I am becoming increasingly concerned about the growth of victim culture - this idea that the victim of a crime should have some (perhaps a considerable) part to play in the decision about the sentence meted out to a convicted offender.
This unsatisfactory notion reared its head again the other day with a Commission talking about burglary and saying that the sentencing of the burglar should take account of the 'value' of items stolen in a much broader sense than just financial.
An example was given of a thief who took - for no known reason - an ultrasound picture of a baby in utero something, the mother who lost the photo said, correctly, could never be replaced. Such a heinous act should carry a heavier penalty than simply whipping away a microwave, so members of the Commission seem now to be saying and when challenged with the reasonable comment that the burglar could not be expected to know what was psychologically valuable and what was not, one expert replied that this was part of the risk a burglar ran.
Attractive as this idea may seem at first sight, I upon examination find it profoundly disturbing. The reason the statue of justice over the Old Bailey is blind-folded is to symbolize that such considerations should not be included within the judicial process.
Burglary is burglary, it is worse the more that is taken and thus the penalties for being caught carrying off the neighbour's toaster are lighter than those for stealing a private jet (not strictly burglary, I agree unless one has an astonishingly large house and keeps the 'plane inside it). But it should not be for the victim to list the emotional value of items taken to add extra days/weeks/months to a custodial sentence or pounds to a fine.
Running this to absurd extremes, let's take the case of a house and contents owned in common by husband and wife that is burglarized (to use that horrific neologism). Some items will have much more 'value' or at least meaning to one or the other party and in (as I say) 'extreme' cases, one side might be happy to see the back of a whole series of items whose disappearance leaves the other, heartbroken.
Shoud one party be able to strengthen a sentence because an emotionally charged china cat was taken and the other be able to reduce the sentence for the same reason? Certainly I'd be happy to see a burglar knocking off some of the family portraits that infest our walls.
More seriously, the dangerous issue is allowing those who are emotionally affected by a crime to bring that emotion to the sentencing table. Justice must be impartial and set out and organized by the clear-headed to protect those who, for whatever reason, are not.
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
SPY MANIA
I note my previous blog was about the First World War and regret, therefore, that this one briefly treads that same ground.
This is an extract from a book called Myths & Legends of the First World War by James Hayward. In the opening chapters, Mr Hayward talks about the rumours, legends and false-sightings that swept across Britain as the war ground into action from August 1914.
It seems that things reached such a pass that many legitimate, pro-British activities, were caught up in a net of suspicion. Consider the following:
"At this period [Sep 1914] the disease [spy mania] attacked even naval and military officers and special constables. If a telegraphist was sent on a motor-cycle to examine and test the telegraph poles, another cyclist was certain to be sent out by some authority in pursuit. On one occasion the authorities dispatched to the Eastern Counties a car equipped with a Marconi aparatus and two skilled operators to intercept any illicit messages that might be passing over the North Sea. They left London at noon: at 3 they were under lock and key in Essex. After an exchange of telegrams they were set free, but at 7pm they telegraphed from the police cells in another part of the country, imploring help. When again liberated they refused to move without the escort of a Territorial officer in uniform, but on the following morning, the police of another county had got hold of them and telegraphed: "Three German spies arrested with car and complete wireless installation, one in uniform of British officer."
This is an extract from a book called Myths & Legends of the First World War by James Hayward. In the opening chapters, Mr Hayward talks about the rumours, legends and false-sightings that swept across Britain as the war ground into action from August 1914.
It seems that things reached such a pass that many legitimate, pro-British activities, were caught up in a net of suspicion. Consider the following:
"At this period [Sep 1914] the disease [spy mania] attacked even naval and military officers and special constables. If a telegraphist was sent on a motor-cycle to examine and test the telegraph poles, another cyclist was certain to be sent out by some authority in pursuit. On one occasion the authorities dispatched to the Eastern Counties a car equipped with a Marconi aparatus and two skilled operators to intercept any illicit messages that might be passing over the North Sea. They left London at noon: at 3 they were under lock and key in Essex. After an exchange of telegrams they were set free, but at 7pm they telegraphed from the police cells in another part of the country, imploring help. When again liberated they refused to move without the escort of a Territorial officer in uniform, but on the following morning, the police of another county had got hold of them and telegraphed: "Three German spies arrested with car and complete wireless installation, one in uniform of British officer."
