Education - Past, present and future

Education should be the pinnacle of our society, schools should look like palaces, they should employ the best teachers from across the world, they should support the best teachers from within the UK, they should house the resources required to teach a pupil but also to let the pupil teach themselves until their heart is content, they should contain up to date technology to make learning easier and more fun, they should stock every pieces of sports equipment imaginable and they should also have every musical instrument known to man. In other words no expense should be spared on education because primary and secondary education are the highest levels of education that many young people will attain and their chances of an excellent education shouldn’t be hindered by a lack of anything.

Every government past and present will tell you that education is the bedrock of our society and many of the cures to the worst diseases the world has ever seen will come from those within our educational establishments.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, but in doing so I do not want to marginalise the many thousands of young people who will not get places in the country’s top universities.

Having done a cursory search of jobs, the vast majority of well-paid jobs require the candidate to have a degree in some form. Whilst some of these jobs have a specific use for the candidate’s degree, many have none and simply require the degree as a sign of intellectual ability.

I have no problems with children growing up wanting to be doctors, lawyers, scientists or fulfilling any other dream requiring a degree; I do however have a problem with people discouraging people from careers that do not require degrees simply because those positions are seen as unimportant.

HGV drivers are the back bone of the nation ferrying goods from distribution centres to our shelves, they don’t need a degree, mechanics keep the HGV’s on the road, they don’t need a degree, and the store assistant stacks the shelves making sure that the desired goods are on the shelves, they don’t need a degree.

We need to accept that not everyone wants a degree, or wants a job that requires a degree and that it’s ok for our children to take jobs they have a natural interest in rather even if they do not need a degree to do the job. Whilst we all want the best for our children, we must help and guide them in their education and career choices rather than forcing our own ambitions on them. I want every person to achieve what they want to achieve, no more and no less.

Education shouldn’t stop after we leave full time education; education should be something that we can return to at any time whether we are twenty seven or seventy. Many people discover throughout their career that they would rather be doing something else, but do not have the means to take the life changing step and switch careers, sometimes through lack of education or qualifications.

This results in a demotivated employee who only works at forty or fifty per cent capacity and results in an ineffective work force. If someone wants to change their career in to something they are naturally interested in then we should take every step to help them.

I will look at ways of making higher education available for those who have left full time education and have taken up full time employment. I do not believe such education should be free, but I believe that it should be affordable and should make use of technological developments to drive down costs whilst maintaining the quality and standard of the education offered.

Twitter? Why not post me your questions : @ThePMCandidate

Email : realchangerealpeople@ymail.com

The Candidate

Islamic Extremists?

If you go to Google and type ‘extremist definition’ it offers a definition. It says “A person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action”

In our society today we seem to be caught up with the notion that extremism comes solely from Islam and the Islamic faith. Extremism have existed for many thousands of years in many different forms and I suspect will continue for thousands of years to come. Islamic extremism is merely one section of an otherwise much larger problem.

There will always be people in our society that hold extreme political views and fanatical religious views; the very idea that the sixty two million people in the UK share the same opinions on anything goes against the very grain of our humanity and our individual intelligence. This difference of opinion is what makes us diverse, healthy and progressive in our nature, the real danger however comes from those who are willing to result to more than just words to further their own agenda.

There are a great number of neighbourhoods across the world that live under the constant threat that the public bin they walk past every day could just explode, or the car that they have parked next to is filled with explosives.

In the 1800’s we believed that the answer to stopping crime was to lock those responsible away and make the subject to hard labour, no great surprise that crime still exists within our society. In the 1920’s in America, the eighteenth amendment was changed to ban alcohol, unsurprisingly in the 1930’s alcohol was legalised again when that ban failed because people were creating their own at home or in visiting ‘speakeasy’s’.

These times in history are relevant to the extremist problem we face today. In the 1800’s hard work and jail didn’t reform the criminal mind; it simply punished the body for its actions. In the 1920’s the ban on alcohol pushed the trade underground. It still existed, it was harder to detect for the authorities but the vast majority of the public were aware of their presence.

