My point is simple; what is the point in ASBOs?
ASBOs, or Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, are a key part of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and are given out as punishment for exactly what the name says, but they are being twisted to work as a badge of honour, which isn't exactly a surprise. You can just envisage the conversation in which a young chav - sorry for not being politically correct - gains street cred for their actions using the ASBO as proof of their wrong-doing.
There are so many articles out there. On the L.E.P there is one about a girl who TWICE breached her asbo, for drinking and being in the company of another.
According to Home Office records, there were 279 ASBOs given in Lancashire between 1999 and 2005.
This all aside though, the following questions need to be asked:
- do the media glorify ASBOs to those who have them, and thus make others want them?
- are ASBOs capable of dealing a harsh enough punishment?
People don't respect them. They seem them as having no real power to punish. There is no fear. If people don't fear the punishment, is it not time it was replaced?
Monday, 27 October 2008
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
Knife Crime - Yet another crackdown
The title of this post links to a BBC story on a £3m government "pledge" to tackle knife crime in hotspots. Pledge is in quotation marks purely for the purpose that I assumed as government they would not need to pledge to do it, as they'd be tackling crime as a duty anyway.
The plan is another one from Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, with one of the plans being increased police presence. Now, it's all well and good having extra policing, but it's a case of time management, and there will be windows of opportunity for criminals to act in, no matter how much you call for "more bobbies on the beat".
Lancashire is one of the 10 areas designated a hotspot, for which an initial £2m was assigned between these 10 areas, and now a further £3m has been added to. So, for £500,000, Jacqui Smith believes she can significantly reduce knife crime in an area. Interesting.
Knife crime is currently rife in the UK and Lancashire. You just have to look at the Lancashire Evening Post and search "knife" and you'll find stories on armed robbery and GBH.
Worse than this was the recent story of pocket knives being found in coats sold by TK Maxx, a severe issue which was seemingly ignored as soon as they said they would withdraw stock.
The crackdown means well, and we should all hope it brings some success, but at the same time if someone is determined to cause harm with a knife, then it's more than likely going to happen. I am in no way saying we should give up vigilance, prevention and deterrence, but we should be realistic in that knife crime is not just going to go away.
The plan is another one from Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, with one of the plans being increased police presence. Now, it's all well and good having extra policing, but it's a case of time management, and there will be windows of opportunity for criminals to act in, no matter how much you call for "more bobbies on the beat".
Lancashire is one of the 10 areas designated a hotspot, for which an initial £2m was assigned between these 10 areas, and now a further £3m has been added to. So, for £500,000, Jacqui Smith believes she can significantly reduce knife crime in an area. Interesting.
Knife crime is currently rife in the UK and Lancashire. You just have to look at the Lancashire Evening Post and search "knife" and you'll find stories on armed robbery and GBH.
Worse than this was the recent story of pocket knives being found in coats sold by TK Maxx, a severe issue which was seemingly ignored as soon as they said they would withdraw stock.
The crackdown means well, and we should all hope it brings some success, but at the same time if someone is determined to cause harm with a knife, then it's more than likely going to happen. I am in no way saying we should give up vigilance, prevention and deterrence, but we should be realistic in that knife crime is not just going to go away.
The Working Class reap their rewards, but for how long?
In articles today covered on both the BBC website and The Guardian, it is reported that since 2000, the gap between rich and poor has decreased in the UK due to high employment rates. Good news. The government stated a plan and followed through. Well done, or so it would seem.
The report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) stated that the gap had widened during the 1980s and 1990s, which was a time of Conservative government.
There are two things that cause concern here: firstly, in Lancashire, Conservative control has become a lot stronger in recent years, especially with the decline in Labour popularity, and secondly, tying in with this decline, is the economic "crisis", aka the current recession.
Unemployment rates, according to the Lancashire County Council website, are 1% higher in the North West than the UK average, with 134,000 men and 87,000 women unemployed.
The question then is this: how long can the government, both local and national, continue to maintain minimal unemployment in the midsts of financial downturn?
The news over the past six weeks has been packed with news of the economy and other major economies across the world and how badly everything is failing and having to be bailed out. Businesses are struggling as people are spending less, and as such job retention is becoming increasingly difficult.
This surely means that job cuts will be forced upon businesses to survive and as a result cancel out all the positives that this OECD report has shown.
The report has come at a useful time for the government, but a nonchalant one for the public.
The report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) stated that the gap had widened during the 1980s and 1990s, which was a time of Conservative government.
There are two things that cause concern here: firstly, in Lancashire, Conservative control has become a lot stronger in recent years, especially with the decline in Labour popularity, and secondly, tying in with this decline, is the economic "crisis", aka the current recession.
Unemployment rates, according to the Lancashire County Council website, are 1% higher in the North West than the UK average, with 134,000 men and 87,000 women unemployed.
The question then is this: how long can the government, both local and national, continue to maintain minimal unemployment in the midsts of financial downturn?
The news over the past six weeks has been packed with news of the economy and other major economies across the world and how badly everything is failing and having to be bailed out. Businesses are struggling as people are spending less, and as such job retention is becoming increasingly difficult.
This surely means that job cuts will be forced upon businesses to survive and as a result cancel out all the positives that this OECD report has shown.
The report has come at a useful time for the government, but a nonchalant one for the public.
Friday, 10 October 2008
Overpayed and Underworked
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Council-boss-told-to-justify.4579193.jp
This link triggered a response from me. The salaries of company executives, particularly in the banking sector, but also Government, has always been at the centre of much debate and scrutiny by the media. The main questions keep reoccuring; why do they deserve that much money? what are they doing to earn it?
