JUSTICE OPINION

There have been some interesting commentaries on the justice system this week.  In Peru we had the sort of action I believe is common in America - the two British girls charged with drugs smuggling have been protesting their innocence in court, but, with the prospect of 15 years in prison, were advised to plead guilty and receive a mere 6 years sentence.  This says nothing about their guilt or innocence of course, but merely that the local justice system is punitive.

In the UK, we are less punitive in this way.  But there remain anomalies.  Voting rights for prisoners is one.  Although a recent decision in Parliament was not to afford voting rights to prisoners, that decision is now being re-examined.  It is generally acceptable here that those convicted of a crime may be incarcerated (not quite as readily as in the US).  But it does seem inequitable that, if you have a penal system based on rehabilitation, as we have here, you should deny prisoners access to basic rights throughout the process of their return to society.  The possibility of restoring voting rights towards the end of a sentence is now being considered.  This makes good sense, although one has to accept that the voting pattern of prisoners may not be in line with patterns throughout the country.  The world is divided on this question.  US State legislatures have also taken differing views.  What public opinion may make of the new proposal is to be seen; one possibility may well be that the public will see crimes as lying on some sort of scale of awfulness - it may be OK for burglars to vote, although maybe not child killers.  But I like that there is a debate.

With the death of the notorious/famous gangster Ronnie Biggs, the media has been replaying his life and some of his public statements.  One that struck me was from while he had been on the run 12 years (I think) after he had escaped from prison.  He was asked whether he didn't feel that he ought to return to UK to finish his prison sentence.  'No,' he said.  'The aim of incarceration is rehabilitation.  I have been living outside of prison for 12 years during which time I have committed no crime of any sort.  I am therefore completely rehabilitated and have no need to return to prison.'  Good point!  Would that more criminals could achieve rehabilitation without the cost to the State of their incarceration.

One issue which seems to raise people's blood pressure more than others is that of MPs' or Lords' parliamentary expenses.  There have been a number of criminal convictions now of members who made false statements in order to claim expenses.  This is as it should be and should satisfy the public that such matters are properly policed.  But recent cases of Lords attending the House for 30 minutes and thus claiming an attendance allowance has caused further ire.  I just wanted to say that actually, however mean you might think this practice to be, it is not illegal.  If you attend your place of work, you are entitled to the payments due from that attendance.  Until the rules are rewritten or laws passed, even if it seems that 30 mins is an unacceptable length for a working day, it is the rules not the members' practices that are at fault.  One member of the public interviewed on this subject, however, was so incensed that he demanded that all Lords should be sacked - thus effectively destroying any reasonable argument there might be for doing something about this situation.  He then compounded his irrational outburst by saying that 'they only do the job for the money.'  Er, yes, that's the general idea of employment.

Clearly, MPs and Lords have a lot of PR work to do.  But also I do find interesting this apparent view that our actions should not only be legal, but also fair and perhaps moral.  There is currently no way for the courts to consider such a concept, but nor do I believe that all we humans behave all the time in such an equitable way.  But maybe we should try to bring more of this moral consideration into the justice system.  Perhaps we could start with sentencing.  I was fascinated that the police managed to persuade the courts that the Great Train Robbers, Biggs included, should be given prison terms of up to 25 years.  This was pure vindictiveness on the part of the police, at a time when more serious crimes received lesser sentences (or am I constructing my own scale of awfulness?).  Or perhaps the sentences were a message to the criminal underworld that we frown on organised crime.  But this was a crime unique, or perhaps just of its time, in that no guns were used.  25 years for an unarmed robbery was not a good message to criminals though even then and the justice system did not in that case appear to have considered for example that the robbers might have tried to minimise injuries and have been less brutal than say a mugger or a rapist.

Finally, I can't finish this piece without a comment on the Charles Saatchi case.  Two employees of the Saatchis (Charles and Nigella Lawson) were on trial accused of stealing or misusing several hundred thousand pounds from Charles' bank account.  The defence case was that Nigella Lawson had condoned the theft of Charles' money in exchange for their concealing her drug use.  In these unusual circumstances, although Nigella was not charged with any offence, indeed although it was the employees who were on trial and she was a witness for the prosecution, the judge permitted her cross-examination.  The net result is that the only details of the trial that emerged were the employees' unsubstantiated allegations of Nigella's lifestyle and their criticism of her household management and her childminding abilities.  I am appalled.  Nigella denies the allegations of course.  But, even were the allegations true, no proof has been offered to the court; as far as I know, Nigella has committed no crime; and an opinion poll seems to have found that the public are still content that Nigella's alleged lifestyle is acceptable.  Yet Nigella's life has been pulled apart in the media, through no fault of her own (arguably) and hardly anything has been said about the accused's dissolute lifestyle.  The jury has decided to accept the word of two women who clearly dipped freely into Charles Saatchi's bank account to treat themselves to holidays and expensive clothes, which, whether condoned or not, is entirely irrelevant to their employment, two women who claim that they were in effect paid off to conceal evidence ie allowed to commit a crime by dissembling to their employer and keeping a confidence which they have now anyway broken, and who one might say have now revealed their true characters by selling their stories immediately to the media, no doubt aiming further to justify their nefarious activities and blacken further the name of a woman who has been neither accused nor convicted, nor given the opportunity to defend herself.  This seems to be the opposite of fairness in court.  The justice system has done itself no good in my eyes today.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

We have all been watching with sadness (if nothing else) as Egypt's military grapples with a near civil war.  But the big question has never been answered.  The military decided to oust the elected Government when it started to go against the wishes of the people.  Was this then democratic or was it a grave offence against what we call 'democracy'?