In our modern society there are as many reasons as there are people as to why people choose to become extremists but we must also understand that there are instances where extremists are created not by their own choice and free will but by education and more appropriately brainwashing.

If we are ever to rid our society of extremists who are prepared to use deadly force to pursue their own agenda then a number of things need to change. We as a nation need to stop identifying people as terrorists because of a skin colour, because of their religion or because of their appearance alone.

This method of identifying possible terrorists from their appearance or beliefs only serves to build barriers in already fraying communities and where there were limited communication; such barriers could prohibit any form of communication completely. This breeds itself in to a cycle of fear between divided communities that cycle will destroy our communities as a whole and our national identity as well as irreparably damaging the lives of the individuals in the communities.

Pandering to terrorists is not the answer, however morally and ethically we owe it to ourselves, our neighbours, our communities and to the few who have fought to preserve the rights of the many to try and put in a place a programme that is designed to work with those who are at risk of being radicalised irrelevant of their religion or skin colour.

For those who have been radicalised but would like to seek help, it should be provided, but for those whose sole aim is the taking of life and the destruction of property, then we owe it to the public at large and the world to make sure these people are never allowed to set foot in public again.

Within current legislation a number of offences already exist around terrorism. Where a person is convicted by a court of being involved in terrorism, then that person should receive a minimum term in prison of no less than fifty years.

Extremists may have some legitimate concerns; however there are processes and channels that can be utilised to raise their concerns and terrorism is not one of those options.

Twitter? Why not post me your questions : @ThePMCandidate

Email : realchangerealpeople@ymail.com

The Candidate

Taxation and Social Benefits System

The taxation system and benefits systems are extremely complicated and difficult to work out. Various arms of government carry out various functions, from the collection of revenues, to the payment of benefits and these arms of government rarely speak to each other.

Therefore, this lack of communication fails to identify those claiming benefits illegally whilst working, those paying too much tax, those paying not enough tax and those who are eligible to claim tax relief but are not aware.

This is why we propose the following:

     ·         A full review of all current taxes, such as PAYE, national insurance contributions, business rates, council tax, corporation tax, value added tax, tobacco tax, fuel tax - this review will ensure the tax rates are appropriate and that the tax itself is still relevant

    ·         The creation of one government body responsible for the collection of taxes and the payment of benefits

    ·         The creation of a new computer system documenting the taxes due and eligible benefits

    ·         With the new computer system would come an online function whereby people would be able to calculate personal tax and make payments online

Twitter? Why not post me your questions : @ThePMCandidate

Email : realchangerealpeople@ymail.com

The Candidate

Welfare State

Since its introduction in the early 1900's the welfare state is a key an important part of what makes our country great. Our welfare state allows everyone the peace of mind that in the event that they do lose their job, then there are a series of benefits in place to make it easier for people and families to manage during the downturn.

That said, the welfare system was only intended as a temporary solution to manage short term problems. In today's society the very essence of people spending all of their adult’s lives on benefits is a very real prospect and this is not the spirit in which the welfare system was created.

We are certain there are people abusing the welfare system and taking advantage of loopholes in the system. They are more than happy to sit at home and spend tax payer’s money whilst others in society carry out a fair days work for a fair days pay.

There are people in society that will only accept jobs in certain roles or with certain titles, but in a society that is working together, if you cannot find a job within six months then why should the state provide you with benefits because you can’t find a job with the right title. There are times when we can choose the job we want and there are other occasions when we have to take any job that comes our way.

This is why we propose the following:

     ·         Someone claiming unemployment benefit will be able to claim for a maximum of six months at which point benefits will be stopped

     ·         After the initial period of six months has elapsed the person will not be eligible for any further unemployment benefits until a period of twelve months has passed

     ·         No changes to child benefits

Twitter? Why not post me your questions : @ThePMCandidate

Email : realchangerealpeople@ymail.com

The Candidate

Review of Constituencies

The Conservative government have commenced a process of reviewing the current constituency boundaries. They are looking to reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600. I actively support this as it will make each constituency more equal in terms of voter numbers.

