Let's forget the rule of law

We live in a democratic society that has the rule of law at its core.  So if someone does something wrong the police will arrest the individual, put together a case, take it to fiscal in Scotland or CPS in England, and that organisation will then prosecute the said individual.

Imagine someone has murdered.  The police come along.  They shoot the alleged perpetrator of the crime, then dispose of the body in the Clyde estuary.  Rightly there would be outrage, not least from the family of the victim of the murder who would have wanted the person to be put on trial to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person in the dock was indeed the killer.

So why is there an outrage at the comment by Jeremy Corbyn that it was a "tragedy" that Osama Bin Laden was killed rather than being put on trial.  "There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him and put him on trial, to go through that process," he said.

And the people doing the criticism are not the ones I would expect to be doing so.   Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said Mr Corbyn was "utterly wrong" for what he had said.   Kevan Jones, Labour's defence spokesman, said: "This just shows you how out of touch he is with what most people's views are."   

Are these two people not the ones who are out of touch?  I think most people in the world would rather the rule of law took its course.  Not to allow it to do so just takes us to the level of those who perpetrate the crimes of those who would seek to destroy us.  In other words, the terrorist has won because we have stooped to their standards of lawlessness.

Osama Bin Laden should have been put in front of a court of law, tried, and if found guilty, be imprisoned.  That should be the way we do things in a democratic society.

Twisting the facts

We all love animals, well most of us do.

But some charities seem to want to go a bit further than loving them.  Take IFAW.  I received an email from them (I can’t remember when I gave them permission to use my email for marketing, must follow them up on that). The disingenuous nature was breathtaking.  We all know the SNP were opportunist in their opposition in the House of Commons to bringing England into line with Scotland on hunting laws. 

With my help apparently, IFAW “managed to postpone the threat to the Hunting Act in England and Wales.”  Postpone the threat?  Generously they go on:  “When the UK Government recently tried to wreck the Hunting Act for England and Wales, we heard a lot about how this would bring the law in line with the ban across the border in Scotland.”  So, an admission there that it was an alignment that would happen.

But there is more IFAW want.  "We need your help now to strengthen animal protection laws in Scotland."  Which they argue will have an added bonus as this would also scupper the UK Government's claim that by amending the laws south of the border they are simply trying to bring their provisions in line with those in Scotland.

 

I’ve heard of twisted logic before but that takes the proverbial biscuit.

Come on IFAW, you have a good case for animal welfare.  But don’t twist the facts to suit your political agenda.  When you do, people will do what I’m about to do, de-list myself from your mailing list.

Spending our money for us

According to todays Herald “T in the Park is at the centre of a cronyism row after it emerged a former SNP adviser working for the festival helped it secure a £150,000 grant from the Scottish Government.”

Apparently Jennifer Dempsie, a project manager for promoters DF Concerts Ltd, brokered the initial meeting between the company boss Geoff Ellis and Culture Secretary Fiona Hyslop to discuss the extra funding.  The discussion on May 28 ultimately led to Ms Hyslop signing off an an “ad hoc state aid” package for the festival on July 2 eight days before it began.  With your money. Sort of reminds you of the Kids Company approach to taxpayers support.

 

Then take a look at Creative Scotland, the national arts funding agency.  It appeared to have had no qualms about retaining the now defunct Arches in Glasgow among its 'foundation’ clients, the elite in receipt of long-term subsidy. The taxpayer, that is you and me, continued to bankroll the venue’s so called cultural programme to the tune of around £7,000 a week – every week.

Whatever the merits of the cultural programme at the Arches, as Kenneth Roy in his excellent Scottish Review pointed out, “one fact is inescapable: the Scottish Government is indirectly bankrolling an enterprise (Arches) which is only viable if it throws alcohol down the throats of young people, some of whom are also consuming class-A drugs on the premises.”