Basically, there are 2 positions:  If a Government acts the way a minority doesn't want them to, should they just accept that the Government is democratically elected and therefore fully justified in doing what is necessary?  Or, when it begins to act contrary to its election promises, may we get rid of them by any means and start again?  Of course there are also the secondary, more fraught, conundrums of whether it is justifiable to demonstrate violently, just because you disagree with the powers that be, and whether they are justified in return to use all necessary force to subdue you.

We don't have problems with Presidents for life in the West and are generally accustomed to removing governments by democratic means, so perhaps these questions aren't relevant to us.  Moreover, in Egypt, as so often happens where there is conflict, outside forces, with less concern about democracy than the rest of us, insinuate themselves into the action and muddy the waters.

But closer to home democracy seems to be under strain too.

First it was the anti-frackers. Drilling at a shale site in southern England has been suspended because of the size of the group of protesters.  There seem to be at least seven known organisations involved in preventing the drilling, some of them what I call professional protesters.  There have also been  

attempts to incite people to break into the works site and to court arrest.  Meanwhile, another group demonstrated outside the offices of the company involved and there were again attempts to break into the offices.

I have mixed feelings about fracking.  On the one hand, there are worrying scare stories about the effects of the drilling operations, on the other, I am not convinced that covering the hills with wind farms and the valleys with solar panels will actually solve our energy problems.  Protesters criticisms range from the usual Nimbyism to opposition to gas exploitation per se in favour of renewable sources of power.  Apart from the debatable comparison of the effects on the environment, the argument seems to be that renewable energy sources are cheaper.  Since a whole hill of windmills seems only to produce enough power to charge a couple of mobile phones, I'm not sure about that argument.  And I'm not aware that anyone in an area significantly using renewable energy sources has had their energy bills reduced.

But the point is that what the energy company is doing is perfectly legal.  They have rented the land from the land owner; they have obtained a drilling licence; and the elected Government has decided that its energy policy will include gas extracted by fracking.  What the protesters are doing, on the other hand, is illegal.  Preventing a company going about its business, trespassing on the site and into the company's offices, and erecting a massive camp site on the side of the road without permits, are all offences.  Yet the protesters are allowed to stay and the company has had to suspend its operations.  No matter how much they dress their actions up by calling them 'civil disobedience' or 'positive action', they are a minority acting illegally against the wishes of the Government elected by the majority of us.

I am also puzzled by the words of one of the protesters interviewed on television - it is important to oppose this action 'especially with the Government trying to offer financial sweeteners to the community . . .'  er . . .

Next we had a 'National Day of Protest', led by a couple of feminist groups, against 'lad mags', the magazines that have pictures of pin-ups in bikinis or less (with the naughty bits covered by text boxes or photoshopped blobs). Campaigners have successfully encouraged supermarkets to sell such magazines in sealed bags, on the top shelves of the publications section, and only to customers with a proven age of more than 18.  Now though the aim is to stop high street shops selling such magazines, threatening legal action under the Equality Act 2010. They say that scantily-clad women are not appropriate when you’re shopping - a statement I certainly can't comment on.  But, more importantly, they claim that displaying these publications in workplaces, and requiring staff to handle them in the course of their jobs, may amount to sex discrimination and sexual harassment.

This is an interesting twist in the law, commensurate with the removal of sexy calendars from office walls and one with which I can sympathise.  The only problem is that, again, the companies publishing the mags and the companies selling them are doing nothing illegal.  I guess that, if mags with pictures of girls are only sold via a tag, as with razors or cigarettes, and only handled by male check-out staff, then the Equality Act legislation is not offended.  But, subject to that test of the law, the only illegal action at the moment would be preventing the sale of these publications.

There is also the slight problem that not all women agree with this action.  At least, I assume that none of the ladies in the photographs wish to have their publicity material hidden or (worse) banned.  And I guess there aren't many lads who support the action either.  Personally, I find a photograph of a pretty girl brightens my visit to the supermarket.  But then I don't get very excited by baskets of broccoli and packets of corn flakes.  I find that the magazines purporting to be about health and sports are often just as titillating as the ones blatantly about sex.  I am also constantly surprised by the pictures, ads and articles in my wife's women's magazines.  So where to draw the line?

I think there is also a bit too much PC illiberal action being taken these days.  Even I have to accept that attitudes have changed considerably since my youth.  Pictures of naked ladies appear regularly in daily newspapers and prime time television frequently contains plot lines, if not suggestive action, that would have offended 20 years ago.  We also not have the problem (for the protesting feminists anyway) of magazines with pics of men, gay magazines, and of course photography and art magazines.  The lad mags are easily identified, but does their existence represent a greater inequality or a greater offence than the other mags?  It doesn't seem unnatural either to younger members of society to post risqué 'selfies' on websites.  And don't get me started on music videos or stage performances by female singers.  The point is that the protesters, whilst I often appreciate the feminist view, are in the minority here.  Forcing supermarkets to comply with their demands through aggressive demonstrations, whatever you might feel about the magazines concerned, is not the democratic way.

