harm only comes when we’re dishonest about our reasons for wanting to find out about it – when we lie to ourselves that we’re reading about a crime only with heavy-hearted regret and to keep ourselves informed of important events. The Venables/Thompson/Bulger horrors aren’t important events – they’re just interesting ones. They’re a bizarre and awful series of incidents – of a kind that hardly ever happen but, on a planet populated by billions, are occasionally bound to – from which almost nothing coherent or useful can be inferred. They are no more globally consequential than Josef Fritzl on the one hand, or the Bristol zoo rhino having triplets on the other.
Except of course I’m forgetting the cracking public debate about rehabilitation of criminals that the Venables speculation has spawned. That’s something which all the supporters of throwing keys away have got enthusiastically stuck into, shaking their heads at the naivety of the advocates of mercy. But the Venables case is so horrifying, unusual and unrepresentative, such an outlier on the graph, that making it the focus of a discussion about how convicted criminals should be treated not only perilously weights the debate against clemency but is logically absurd. You may as well cite Adolf Hitler as a reason for not encouraging children to paint.
Newspapers are fond of giving different sorts of story, like sport, fashion or finance, their own section. Well, they need a new one, separate from news, to which I’m giving the working title: “Interesting Things that Aren’t Important”. It would be for celebrity stomach staples, animal hilarity, the guy with the record-breaking number of Christmas lights and anecdotes about gruesome criminals.
That’s where the Venables reporting belongs, next to Ashley Cole’s indiscretions, not Michael Foot’s achievements – with the world’s biggest pizza, not its most destructive earthquake. That way we can be gripped and appalled by it without being lured into thinking that, other than to the handful of people tragically involved, it’s particularly significant.