The only difference we would make would be to remove the Prime Minister from being elected to a constituency. The Prime Minister is responsible for the overall running of the government of the day and because of this I believe it is irresponsible to all parties concerned that the Prime Minister should be representing a constituency as well as the country. To me it seems there are obvious conflicts of interest.

Therefore we propose the following:

     ·         Reduction in the number of constituencies from 650 to 600 all with an equal n umber of voters

     ·         The leader of the party with most votes in the general election is elected as Prime Minister

     ·         Upon being elected Prime Minister, they are no longer MP for a constituency with voters, rather they are an MP for a constituency without voters

    ·         MP's are responsible for issues and concerns within their constituency

    ·         The Prime Minister is responsible for national issues, concerns as well as foreign affairs

Twitter? Why not post me your questions : @ThePMCandidate

Email : realchangerealpeople@ymail.com

The Candidate

Tough on Crime

One of the age old complaints from the general public is that offenders once convicted are not given hard enough sentences to represent the seriousness of the offence they have committed.

Across the board there does appear to be a disparity in sentencing too, for example for breach of a court order you can look at a short custodial sentence, but for being convicted of disqualified driving on the third time you’re looking at an extended ban and potentially community service.

We believe the only way to really get to the root cause of this is to provide minimum and maximum sentences for all serious and commonly committed offences. This will help standardise the punishments handed out making it fairer for those subject of the punishment, but also all Magistrates and Judges the flexibility to hand out sentences within the guidelines which they feel are appropriate.

One of the most common punishments handed out to convicted criminals is community service. I for one have never been able to identify who these individuals are and from that I am not sure whether I have seen them carrying out the community service. I think its essential that the public see those who have committed criminal acts making amends for their actions, that is why we believe they should be visible and when carrying out acts of community service they will have to wear an orange boiler suit.

Whilst there are critics out there who say this amounts to a breach of Human Rights as it may be deemed as degrading, I do not believe this is the case. The reason they are wearing the boiler suit is to help staff supervising Community Service easily identify who is with them and who is the general public. In any case I would expect this to be challenged in court.

From this we propose the following:

· Minimum and maximum sentencing for all serious and commonly committed offences

· Those carrying out community service will be made to wear an orange boiler suit

· Communities will be able to work in conjunction with the local probation office to decide where to place those on community service to ensure the community makes the most out of their time

Twitter? Why not post me your questions : @ThePMCandidate

Email : realchangerealpeople@ymail.com

The Candidate

Prime Ministers Questions

Prime Ministers Questions (officially known as Questions to the Prime Minister but abbreviated to PMQ's) has existed in parliament since 1881. This is a chance for MP's to ask the Prime Minister questions about the activities of the government, policies and also current events.

PMQ's takes place in the House of Commons and starts at 12 o'clock every Wednesday whilst government is in session. PMQ's lasts for 30 minutes. Whilst I appreciate the need to have questions from MP's to the Prime Minister, I also feel that we are lacking questions from the public.

I believe the public should have their fare share of questions to the Prime Minister also to ask questions about government activities which affect the public at large. I also believe that in addition to asking questions in person, there should also be other mechanisms to canvass the Prime Minister.

Therefore I propose the following:

     ·         Public Prime Ministers Questions - Each week the Prime Minister will visit a different location and answer questions from the general public for 30 minutes

     ·         All e-petitions with over 100,000 signatures will be refered to the Speaker of the House. From there the Speaker will look at the petition and say whether the item being petitioned has been or will be discussed, if it has or will be discussed then this information will be made available through the e-petitions site. If it has not been discussed and is not due to be discussed then the Speaker of the House will schedule a session

     ·         An online version of Questions to the Prime Minister will be created for the public to pose questions

     ·         The introduction of 'Meet the Prime Minister'. These will be one to one conversations between the public and the Prime Minister and will take place during various journeys and the public can ask anything they want

On Twitter? Why not post me your questions : @ThePMCandidate

Email : realchangerealpeople@ymail.com 

The Candidate

EU Procurement Rules - Public Tendering

When you or I are looking to make a big personal purchase, such as furniture, electrical items and so on, we find something we like that meets our needs and once we have found this we look for the item at the cheapest price.