I suppose defenders of positive action might point to the Suffragette example, which would bear debate.  But, whilst I agree wholeheartedly that the attitude to women in these lad mags is often insulting and demeaning, discreditable even, I would hesitate to advocate censorship as the solution.  There is no suggestion that the existence or propagation of these magazines promotes crime or encourages violence against women, in the way that porn or the Internet has been said to, nor do they in fact actually impinge on other female customers, but I can imagine a dangerous environment in which perfectly legal magazines are removed from general circulation.


Finally, we now have animal rights protesters taking to the woods to try to stop the badger cull.  Campaigners urge their supporters to stand in the way of marksmen carrying out the shooting, in other words to risk death (and the trauma of the shooter) in pursuit of their views.
The cull of badgers in the test zones of Somerset and Gloucestershire has already begun.  It is a controversial policy.  People are much swayed by the sad death of the cuddly, frolicsome, iconic badger and are thus prepared not too be convinced that the cull is necessary.  Protesters justify their actions with the claim that it has not been proven that the badger is to blame for the spread of TB in cattle.  But again, the only illegal, and frankly dangerous, activity here is that by the protesters.  The Government has decided that a cull is necessary and a number of designated persons have been given licences to carry out the shooting.  The protesters may not like it, but the shooting is a legal, approved action.

I am less sure about the science for this cull.  TB is a problem with our cattle.   We have done much to eradicate the disease in cattle herds and to prevent the movement around the country of potentially infected animals.  But the disease is still a problem and thousands of cattle have had to slaughtered.  And badgers have the disease and carry it wherever they go and presumably infect those they come into contact with.  The cull is not a total eradication of the species, just an attempt to bring the disease under control.  However much you might question the science or the methods, that at least is an admirable aim.  I was finally persuaded by the farmers' argument that at the moment we are essentially culling and containing one group of animals whilst allowing the other to breed, remain infected and roam freely.  Put like that, our previous policy is clearly destined to failure.

But of course badgers are lovely.  I have never seen a live one, but I've seen plenty of delightful wildlife films.  However, on balance, I'd rather see lovely badgers slaughtered and my dinner kept disease free.  Protesters' actions have so far made the problem worse by letting cattle out of their field.  One even died, I think in a collision with a vehicle.  I don't see how that helps either the badger or the cattle or the eradication of bovine TB.  I hope the minority who disagree with me will keep to the democratic method of reversing this policy and will not put lives at greater risk than they already are for the sake of their views.

All those action groups against fracking, against pin-ups, and against badger culls can soon have the opportunity to vote for another government in an election.  There's no guarantee of course that a new government will bow to the wishes of the minority, but voting is a great way to express your views without offending someone else or putting others' livelihoods or health at risk.  Democracy, after all, in the original Greek, means 'people power'.

ONE PERSON'S FREEDOM

The funeral of Margaret Thatcher will take place tomorrow.  In her lifetime, as Prime Minister, she managed to divide the country.  People with firm opinions and uncompromising stances usually do encourage strong views one way or the other.  Since she won three consecutive elections and is still Britain's longest serving Prime Minister for over 100 years, those divisions clearly did not split the country into two equal parts, but the minority that opposed her of course became the most vociferous and violent.

The same will no doubt be the case during her funeral tomorrow.  There are those who still hate her and will go out of their way to show it tomorrow. But those that make the loudest noise, as ever, will not necessarily be right.  Maybe they are incapable of rational argument or perhaps after all this time (Thatcher resigned in 1990) their ineffectual resentment has still not evaporated or maybe they are just hateful, but demonstrating at a funeral will not endear them to anyone, nor elicit support for their views.  Any violence will no doubt be condemned by all political parties.  So such protesters will simply be dismissed as outside normal society.

But a separate debate has arisen which is much more interesting, and important, than whether you still like or dislike Thatcher.  The police have said that, in policing the funeral, they are determined not to prevent freedom of speech.  In this country, I'm pleased to say, dissent is allowed, even in public.  But what is the limit of that dissent?  To what extent is freedom of speech, or freedom of expression, or freedom of movement, restricted by public order legislation?

I am quite firm that freedom of speech should be permitted unconditionally.  At any time, in any place.  If someone wishes to stand up in church and say that religion is poppycock, that's fine by me.  If they want to shout tomorrow that Thatcher was an evil woman, that's OK too.  But they can't expect that theirs will be the only view expressed.  And this is where demonstrations can run into legal difficulties.  Holding up a banner is fine.  Chanting what's on the banner is also fine.  But when have you seen two opposing groups of demonstrators simply standing together chanting their opposing views?  When one group seems to be chanting louder, insults will be bandied, jostling will begin and one group will no doubt soon physically attack the other.  So where does the public order offence begin - when the chanting starts?  When the chanting takes on an aggressive tone?  When physical contact occurs?  When the fighting starts?  And which group committed the public order offence?

We can easily accept that a public order offence may have occurred when we hear a Muslim cleric preaching against the West.  But what of a group dishonouring Margaret Thatcher and preaching against her?  At what stage does freedom of speech spill over into an illegal act?  A public order offence may well have occurred if a milk bottle is thrown at her coffin.  But what if just the milk is thrown?  Or what about holding up a placard covered in hate filled words and chanting hatred against her?  Is this incitement to violence?  Or maybe it's libel, legally punishable defamation?  But at what stage would you be inhibiting a person's freedom of speech - when you take away their placard or when you move them along or when you arrest them?

