Prisioners and the Ballot Box

The opening paragraph of the preamble to the Liberal Democrat constitution states (emphasis mine):

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."

So therefore the fact that for the first time since 1870* that prisoners are to get the right to vote restored in the UK, is enshrined in our party constitution. The resultant change is not being brought about solely by the good nature of the new Government but as a result of a 2005 ruling the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It was sort of there in our manifesto under the coverall line

"Ensure that everyone has the same protections under the law by protecting the Human Rights Act"

Everyone having the same protections should include the right for everyone to have the right to decide who makes those laws.

No doubt the Daily Fail will be up in arms about this, but the prison population that will be affected by the change in this law is only 70,000 people. Assuming that they will each be entitled to vote in the address where they were last resident, rather than where they are detained, it comes to an average of 117 votes per each of the proposed 600 constituencies.

Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said a "historic decision to enfranchise serving prisoners" would bring to an end the "archaic punishment of civic death". She said:

"In a modern prison system you would expect prisoners to have rights and responsibilities and politicians to take an active interest in their constituency prisons. People are sent to prison to lose their liberty not their identity."

While each country has the right under the ECHR ruling to decide what offences would carry voting restrictions, rather than the blanket ban that exists as present. If we believe in a restorative prison system, then surely we must believe that anyone serving a conviction no matter for what crime may serve a useful role in society at some point. Even some of those that are serving life sentences without any hope of remand may still be restored and serving useful functions within the walls of their confinement, passing on lessons in whatever way is possible to others that re-offending is not the way to go.

I'm glad to be a member of a party that enshrines the right of the individual. That stands up for each and every one of the citizens of the UK. While standing up for the rights of some individuals may seem hard and a tough thing to do at times, it is important that the rights of all are defended. Of course course imprisonment of some is required for the greater good to society as a whole, but those convicted are still individual citizens.

* The Forfeiture Act (1870) upheld in the Representation of the People Act (1983)

Scottish Tories "for nothing if you don't have freedom"*

What now for the Scottish Tories?

Yesterday they David McLetchie took a stance which flew in the face of common sense or fairness, when they opposed the right for a suspect to have a lawyer present for the first six hours while the police were able to question. The Tories are probably opposing the ruling solely on the grounds that it comes from a decision taken in the European Court for Human Rights in 2008. The fact that there are some sensible decisions taken in Europe seems to be a point that deludes them. Hopefully the Scottish people will remember how inhuman the Scottish Tories are on the subjects of rights for the citizens next May.

The preamble to the Liberal Democrats constitution says that "no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity" and the presence of the six hour rule could well have let to some innocents being imprisoned due to these. So I suspect that this ruling may cause ructions in Westminster with the Tories trying to limit or remove the European Convention on Human Rights from UK law and the rulings of the European Court, even where they are beneficial, being countermanded. Also unlike the Tories the Liberal Democrats believe "our responsibility for justice and liberty cannot be confined by national boundaries"[from the preamble]

I trust that the Lib Dems in Westminster, having secured our Freedom Bill in the coalition agreement will remember that the party exists "to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community"[from the preamble].

The Scottish Tories may moan "but they'll never take OUR FREEDOM"**.

Or else we'll set the Comptroller of HM Household (pictured) on them.

* Yeah a little bit of Braveheart in the title.
** And a little bit more Braveheart at the end.

EU Human Rights Too Much for Scots Tories

The Tories have a hate-hate relationship with all things European it seems. In the run up to the 2009 European elections the Liberal Democrats were going to highlight some of the areas of good that Europe were doing which the Tories wanted to scrap. You many have missed this message as it was drowned out by the cacophony of noise surrounding the Daily Telegraph's coverage of the MP's expenses.

However, it has reared its ugly head again. This time it has arisen from the case of Peter Cadder who has raised an issue from Scots Law in the UK Supreme Court following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008: the case is set to conclude.

Currently the Scottish police can question a suspect for six hours without a lawyer present. Cadder as a teenager was convicted of assault and breach of the peace on evidence gained before his lawyer was present.

David McLetchie MSP, former leader of the Scottish Conservatives, said:

"This issue is now coming to a head.

"If the Supreme Court decides in favour of Cadder and the decision is retrospective, then the Scottish Conservatives stand ready to work with the rest of parliament to limit the damage.

"As we saw with the slopping-out fiasco, ECHR can often serve the interests of the criminal, rather than the law-abiding majority.

"Its incorporation into the Scotland Act in 1998 was an error of judgment which, 12 years on, needs to be reviewed."

There are two fundamental things wrong with Mr McLetchie's statement. First the assumption that only the guilty benefit from not having to give evidence until they have a lawyer present. I know there are times when constituents have in the past said they felt intimidated to say what officers have wanted to hear rather than the truth to get things dealt with more rapidly.

Also the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is there to serve the best interests of all parties. The accused, whether proven guilty or not proven, as well as the police officers responsible for the questioning. With an outside party present they cannot overstep their authority.

