(Ed: Thank goodness John Reid has not heard of the Middle East crisis. It's nice to see a baby at play.)
A new crackdown on yobs who cause misery to communities by illegally riding "mini-moto" scooters has been launched.
Home Secretary John Reid said: "Misuse of mini-motos is dangerous and is causing misery in too many of our local communities.
"These vehicles are not toys and I want to see irresponsible drivers stopped and if necessary their bikes crushed."
He added: "I know people are experiencing increasing problems from the menace of misused mini-motos. This must stop. It is not acceptable to ride these vehicles on our streets or parks and the guidance we are giving to police and users is clear - irresponsible use will be punished."
The Home Office has issued a guide to owners of the motorised bikes setting out how to use them within the law.
Reckless riders of mini-motos - which can have a top speed of 60mph - can have their vehicles confiscated and crushed.
Under the existing law they can also receive a fine, points on their licence or a driving ban.
Even if reckless riders are too young to hold a licence, points can be applied to their name in advance making it more difficult or impossible to become a driver when they turn 17.
It is illegal to ride unregistered mini-motos and similar off-roading vehicles on roads, pavements and in parks.
They can only be used on private land where permission has been granted for them to be ridden.
Drive launched to curb mini-motos
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Tony spends 2m jetting around
The cost of Prime Minister Tony Blair's overseas travel has more than doubled to £2,023,909 in the year to April, official figures have shown.
He made 22 visits overseas in the year to April 2006, compared with 21 costing £809,152 in the previous year.
This year's bill included two journeys - to Riyadh and to Australia - which each cost nearly £500,000. The figure includes travel and accommodation.
A third of the cost of all ministerial travel (£6.1m) went on the PM's trips.
2012 Olympic bid
Number 10 has already announced that Mr Blair and the Queen are to lease two aircraft for use on official trips, replacing the Royal Flight and privately chartered planes.
Mr Blair's most expensive trip (£482,880) was a flying visit to Riyadh last July for private talks with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, en route to Singapore to lobby International Olympic Committee members on London's successful 2012 bid.
The next most costly was a visit to Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia in March, at a cost of £437,921.
On that occasion the prime minister and his wife Cherie visited the Melbourne Commonwealth Games before going on to talks in Canberra, Auckland and Jakarta.
His EU China and India summits, which also included bilateral talks, racked up £189,000, and the UN Millennium Summit in New York cost the taxpayer £139,000.
Ed: I wonder if Tony thinks this is money well spent? And what sort of trouble would we be in if he actually stayed in the country longer?
He made 22 visits overseas in the year to April 2006, compared with 21 costing £809,152 in the previous year.
This year's bill included two journeys - to Riyadh and to Australia - which each cost nearly £500,000. The figure includes travel and accommodation.
A third of the cost of all ministerial travel (£6.1m) went on the PM's trips.
2012 Olympic bid
Number 10 has already announced that Mr Blair and the Queen are to lease two aircraft for use on official trips, replacing the Royal Flight and privately chartered planes.
Mr Blair's most expensive trip (£482,880) was a flying visit to Riyadh last July for private talks with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, en route to Singapore to lobby International Olympic Committee members on London's successful 2012 bid.
The next most costly was a visit to Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia in March, at a cost of £437,921.
On that occasion the prime minister and his wife Cherie visited the Melbourne Commonwealth Games before going on to talks in Canberra, Auckland and Jakarta.
His EU China and India summits, which also included bilateral talks, racked up £189,000, and the UN Millennium Summit in New York cost the taxpayer £139,000.
Ed: I wonder if Tony thinks this is money well spent? And what sort of trouble would we be in if he actually stayed in the country longer?
Rover cost 900m good stuff Tony
THE collapse of MG Rover has cost public and private enterprises nearly £900 million, according to the Commons Public Accounts Committee.
The investigation by MPs has determined that taxpayers picked up a £270 million bill for Rover’s failure. Private companies lost £109 million in unpaid bills and a pension deficit of £500 million is likely be cleared by the industry-funded Pension Protection Fund.
The committee’s report, which is published today, identified “serious gaps” in the Department of Trade and Industry’s planning. The MPs felt that the DTI failed to keep up with rapidly changing events and had not planned for the company’s catastrophic failure.
The Public Accounts Committee said that the collapse of Rover could have been worse if local agencies in the West Midlands had not been planning for Rover’s decline since 2000.
The committee also made veiled criticism of the directors of Phoenix Venture Holdings, which ran the company between 2000 and 2005. During this period the directors received £40 million from Rover.
David Robertson at The Times
The investigation by MPs has determined that taxpayers picked up a £270 million bill for Rover’s failure. Private companies lost £109 million in unpaid bills and a pension deficit of £500 million is likely be cleared by the industry-funded Pension Protection Fund.
The committee’s report, which is published today, identified “serious gaps” in the Department of Trade and Industry’s planning. The MPs felt that the DTI failed to keep up with rapidly changing events and had not planned for the company’s catastrophic failure.
The Public Accounts Committee said that the collapse of Rover could have been worse if local agencies in the West Midlands had not been planning for Rover’s decline since 2000.
The committee also made veiled criticism of the directors of Phoenix Venture Holdings, which ran the company between 2000 and 2005. During this period the directors received £40 million from Rover.
David Robertson at The Times
Friday, July 21, 2006
Religious help for prisoners scrapped cos it is bad for them
A religious help scheme for prisoners has been scrapped in case it offends those of other faiths and homosexuals.
Organisers of the InnerChange course at Dartmoor jail were told their traditional message was discriminatory and did not conform to 'diversity' policy.
The decision to cancel the course, in which volunteers help prisoners prepare for life outside prison, caused outrage.
A spokesman for the independent think tank Civitas said: 'This is absolutely scandalous.
The Government is always saying we need to reform prisoners, and then when someone does something that actually works, it gets stopped.'
The InnerChange programme was modelled on a successful scheme in U.S. jails.
Prisoners who convert to Christianity are expected to live disciplined lives, and are monitored after release to ensure they do not revert to crime.
The programme, which received no state funding, was introduced by a Dartmoor chaplain last year, with the backing of the prison's then-governor Claudia Sturt.
At a recent review, prison officers said it was having a positive effect on previously difficult prisoners.
And one InnerChange volunteer said the scheme had transformed the lives of the 38 men who had taken part.
But a report by a Prison Service psychologist complained that the programme was not based on scientific research because it assumed that 'the root of offending is in individual sin'.
It said InnerChange promoted the unique virtue of heterosexual marriage, which meant it was 'discriminatory' against homosexuality.
The decision to ban the scheme comes less than a year after governors were told to put paganism on an equal footing with the major faiths by allowing altars, incense and the wearing of robes and religious jewellery in prison.
It is understood that no prisoner complained of being offended by the InnerChange programme.
A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain said: 'As this scheme was voluntary, we see no problem at all.
'If it meant prisoners were being helped to reform using Christian values, then that has to be a good thing - for them and for society as a whole.'
Lady Georgie Wates, of the Prison Fellowship, said: 'I am amazed and bitterly disappointed to see a programme which is having such an impact being stopped.'
The director general of the Prison Service, Phil Wheatley, defended the decision to end the course, and insisted it 'did not fail to gain approval only because of matters of diversity'.
A Home Office spokesman said last night: 'Any programme that seeks primarily to change attitudes is required to meet the quality-assurance standards set out by the Prison Service.'
Organisers of the InnerChange course at Dartmoor jail were told their traditional message was discriminatory and did not conform to 'diversity' policy.
The decision to cancel the course, in which volunteers help prisoners prepare for life outside prison, caused outrage.
A spokesman for the independent think tank Civitas said: 'This is absolutely scandalous.
The Government is always saying we need to reform prisoners, and then when someone does something that actually works, it gets stopped.'
The InnerChange programme was modelled on a successful scheme in U.S. jails.
Prisoners who convert to Christianity are expected to live disciplined lives, and are monitored after release to ensure they do not revert to crime.
The programme, which received no state funding, was introduced by a Dartmoor chaplain last year, with the backing of the prison's then-governor Claudia Sturt.
At a recent review, prison officers said it was having a positive effect on previously difficult prisoners.
And one InnerChange volunteer said the scheme had transformed the lives of the 38 men who had taken part.
But a report by a Prison Service psychologist complained that the programme was not based on scientific research because it assumed that 'the root of offending is in individual sin'.
It said InnerChange promoted the unique virtue of heterosexual marriage, which meant it was 'discriminatory' against homosexuality.
The decision to ban the scheme comes less than a year after governors were told to put paganism on an equal footing with the major faiths by allowing altars, incense and the wearing of robes and religious jewellery in prison.
It is understood that no prisoner complained of being offended by the InnerChange programme.
A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain said: 'As this scheme was voluntary, we see no problem at all.
'If it meant prisoners were being helped to reform using Christian values, then that has to be a good thing - for them and for society as a whole.'
Lady Georgie Wates, of the Prison Fellowship, said: 'I am amazed and bitterly disappointed to see a programme which is having such an impact being stopped.'
The director general of the Prison Service, Phil Wheatley, defended the decision to end the course, and insisted it 'did not fail to gain approval only because of matters of diversity'.
A Home Office spokesman said last night: 'Any programme that seeks primarily to change attitudes is required to meet the quality-assurance standards set out by the Prison Service.'
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Another reason way I.D. cards are a bad idea
If any one out there was still labouring under the illusion that I.D. cards are a good idea and that only crims have anything to worry about then think again.
Vendetta waged by jealous policeman - Nick Britten at The Daily Telegraph
(Filed: 16/05/2006)
A jealous police inspector who abused his position to wage a vendetta against a man he suspected of having an affair with his wife was given 240 hours community service yesterday.
Mark Hession, 41, became obsessed by 35-year-old Stuart Edwards and used his rank to order colleagues to carry out checks on him on the police national database.
Having got the personal information, he forged and sent him a bogus parking fine and a notice of prosecution for driving through a red light.
Hession faces demotion and disciplinary action, although his solicitor said he intended leaving the police.
Sentencing the officer, Mr Justice Mitting said that Hession had acted "purely out of revenge and spite" and he had considered sending him to jail.
Stafford Crown Court heard that after Hession's wife, Kate, admitted that she was seeing Edwards, the West Midlands police inspector telephoned him and warned him he "can be and am a nasty person".
Mr Edwards, who is single, told the jury he only had a "platonic" relationship with Mrs Hession, their friendship lasting between Christmas 2004 until April 2005.
The court heard that three months later, on July 1, Edwards received a notice of prosecution accusing him of driving through a red light in his home town of Walsall.
Four days later he was sent a penalty notice for a parking offence, allegedly committed in Walsall on August 5, even though he insisted he had been nowhere near the area all day.
Mr Edwards "immediately thought the two allegations must be linked" and contacted the police.
An inquiry showed that Hession had used his rank to ask colleagues at the police station to run checks on Mr Edwards through the national computer, obtaining personal details.
After a five-day trial, he was found guilty by the jury of two charges of misconduct in a public office.
Vendetta waged by jealous policeman - Nick Britten at The Daily Telegraph
(Filed: 16/05/2006)
A jealous police inspector who abused his position to wage a vendetta against a man he suspected of having an affair with his wife was given 240 hours community service yesterday.
Mark Hession, 41, became obsessed by 35-year-old Stuart Edwards and used his rank to order colleagues to carry out checks on him on the police national database.
Having got the personal information, he forged and sent him a bogus parking fine and a notice of prosecution for driving through a red light.
Hession faces demotion and disciplinary action, although his solicitor said he intended leaving the police.
Sentencing the officer, Mr Justice Mitting said that Hession had acted "purely out of revenge and spite" and he had considered sending him to jail.
Stafford Crown Court heard that after Hession's wife, Kate, admitted that she was seeing Edwards, the West Midlands police inspector telephoned him and warned him he "can be and am a nasty person".
Mr Edwards, who is single, told the jury he only had a "platonic" relationship with Mrs Hession, their friendship lasting between Christmas 2004 until April 2005.
The court heard that three months later, on July 1, Edwards received a notice of prosecution accusing him of driving through a red light in his home town of Walsall.
Four days later he was sent a penalty notice for a parking offence, allegedly committed in Walsall on August 5, even though he insisted he had been nowhere near the area all day.
Mr Edwards "immediately thought the two allegations must be linked" and contacted the police.
An inquiry showed that Hession had used his rank to ask colleagues at the police station to run checks on Mr Edwards through the national computer, obtaining personal details.
After a five-day trial, he was found guilty by the jury of two charges of misconduct in a public office.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
The Sun Online - News: Blair's �14m sleaze loans
TONY Blair secured £14MILLION from secret loans at the centre of the “cash for peerages” scandal.
Labour was yesterday forced to admit it had borrowed the cash to fight last year’s General Election.
Officials refused to name the mystery backers — or say how many there were.
The sleaze row engulfing Labour deepened amid claims that the loans were used to dodge party funding rules brought in by Mr Blair.
Labour’s high command issued a hasty email to assure MPs the money had not vanished into a slush fund.
Confirmation that Labour banked £13,950,000 comes after party treasurer Jack Dromey revealed he was “kept in the dark” over the money.
Ordinary donations have to be declared but loans do not — meaning the source of the cash remains anonymous.
But ex-Downing Street adviser Lord Haskins claimed yesterday: “I do not think for one moment any of these lenders ever had any intention of asking for their money back.
“In two to three years time the loans would have been quietly written off and that would have been history. It looks a bit dodgy.”
A senior party figure confirmed there was a ploy to ask some lenders to convert loans into donations.
The source said: “You could go back later and get the lender to say, ‘OK it will be a gift and we’ll make it public’.”
Three businessmen — Chai Patel, Sir David Garrard and Barry Townsley — loaned Labour about £4.5million. They were then nominated for peerages.
The rest of the £14million came from unnamed backers — fuelling fears that Mr Blair, who yesterday visited his constituency in Sedgefield, Co Durham, is now in hock to tycoons looking for kickbacks.
It is a severe embarrassment to the PM, who brought in rules that donations over £5,000 must be published. He also promised to be “purer than pure” if he won power.
Yesterday 15 of the party’s biggest donors denied lending the cash.
Labour spent £18million on winning Mr Blair’s historic third term in 2005.
Last night party chairman Ian McCartney wrote to MPs stressing there was no slush fund.
He said: “All funds raised were spent on re-electing Labour MPs.”
Details will be revealed in the party’s annual report in the summer — but the dozen lenders will not be named.
By MICHAEL LEA at The Sun
Political Correspondent
Labour was yesterday forced to admit it had borrowed the cash to fight last year’s General Election.
Officials refused to name the mystery backers — or say how many there were.
The sleaze row engulfing Labour deepened amid claims that the loans were used to dodge party funding rules brought in by Mr Blair.
Labour’s high command issued a hasty email to assure MPs the money had not vanished into a slush fund.
Confirmation that Labour banked £13,950,000 comes after party treasurer Jack Dromey revealed he was “kept in the dark” over the money.
Ordinary donations have to be declared but loans do not — meaning the source of the cash remains anonymous.
But ex-Downing Street adviser Lord Haskins claimed yesterday: “I do not think for one moment any of these lenders ever had any intention of asking for their money back.
“In two to three years time the loans would have been quietly written off and that would have been history. It looks a bit dodgy.”
A senior party figure confirmed there was a ploy to ask some lenders to convert loans into donations.
The source said: “You could go back later and get the lender to say, ‘OK it will be a gift and we’ll make it public’.”
Three businessmen — Chai Patel, Sir David Garrard and Barry Townsley — loaned Labour about £4.5million. They were then nominated for peerages.
The rest of the £14million came from unnamed backers — fuelling fears that Mr Blair, who yesterday visited his constituency in Sedgefield, Co Durham, is now in hock to tycoons looking for kickbacks.
It is a severe embarrassment to the PM, who brought in rules that donations over £5,000 must be published. He also promised to be “purer than pure” if he won power.
Yesterday 15 of the party’s biggest donors denied lending the cash.
Labour spent £18million on winning Mr Blair’s historic third term in 2005.
Last night party chairman Ian McCartney wrote to MPs stressing there was no slush fund.
He said: “All funds raised were spent on re-electing Labour MPs.”
Details will be revealed in the party’s annual report in the summer — but the dozen lenders will not be named.
By MICHAEL LEA at The Sun
Political Correspondent
New Labour Mayor dodges fraud charges
A MAYOR declared himself too ill to face a court on benefit fraud charges — but turned up 48 hours later at a SOCCER match.