The simple matter of it all is that they get away with it. In the article linked, the Lancashire County Council boss Ged Fitzgerald is reported to earn £190,000 a year, making him the 10th wealthies politician in England. Gordon Brown, our Prime Minister, only - I say only for the purpose of this point - earns £188,848 a year. The salary in question is three times that of the average MP salary. This begs the question; why is a county council leader deserving of more money than the man who runs the country?
This doesn't happen in business. You wouldn't find a lower positioned manager earning more than the Chief Executive, it's just not in keep with the hierarchy of position and job responsibility.
The only positive from all this for Lancashire is that it has retained its four-star rating from the Audit Commission watchdogs, but this was achieved before he came and so its retension isn't exactly unatainable unless you pay someone £190,000.
Taxpayers money is going to these men in a time where money is hard to come by and a lot of people don't feel this is value for money. The public pay for a service. If they don't receive it then this is a breach of the faith the public has in their Government, and as such the person responsible for this breach should be held accountable.
This link triggered a response from me. The salaries of company executives, particularly in the banking sector, but also Government, has always been at the centre of much debate and scrutiny by the media. The main questions keep reoccuring; why do they deserve that much money? what are they doing to earn it?
The simple matter of it all is that they get away with it. In the article linked, the Lancashire County Council boss Ged Fitzgerald is reported to earn £190,000 a year, making him the 10th wealthies politician in England. Gordon Brown, our Prime Minister, only - I say only for the purpose of this point - earns £188,848 a year. The salary in question is three times that of the average MP salary. This begs the question; why is a county council leader deserving of more money than the man who runs the country?
This doesn't happen in business. You wouldn't find a lower positioned manager earning more than the Chief Executive, it's just not in keep with the hierarchy of position and job responsibility.
The only positive from all this for Lancashire is that it has retained its four-star rating from the Audit Commission watchdogs, but this was achieved before he came and so its retension isn't exactly unatainable unless you pay someone £190,000.
Taxpayers money is going to these men in a time where money is hard to come by and a lot of people don't feel this is value for money. The public pay for a service. If they don't receive it then this is a breach of the faith the public has in their Government, and as such the person responsible for this breach should be held accountable.
Sunday, 5 October 2008
The Magic Roundabout?
Gordon Brown does it again - we have a new cabinet within Government. That's right, now more people with whom we're uncertain about and we don't trust.
Within the New Labour years, British politics has gone off course, or maybe it's evolving. Labour clipped its left wing, and the Conservatives their right. Everyone is moving to the middle, to be safe and unadventurous, and ironically the centrally-orientated Lib Dems are still overlooked.
So who is in the cabinet now? Mostly, it's the same. The so called "re-shuffle" has seen only a few people move in, out and swap places. That doesn't particularly sound like change at all, more likely just an attempt at reclaiming at least some of their damaged reputation.
Most notably is Peter Mandelson, a former close friend of Brown, but a supporter of Blair when it came to choosing a leader. This is his third return, following resignation over a dodgy loan deal and allegedly providing passports to Indian businessmen. That said, Mandelson was one of the founders of New Labour, and so his arrival as Business Secretary is probably a good move, even if a little bold and more than a little unexpected.
As for the other changes, Ed Milliband is now in the new role as Energy and Climate Change Secretary, and John Hutton has replaced Des Browne as the Defence Secretary.
The old faces are still around though. Alistair Darling is still the Chancellor, even though the formerly solid, reliable character has buckled under the pressure of being Chancellor and is struggling to cope with the current financial crisis.
David Milliband is still Foreign Secretary, which is pleasing, given he is tipped to be the future leader of New Labour, and also the fact he's the only existing member who seemed to do his job properly, by which I mean he didn't cock up.
And the likes of Jack Straw, Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith all remain where they were.
Change for change's sake is bad. Change for necessity is good. For once, Gordon Brown has made what would seem to be the right moves. Hopefully his decisions pay off, as Britain needs a strong leader, and if he doesn't take up the mantle then it's going to be a long wait for the next General Election.
Within the New Labour years, British politics has gone off course, or maybe it's evolving. Labour clipped its left wing, and the Conservatives their right. Everyone is moving to the middle, to be safe and unadventurous, and ironically the centrally-orientated Lib Dems are still overlooked.
So who is in the cabinet now? Mostly, it's the same. The so called "re-shuffle" has seen only a few people move in, out and swap places. That doesn't particularly sound like change at all, more likely just an attempt at reclaiming at least some of their damaged reputation.
Most notably is Peter Mandelson, a former close friend of Brown, but a supporter of Blair when it came to choosing a leader. This is his third return, following resignation over a dodgy loan deal and allegedly providing passports to Indian businessmen. That said, Mandelson was one of the founders of New Labour, and so his arrival as Business Secretary is probably a good move, even if a little bold and more than a little unexpected.
As for the other changes, Ed Milliband is now in the new role as Energy and Climate Change Secretary, and John Hutton has replaced Des Browne as the Defence Secretary.
The old faces are still around though. Alistair Darling is still the Chancellor, even though the formerly solid, reliable character has buckled under the pressure of being Chancellor and is struggling to cope with the current financial crisis.
David Milliband is still Foreign Secretary, which is pleasing, given he is tipped to be the future leader of New Labour, and also the fact he's the only existing member who seemed to do his job properly, by which I mean he didn't cock up.
And the likes of Jack Straw, Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith all remain where they were.
Change for change's sake is bad. Change for necessity is good. For once, Gordon Brown has made what would seem to be the right moves. Hopefully his decisions pay off, as Britain needs a strong leader, and if he doesn't take up the mantle then it's going to be a long wait for the next General Election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)