Friday, 15 April 2011
OH WHAT A LOVELY WAR
A couple of days ago I went to see the fine, Trevor Nunn production of Terence Rattigan's play 'Flarepath' at the Theatre Royal, Haymarket.
The play is about a love and duty during wartime and is set in a boarding house very near an aerodrome for a squadron of Wimpeys (Wellington bombers).
The finish is with a slightly reworded (for the RAF) version of the WW1 song, "I don't want to join the army, I don't want to go to war" and this led me to remember another version of this song, this time contemporary with WW1, but very much a woman's version.
Sadly, I don't remember all the words but here are some of them:
"Monday, I wake up with a soldier;
Tuesday, I wake up with a tar;
Wednesday, I go out with a young boy scout
Thursday, a hussar
Friday, I tie-up with the Navy
- I've always liked the look of something blue.
But on Saturday I'm willing,
if you have got a shilling
to make a man of any one of you."
Or something like that.
The play is about a love and duty during wartime and is set in a boarding house very near an aerodrome for a squadron of Wimpeys (Wellington bombers).
The finish is with a slightly reworded (for the RAF) version of the WW1 song, "I don't want to join the army, I don't want to go to war" and this led me to remember another version of this song, this time contemporary with WW1, but very much a woman's version.
Sadly, I don't remember all the words but here are some of them:
"Monday, I wake up with a soldier;
Tuesday, I wake up with a tar;
Wednesday, I go out with a young boy scout
Thursday, a hussar
Friday, I tie-up with the Navy
- I've always liked the look of something blue.
But on Saturday I'm willing,
if you have got a shilling
to make a man of any one of you."
Or something like that.
Friday, 1 April 2011
ARS GRATIA ARTIS
Do we need the Arts Council at all? Indeed do we, in this year of cuts, even require a Ministry? Let's free Art and Culture from government control!
For me there has always been an inherent contradiction in the notion of government supported 'arts' (taking the broad meaning of that word to include performance, creative, applied and so on). There was a time when this implied, for example, that there was a statutory requirement that bodies even as grand as the Royal Opera House were required in return for their Arts Council grants, to ensure some of their seats (of course the ones in the 'gods' whence no one can see anything) should be cheap enough to encourage broad attendance by the public.
But this argument hardly applies now and it certainly doesn't seem to apply to that uber-government event, the Olympics where even the cheapest seats, for example for the heats of the Graeco-Roman wrestling are, when transport costs are added, out of the reach of many.
There are other arguments - I saw one in the Standard yesterday evening - that point out that the anticipated cuts in Arts Council grants will result in the demise of over 200 theatre companies. I wonder, if considered holistically, whether this is true? Will individuals desist from assuming the motley because Whitehall has withdrawn the King's Shilling? No; no more than schools will give up the school play or colleges and universities will halt revivals of "Charlie's Aunt".
The majority of the failing and fading theatre groups are, I would argue, failing and fading because they are 'experimental', often another term for 'unwatchable', and while I have no argument at all with those who wish to mount shows of this type, I see no reason why such events should not be supported by the altruism implicit in the concept of Cameron's "Big Society" rather than by the Ministry.
I am not a great believer in other people of whatever cultural background or enthusiasm, expressing themselves at my (i.e. the taxpayer's) expense. Also, while I do agree that some theatre or show seats should be cheaper than others, I would leave this to the commercial and social judgment of impressarios because there's another side of that coin.
