lord of the blog

« October 2004 | Main | December 2004 »

Saturday, November 27, 2004

Responses

Andrew. Flooding is now much more frequent in my area. I would be (pleasantly) surprised if it was unconnected to climate change. I agree however that the immediate issue is infrastructure.

Thanks to Andrew Price about the information on Twyford Abbey Road.

On Iraq Andrew, we generally don’t deport with the possible exception to Kurdish areas. The aim remains to rebuild the country with the rule of law and democratic structures. While I’m on this Kofi Annan’s High Level Panel will probably report next Thursday. So there is an important debate coming up on intervention and other issues.

The foxhunting debate looks like continuing! I actually don’t think the sport has as much popular support as some people think but the argument is not just about cruelty. Many of the letters I received were also about damage to property including pets being killed.

To put it in focus though, I got a call from an irate constituent the other week about her cat being killed by a fox! So if hunting does come back we will have the Acton hunt going down the Uxbridge Road and along the M4! Sorry to get facetious!

Thanks to Robert Maxted. This is exactly the sort of information I need but why so few responses to my questions? These are important questions for any serious debate on the issues of parental rights. So why has everyone gone quiet?

Can I say to George Rolph that I don’t understand what your key questions are? You seem to be asking me to admit that I am cowed by the power of the woman’s movement and of course I don’t think I am! I haven’t got very involved in that argument.

My interest is the balance of rights and the best interests of children when parents – not just men – fail to agree access and custody.

That’s why I am asking the questions on this blog.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Family Courts

I have read the many entries on my Fathers4justice post.

It would be useful to have some answers to the following questions.

1.If the present system is not satisfactory what system do people think would work better in cases where parents can't agree?

2.What is the right balance between fathers rights, mothers rights and the child's rights and how do we assess that?

3.Are there any models in other countries which people think work better?

Short answers are best. You can always refer me to other sources if necessary.

Sunday, November 21, 2004

Thames water and flooding in Acton

Following the recent and repeated flooding in Acton I have had a meeting with Thames Water to try and find a short term solution. In the long term we need a renewal of the Victorian system.

If you are affected and have not already been in touch with me or the residents group please let me know.

This is going to be a continuing problem with climate change.

Fox hunting

Has the vote on fox hunting put paid to the issue? Were we right?

Responses

There is some confusion here. If a person comes to Britain and we decide their presence here is not acceptable we send them back. That has been normal practice for years and all countries do it. The difference with those held at Belmarsh is that they do not want to return.

In normal circumstances we would return a person to their country of origin regardless of their wishes. However we don’t enforce return where we think torture or death may be the result.

Welcome to Hove Labour Party. (This welcome is not related to the last entry. I’m sure they don’t torture people in Hove!)

Ingrid. I don’t often decide a PQ in advance. There is a ballot for questions every day and my luck at that recently has been worse then my luck in the national Lottery (three wins of £10)! I often sit about three rows back roughly in line with the House Clerks – I know my place in life!

Dan. I abhor imperialism and it damaged Britain and our reputation but it is not the same as the political economic system prevalent at the time – it was one strand of it.

Evidence gained under torture should not be admissible in almost all circumstances. We haven’t prosecuted any detainees of Guatanamo to my knowledge. There is a problem if we are given evidence which we believe has come from someone being tortured but it relates to other evidence. I am still dubious about it but I think Juries are very good at deciding whether a case is proved and they tend to react against dodgy evidence for whatever reason.

I once took part in one of those TV hypotheticals where the plot involved the police getting the suspect to admit the whereabouts of a bomb by assaulting him. Everyone agonised over the question of disciplining the police officer. Any suggestions?

Friday, November 19, 2004

Responses

I think Dan is avoiding the question. The Indian army was more loyal to Britain then to many of the local rulers. It didn’t have to be. It could have removed the British at any time. It didn’t because British rule was largely accepted.

It was accepted not because the British were lovable, cuddly little creatures with soft brown fur but because the rule of law and relatively good government were seen as better options then local alternatives and industrialisation in Britain was setting the trend.

When it was no longer accepted Britain had to go. That is the pattern for great powers – even if they don’t like it!

I forgot to congratulate you on your election to the Young Fabians EC. Great!

Iain, it is not about blind loyalty to Tony Blair. The bad news for you is that my views are quite similar to his. When they are not I say so. No problem!

Gordon. Software patents. OK I shall have to educate myself on this. It had escaped me.

Ingrid. I didn’t see the Panorama programme but I was talking to Chris Mullin about the Sudan a few days ago. Both rebels and government are aggravating the problem. It strengthens the case for a more effective AU force.

Journalism

In response to several comments on the media I will just make the following points. MP’s voted for the Freedom of Information Act KNOWING that our expenses would be made public. And we agree with that. So why say we resist publication? We made it possible and I’m proud of that precisely because the public OUGHT to be able to make a judgement on whether we are using expenses properly.

All I ask is accurate presentation by the news media otherwise how can the public judge? Inaccurate news is not news it is propaganda – or just mistaken. I criticise editors and owners because they hide from the public. Rupert Murdoch still hasn’t replied to my letters about sexual harassment at News International. So this blog is my way of publicising the news that can’t get in the papers!

I get on very well with the vast majority of journalists. I have had very few unjustified attacks on me over 26 years (plenty of justified ones!) but journalists are in a crucially important position in feeding the public news.