Labour councillor John Walker, 55, braved freezing weather to cheer on his Liverpool heroes as they thrashed Fulham 5-1.
Earlier he cried off from court because of high blood pressure.
Councillor Walker is Mayor of Sefton, Liverpool. Wrapped in fleece jacket and a heavy scarf to ward off the cold winds, he was snapped at Wednesday’s Premiership match as he chatted to a fellow fan.
One supporter said: “He was standing up from his seat. It didn’t appear to me that he was ill in any way.”
Mr Walker said last night:
My blood pressure is 186 over 105 — that’s why I couldn’t go to court. I went to the match as a form of relief.
I was taken to the game, dropped off near the ground and walked a short distance to the stadium. I was picked up afterwards, too.
I think turning up at a court hearing is a tad more stressful than going to a football match.
The game was relaxation — am I not fit enough to do that?
I can’t believe somebody has taken a picture of me at Anfield. I’m being hounded. It’s outrageous.
He faces three counts of false accounting and one of failing to report a change in circumstances.
The case was adjourned until April 27 . . . two days before Liverpool face Aston Villa at Anfield.
By GUY PATRICK at The Sun
Labour councillor John Walker, 55, braved freezing weather to cheer on his Liverpool heroes as they thrashed Fulham 5-1.
Earlier he cried off from court because of high blood pressure.
Councillor Walker is Mayor of Sefton, Liverpool. Wrapped in fleece jacket and a heavy scarf to ward off the cold winds, he was snapped at Wednesday’s Premiership match as he chatted to a fellow fan.
One supporter said: “He was standing up from his seat. It didn’t appear to me that he was ill in any way.”
Mr Walker said last night:
My blood pressure is 186 over 105 — that’s why I couldn’t go to court. I went to the match as a form of relief.
I was taken to the game, dropped off near the ground and walked a short distance to the stadium. I was picked up afterwards, too.
I think turning up at a court hearing is a tad more stressful than going to a football match.
The game was relaxation — am I not fit enough to do that?
I can’t believe somebody has taken a picture of me at Anfield. I’m being hounded. It’s outrageous.
He faces three counts of false accounting and one of failing to report a change in circumstances.
The case was adjourned until April 27 . . . two days before Liverpool face Aston Villa at Anfield.
By GUY PATRICK at The Sun
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
New Labour uturn on water taxing
Water firm's landmark meters win
1 March 2006
Millions of families could be forced to have water meters following a landmark ruling by ministers.
Folkestone & Dover Water has been granted the power to install compulsory water meters in 200,000 homes, in a landmark ministerial ruling which could affect millions of families.
Industry experts believe other water companies will follow suit now Environment Minister Elliot Morley has given Folkestone & Dover Water the green light.
Britain faces one of the worst droughts for 100 years after two consecutive dry winters.
Major house-building programmes are placing additional strain on the South and East.
The Government's Environment Agency last week announced it favoured compulsory metering in southern England.
However, the move is highly controversial because critics see it as rationing by price.
Labour fiercely opposed compulsory metering in Opposition, calling them a "tax on family life".
The Folkestone & Dover firm applied for "water scarcity status" which gives it strong powers over supplies and use.
Car washes could be shut down and parks go unwatered in times of drought. The application, the first of its kind, allows the firm to introduce compulsory water meters. The company aims to ensure 90% of its customers use meters by 2015, according to the Daily Mail.
1 March 2006
Millions of families could be forced to have water meters following a landmark ruling by ministers.
Folkestone & Dover Water has been granted the power to install compulsory water meters in 200,000 homes, in a landmark ministerial ruling which could affect millions of families.
Industry experts believe other water companies will follow suit now Environment Minister Elliot Morley has given Folkestone & Dover Water the green light.
Britain faces one of the worst droughts for 100 years after two consecutive dry winters.
Major house-building programmes are placing additional strain on the South and East.
The Government's Environment Agency last week announced it favoured compulsory metering in southern England.
However, the move is highly controversial because critics see it as rationing by price.
Labour fiercely opposed compulsory metering in Opposition, calling them a "tax on family life".
The Folkestone & Dover firm applied for "water scarcity status" which gives it strong powers over supplies and use.
Car washes could be shut down and parks go unwatered in times of drought. The application, the first of its kind, allows the firm to introduce compulsory water meters. The company aims to ensure 90% of its customers use meters by 2015, according to the Daily Mail.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Scotsman.com News - Cover-up, conspiracy and the Lockerbie bomb connection
IF THERE is a day when the seemingly inconsequential case involving DC Shirley McKie morphed into the crisis which today is threatening the reputation of Scotland's judicial and political system, it is Thursday, August 3, 2000.
It was already more than three years since McKie (pictured left) had visited a house in Kilmarnock where a woman called Marion Ross had been brutally murdered. Since then McKie had been accused of entering that house unauthorised, and leaving her fingerprint on the crime scene. She had been charged with perjury, after claiming in court she had never set foot in there. She had been humiliated at the hands of her former colleagues.
Now, on that August day, a group set up by the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland (ACPOS) to examine the McKie case, was faced with a stunning report. It had already been established that the fingerprint experts at the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) had got it wrong and that the print was not McKie's. Now, the document in front of the group - an interim update from James Mackay, the man they had asked to investigate the case - claimed the SCRO officers had acted criminally to cover up their mistakes. The consequences were immense: if Scotland's forensic service was both guilty of errors and of attempting to conceal those errors, what confidence could anyone have in the entire justice system?
Last week, Scotland on Sunday revealed the contents of Mackay's final report, which had been kept secret for six years, and which was never acted upon by Scotland's chief prosecutor, Lord Advocate Colin Boyd. This week, we can reveal that it was not just police and prosecutors who knew its contents; the devastating findings of the interim version were passed on to ministers as well.
Mackay, a much respected former Deputy Chief Constable of Tayside police, had been commissioned to investigate the McKie case after a separate report by HM Inspectors of Constabulary had found that - despite the SCRO's claims - McKie's prints had never been at the crime scene. Mackay now probed deeper. As this newspaper revealed last week, his final report found that a mistake had been made, yet had not then been owned up to. "The fact that it was not so dealt with," he reported, "led to 'cover up' and criminality."
Now Scotland on Sunday has been passed documents obtained under Freedom of Information legislation which show that on the same day that Mackay's interim findings were being given to police chiefs, the then Justice Minister Jim Wallace was also informed of the results. The language used to describe Mackay's findings to Wallace was even starker than that used in the report itself.
The proof comes in an e-mail written by a senior official in the Scottish Executive Justice Department, Sheena Maclaren, to another senior Justice Department official, John Rafferty. Maclaren, who was the secretary of the Department's second police division, handled the correspondence of Wallace.
On September 20, 2001, Maclaren wrote: "James Mackay, then DCC Tayside police, was appointed to lead the investigation of the issues relating to fingerprint evidence. On 3 August 2000, we were informed that investigations so far suggested that the evidence given in court by... SCRO fingerprint personnel was 'so significantly distorted that without further explanation, the SCRO identification likely amounts to collective manipulation and collective collusion'."
She added: "Mr W Rae, then President of ACPOS and President of SCRO's Executive Committee, decided that given the circumstances, all Chief Constables concluded that there was no alternative but to 'precautionary suspend' the 4 SCRO personnel. This was done on 3 August by the Director of SCRO. Ministers, copied to Richard Henderson and others, were informed of this decision in a minute from John Rowell on 3 August 2000."
Rowell, another head of police in the Scottish Executive's Justice Department, sat on the executive committee of the SCRO. A minute of the committee meeting on October 27, 2000, attended by Rowell, confirmed that he too saw Mackay's findings. "Mr Rae [the chairman] had made available copies of [Mackay's] Interim Report," the minute declares.
Last week, before being confronted with today's revelations, the Scottish Executive confirmed it had never been given sight of Mackay's report. A spokesman for the Justice Department said: "It would not have been appropriate for Scottish Ministers to have seen the report. It remains a confidential report between the police and the Crown Office and Scottish Ministers (except for the Lord Advocate in his capacity as head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal's office) have never been passed a copy of the report." Asked whether the First Minister had seen the report, his spokesman replied: "No - and neither have any other Ministers past or present as this was a confidential report between the police and the Crown Office."
After being told about the e-mails yesterday, a spokesman for the Executive insisted that they only referred to Mackay's interim findings, not to his full report which was published some months later. The spokesman said: "This e-mail exchange simply confirms that the Executive was made aware of the rationale for that action [suspension of the SCRO officers]. As the e-mail makes clear, this was interim information provided to the Executive in the year 2000 around the time of the suspension decision." The spokesman said that a civil service note had been sent to Wallace after the August 2000 meeting which "would have confirmed the reasons why there were going to be suspensions". The spokesman added that it was for the Lord Advocate, not his fellow ministers, to act on the findings of the Mackay report.
Last night there were further questions from the McKie family and their supporters over why, when faced with such staggering allegations, ministers failed to do more to address the SCRO's failings.
Iain McKie, Shirley McKie's father, said: "This reveals that at that time in August 2000, the Mackay report was being discussed within Jim Wallace's department. The whole case has now reached staggering proportions and if ever a public inquiry was required it is required now."
Wallace was unavailable for comment yesterday - and with his successor Cathy Jamieson remaining silent about the scandal, it has been left to Boyd to explain the inaction. On Friday, he declared that he had seen the full Mackay report and decided that there was still insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone from the SCRO. This decision, taken in September 2001, astonished Mackay. He is understood to have expressed his "surprise" and "disappointment" to the Crown Office and to have relayed his concerns to the then deputy crown agent, Bill Gilchrist. Indeed, so curious is the Lord Advocate's decision not to prosecute, that many are reaching their own conclusions as to why he didn't press ahead with a prosecution.
One is the theory that such a prosecution would undermine the case against David Asbury, the man jailed for the murder of Marion Ross. Such a fear was misguided: Asbury's conviction was quashed anyway in August 2002 on the back of the McKie revelations.
A second theory brings in the shadow of the Lockerbie bombing. Mackay's explosive report into the McKie case that August came three months after Boyd began the prosecution of Libyan suspects Abdelbaset Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah. The eyes of the world were focused on Scottish justice. What would it have said of that system if - just as the Crown was trying to convict the bombers - it emerged that fingerprint officials had been involved in "criminality and cover-up"?
Boyd strenuously denies that Lockerbie has any relevance to his judgments regarding the McKie case. When Iain McKie first raised the issue in 2000, Crown Office officials declared that Lockerbie "had not affected in any way the response from this or indeed any other department of the Scottish Executive to the issues raised by you."
But there is clear proof that senior justice chiefs had a stake in both cases; SCRO director Harry Bell, for example - whose agency was coming under such scrutiny - was a central figure in the Lockerbie investigation, having been given the key role in the crucial Maltese wing of the investigation, and given evidence in court.
Today's revelation that two American fingerprint experts who savaged the SCRO over the McKie case were asked by the FBI to "back off" suggests that plenty of people were aware of the danger that the case could undermine the Lockerbie trial.
Former MP Tam Dalyell - who has long campaigned on the Lockerbie case - said: "I have always felt that there was something deeply wrong with both the McKie case and the Lockerbie judgment. It is deeply dismaying for those of us who were believers in Scottish justice. The Crown Office regard the Lockerbie case as their flagship case and they will go to any lengths to defend their position."
The pressure for a full public inquiry is now growing day by day.
It is understood that, this week, the Scottish Parliament's Justice 1 Committee will consider launching a full parliamentary inquiry. One thing is sure: this murky affair looks set to rock the foundations of Scotland's criminal justice system.
• SCOTLAND on Sunday revealed last week that justice officials were warned six years ago by police of "cover-up and criminality" in the Shirley McKie fingerprint case. Our story was picked up across Scotland, leading to calls for a judicial inquiry from MSPs.
Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson is now under growing pressure to act over the scandal but - nearly two weeks on - has so far refused to talk once about why ministers decided to offer £750,000 to Shirley McKie, just as she was about to take her case to court.
Lord Advocate Colin Boyd is also in the firing line, over his decision not to press charges against fingerprint experts, despite the allegations of criminality. Jim Wallace, Justice Minister when the McKie scandal broke, is also under fire. He was aware of the allegations but failed to act. First Minister Jack McConnell is under pressure to call a public inquiry.
• TWO American fingerprint experts were warned by the FBI to back off from the Shirley McKie case for fear it would scupper the trial of the Lockerbie bombers.
David Grieve, the senior fingerprint expert at Illinois State police, said that FBI agents pleaded with him to stay silent, fearing the case "would taint the people involved in Lockerbie".
Campaigners for the McKie family last night claimed that the plea to "let everything drop" shed new light on why the former policewoman was denied justice. They believe that the Crown was determined to protect the reputation of the Scottish justice system at a time when it was coming under international scrutiny.
The astonishing claims come as Scotland on Sunday reveals that:
• former justice minister Jim Wallace was aware six years ago that fingerprint experts at the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) were accused of "collective manipulation and collective collusion", yet they were allowed to return to work two years later;
• MSPs are preparing to launch their own parliamentary inquiry into the scandal to get to the truth of the allegations.
Wertheim and Grieve, both internationally respected fingerprint experts, were central in clearing McKie in 1999 when she was accused of having left her fingerprint at a crime scene. The case left the Scottish justice system open to claims its fingerprint evidence was unsafe. FBI officers took both aside before the Lockerbie trial in the Hague began in February 2000.
Grieve, the senior fingerprint expert at Illinois State Police, said: "I was asked not to mention anything about the case and not to publicise it because we had to think about the higher goal, which was Lockerbie."
He also claims that the FBI had been visited weeks earlier by an official from the SCRO.
"I was pulled aside and given a lecture on the importance of not embarrassing a 'sister agency' which had 'very important and high profile' cases pending of an international significance. I knew the reference was to the Pan-Am bombing," he said.
Wertheim, a fingerprint expert of 20 years' experience, added: "I was at the FBI for a meeting and one of their people approached me and made the suggestion that I let everything drop."
Iain McKie, Shirley McKie's father, said yesterday that he believed Lockerbie provided a motive for the 'cover up' over his daughter's case.
He said: "I have always suspected the Lockerbie connection, but when I put it to the Lord Advocate, I got nothing from them. I could never understand why they treated my daughter like that. Lockerbie would give them that motivation."
Former MSP Mike Russell, who has campaigned for the McKie family, said: "This new information suggests the context for the Shirley McKie miscarriage of justice. It suggests that this context is much bigger than previously thought.
"It places the Lord Advocate in a completely untenable position and he too must now be considering his future. If he was influenced by this [Lockerbie] then he cannot continue as Lord Advocate."
SNP MSP Alex Neil, another campaigner for the McKies, said: "A lot of people think that there was pressure put on the FBI by the Scottish law authorities which maybe explains some of the bizarre decisions taken by the Lord Advocate."
The link between Lockerbie and the McKie case goes deeper as several police chiefs and prosecutors were involved in both. The director of the SCRO at the time of the allegations of criminality, Harry Bell, was one of the key police officers whose evidence led to the conviction of Abdel-baset Al Megrahi.
Lord Advocate Colin Boyd led the Lockerbie trial, securing a conviction in January 2001. In September of that year, despite the evidence presented by the Mackay report, he decided not to prosecute the SCRO officers over the McKie case.
The SCRO admitted yesterday that its officials had visited the FBI in 1999 and 2000, but insisted the trips had nothing to do with the McKie case.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Crown Office strongly denied that the decision not to prosecute the SCRO officers had been taken with Lockerbie in mind. She said: "SCRO was not involved in any way with fingerprinting in the Lockerbie case, the evidence of which was never disputed at all."
Boyd declared on Friday that he had decided not to prosecute the four SCRO officials because of "conflicting" evidence from fingerprint experts. He added that a prosecution would have to prove criminal intent.
Wilful blindness to the truth threatens to erode justice
IT SHOULD worry us all that after more than six years of embarrassment about the quality of fingerprint evidence in Scotland and the calibre of work done by the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO), the senior prosecutor in the land appears to have learnt nothing.
At the very least, we can say with confidence that the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, has failed to grasp a critical issue at the heart of this debate.
In a letter Boyd sent on Friday to the presiding officer George Reid to explain his decisions to prosecute Shirley McKie for perjury and not to prosecute the four SCRO experts who misidentified a print at a murder scene as hers, he writes: "Since the time the issue arose in the trial of Shirley McKie, there have always been, and there remain, conflicting expert views on the issue of identification of the relevant fingerprints.
"I concluded in 2001 that the conflict in expert evidence was such that there could be no question of criminal proceedings."