Even if seats were one pound each, there are a lot of events where I would happily not be present and I am sure that holds true for everyone (albeit the events themselves may differ - it's this that supports the cultural milieu). In other words, price/money is not the issue. Many football matches are sell-outs at high prices and many are half-empty with low prices. And doesn't it annoy you when it's discovered that Wimbledon tickets, or Michael McIntyre tickets or Glastonbury tickets or, for all I know, tickets to watch Carlos Acosta perform his grand pliés are going for many times face value on the black market. Certainly when I hear such a thing, I am cross that the venue or operator - inevitably a taxable entity - is selling its wares too cheaply.
In fact one could argue that a sell-out event has been priced too lowly.
Many would say that the 'Arts' should not be about money - and I would agree. But they are about money as far as the government and, by derivation, the population of today is concerned.
In Paris, in its mind the capital of a more egalitarian state that Britain, entry to museums is not free except one day a week (Tuesday from memory). No one thinks this stray or unfair. In England, that major celebration of cultural identity, the Notting Hill Carnival, does not receive government grants and no one thinks this strange or unfair.
So if we want to be 'experimental' with Arts and Culture, let's experiment with cutting all but the bare minimum of State involvement. The results would, I promise you, be very exciting for the culturally attuned and for the Treasury's accountants!
For me there has always been an inherent contradiction in the notion of government supported 'arts' (taking the broad meaning of that word to include performance, creative, applied and so on). There was a time when this implied, for example, that there was a statutory requirement that bodies even as grand as the Royal Opera House were required in return for their Arts Council grants, to ensure some of their seats (of course the ones in the 'gods' whence no one can see anything) should be cheap enough to encourage broad attendance by the public.
But this argument hardly applies now and it certainly doesn't seem to apply to that uber-government event, the Olympics where even the cheapest seats, for example for the heats of the Graeco-Roman wrestling are, when transport costs are added, out of the reach of many.
There are other arguments - I saw one in the Standard yesterday evening - that point out that the anticipated cuts in Arts Council grants will result in the demise of over 200 theatre companies. I wonder, if considered holistically, whether this is true? Will individuals desist from assuming the motley because Whitehall has withdrawn the King's Shilling? No; no more than schools will give up the school play or colleges and universities will halt revivals of "Charlie's Aunt".
The majority of the failing and fading theatre groups are, I would argue, failing and fading because they are 'experimental', often another term for 'unwatchable', and while I have no argument at all with those who wish to mount shows of this type, I see no reason why such events should not be supported by the altruism implicit in the concept of Cameron's "Big Society" rather than by the Ministry.
I am not a great believer in other people of whatever cultural background or enthusiasm, expressing themselves at my (i.e. the taxpayer's) expense. Also, while I do agree that some theatre or show seats should be cheaper than others, I would leave this to the commercial and social judgment of impressarios because there's another side of that coin.
Even if seats were one pound each, there are a lot of events where I would happily not be present and I am sure that holds true for everyone (albeit the events themselves may differ - it's this that supports the cultural milieu). In other words, price/money is not the issue. Many football matches are sell-outs at high prices and many are half-empty with low prices. And doesn't it annoy you when it's discovered that Wimbledon tickets, or Michael McIntyre tickets or Glastonbury tickets or, for all I know, tickets to watch Carlos Acosta perform his grand pliés are going for many times face value on the black market. Certainly when I hear such a thing, I am cross that the venue or operator - inevitably a taxable entity - is selling its wares too cheaply.
In fact one could argue that a sell-out event has been priced too lowly.
Many would say that the 'Arts' should not be about money - and I would agree. But they are about money as far as the government and, by derivation, the population of today is concerned.
In Paris, in its mind the capital of a more egalitarian state that Britain, entry to museums is not free except one day a week (Tuesday from memory). No one thinks this stray or unfair. In England, that major celebration of cultural identity, the Notting Hill Carnival, does not receive government grants and no one thinks this strange or unfair.
So if we want to be 'experimental' with Arts and Culture, let's experiment with cutting all but the bare minimum of State involvement. The results would, I promise you, be very exciting for the culturally attuned and for the Treasury's accountants!