I think MP’s should have less privacy then other groups but that doesn’t mean no privacy at all. If we don’t allow human indiscretions then all of us will pay heavily for the lack of tolerance that follows and the press really do have double standards on this. If they complain about politicians sleeping around then what happens when an editor or owner does it? The answer is that the publicity is quietly but firmly sat on!

A BBC journalist made the mistake once of saying on a live programme that she thought it was right that a politician who was in the public domain should be questioned on their private sex life. So I asked her who she slept with last night. “How dare you.”  She replied. My point I think!

Newspaper sales are dropping. That is undesirable but it might indicate that they are not giving the public what they want. We now seem to have viewspapers as so little effort is made to separate news from comment. That has major implications for our democracy.

Fathers4justice

George Rolph’s main point seemed to be to attack women. Why? I know that women attack men and I have helped men take legal action in some serious cases. But surely the main question is how we can get squabbling parents to co-operate and focus on the needs of the child?

Gambling

Gambling is clearly a hot issue even in Australia! And if I’ve got the Chief executive of Blackpool blogging on the issue then we are making waves (no pun intended!)

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

Questions in the House

. Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): If he will make a statement on the detention of foreign nationals suspected of terrorism at Belmarsh prison. [197735]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): Under part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, 17 non-British nationals have been held under the certification system as posing a terrorist risk. One of those is being held under other powers and two have left the country. One individual has had an appeal upheld, one is being held under strict bail conditions and one has been released as no longer posing a serious threat, and thus 11 people are primarily held under the certification system.

Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend publish a comparison as to the way in which other countries, particularly in western Europe, deal with the problem? As I understand it—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—other countries deport such individuals against their will to countries that we regard as having an unacceptable record of human rights abuses. If that is so, are we not dealing with the problem by keeping them here as long as they wish to stay while also enabling them to go, whereas other countries are simply sending them back to possible torture and death?

Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right, and there are two aspects to consider. First, the magistrate investigation system in many European countries allows people to be held without being brought to court for very long periods of time. Secondly, some countries with judicial systems and human rights lawyers take a different view from human rights lawyers and the judiciary in our country. I respect their right to do so, which is why we have been careful not to remove people to countries where they might be threatened with death and torture. There is a paradox, however, and to be accused of taking away human rights when we are not removing people because we are concerned about their human rights really takes the biscuit.

Friday, November 12, 2004

More responses

For some reason best known to TypePad I had to post responses in two parts as it kept breaking up the text. I will try and sort it out. Meanwhile here is the second half of responses!

Empire.

        Successful empires are rarely tenable unless they have a degree of consent. Dan, answer this question. How could a small island of roughly 40 million people (on a generous estimate) in the late 19^th century hold down an empire of at least 500 million unless there was co-operation?

The reality is that a successful economic and political system will attract support even if it covers some serious abuse of power. The US has a similar position today. Whether you call it empire or not is an academic point. The reality is that large parts of the world support it just as they supported the British, or in their more limited areas, the Romans, The Moguls and the Han dynasty.

Links.

I am planning to expand my links and include other political ones of all party’s. I’m just pleading for more time!

Select Committee

   The Constitutional Affairs Committee has started an investigation of the Family Courts. I do think Fathers4justice need to read all the comments and ask if they are likely to win the argument if they go on presenting it in the manner and style that they do.

Responses

I can’t respond to all the points made recently but they make interesting reading. Here are a few general reactions.

Gambling.

      I think the Government wanted to increase regulation and protection but in doing so got swept up in the big business argument about casinos. As you will all know Tessa Jowell has undertaken to review areas of the Bill and look at amendments. It is I think a fair example of public pressure (not to mention the concern of Labour MP’s!) causing a rethink.

I do think we need some new legislation and I accept the dangers of addictive gambling but that has to be set against what is already happening in an unregulated way and the right of people to bet if they wish.

Just to confuse matters I had to miss the vote because I was in Australia and New Zealand with the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee looking at their Supreme Courts which are something of a model for the one we are thinking of introducing to replace the House of Lords as the final court of appeal.

MP’s expenses and journalism.

   Let’s be clear about this. MP’s and the Labour Government deliberately brought in the Freedom of Information Act knowing that it meant publishing our expenses. They ought to be published and they are thanks to us.

My point about editors is this. They deliberately confused our expenses with our pay. Look at the stories. According to one in the Sun “Greedy” MP’s “pocketed” £130,000. So apparently my staff didn’t get any pay it all went in my pocket!

The newspapers can’t have it both ways. We make the information available and they should publish it thus allowing any abuse or overgenerous payments to be examined. They can’t then distort it and expect not to have their own expenses targeted. £46 million for Mr. Desmond and £20 million for Paul Dacre ought to be in the public domain and people ought to ask questions about it.

We also need editors and senior journalists to declare relevant interests. If they write a review of a cars performance and have the use of that car for anything up to one year shouldn’t we know that?

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

Newspaper editors

Here is another example of double standards from our editors. Richard Desmond owner of the Daily Express paid himself a mere £46million last year having recently complained bitterly about MP’s expenses including those used to pay staff. MP’s staff are apparently supposed to work for nothing.

Mr.Desmond paid himself £15million in salary and benefits. He then added on another £31million pension payment.

Why is it that newspapers rarely report the activities of editors with the same degree of indignation that they show to others? Is it, as I suspect, fear of internecine fighting? Or could it be a reluctance to report the news unless it fits with their opinions?

As one journalist friend said to me many years ago: “Do try and understand Clive, it’s all the news that fits the print”!