In the earlier days of the debate, Willie Rae, then Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway and now the top man at Strathclyde, said in front of TV cameras that fingerprinting was not an exact science, and that the McKie case was simply a difference of opinion between experts.
More recently, Jim Wallace, while still Justice Minister, reached a similar conclusion. Boyd has now revealed he too remains unenlightened.
Fingerprinting, properly administered, is an exact science. Ask any of the genuine experts, such as Allan Bayle, formerly of Scotland Yard, or Pat Wertheim, the American expert who testified so brilliantly at McKie's trial in 1999. But even common sense should tell us, given the fact that people have been executed - and still are in some parts of the world - on the strength of a fingerprint, that it has to be precise.
There is a stubborn refusal by the SCRO to admit even that an error was made, far less something more sinister, even though the Crown Office and the Executive have long since conceded that point. This pig-headedness ensures that changes that are crying out to be made are kept in check.
The SCRO still makes an identification based on establishing 16 points of similarity. In more advanced centres around the world, experts examine the whole mark and don't work to a numerical, and fallible, standard.
Better practices and training are available, but despite making another major error in a mark left at a bank robbery in Ayrshire two years ago, SCRO continues to spurn them. The result is that Scottish fingerprinting has become a laughing stock around the world.
Independent experts have also been highly critical about SCRO's crime-scene investigation work, described by Bayle as the worst he's ever seen. The organisation must be forced to acknowledge its many flaws.
There is also a pressing need to break the strong link between the SCRO and the police service, especially Strathclyde Police. The current director, John McLean, was an Assistant Chief Constable with the force. His predecessor, Harry Bell, was a Det Chief Superintendent there.
Agencies involved in detecting and solving crime, the police, forensic examiners, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, tend to form bonds and pull together. But that has to be resisted as it undermines the necessary independence of each of those bodies.
Scientists and analysts who examine crime scenes for fingerprints, traces of DNA and any other clues should simply be concerned with finding the best evidence and passing it on. They should not become part of the drive to secure the conviction of an accused person. It has been suggested to Scotland on Sunday that SCRO experts have in the past been given targets to meet in making positive identifications. That should never happen. A print either matches a crime scene mark or it does not.
International experts have proved the mark in Marion Ross's home was not left by McKie; five colleagues of the four who insisted it was refused to support their identification; an independent inquiry by senior police officers found evidence of criminality on the part of the SCRO. Yet the organisation, with no dissent from the Executive or the Crown Office, continues to stand by its discredited experts. It does not bode well for Scottish justice.
MARCELLO MEGA
ED: Have Labour no shame?
It was already more than three years since McKie (pictured left) had visited a house in Kilmarnock where a woman called Marion Ross had been brutally murdered. Since then McKie had been accused of entering that house unauthorised, and leaving her fingerprint on the crime scene. She had been charged with perjury, after claiming in court she had never set foot in there. She had been humiliated at the hands of her former colleagues.
Now, on that August day, a group set up by the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland (ACPOS) to examine the McKie case, was faced with a stunning report. It had already been established that the fingerprint experts at the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) had got it wrong and that the print was not McKie's. Now, the document in front of the group - an interim update from James Mackay, the man they had asked to investigate the case - claimed the SCRO officers had acted criminally to cover up their mistakes. The consequences were immense: if Scotland's forensic service was both guilty of errors and of attempting to conceal those errors, what confidence could anyone have in the entire justice system?
Last week, Scotland on Sunday revealed the contents of Mackay's final report, which had been kept secret for six years, and which was never acted upon by Scotland's chief prosecutor, Lord Advocate Colin Boyd. This week, we can reveal that it was not just police and prosecutors who knew its contents; the devastating findings of the interim version were passed on to ministers as well.
Mackay, a much respected former Deputy Chief Constable of Tayside police, had been commissioned to investigate the McKie case after a separate report by HM Inspectors of Constabulary had found that - despite the SCRO's claims - McKie's prints had never been at the crime scene. Mackay now probed deeper. As this newspaper revealed last week, his final report found that a mistake had been made, yet had not then been owned up to. "The fact that it was not so dealt with," he reported, "led to 'cover up' and criminality."
Now Scotland on Sunday has been passed documents obtained under Freedom of Information legislation which show that on the same day that Mackay's interim findings were being given to police chiefs, the then Justice Minister Jim Wallace was also informed of the results. The language used to describe Mackay's findings to Wallace was even starker than that used in the report itself.
The proof comes in an e-mail written by a senior official in the Scottish Executive Justice Department, Sheena Maclaren, to another senior Justice Department official, John Rafferty. Maclaren, who was the secretary of the Department's second police division, handled the correspondence of Wallace.
On September 20, 2001, Maclaren wrote: "James Mackay, then DCC Tayside police, was appointed to lead the investigation of the issues relating to fingerprint evidence. On 3 August 2000, we were informed that investigations so far suggested that the evidence given in court by... SCRO fingerprint personnel was 'so significantly distorted that without further explanation, the SCRO identification likely amounts to collective manipulation and collective collusion'."
She added: "Mr W Rae, then President of ACPOS and President of SCRO's Executive Committee, decided that given the circumstances, all Chief Constables concluded that there was no alternative but to 'precautionary suspend' the 4 SCRO personnel. This was done on 3 August by the Director of SCRO. Ministers, copied to Richard Henderson and others, were informed of this decision in a minute from John Rowell on 3 August 2000."
Rowell, another head of police in the Scottish Executive's Justice Department, sat on the executive committee of the SCRO. A minute of the committee meeting on October 27, 2000, attended by Rowell, confirmed that he too saw Mackay's findings. "Mr Rae [the chairman] had made available copies of [Mackay's] Interim Report," the minute declares.
Last week, before being confronted with today's revelations, the Scottish Executive confirmed it had never been given sight of Mackay's report. A spokesman for the Justice Department said: "It would not have been appropriate for Scottish Ministers to have seen the report. It remains a confidential report between the police and the Crown Office and Scottish Ministers (except for the Lord Advocate in his capacity as head of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal's office) have never been passed a copy of the report." Asked whether the First Minister had seen the report, his spokesman replied: "No - and neither have any other Ministers past or present as this was a confidential report between the police and the Crown Office."
After being told about the e-mails yesterday, a spokesman for the Executive insisted that they only referred to Mackay's interim findings, not to his full report which was published some months later. The spokesman said: "This e-mail exchange simply confirms that the Executive was made aware of the rationale for that action [suspension of the SCRO officers]. As the e-mail makes clear, this was interim information provided to the Executive in the year 2000 around the time of the suspension decision." The spokesman said that a civil service note had been sent to Wallace after the August 2000 meeting which "would have confirmed the reasons why there were going to be suspensions". The spokesman added that it was for the Lord Advocate, not his fellow ministers, to act on the findings of the Mackay report.
Last night there were further questions from the McKie family and their supporters over why, when faced with such staggering allegations, ministers failed to do more to address the SCRO's failings.
Iain McKie, Shirley McKie's father, said: "This reveals that at that time in August 2000, the Mackay report was being discussed within Jim Wallace's department. The whole case has now reached staggering proportions and if ever a public inquiry was required it is required now."
Wallace was unavailable for comment yesterday - and with his successor Cathy Jamieson remaining silent about the scandal, it has been left to Boyd to explain the inaction. On Friday, he declared that he had seen the full Mackay report and decided that there was still insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone from the SCRO. This decision, taken in September 2001, astonished Mackay. He is understood to have expressed his "surprise" and "disappointment" to the Crown Office and to have relayed his concerns to the then deputy crown agent, Bill Gilchrist. Indeed, so curious is the Lord Advocate's decision not to prosecute, that many are reaching their own conclusions as to why he didn't press ahead with a prosecution.
One is the theory that such a prosecution would undermine the case against David Asbury, the man jailed for the murder of Marion Ross. Such a fear was misguided: Asbury's conviction was quashed anyway in August 2002 on the back of the McKie revelations.
A second theory brings in the shadow of the Lockerbie bombing. Mackay's explosive report into the McKie case that August came three months after Boyd began the prosecution of Libyan suspects Abdelbaset Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah. The eyes of the world were focused on Scottish justice. What would it have said of that system if - just as the Crown was trying to convict the bombers - it emerged that fingerprint officials had been involved in "criminality and cover-up"?
Boyd strenuously denies that Lockerbie has any relevance to his judgments regarding the McKie case. When Iain McKie first raised the issue in 2000, Crown Office officials declared that Lockerbie "had not affected in any way the response from this or indeed any other department of the Scottish Executive to the issues raised by you."
But there is clear proof that senior justice chiefs had a stake in both cases; SCRO director Harry Bell, for example - whose agency was coming under such scrutiny - was a central figure in the Lockerbie investigation, having been given the key role in the crucial Maltese wing of the investigation, and given evidence in court.
Today's revelation that two American fingerprint experts who savaged the SCRO over the McKie case were asked by the FBI to "back off" suggests that plenty of people were aware of the danger that the case could undermine the Lockerbie trial.
Former MP Tam Dalyell - who has long campaigned on the Lockerbie case - said: "I have always felt that there was something deeply wrong with both the McKie case and the Lockerbie judgment. It is deeply dismaying for those of us who were believers in Scottish justice. The Crown Office regard the Lockerbie case as their flagship case and they will go to any lengths to defend their position."
The pressure for a full public inquiry is now growing day by day.
It is understood that, this week, the Scottish Parliament's Justice 1 Committee will consider launching a full parliamentary inquiry. One thing is sure: this murky affair looks set to rock the foundations of Scotland's criminal justice system.
• SCOTLAND on Sunday revealed last week that justice officials were warned six years ago by police of "cover-up and criminality" in the Shirley McKie fingerprint case. Our story was picked up across Scotland, leading to calls for a judicial inquiry from MSPs.
Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson is now under growing pressure to act over the scandal but - nearly two weeks on - has so far refused to talk once about why ministers decided to offer £750,000 to Shirley McKie, just as she was about to take her case to court.
Lord Advocate Colin Boyd is also in the firing line, over his decision not to press charges against fingerprint experts, despite the allegations of criminality. Jim Wallace, Justice Minister when the McKie scandal broke, is also under fire. He was aware of the allegations but failed to act. First Minister Jack McConnell is under pressure to call a public inquiry.
• TWO American fingerprint experts were warned by the FBI to back off from the Shirley McKie case for fear it would scupper the trial of the Lockerbie bombers.
David Grieve, the senior fingerprint expert at Illinois State police, said that FBI agents pleaded with him to stay silent, fearing the case "would taint the people involved in Lockerbie".
Campaigners for the McKie family last night claimed that the plea to "let everything drop" shed new light on why the former policewoman was denied justice. They believe that the Crown was determined to protect the reputation of the Scottish justice system at a time when it was coming under international scrutiny.
The astonishing claims come as Scotland on Sunday reveals that:
• former justice minister Jim Wallace was aware six years ago that fingerprint experts at the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) were accused of "collective manipulation and collective collusion", yet they were allowed to return to work two years later;
• MSPs are preparing to launch their own parliamentary inquiry into the scandal to get to the truth of the allegations.
Wertheim and Grieve, both internationally respected fingerprint experts, were central in clearing McKie in 1999 when she was accused of having left her fingerprint at a crime scene. The case left the Scottish justice system open to claims its fingerprint evidence was unsafe. FBI officers took both aside before the Lockerbie trial in the Hague began in February 2000.
Grieve, the senior fingerprint expert at Illinois State Police, said: "I was asked not to mention anything about the case and not to publicise it because we had to think about the higher goal, which was Lockerbie."
He also claims that the FBI had been visited weeks earlier by an official from the SCRO.
"I was pulled aside and given a lecture on the importance of not embarrassing a 'sister agency' which had 'very important and high profile' cases pending of an international significance. I knew the reference was to the Pan-Am bombing," he said.
Wertheim, a fingerprint expert of 20 years' experience, added: "I was at the FBI for a meeting and one of their people approached me and made the suggestion that I let everything drop."
Iain McKie, Shirley McKie's father, said yesterday that he believed Lockerbie provided a motive for the 'cover up' over his daughter's case.
He said: "I have always suspected the Lockerbie connection, but when I put it to the Lord Advocate, I got nothing from them. I could never understand why they treated my daughter like that. Lockerbie would give them that motivation."
Former MSP Mike Russell, who has campaigned for the McKie family, said: "This new information suggests the context for the Shirley McKie miscarriage of justice. It suggests that this context is much bigger than previously thought.
"It places the Lord Advocate in a completely untenable position and he too must now be considering his future. If he was influenced by this [Lockerbie] then he cannot continue as Lord Advocate."
SNP MSP Alex Neil, another campaigner for the McKies, said: "A lot of people think that there was pressure put on the FBI by the Scottish law authorities which maybe explains some of the bizarre decisions taken by the Lord Advocate."
The link between Lockerbie and the McKie case goes deeper as several police chiefs and prosecutors were involved in both. The director of the SCRO at the time of the allegations of criminality, Harry Bell, was one of the key police officers whose evidence led to the conviction of Abdel-baset Al Megrahi.
Lord Advocate Colin Boyd led the Lockerbie trial, securing a conviction in January 2001. In September of that year, despite the evidence presented by the Mackay report, he decided not to prosecute the SCRO officers over the McKie case.
The SCRO admitted yesterday that its officials had visited the FBI in 1999 and 2000, but insisted the trips had nothing to do with the McKie case.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Crown Office strongly denied that the decision not to prosecute the SCRO officers had been taken with Lockerbie in mind. She said: "SCRO was not involved in any way with fingerprinting in the Lockerbie case, the evidence of which was never disputed at all."
Boyd declared on Friday that he had decided not to prosecute the four SCRO officials because of "conflicting" evidence from fingerprint experts. He added that a prosecution would have to prove criminal intent.
Wilful blindness to the truth threatens to erode justice
IT SHOULD worry us all that after more than six years of embarrassment about the quality of fingerprint evidence in Scotland and the calibre of work done by the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO), the senior prosecutor in the land appears to have learnt nothing.
At the very least, we can say with confidence that the Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, has failed to grasp a critical issue at the heart of this debate.
In a letter Boyd sent on Friday to the presiding officer George Reid to explain his decisions to prosecute Shirley McKie for perjury and not to prosecute the four SCRO experts who misidentified a print at a murder scene as hers, he writes: "Since the time the issue arose in the trial of Shirley McKie, there have always been, and there remain, conflicting expert views on the issue of identification of the relevant fingerprints.
"I concluded in 2001 that the conflict in expert evidence was such that there could be no question of criminal proceedings."
In the earlier days of the debate, Willie Rae, then Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway and now the top man at Strathclyde, said in front of TV cameras that fingerprinting was not an exact science, and that the McKie case was simply a difference of opinion between experts.
More recently, Jim Wallace, while still Justice Minister, reached a similar conclusion. Boyd has now revealed he too remains unenlightened.
Fingerprinting, properly administered, is an exact science. Ask any of the genuine experts, such as Allan Bayle, formerly of Scotland Yard, or Pat Wertheim, the American expert who testified so brilliantly at McKie's trial in 1999. But even common sense should tell us, given the fact that people have been executed - and still are in some parts of the world - on the strength of a fingerprint, that it has to be precise.
There is a stubborn refusal by the SCRO to admit even that an error was made, far less something more sinister, even though the Crown Office and the Executive have long since conceded that point. This pig-headedness ensures that changes that are crying out to be made are kept in check.
The SCRO still makes an identification based on establishing 16 points of similarity. In more advanced centres around the world, experts examine the whole mark and don't work to a numerical, and fallible, standard.
Better practices and training are available, but despite making another major error in a mark left at a bank robbery in Ayrshire two years ago, SCRO continues to spurn them. The result is that Scottish fingerprinting has become a laughing stock around the world.
Independent experts have also been highly critical about SCRO's crime-scene investigation work, described by Bayle as the worst he's ever seen. The organisation must be forced to acknowledge its many flaws.
There is also a pressing need to break the strong link between the SCRO and the police service, especially Strathclyde Police. The current director, John McLean, was an Assistant Chief Constable with the force. His predecessor, Harry Bell, was a Det Chief Superintendent there.
Agencies involved in detecting and solving crime, the police, forensic examiners, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, tend to form bonds and pull together. But that has to be resisted as it undermines the necessary independence of each of those bodies.
Scientists and analysts who examine crime scenes for fingerprints, traces of DNA and any other clues should simply be concerned with finding the best evidence and passing it on. They should not become part of the drive to secure the conviction of an accused person. It has been suggested to Scotland on Sunday that SCRO experts have in the past been given targets to meet in making positive identifications. That should never happen. A print either matches a crime scene mark or it does not.
