Smile you're on camera, and in court!

At the moment there are two high profile cases going on in the United States. One involving Amanda Knox, and the other involving the Doctor of Michael Jackson. I know this not because I'm interested but because it is on the news every morning.

Now allow me to be clear of this from the start, I don't care. Michael Jackson's death was unfortunate. But all that is necessary is a single report at the end of the trial to the tune of 'he did it' or 'he didn't do it'. I'm at a loss as to why I need to know what each security guard, every aid and Doctor saw heard and thought/thinks. Why does it matter? I isn't my place to decide and largely the case has no relation to me.

The Amanda Knox case has slightly more interest, but only really because I have a small and highly likely and unfair thought in the back of my mind that a US Court may care slightly less about the murder of a British national than an American. I know, that is prejudice, but I guess my thoughts are partly sponsored by the retarded response of the American people to the BP oil spill. "Oh those Brits have ruined out country and are going to get away with it!" When actually the truth was "a multinational company ruined your country" and largely that makes no difference to what happened any more than if it was an American company, especially since those working on the platform in question were likely to be American themselves.

The American ability not know know who their allies and their enemies are is always slightly worrying so I'd like to think that if there is a lot of coverage of the case at least that means the UK is watching for any obvious errors.

But if it wasn't for that one angle, we would be back in the situation where I don't know why the matter is being reported all the time. In fact there is an entirely separate rant of mine regarding why we need crime reported nationally anyway... but that is for another day.

But this rather obvious American trend of broadcasting Court cases has some rather worrying support of here, in the UK.

Now I don't know what the numbers are, it could be that 99% of people would oppose such a move and it is only the 1% who are, I assume, snorting something illegal, that actually think it is a good idea. But the BBC managed to find one lawyer who thought it was a good idea.

So here goes the simple logic of why allowing videos in Courts is a dumb idea:

1. Where to start? How about with the fact that putting it on TV will give people the chance to act up. But it will give many people the chance to act up so I'll break it down further:

a) the Barristers.
Right now we have a system, the Barrister does the talking, he knows the system, the Judge does the listening, he knows the system, the solicitors draws up the paper work, they know the system. The Client largely does very little, because they know crap all about the legal system. If they were to get involved in likelihood they would make a monumental mess of it. Common sense tells you this, as does experience (if you ever see small claims trial where the parties represent themselves and you'll know what I mean). However with the addition of a camera all of a sudden you have a huge new presence. The people watching who don't know the system. All of a sudden there is a temptation for the lawyers involved to start acting. After all it could be good for business if you start to give yourself some sort of character. It may not help your client's case (chances are acting up would actually hurt it, but who cases if it is a pretty duff case anyway) but it could start to make you look like the 'Doctor House' of the Court room, or 'Rumpole of the Bailey'. No solicitor would buy it, as they know that you would be damaging your case, but to those outside the court room, it is basically free advertising, and as we know about advertising, often, it doesn't have to be good, it just has to be memorable.

b) those on the stand
Once on the stand the Defendant, Claimant, whoever could be tempted to play up. Maybe the Defendant knows that they are going down so they are going to try and bring out some 50 cent bravado in the process, or maybe they just want to put on the best performance for the cameras.

c) victim
Err, would you want to have to go through an account of attempted murder with a huge audience watching? What about rape? What about anything like that? No didn't think so.

d) witnesses
Person A saw that the murder was done by someone else, but the reason they knew was because they were visiting a prostitute at the time... you think that they are going to stand as a witness at the trial? ................... Nope, me neither.
Person A saw the mafia gang leader shoot the victim in the face... you think they are going to stand witness? ...... Two for two.
Of course there are ways of protecting these witnesses, but I'm not sure how effective they would be, especially since in my experience video link evidence isn't quite as effective as in person.

e) idiots
For how long has Big Brother been running now? Years. How long has Jackass being going on? One thing I think we can say we've all learned is that:
I) idiots love being on TV
II) plenty of idiots will do plenty of stupid thing just to be on TV
III) TV executives seem to believe that what the public want to watch is basically all the weird freaks mixed in with the truculent and cantankerous with maybe one of two normal people thrown in for fun.
In my opinion, the last thing we should do as a society is add to the number of ways that morons can get publicity. Society works best when those who work hard and do well are known best.

This is why programmes like dragon's den is very good. It is why programmes like.... ok I'm struggling here, I'd say the apprentice, but since the contestants are chosen they too probably have the assorted mix of morons in, which isn't exactly meritocracy. You can't imagine being taken on at a firm because they think you're particularly argumentative arrogant and they think that it will lead to plenty of fights. But I bet they do that with Apprentice candidates.

But anyway, you get my point, if the courts could be televised then chances are people will want to get on TV and it will draw morons. People will want to be witnesses in trials because they want to be on TV not because they know anything useful. Who knows maybe people will commit crime just to get one TV. I wouldn't put it passed people, especially when you consider the link between publicity and shootings (I mean the ones where someone walks into a school or shopping centre and shoots a load of people for no reason).