There is rather a lot of your money and mine, our hard earned taxpayers money, being used to fund other peoples entertainment.  Spent on things that really, governments should not be indulging in on our behalf.  

Inform, educate, entertain.

Tax credit plan 'could hit thousands of young Britons'

So said the headline on BBC News this morning.  Michael Buchanan Social Affairs Correspondent, BBC News went on to helpfully explain that “Thousands of young British people could miss out on tax credits and housing benefits under new government plans.”

But what exactly is this article saying?  The upfront message is very simple, easy to digest.  Cuts. 

But what it is also saying is more subliminal.  It is also saying “What we have at the moment is to be the expected level of benefits that everyone will get”.  We have moved to this intellectually vacuous point of laziness where we just say a reduction in anything is “cuts” and accepting it as wrong.    But why todays date for that?  Why 11^th August 2015?  Why not 11^th August 1955?   Or 11^th August 1915?  Why set that as the date by which you declare "cuts" from.  There is this rather erroneous assumption that what is today is our right for tomorrow.  If that is the case we are stuck in a time warp that will bankrupt the nation. 

It is right that as a society we will decided that, on occasion, it is right to support people in need.  That is a fair and just thing to do.  It is a sign of humanity.  But as right as that is it is equally as wrong to think that because we do something today we should do it tomorrow. And if we do not do it tomorrow, it should not be seen as a cut as the base line is always zero. To me every bit of expenditure of our taxes that the government engages in should have a sunset clause where it has to be assumed the default position is zero expenditure.  Every sunset the case will have to be made again for why the government wants to use taxpayers money in a particular way.  Yes, that includes military as well as social expenditure.

So we will never read the headline about people “missing out” on tax credits as if they are some God given right.  They are not.  

As Social Affairs Correspondent, Michael Buchanan should be doing a bit more rigorous analysis of the real social attitudes that have brought about this assumption that anytime a government changes things it is to be trumpeted as a cut.   

And he should be mindful that the BBC, of all media organisations, should be mindful of Reith when he summarised the BBC's purpose in three words: inform, educate, entertain; this remains part of the organisation's mission statement to this day.

Odd interview

I listened to one of the oddest interviews I have heard for a long while on BBC Radio 2 at lunch time today.  It was with the former CEO of Kids Company, Camila Batmanghelidjh. 

Fawning, inoffensive questions from the interviewer to my mind.  Was very strange indeed.   

The interviewer did not ask the simple but most important and pertinent question: “You were the chief executive, why did you spend more money than you had coming in?”.

What's in a name?

Until the other week I never realised that Glasgow had a new university.  We have Glasgow, Strathclyde and Caledonian within the city boundaries.  But out of the blue a new one has arisen. 

How do I know this when as yet there is not a single brick in place as far as I am aware? 

Because what was once the new South Glasgow University Hospital became the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital when it was opened by Mrs Windsor last month.   Where is Queen Elizabeth University it is linked to?  

Inevitably, questions are being asked. 

Why were public were not consulted on renaming Scotland's largest hospital after the queen?   Chairman of the health board, Andrew Robertson, has outlined his reasons for deciding not to seek wider feedback on the royal re-brand for the first time as it emerged the name change and the royal opening ceremony will cost more than £100,000.  He said it was because some people would have been disappointed.  Er, what?  So, let’s not bother having elections as some people will be disappointed with the result?

Some clearly are disappointed, like Dr Keith McKillop, who works as a specialist in the £842m building.  Last week he said could not bring himself to utter the new name and wrote in The Herald: "Queen Elizabeth is the most potent symbol of the glaring inequalities in our society, a vivid representation of the growing gulf between rich and poor." 

And the young and impressive Ross Greer, Scottish Green candidate for East Dunbartonshire in the recent election said: "It's not hard to think of a few dozen ways to better spend £100,000 of NHS funds. Serious questions need to be asked as to how far in advance it was known that the hospital may be renamed and re-branded and whether this ridiculous waste could have been avoided. I don't think anyone could seriously argue that £51,000 on new plaques was an unavoidable and necessary spend.  Aside from the cost itself it really does beggar belief that such an amazing new facility could not have been named after one of the many notable figures Scotland has contributed to the field of medicine."  Good point that last one Ross.