When a public body wishes to make a large purchase there are a number fences to leap and hoops to jump through and in the end you invariably do not get what you want. This is because the system instigated by the EU doesnt work.

The EU procurement rules prevent public bodies searching around for cheaper quotes, instead they have to write a description of what it is they require, contractors are identified through a bidding process and the bidder with the most accurate and relevant product is awarded the contract. Whilst in principle this is a good system, realistically the companies winning the contracts are those who have expert writers who are able to match the requirements of the item sought rather than actually being able to meet the needs of the public body making the request.

In essence it is more about how skilled a writer you are rather than how capable you are at producing the finished article.

From this I propose the following:

     ·         Scrapping the EU rules with regards to procurement

     ·         The introduction of a central procurement database where all contracts worth over £10,000 are listed

     ·         Contracts under £10,000 are left to the relevant authority to show they have achieved best value for money

     ·         Any contract listed on the central procurement database will be listed as either urgent or non-urgent

     ·         Quotes could be obtained within 14 days using the urgent quote function

     ·         Non-Urgent quotes can be obtained within a reasonable time in comparisson to the project

     ·         Public bodies are free to speak with contractors to ascertain requirements and products/services available

     ·         The cost of the central procurement database will be met by contractors paying a small membership fee

On Twitter? Why not post me your questions : @ThePMCandidate

Email : realchangerealpeople@ymail.com 

The Candidate

MP's Expenses

In 2008 following a series of objections from MP's, their expenses were finally disclosed. The disclosure of these expenses revealed a number of irregularities in the amounts MP's were claiming, but also what they were claiming for.

The tax paying public were over paying for Council tax, furnishings for second homes, over charging for food, making receipted claims and so on. The surprising part about this scandal wasn’t that it was happening, but it was to the extent at which it was happening. All major parties were involved in the scandal, some of whom were very senior in their party and very senior in the government.

Whilst I don’t believe that MP's should be out of pocket for fulfilling their role as a Member of Parliament (MP), I don’t believe they should profit either. I would like to see a number of changes made to make expenses fairer and more accountable, after all this is public money, which is in short supply at the moment.

I think the Government should purchase a series of apartments which are made available for the use of MP's. All bills relating to council tax, electricity, gas, water rates and other associated bills are sent directly to the government.

Whilst a central complex containing the countries MP's poses a security risk, I believe with good security strategy, using current security equipment and appropriate boundaries the risk posed will be minimal. The costs to this idea will initially be substantial, but the long term cost of this will far outweigh the benefits. At present each MP can claim around £20,000 per year for a place to live in London. This works out at around £13m per year. To purchase 650 apartments at £125,000 each would cost £82m. The cost to purchase obviously costs more in the short term, but the costs to purchase these apartments and use them for 30 years is still only £82m, where as if each MP were to claim their allowance it would cost around £390m so in 30 years to purchase apartments would save £308m. In addition to this, the government would still own all the real estate.

I propose the following:

    ·         The Government purchases 650 apartments in or near to London (within commutable distance)

    ·         Instead of a rental/living allowance, each MP upon being elected, recieves the keys to a government owned apartment and once they leave office they hand the keys over

    ·         If an MP's constituency is London or within commutable distance of London they will not be eligible for an apartment

    ·         Each apartment is furnished, therefore negating the need to claim for additional furniture

    ·         Food bills should be paid providing the MP can produce a receipt

    ·         MP's should be able to order envelopes, paper, pens and other stationery through a central fund

    ·         Computers should be provided to each MP to allow them to carry out their job

    ·         Expenses for travel should be paid as long as receipts can be produced

On Twitter? Why not post me your questions : @ThePMCandidate

Email : realchangerealpeople@ymail.com

The Candidate

Risk-Averse Society

Today I came across a piece of work prepared by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and it looks at introducing the National Decision Model (NDM), which itself is an update to the Conflict Management Model (CMM). In effect it’s a process by which Police officers of all ranks justify what force is proportionate in the circumstances of each individual incident they deal with.

Anyway, I was reading a bit about why the NDM replaced the CMM and it all basically seemed to surround the principle that policing had become risk-averse and that society looked to eliminate risk completely, in what is a generally risk filled society.