Therefore far from calling for the ECHR to be taken out of the Scotland Act (as indeed in Westminster) the Tories should be looking at the good that comes out of it. It is a pity that blind euro scepticism is so rampant in the Tory party when more of our world and especially crime knows and respects no borders

Read also: Lallands Peat Worrier scholarly take on the Cadder judgement even without the McLetchie angle. I see that Michael also beat me to this story as well as this Tweet. Grr!

Update: The Supreme Court has ruled that Scottish Police no longer have the right to question a suspect without their lawyer being present.

Religious Hypocricy in Iran Over False Witness in Key Trials

The Koran says:

O you who believe, you shall be absolutely equitable, and observe Allah, when you serve as witnesses, even against yourselves, or your parents, or your relatives. Whether the accused is rich or poor, Allah takes care of both. Therefore, do not be biased by your personal wishes. If you deviate or disregard (this commandment), then Allah is fully Cognizant of everything you do.

Sura 4:135

Therefore the latest case to emerge from Iran, allegedly based on religious teachings must taken in light of what else the holy book is teaching the Islamic Republic. That latest story involves another client of Mohammad Mostafaei, 18-year-old Ebrahim Hamidi, who is accused of sodomy and has been sentanced to death. Mostafaei who seems to have been the only lawyer to have been prepared to stand up to defend human rights at this level in Iran.

With lawyer fleeing for his live to Norway following his defence of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani. The woman who has been sentenced to death for alleged adultery yesterday pointed out the sexism of the Iranian judicial system when she was interviewed and told that the person who had murdered her husband is not facing death. While she is accused of adultery solely on the say so of a judicial official (see the above quote from the Koran).

The case of Hamidi is even more fraught with false witnesses. In his case along with three friends they were involved in a fight with another family. They were accused of homosexual attack on the victim. After threes in which he was tortured Hamidi then confessed, his three co-accused where acquitted when they agreed to testify against him. Last month the alleged victim admitted he had been under pressure from his parents to make the false accusations.

Looking at that part of the Koran again:

you shall be absolutely equitable, and observe Allah, when you serve as witnesses,

even against yourselves, Eprahim Hamidi may have given false testimony against himself but this was under duress and not to free himself but to condemn himself. His victim has admitted to false witness under duress.

or your parents, or your relatives. The three co-accused used false witness against one of their own family to gain release for themselves. In truly Darwinian fashion it was against the one who broke down first under pressure and appears to have been the youngest of the accused. The parents of the alleged victim started the whole ball rolling putting pressure on for the homosexual assault charge, which led to the tortured confessions, then the other false witnesses.

Whether the accused is rich or poor, Surely the judiciary count as being the rich. They have heard facts that the evidence they are basing this on are false yet they continue not to take corrective action. Surely having the truth and acting on falsehoods is also against this part of the Koran. In the case of the woman, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, it is a judge who without evidence has accused her of adultery.

Allah takes care of both. Therefore, do not be biased by your personal wishes. If you deviate or disregard (this commandment), then Allah is fully Cognizant of everything you do.

So by keeping only a part of law and ignoring other parts their religious zealousness is actually being shown up as hypocritical.

Fisking the AFA Over Judge Walker Impeachment Call

Well it is a little over 24 hours since Judge Vaughan Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. Well tonight I've just received a mailing list from the American Family Association (AFA), who else, calling for the judged impeachment.

Time for a little fisking in red.

August 5, 2010


Dear Friend,

Well if you are going to add me to your alert list when I sign up to your site to complain, feel free to call me a friend.

Yesterday (August 4), U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker single-handedly overturned California's Prop. 8, which elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage to its state constitution.

As far as I'm aware equal marriage rights does nothing to infringe on the rights of one-man to take one-woman (or indeed a series of women) to he his lawfully married wife (wives). The proponents of gay marriage are saying that each man should be cleaved to another man and each woman to another woman in matrimony. They are protecting current existing marriage but expanding it's availability to everyone irrespective of sexual orientation.

In doing so, he frustrated the expressed will of seven million Californians who went to the polls to shape their state's public policy on marriage.

The vote was 7,001,408 for Prop 9 52.24% and 6,401,482 against. Indeed the Proposition was called 'California Marriage Protection Act' as if the act of heterosexual marriage was under some kind of threat. If there was such scaremongering in the naming it is surprising it didn't pass more comfortably.

As Alex Foster pointed out earlier this is the only occasion that equal marriage has been overturned anywhere in the world after it has been introduced. Also should majority rights be put to a majority vote. If they did every time would America still allow slavery, at least in certain states? Would apartheid still be practised in the southern states? Minority rights need to be protected that is what the judge stood up for.

Since marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states. Judge Walker never should have accepted this case in the first place.

Actually that same constitution separates Church and State. The State is to rule as a secular body and take the whims or fancies of the Catholic and Mormon churches who heavily supported Prop 8 and the legal defence in this case to task.

Under Judge Walker, it's no longer "We the People," it's "I the Judge."

In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.

Hang on! Wouldn't an openly heterosexual and religious Judge also have had to excuse themselves on that reckoning. Should we then only appoint judges who aren't prepared to make tough decisions, it would make things so much easier.