It is quite remarkable that a more appropriate name could not have been selected from the world class University of Glasgow alumni.  We should be proud of our world class medical scientists such as Joseph Lister (antisepsis), George Beatson (breast cancer), John Macintyre (X-rays and radiology), William Hunter (anatomy and obstetrics), Dame Anne Louise McIlroy (gynaecologist and obstetrician) and Ian Donald (ultrasound).  Surely one of these fine people should have been honoured.  

Mind you, I have a different take on this.  I think it is just getting the royal name on buildings before the inevitable.  Cementing the concept of monarchy in peoples minds.  But still, I would like to know the answer to a few questions. Were the hospital board asked to name it Queen Elizabeth by someone? And if so, by whom?  Who discussed it in Glasgow?  Let’s see the minutes for this momentous decision. 
  

You can join the debate by joining the 12,775 people who have signed an on line petition calling for the new name to be scrapped before they waste any more of our taxpayers money in the re-branding.

And the future?  "Take me to the Southern" will suffice for all the taxi drivers in town.

The case against giving taxpayers money to charity.

Maybe I was sleeping but I don't recall in any manifesto a commitment to give my tax to charities.  If I want to give to charity I can do so myself.

Which brings me to a question, when is a charity not a charity?  That is a question that is very much to the fore today as the Kids Company apparently is spiralling to its demise.  It may have ceased trading by the time you read this.  Why?  Because it is insolvent.  That means it does not have enough resources to pay its liabilities.   To trade in such a position could render the Board and Executive of the charity liable to charges under the appropriate pieces of Company legislation brought in by parliament.   A fine, or a prison stretch in more extreme cases, could await the unwise director.

There is a reason for legislation.  It is to stop people behaving recklessly.  Now, I have no idea if the people at Kids Company have behaved recklessly. That is for others to look at and decide. 

But let us get back to charities, what are they?  Are they bodies that you and I decide to support because they do good things and rely totally on public support for the work they do?   Many are and do some amazing things.  But many charities now earn rather a lot of money from delivering government contracts.  Some earn more than they get in voluntary gifts from people like you and me. Which does make you wonder why they have the status of charity when in fact they are a trading entity just like any other business. 

Esther Keller, director of Kids Company services in Bristol, perhaps doesn't get the difference.  She told BBC Radio 4's World at One, rather sourly and foolishly I thought given you should be looking at this stage in the proceedings not to upset the people you need on your side, that the charity had been "audited to death" over its government funding.  Welcome to the real world Esther where people have to justify what they spend taxpayers hard earned money on.  If you don't like the rules that go with getting taxpayers money, don't ask for it.  And as someone who has been involved in his fair share of reviewing charities on these shores and beyond, I have found it is usually the ones where you wonder what is really going on that you decide to audit to death. There is usually a reason. 

Ms Batmanghelidjh, the Kids Company founder, said she had "vigorously" pursued the government for funding, because "we'd run out of every company and every charitable trust that we could potentially get money from".  Bit of a clue to her problems there I would have thought.  People didn't want to support her. So just why does she think the taxpayers should pick up the tab if she has over exposed the organisation and promise what it cannot deliver?

It is hardly surprising that you will run out of money if you give it away. Previously published claims include suggestions that Kids Company hands out money to children – something which Batmanghelidjh compared to pocket money on BBC news on Friday.

Perhaps the time has come to strip organisations of their charitable status if they deliver contracts for government.  Let them become cooperatives, partnerships or some other business model.  But let us stop this ridiculous thinking that they are charities.  That way we will stop mollycoddling them as special cases.

All this reminded me of an excellent article in the Guardian a few years back. It is time for action.