So the basic idea was to accept the principle that there will always be some element of risk and instead of doing everything to reduce every risk, we should look at the risks, really assess which are likely to do the greatest harm then we should do what is reasonable to prevent those risks, but understanding that risk can never be reduced completely.

This basic idea made me consider whether we as a society have become risk-averse? I hate the old adage of ‘when I was a kid’ but as a kid I rode my bike without a helmet and elbow pads, I climbed large trees and skateboarded down some steps for fun. Yes I did fall off my bike, out of tree’s and fractured my arm skateboarding but I’m still here, I’m still the same old me, maybe a bit wiser for it.

In a society of over sixty million people there will always be murders, people will always die in car crashes, people will always commit suicide and people will always commit horrendous crimes. Whilst I would like to live in the ideal world where things are pretty and crime free, but I don’t, I live in the real world.

We as citizens must realise that there is a difference between negligence and a set of unfortunate and tragic circumstances. When tragic circumstances occur instead of taking the idealistic approach we need to look at the reality. Instead of finger pointing we need to look at what happened and how it could have been improved. What we must not do is point the finger and look for a scape goat.

Whilst this is one of my normal evening rants there is a point to this. I believe the starting block for changing our society for the better is our children. We need to adequately prepare them for their future as adults within a civilised society.

Whilst we should protect our children, equally we need to expose them to some risk. Whilst university education should be available to all those who want it to progress their own employment, we should also impress upon our children that whatever they decide is fine with us, instead of luring our children in to a false sense of security telling them its ok just to take part we should be pushing them to be competitive but equally show them the value of team work.

Our children are out future and we owe it to them to give them the best opportunity to succeed, in whatever form that takes. All parents want the best for their children and that’s understandable, but by the same token we need to guide them rather than force our own opinions on them. Adults make the best decisions when they are decisions based on what’s right based on all of the available information, the same occurs with children.

On Twitter? Why not post me your questions : @ThePMCandidate

Email : realchangerealpeople@ymail.com

The Candidate

Do the five Giant Evils still exist today?

I was watching a program this morning from the beeb, something I'd recorded from the night before, and it was about the Greece situation at the moment. The presenter mentioned the five giant evils, an idea created by William Beverage as a way of rebuilding Britain after the second world war.

William Beverage said that the government needed to find ways of fighting want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. This made me consider whether these five giant evils were still something the government of today should focus on and whether we as a country have the ability to pull ourselves out of recession by targeted government policies aiming to rid ourselves of these five giant evils.

Now I realise that these five giant evils were created in response to a post war economy in a different time, but could they still have some credibility in today's policies?

In my career I come across many different people from all walks of life, from those directly on the poverty line to those who have never seen the poverty line and wouldn't be able to recognise it if it slapped them in the face. Whilst their standards of living are completely different, I notice a recuring idea and that is that they are not solely responsible for their own destiny.

My response to this is that we are each solely responsible for our own destiny. You have a vision of where you want to be and you follow that vision until that vision becomes a reality. If life throws a few low balls at you, then you either get out of the way and take an alternative path or you stop, but that decision of getting out of the way or stopping is yours and yours alone. I can't make that decision for you, government can't make that decision for you, in fact nobody can.

It seems to me that of the five giant evils, most if not all exist in some form in our society. So how can I contradict myself in the same blog? Here I am saying that we should follow our visions until we reach them, but surely in doing so we would be emphasising these five giant evils?

I believe there is nothing wrong with wanting more, it's something that drives us to achieve greater things, but we need to be careful about what we want and the lengths that we go too to get it. Ignorance sometimes makes our lives easier, but it also makes it easier for us to do something which may cause others pain. It's acceptable to a degree but we must keep hold of our own humanity to balance out our ignorance so that we still feel and don't forget. Squalor is no condition for anyone to live in, but squalor is more about opinion than fact. Disease unfortunately is something that is always going to exist until we fully understand every element on the plant and every inch of our bodies, but that shouldn't stop us trying to combat disease in what ever form it takes, whether it be mental or physical. Finally, we should rid ourselves of idleness. Idleness isn't having a day off, its not taking a 20 minute nap, its not laying in bed for a day, idleness occurs when you cease to do anything because someone or something has been there to be your catalyst.