International experts have proved the mark in Marion Ross's home was not left by McKie; five colleagues of the four who insisted it was refused to support their identification; an independent inquiry by senior police officers found evidence of criminality on the part of the SCRO. Yet the organisation, with no dissent from the Executive or the Crown Office, continues to stand by its discredited experts. It does not bode well for Scottish justice.
MARCELLO MEGA
ED: Have Labour no shame?
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Official figures on crime and drink just don't add up
The Home Office was under fire last night after publishing statistics purporting to show that violent crime fell in the weeks after pubs were allowed to extend opening hours.
The Tories accused ministers of spinning "bogus" figures to justify the reforms and the Statistics Commission, an independent watchdog set up to ensure that Government figures are trustworthy, said it was concerned about the way they had been compiled and released.
The one-off exercise compared violent offences recorded by the police in December last year with those in October, the month before the reforms. Normally, figures are compared with the preceding quarter or with the same time-frame of the previous year.
The Home Office said that violent crime had fallen by 11 per cent, from 103,061 in October to 90,847 in December, a period which coincided with a big increase in policing of trouble spots after the licensing reforms took effect on Nov 24.
Ministers said the fall in violence demonstrated that more flexible licensing hours and tougher enforcement helped to reduce crime, confounding the forecasts of an increase in alcohol-related disorder.
Tony Blair said in the Commons: "Flexible licensing balanced by additional powers was the right thing to do and has been shown to be the right thing to do."
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, said: "These figures are a credit to all those committed to tackling alcohol-related disorder."
But the exercise again called into question the use of statistics by the Home Office. They did not conform to any recognised methodology and were also leaked to certain media outlets for maximum political impact.
It was impossible to tell from the figures whether alcohol-related violence had fallen or whether more police on the streets had pushed down offences.
Yet this did not stop ministers from hailing the figures as a vindication of their policies.
In December, a report from the Statistics Commission said the Home Office should be stripped of responsibility for publishing crime statistics because public trust had been eroded, partly by departmental manipulation of their timing and context.
After the criticism, Mr Clarke set up a review of crime statistics that is due to report in the summer.
Richard Alldritt, the chief executive of the Statistics Commission, said: "We are concerned about the way in which the figures are coming out and would like to see a proper statistical statement."
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "What this shows is that if you put more bobbies on the street you will cut crime.
"However, these figures are a result of a six-week crackdown on violence which cost £2.5 million - what happens when this money runs out?"
He added: "The Government should not use these bogus, inappropriate and spun statistics to justify its 24-hour drinking proposals."
Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "The police have our full support in cracking down on alcohol-fuelled violence, and proper enforcement has clearly led to fewer shops and pubs selling alcohol to under-18s.
"However, public confidence is seriously undermined when sloppy statistics are presented as fact."
(From Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor, at The Daily Telegraph)
Ed: use of data in this way by a Public Company would lead to the resignation of the Chairman.
The Tories accused ministers of spinning "bogus" figures to justify the reforms and the Statistics Commission, an independent watchdog set up to ensure that Government figures are trustworthy, said it was concerned about the way they had been compiled and released.
The one-off exercise compared violent offences recorded by the police in December last year with those in October, the month before the reforms. Normally, figures are compared with the preceding quarter or with the same time-frame of the previous year.
The Home Office said that violent crime had fallen by 11 per cent, from 103,061 in October to 90,847 in December, a period which coincided with a big increase in policing of trouble spots after the licensing reforms took effect on Nov 24.
Ministers said the fall in violence demonstrated that more flexible licensing hours and tougher enforcement helped to reduce crime, confounding the forecasts of an increase in alcohol-related disorder.
Tony Blair said in the Commons: "Flexible licensing balanced by additional powers was the right thing to do and has been shown to be the right thing to do."
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, said: "These figures are a credit to all those committed to tackling alcohol-related disorder."
But the exercise again called into question the use of statistics by the Home Office. They did not conform to any recognised methodology and were also leaked to certain media outlets for maximum political impact.
It was impossible to tell from the figures whether alcohol-related violence had fallen or whether more police on the streets had pushed down offences.
Yet this did not stop ministers from hailing the figures as a vindication of their policies.
In December, a report from the Statistics Commission said the Home Office should be stripped of responsibility for publishing crime statistics because public trust had been eroded, partly by departmental manipulation of their timing and context.
After the criticism, Mr Clarke set up a review of crime statistics that is due to report in the summer.
Richard Alldritt, the chief executive of the Statistics Commission, said: "We are concerned about the way in which the figures are coming out and would like to see a proper statistical statement."
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "What this shows is that if you put more bobbies on the street you will cut crime.
"However, these figures are a result of a six-week crackdown on violence which cost £2.5 million - what happens when this money runs out?"
He added: "The Government should not use these bogus, inappropriate and spun statistics to justify its 24-hour drinking proposals."
Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "The police have our full support in cracking down on alcohol-fuelled violence, and proper enforcement has clearly led to fewer shops and pubs selling alcohol to under-18s.
"However, public confidence is seriously undermined when sloppy statistics are presented as fact."
(From Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor, at The Daily Telegraph)
Ed: use of data in this way by a Public Company would lead to the resignation of the Chairman.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
New Labour over-estimate ID fraud figures
THE Government was accused yesterday of playing on people’s fears by producing hugely inflated figures on the cost of identity fraud.
In a report published yesterday, the Home Office said that the annual cost of ID fraud had reached £1.7 billion. However, this figure was undermined by Apacs, the group that represents payment organisations such as banks and credit firms, which said that the cost had been grossly overestimated and that its own figures had been misrepresented.
Ministers included in their total the figure of £395 million as the annual cost of money laundering alone. But the Home Office admits that this figure is only “for illustrative purposes” and that “no figures are currently available on the proportion of money laundering that relies on identity fraud”.
Furthermore, the Government claims that Apacs puts the cost of ID fraud linked to plastic cards at £504 million a year. But a spokeswoman for Apacs said that the real figure was less than £37 million. “The £504 million is the total losses for plastic cards. It is not just identity fraud on cards,” she said. “Within that overall figure there will be some cards stolen in the post, some skimmed or cloned, some lost or stolen.”
Asked why the Home Office used the larger sum, she said: “I just think they think it is a good story to scare people with.”
ID fraud figures 'inflated to play on public fears'
(The Times by Richard Ford and David Charter)
Ed: just a little mistake!!
In a report published yesterday, the Home Office said that the annual cost of ID fraud had reached £1.7 billion. However, this figure was undermined by Apacs, the group that represents payment organisations such as banks and credit firms, which said that the cost had been grossly overestimated and that its own figures had been misrepresented.
Ministers included in their total the figure of £395 million as the annual cost of money laundering alone. But the Home Office admits that this figure is only “for illustrative purposes” and that “no figures are currently available on the proportion of money laundering that relies on identity fraud”.
Furthermore, the Government claims that Apacs puts the cost of ID fraud linked to plastic cards at £504 million a year. But a spokeswoman for Apacs said that the real figure was less than £37 million. “The £504 million is the total losses for plastic cards. It is not just identity fraud on cards,” she said. “Within that overall figure there will be some cards stolen in the post, some skimmed or cloned, some lost or stolen.”
Asked why the Home Office used the larger sum, she said: “I just think they think it is a good story to scare people with.”
ID fraud figures 'inflated to play on public fears'
(The Times by Richard Ford and David Charter)
Ed: just a little mistake!!
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
UK Economic growth in 2005 worst since 1992
Economic growth in the UK last year slumped to its lowest rate since 1992, official figures showed.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was just 1.8% higher in 2005 than the previous year, according to preliminary figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
The growth rate was marginally better than the 1.7% forecast by many City economists but well below the 3% to 3.5% Chancellor Gordon Brown predicted in his budget early last year.
The Chancellor was forced to scale back his forecast to 1.75% in the pre-budget report to Parliament in December.
The 1.8% rate of annual growth came after a hike of 0.6% in the last three months of 2005, up from 0.4% in the third quarter.
But the fourth quarter rally was not enough to stop annual GDP growth falling to its lowest level in more than a decade, and almost half the 3.2% rate reached in 2004. In 1992 growth was just 0.3%.
The fourth quarter was boosted by a 1.3% rise in mining and quarrying and a 0.9% increase in services. The service sector represents about 73% of the UK economy and rose 2.6% over 2005 as a whole.
The ONS said a 0.8% decline in manufacturing in the fourth quarter saw industrial production fall by 0.6% at the end of the year. Industrial production accounts for 20% of the economy and fell 1.5% over the whole of 2005, compared with a 0.7% rise in 2004.
The worst hit manufacturers in the fourth quarter were in the transport equipment industries and the paper, printing and publishing industries.
ED: Trouble is that the money taps are gushing in the public sector and the money producing private sector well is drying up. If I were Tony and Gordon I would be preparing my early exit plan.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was just 1.8% higher in 2005 than the previous year, according to preliminary figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
The growth rate was marginally better than the 1.7% forecast by many City economists but well below the 3% to 3.5% Chancellor Gordon Brown predicted in his budget early last year.
The Chancellor was forced to scale back his forecast to 1.75% in the pre-budget report to Parliament in December.
The 1.8% rate of annual growth came after a hike of 0.6% in the last three months of 2005, up from 0.4% in the third quarter.
But the fourth quarter rally was not enough to stop annual GDP growth falling to its lowest level in more than a decade, and almost half the 3.2% rate reached in 2004. In 1992 growth was just 0.3%.
The fourth quarter was boosted by a 1.3% rise in mining and quarrying and a 0.9% increase in services. The service sector represents about 73% of the UK economy and rose 2.6% over 2005 as a whole.
The ONS said a 0.8% decline in manufacturing in the fourth quarter saw industrial production fall by 0.6% at the end of the year. Industrial production accounts for 20% of the economy and fell 1.5% over the whole of 2005, compared with a 0.7% rise in 2004.
The worst hit manufacturers in the fourth quarter were in the transport equipment industries and the paper, printing and publishing industries.
ED: Trouble is that the money taps are gushing in the public sector and the money producing private sector well is drying up. If I were Tony and Gordon I would be preparing my early exit plan.
Monday, January 23, 2006
No charges on Sir Iqbal gay remarks | This is London
Sir Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, will not face charges over allegedly homophobic remarks he made in a radio interview, it has been confirmed.
Earlier this month police announced they were investigating comments Sir Iqbal made on a BBC radio programme in which he condemned civil partnerships and described homosexuality as harmful.
Officers said they would examine the remarks he made on Radio 4's PM programme to see if any offences had been committed following a complaint from the public.
But on Monday a Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "There will be no further action on the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service."
Sir Iqbal told the programme on January 3 civil partnerships were "harmful" and unacceptable.
"It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society - stability, family relationships. And it is something we would certainly not in any form encourage the community to be involved in," he said.
He underlined the importance of tolerance. But asked if homosexuality itself was harmful to society, he said: "Certainly it is a practice that doesn't in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society - it is, it is not acceptable."
Sir Iqbal continued: "What is not acceptable, there is a good reason for it.
"Each of our faiths tell us that it is harmful and I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various other illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practiced there is a greater concern in that area."
However, Sir Iqbal said everyone should be tolerant.
ED: Apparently above comments as acceptable as London Major Ken calling a Jewish reporter was a Nazi war criminal and a concentration camp guard. Well at least there is a benchmark on acceptability
Earlier this month police announced they were investigating comments Sir Iqbal made on a BBC radio programme in which he condemned civil partnerships and described homosexuality as harmful.
Officers said they would examine the remarks he made on Radio 4's PM programme to see if any offences had been committed following a complaint from the public.
But on Monday a Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "There will be no further action on the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service."
Sir Iqbal told the programme on January 3 civil partnerships were "harmful" and unacceptable.
"It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society - stability, family relationships. And it is something we would certainly not in any form encourage the community to be involved in," he said.
He underlined the importance of tolerance. But asked if homosexuality itself was harmful to society, he said: "Certainly it is a practice that doesn't in terms of health, in terms of the moral issues that comes along in a society - it is, it is not acceptable."
Sir Iqbal continued: "What is not acceptable, there is a good reason for it.
"Each of our faiths tell us that it is harmful and I think, if you look into the scientific evidence that has been available in terms of the forms of various other illnesses and diseases that are there, surely it points out that where homosexuality is practiced there is a greater concern in that area."
However, Sir Iqbal said everyone should be tolerant.
ED: Apparently above comments as acceptable as London Major Ken calling a Jewish reporter was a Nazi war criminal and a concentration camp guard. Well at least there is a benchmark on acceptability
Friday, January 20, 2006
New Labour loots the National Lottery
LABOUR has looted billions of Pounds from the National Lottery to plug the black hole in its spending plans, a report reveals today.
Ministers have bent the rules by using good causes cash to bail out schools and hospitals.
An inquiry found that £8.5billion has been siphoned off for government projects since Labour won power.
That is enough to buy 390 £1 lotto tickets for every home in Britain.
Labour’s jackpot win includes £2.4billion plundered from the New Opportunities Fund set up in 1998.
The cash has been spent on training teachers to use computers and set up local medical and exercise centres.
Lottery creator Sir John Major last night called for the plundering to stop.
He said: “Since it took power, Labour has diverted Lottery funding into areas that have historically been funded by the Exchequer.”
The report, by the Centre for Policy Studies think tank, says: “The original remit of good causes has been stretched beyond credibility.”
(from DAVID WOODING Whitehall Editor at The Sun)
Ministers have bent the rules by using good causes cash to bail out schools and hospitals.
An inquiry found that £8.5billion has been siphoned off for government projects since Labour won power.
That is enough to buy 390 £1 lotto tickets for every home in Britain.
Labour’s jackpot win includes £2.4billion plundered from the New Opportunities Fund set up in 1998.
The cash has been spent on training teachers to use computers and set up local medical and exercise centres.
Lottery creator Sir John Major last night called for the plundering to stop.
He said: “Since it took power, Labour has diverted Lottery funding into areas that have historically been funded by the Exchequer.”
The report, by the Centre for Policy Studies think tank, says: “The original remit of good causes has been stretched beyond credibility.”
(from DAVID WOODING Whitehall Editor at The Sun)
Thursday, January 19, 2006
New Labour New Big Brother
THE Fathers 4 Justice plot to kidnap Tony Blair's five-year-old son Leo was yesterday revealed to be "nothing more than pub chat".
Fathers extremists told the Mirror undercover police simply overheard an "off-the-cuff remark" in a pub after F4J's Christmas demo at Downing Street in December.
Four F4J sympathisers who were present during the conversation were later visited by police and warned they could be shot at future stunts.
Fathers' rights campaigners who were at the boozy encounter in the Lord Moon of the Mall pub in Whitehall named South African Martin Matthews as the ringleader.
It is claimed by witnesses Matthews, 38, an experienced F4J campaigner, made the remark to Eddie Gorecki. Matthews denies the allegation.
Graham Manson, F4J sympathiser, said: "Martin just spoke before he thought. Martin always comes out with stupid ideas like this. But it was in jest.
"He is a bit of a comedian and no one took him seriously, Eddie just laughed it off. This never went any further within the group and was never mentioned again because it was nothing more than a joke."
More than 20 fathers were drinking in the pub at the time with between four and six in the circle at the time of the remark.
It is understood undercover police who had been gathering intelligence on the group for a while were sat at a table next to them. Seasoned campaigner Jason Hatch, who once breached Buckingham Palace security dressed as Batman, said: "It was just chit-chat.
"Martin said it would be great publicity but wasn't serious. My ex called me this morning to ask if it was me. But everyone knows it was Martin."
Last night, plumber Matthews of Epsom, Surrey, told the Mirror: "I was in the pub but the conversation never happened. I'm speechless and I don't understand why everyone in the group is saying it was me.
"I did receive a phone call from a policeman and I met him at a restaurant in Epsom on December 27. He said he didn't want a situation where armed officers' safety was compromised.
"He said we could be shot at if we tried any future demos. He said he was speaking to me after a conversation in the pub after the Christmas demo but that was all. It was very weird."
Jolly Stansby, Gorecki and Fred O'Neill also received visits from the police on the same matter. Officers were concerned they would attempt to kidnap Leo to highlight the group's cause.
Stansby said last night: "I had a visit from the police along with three others. They said they felt I had information that I needed to talk about to them regarding a conversation in a London pub. They said I'd be risking my life if I attempted any demos and would be shot at. They said they were giving me a warning.