There have been attempts to quantify freedom of speech for the purposes of demonstrating tomorrow. As usual it all sounds silly.  It's a bit like a contract for behaviour on a date.  This is OK, but that isn't.  In the end, it will depend on the personal judgement of one police officer.  And I suspect it will not be placards or chanting or turning one's back or singing, 'Ding dong - the Queen is dead' or even throwing milk that leads to arrest.

I sincerely hope violence doesn't arise.  And, on the other hand, I hope too that the police will get it right.  If many are arrested, far from turning in her grave, I suspect  that Thatcher will be smiling.  She had no time for trouble makers then and would certainly not have now.

So, even in death she arouses strong views.  But, in the debate over freedoms in British society and the rights of the individual, I think I know where she would have drawn her uncompromising line. 

NO NEWS IS BAD NEWS

Jokes about the reports written by newly-engaged reporters, before they have honed their journalistic skills, are well-known.  These inexperienced writers are usually given assignments in the courts or local council meetings.  They end up writing reports like this:

“Mr Brown, asked whether he had been in the car at the time, replied, ‘No.  I was at home watching Coronation Street on television.  I had a curry for supper and a can of lager with it.’  The case continues.”  Such irrelevances often turn up again as jokes in Private Eye or similar humorous magazines.

There was a complaint on the radio the other morning that news reports in the media these days are always depressing.  If someone is rescued after a motor accident for example, so the complaint went, it never makes the news.  But a fatal car crash can be splashed across the front pages.  I suppose that’s inevitable.  Somehow ‘MAN IN CAR CRASH UNHURT’ doesn’t make for a very exciting headline and I probably wouldn’t read the whole article, even if a cub reporter adds information about what he was listening to on the radio at the time and what he had for lunch, etc.  But ‘M25 closed for 4 hours after man crashes through road barrier and dies on way to hospital’ has unfortunately more of a ring of a drama about it.

Anyway, in answer to the criticism about its news, the radio tried to issue a news bulletin with only positive and optimistic stories.  It included the ‘small earthquake in Peru; no one hurt.’ item, which rather spoilt it I thought, but otherwise it was OK.  I did feel better afterwards that, for once, seemingly there was no pain or suffering anywhere in the world.  But of course the bad news leaks out eventually and the bulletin was also one of the least interesting I had ever listened to.

But it is not just anodyne stories that make the news boring – sometimes editors add totally irrelevant information just to fill column inches.  This usually only happens in the local press; the stuff that never reaches the nationals, like “Man steals pair of socks from H R Taylor and Sons, men’s outfitters, 27 High Street, Haslemere.  Police took him into custody.  The socks were blue with red spots.”  Or “Mrs Emily Jones tripped over the step at the entrance of the Georgian Hotel on the High Street, Haslemere.  She was treated for a grazed knee.  Afterwards, she walked home.  When asked if she wanted a lift, she replied, ’oh, stop making a fuss’.”  And so on and so on.  You all know the sort of local news I mean.

But I wonder whether I have detected more such irrelevant writing in the press in recent days.  Are the newspapers, post-Leveson, scared of reporting information that might be a bit contentious or have they maybe run out of the exclusives they used to obtain earlier when they used more dubious news-gathering methods?

The thought first occurred to me when listening to a news report on the radio about a violin being offered for sale in Bulgaria by some gypsy possibly being the missing Stradivarius of classical musician Min-Jin Kym.  It was a fascinating story about how stolen goods, such as copper wire and lead roofing, passed through various travellers’ hands across Europe.  The musical instrument appeared to have followed a similar route, before turning up on the streets of Sofia.  But the report then ended with the sentence, ‘Miss Kym’s violin was stolen in Euston Station while she was buying a sandwich’.  My wife and I looked at each other and both burst out laughing.  It was such an incongruous statement after all the interesting stuff about itinerant European families.

In the last couple of days, there has been a flurry of Royal news.  We are always subjected to lengthy articles at such times from various royal watchers and experts, but this time the relatively minor incidents seem to have been an excuse for filling page after page of the newspapers.  Maybe there wasn’t any other news.  Or maybe this was another attempt to fool us with feel good stories.  Or was it simply the safest subject to cover?

One report discussed the hospital where The Queen recently spent a night.  However interesting the history and lay-out of the hospital is, the article rather fizzled out with the sentence, ‘One of the police guards on the door was Britain’s tallest officer, Anthony Wallyn, who stands at 7ft 2in.  His partner is Tony Thich, who is 5ft 6in.’  I could imagine the young cub reporter being sent to the hospital to get what information he could for the article and coming back with this tit-bit.  No attempt to telephone the hospital to ask a nurse for a report on The Queen’s condition this time though.

Then an article about Kate contained the information, ‘The Duchess of Cambridge wore a green double-breasted coat and matching high heels.  Experts advise against the wearing of high heels by women after the fifth month of their pregnancy.’  For goodness sake!  What are we supposed to do with this snidey aside?  Or perhaps this is the most controversial the paper felt it could be in the present climate?