My greatest fear for our society is that we all become idle, expecting others to do things for us before we are willing to do anything for ourselves. Instead of expecting others to do something for you, do it yourself and be your own catalyst to get things moving.

Want to start a business, then research it, want to go back to school, then make the first enquiry, want a new job, get to the job centre.

I know my past couple of posts have just been rants rather than any substansive policy, but I think it's important to understand how and why I think like I do and I believe this understanding will come from what I say in blog's like this rather than any policy.

Real change only comes when real people do something.

My Campaign?

I'm not educated to degree level, I don't have worldly political experience, I know nothing about defence, I have trouble reading as the letters jump around the page, my style can only be described as hectic at best and if you want someone to put their foot in it using the wrongs words to get their message across then I am your man.

Are these barriers to becoming Prime Minister? Absolutely, do they make it impossible to get elected as Prime Minister? Absolutely not. Can I overcome them? Yep.

Clearly it would be a lot easier to get elected if I walked the walk whilst talking the talk, but I can't. What I can promise is that advice will be sought from experts, I will be fully accountable for all decisions, the problems rest squarely on my shoulders and whilst I may make decisions that you don't agree with I will make the decisions based on the best interests of the country as a whole.

Join my campaign now.

I haven't updated this in a month and that's a long time.......

Hi guys and girls, I know I haven't updated this in over a month. Over the past month I have been pretty busy with a move to a new team in my current job so I have been committing all of my time and energy to getting that right.

That said just because I haven't been updating this does not mean that I haven't been thinking about politics and how every one, including me, can make a real difference. Over the past month I came across an Apple campaign called 'Think Different'

I can't remember how I came across it but I think Richard Branson had something to do with it. Anyway, as part of it I came across something called 'The Crazy Ones' and on some posters created by Apple it read "Here’s to the crazy ones. The rebels. The troublemakers. The ones who see things differently. While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."

I cannot begin to imagine the original context of the quote, but imagine if all of the 62 million people in the UK believed that they could make a difference and change the world?

When you're young is it naivety that makes you believe that you can change the world or is it a lack mental obstruction? As we get older do the majority of people really believe they cannot make a difference or do we just accept the social norm from our elders because they know best?

I understand the need to accept best practice from our elders but surely there is some room for manoeuvre? If you always do what you have always done then you will always get what you have always got, in other words, if we are all overly pessimistic then we will achieve nothing.

Being optimistic and realistic in equal measure allows us to change what we know we can and still have the vision to want to achieve more.

At this point I guess you are wondering what the hell am I waffling on about. I am realistic in the pursuit of real change that will help real people, I won't always be able to help every one, but that doesn't mean I will shy away from trying.

What do I do when I get gloomy with the world?

When I started this blog I wanted it to be more than just policy because any one can write the right words and they can tell you what you want to hear, or more appropriately read, but I think choosing a person to be Prime Minister is about much more than that. It’s about knowing the person as best as you can, knowing what they will stand for, what their values are because knowing them lets you know how they’ll react in times of emergency.

I don’t know what each day holds, whether it’s the discovery of a lifesaving drug, a terrorist attack or a day of meetings, but what I do know is that voting for a candidate is more than just policy. I once asked a colleague how she decided to vote for a candidate and she told me that she looked at their policies and ideas, but then she would just look at the candidate themselves and ask herself whether she trusted them. I asked her what made her trust a candidate and she didn’t know, she just knew when she did and didn’t trust a candidate. My thoughts and opinions may change to meet the demands placed on government, but my core values won’t.