Urghh.. that is a depressing thought, moving on.

The only counter I can think of is that it will add to the 'transparency' of the law. But I have a problem with that. Criminal cases are already open to anyone who wants to attend. If it matters that much, chances are people have no problem with attending. If they don't, then why do they need to watch the trial? There are a few instances where I can see someone may want to know what happens but can't (a fraud trial that involved someone who bankrupted their company, but they can't leave their new job to watch) but they are few and far between. Generally if anyone has a real reason to watch, they already can. Those whom it doesn't really involve, can't. Frankly, that sounds idea.

Finally, will it really lead to greater transparency? I mean most people don't understand the law or legal procedure. Ask most people and they don't understand the difference between civil and criminal courts. So how are they going to interpret what goes on? Probably, wrongly.

I'm not saying this with condescension. If someone was broadcasting a surgical operation, would I know what was going on? Nope. What if someone was broadcasting an accountant going through the accounts of a department without explaining? Not a clue. I doubt I'd know what a plumber of BT technician was doing all of the time either. So why do we think it would be any different with the law?

The only people in favour of this are surely the TV companies themselves (perhaps maybe one of two of the already famous Barristers) and frankly, they can go and make their own entertainment. Isn't that what they are there for?

Probably the best idea... in the world...

Recently I was asked by a lobby group to tell the government's committee on the House of Lords how it should be reformed.

At first I just started typing a basic response, but then over an hour of two I actually came up with something with which I'm rather pleased. It may not be the best idea in the world as the title misleadingly suggests, but it may be one of my best.

If the goverment implemented this, I think we'd all be living in a slightly better country.

Before discussing the House of Lords, first by way of background, the House of Commons must be discussed.

The current problem with the elected house (Commons) is that they are not independent.

First each MP is subject to his or her party. This means, if one has a safe seat, then all they need to do is always go with the party line and they will always have a job. After all, the party is never going to remove a candidate that always votes the way they want them to. This is great for the party, terrible for everyone else, because it bypasses the wishes of the electorate.

Second, each MP is subject to being lobbied. Powerful self interest groups that don’t necessarily represent the views of the country as a whole can hold huge sway over the Commons. The reason for this is that if they do something against the self interest group, they will be slammed by that group to their subscribers. This means that instead of looking to the long term benefit of the country, every MP is only thinking what will make them look good to the lobbying groups in the next five minutes. This isn’t in anyone’s interest either.

To make the Lords like the commons would just serve to compound these problems, rather than balance them, so, to solve both these problems the following measure ought to be instituted in the reformed House of Lords:

1) 1) The House of Lords must have a limited number of members, each of which is replaced on a cycle;

2) 2) Each member of the House CANNOT be a member of the political parties. The Lords are to represent the people, and thus it is them to whom they must listen. Any strong associate of a Lord to the House of Commons parties, or too much interacting with their chief whips etc would be seen in the same was as a Judge finishing a case and then going for coffee with the Defendant, totally inappropriate professionally, professional code of conduct would be drawn up to this effect, with potential dismissal if breached a few times;

3) 3) This may be contentious but the House must not be elected. This may sound strange but it is totally necessary. Instead the members of the House should be chosen by a group of people, like a jury, drawn at random from the electoral register, this means they will be chosen by people representative of ‘the people’ (statistically proportionate of all races, genders, social classes etc) and they will be chosen independently of the parties, it will also mean that candidates can be personally interviewed if necessary, it will also mean that there will be no point ‘lobbying’ the group, as after they have made their decision they will be disbanded;

4) 4) It is essential that the House of Lords is elected in a staggered fashion. For example, if they are replaced every 10 years, it is essential that they are not all done at the same time, but rather in sets of 2 each month for example. This is important because in the House of Commons there is the tendency to screw the public through the term and then grant favourable tax breaks of benefits when the elections are coming. This doesn’t help anyone, therefore if they are elected continually then there will be an element of consistency (ironically). This would also get rid of the current pattern where the government swaps each time there is a recession, because the people are just generally less satisfied during that period. There would be gradual change not instant shifts depending on how the FTSE is doing.
(It should now be clear why 3 is essential, while one couldn’t possibly have an election every month, it is possible to have a jury selection two new Lords each month)

5) 5) Selection of the short list:
The short list for the ‘jury’ to decide must be picked thus third from the people on the electoral roll, two thirds from specialists.
The first group must be taken again from random from the electoral roll. They have the option to opt out if they so desire but otherwise are free to represent the people.
The second group should be made up of specialists; this will be a mix, partly of people who have helped society and partly those who have useful training. An example list would be:
Self made business man;
small but successful charity worker;
economist;
Doctor (physician);
First generation lawyer;
Mathematics teacher.