"They mentioned the night of the demo in the pub and said they were unhappy with things that were going on but did not go into detail. This is nothing more than pub talk. That's all it was, it was so insignificant."
Matthews admits he has a reputation for putting his foot in it.
He said: "I can kind of understand why some people think it might have been me. Once I suggested wedgying judges and it was immediately rejected by the group.
"Wedgying is when you pull people's pants over their heads."
In December 2004, Matthews sparked rush-hour chaos for four hours when he scaled a railway gantry in Battersea dressed as Father Christmas.
Last month, he was given a conditional discharge and had to pay £365 costs at Staines magistrates court after he threw himself on to Kempton Park racecourse in 2004 at the start of the King George VI race.
(from Greig Box at The Daily Mirror)
ED: Obviously embarrassing Tony is naughty but to use your youngster and threats to kill to make the people toe the line .......
Fathers extremists told the Mirror undercover police simply overheard an "off-the-cuff remark" in a pub after F4J's Christmas demo at Downing Street in December.
Four F4J sympathisers who were present during the conversation were later visited by police and warned they could be shot at future stunts.
Fathers' rights campaigners who were at the boozy encounter in the Lord Moon of the Mall pub in Whitehall named South African Martin Matthews as the ringleader.
It is claimed by witnesses Matthews, 38, an experienced F4J campaigner, made the remark to Eddie Gorecki. Matthews denies the allegation.
Graham Manson, F4J sympathiser, said: "Martin just spoke before he thought. Martin always comes out with stupid ideas like this. But it was in jest.
"He is a bit of a comedian and no one took him seriously, Eddie just laughed it off. This never went any further within the group and was never mentioned again because it was nothing more than a joke."
More than 20 fathers were drinking in the pub at the time with between four and six in the circle at the time of the remark.
It is understood undercover police who had been gathering intelligence on the group for a while were sat at a table next to them. Seasoned campaigner Jason Hatch, who once breached Buckingham Palace security dressed as Batman, said: "It was just chit-chat.
"Martin said it would be great publicity but wasn't serious. My ex called me this morning to ask if it was me. But everyone knows it was Martin."
Last night, plumber Matthews of Epsom, Surrey, told the Mirror: "I was in the pub but the conversation never happened. I'm speechless and I don't understand why everyone in the group is saying it was me.
"I did receive a phone call from a policeman and I met him at a restaurant in Epsom on December 27. He said he didn't want a situation where armed officers' safety was compromised.
"He said we could be shot at if we tried any future demos. He said he was speaking to me after a conversation in the pub after the Christmas demo but that was all. It was very weird."
Jolly Stansby, Gorecki and Fred O'Neill also received visits from the police on the same matter. Officers were concerned they would attempt to kidnap Leo to highlight the group's cause.
Stansby said last night: "I had a visit from the police along with three others. They said they felt I had information that I needed to talk about to them regarding a conversation in a London pub. They said I'd be risking my life if I attempted any demos and would be shot at. They said they were giving me a warning.
"They mentioned the night of the demo in the pub and said they were unhappy with things that were going on but did not go into detail. This is nothing more than pub talk. That's all it was, it was so insignificant."
Matthews admits he has a reputation for putting his foot in it.
He said: "I can kind of understand why some people think it might have been me. Once I suggested wedgying judges and it was immediately rejected by the group.
"Wedgying is when you pull people's pants over their heads."
In December 2004, Matthews sparked rush-hour chaos for four hours when he scaled a railway gantry in Battersea dressed as Father Christmas.
Last month, he was given a conditional discharge and had to pay £365 costs at Staines magistrates court after he threw himself on to Kempton Park racecourse in 2004 at the start of the King George VI race.
(from Greig Box at The Daily Mirror)
ED: Obviously embarrassing Tony is naughty but to use your youngster and threats to kill to make the people toe the line .......
DEPORTED AFTER 42 YEARS AS A BRIT
DEPORTED AFTER 42 YEARS AS A BRIT
A GRANDMOTHER who has lived in Britain since she was a baby is being deported to America.
Dawn Woodcock, 44 - born in South Carolina to an American father - was brought to England as an 18-month-old baby by her British mum in 1963.
She went to school here, got married, had four children and got a job.
But now the Home Office has given her just two weeks to pack up and leave.
Yesterday she protested: "I'm in the most ridiculous situation. If I leave here I've got nothing. I'm desperate.
All my schooling, everything has been here and I'm terrified of having to leave."
Her youngest daughter Sarah, 22, said: "I cannot believe that my mum may be thrown out of the country. She's lived here all her life, held down a job and paid her taxes like every hardworking British citizen.
"The whole thing is a farce and we're all praying that the Home Office sees sense and she's allowed to stay." Dawn will be separated from her other children Carlene, 27, Christopher, 25, Stephanie, 24, and her 11 grandchildren, the youngest of whom is just a baby.
Dawn, who has worked as a classroom assistant and school dinner lady, had never left the country until last November when she flew on a US passport to meet her dad Ron Woodcock and family in Las Vegas.
But she was picked up by immigration officials when she arrived back at Manchester Airport.
A chance remark led to her world being turned upside down. Handing back her passport, an official wished her a happy holiday and she replied that she had been living in Telford, Shrops, for the last 42 years.
She was immediately warned that she would be deported back to the country of her birth unless she successfully applied for British citizenship.
Dawn, who has been married twice, said: "The joy of my first trip abroad and meeting my half-sisters in the States for the first time has been completely ruined.
"I've worked and paid my taxes here and none of this seems right. My mum's in a hell of a state about it.
Nobody wants me to go." Dawn, whose grandparents on both sides are British, was brought to the UK after her mum Sylvia Crompton, now 67, split from her dad.
However, the Home Office insists that she should have applied for dual nationality years earlier to be recognised as a British citizen.
Without it, in the eyes of officials she is an American. A spokeswoman said they could not comment on individual cases but said people entering the UK had to satisfy officials of their right to stay.
She added: "For those seeking entry as returning residents, they must meet a number of conditions including having the right to remain in the UK."
Dawn said: "I've always known I am an American citizen. I've always answered 'American' to any nationality questions on forms. However, having lived here nearly all my life, it never occurred to me that once I had left the country I would have trouble getting back in."
(from Rod Chaytor at The Daily Mirror)
(ED: Dawn obviously does not know the rules. She has to have dinner with a chap over at the immigration office at Croyden. He will stamp her card and give the correct papers.
A GRANDMOTHER who has lived in Britain since she was a baby is being deported to America.
Dawn Woodcock, 44 - born in South Carolina to an American father - was brought to England as an 18-month-old baby by her British mum in 1963.
She went to school here, got married, had four children and got a job.
But now the Home Office has given her just two weeks to pack up and leave.
Yesterday she protested: "I'm in the most ridiculous situation. If I leave here I've got nothing. I'm desperate.
All my schooling, everything has been here and I'm terrified of having to leave."
Her youngest daughter Sarah, 22, said: "I cannot believe that my mum may be thrown out of the country. She's lived here all her life, held down a job and paid her taxes like every hardworking British citizen.
"The whole thing is a farce and we're all praying that the Home Office sees sense and she's allowed to stay." Dawn will be separated from her other children Carlene, 27, Christopher, 25, Stephanie, 24, and her 11 grandchildren, the youngest of whom is just a baby.
Dawn, who has worked as a classroom assistant and school dinner lady, had never left the country until last November when she flew on a US passport to meet her dad Ron Woodcock and family in Las Vegas.
But she was picked up by immigration officials when she arrived back at Manchester Airport.
A chance remark led to her world being turned upside down. Handing back her passport, an official wished her a happy holiday and she replied that she had been living in Telford, Shrops, for the last 42 years.
She was immediately warned that she would be deported back to the country of her birth unless she successfully applied for British citizenship.
Dawn, who has been married twice, said: "The joy of my first trip abroad and meeting my half-sisters in the States for the first time has been completely ruined.
"I've worked and paid my taxes here and none of this seems right. My mum's in a hell of a state about it.
Nobody wants me to go." Dawn, whose grandparents on both sides are British, was brought to the UK after her mum Sylvia Crompton, now 67, split from her dad.
However, the Home Office insists that she should have applied for dual nationality years earlier to be recognised as a British citizen.
Without it, in the eyes of officials she is an American. A spokeswoman said they could not comment on individual cases but said people entering the UK had to satisfy officials of their right to stay.
She added: "For those seeking entry as returning residents, they must meet a number of conditions including having the right to remain in the UK."
Dawn said: "I've always known I am an American citizen. I've always answered 'American' to any nationality questions on forms. However, having lived here nearly all my life, it never occurred to me that once I had left the country I would have trouble getting back in."
(from Rod Chaytor at The Daily Mirror)
(ED: Dawn obviously does not know the rules. She has to have dinner with a chap over at the immigration office at Croyden. He will stamp her card and give the correct papers.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Jobless total worst for three years
Jobless total worst for three years
18 January 2006
Unemployment has increased by more than 100,000 to reach the highest level in three years, a gloomy set of official jobless figures showed.
The number of people looking for work jumped by 111,000 in the three months to November to 1.53 million, the biggest total since the end of 2002.
Other stories:
Leo Blair kidnap plot foiled
Katherine: family thank Thai police
Jobless total worst for three years
MEPs reject Blair deal on EU budget
Sofa baby deaths warning to parents
Cameron makes pledge on poverty
£2m pay-off for transport chief
Tube drivers to vote on strike
Public get say on pension proposals
Kelly battles to save her career
The claimant count, which includes people receiving Jobseeker's Allowance, rose by 7,200 in December to 909,100, the 11th consecutive monthly increase.
The figure is now 95,000 more than a year ago and is at a two-year high, according to data from the Office for National Statistics.
The unemployment rate is now 5%, an increase of 0.4% compared to last summer, while the 1.53 million total, which includes people out of work but not receiving benefit, is the highest since November 2002.
The number of people in work fell by 22,000 in the latest quarter to 28.76 million.
There was also an increase in the number of people classed as economically inactive, including those looking after a relative, students or people who have given up looking for a job.
The figure rose by 25,000 on the quarter to 7.94 million, the highest total since records began in 1971.
Manufacturing jobs continued to be lost, down by 109,000 in the three months to November to a record low of 3.1 million.
Vacancies also fell at the end of last year, down by 12,700 from the autumn.
ED: Surely the dodgy story of a plot to kidnap Blair's son was not released on the same day as higher unemployment figures on purpose
18 January 2006
Unemployment has increased by more than 100,000 to reach the highest level in three years, a gloomy set of official jobless figures showed.
The number of people looking for work jumped by 111,000 in the three months to November to 1.53 million, the biggest total since the end of 2002.
Other stories:
Leo Blair kidnap plot foiled
Katherine: family thank Thai police
Jobless total worst for three years
MEPs reject Blair deal on EU budget
Sofa baby deaths warning to parents
Cameron makes pledge on poverty
£2m pay-off for transport chief
Tube drivers to vote on strike
Public get say on pension proposals
Kelly battles to save her career
The claimant count, which includes people receiving Jobseeker's Allowance, rose by 7,200 in December to 909,100, the 11th consecutive monthly increase.
The figure is now 95,000 more than a year ago and is at a two-year high, according to data from the Office for National Statistics.
The unemployment rate is now 5%, an increase of 0.4% compared to last summer, while the 1.53 million total, which includes people out of work but not receiving benefit, is the highest since November 2002.
The number of people in work fell by 22,000 in the latest quarter to 28.76 million.
There was also an increase in the number of people classed as economically inactive, including those looking after a relative, students or people who have given up looking for a job.
The figure rose by 25,000 on the quarter to 7.94 million, the highest total since records began in 1971.
Manufacturing jobs continued to be lost, down by 109,000 in the three months to November to a record low of 3.1 million.
Vacancies also fell at the end of last year, down by 12,700 from the autumn.
ED: Surely the dodgy story of a plot to kidnap Blair's son was not released on the same day as higher unemployment figures on purpose
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Blair premiership at risk
Tony Blair is ready to delay the introduction of a flagship Bill on school reform to avoid a Commons defeat that ministerial colleagues believe could end his premiership.
Mr Blair cannot afford a Commons defeat on his flagship education Bill
Senior Labour sources said last night that he would allow Ruth Kelly, the embattled Education Secretary, more time to forge a compromise with Labour rebels over his plans for a new generation of trust schools free from local authority control.
In a sign that the crisis over sex offenders working in schools is causing wider turmoil, a Government insider said the Education Bill, due to be published next month, would almost certainly be put back by several weeks.
Miss Kelly had been distracted from her efforts to secure agreement with Labour MPs over the Bill by her latest, unrelated difficulties.
The result was that far more work had to be done to make the Education Bill acceptable to at least 70 Labour backbenchers who fear it will divide communities and penalise working-class pupils.
"It is difficult, there will have to be big changes," said a minister. "We cannot afford another defeat and we cannot rely on Tory votes to get this through."
He also disclosed that Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, had joined John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, and other Cabinet ministers in opposing key elements of the education reforms.
"There has been quite wide concern about it in Cabinet."
Ministers accept that Mr Blair, who suffered his first Commons defeat over anti-terrorist legislation in November, cannot survive another loss on such a crucial Bill and survive as Prime Minister.
Hilary Armstrong, the Chief Whip, has told him he has little chance of getting an education Bill through the Commons unless last year's White Paper is modified.
Problems with the Bill deepened yesterday when the Audit Commission backed Labour rebels in claiming that it would work against the interests of the most disadvantaged families. A hard-hitting report said the Government was wrong to focus on trying to widen "choice" for parents. "Choice is neither realistic nor an issue of primary importance for parents."
A compromise being floated by ministers is for trust status to be confined to federations of schools - a move they believe would increase co-operation rather than competition between schools.
(from Toby Helm and George Jones at Daily Telegraph)
Mr Blair cannot afford a Commons defeat on his flagship education Bill
Senior Labour sources said last night that he would allow Ruth Kelly, the embattled Education Secretary, more time to forge a compromise with Labour rebels over his plans for a new generation of trust schools free from local authority control.
In a sign that the crisis over sex offenders working in schools is causing wider turmoil, a Government insider said the Education Bill, due to be published next month, would almost certainly be put back by several weeks.
Miss Kelly had been distracted from her efforts to secure agreement with Labour MPs over the Bill by her latest, unrelated difficulties.
The result was that far more work had to be done to make the Education Bill acceptable to at least 70 Labour backbenchers who fear it will divide communities and penalise working-class pupils.
"It is difficult, there will have to be big changes," said a minister. "We cannot afford another defeat and we cannot rely on Tory votes to get this through."
He also disclosed that Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, had joined John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, and other Cabinet ministers in opposing key elements of the education reforms.
"There has been quite wide concern about it in Cabinet."
Ministers accept that Mr Blair, who suffered his first Commons defeat over anti-terrorist legislation in November, cannot survive another loss on such a crucial Bill and survive as Prime Minister.
Hilary Armstrong, the Chief Whip, has told him he has little chance of getting an education Bill through the Commons unless last year's White Paper is modified.
Problems with the Bill deepened yesterday when the Audit Commission backed Labour rebels in claiming that it would work against the interests of the most disadvantaged families. A hard-hitting report said the Government was wrong to focus on trying to widen "choice" for parents. "Choice is neither realistic nor an issue of primary importance for parents."
A compromise being floated by ministers is for trust status to be confined to federations of schools - a move they believe would increase co-operation rather than competition between schools.
(from Toby Helm and George Jones at Daily Telegraph)
New Labour second thoughts on 1.2b hospital
Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt has defended her decision to order a review on whether a £1.2 billion redevelopment of London hospitals should go ahead.
Some 1,000 doctors at Bart's and the Royal London Hospital on Monday sent an open letter to Tony Blair urging him to give the go-ahead to the project, which they said was vital to the health of people in east London.
And Shadow Chancellor George Osborne has urged the Government to give the scheme the green light, warning that halting it now would waste £100 million in fees and compensation for broken contracts.
But Ms Hewitt said that the project - the largest healthcare development in Europe - had doubled in cost since it was first proposed four years ago, while waiting lists for cardiac care had plummeted.
She said she wanted to be sure that the cardiac and cancer facilities in the plan would represent value for money and would not duplicate facilities in other east London hospitals.
An independent review of the plans will be completed by the end of January, she said. The decision on whether to go ahead would be taken on both health and economic grounds.
Ms Hewitt told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "This is the largest ever Private Finance Initiative hospital building project.