Some facts about Judge Walker he was a Reagan nominee. Talk about conservative. The current Democrat speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, opposed his appointment because of his alleged 'insensitivity' to gays and the poor.

What can be done?

Fortunately, the Founders provided checks and balances for every branch of government, including the judicial branch. Federal judges hold office only "during good Behaviour," and if they violate that standard can be removed from the bench.

These checks and balances are also what the judges have the right to uphold the constitution when a state proposition goes against the ethos of the founders.

Judge Walker's ruling is not "good Behaviour." He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.

When we are talking about good behaviour lets look at one of the two Prop 8 witnesses who must have perjured himself under oath by saying that a child is 12 times more likely to be abused by a gay, when the government findings, as I wrote yesterday, indicate that the overwhelming majority over 100 times more likely to be a heterosexual person. And most common someone known to the child.

Judges are not, in fact, unaccountable. They are accountable to Congress, which can remove them from office.

Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It's time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker.

Sincerely,

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association

So there you have it, that is what the AFA want to do next, instead of actually paying to put up a good defence of their cause in court, they relied on myths and falsehoods and a poor performance. Sore losers, scaremongers and perjurers. Jumping straight to impeach rather than the Supreme Court shows desperation and a need to attack the LGBT, which only has two openly gay judges in the entire USA.

Truth, Justice and the American Gay (Well Californian Anyway)

Judge Vaughn Walker has today made an historic ruling in California when he said that Proposition 8 which overturned the State allowing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Not just in California State constitution but under the US Constitution. He said in his ruling that it violated the equal protection clause.

Following a lengthy court case brought by two couples. Against Prop 8 there was witnesses stating that allowing gay marriage would help the mental health of gays and lesbians, give more legal protection to their children, reduce discrimination and give gay couples more political power.

Those in support called just two witnesses who argued that retaining the ban would protect children and traditional marriage. One of them even cited unfounded figures that gays were twelve times more likely to abuse children. When one study in the US by the Child Welfare Information Gateway actually says. "A child's risk of being molested by his or her relatives' heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual." Indeed in that same study of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian. Which actually means it is 100 times more likely that child abuse is carried out by someone identifying as a heterosexual.

I'm glad that the myths being purported as science were seen through by the judge who made his judgement. The scaremongering of the Prop 8 supporters has been stopped dead, and now for the first time they have been ruled unconstitutional, although this being the US I expect it will on to a higher level of the legislature.

But in the meantime it is right to celebrate this breakthrough as Lori Jean chief executive of the Gay and Lesbian Centre said:

"Today’s historic decision by the federal district court is clearly a milestone victory for all gay, lesbian and bisexual Californians, our families and our friends. But much more than that, it is a resounding affirmation of fundamental American ideals and core principles of the US Constitution.

"Almost from our very beginnings, one of the exceptional hallmarks of our nation’s progress has been the expansion of our concepts of liberty and justice to include those of us who were not initially considered fully equal, or who were perhaps not even considered at all.

"Although it has often taken years of struggle, we have seen profound advancements in the recognition of the full citizenship of women, of African-Americans, and of countless other ethnic, religious and social minorities.

"These changes have come about through a continually broadening public understanding of who we all are, and of the common bonds and aspirations that we all share."

The Judge said in his ruling:

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples."

and also that California "has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions."

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger praised the ruling saying:

"For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves," the governor said. "At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity."

As of today following Judge Walker's ruling city and state officials in California are to stop imposing the ban on same sex marriage.

Slamannan Knife Attack on Pull Out Bride

Slamannan (point on map) isn't the centre of the universe, however today the village at the western end of the Linlithgow and East Falkirk constituency is at the centre of the media's attention for very unfortunate reasons.

A 32-year-old mother of two children (named locally as Lisa Whyte) who pulled out of her wedding at the last minute yesterday is currently fighting for her life in Glasgow's Southern General Hospital, having had her throat slashed. The incident happened at around 10 am this morning.

The news just in is that a man of 37 has been arrested in Newcastle. He has been taken to hospital apparently with self inflicted injuries. The police are waiting to question him but he is expected to appear in court on Monday.

Police are still looking for any witnesses to come forward to speak to them.

The children are currently being looked after by grandparents. My thoughts are with them and the woman's family at this traumatic time.

Update The man arrested has since been named as he victim's fiancé Steven McKee.

Senate Hearing From the International Outlaws of the World,,,

...OR why they are right to refuse...

...OR how America still thinks the West must be won


So Kenny MacAskill and Jack Straw have both said no to the US Senate enquiry on Megrahi. Tony Blair had apparently been invited and indeed his airfare would have been covered, although the Senate are saying this was a draft letter which had been leaked to the press.

However, when you look at the USA's record on implementing International Laws the fact that they are looking to have a hearing into a criminal tried under Scottish Law and released under Scottish jurisdiction on compassionate grounds show how the USA just do not get it. Here is a rundown on some of the human rights treaties that the USA has either not signed or ratified and the company they keep.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) adopted 1979 USA has yet to ratify it although they have signing it in 1980. They team up with Iran, Nauru, Palau, Somalia, Sudan and Tonga.

