Thursday, 28 October 2010
It is to be hoped that Kenneth Clark, the Justice Secretary, has noted what the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, voiced as his concern about violent criminals who are not brought before the courts.
For far too long in Britain criminals have escaped prosecution in order not to overcrowd jails even more. Social do-gooders invoke all sorts of arguments in order to avoid the prosecution of identified criminals. Theft is one thing but as Lord Judge points out the non prosecution of offenders when violence has been involved in a crime, is not acceptable.
Kenneth Clarke wants to reduce the cost of the prison budget, which is admirable. However, he cannot avoid his responsibility which in the final analysis is to ensure the protection of the public from criminals. In no way can he not provide the prison space required when he expects Judges to punish criminals in accordance with the law.
Kenneth Clark must realise that the soft approach to the conviction of "criminals" by the Socialists during the last 13 years resulted in the non construction of prisons. This in turn meant the avoidance of prosecutions favoured increasingly the soft approach.
Prosecutions and punishment, particularly terms of imprisonment, are effective methods which make criminels think twice. This was originally behind the idea of building prisons. Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, would not deny any of this.
For reasons outside the scope of this article, the Death Penalty was abolished in Britain and many other countries. As far as this concerns murderers who are found guilty a second time, this policy could be regretted. However, should one not punish those who repeatedly commit crimes? If the punishment is doubled each time the same criminal is convicted would this not provide the deterrant which the Lord Chief Justice seeks ?
Repetitive crimes, even by small time criminals, are the cause of much anxiety in communities. The Justice Secretary would do well to reflect on this aspect before wanting to reduce the Prison Budget !!!
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
It will take at least five years of pain to reverse the effects of New Labour's spend-spend mentality to bring Britain back onto a sound financial basis. At present Britain is bankrupt and will remain so unless the "Austerity Plan" is firmly carried out.
There is of course another huge problem which awaits the Conservative and Liberal Coalition. This is the absolute non-control by the EU of EU policies.
Ten years ago the EURO was introduced as a currency. Now, already, there are at least three or four countries in dire straits facing "Bankruptcy" . Why ? Is it not due to a non-control mentality ? Have the highly paid EU Eurocrats been asleep and not really controled the activities of member countries ? The answer is evident !!!
When a trading company loses money, for whatever reason, and it cannot find finance, creditors close in and the company is ultimately dissolved. Creditors are the losers !!! Is a EU member country different ? Should any EU member country and its taxpayers help to save, for example, Greece ?
It is certainly not the highly paid, sleeping Eurocrats who will accept to pay up !!!
The EU started with six original member countries. Over the years the EU has grown and there are now 27, and there are more potential candidates on the horizon, knocking on the door !!!
The original ideas and principles were defined fifty years ago. Treaties were drafted to which new member countries were obliged to adhere. Years later these culminated in the so called "Treaty of Lisbon". This was a massive political fraud !!! It was adopted by European Parliaments without being required to call for a vote by the electorate of their country. The ultimate taxpayers did not have a word to say !!!
Eurocrats, elected or not, are paid graciously and guide all policies or decisions ultimately voted by the EU parliament members. No EU member country has anything ressembling a majority influence in the EU parliament.
However, member countries are obliged to accept and introduce EU directives in their countries' laws. The costs are often not reimbursed !!!
David Cameron, Nick Clegg and the House of Lords cannot refuse to apply EU laws. Judges in the UK are no longer independent of the EU. British judicial decisions can be appealed and overturned to take into account principles which contradict what a British citizen or politician would accept as justice !!!
This Blog is not the place to enter into greater detail about the growing shortcomings of the EU. However, there are serious economies possible if Britain were to insist on a complete revision of the conditions which govern membership of the EU !!!
The moment is ripe ! Many countries are aware of the EU shortcomings. All countries are not ready for all the EU directives; they cannot afford them. Many of these countries are too small to be able to voice their disapproval !!!
There is social unrest in several countries, in others unrest is brewing !!! France is a perfect example !!! Eurocrats do not face the brunt, local elected politicians do.
It is to be hoped that David Cameron and Nick Clegg look closely at the EU problems for their next raft of economies !!!
Monday, 11 October 2010
Friday, 1 October 2010
It is people working for cash which they do not declare as income ! The person who pays does not declare he has employed anyone !
The consequences are that illegal imigrants survive and scroungers living on National Health handouts remain undetected !!! So called employers avoid paying Social Security charges but taxpayers and the State ultimately suffer all the consequences.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg must address this problem and would do well to appoint a specialist to look at the system which operates in France.
The system encourages people who need short term or long term family help from workers like cleaners, gardners, home helps and teachers, etc, to declare payments made to them. The costs which include social security and pension contributions are deductable from the personal income tax payable by the employer. The worker profits from the pension contributions and national insurance. The system is appreciated by both employer and employee.
The existence of this system does not absolve the State from verifying that companies and businesses do not employ "black labour" !!! Restaurants and building sites are well known black labour employers, but they are not the only ones.