So when I get gloomy with the world I usually think about a number of things which help bring me round and back to my optimistic self. The first thing I usually think about is a time when I walked along a busy footpath and saw a man lying on the floor with a paramedic over the top of him trying to resuscitate him and bring him back to life. This to most people seems absurd that such misery would bring me around, but it’s not the fact that he died on a pavement that brings me around, it’s the fact that every day is a gift and we shouldn’t waste even one day because we never know when our own time will be up. The second thing that brings me round was something I witnessed when I was younger. Near my home we had a bridge and one day I was in the garden with my parents when my parents noticed a male stood on the wrong side of the bridge just down from our home. The male was clearly trying to commit suicide, albeit I didn’t know this at the time. Next to him were a number of Police officers and they spoke with him.

The Police officers were stood with him for a long time and eventually he came to the right side of the bridge. This again seems gloomy in itself, but the thing that brings me around from this is knowing that each and every one of us can make a real difference to people’s lives, we just need to embrace the fact that we can and do something about it.

The world can be a dark and pessimistic place, but we really can change it. Yes we will have good days and we will also have bad days, but as long as we keep having good days and making a positive difference then surely we should keep doing what we are doing.

On Twitter? Why not post me your questions : @ThePMCandidate

Email : realchangerealpeople@ymail.com

The Candidate

The Law's an Ass - No comment

The number of people who are victims of crime rise on a daily basis, whether that the theft of a pedal cycle or the invasion of their home during a burglary. Many people are interviewed by the Police in respect of these criminal offences and a common legal loop hole is to provide what are termed as ‘no comment’ interviews.

In effect during these interviews, those who are being investigated of a criminal offence are asked a question and they reply ‘no comment’ or something similar. An interview with the Police is your opportunity to present your case and a chance for them to put their evidence to you to see whether you can provide a reasonable account. Any reasonable person who was innocent of any offences would provide an account. Those who are criminally minded are more inclined to use this legal loop hole to provide a ‘no comment’ interview because it’s easier than providing a false account and having to remember that account.

At this point it is worth making two things clear. The Police are responsible for the collation of all the available evidence whether it works in theirs or the criminals favour. They are to be impartial in all investigations and present evidence objectively taking no sides.

Secondly, during a criminal interview, if you provide an account during that interview which is untrue and your account is later found out to be untrue in the main you have committed an offence of perverting the course of justice as you lied intending to divert the Police investigation away from you and stop yourself being prosecuted for the original offence.

The relevance of these items will hopefully be shown later on. I propose a number of changes in the criminal justice system and one of those changes is to remove the right to no comment and replace it with the requirement to provide an account.

This change will only really affect Police station interviews as to make use of this provision; certain conditions will need to be met. To begin with the person investigated will need to officially be a suspect, in that there is evidence linking them to the offence for which they are being investigated, this prevents the provision being misused by cop’s with hunches as right as they may be. The interview has to take place at a Police station, it has to be tape recorded, it has to be carried out in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, a warning at the beginning of the interview has to be given to the person being investigated to the effect that they are being investigated for a criminal offence and they must provide an account. It is important to point out that they have to provide an account, not a reasonable account. The reason I have looked to say an account is because reasonable is subjective, where as providing an account is black and white.

I believe that with these conditions reduce the chance of the provision being misused and in any case the final say on whether the provision was misused will be decided by a court.

If a person fails to provide an account when the conditions are met, then they will commit a separate offence for which they will receive a term of imprisonment equivalent to that of the offence or offences for which they were under investigation for, irrespective of whether they are convicted of the original criminal offence or not. Finally, a person can only be convicted of failing to provide an account before a jury in a Crown Court. Such cases will not be heard in magistrates court.

I know this will be like marmite, people will either love it or hate it. I think this change is essential in the criminal justice system so that those responsible for criminal offences are brought to justice and those innocent of criminal offences are cleared.

The conditions I believe need imposing prior to using such provisions are there to protect the rights of individuals and prevents as far as possible the misuse of the provision and finally the reason I have decided that all cases of people failing to provide an account should be heard in the Crown Court before a jury is so that the person being investigated can be judged amongst their peers and it is their peers who will decide whether the person has provided an account or not.

I am a firm believer in the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty, but in this case I cannot think of any other reason why a person would not provide an account when facing the prospect of a criminal conviction, unless they were indeed guilty.

On Twitter? Why not post me your questions : @ThePMCandidate

Email : realchangerealpeople@ymail.com

The Candidate