Convention on the Rights of a Child (CRC) 1989 USA singed it in 1995 but it has yet to be presented to the Senate for approval. Only Somalia lines up as a fellow none participant.

Convention Against Enforced Disappearance 2006. Only 81 signatories (16 NATO allies) thus far and not in force but USA have not taken any action.

Mine Ban Treaty 1996. Again no action at all from the USA along with China, Russia and 34 other nations.

Convention on Cluster Weapons 2008. Signed by the majority of NAO nations and many other US Allies. But only half the 30 ratifications needed to trigger the convention. Of course the USA are not in the 98 signatories.

Tellingly The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 2006 enforced in 20088 with 140 signatories. You know the score, no action from the USA.

Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) 2002 enforced since 2006. Signatories include include the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Austria, France, Spain, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, Brazil, and Mexico. But not the USA.

So before the USA start to probe into another nations legal system and release decisions maybe they should look at their own record on international issue. They have a poor record in signing up to or implementing international actions. so what right do they have to want to interfere. I personally feel that MacAskill, Straw, Blair et al are quite correct in refusung to turn up at the pleasure of the international outlaws of our world. If the USA is not going to support the rights of others as many other states have they have no right to interfere in the humanity of others.

Cumbria

Yesterday afternoon when I heard that a gunman was shooting people in Whitehaven, my first thoughts were of my cousin who works in the town. As soon as I could I was checking on that first port of call in our social media age Facebook, to see if she had updated her profile to tell us she was OK. Thankfully she had, but for 12 others the news was not so great and further 25 had been injured.

After Hungerford and Dunblane our guns laws in the UK have become some of the most stringent in the world. But there are sometimes no way that even stringent guidelines for issuing licences can stop what locals say was the out of character actions of Derrick Bird yesterday.

With my uncle and cousin both involved in the Rugby world the fact that one of those killed was Garry Purdham a back row Rugby League forward for Wokington, brother of Rob the Harlequins captain and England cap, means there is someone they probably know among the dead.

The role of the dead includes Bird's twin brother, the solicitor dealing with a family will, fellow taxi drivers and then in indiscriminate drive by victims. The pensioner delivering shopping catalogues, the cyclist, the retired Sellafield security guard and others.

Coming so soon after the coach tragedy of 3 dead Keswick school children, indeed on the day of Chloe Walker's funeral, this small and beautiful corner of England is facing more mourning.

It Works! What the Tories Aren't Telling You About Lib Dem Crime Policy

The Tories say they are going to scrutinise Liberal Democrat policy but oops for a party that presents its manifesto like a hymnal it is taking lines out of it without context to what is around it.

Take for example the current line of attack on seeking non-custodial sentencing for less than six month sentences, which they are currently attacking us on. You would think that is all we have to say on that. Well you are wrong it doesn't even include the other part of that policy statement let alone other compatible parts of the crime policies.

Here is that full policy statement:

• Introduce a presumption against short-term sentences of less than six months - replaced with rigorously enforced community sentences which evidence shows are better at cutting re-offending.

So it will cut re-offending saving court costs and supervision costs of dealing with the re-offenders sentences. Also it will cost less to start with as there won't be the prison costs. Also there is only a presumption against short term sentences, it doesn't rule them out for example in certain areas of crime that the Tories are going cock a hoop over or in the case of serial offenders.

Looking at compatible other measure for petty crime (which is what the short term sentences are for) we also have these policy statement.

• Give people a direct say in how petty criminals and those who engage in anti-social behaviour are punished by setting up Neighbourhood Justice Panel (NJPs), like the one run by Liberal Democrats in Somerset where 95 of offenders have been turned away from further crimes.
  
• Champion restorative justice programmes, like NJPs, which make offenders confront their behaviour and are more successful at reducing crime than the traditional forms of punishment.

Oh yeah and here's something regarding that prison reform it brings about savings.

• 2011-2 £795m
• 2012-3 £735m
• 2013-4 £675m
• 2014-5 £845m

So altogether these policies regarding the petty crimes in our society will cut re-offending, cut costs and rehabilitate offenders. All good reasons for voters to vote Liberal Democrat.

Digital Economy Bill How Michael Connarty Performed

I've been kind of busy since the Digital Economy Bill was discussed and sadly passed in Parliament during the week.

Readers may remember that I stressed my concerns, and those of a number of constituents who had written to me about the various clauses in the Bill. On the day of the rushed committee stage of the bill many amendments were raised, spoken about and then withdrawn by the proposers purely as an expediency of time. That was the shameful way in which this complex bill was rushed through the elected house. If there had been sufficient times these amendments would have been properly discussed at committee stage and where there was dissent put to the vote.

I'd also stressed those concerns to my Labour opponent in the election, who is of course also my own MP. He responded initially with the response 'I agree'. When I wrote to him again earlier this week, he replied 'this is something that [he] will leave up to the front benches'. So how did he perform in the debate.