"We are looking at a project which has already virtually doubled in its scale. Originally it was going to be around £600 million. We are now looking at about £1.2 billion, which means committing very large amounts of taxpayers' money for the next 30 years.
"Of course it is sensible, given that this proposal has now come to the Department of Health and the Treasury for final approval, for us just to double check that we are getting exactly what we need to meet the needs of Londoners and getting the best value for taxpayers' money.
"When Bart's and the Royal London began developing the proposal, waiting lists for heart operations in particular were very high. Since then, we have slashed the waiting times for heart operations. People can, in most cases, get their heart procedures within a couple of weeks, instead of waiting months as they used to. There has been that very significant change since this proposal started."
ED: Does Hewitt mean that the gov could not forsee that their attempts to reduce waiting lists would work? Or is the gov, once again, trying to misdirect the people. It would seem to be a case of uncontrolled spending starting to frighten even New Labour.
Some 1,000 doctors at Bart's and the Royal London Hospital on Monday sent an open letter to Tony Blair urging him to give the go-ahead to the project, which they said was vital to the health of people in east London.
And Shadow Chancellor George Osborne has urged the Government to give the scheme the green light, warning that halting it now would waste £100 million in fees and compensation for broken contracts.
But Ms Hewitt said that the project - the largest healthcare development in Europe - had doubled in cost since it was first proposed four years ago, while waiting lists for cardiac care had plummeted.
She said she wanted to be sure that the cardiac and cancer facilities in the plan would represent value for money and would not duplicate facilities in other east London hospitals.
An independent review of the plans will be completed by the end of January, she said. The decision on whether to go ahead would be taken on both health and economic grounds.
Ms Hewitt told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "This is the largest ever Private Finance Initiative hospital building project.
"We are looking at a project which has already virtually doubled in its scale. Originally it was going to be around £600 million. We are now looking at about £1.2 billion, which means committing very large amounts of taxpayers' money for the next 30 years.
"Of course it is sensible, given that this proposal has now come to the Department of Health and the Treasury for final approval, for us just to double check that we are getting exactly what we need to meet the needs of Londoners and getting the best value for taxpayers' money.
"When Bart's and the Royal London began developing the proposal, waiting lists for heart operations in particular were very high. Since then, we have slashed the waiting times for heart operations. People can, in most cases, get their heart procedures within a couple of weeks, instead of waiting months as they used to. There has been that very significant change since this proposal started."
ED: Does Hewitt mean that the gov could not forsee that their attempts to reduce waiting lists would work? Or is the gov, once again, trying to misdirect the people. It would seem to be a case of uncontrolled spending starting to frighten even New Labour.
Blair to legalise brothels
The law is to be changed to allow up to three prostitutes to work legally in brothels, the has Government confirmed.
Currently only one prostitute can offer paid sex without breaking the law.
Launching the Home Office's new prostitution strategy, minister Fiona Mactaggart said the current position meant that women were forced to work in unsafe conditions.
The Government is also creating a new penalty specifically for prostitutes so the courts can divert them towards help for drug or alcohol abuse.
The new penalty will be available for people convicting of loitering or soliciting for prostitution, which is presently dealt with by a fine in most cases, which the Government said did not deal with the underlying reasons why women went on the game.
The strategy document, which applies to England and Wales, said: "At present only one person may work as a prostitute - more than that ... and the premises are classed in case law as a brothel.
"This runs counter to advice that women should not work alone in the interest of safety. The Government will make proposals for an amendment to the definition of a brothel so that two or three individuals may work together."
Ministers have already ruled out a previous proposal to create licensed "red light" zones to deal with street prostitution.
Currently only one prostitute can offer paid sex without breaking the law.
Launching the Home Office's new prostitution strategy, minister Fiona Mactaggart said the current position meant that women were forced to work in unsafe conditions.
The Government is also creating a new penalty specifically for prostitutes so the courts can divert them towards help for drug or alcohol abuse.
The new penalty will be available for people convicting of loitering or soliciting for prostitution, which is presently dealt with by a fine in most cases, which the Government said did not deal with the underlying reasons why women went on the game.
The strategy document, which applies to England and Wales, said: "At present only one person may work as a prostitute - more than that ... and the premises are classed in case law as a brothel.
"This runs counter to advice that women should not work alone in the interest of safety. The Government will make proposals for an amendment to the definition of a brothel so that two or three individuals may work together."
Ministers have already ruled out a previous proposal to create licensed "red light" zones to deal with street prostitution.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Blair re-invents the past again
TONY Blair's gran was a graffiti vandal, it has been revealed.
Mary Blair helped daub Communist slogans on walls in the 1930s.
The revelation mocks the PM's claim, made as he hosed down graffiti, that older generations of his family would have abhorred such behaviour.
Friends of the late Mary - she and husband James adopted the PM's dad Leo - ridiculed his portrayal of their life in Glasgow's tough Govan slums.
Ex-neighbour Alex Morrison, 86, said: "I'm sure Mary would have been laughing her head off at her grandson's description of Govan as an idyllic community where everyone respected each other and the law.
"He talks about the old Govan like it was some sort of ideal place, but he is speaking absolute rubbish. Poverty and misery were widespread and it was a violent place as well.
"You had lads hanging around street corners with no work and nothing to do. They got up to as much trouble then as young people do now."
The ex-Communist activist revealed Mary, who died in 1975, mixed white-wash used for the graffiti. Last week the PM - in Swindon on an anti-yob drive - claimed: "My father, growing up in Glasgow in a poor community, didn't have as much money as we have.
"But people behaved more respectfully to one another." However, old Glaswegians laid bare the area's numerous difficulties. Mr Morrison said: "Drink was also a problem. When the pubs closed at 10pm, there was never a policeman to be seen."
George Greig, 78, another of Mary's old friends, added: "There was a slum area which became known as Wine Alley because people had no work and turned to alcohol."
Yesterday, No10 said: "I don't think this is something we'll comment on."
Ed: Poor Tony. He only wants to say what suits him at the moment and people think he is a liar.
Mary Blair helped daub Communist slogans on walls in the 1930s.
The revelation mocks the PM's claim, made as he hosed down graffiti, that older generations of his family would have abhorred such behaviour.
Friends of the late Mary - she and husband James adopted the PM's dad Leo - ridiculed his portrayal of their life in Glasgow's tough Govan slums.
Ex-neighbour Alex Morrison, 86, said: "I'm sure Mary would have been laughing her head off at her grandson's description of Govan as an idyllic community where everyone respected each other and the law.
"He talks about the old Govan like it was some sort of ideal place, but he is speaking absolute rubbish. Poverty and misery were widespread and it was a violent place as well.
"You had lads hanging around street corners with no work and nothing to do. They got up to as much trouble then as young people do now."
The ex-Communist activist revealed Mary, who died in 1975, mixed white-wash used for the graffiti. Last week the PM - in Swindon on an anti-yob drive - claimed: "My father, growing up in Glasgow in a poor community, didn't have as much money as we have.
"But people behaved more respectfully to one another." However, old Glaswegians laid bare the area's numerous difficulties. Mr Morrison said: "Drink was also a problem. When the pubs closed at 10pm, there was never a policeman to be seen."
George Greig, 78, another of Mary's old friends, added: "There was a slum area which became known as Wine Alley because people had no work and turned to alcohol."
Yesterday, No10 said: "I don't think this is something we'll comment on."
Ed: Poor Tony. He only wants to say what suits him at the moment and people think he is a liar.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Tony Blair in honours for sale scandal
WHEN Paul Drayson joined the House of Lords in 2004 he became the latest in a long line of Labour donors to be handed a peerage, knighthood or other gong, writes Robert Winnett.
Drayson, who has given more than £1m to the party, joins Lord Sainsbury, Lord Bhattacharyya and at least six other donors who have joined the Labour benches in the upper house since 1997.
He became a government minister in 2005 — joining Lord Sainsbury, the party’s biggest donor, who has given more than £16m over the past decade. He has served as a science minister since 1998.
Tony Blair was recently identified as the biggest dispenser of political patronage in the Lords since life peers were created in 1958.
Yet behind the scenes the prime minister’s plans to ennoble a further four Labour donors have met resistance. They are among the latest batch of nominees for working peerages from Blair and the opposition parties. One of the Labour donors, the stockbroker Barry Townsley, has made a £2m donation to a city academy in west London.
The appointment of the new peers has been delayed by the Appointments Commission, which is charged with scrutinising the list and advising the prime minister about the candidates’ suitability. The commission is understood to have concerns about several of those put forward, but does not have the power to block nominations.
The chances of Labour donors being honoured are statistically high. Three-quarters of donors who have given more than £50,000 to the Labour party have been honoured, leading to accusations that gongs may in effect be for sale.
A recent analysis found that every Labour donor who has given more than £1m has received a peerage or a knighthood. These include Sir Christopher Ondaatje, Sir Gulam Noon, Sir David Garrard, Sir Ronald Cohen, Sir Frank Lowe and Sir Alan Sugar.
Since 2001, when the Electoral Commission began detailing political donations, the government has bestowed honours on 12 of the 14 individuals who have given Labour more than £200,000. Of the 22 who donated more than £100,000, 17 received honours — including Bill Kenwright, the impresario and Patrick Stewart, the Star Trek actor. In total, 80% of the money raised from individuals is from those who have received honours.
Suzanne Evans, a statistician at Birkbeck, University of London, found Labour donors are three times more likely to be honoured than Tory backers. “The probability that this difference could have occurred by chance is less than three in 1,000. Statistics cannot prove cause and effect but the results should arouse concern,” she said.
Drayson, who has given more than £1m to the party, joins Lord Sainsbury, Lord Bhattacharyya and at least six other donors who have joined the Labour benches in the upper house since 1997.
He became a government minister in 2005 — joining Lord Sainsbury, the party’s biggest donor, who has given more than £16m over the past decade. He has served as a science minister since 1998.
Tony Blair was recently identified as the biggest dispenser of political patronage in the Lords since life peers were created in 1958.
Yet behind the scenes the prime minister’s plans to ennoble a further four Labour donors have met resistance. They are among the latest batch of nominees for working peerages from Blair and the opposition parties. One of the Labour donors, the stockbroker Barry Townsley, has made a £2m donation to a city academy in west London.
The appointment of the new peers has been delayed by the Appointments Commission, which is charged with scrutinising the list and advising the prime minister about the candidates’ suitability. The commission is understood to have concerns about several of those put forward, but does not have the power to block nominations.
The chances of Labour donors being honoured are statistically high. Three-quarters of donors who have given more than £50,000 to the Labour party have been honoured, leading to accusations that gongs may in effect be for sale.
A recent analysis found that every Labour donor who has given more than £1m has received a peerage or a knighthood. These include Sir Christopher Ondaatje, Sir Gulam Noon, Sir David Garrard, Sir Ronald Cohen, Sir Frank Lowe and Sir Alan Sugar.
Since 2001, when the Electoral Commission began detailing political donations, the government has bestowed honours on 12 of the 14 individuals who have given Labour more than £200,000. Of the 22 who donated more than £100,000, 17 received honours — including Bill Kenwright, the impresario and Patrick Stewart, the Star Trek actor. In total, 80% of the money raised from individuals is from those who have received honours.
Suzanne Evans, a statistician at Birkbeck, University of London, found Labour donors are three times more likely to be honoured than Tory backers. “The probability that this difference could have occurred by chance is less than three in 1,000. Statistics cannot prove cause and effect but the results should arouse concern,” she said.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Blair and Straw back Howells who cleared sex offender to work in schools
Prime Minister Tony Blair has full confidence in minister Kim Howells, who admitted clearing sex offender Paul Reeve to work in a school, Downing Street has said.
Mr Howells, now a junior foreign office minister after his stint at the education department, also won the support of his boss, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
Education Secretary Ruth Kelly was forced to make a Commons statement on Thursday announcing an "exhaustive review", both of the "small number" of other cases where sex offenders have been cleared to work with children, and of the vetting process itself.
At present, ministers pass judgment on "borderline cases" where offenders have not been placed on the Education Department's own List 99 containing the names of those banned for life from working in schools.
Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "Kim Howells made a judgment based on the evidence before him, which he checked was the only evidence that was available to him, and based on the advice contained in that evidence, and the Prime Minister recognises that Kim Howells did his job."
Asked if the premier retained full confidence in him as a minister, the spokesman replied: "Yes."
Mr Straw said he retained "every confidence" in his junior minister, adding that Mr Howells was a "responsible, careful and a good colleague".
Ministers sometimes regretted decisions they made, he said, although he would not say whether that was true in this case. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I think he acted properly. Kim is a long-standing friend of mine and a very good minister as well. I know, he has talked to me about this, that he looked at the papers with great care, he looked at the recommendations, he took the best decision that he thought was available at the time."
Mr Reeve was appointed as a PE teacher at a school in Norfolk, despite his police caution for accessing child pornography, having been cleared by the Education Department to work at schools. He lost his job when Norfolk Police contacted the school to air their concerns.
Mr Howells, now a junior foreign office minister after his stint at the education department, also won the support of his boss, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
Education Secretary Ruth Kelly was forced to make a Commons statement on Thursday announcing an "exhaustive review", both of the "small number" of other cases where sex offenders have been cleared to work with children, and of the vetting process itself.
At present, ministers pass judgment on "borderline cases" where offenders have not been placed on the Education Department's own List 99 containing the names of those banned for life from working in schools.
Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "Kim Howells made a judgment based on the evidence before him, which he checked was the only evidence that was available to him, and based on the advice contained in that evidence, and the Prime Minister recognises that Kim Howells did his job."
Asked if the premier retained full confidence in him as a minister, the spokesman replied: "Yes."
Mr Straw said he retained "every confidence" in his junior minister, adding that Mr Howells was a "responsible, careful and a good colleague".
Ministers sometimes regretted decisions they made, he said, although he would not say whether that was true in this case. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I think he acted properly. Kim is a long-standing friend of mine and a very good minister as well. I know, he has talked to me about this, that he looked at the papers with great care, he looked at the recommendations, he took the best decision that he thought was available at the time."
Mr Reeve was appointed as a PE teacher at a school in Norfolk, despite his police caution for accessing child pornography, having been cleared by the Education Department to work at schools. He lost his job when Norfolk Police contacted the school to air their concerns.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
John Prescott caught not paying his Council Tax
John Prescott today apologised for "inadvertently" charging the council tax bill for his official London residence to the public purse.
The Deputy Prime Minister admitted £3,830 of taxpayers' money had been paid out on his grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House, near Trafalgar Square in London, since 1997.
Mr Prescott, whose department has presided over a hugely unpopular 76 per cent rise in council tax since Labour took power, said the payment was the result of an "inadvertent error... based on a genuine misunderstanding."
The backlog built up because Mr Prescott claimed that Admiralty House, which has a market rental value estimated at £8,000 a month, was his ‘secondary residence’ when in fact it was his main home.
In response to a parliamentary question from the Shadow Secretary for Local Government, Caroline Spelman, he explained: "In 1997, the Government carried on paying council tax as before on the flat and claimed a discount [on a second home basis].
"This was not confirmed with me and nor was any advice given to me at the time. On reviewing the situation, I am now aware that an inadvertent error has occurred, based on a genuine misunderstanding."
The Deputy Prime Minister has a second official residence at Dorneywood, a manor in Buckinghamshire, where the council tax there is covered by an independent trust which owns the house.
He is entitled to claim back the tax on his family home in Hull on parliamentary expenses, meaning that until today the Deputy Prime Minister - whose 'two Jags' nickname has cheekily been upgraded to 'three pads' - paid no council tax out of his own pocket.
Ms Spelman, who has pursued a lengthy campaign over Mr Prescott's unpaid bill, said: "At a time when pensioners are being jailed for not paying their council tax, the public will find it galling that the man who has forced up their bills hasn’t had to pay it himself.
"Conservative pressure has now forced him to pay back the money but it is a shame it has taken him so long to come clean. People will be forgiven for thinking there is one rule for Cabinet Ministers and another for the rest of us."
Sarah Teather, who shadows Mr Prescott’s department for the Liberal Democrats, said: "It is extremely embarrassing for the Government that the man in charge of councils hasn’t paid his council tax for nearly eight years.
"We are relieved to hear that Mr Prescott will be paying his bill as soon as possible, but this situation should never have arisen.
Referring to an internal survey published earlier this week which described the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as lacking leadership and comparable to a "pantomime horse", she added: "If, as Mr Prescott claims, it was an administrative error, this is simply more proof of the chaotic state of his department."