Thursday, 10 March 2011
The Ford Bonus
Professor Tim Congdon was on the radio a few days ago taking a hard line against critics of British banks and in particular against Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England. Without rehashing Prof Congdon's specific points it's fair to say his general argument was that successful banking is about confidence and the more, therefore, that bankers are criticized, the less likely it is the banks (and their shareholders - don't forget the shareholders) will prosper. For this reason, Prof Cogdon said effectively that Mervyn should get back in his box and stop knocking the very people and institutions it was his business to protect and promote.
Many would consider Prof Congdon's argument to be too extreme - a view potentially reinforced by his view that the credit crisis was caused by politicians and not by bankers. (Actually I have some sympathy with this notion but this is really the result of a visceral dislike of politicians rather than a series of well-reasoned thoughts). But it is interesting in this regard that bonuses, for example the £9 million or so to be paid to Barclays' boss Bob Diamond, is front page news whereas other, larger payments, scrape onto the bottom of the inside pages.
Consider this example. Some three years ago, as the financial crisis began to take in the United Kingdom, the government of the day was forced to buy up majority holdings in Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds/Bank of Scotland. Barclays, which was in very nearly the same parlous state as the aforementioned, chose not to take government money (or at least British government money) and instead sold a chunk of equity to the Qataris (a chunk that I believe it has now bought back).
Recently, Barclays has returned to making exceptional profits and Bob Diamond has been roundly criticized in the media for being awarded his thumping great bonus.
Equally, some three years ago, as the financial crisis began to take hold in the USA, the government of the day was forced to buy up large slices of equity (or provide favourable loans) in two of the nation's leading car makers: GM and Chrysler. Ford, which was very nearly in the same parlous state, chose not to take government money and instead battled through its problems to the extent that the shareprice which in the depths of the crisis was down to about $1, is now at around $16 and its two leading lights, Alan Mulally and Bill Ford Jnr are to pocket $98 million in Ford shares as a performance related bonus.
And where is the media criticism there?
Yes, great bankers such as Diamond, make a lot of money - but so do successful executives in many fields of commercial endeavour.
So what?
Many would consider Prof Congdon's argument to be too extreme - a view potentially reinforced by his view that the credit crisis was caused by politicians and not by bankers. (Actually I have some sympathy with this notion but this is really the result of a visceral dislike of politicians rather than a series of well-reasoned thoughts). But it is interesting in this regard that bonuses, for example the £9 million or so to be paid to Barclays' boss Bob Diamond, is front page news whereas other, larger payments, scrape onto the bottom of the inside pages.
Consider this example. Some three years ago, as the financial crisis began to take in the United Kingdom, the government of the day was forced to buy up majority holdings in Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds/Bank of Scotland. Barclays, which was in very nearly the same parlous state as the aforementioned, chose not to take government money (or at least British government money) and instead sold a chunk of equity to the Qataris (a chunk that I believe it has now bought back).
Recently, Barclays has returned to making exceptional profits and Bob Diamond has been roundly criticized in the media for being awarded his thumping great bonus.
Equally, some three years ago, as the financial crisis began to take hold in the USA, the government of the day was forced to buy up large slices of equity (or provide favourable loans) in two of the nation's leading car makers: GM and Chrysler. Ford, which was very nearly in the same parlous state, chose not to take government money and instead battled through its problems to the extent that the shareprice which in the depths of the crisis was down to about $1, is now at around $16 and its two leading lights, Alan Mulally and Bill Ford Jnr are to pocket $98 million in Ford shares as a performance related bonus.
And where is the media criticism there?
Yes, great bankers such as Diamond, make a lot of money - but so do successful executives in many fields of commercial endeavour.
So what?
Friday, 18 February 2011
ARMS AND THE MAN
Yesterday's news that security forces in Bahrain have killed three anti-government protestors has prompted a kneejerk reaction from Britain's Foreign Officer Minister, Alistair Burt. Mr Burt wants an immediate enquiry to determine whether any of the crowd control weapons - tear gas, CS gas, thunderflashes and the like - that UK manufacturers sell to Bahrain under formal and legal licenses were used in this recent fight. Well they may have been or may not have been but I don't really see that this matters much.