First up after a little bit of back of forth of pointless identifying which Star Wars © 1977 character various members of Parliament were he got called to make his first intervention.

"I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend and I am a great follower of Star Wars. I realise now, however, that my hon. Friend has identified himself as Yoda [© 1981]."

You wonder just how much interest he was paying to the concerns of the bill or of his constituents that his first intervention was that.

I too am a great fan of Star Wars © 1977 , I also love the number of parodies that are available through YouTube etc. Heck even Doctor Who last night was again full of references to Star Wars © 1977 and indeed other other science fiction. You have to wonder would the BBC have to be shut down for blatantly stealing copyrighted material. The line "Help me Doctor, you're our only hope." being a prime example.

Ok Pete Wishart, got up to speak soon after. Pete is one of the few MPs of whom I have bought some of his copyrighted material, both as CDs and indeed to see him perform live. Other's do include Charles Kennedy, William Hague and Vince Cable, although theirs are merely books and haven't been copied unto my laptop, like Runrig, so I can listen to them wherever I am.

During Wishart's speech Connarty rose again to say:

"I am grateful to another vice-chairman of the Performers Alliance group in this House for giving way. Is it not a myth that co-operation, as we have heard, could somehow solve this? People are not talking about co-operating and sharing their own thoughts and content, but are stealing someone else's content and sharing that. There is an Armageddon, which has partially arrived in Sweden, where the Pirate party, whose leader is in jail, won seats in the European Parliament on the basis that everybody's work-including MP4's-should be free."

Therein lies an issue, these two are part of a Parliamentary group protecting performers rights. Thing is I am a performer, I've played in bands, I've written songs, poems and written a lot of stuff to which I hold the intellectual property rights and copyright. A lot of that I have given freely to public use. Some of it I still make a small amount of revenue from. But we see that Michael has sort of declared an interest there, he's also the chair of the Parliamentary Jazz Appreciation Group, another vested interest in this debate.

His final intervention came during on of Tom Watson's contributions.

"I respect my hon. Friend's forward thinking, but he obviously has not studied his history. The enclosure movement took away the enclosures around small fields to make larger fields so that larger technologies could be used. When all enclosures were taken away in America, the ultimate result was that the wind blew the topsoil off the land and the people starved. I think that he has got his analogy entirely wrong."

I'm not sure but is Connarty telling the farming community that they better replant their hedges and make their fields smaller again here. He's also missing one thing that our whole world depends on, diversity. Options of what needs to be done has to meet the needs where the situation exists. Using the analogy of the American plains where the larger fields in tornado alley did have this effect does not apply to East Anglia where the vast fields still thrive. Thus it is with the move to a digital economy.

There are arguments that the technology that powers up most computers Microsoft's own operation system is actually stolen property from the University where the founders first came up with the idea. The same could be said of the largest search engine Google. In the enclosures that these projects first started out they were small and unlikely to get anywhere, once however they were unleashed by whatever means they have become essential to our everyday existence.

That folks in why the Digital Economy Bill fudge in the wash up period is bad for all of us. Also why my Labour opponent in 4 weeks time has clearly not got it over digital economic matters. He clearly should have sought better counsel than his own front bench.

In the end he voted for the Bill, hardly agreeing with me about the concerns within it as he emailed me initially.

What News from Cameron on the Acceptability of Same-Sex Couples in B&Bs

Chris Grayling's the Conservative shadow Home Secretary comments about it being acceptable for B&B owner to turn away same sex couples first came to light late on Saturday evening. That has given leader David Cameron a whole 36 hours to issue the following comment (I'm posting it in full):

"









."

Grayling himself has issued the following apology:

"






".

Has this had an impact? Well Pink News were in the middle of running their second monthly poll on the LGBT community's voting intentions and it certainly has done. The Lib Dems are now the most popular in the overall LGBT vote on 29% up 5% while the Tories are down 5% to 20% a direct swing as Labour remain unchanged. Amongst first time voters they also drop 5% to 35% just ahead of the soaring Lib Dems at 32%. The poll was about half way through when Grayling's revelation came to the attention of the press, as Pink News says:

"The PinkNews.co.uk poll had already begun prior to the publication by The Observer of comments by the shadow home secretary Chris Grayling where he appeared to back the rights of bed and breakfast owners to ban gay couples. But the swing from Conservative to Liberal Democrat did increase markedly in the early hours of Sunday."

So the swing Conservative to Lib Dem may well be bigger than that indicated as a result of Grayling's comments but for people already casting their vote. The Conservatives have kept silent at the top end too long over this, they are haemorrhaging votes that they are unlikely to regain in the time between now and the election from a part of the electorate they had been courting.What is encouraging for the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg is that the support appears to be shifting straight over to us, with no leakage to Labour.

Grayling Not Fit to be Home Secretary

The Observer is reporting that Chris Grayling has told bed and breakfast owners that are totally within their rights to turn away same sex couples from their establishments. This really is turning the Tories back to the bad old days of the 80s. Also contravening the equality laws that Labour have brought in over the last 13 years.

What next?

Will they stop our schools protecting gay pupils from homophobic bullying? If they want to.

