New Blog Arriving Soon
Posted Saturday, 28 November 2009 at 15:08
Posted Tuesday, 24 November 2009 at 15:06
I was shocked to hear that ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, recommending that any man accused of domestic violence, on more than two occasions, should have his details recorded on a national register.
I am completely opposed to this recommendation.
Don’t get me wrong, I abhor all violence, particularly in the home and especially where there are children involved, however, the obvious faults and manholes in such a recommendation are glaringly obvious.
Where is the recommendation to make the reporting of incidents of domestic violence against women easier? Or the call for more DVU (Domestic Violence Units) in densely populated areas, or even greater availability of key workers - to work with women who don’t have the confidence or wherewithal to report attacks and abuse. Encouraging and enabling them to take the bold step into the unknown of pursuing an arrest and conviction. A step that would be much easier to embark upon with guaranteed support and sympathetic expertise.
Is a register really what is needed?
The room for error, both genuine and vindictive, is huge and in this age of equality, if 40% of all domestic attacks are perpetrated by women against men, will there also be a register for women?
What is really behind this recommendation is pure politics. It’s a good leftie sounding proposal, one the Westminster Ministers will warm to and like; a very ‘Blair Babe’ topic and therefore ‘right on’ with the Government.
Personally, I’d like to see ACPO recommending a crack down on drug pushing on the streets. That every school gate pusher serves a full jail sentence on first time charge once found guilty. Or is that too populist? Too much a policy that will appeal to the people rather than the politicians? And, let’s not forget, one that involves a degree of work and effort.
ACPO have proven beyond doubt their own politicisation by putting forward this recommendation. Maybe next time a Chief Constable thinks of protesting at the proposal to elect Police Commissioners, he or she should think on this.
Comment is Free
Posted Tuesday, 17 November 2009 at 14:44
Posted Thursday, 12 November 2009 at 11:05
I will be appearing on the Jeremy Vine show at around 1.10pm to discuss the new nursing degree. Let’s hope The Spectator keep my dinner warm for me!
Sorry seems to be...
Posted Thursday, 12 November 2009 at 10:17
According to the air waves and Sky News, who have just called, I'm supposed to have apologised to Jim Devine - If the following is an apology, then I hold up my hands.
I think the underlying issue here is that the Labour party are trying to 'do over' Kerry McCarthy MP and have whipped this up in order to assist.
It is no secret that many Labour MPs, some very senior, are totally furious with what Kerry Twittered last week regarding Sir Nick and have called to have her 'shut down'.
I will admit, Kerry Twitters so incessantly, often every couple of minutes, that she may have lost perspective.
The 'who needs the Sun when you have Twitter' comment may have been the first sign.
Anyway, here's what I sent to Jim. An e-mail that I thought would be private and one I hoped would help him to understand why I 'shopped' him. Any Hack who wants to pop into my office and check the system is welcome to do so.
We both know that what you said was said sometime ago, in jest and obviously after a very good lunch. It doesn’t make it less offensive; however, I had no intention of ever repeating what you had said to me ever, until I read what Kerry McCarthy had written about Sir Nick – someone I have known for a very long time. He may have many faults but being a predator is not one of them.
I am afraid that having commented to my colleagues, the situation may have got out of hand and I certainly never said some of the things I read in the Sunday press.
I remember at the time sharing what you had said to me with a female MP, who I think may have been, somewhat ironically, Natascha.
I am not happy that in anger, I stooped to Kerry’s level and I have learnt a lesson for the future.
I have always felt we got on well and I am sorry that my revelation to colleagues may have caused you embarrassment. I am sure it is a taste of what the next few months may hold.
Another one bites the dust
Posted Monday, 9 November 2009 at 14:16
Sat in a traffic jam, I am dismayed to hear that the Labour MP for Liverpool Wavertree, Jane Kennedy, is
As a Minister, Jane fully understood the meaning of the words ‘cross party co-operation’ for the benefit of constituents.
A truly principled woman, kind in nature and thoroughly decent, I will be very sad to see her go. Far superior compared to many of her female colleagues in the Government, Jane was always willing to debate a political point both on and off the record.
I remember once during a committee being very exercised about the lack of facilities in hospitals for the laundering of nurses uniforms and the impact that had on MRSA. During a break in the proceedings, Jane walked with me and talked through the difficulties with regard to what I was proposing.
I was a new MP, she was a Minister and she took time to take me to one side and help me understand a complex Bill.
My family in Liverpool once needed her help. She didn’t know she was helping my cousin and uncle until the second time they saw her. When the case reached a conclusion my uncle said to me ‘good job your not standing here queen or we’d have a job who to vote for’.
I repeated the comment to Jane, who was completely bowled over to hear that her constituents hold her in such high esteem.
I have always been full of admiration and affection for Jane.
From a union background I am sure she will move back into that area of work as she surely recognises that is where the true power within Labour will lie in the future.
The news of her standing down is as sad to me as that of Paul Goodman on our side. The very best Parliament has are leaving. Who will be left?
A ride in the park
Posted Monday, 2 November 2009 at 12:18
The row concerning the sacking of professor Nutt continues with steady momentum as one advisor after another resigns at key moments, providing the story with the turbo thrust it needed to propel it from Friday night PM to the Monday morning Today.
The juxtaposition of morals versus statistics will always provide flash points in the world of politics, but it appears, never more so than when it is linked to drug classification.
Professor Nutt was very probably right; the number of young people killed as a result of horse riding is probably higher than those who die outright from the swallowing of a single tablet or the inhalation of a substance, but as far as I know, riding a horse has never put families through years of agony. It cannot be blamed for the number of young people sleeping rough or homeless. You don't see our jails full of people incarcerated for horse riding related crimes and I've never heard horse riding described as 'Gateway' sport.
Riding a horse doesn't lead to a life of dependency and, as far as I'm aware, it's quite easy to quit. Saying 'NO' doesn't really present a huge dilemma, and really, when was the last time you saw someone in riding chaps hanging around school gates trying to tempt young people with a quick canter?
Professor Nutt may appear to play the wounded scientist, the man of knowledge who has reached the edge of reason, but is he really just a closet Liberal Democrat?
Regardless of the statistics, politicians have to make the much bigger decision regarding drug classification and policy. If they get it wrong, the voters can go to the polls and vote us out. That's the reason why advisers advise and ministers decide: it’s called democracy.
Professor Nutt appears to have a well managed agenda. He's playing the news cycle like a fiddle; he knows exactly what he is doing.
I am sure today, unless he has exhausted his resources, he will provide us with a fresh news lift and there will be more to hear and read about the resignation of the nutty professor.
He has done the role of the advisor no end of harm in his pursuit to push his own questionable agenda, which could never have been in the long term interest of young people or the society within which we live.
My Recent Posts
Posted Monday, 20 May 2013 at 14:42
Posted Monday, 20 May 2013 at 14:35
Posted Tuesday, 14 May 2013 at 13:54
Posted Friday, 26 April 2013 at 12:32
Posted Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 14:42
Posted Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 14:40
Posted Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 14:34
Posted Wednesday, 17 April 2013 at 16:18