Finally, an article about the Royal Princes on a skiing holiday.  It’s not as if this was a trip packed with off-piste shenanigans; at least one evening the Princes were invited to a ‘reception in a nearby hotel attended by 200 guests.’  But the article droned on and on about who was in town that week, whom the Princes spoke to, what they wore, etc, until the whole page was covered with words and photographs of snow.  And then, feeling something had to be added about Kate, the Royal all their readers are currently gagging to hear about, the paper ended the article with the sentence, ‘The Duchess of Cambridge had a traditional sledge made of wood.’  Obviously this information made an impact on me or I wouldn’t be writing about it, but equally clearly a one paragraph diary note that the younger Royals went skiing in the Alps just wouldn’t do.  And no suggestion of overhearing private conversations or telephone calls either.  I could see a whole team of cub reporters in the bar of the Gstad Hotel, scrabbling around to find enough information to fill a whole page.  Or perhaps we’re supposed to think, ‘oh no, surely she didn’t lie on a sledge on her tummy in her condition.  And could she drag the sledge to the top of the hill by herself without inviting injury, especially if it wasn’t a modern, lightweight plastic one?’ 

Is this the sensation and controversy and contentious discussion and provocative argument we must content ourselves with in this brave new world of media watchdogs underpinned by legislation?

POLITICAL HITCH

There have been a number of events recently that puzzle me. That is not surprising these days; I am now constantly foxed by life, by parking meters, telephone answering machines, BOGOF offers at the supermarket, texts from Ms Sexylegs, etc.

But to deal with one of these events, you may have seen that on 5 February the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was approved by the House of Commons by 400–175. The legislation still has to pass the House of Lords, and who knows how they will vote, but the decisive Commons vote by more than 2 to 1 seems to be pretty representative of current public opinion. But the voting has split the Conservative Party. Bizarrely, more Conservatives voted against the bill than voted for. In fact, almost all the votes against were Conservative. Because of this, a number of questions have arisen.

Why has the Prime Minister pushed this legislation through? It wasn't in the Party manifesto and clearly wasn't supported within the Party. Passing legislation by enlisting Opposition support is not that unusual, but it's pretty odd for an issue of this kind, especially when you don't have your own party's backing at all. Moreover, although public opinion is onside, most people are actually fairly apathetic about the subject. They are much more likely to get excited about the tax on sausage rolls or a railway running through their garden.

Secondly, what has made half the Conservative Party vote against their leader's Bill? Surprisingly, their objections seem to be religious ones. 'Surprisingly' because no one else in Parliament seems to hold such strong religious views. I shan't go into the religious points here, you no doubt know, or can guess, what they are. Anyway, it will remain illegal to have a same-sex marriage in a CofE or RC church for some years I think, but some other religions have already accepted the principle, so church marriage will be possible when the law is passed.

Thirdly, what is the view of same-sex couples? Are they all as keen on the law change as their activist representatives? It is always the same with minority views, the activists are so vociferous, that one can hardly believe the whole world doesn't agree. But, as far as I am aware, there has been enormous support for the Civil Partnership, introduced at the end of 2005, a union which the Church accepts, but not much of a movement in preference for same-sex marriage. There remains a body of opinion within the LGBT community none the less that wants marriage on a par with heterosexual couples. But what exactly does 'on a par' mean here?

I confess my initial reaction was to bemoan the continual minority picking away at societal norms. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that's that. There's no reason of course why that can't change. Society is dynamic and views evolve. Changing the law is trickier and changing religious practice is something else. But the position can change and no doubt will, given the present momentum. Never the less, although LGBTs don't want to be different in marriage from everyone else, the fact remains that they are different.

Same-sex relationships tend to be based on the way one likes to have sex, whereas marriage is based on procreation for the survival of the species or the family line, depending on your view. Maybe those needs are less urgent these days, but this was the intention of the institution of marriage. Henry VIII would have had none of his problems if that was not the case. And, as you will have seen in the Tudors television series, sexual gratification was a separate matter. In some cultures, a marriage between members of different families and descent is still considered more important than love, certainly than sex.

However, in a ruling against marriage between transsexuals as long ago as 1967, Mr Justice Ormerod stated "Marriage is a relationship which depends on sex, not on gender". This rather defeats my initial conclusion. And anyway Henry VIII made some pretty radical changes to law and religion to accommodate marriage, so it it is clearly not impossible to do it again.

So how does civil partnership change the situation? I was rather irritated, to be honest, when, after all the fuss to get that legislation approved, gay activists continued to campaign for more. The recent case of Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson is also interesting, where their discrimination case (that not recognising their civil partnership as a marriage contravened their human rights) failed because "such discrimination has a legitimate aim, is reasonable and proportionate, and falls within the margin of appreciation accorded to Convention States." In other words, human rights legislation not only permits discrimination against same-sex marriage, but recognises that civil partnership confers all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. So, opening marriage to same-sex couples would confer no new legal rights on those already in a civil partnership, yet would require multiple legal changes and the definition of marriage would have to change for everyone. As I have said, that is no reason not to do it and it would certainly end discrimination.

So, the argument is between maintaining marriage and civil partnership, since there is no difference between them, or harmonising the two because there is no difference.

But, even accepting that, it is still a slightly odd debate. The trend to marriage has continually fallen (despite a slight recent rise, probably following the 2002 changes in the immigration laws). The fastest-growing type of family in the UK is of those living together without being married. The number of people who cohabit has quadrupled from 0.6% to 2.2% (5.9 million couples) since 1996. Over the last 10 years, the numbers of children born to cohabiting couples has also doubled, suggesting that the unmarried state is a genuine social choice over marriage. There is, moreover, no religious or society objection now generally to cohabitation or to children born out of wedlock, nor indeed to divorce. Since the Divorce Reform Act came into effect in 1971, the annual number of divorces has continued to rise. At the same time, although same-sex couples in civil partnerships appear to be less likely statistically to “divorce” than their heterosexual counterparts, dissolutions of such unions, particularly among females, are already occurring, despite only being made legal relatively recently, suggesting that legal union for homosexuals is no more binding than for heteros.