Will they allow employers to sack people purely on the basis of their sexual orientation? If they want to.

What happened to the Conservative party that March Pink Times said was making most impression with first time gay voters?

Maybe that David Cameron slip up with Gay Times (below) was merely the slipping of the mask about the true level of Conservative acceptance of homosexuality.



Updat with Fact Check: Iain Dale says he had to disagree with Grayling but has also gone for the following defence:

Do I believe Chris Grayling is homophobic? No, I do not. Do I believe that his views, as expressed, will be damaging. Yes I do. He has just issued the following statement...

"Any suggestion that I am against gay rights is wholly wrong - it is a matter of record that I voted for civil partnerships. I also voted in favour of the legislation that prohibited bed and breakfast owners from discriminating against gay people. However, this is a difficult area and on Wednesday I made comments which reflected my view that we must be sensitive to the genuinely held principles of faith groups in this country. But the law is now clear on this issue, I am happy with it and would not wish to see it changed."

Which would be well and good only They Work for You tells us that Grayling has voted moderately against equal gay rights. So just how has he voted on those issues.

For that Tory biggy repealling section 28 he was actually absent from the vote. He was actually a teller for vote agaist allowing same-sex couples to adopt. He'd also voted for there being an other sex 'role model' as part of the embryology and fertilisation bill consistently saying that a male and female are required in a family model.

However, in Chris's own words he voted for civil partnerships, that is only part of the story, he did vote for it in 2004 but on the 21 October 2001 he voted against bringing such a bill before the house.

Legal Aid for MP Fraudsters - They 'Aving a Laff

I just cannot believe the audacity of Livingston's Jim Devine, Scunthorpe's Elliot Morley and Bury North's David Chaytor. Not only are they still saying that their fraudulent accounting on their expenses is above the law of the land but on their salariesthey will be claiming legal aid to take the hearing through the magistrates court about why they shouldn't be tried in a court in what are expected to be the days before and of the General Election 4-6 May.

The MPs' QC is apparently charging 150 hours at £250 an hour and £1000 a day for the days in court, just for the hearing where they claim that they should not be tried in a court at all. That is a total of £40,500 or £13,500 each or the equivalent of 21% of their gross salary. In terms of someone on a minimum wage working a 37.5 hr week that is the equivalent of £2428.34 in court costs, if say they were caught fraudulently claiming benefits whilst holding down that job.

Legal Aid is there to help the poor deal with cases they need. This case is raised by the MPs to try and avoid a further court case looking at the actual crime itself being heard in the courts of the land. This money is being spent by them to try and prove that they are above the law. A defence that has sounded hollow since it was first issued from their lips.

They surely have got to be having a laugh, only please don't do so at the tax payers expense, you've tried that once and have been caught out.

Michael Connarty Reponse on Digital Economy Bill

On 16th March I sent the following email to Michael Connarty my Labour MP and opponent once again in the General Election regarding the worrying advance of the Digital Economy Bill.

Michael,

I am rather concerned by the events in the Lords yesterday of the passing of third reading of the Digital Economy Bill. Further I am concerned that as we approach the end of this session this complex issue is going to pass unto the statute books without proper scrutiny, consultation or consideration when it returns to the commons.

I spent a lot of the end of last week lobbying Scottish members of my party who were in Birmingham to first get this issue into our emergency motion slot and then to take action. There was even a letter from 25 of our PPCs and many more have since added their support urging our peers to go further with their amendment to secure civil liberties as well as copyright law in the process. In the end our Freedom, Internet and Creativity motion passed with only one representative against.

To summarise my main concerns of the impact it will have :

* This bill, if it becomes law will allow Websites to be blocked by ISPs, search engines and others at the request of "rights owners", without any court involvement or appeals process.. websites will just disappear from view, without warning or notification or even any evidence of wrongdoing.

* This bill, if it becomes law will allow record companies to force ISPs to disconnect users without court involvement, appeals or proof.

* This bill will allow media giants to "steal" copyright property (images, software, music) wholesale by "mistakenly" assuming they are orphaned works.

This bill will add huge costs to every aspect of the Internet in the UK, from additional legal and technical costs, to hampering businesses and harming free speech and competition.

I know that time is running out but I would urge you to prevent this draconian bill being pushed through the house without debate or proper review in the final rush to pass bills before the House rises. This is one matter that by its complexity needs proper examination rather than the somewhat knee-jerk reactionary bill that Lord Mandleson has brought forward.

Yours faithfully

Stephen Glenn

I have just recieved Michael's repsonse which I will also publish in full.

I agree.

Michael

How Authoritarian is Michael Connarty?

Lib Dem Voice have launched a new tool showing how authoritarian or liberal your MP has been over it is based on 10 key round of votes over the life of the current Parliament on 10 issues. A liberal approach earned 0 points an authoritarian stance 10.