It is of utmost importance that no one in this second group have a history in politics, the Lords must not be a place where useless politicians go to die. Also they should not be workers for campaign groups. This should not count as a charity. The emphasis should always been on the first two categories, on the logic being that self made businessmen clearly have good business acumen and if they took a company to success themselves they are unlikely to be a product of nepotism. Then people who have worked for charities helping the poor or orphans etc here or abroad genuinely care about people. People fighting for ‘X’s rights does not count as this would open up the system to obvious bias. Economists and other specialist (assuming the jury chooses to elect them) will come in handy in the House of Lords when arguments stray into specialist areas.
The ratio may be tweaked, depending on what works most effectively.

If these points were taken into account we would not have a House that just mimics the problems of the House of Commons, but we would have a house that BALANCES the problems of the House of Commons. Not only that but it would be almost totally protected from the interference of the political parties and therefore they would be able to do what genuinely is in the long term interests of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Further the House would not be filled with career politicians, but rather it will be filled with salt of the earth men and women who have actually made the country a better place through their own hard work and competence, either through private enterprise or through compassion and dedication, or most likely; both.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That said I came up with the idea in one morning, so it may take a day or two for any flaws to show themselves. All in all though, it looks like a winner!

Is the media's fairness fair?

Some of you may have noticed that New York was not destroyed by hurricane Irene.

Some of you may not even know about what has been happening on the East Coast of the USA, so here is a brief catch up. There was a hurricane, its name was Irene. It went up the East coast of the USA. It reached New York and did very little damage, even though they were prepared for something a lot worse. Locals said it was 'just like any other tropical storm'.

Since then the New York city government has been ridiculed somewhat for over preparing.

Yeah I know! Over-preparing!?! What? Is that like being too rich, or too knowledgeable, ie things that aren't really bad at all because they are easily rectified and more often than not useful, not detrimental?

Sure if the mayor of New York had made everyone get into nuclear bomb shelters and didn't let them out for two days, I can imagine it would be time to kick off. But what happened was that high risk areas were evacuated, and then when the storm passed they left. How is this bad?

It bothers me that people in positions of responsibility these days can't win. Prepare too little, everything that happens is your fault, prepare too much, you get ridiculed for making too much of something, get it just right, well thats your job anyway, what congratulations do you need?

Occasionally, someone may actually say 'well done', but generally the life of a politician I think is one of a gratitude vacuum. Is this a good thing? I'm thinking not.

I guess the reason why newspapers rarely say good things about politicians is because they don't want to be seen as bias. But isn't it more bias never to report good stories than reporting them?

Maybe I just don't pick up on the stories that are positive but it just seems there is a growing attitude of dissatisfaction. This isn't helped by the further two points that the media seems to love.

1) Always give a blanced view point.

OK, OK, I know what you're thinking, surely you're in favour of a blanced view point? Well sure, in theory it sounds fine, but in reality it is impossible. Sure, when one thinks of creationism and evolution you can understand why both view points need to be represented.. But if you apply the idea to everything you end up having extreme view points broadcast or printed that don't really make sense. No matter what any political party does, no matter what any leader or citizen does, there is always going to be some sort of association somewhere that disagrees. Which means when Jeremy Clarkson makes a joke about truck drivers killing prostitutes, the media go to a hualiage company for comments. And when the hauliage company respond in a perfectly reasonable way (which was basically 'it was a joke, we're not offended, it isn't meant to be taken seriously') the media strain themselves further to find some organisation that will give them the pointless fury they desire (the English Collective of Prostitutes,) whoever they may be.

This means that there is always some negative view point and that in some cases they are clearly opinions that are off the wall. But the point is one man's off the wall, crazy view point, it anothers fair point, so no one can really decide for everyone else what a reasonable or wacky opinion is. And so every idots view gets heard. This then leads on to the next point; which is,

2) Nothing goes far enough

More money for pensioners? Not enough. More money for fighting knife crime? Not enough. More police on the street? No enough. Less regulation/more regulation for banks? Not enough/too much. Whatever someone does there is almost always a group willing to say that it doesn't go far enough.

Well, that might be their opinion, and I'm sure it is. But think of the world we're making for ourselves. We're making a world where nothing is ever good enough (which to an extent is true) but also where no improvement or victory or success is really apprciated. That isn't good.

So I'm going to do the reverse. I'm going to take a few minutes to scan the web and congratuate those in office on some of the things that they've done in the past few weeks.

1) Congratulations to the New York Major for helping keep people were safe through hurricane Irene.
2)Well done to the coalition government for getting the 'free schools' work done, so that this Autumn 24 free schools will open their doors
3) Congratulations to all the fighters who have managed to take Tripoli in Libya, and to all the NATO forces who have helped with the fighting (I hope and pray that the transition council make wise decisions that lead to a prosperous and free country)
4) Big welcome too, to the government initiative to force Universities to publish data on their courses regarding the employment rates of people on that course and their post degree salaries.
(so now you'll be able to see whether there is any point in doing a degree of a certain kind in a certain university).