Skip to main content

Today's protest about the conditions of student finance

There was a protest today where students came as part of a "day of action" about student finance. The first point I would make is that although this occupation was better behaved than the previous occupation it still disrupted the business of my office. The business of my office involves solving problems for constituents. Hence it is not fair to my constituents.

There are limits to protest. Violent protests are not acceptable. The occupation was generally well behaved, but there was an attempt to push past me into my office. (I was holding the door shut) That actually is the use of violence even though I have told the police that I do not wish to take this further.

The issue they were raising about the certainty of the arrangement of finance is a very important principle. It is important that when students commit to a financial arrangement that this is stuck to by government. It is governed by a number of statutory instruments. One if SI 2012/1309 The Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2012. This was laid before parliament on 21st May 2012 and could have been blocked by a motion in parliament. Hence it has parliamentary accountability. Furthermore it is also subject to judicial review (and there are no proposals to change this particular aspect of judicial review). Hence the arrangements in Article 1 Protocol 1 could be used to quash changes which affect the contractual elements of the arrangement.

Where they are right is that the money that graduates have to pay is more important than the amount of money that universities charge the system. About 3/4 of graduates' payments are dependent entirely on their income and are not affected by the amount of the fees that the universities charge the scheme.

This is to be fair the most important element of this area of public policy where there have been threats to change the arrangements but a number of politicians have argued against this (including myself).

Hence the basic principle behind the demonstration was flawed as well as its execution although I was not as stressed about this group as I was about the previous group who did do some specific harm to two of my constituents.

Factually, however, on the issue of the terms and conditions they are wrong. Hence it does not matter who actually owns the debt.

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. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…