So we have a situation where growing numbers of couples live together, rather than marry, where indeed ambitions to marry have softened considerably in recent years, even where children are concerned, and where there is no inherent commitment to permanence in any legal union. Furthermore, of those that do marry, church is not now the first choice for marriage. Many still content themselves with a 'legal' marriage at the registry office and dispense with the ceremony altogether. Very many others choose mundane secular locations such as hotels or even beaches for their nuptials. This, coupled with the fact that divorce rates continue to increase, shows just how rapidly strict attitudes in society have relaxed in the last few years. It is not inconceivable, with presently proposed legislation supporting same-sex marriage and not especially encouraging heterosexual marriage (indeed for some couples cohabitation offers a preferential tax position), that at some stage only homosexuals will bother with marriage. That will provide an interesting divide.

Ultimately though this is a legal problem and, even without the public apathy, no one is much excited by a legal debate. The Bill may or may not drift through Parliament without much fanfare, except from a small minority whose euphoria will not be understood by the majority of us, from the quality newspapers who will call it a 'landmark', and from Zimbabwe which will call it an abomination. But my puzzlement at the Prime Minister risking his re-election on the strength of it remains. If we aren't much moved by same-sex marriage, we would surely prefer not to have to make this into an election issue. There are far more important things to worry about in this country. Personally, a manifesto offering cheap sausage rolls will get my vote every time.

TOTALLY BOARD

The EU proposal that all boards of directors must be composed of at least 40% women comes not a moment too soon.  For far too long, Britain's top companies have relied for their management almost entirely on men.  It is almost 2 years ago now that the UK Government decreed that companies should make more efforts to recruit women into their boardrooms.  Within a year, the percentage of women directors had increased in fact to about 15%; some companies had even achieved 25%.  By now, probably the proportion will be more like 17.5%.

Probably.  But it's still not 40%.  So it does appear that the only way to make sure women achieve their proper position in the workplace is to establish a quota.  A board shouldn't just take on men without looking properly at the balance of talents among its members and its demographic profile.  But do they do that?  Well, some of them clearly do.  But that's all.  Progress towards breaking the stranglehold that men have on boardrooms is lamentable slow.  So legislating that 4 out of 10 board members must be women is the way to overcome their reticence.  It will also put a stop to them complaining that they are far too busy to get involved in the world of big business - they will simply be compelled to play their 2/5ths part.

For as long as I can remember, I have heard nothing but female complaints about the way businesses are run. Well now, with this new EU equality law, they will jolly well have to get up off their bottoms, get out there into our boardrooms and pull their weight.

I can't mow the lawn; I've got all this washing to do or dinner's a bit late because I had to do the ironing today.  How often have we heard these lame excuses for not taking on a real job?  And, despite little tasks being used as a pretext to avoid proper work, there's still a long way to go before they add up to the professional expertise women will now be able to demonstrate in the boardroom.  Where's that blue sock I put out for washing a month ago for example?  And look at my pyjama bottoms, do you call these creases straight?  No.  And don't get me started on the dust on my CD shelves.  So, if managing simple labour-saving devices is not exactly women's expertise, a directorship will certainly allow them to spread their wings.  And about time!

You won't need ever again to moan that the housekeeping never quite seems to stretch to cover all the shopping, while men seem to have plenty of cash even to pop into the pub on the way home.  From now on, the wise men of Brussels have ensured that you will earn your own keep.  And no more putting down your mop and flopping into the settee mid-morning to enjoy a mug of cocoa; you are just going to have to pull up your socks (I see you have both of yours) and buckle down to some 9 to 5 labour.  Thanks to the equality-conscious men at the EU, you girls have no need anymore to complain that you are stuck at home all day while men go out and meet people and have lunch and enjoy dubious business trips with their secretaries - now you'll have to do it too. 

THE BIG ENFRANCHISEMENT DEBATE

I fink it would be well awesome to vote.  All the TV cameras and lights and fings.  Showing some teef to the chicks as you slot that slip in the box.  We could go in togever, like Luis and Gay Tony, and kick some ass.

Nah.  They don’t have no cameras for everyone, dude.

Why’s that then?  Well, I’d get my homies to fill the place and work da crowds, like.  I ain’t doing it for nuffin, bro.  Just need a bit of respect, right.  When I vote, I want the whole world to see.  Me, right.  I’d get that jacket from Topshop.  And those trainers.  If my Mum gives me the money.  That’d show everyone.  Anyway, it’s my right to vote, innit.  Like, human rights and fings.

It’s just that bloody government, like, innit, wot says we’s too young to vote cos we’s ony 16.  Well, I just hate em.  Who wants a bloody government anyway?  Even old geezers who can’t even walk proper gets to vote.  That ain’t fair.  They just want NHS and fings.  They don’t care about us – always moaning when our ball goes over their fence and fings.  I’d vote for getting rid of them and getting rid of schools. 

And parents,

Yeah.  We should tell that Brussels thing about it.

Wot’s that then?