The key point is whether Britain should allow the manufacture of arms, for if manufactured arms must be sold and the natural sales targets are friendly powers like, until apparently the beginning of the week, Bahrain.
I agree with America's National Rifle Association about very little but I do have some sympathy with that organization's oft repeated mantra that "people kill, not guns".
Some people see arms manufacture as an immoral activity. I have no comment here but I will say that the sale of arms, provided it is conducted above-board, is to my mind amoral. The fact that those to whom arms are sold may turn out to be undesirable rascals is an acknowledged risk but not one that can be dealt with in retrospect.
I leave the last words here to that estimable show, "The West Wing", specifically one of the sixth series episodes about Middle East peace talks. On this occasion the President drives the Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table rather than take the popular course of bombing Palestine after a terrorist incident in Gaza leading to the deaths of two congressmen and a former Chief of the Defense Staff.
President Bartlet's refusal to bomb leads to a terminal confrontation with his Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry who in answer to Bartlet's forceful question, "Tell me how it ends, Leo", shouts back even more forcibly, "Sometimes we don't know how it ends".
The key point is whether Britain should allow the manufacture of arms, for if manufactured arms must be sold and the natural sales targets are friendly powers like, until apparently the beginning of the week, Bahrain.
I agree with America's National Rifle Association about very little but I do have some sympathy with that organization's oft repeated mantra that "people kill, not guns".
Some people see arms manufacture as an immoral activity. I have no comment here but I will say that the sale of arms, provided it is conducted above-board, is to my mind amoral. The fact that those to whom arms are sold may turn out to be undesirable rascals is an acknowledged risk but not one that can be dealt with in retrospect.
I leave the last words here to that estimable show, "The West Wing", specifically one of the sixth series episodes about Middle East peace talks. On this occasion the President drives the Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table rather than take the popular course of bombing Palestine after a terrorist incident in Gaza leading to the deaths of two congressmen and a former Chief of the Defense Staff.
President Bartlet's refusal to bomb leads to a terminal confrontation with his Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry who in answer to Bartlet's forceful question, "Tell me how it ends, Leo", shouts back even more forcibly, "Sometimes we don't know how it ends".
Sunday, 23 January 2011
BACKGAMMON BLUES
Why is it, that neither for love nor money, one cannot throw a double five when one wants one, needs one ... would give one's first born for a sniff of one? Or even a single five?
Yes, I have been sucked into the murky world of internet gaming - backgammon specifically. And at £2.50 for a three game match! And yes, I did win one last night but tomorrow is another day, a day with dice that don't have fives on them, apparently.
This is a dangerous business. And I don't mean just playing for nickels and dimes (apologies for the change of currency but it sounds better), but the whole business of submerging oneself into the demi-monde of electronic gambling in the backstreets of the web. I mean who plays backgammon for money at 11.00 in the morning? Well apparently I do for one, but I suspect my opponents, those who have exact control of their dice, have been up for hours refining their push button techniques. There's probably an individual in Cairns now heading off to the pub to buy a tinnie or two on the back of the ill-gotten gains he's just taken from me.
Hmm.
I'll get him tomorrow.
Yes, I have been sucked into the murky world of internet gaming - backgammon specifically. And at £2.50 for a three game match! And yes, I did win one last night but tomorrow is another day, a day with dice that don't have fives on them, apparently.
This is a dangerous business. And I don't mean just playing for nickels and dimes (apologies for the change of currency but it sounds better), but the whole business of submerging oneself into the demi-monde of electronic gambling in the backstreets of the web. I mean who plays backgammon for money at 11.00 in the morning? Well apparently I do for one, but I suspect my opponents, those who have exact control of their dice, have been up for hours refining their push button techniques. There's probably an individual in Cairns now heading off to the pub to buy a tinnie or two on the back of the ill-gotten gains he's just taken from me.
Hmm.
I'll get him tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)