Other ministers who have apartments in Admiralty House - Geoff Hoon, the leader of the Commons, and Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary - personally pay their council tax already.
Tony Blair pays the council tax for his Downing Street flat out of his own pocket. Gordon Brown has his council tax for his Downing Street apartment paid by the Treasury. A spokesman for Mr Brown said he never stayed in the Downing Street residence and used it only for receptions.
When Labour came to power, council tax on the average band D home in England was £688. It has risen to £1,214, an increase of 76 per cent.
Sylvia Hardy, a pensioner jailed last year for refusing to pay her council tax in full, said she did not have much sympathy for Mr Prescott.
"I can’t understand how it was allowed to have got to such a high amount when I got my first demand letter after I owed the council here £14."
The Times by Simon Freeman
Ed: Mr Prescott is obviously incompetent and should not be trusted. He also thinks the British voter is an idiot
The Deputy Prime Minister admitted £3,830 of taxpayers' money had been paid out on his grace-and-favour apartment in Admiralty House, near Trafalgar Square in London, since 1997.
Mr Prescott, whose department has presided over a hugely unpopular 76 per cent rise in council tax since Labour took power, said the payment was the result of an "inadvertent error... based on a genuine misunderstanding."
The backlog built up because Mr Prescott claimed that Admiralty House, which has a market rental value estimated at £8,000 a month, was his ‘secondary residence’ when in fact it was his main home.
In response to a parliamentary question from the Shadow Secretary for Local Government, Caroline Spelman, he explained: "In 1997, the Government carried on paying council tax as before on the flat and claimed a discount [on a second home basis].
"This was not confirmed with me and nor was any advice given to me at the time. On reviewing the situation, I am now aware that an inadvertent error has occurred, based on a genuine misunderstanding."
The Deputy Prime Minister has a second official residence at Dorneywood, a manor in Buckinghamshire, where the council tax there is covered by an independent trust which owns the house.
He is entitled to claim back the tax on his family home in Hull on parliamentary expenses, meaning that until today the Deputy Prime Minister - whose 'two Jags' nickname has cheekily been upgraded to 'three pads' - paid no council tax out of his own pocket.
Ms Spelman, who has pursued a lengthy campaign over Mr Prescott's unpaid bill, said: "At a time when pensioners are being jailed for not paying their council tax, the public will find it galling that the man who has forced up their bills hasn’t had to pay it himself.
"Conservative pressure has now forced him to pay back the money but it is a shame it has taken him so long to come clean. People will be forgiven for thinking there is one rule for Cabinet Ministers and another for the rest of us."
Sarah Teather, who shadows Mr Prescott’s department for the Liberal Democrats, said: "It is extremely embarrassing for the Government that the man in charge of councils hasn’t paid his council tax for nearly eight years.
"We are relieved to hear that Mr Prescott will be paying his bill as soon as possible, but this situation should never have arisen.
Referring to an internal survey published earlier this week which described the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as lacking leadership and comparable to a "pantomime horse", she added: "If, as Mr Prescott claims, it was an administrative error, this is simply more proof of the chaotic state of his department."
Other ministers who have apartments in Admiralty House - Geoff Hoon, the leader of the Commons, and Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary - personally pay their council tax already.
Tony Blair pays the council tax for his Downing Street flat out of his own pocket. Gordon Brown has his council tax for his Downing Street apartment paid by the Treasury. A spokesman for Mr Brown said he never stayed in the Downing Street residence and used it only for receptions.
When Labour came to power, council tax on the average band D home in England was £688. It has risen to £1,214, an increase of 76 per cent.
Sylvia Hardy, a pensioner jailed last year for refusing to pay her council tax in full, said she did not have much sympathy for Mr Prescott.
"I can’t understand how it was allowed to have got to such a high amount when I got my first demand letter after I owed the council here £14."
The Times by Simon Freeman
Ed: Mr Prescott is obviously incompetent and should not be trusted. He also thinks the British voter is an idiot
Blair government U turns on IRA pardons
The government is shelving its bill to grant an amnesty to paramilitary terrorists who have been on the run for many years, the Northern Ireland secretary, Peter Hain, announced last night.
Mr Hain coupled his decision to an attempt to kickstart the stalled devolution process by promising talks in February aimed at finding ways to revive the Stormont government ahead of elections to the Northern Ireland assembly scheduled for 2007.
Citing growing public discontent over the continued payment of £32,000-a-year salaries, plus allowances averaging £53,000, to assembly members when Stormont has been suspended since October 2002, Mr Hain said the bill was £78m so far and could not long continue. "2006 is a make or break year."
But his statement to MPs at Westminster focused most backbench attention on the decision to abandon the Northern Ireland (offences) bill, which has been widely attacked since its second reading in the Commons before Christmas, and faced the prospect of being blocked in the Lords.
Mr Hain admitted that he had not brought forward the bill "with a spring in my step, because I knew how hard it was for those thousands of victims who had lost so much".
But the British and Irish governments had promised it in 2003 as part of the peace process and only hesitated because the IRA had not delivered on its own promise to end illegal military activities and disarm. Following the 1998 Good Friday agreement some 400 paramilitary prisoners were released on licence. But there remain 1,800 unsolved murders in the province. The bill would have enabled people who had been living abroad, or people suspected of murders before the Good Friday agreement, to avoid ever having to go to jail in Northern Ireland for offences.
Human rights critics were incensed that on-the-runs, including escapers, would not be expected to make any court appearance.
Sinn Féin had backed the bill - the only Northern Ireland party to do so - until the rival nationalist party, the SDLP, persuaded voters that it was unfair because it would mean that British soldiers who might in future be charged with offences during the 30-year Troubles would also be pardoned.
Sinn Féin did a U-turn, leaving its president, Gerry Adams, to say yesterday: "I told the British prime minister and Peter Hain directly that if the British government was not prepared to change the legislation to remove the inclusion of British state forces then the legislation should be withdrawn. They have now done so."
MPs from the DUP's Peter Robinson on the right to Mark Durkin, SDLP leader, welcomed the decision, which Mr Durkin said had been based on moral quicksand.
The Guardian from Michael White and Angelique Chrisafis
Mr Hain coupled his decision to an attempt to kickstart the stalled devolution process by promising talks in February aimed at finding ways to revive the Stormont government ahead of elections to the Northern Ireland assembly scheduled for 2007.
Citing growing public discontent over the continued payment of £32,000-a-year salaries, plus allowances averaging £53,000, to assembly members when Stormont has been suspended since October 2002, Mr Hain said the bill was £78m so far and could not long continue. "2006 is a make or break year."
But his statement to MPs at Westminster focused most backbench attention on the decision to abandon the Northern Ireland (offences) bill, which has been widely attacked since its second reading in the Commons before Christmas, and faced the prospect of being blocked in the Lords.
Mr Hain admitted that he had not brought forward the bill "with a spring in my step, because I knew how hard it was for those thousands of victims who had lost so much".
But the British and Irish governments had promised it in 2003 as part of the peace process and only hesitated because the IRA had not delivered on its own promise to end illegal military activities and disarm. Following the 1998 Good Friday agreement some 400 paramilitary prisoners were released on licence. But there remain 1,800 unsolved murders in the province. The bill would have enabled people who had been living abroad, or people suspected of murders before the Good Friday agreement, to avoid ever having to go to jail in Northern Ireland for offences.
Human rights critics were incensed that on-the-runs, including escapers, would not be expected to make any court appearance.
Sinn Féin had backed the bill - the only Northern Ireland party to do so - until the rival nationalist party, the SDLP, persuaded voters that it was unfair because it would mean that British soldiers who might in future be charged with offences during the 30-year Troubles would also be pardoned.
Sinn Féin did a U-turn, leaving its president, Gerry Adams, to say yesterday: "I told the British prime minister and Peter Hain directly that if the British government was not prepared to change the legislation to remove the inclusion of British state forces then the legislation should be withdrawn. They have now done so."
MPs from the DUP's Peter Robinson on the right to Mark Durkin, SDLP leader, welcomed the decision, which Mr Durkin said had been based on moral quicksand.
The Guardian from Michael White and Angelique Chrisafis
Kinnock attacks Blair's education reforms
The former Labour leader Lord Kinnock today makes a startling attack on Tony Blair's education reforms in what are his most forthright criticisms of Downing Street since the party came to power.
Speaking to the Guardian, he condemned the proposals for schools as "at best a distraction and at worst dangerous" and said the government would have to change the white paper radically.
The safeguards to prevent schools breaking free of local authority control and imposing their own selective admissions criteria were, he said, "paper thin and really not satisfactory at all".
Lord Kinnock said the white paper was "a strange document for something setting out such a crucial new strategic direction for education. It looks as if it is written by committee, and the committee should have spent more than an extra week on it".
The peer has had previous differences with Downing Street over Europe, but it is the first time he has laid out such bare political disagreements. The prime minister's proposed education reforms have already provoked a threatened rebellion by up to 100 backbench MPs. Yesterday the government was under renewed pressure after the publication of a National Audit Office report which estimated up to 1 million children are being failed by underperforming schools.
One concern is a lack of headteachers, underlined today by a separate survey which warns of an alarming turnover of senior staff in state secondaries. It shows more than one in three were unable to appoint headteachers last year when they first advertised, and the readvertisement rate rose to more than 50% in London, which was the worst-affected region.
Lord Kinnock will underline his opposition to the reforms when he chairs a meeting next week launching a pamphlet that attacks the white paper for "entrenching existing inequalities in our education and storing up trouble for generations to come". The pamphlet, published by the pressure group Compass, is written by Melissa Benn and Fiona Millar. The latter is the partner of the former No 10 communications director, Alastair Campbell.
Lord Kinnock said yesterday that he admired the campaign being undertaken by Ms Millar, a comment offering a green light to more Labour MPs to join the rebellion: "My concern is that the white paper will lead to further fragmentation of our education system, and God knows over the past 40 years we have had enough segmentation. There is a multiple divergence of governance proposed - specialist schools, trust schools and academies - that gives the appearance of choice, but will not be available to many. This whole approach is also not relevant to rural and semi-rural schools."
"People say there are safeguards, but there are such undeniable inbuilt pressures that will have the effect of reducing the role of individual local authorities, and the importance of the code setting out the rules of admissions. And when you look at the safeguards, they appear paper thin. Fragmentation will have a damaging effect on schools, individuals and ultimately the level of educational performance."
The Guardian by Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent
Speaking to the Guardian, he condemned the proposals for schools as "at best a distraction and at worst dangerous" and said the government would have to change the white paper radically.
The safeguards to prevent schools breaking free of local authority control and imposing their own selective admissions criteria were, he said, "paper thin and really not satisfactory at all".
Lord Kinnock said the white paper was "a strange document for something setting out such a crucial new strategic direction for education. It looks as if it is written by committee, and the committee should have spent more than an extra week on it".
The peer has had previous differences with Downing Street over Europe, but it is the first time he has laid out such bare political disagreements. The prime minister's proposed education reforms have already provoked a threatened rebellion by up to 100 backbench MPs. Yesterday the government was under renewed pressure after the publication of a National Audit Office report which estimated up to 1 million children are being failed by underperforming schools.
One concern is a lack of headteachers, underlined today by a separate survey which warns of an alarming turnover of senior staff in state secondaries. It shows more than one in three were unable to appoint headteachers last year when they first advertised, and the readvertisement rate rose to more than 50% in London, which was the worst-affected region.
Lord Kinnock will underline his opposition to the reforms when he chairs a meeting next week launching a pamphlet that attacks the white paper for "entrenching existing inequalities in our education and storing up trouble for generations to come". The pamphlet, published by the pressure group Compass, is written by Melissa Benn and Fiona Millar. The latter is the partner of the former No 10 communications director, Alastair Campbell.
Lord Kinnock said yesterday that he admired the campaign being undertaken by Ms Millar, a comment offering a green light to more Labour MPs to join the rebellion: "My concern is that the white paper will lead to further fragmentation of our education system, and God knows over the past 40 years we have had enough segmentation. There is a multiple divergence of governance proposed - specialist schools, trust schools and academies - that gives the appearance of choice, but will not be available to many. This whole approach is also not relevant to rural and semi-rural schools."
"People say there are safeguards, but there are such undeniable inbuilt pressures that will have the effect of reducing the role of individual local authorities, and the importance of the code setting out the rules of admissions. And when you look at the safeguards, they appear paper thin. Fragmentation will have a damaging effect on schools, individuals and ultimately the level of educational performance."
The Guardian by Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
P.M. Blair's authority on the wane so U turn on smoking
A complete ban on smoking in all English pubs and clubs looks increasingly likely after the Labour government said on Wednesday it would allow its M.P's to vote according to conscience and not along party lines.
The move averts a likely parliamentary revolt and possible defeat for Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose plans, listed in the parties manifesto in the last election, propose a smoking ban which would exempt pubs which do not serve food and private clubs.
Many M.P's in Blair's Labour party, including some Cabinet members, want a total ban and surveys show most Britons support smoke-free pubs and bars.
A partial ban would put England at odds with Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland which have either completely banned smoking in indoor public places or have announced plans to do so.
Blair's government bowed to pressure from its Members of Parliament after several of them put forward an amendment to remove the exemptions in the law, which is due to take effect in mid 2007.
"Following discussions ... it is the government's intention to allow its Members of Parliament -- including ministers -- a free vote on the amendment," Blair's spokesman told reporters.
The spokesman said the decision on the vote, which will take place in February, reflected a change in the public mood.
But it also means Blair, who has seen his authority wane since announcing he would stand down before an election due by 2010, will avoid a potentially embarrassing defeat.
Fewer than 40 Labour M.P's can defeat Blair by siding with opposition parties after last May's election more than halved his majority. He suffered his first ever parliamentary defeat last year, on anti-terrorism laws.
The move averts a likely parliamentary revolt and possible defeat for Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose plans, listed in the parties manifesto in the last election, propose a smoking ban which would exempt pubs which do not serve food and private clubs.
Many M.P's in Blair's Labour party, including some Cabinet members, want a total ban and surveys show most Britons support smoke-free pubs and bars.
A partial ban would put England at odds with Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland which have either completely banned smoking in indoor public places or have announced plans to do so.
Blair's government bowed to pressure from its Members of Parliament after several of them put forward an amendment to remove the exemptions in the law, which is due to take effect in mid 2007.
"Following discussions ... it is the government's intention to allow its Members of Parliament -- including ministers -- a free vote on the amendment," Blair's spokesman told reporters.
The spokesman said the decision on the vote, which will take place in February, reflected a change in the public mood.
But it also means Blair, who has seen his authority wane since announcing he would stand down before an election due by 2010, will avoid a potentially embarrassing defeat.
Fewer than 40 Labour M.P's can defeat Blair by siding with opposition parties after last May's election more than halved his majority. He suffered his first ever parliamentary defeat last year, on anti-terrorism laws.
Blair admits smacking his children
TONY BLAIR smacked his three older children when they were small, he admitted yesterday, but insisted that he does not hit his five-year-old son, Leo.
Mr Blair was put on the spot about his methods of parental discipline by Kirsty Wark, the BBC Two Newsnight interviewer, at a question and answer session with the public and media in Swindon as he promoted his “respect” agenda.
He was asked: “Do you smack your kids? Did you?”
When he failed to reply immediately, Ms Wark asked him: “Did it cause a problem?”
Mr Blair said: “No, I think actually, funnily enough, I’m probably different with my youngest than I was with my older ones.”
Misunderstanding his reply, Ms Wark asked him: “What, you do smack the younger one?”
Mr Blair, whose other children are aged 21, 20 and 17, replied: “No no, no no. It was actually the other way round but . . . I think, look, this smacking . . . I mean, I agree with what you just said, I think everybody actually knows the difference between smacking a kid and abusing a child.
“But I, if I can honestly say this to you — I think the problem is when you get these really, really difficult families, it’s moved a bit beyond that.”
In 2004 as the Government faced calls to back a total ban on physical punishment, Mr Blair said he understood why parents would want to smack “really naughty” children.
But he said that he felt “a bit different now”, and called for a “dose of common sense” in the debate.
His comment came during debates on the Children Act, which bans any physical punishment by parents in England and Wales that leaves a mark on the youngster.
In 1998 the European Court of Human Rights declared that the ancient British law that permits the “reasonable chastisement” of children was unlawful. The ruling has been endorsed by two parliamentary committees, and the monitoring committee of the UN’s Rights of the Child Convention.
Of course, it is perfectly possible that Mr Blair does not smack Leo because the boy is perfectly behaved and dutifully respects his father at all times.