Dunno.  The EU thing.  Wot's always telling the government what's right an fings.  That government, it’s like, we’re the bosses, we don’t want them kids telling us what to do, right, innit, like.  If we’re old enough to steal a car, we’re damn sure old enough to vote, innit. 

Too right, bro.  I’d vote for that Louise Mensch, she’s well hot.

Don’t work like that, bro.  She ain’t on the ticket.  Anyway, she’s in New York now.

Don’t matter.  She’s fitter than that Cameron bloke.  And not so posh.

Yeah.  And that Adele, she’s not posh neither.  I’d vote for her.  An she said she don’t like that Cameron too.  I heard er say it on YouTube.  Just like that!  Way cool.

Adele?!  She’s fat.  You ain’t voting for no fatty. 

You’re fat.

Ooh, you callin fat?  

Well you ain’t fit exactly, like me an Leon an Gazza an Bo, innit.

You won’t be my BFF anymore.

I don’t care.  I didn’t want to be your BFF anyway.  I’ve gotta go home now anyway.  It’s teatime.

PEER PRESSURE

Reform of the House of Lords, our second parliamentary chamber, has been under discussion again recently.  It was, despite some reaction from politicians, included in The Queen’s speech, the traditional announcement of the forthcoming legislative programme.  The question on many people’s lips, or at least in their minds, is why is the government bothering about such almost arcane, certainly controversial, matters, when the economy is foundering, businesses are going bust and so many people are out of work?

I doubt any reforms will go as far as making any proportion of the chamber elected.  It looks unlikely that all-party agreement (which is essential to any parliamentary reform) will be forthcoming to such a radical change.  But all parties do now seem to agree that there are too many members in The Lords.  So I guess some limiting figure will be put on the ideal size of a second chamber.  But maybe nothing else will be done at the moment.  How important is this?

The original system provided for a chamber of hereditary Lords and Royals, the aristocracy in other words, the landed gentry, and Bishops.  It worked.  It was a group of people, admittedly a group designated entirely by privilege, but a group who had no particular tie to a political party (you could argue that there were a disproportionate number of Tory sympathisers, given their vested interest in land, money and capitalism, but there were also Socialist landowners), and who could be relied upon to be sensible, learned in many cases, and even-handed.  They provided a reasonable check to the unfettered politicking and power-broking of the Lower House, where nominally constituents were supposed to be the prime consideration, but where (as often now too) personal interests and lack of interest in the common good were rife.  Despite its many flaws, I think it was a rather good system.

More recently, Life Peers, those made Lords by The Queen at the behest of the Prime Minister, have multiplied to outnumber the Hereditary Peers.  I don’t think Royals are now listed as Members, so presumably only those that are also hereditary peers with their own land are on the list.  Anyway, it has now become the norm for Prime Ministers, particularly after being newly elected, to nominate a number of new peers, in order to ‘right the balance’ of the political parties represented in The Lords.  There are 25 Bishops and 90 Hereditary Peers, which would once have been the total size of the Second Chamber.  But there are now also 231 Labour, 166 Conservative and 86 Liberal Democrat Life Peers.  This is clearly ridiculous.  There are only 650 MPs, but currently, there are 818 members of the House of Lords.  So, far from being a mini-version of the House of Commons, which is what it might be with just a few ennobled members from each party, it has in fact grown cumbersome and almost meaningless as an impartial reviewing body. 

You will probably gather from the above figures that The Lords contains members of other political parties (30) and some 154 non-party members.  Wouldn’t it be a great second house if there were no party affiliated members and only the 270-odd unaffiliated Peers, Hereditary Peers and Bishops.  I think that could work too.

But, needless to say, people still think of the Lords as a privileged anachronism and call for an elected body.  I can see the simplistic thinking here.  Elections to a second chamber would remove those who are only there by right and not by dint of competence.  But the trouble is, we would still have to find a means of selecting the candidates.  What would they offer?  What would they promise?  Would they have a political agenda and just replace the current crop of political cronies?  Or would they have an independent agenda?  Could there be such a thing without a Party?  Perhaps they would be prominent or wealthy members of society and just replace the Hereditary Peers as a sort of nouveau riche peerage.  They could then use their wealth to campaign on the basis of their achievements and capabilities.  Or perhaps they would have unofficial constituencies and promise action in their local areas.  But would they, without some form of affiliation, be able to deliver on any promise?  And the fact remains, that all this would just add to the annual political diary.  Do we really want yet more politicking and electioneering and more political expenditure on top of the local elections and General Election?  I wouldn’t want to see it anyway.

But there are alternatives.  I quite like, as I have made clear, the appointment of an unelected chamber by virtue of competence or apparent fair-mindedness.  Why don’t we replace the political Peers with groups of such proved ability?  A few successful company directors, say, or surgeons, or dentists, or magistrates, or academics of certain disciplines, such as law, or others (can’t think of any more for the moment, except estate agents or bankers, which most people would probably find unacceptable) who have achieved on the basis of expertise or widely-accepted talents.  This would certainly bring The Lords up to date and ought to give us a chamber capable of serving the intended purpose.

But we come back to the question – why is the Prime Minster worrying about this now?  It is not I suspect because he is concerned about any lack of competence in the House, but much more about its composition.  He would normally be thinking now about Tory party members who might be elevated to The Lords; his party members are after all outnumbered by Labour members by about 20 (if you include hereditary peer party members).  But this is not a Conservative Government, it is a Coalition, which means that there would also be Liberal Democrat nominations, who, once the Coalition comes to an end, would become opposition to the Conservatives.  Cameron would have to appoint over 100 new Conservative peers to ensure he maintained some sort of superiority over opposition parties.  And that’s not including the 200 odd independents and minor parties.  Yes, this seems like a good time to stop this nonsense, to put a cap on the numbers and to try to maintain some sort of position of power, the existing balane at least, within the second chamber.

