Random Thoughts ... Handahófi Hugsanir

As the trial for a wide range of offenses including: "misconduct in public office", "perverting the course of justice", "hacking of dead children's phones" begins, half of Dave's Chipping Norton set is in the dock. 

It will be interesting to see what kind of justice is meted out to the elite of the prime minister's county set. 

When the lower orders rioted in English cities a couple of years ago, and obliged Dave to come back from his Italian holiday, he instructed the courts to be harsh with the miscreants.  

Fair enough, although six months in prison for stealing two bottles of water is, without doubt, harsh. Still, Tuscany in August is delightful, and I wouldn't want to have to deal with his Mrs in a strop; she looks like she could be a right bitch, so I can understand that the chap was in a bit of a blue funk adn someone had to pay! 

I wonder, though, if he will be take the same hardline view now that it is his own class, nay, his own close dear friends that are standing in the dock. 

It's a thought too that Dave and his family will have to find new people to invite round on Christmas day this year for charades. Last year's invitees are a bit on the embarrassing side adn might even be spending Christmas at the pleasure of someone even more elevated than Eton Dave.

Isn't it interesting too that not a single member of the Murdoch family is in court facing charges relating to all these crimes? It seems that one of the most successful newspaper tycoons in the world had no earthly idea how his newspapers were getting all these sensational scoops, and never thought to inquire. Fancy!
**********

Why on why, I keep asking myself, can't we be more like Iceland? Then I remember that, in fact we are quite like Iceland in many ways, it's just that we are ruled from a place that wants to be more like the United States of America. 

Still, we can change that. Right?

**********
I was more than a little shocked to see in my junk emails a missive from Moneysupermarket.com informing me that with a Tesco credit card I can spread the cost of Christmas over 18 months. Handy, I though, but erm what about next year's Christmas? 

I was also concerned to read that to get one of these credit cards one must have an income of at least £5,000 a year. As £5969159_591952830859067_962482265_n.jpg,000 will soon be needed to pay the electricity and gas bills, never mind service a credit card, I can't help but think someone needs to look again at this irresponsible nonsense. 

Every little helps, does it Tesco?
**********

**********
I found this on Craig Murray's latest post (well worth a read). It comes from Donald McDonald: 

"I should add, that Independence for Scotland is one of the few hopes the English Left has of overcoming the corporate, neo-con domination of their own politics.

"Once England faces the world with only its own resources and stops trying to be the main character in a Boys’ Own comic, it will, I am confident, rediscover its own greatness."

I suspect that may be very true.

**********

**********

YOU ARE FREE TO GO, MY LORD: WE HOPE WE HAVEN''T INCONVENIENCED YOU

I thought that it was wrong that Jim Devine served such a short time in jail. Having been sentenced to 16 months, letting him free after just 4 seemed like a slap in the face to the ordinary citizens.

That was before the riots when it seems regardless of the shortage of prison spaces in England, magistrates and judges were handing our ferociously long sentences to people who had, in fact, stolen very little.

But, as Mr Cameron said, these people, whom his justice minister labelled a feral underclass, had to be taught a lesson. Just as when he was trying to be elected he indicated that thieving MPs and Lords should be taught a lesson.

Well, what kind of lesson does it teach them that The Noble Lord Hanningfield has been released after serving less than 9 weeks of a 9 month sentence?

The lesson it teaches me (as if I didn't already know it) is that if you are rich or titled or have the right connexions, the law doesn't apply to you in the same way as it applies to others. You can steal £14,000 and serve 9 weeks. But if you are poor and steal £3 worth of water from a shop that has already been smashed up and is lying open to passers-by, you go to jail for 6 months.

It paints a picture of a country I wouldn't want to live in.

What was it that fool Cameron said about "consequences"?

TESSY COMES CLEAN AT LAST

Theresa May, it seems, lets her mouth run away with her when she is on tv, or making statements to the press. It is, however, to her credit that when giving information to a select committee, I imagine under some sort of oath, she reverts to a tale nearer the truth.

It’s disconcerting though that there is, in London, a home secretary who feels that it is appropriate to lie and big herself up in front of the television cameras. It does mean that next time she makes some announcement, no one is likely to believe her.

“Oh, that’s just old Kinky Boots making herself sound more like a dominatrix than she really is...Get you wellies off, Tessy, put yer feet up, have a cuppa, and tell us like it really is,” they will say joshingly!

