- Details
- Written by: Kamran Mofid
- Hits: 10864
Photo via amazon UK
“Massive cuts to social safety nets have led to "destitution, hardship and hunger on a large scale" in Britain, with more than half a million people now forced to rely on food banks for sustenance, key poverty charities have warned in a report…
"The shocking reality is that hundreds of thousands of people in the UK are turning to food aid," said Mark Goldring, Oxfam's chief executive. "Cuts to social safety nets have gone too far, leading to destitution, hardship and hunger on a large scale. It is unacceptable that this is happening in the seventh wealthiest nation on the planet."
The report, Walking the Breadline, is backed by the Trussell Trust, the UK's biggest provider of food banks. It blames the increasing pressure on food banks on far-reaching changes to the benefits system, as well as on unemployment, increased underemployment, low and falling incomes and rising food and fuel prices.”…
And now, lest we forget:
“The war in Afghanistan has cost Britain at least £37bn and the figure will rise to a sum equivalent to more than £2,000 for every taxpaying household, according to a devastating critique of the UK's role in the conflict.
Since 2006, on a conservative estimate, it has cost £15m a day to maintain Britain's military presence in Helmand province. The equivalent of £25,000 will have been spent for every one of Helmand's 1.5 million inhabitants, more than most of them will earn in a lifetime, it says.
By 2020, the author of a new book says, Britain will have spent at least £40bn on its Afghan campaign, enough to recruit over 5,000 police officers or nurses and pay for them throughout their careers. It could fund free tuition for all students in British higher education for 10 years…
The real beneficiaries of the war, are development consultants, Afghan drug lords, and international arms companies. Much of British aid to Afghanistan is spent on consultancy fees rather than those Afghans who need it most.”
Food banks now a lifeline for half a million people in Britain
Afghanistan war has cost Britain more than £37bn, new book claims
Investment in Blood: The True Cost of Britain's Afghan War- Learn more and buy the book HERE
- Details
- Written by: Kamran Mofid
- Hits: 4379
Photo:fmacskasy.com
“Court staff are the foot-soldiers of judicial independence, and even a fool could grasp the imperative to protect their impartiality.”
“Why sell and fragment a service that has met or exceeded its targets? The only reason must be money and ideology.”
"We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right" (Clause 39 Magna Carta, 1215)
'Privatising the courts system: the public are not customers, they are citizens'
An article by Sarah Vine who is a criminal barrister at 2 Pump Court Chambers (www.2pumpcourt.co.uk)
“The tide of privatisation inches closer to the heart of our justice system by the day. Security, probation, transport and interpretation services are long gone. G4S provide child-abuse investigators and rape recovery suites, for profit. Legally-aided representation is in the MoJ's cross-hairs. If Grayling has his way, the only heads left above the corporate water will be the judges. For a while, at least.”
“On Tuesday, in response to public alarm at the leaked plans to privatise the courts service, the Ministry of Justice issued one of its increasingly familiar, and decreasingly plausible, reassurances. In terms of impression management, it was the ministerial equivalent of "I'm not a racist, but…". The MoJ stated that the proposals were not for the "wholesale" privatisation of Her Majesty's Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS).
The MoJ did not define what it meant by "wholesale", but it probably matters little. The justice secretary is a huge fan of outsourcing, and has a talent for ignoring troublesome evidence, however compelling. He also regards anything which smacks of rights – constitutional or human – as an irritant, an outmoded obstacle to thrusting reform, and to be dispatched as swiftly as possible. Certainly an 800-year-old prohibition on the sale of "justice or right" is not going to stand in his way. Not when there is money to be made by big business.
In a new spin on the process by which public services are "outsourced", it is proposed that HMCTS be offered both to the lowest bidder (for the provision of staff and buildings), and also to the highest, by charging wealthy litigants fees, over and above their legal costs, for using the courts' service. In this way, Grayling seeks to transform it into a profitable enterprise, offering "attractive returns" to investors.
But HMCTS is not an enterprise, designed for the pursuit of profit or growth. The very idea is repugnant. The public are not "customers". They are citizens, and are entitled to public, accountable justice, administered without fear or favour; no sale of justice or right. If the insertion of private interests into the administration of justice did not offend against that principle, it would have been achieved by now.
Court staff are a close-mouthed breed. Most people who come into contact with them will report that they are courteous, approachable and helpful. They deal, routinely, with people who are having the worst day of their life. They are also incredibly, almost pathologically, discreet. They see and hear information which could prove the undoing of a case, a litigant, a juror, a witness or (whisper it) a judge. They are often responsible for when a case is heard, and which judge hears it. Court staff are the foot-soldiers of judicial independence, and even a fool could grasp the imperative to protect their impartiality.
But pay people less, erode their job security, and ask them to serve two masters, and you cannot be surprised if they choose the one holding the purse-strings. Litigants paying over the odds for their chance to litigate in the UK will be expecting some kind of preferential treatment. It will start with queue-jumping, and judge selection. And perhaps the contract-winning companies (don't make me say G4S) will be more than happy to instruct their staff to oblige. Of course, the contract winners themselves will also be litigants, perhaps defendants in health and safety prosecutions, or being sued by relatives of someone like Jimmy Mubenga.
When a trial takes place, objections can be taken to jurors, judges and even court locations if there is a real possibility that their involvement may damage the integrity of the trial process. What conceivable protection will be afforded any opponent of the contract winners, or those wealthy litigants, when the entire court system is run by those in their pay? Outsourcing will have relieved the justice secretary of responsibility for such "operational matters". In place of a sacred constitutional principle, Mr Grayling proposes a royal charter, the ministerial equivalent of "some of my best friends are black".
The tide of privatisation inches closer to the heart of our justice system by the day. Security, probation, transport and interpretation services are long gone. G4S provide child-abuse investigators and rape recovery suites, for profit. Legally-aided representation is in the MoJ's cross-hairs. If Grayling has his way, the only heads left above the corporate water will be the judges. For a while, at least.”
Original source: Privatising the courts system: the public are not customers, they are citizens
Read more: Chris Grayling's worst failure? Not transport: the probation services
- Details
- Written by: Kamran Mofid
- Hits: 2887