But reactions to the proposed legislation so far have been pretty muted, if not apathetic.  Clearly my idea of a chamber of dentists and estate agents should be included in the discussion to elicit more animated debate.

GUILT EDGE

I am fascinated by recent developments which give a complex, multi-layered picture of what we understand by criminal culpability and how we deal with it.  At one time it was a clear, and praiseworthy, feature of British justice that one was innocent until proven guilty.  Once proven guilty, the whole weight of British justice would fall on your head.  Yet I also thought that one was accepted back into society once punished and rehabilitated.  But these days we seem to hold slightly different views of these things.

The first case that raised questions in my mind was (is) that of Abu Qatada.  For those that don't know the case, he has been imprisoned many times in the UK in recent years for inciting racial hatred.  He is a Jordanian, living in Britain somehow, almost universally reviled and not wanted here by anyone I think.  Yet somehow we seem unable to do anything about his presence.  He has now been convicted in absentia in Jordan of terrorism crimes and they wish him to be deported to Jordan for imprisonment.  But we seem unable to deport him either, thanks to the silly European Court.  He is currently at liberty on bail and pursuing appeals through the courts.  I don't understand what he is doing in this country, but, on the other hand, however horrible a man he is, he has been convicted of no criminal offence here.  We seem to be determined to get rid of him (once the courts have lumbered through the judicial process), but somehow his guilt here has built up mostly through the media and Government statements.  The European Courts may not be so silly.  But none the less, he is convicted in his own country and should not still be at large here.

Given the above case, the case of Christopher Tappin is even more curious.  He is wanted for trial in America for allegedly selling batteries to Iran (which might have been used on missiles).  He denies the charge, but, as with Jordan, we have an extradition agreement with the US which means that, in this case, as requested, we extradited Tappin to America.  What I find difficult about this case is that Tappin is likely to be kept in an American prison for up to 2 years while his case comes before the courts.  This although he is presumed innocent (presumably).  And in this case, for some reason, the European Court refused to become involved (perhaps his being European made him less interesting to them?).  He has now been released on bail pending trial on payment of $1m - quite a sum for an innocent foreigner.  Or does the question of aiding Iran's nuclear missile programme carry more weight than his innocence?

Of more immediate currency here is the continuing News of the World saga.  When Mr Murdoch was the most influential media mogul in Britain, politicians were falling over themselves to meet him at parties or to invite his henchmen to private meals.  Such contacts can be traced back over the last 4 Governments.  Yet, now his star is in the descendant, the current media MInister (and even the PM) are under attack for their closeness to him.  The Labour leader said of the Minister, 'It beggars belief that he is still in his job'.  But it's not entirely clear to me where his guilt lies.  His office sent e-mails keeping Murdoch informed of progress on media decisions affecting him.  That seems no worse than speaking to him at a party or telephoning him, as previous PM's have done.  But there we are, I guess the Minister will have to bow to pressure and leave his job eventually, whether he is guilty of anything or not. 

Finally, on a different level, there is, pre-Olympics, a debate about the British lifetime ban on drugs cheats.  When they are caught, drug-using athletes always become contrite and often set up campaigns to help prevent other athletes making the same mistakes they made.  All very commendable.  But does this enforced change of heart mean that they are rehabilitated and should be forgiven and invited back into the British team?  I'm not so sure.  For once the rapid rehabilitation fails to impress me.  Yet how does that square with my view that rehabilitation is the aim?  Are drug cheats in sport more guilty than say a murderer that has completed his sentence? 

Clearly there is more to innocence and guilt than I used to think.  Do media and political campaigns sway my views or do they simply help increase the sense of guilt in the accused?  Should we continue to want to be shot of Abu Qatada because he is a nasty man (according to whom?  I've never met him, have you?)?  And should the British Olympic team welcome back the drug cheats, because actually they are all nice people? 

Who is guilty of what here?

A LOAD OF POLLACKS

I don’t usually get caught up in campaigns.  I take the view (clearly the wrong one, if everyone thought he same) that my vote wouldn’t make that much difference.  But I wanted you all to see this.

Under EU quota arrangements, English fishermen are entitled to catch only a specified amount of fish (usually cod, tuna and salmon, because that’s what we mostly eat here).  If, when they check in at their home port, they are found to have exceeded that quota, they will be heavily fined.  But of course the fish are caught in a trawl net, so there is absolutely no way to control what fish go into it.  So, when the fishermen have sorted through the catch at sea and extracted all the ‘legal’ fish, the rest are thrown back into the water.  This is perfectly legal and meets the EU rules.  But it does mean that as much fish as is landed in UK legally, the same amount of perfectly edible, even desirable, fish is thrown back into the sea dead, because the law doesn’t allow them to bring it to shore.  Millions of tons worth, in other words, of food is destroyed, because of some potty Brussels legislation. 

We may only catch so much fish, so we are told to destroy the same amount.  I hope someone can see how this prevents overfishing, saves fish stocks, or helps sustainability .

If anyone feels like joining me and signing the petition to end this nonsense, please do so.