(Ed: Tony Blair ain't very smart. He does not seem to realise that Leo is the son of his old age. Most men will know that their youngest children get away with stuff the older ones did not. Oh and of course as P.M. he will be seeing less of Leo than his older children )
Mr Blair was put on the spot about his methods of parental discipline by Kirsty Wark, the BBC Two Newsnight interviewer, at a question and answer session with the public and media in Swindon as he promoted his “respect” agenda.
He was asked: “Do you smack your kids? Did you?”
When he failed to reply immediately, Ms Wark asked him: “Did it cause a problem?”
Mr Blair said: “No, I think actually, funnily enough, I’m probably different with my youngest than I was with my older ones.”
Misunderstanding his reply, Ms Wark asked him: “What, you do smack the younger one?”
Mr Blair, whose other children are aged 21, 20 and 17, replied: “No no, no no. It was actually the other way round but . . . I think, look, this smacking . . . I mean, I agree with what you just said, I think everybody actually knows the difference between smacking a kid and abusing a child.
“But I, if I can honestly say this to you — I think the problem is when you get these really, really difficult families, it’s moved a bit beyond that.”
In 2004 as the Government faced calls to back a total ban on physical punishment, Mr Blair said he understood why parents would want to smack “really naughty” children.
But he said that he felt “a bit different now”, and called for a “dose of common sense” in the debate.
His comment came during debates on the Children Act, which bans any physical punishment by parents in England and Wales that leaves a mark on the youngster.
In 1998 the European Court of Human Rights declared that the ancient British law that permits the “reasonable chastisement” of children was unlawful. The ruling has been endorsed by two parliamentary committees, and the monitoring committee of the UN’s Rights of the Child Convention.
Of course, it is perfectly possible that Mr Blair does not smack Leo because the boy is perfectly behaved and dutifully respects his father at all times.
(Ed: Tony Blair ain't very smart. He does not seem to realise that Leo is the son of his old age. Most men will know that their youngest children get away with stuff the older ones did not. Oh and of course as P.M. he will be seeing less of Leo than his older children )
Thursday, January 05, 2006
New Labour misled public over cannabis
MINISTERS misled the public over the dangers of smoking cannabis, Home Secretary Charles Clarke has admitted.
And it was the downgrading of the drug to Class C status less than a year ago that was responsible, he said.
In an interview last night, the Home Secretary laid the blame squarely with predecessor David Blunkett for his softly-softly approach.
Mr Clarke said that he was now “very worried” about evidence linking marijuana to mental illness.
He said that downgrading it from a class B to a class C drug, like steroids and anti-depressants, had caused “confusion”.
People were also startlingly unaware of the health risks, he added. The damning remarks pave the way for a dramatic U-turn in the coming weeks — first forecast by The Sun.
Asked if Mr Blunkett’s decision to reclassify the drug was responsible for the confusion Mr Clarke replied: “Yes.”
He went on: “People do not understand the impact of the consumption of cannabis well enough and what the legal consequences are.
“The thing that worries me most (about downgrading) is confusion among the punters about what the legal status of cannabis is.
“I am very struck by the advocacy of a number of people who have been proposers of the reclassification of cannabis that they are wrong.
“I am also very worried about the most recent medical evidence on mental health. This is a very serious issue.”
Mr Blunkett relaxed the law to free up police to tackle more serious crime.
But the move sparked an explosion in pot-smoking among teenagers who wrongly think it has been decriminalised.
Seizures soared by a third and cops have spent £1million on posters warning it is still illegal.
Experts say youngsters who regularly smoke dope are four-and-a-half times more likely to suffer psychosis or schizophrenia in their 20s.
Mr Clarke, who was fiercely opposed to downgrading when it was railroaded through by Mr Blunkett, launched an inquiry.
It will soon formally report back — but the Home Secretary has already read its conclusions.
He said: “Let me reveal one recommendation of the advisory committee which they make very very strongly.
“It is a renewed commitment to public education about the potential effects of the consumption of cannabis and the legal status of cannabis. That is well made and I will accept it.”
(From Michael Lea at The Sun)
And it was the downgrading of the drug to Class C status less than a year ago that was responsible, he said.
In an interview last night, the Home Secretary laid the blame squarely with predecessor David Blunkett for his softly-softly approach.
Mr Clarke said that he was now “very worried” about evidence linking marijuana to mental illness.
He said that downgrading it from a class B to a class C drug, like steroids and anti-depressants, had caused “confusion”.
People were also startlingly unaware of the health risks, he added. The damning remarks pave the way for a dramatic U-turn in the coming weeks — first forecast by The Sun.
Asked if Mr Blunkett’s decision to reclassify the drug was responsible for the confusion Mr Clarke replied: “Yes.”
He went on: “People do not understand the impact of the consumption of cannabis well enough and what the legal consequences are.
“The thing that worries me most (about downgrading) is confusion among the punters about what the legal status of cannabis is.
“I am very struck by the advocacy of a number of people who have been proposers of the reclassification of cannabis that they are wrong.
“I am also very worried about the most recent medical evidence on mental health. This is a very serious issue.”
Mr Blunkett relaxed the law to free up police to tackle more serious crime.
But the move sparked an explosion in pot-smoking among teenagers who wrongly think it has been decriminalised.
Seizures soared by a third and cops have spent £1million on posters warning it is still illegal.
Experts say youngsters who regularly smoke dope are four-and-a-half times more likely to suffer psychosis or schizophrenia in their 20s.
Mr Clarke, who was fiercely opposed to downgrading when it was railroaded through by Mr Blunkett, launched an inquiry.
It will soon formally report back — but the Home Secretary has already read its conclusions.
He said: “Let me reveal one recommendation of the advisory committee which they make very very strongly.
“It is a renewed commitment to public education about the potential effects of the consumption of cannabis and the legal status of cannabis. That is well made and I will accept it.”
(From Michael Lea at The Sun)
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Labour Party campaign manager attacked Tory
Labour Party worker David Harding appeared before magistrates
A Labour Party campaign manager punched and grabbed the throat of a Tory activist on the eve of the 2005 general election, a court has heard.
Labour Party worker David Harding is alleged to have set upon Robert Benham, parliamentary assistant to Romford Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell.
Havering Magistrates heard on Tuesday the assault took place outside Romford Railway Station on 4 May, 2005.
Mr Harding, 48, of Hornchurch, Essex, denies common assault.
He has also denies a charge of using abusive words or behaviour.
Rekha Kodikara, prosecuting, told the court Mr Harding and 25-year-old Mr Benham had been part of two competing groups of canvassers outside the station.
She said Mr Harding had been using a loudspeaker to canvass voters and suggested that Mr Rosindell had "acted inappropriately" when campaigning.
She said Mr Benham had recorded these remarks on his mobile phone. Mr Harding then approached him and said: "You are in big trouble."
When the Labour canvassers had left the area, Mr Harding returned to the station with about two other men and attacked Mr Benham, Ms Kodikara said.
She said the situation then "spiralled out of control" and Mr Harding "lashed out at anyone who stood in his way".
Giving evidence, Mr Benham said he was punched and the accused tried to strangle him.
He told the court: "I got a punch or a palm to the head. I went forward and the accused tried to strangle me and forced me to the ground, digging his fingers into my neck."
Mr Benham said he had to undergo three months of physiotherapy for muscle damage.
A Labour Party campaign manager punched and grabbed the throat of a Tory activist on the eve of the 2005 general election, a court has heard.
Labour Party worker David Harding is alleged to have set upon Robert Benham, parliamentary assistant to Romford Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell.
Havering Magistrates heard on Tuesday the assault took place outside Romford Railway Station on 4 May, 2005.
Mr Harding, 48, of Hornchurch, Essex, denies common assault.
He has also denies a charge of using abusive words or behaviour.
Rekha Kodikara, prosecuting, told the court Mr Harding and 25-year-old Mr Benham had been part of two competing groups of canvassers outside the station.
She said Mr Harding had been using a loudspeaker to canvass voters and suggested that Mr Rosindell had "acted inappropriately" when campaigning.
She said Mr Benham had recorded these remarks on his mobile phone. Mr Harding then approached him and said: "You are in big trouble."
When the Labour canvassers had left the area, Mr Harding returned to the station with about two other men and attacked Mr Benham, Ms Kodikara said.
She said the situation then "spiralled out of control" and Mr Harding "lashed out at anyone who stood in his way".
Giving evidence, Mr Benham said he was punched and the accused tried to strangle him.
He told the court: "I got a punch or a palm to the head. I went forward and the accused tried to strangle me and forced me to the ground, digging his fingers into my neck."
Mr Benham said he had to undergo three months of physiotherapy for muscle damage.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Blair has no answer for Trust under fire for axing heart op
Hospital chiefs were accused of sacrificing heart patients' welfare to meet targets after scrapping their operations.
Oxford Radcliffe NHS Trust has wiped dozens of people from waiting lists for cardiac catheter ablation, the operation which cured Tony Blair of an irregular heartbeat.
The cash-strapped trust said it had been forced to restrict the treatment to only the most desperate cases in an attempt to cut costs. But patients, pressure groups and MPs say they believe the operations - which have a 95% success rate - were stopped to meet maximum six-month wait targets.
The alarm was first raised by the Arrhythmia Alliance a month ago after the patients' group was deluged by complaints from disappointed sufferers and concerned doctors. Their letters to the Prime Minister and Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt went unanswered. They now hope the public row will force the trust into a rethink and prevent other trusts around the country using the same tactics.
Founder Trudie Lobban told the Press Association: "The trust are saying it's because of the cost, but it's ironic that with one fell swoop they have got rid of their waiting list. Some of these patients cannot work - yet Tony Blair had the operation and he was back at work the next day, running the country.
"It is a scandal what they are doing. These poor people are being made scapegoats for the bureaucracy which goes on behind."
She said her concerns were shared by Professor Roger Boyle, the Government's heart tsar, who was "appalled" by the decision to cut the operations. Stephen Eeley, one of those dropped from the list, said he now faced spending the rest of his life "breathless and tired" because of a "short-term fix to massage figures".
An administrator at Oxford University, he said he was "furious" to be told he no longer met the criteria for treatment after months spent on the waiting list. "This is exactly the same thing that Tony Blair suffered," he said.
"To suffer what he suffered and to have no recourse to anybody is very extremely frustrating. They sorted him out immediately. It's very cynical that the Radcliffe Hospital have chosen (to discontinue) this particular procedure, which I understand they do very well. It's a short-term fix to massage figures.
Ms Hewitt said she understood patients' concerns but insisted it was a local decision. "It's not at all clear to me why the costs at the Oxford Radcliffe of doing that particular procedure are so much higher than the average," Ms Hewitt said.
Oxford Radcliffe NHS Trust has wiped dozens of people from waiting lists for cardiac catheter ablation, the operation which cured Tony Blair of an irregular heartbeat.
The cash-strapped trust said it had been forced to restrict the treatment to only the most desperate cases in an attempt to cut costs. But patients, pressure groups and MPs say they believe the operations - which have a 95% success rate - were stopped to meet maximum six-month wait targets.
The alarm was first raised by the Arrhythmia Alliance a month ago after the patients' group was deluged by complaints from disappointed sufferers and concerned doctors. Their letters to the Prime Minister and Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt went unanswered. They now hope the public row will force the trust into a rethink and prevent other trusts around the country using the same tactics.
Founder Trudie Lobban told the Press Association: "The trust are saying it's because of the cost, but it's ironic that with one fell swoop they have got rid of their waiting list. Some of these patients cannot work - yet Tony Blair had the operation and he was back at work the next day, running the country.
"It is a scandal what they are doing. These poor people are being made scapegoats for the bureaucracy which goes on behind."
She said her concerns were shared by Professor Roger Boyle, the Government's heart tsar, who was "appalled" by the decision to cut the operations. Stephen Eeley, one of those dropped from the list, said he now faced spending the rest of his life "breathless and tired" because of a "short-term fix to massage figures".
An administrator at Oxford University, he said he was "furious" to be told he no longer met the criteria for treatment after months spent on the waiting list. "This is exactly the same thing that Tony Blair suffered," he said.
"To suffer what he suffered and to have no recourse to anybody is very extremely frustrating. They sorted him out immediately. It's very cynical that the Radcliffe Hospital have chosen (to discontinue) this particular procedure, which I understand they do very well. It's a short-term fix to massage figures.
Ms Hewitt said she understood patients' concerns but insisted it was a local decision. "It's not at all clear to me why the costs at the Oxford Radcliffe of doing that particular procedure are so much higher than the average," Ms Hewitt said.
Child killer in unescorted trips
A triple child killer has been allowed out of jail on unescorted trips, it has been reported.
David McGreavy killed siblings Paul, four, Dawn, two, and Samantha, nine months, before impaling them on a railing while babysitting at their Worcester home more than three decades ago, it was said.
During the past six weeks, the 54-year-old has been on visits to Liverpool from Ford Prison in Arundel, West Sussex, according to the Sun.
A Home Office spokeswoman confirmed that McGreavy was jailed for life in 1973 but said she could not discuss the case further.
She said it was "normal" for life sentence prisoners to be allowed out temporarily before their release.
She added: "All prisoners will be fully risk-assessed before being moved to an open prison or being allowed out of prison on a temporary licence. It's a tightly managed process.
"(It) happens as part of our commitment to rehabilitate prisoners, to help them reintegrate into society and also to test them."
A spokesman for the dead babies' mother, Dorothy Urry, said she did not wish to comment.
Mrs Urry told the Sun: "I cannot believe it. This man took three children's lives. He should have got the electric chair.
"I wouldn't trust him near any kids. It's just not safe."
David McGreavy killed siblings Paul, four, Dawn, two, and Samantha, nine months, before impaling them on a railing while babysitting at their Worcester home more than three decades ago, it was said.
During the past six weeks, the 54-year-old has been on visits to Liverpool from Ford Prison in Arundel, West Sussex, according to the Sun.
A Home Office spokeswoman confirmed that McGreavy was jailed for life in 1973 but said she could not discuss the case further.
She said it was "normal" for life sentence prisoners to be allowed out temporarily before their release.
She added: "All prisoners will be fully risk-assessed before being moved to an open prison or being allowed out of prison on a temporary licence. It's a tightly managed process.
"(It) happens as part of our commitment to rehabilitate prisoners, to help them reintegrate into society and also to test them."
A spokesman for the dead babies' mother, Dorothy Urry, said she did not wish to comment.
Mrs Urry told the Sun: "I cannot believe it. This man took three children's lives. He should have got the electric chair.
"I wouldn't trust him near any kids. It's just not safe."
Violent crime up again
The use of weapons in all types of violent crime increased last year, according to new Home Office figures.
Weapons including knives, clubs, firearms, stones and glasses or bottles were used in 24% of violent incidents in 2004-05, compared with 21% the previous year. All categories measured by the British Crime Survey, which interviews thousands of people about their experiences of crime, showed a rise of between 1% and 6%.
Weapons were used in 26% of common assaults, up from 20%.
Attacks between "acquaintances" also featured weapons in 33% of cases, up nearly 5% on the previous year.
Robberies - previously the subject of a high-profile crackdown driven by Prime Minister Tony Blair - also showed a rise in weapons-use of 2% to 24%.
In all, knives were used in 6% of violent incidents, sticks, clubs or other hitting implements in 7%, glasses or bottles in 6% and firearms in 1%.
Home Office figures published in July showed that violence against the person incidents recorded by police in England and Wales have topped one million for the first time.
Total recorded violent crime - including sexual offences and robbery - stood at 1,184,702 in 2004-05, up 7% year on year.
Weapons including knives, clubs, firearms, stones and glasses or bottles were used in 24% of violent incidents in 2004-05, compared with 21% the previous year. All categories measured by the British Crime Survey, which interviews thousands of people about their experiences of crime, showed a rise of between 1% and 6%.
Weapons were used in 26% of common assaults, up from 20%.
Attacks between "acquaintances" also featured weapons in 33% of cases, up nearly 5% on the previous year.
Robberies - previously the subject of a high-profile crackdown driven by Prime Minister Tony Blair - also showed a rise in weapons-use of 2% to 24%.
In all, knives were used in 6% of violent incidents, sticks, clubs or other hitting implements in 7%, glasses or bottles in 6% and firearms in 1%.
Home Office figures published in July showed that violence against the person incidents recorded by police in England and Wales have topped one million for the first time.
Total recorded violent crime - including sexual offences and robbery - stood at 1,184,702 in 2004-05, up 7% year on year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)