The issues were (read more details here):

• ID Cards (Vote 18 October 2005)
• Control Orders (3 March 2009)
• MP's Expenses - exception from Freedom of Information request (20 April and 18 May 2007)
  
• Extradition Act 2003 vote on review (15 July 2009)
• DNA Database - protecting the innocent (19 January 2010)
• Abolition of Parliament Bill (Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill) (16 May 2006)
• 90 Days Detention of Terror Suspects (9 November 2005)
• Trial Without Jury (25 January 2007)
• Freedom of Speech (21 June 2005)
• Government intervention in Coroners' investigations and inquests (9 November 2009)

In 2005 when I stood against Michael Connarty not all of these issues were on the Labour manifesto. Though we were question at hustings about the ID cards. I stood up for Freedom, Fairness and Trust three key areas that Labour have failed on over the last five years. Many of them are the issues that I have challenged him on over the last five years. So how did my opponent fair?



Not very well, 83 out of 100. The only points he missed were due to his absence in the division lobby. The people of Linlithgow and East Falkirk have for the last five years had an MP who is eroding their civil liberties, they have elected an authoritarian who has not questioned the party line.

For the next couple of months I'll be making it clear in the run up to the election just how unfair the Labour government have made life in the UK over the last 5, indeed 13, years. It is time to stand up against them taking away more of our liberties. The SNP are not aiming to do that they want all power to revolve around their cabinet table at best taking it away from local authorities.

The Fruit of Gordon's Character

"It is for other people to judge but I believe that character is not about telling people what they want to hear but about telling them what they need to know.

"It is about having the courage to set out your mission and the courage to take the tough decisions and stick to them without being blown off-course, even when the going is difficult.

"For better or for worse, with me what you see is what you get."

Well that is what Gordon Brown is saying should be the judgement on which people base their decision for this election. So lets look at Labour's mission over the last 13 years.

On law and order they seem to have been blown by whatever the police want irrespective of the civil liberties that they limit. So that is a course but one that many social progressives who once felt the Labour party was their natural home are wary of.

On Iraq they set out on a mission to get rid of Saddam. They certainly weren't swayed by the advise of legal and military experts that their reasoning for the invasion was flawed or illegal. We've even had David Miliband saying that UN was feeble over Saddam, that only the iron fist of the US and UK could waken them up. But Bush and Blair still kow-towed to New York to get a retrospective resolution even though they broke Article 2 of the UN's founding charter.

On tax that steady course that Gordon has ploughed. He announced he was to remove the 10p tax band. Only for it to be given a temporary reprieve. In effect he had unfairly doubled the tax burden of the lowest paid. Indeed only most earning up to about £2,000 less than the Tories want to freeze public pay everyone was worse off. While at the other end it was Gordon who made a differential in the high rate capital gains and income tax thresholds making it easier for the richest to avoid paying a full amount of tax. Yet now he speaks of a future fair for all.

As for the banks, well it got worse. Gordon refused to listen to Vince Cable, a former banker, and sailed his course of deregulation. Allowing them carte blanch to gamble the nations savings against the market. We'll be paying for that courageous path of the former chancellor for years to come.

Only the Liberal Democrats have consistently stood up for our civil liberties in the last 13 years. Only the Liberal Democrats spoke out about the illegal war on Iraq with one voice. Only the Liberal Democrats are promising to make our taxes fairer. Only the Liberal Democrats are prepared to reform the banks, yes allow the investment banks to speculate, but not at the expense of individuals and firms access to core banking services.<

Gordon Brown as the son of the Manse is no doubt aware that Matthew 7:16 says. "It is by their fruits that you shall know them." Sorry Gordon but Labour have turned out to be a rotten apple. The Tories are merely the same old sour,bitter lemon trying to disguise themselves as a juicy, sweet strawberry. The Liberal Democrats are trying to give real sustenance to our economy, it is time to build a fairer Britain.

MPs' Day In Court

Today is the day that Jim Devine, Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Lord Hanningfield are meant to walk around the corner from the Palace of Westminster to Westminster Magistrates Court to answer charges of false accounting relating to their expenses. I say meant to because Devine was too ill according to his doctor to appear before an employment tribunial yesterday.

It comes the day after it was announced that another Labour MP Harry Cohen is also to be investigated further by the police. The four appearing today The face charges of false accounting under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968. The maximum sentance for such an offence is 7 years in prision.

Nicola - I Made a Mistake Over 'Mistake'

"I regret the use of the word 'mistake' to describe Mr Rauf's offence.

"As I hope will become clear from other parts of the letter, I did not intend to downplay the seriousness of the crime that had been committed.

"However, I accept the use of the word mistake was open to that interpretation."

So said Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon yesterday in her ministerial statement about her letter to the court regarding Abdul Rauf. She also went further to say that her appeal to the sheriff to consider an alternative to a custodial sentence was more in keeping with her former occupation as a solicitor than as an MSP.

The other week the First Minister saying he supported his deputy's letter 110%. Saying she was duty bound to write everything that she did. As Annabel Goldie pointed out admitting that she did not do everything right showed her candour, humility and courage. She contrasted this with the last First Minister's Questions before the recess saying:

"We got the usual Alex Salmond decibel delivery of rhetoric and arrogance.