In front of the Home Affairs committee when questioned about the riots in London, she admitted that she had not ordered more police on to the streets and she had not cancelled all police leave, as she also claimed at the time, to the anger of the police chiefs. She also admitted that she had no powers to do that. It seems that the police were right all along.

Furthermore, and possibly more disturbingly, having blamed gangs and gang culture for the riots, she was forced to admit that there were far fewer gangs involved than had previously been imagined. Most indeed of those arrested had NOT been members of gangs. This begs the question, why did Cameron have such a go at the gangs if they weren’t responsible. Did he just make an assumption that they were to blame, or did he wilfully lie?

People who aspire to government really do have to try to understand that they can’t be allowed to make up a narrative to suit their agenda. When a crime is committed, as crimes undoubtedly were, the public has a right to know who did it; not who the government wants them to believe did it so that they may have public support when they launch an attack on whichever group. This is an important part of democracy.

So why did she lie? What was the reason behind her fibbing?

As a Scot I care not much about the doings of Mrs May. Home Secretaries' remits are largely in England. However, part of her responsibilities relate to terrorism throughout all of these countries and as such she has a relatively important role in Scotland, and one where when she tells us something, I’d prefer not to have to wonder whether it’s the truth or some little plot cooked up by her and Cameron in order to undermine something Scottish... possibly the government.

YOU'D BETTER SIT DOWN BEFORE YOU READ THIS!!

Even when you instinctively dislike someone and abhor their self importance, you have to give that person credit for a good day's work when they do one.

So, although I bet you never thought I'd say this...

Well done to the Duke of Rothsay.

Yes, I mean it. Well done, Charlie. (I bet he's spluttering in disbelief as he reads this!)

Sensible words and a generous gift at the end of a day touring Croydon gets my vote.

I don't approve for a minute of this guy getting involved in politics, but I don't think this intervention was particularly political, and, for England these riots have been so life changing that maybe something out of the ordinary was called for. Additionally, his personal donation in these extraordinary circumstances is, I think, not out of place, and unlikely to create a precedent.

Even Mrs Parker Bowles appeared to get involved and look as if she understood that there was a deep seated problem to be dealt with there.

In the meantime, playing for all he's worth to "The Sun" and "The Daily Mail" flog 'em and lock 'em up for 25 years brigade, Cameron and his cabinet look more and more out of touch with reality.

The Liberals are at pains to distance themselves from Cameron and Pickles on the 'rip up the rule book' sentencing policy, which is completely out of control, with some people imprisoned for taking £2 worth of water, and others, far more involved, being admonished and sent home.

It might be as well at this point to note that the "rule book" on sentencing is there for a reason. Expect appeals to most of these sentences, which will add to the clogging of courts and the expense. And in the end the judiciary will look as stupid, as ineffectual and as inefficient as the rest of the establishment.

Good Lord, it says something when even Clarence House knows more about what's going on in the streets of England than their prime minister.

**********

Note to Rothsay:

This is a one off matey. Don't get too used to praise on Munguin's Republic.

And....We're still Scottish Republicans, OK?

HE WILL FIGHT THEM ON THE BEACHES, ETC; WE SHALL NOT FIND HIM WANTING

Cameron will, he says, not be found wanting when it comes to mending Britain’s broken society. It is, he insists, his fundamental aim in politics.

Well, I suppose when your last big idea was the Big Society” (you’ll remember that was, until the holidays, the reason he came into politics), it’s not a bad idea to look around for something else to hang your hat on.

This comes as another day passes with police and Cameron and his minions trading insults. (And parts of the Tory party falling out with other parts).

In a way, of course, the rioters in England have played into the hands of the Conservatives. There’s nothing a certain brand of Tory politician likes better than having a kick at the poor. It’s a breed that they do not understand. Why, they puff, I got on in life; they should pull themselves together, get on their bike, get a job, get over their unfortunate birth, and vote Tory?

Cameron says that to do the job he will bring in a range of new policies (doubtless ill-thought-out, knee-jerk, Daily Mail-inspired initiatives) to stick Britain back together. If his record is representative of what is to come, most of them will be reversed before, during or directly after their implementation, having been found to be impracticable, too expensive, and generally crap!

Apparently he is going to promise to ‘reassign’ policies on schools, welfare, families, parenting, drug addiction and communities, all while saving billions and reducing the deficit (something he has so far singularly failed in his attempts to do without any of this new stuff). Thankfully many of these policies will not affect Scotland...and why should they? It’s not Scotland’s fault he had to come back early from his holiday and his wife is monumentally cross.

