Skip to main content

Nationaising the Police Force - undermining trust

Gradually Labour have been removing the checks and balances that operate in the constitution. With the gradual nationalisation of the police force we are moving from the historic situation where the home office was responsible for the operation of legal procedures and the rules under which police operated, but did not get involved in operational decisions (apart from in London) to one in which the Home Secretary has at his command the whole police force.

This cannot be seen as a good thing even if a relatively small sum of money is saved. The way in which the police were pressurised into lobbying MPs for the flawed internment proposals is sympomatic of a lack of concern with process and a concern merely about outcomes. Process is important because of the effects that bad process can have on undermining people's trust in the system.

There are getting to be large groups of people who do not trust the system. This is not just Muslim activists and Animal Rights campaigners. History makes many people of Irish extraction untrusting as have historically been trades unionists. Other groups have similar concerns such as Sikhs and people campaigning against injustice in the family courts.

If any one thing could be summed up from this government is it is the superficial unjust way in which it operates. It treads roughshod on people being concerned about administrative convenience rather than quality of life.

The police mergers are just another piece to this particular jigsaw.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…