"Where there should have been humility and reflection all we got was bluster. Where there should have been an apology, all we got was defiance."

The problem of delaying a statement from Nicola until now, and not having a plan to deal with this on Thursday 11 February when it broke was now that the First Minister has shown his knee-jerkedness once again. Instead of being a head of reason looking at the full picture, he jumped immediately to the defensive. If Ms Sturgeon had indeed been prepared a similar statement to Parliament she should have been allowed to make it then. As it was the First Minister was prepared to let this boil fester.

Sadly this is the head of the Government that is meant to be dealing with Westminster on a number of issues regarding Scotland's future. How can we trust a calm approach from him to such sworn enemies. We already know the mantra he shouts at Westminster, they are cutting Scotland's budget he proclaims, while at the same time he is arguing that Scotland can stand on its own two feet as he heads onwards with his desire for independence.

Maybe all the calls for resignation after that particular Thursday were for the wrong head. Maybe the First Minister should resign making way for the candour, humility and courage of his deputy, then maybe things can get done a little easier around here.

Further on the Nicola Sturgeon Situtation

As one would have guessed the story of the morning on Scottish blogs revolves around Nicola Sturgeon. One thing you can trust about the internet, bloggers and their commentators is that is some knowledge, sane opinions and comments amongst all the detritus.

Jeff at SNP Tactical Voting launches into a defence of the SNP Deputy First Minister ignoring one key fact, this is not the man's first offence. Yes he is now willing to sell the property that for 5 years he forgot he owned to pay any fine and pay back the amount he had defrauded. But he'd been fraudulent before and after serving a four year term the Judge may not deem that a non-custodial sentence would be enough for the man, as used by the MSP for Glasgow Govan requested.

It is his comments that show some knowledge comes to the fore which I think is worthy of consideration. DougtheDug points out the MSP's code of conduct parenthesis his:

SECTION 8: ENGAGEMENT AND LIAISON WITH CONSTITUENTS

8.1 Dealing with individual constituents' cases

8.1.1 Every constituent is represented by one constituency MSP and seven regional MSPs. It is expected that each member will take on a case when approached although it is recognised that there may be legitimate reasons for a member to decline a constituent's case in certain circumstances, for example, where a constituent requests an MSP to take inappropriate action, or if that case seeks action which would represent a conflict of interest with existing casework or is contrary to the member's political beliefs. If so, the member would ordinarily be expected to inform the constituent that the member is not taking up the case

Also Scott at Love and Garbage adds:

I spoke to a friend that's a Procurator Fiscal (PF) last night and read a locked blog post from another. Their combined experience is around 45 years of prosecuting. Neither is aware of a letter from a serving government minister having been used in mitigation throughout their careers (although MSPs or MPS do write to the PF as matters progress for information or to raise issues which can be taken in the decision to prosecute). Neither has seen a letter from an MSP or MP where there are previous convictions in relation to the same general matter, and the matter has this level of seriousness (and £80,000 fraud is not trivial).

This highlights the point made by Donald Findlay, the Queen's Counsel, who was defending Rauf at Glasgow Sheriff Court, said it was the first time in his long legal career he had handed the court a letter from someone of such importance.


The letter has now been made public (see above) in which Ms Sturgeon writes:

"For a number of years Mr Rauf has suffered from poor health mainly associated with his heart; he has a family, including young children aged under ten; and he is heavily involved in the community. All of these aspects of his life have been impacted upon by the mistake he has made."

No where in this letter does Ms Sturgeon seem to mention as I wrote earlier that she was aware of the previous conviction, indeed she says:

"I have been aware of Mr Rauf's case since July 2008 when he sought assistance from me after a search warrant was executed at his home by the Department of Work and Pension and officers of the Strathclyde Police."

The only mitigating circumstance she puts forward that might be taken into consideration is a heart issue, she does not specify what. As many people survive quite happily with minor heart conditions. That missing factor of the severity, on a casual reading, suggests it is mild but has been worsened because of the pressures maybe of being found out again etc.

As Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken points out:

"It is extraordinary to describe a second conviction for fraud as a mistake. Either Ms Sturgeon didn't care about his previous fraud conviction or she didn't check. Either would be unbelievable and a grave lapse of judgment. His previous conviction was a matter of public record as recently as four weeks ago. To call these crimes a mistake is simply wrong."

The more that unearths about this issue, the lack of propriety that Ms Sturgeon has shown on this issue comes to the fore. As pointed out above there is no 'obligation', nor is there 'precedent' for this level of intervention on a second, more serious, conviction for the same crime.

Whether that is a resigning issue or not is something for Ms Sturgeon and her party colleagues to decide. However, we must not lose sight of the reasons they have called for the resignation or removal of others themselves in the past when we consider the eventual outcome.

UPDATE: As you can see from the top left hand corner this blog got a mention the following day in The Scotsman article on the Blogopshere's take on this story:

Stephen's Linlithgow Blog, put together by a Lib Dem party member, was less damning but still critical:"There is no 'obligation', nor is there 'precedent' for this level of intervention," it said.

Ok they got the name of the blog wrong but still I like the comment.