In other Tory news Iain Duncan-Smith, one of the huge disappointments of this government, has lectured Boris Johnson for failing to deal with gangs in London. He wants him to harass them on a daily basis...and all with fewer police. Pfffff. Idiot.

Cameron’s new police advisor Bill Bratton (thus appointed because Theresa May stood in the way of him being offered the job as head of the Met... so, no tensions there then) has said that policing has been too soft and sentencing too light. Good points, but, when Bratton ran the New York police, he deployed an extra 5000 officers. Whoever sorts out London’s mess will have to do so with far fewer police, not more. And Cameron’s mistake here is assuming that an American city can be compared with an English city. As Hugh Ord said, Cameron should look to European cities for examples. They are nearer to England than America, no matter how much the Tories hate that idea.

Johnson has said that the reason for the riots was that the police lost control in the first few hours. I think I can see what he is saying, but this is not the reason for the riots; instead it’s the reason the riots escalated so badly. The reasons for the riots are far more complex. But, it is true that once people saw that the police couldn't deal with the totally unprecedented situation, some took advantage of it to get themselves some of the action. It’s hard to see how reducing the funding for policing, and the numbers of police on the streets will assist in efforts to avoid a repeat performance.

However, with the usual amateurism of this government, revisiting the reduction in police funding has been ruled out. Why, in the white heat of the moment, did they not have the wit to say: “We will look at every policy to see what we can do to keep people safe”? Answers on a postcard.

Pic from 2007, when the Tories were hugging hoodies, even if the hoodies weren't hugging back... isn't that assault?

IS THIS MAN REALLY IN CHARGE?

I’m somewhat concerned about the amateur way that Cameron has gone about dealing with England’s riots.

(And yes, Tom Harris, I say England’s riots, because that is where they happened. There were riots in London, Liverpool, Manchester, Salford, Gloucester, etc... and according to my map, all of these places are in England. It’s about geography, Tom. You know, the subject at school with maps and countries and rivers and stuff.)

Anyway, back to the topic. Cameron has used the whole thing as some massive PR exercise. First of all he didn’t budge from the villa in Tuscany. Then when he saw that that was going down like a lead balloon in the Daily Mail, he flew back “in the middle of the night”, I remember hearing to save the nation...(‘struth, he was only in Italy, a couple of hours away max, so can the drama already).

Only HE didn’t really save it. He just talked big about retribution and said all the things the hurting people in London and Salford and Manchester, etc, wanted to hear; he appeased the right wing of his party, who think he's a bit soft lefty, by ditching all this “hug a hoodie” nonsense he spouted when he was vote hunting, and got to talking tough... and even the Daily Mail seemed less hostile.

Then someone must have told him that “the people”, that amorphous mass out there somewhere, were unhappy with the police, so he took advantage of that, fired broadsides at them and took the credit for ending the riots (when of course the real reasons were more police and more rain. Rioting is OK, but not if you’re going to get wet doing it, it seems).

The police, in the form of Hugh Ord, returned fire on the prime minister and, despite their seeming incompetence, and in the case of the Met dubious leadership, everyone I’ve talked to (or read) seems to come down on the side of the police.

So then, having seen that that was a mistake, he turned 180° and started telling us how the bobbies were brave on Saturday and on Sunday and...yawn... you get the picture. Another PR damage limitation exercise.

But if he’s been pretty crap so far (and he has), today’s announcements have filled the more sentient of us with a sense of wonderment.

Those people who have committed crimes that caused Cameron to come back from his holiday, and who live in social housing, regardless of whether they are the tenant or not, will, along with the rest of their family, be thrown out on to the street.

OK, fair enough, some might think. And in a pub argument it would probably win the day. But government has to think a bit more deeply than if it were in a bar room verbal brawl. Consequences, Dave!

Some questions that immediately sprang to my mind were: What if there’s a baby in the household, a cancer patient, a person of 97? What if they die? What if uninvolved household members lose jobs because they’re homeless? What if someone commits a crime that had nothing to do with David’s holiday being interrupted...rape, murder, child abuse, robbery, assault, carrying a knife, driving dangerously, speeding, parking on a double yellow line, dropping litter, forgetting to return library books?

Poor families in social housing, it seems, are to be punished twice for an offence, while millionaires’ families are punished once only?

Hmmmm, Dave, don’t you think that’s the sort of thing that at least some of the people were rioting over in the first place? You know where this is going, doncha? No? Oh dear.