Tracey Crouch MP on Legal highs

In Today's Medway Messenger local MP Tracey Crouch has written her column on the dangers of Legal Highs and their availability.

Sometimes we talk about things in Westminster from a theoretical high level basis which we think might be right but until something happens in your backyard or you meet someone affected the relevance of the chit chat becomes real.

This has happened on two occasions recently with the issue of legal highs. One was informative, the other tragic.

I have spoken in Parliament several times on the dangers of legal highs. Very early on in my time in the Commons I sat on a Committee that banned a particular legal high that had become incredibly popular but had caused some extremely dangerous adverse affects in those who had consumed it. More recently measures were proposed within a Bill to look at how Government deals with the thorny issue of legal highs and in response the Home Office started a review.

However two events have made me recognise that this is not just another debate on the use of drugs, this is about how we can protect our youngsters from taking something that they think is harmless because it is deemed ‘legal’.

I met a young girl recently who had taken legal highs. It made her unwell and distracted. But beyond the health consequences what shocked me most was how easy it was for her to purchase them, despite being under age. She has stopped taking them now and is well on the road to recovery.

Then sadly the news broke this week that a young man, suspected of purchasing a legal high in a shop in Chatham, died of a heart attack. There is an ongoing investigation into the precise cause of his death but the ready availability of legal highs, despite their labelling of not fit for human consumption, is a worrying trend.

Government must publish its review into these highs soon and should look to America, which has banned the "analogue chemical formation" of these drugs for the solution. How many more parents must suffer because something deemed legal is actually rather deadly?

It raises some interesting points and questions. Legal highs, like alcohol do pose an interesting dilemma. Even though they are deemed legal the amount of research into the possible damage it can do the human body over the long term.

As Tracey has stated there are cases where they have caused illness, withdrawals and even death though until the Coroner's report is out on the lad from Chatham I'd shy away from linking the two.

Many would argue that it is up to the individual who takes them, and to an extent I do agree. After all if you drink too much beer (not at today's prices) you will damage you liver and incur a large amount of health issues - yet these dangers are well publicised. Smoking too. As long as you're not hurting anyone when you take it or breaking any laws, what is the harm?

However not as much is known about "Legal Highs" and their effect. Before making them legal perhaps some more serious stringent tests should be done. After all any chemical compound that enters the body can have an unknown amount of side-effects and the more complicated it is the more dangerous it can be. The human body is a highly balanced chemical equation and everything has a running order. When you mess with it bad stuff happens.

I'd be interested to see how the young lady managed to purchase them whilst under age. Now with Challenge 25 everywhere you should be looking at the suppliers and clamping down on this sort of thing rather than the chemical itself?

The other question is the role of Government in deciding what it is good for the people or not. Many would argue that this is an extension of the Nanny state deciding what is good for us and we should be allowed to think for ourselves. Although, normally I would agree with that I would also argue that the role of Government is to also protect its citizens and ask the questions (and debate) that a 22 year old out on the lash would not. Indeed asking questions as to whether these substances are good for us over the long term or their supply is a being policed properly and how readily they are available to people. Is this not what an elected body should be looking at and encouraging debate on these subjects?

Ultimately if the Government want to stop people having them so readily they should do what they have done with alcohol and cigarettes and just put a levy on them!

Politics, Parties and lack of promotion for Tracey Crouch

I have gained quite a dim view of Partisan Party Politics over recent years.

I just cannot get my head around the notion that defeating the other team is the sole reason to get into Politics, get elected and the basis of every issue. The ability to define yourself as the opposite to them is hardly productive.

Politics is not about Party over everything, it is about the people you represent and how you do it. I find the whole politicisation of serious issues and problems within this country such as the deficit and the serious problems of the NHS is frankly abhorrent.

I don't feel I need to precursor the next section as regular readers know my stance already...

Firstly, excellent news for Tracey Crouch on her reselection as Candidate for Chatham & Aylesford in 2015. This is also good news for the people of the constituency as in my opinion she has done a fantastic job representing them on many issues and is exceptionally passionate about her work and constituency.

This brings me to my second point. This morning Tracey tweeted an image from a publication (I'm afraid I don't know which) that... well check out the picture.

Personally I'm left in somewhat of a quandary. I can understand that a Prime Minister doesn't want "rebels" constantly going off half cock over issues and wants the backing of a team of loyal staff BUT it is always good to have those who question or say simply; Sorry boss I don't agree.

On the three issues that are stated I have mixed feelings on the EU budget, support Lords reform, am against the badger cull and want to see the Press reined in so that they cannot get away with the things they have in the past. We obviously don't see eye to eye on a few things but I really admire her for the way she does her job, the way she cares about her constituents and works her socks off. I also admire her (and Sarah Teather for that matter) for her ability to stand up and say No, I don't agree and I'm certain that my constituents don't and I will not support this bill.

That's what Politics should be about and what MPs should do.

I know that on the subject of Badger culls that Tracey has thought long and hard as well as changed her opinion on the subject after consulting with activists and residents before arriving at the conclusion that such a move was wrong.

There will be many in her Constituency who would disagree with rising the EU budget when they are having cuts to their services and local Government budgets and who would be outraged by such a move.

So, because she is passionate and stands up for what she believes in rather than being Lobby fodder she faces the prospect of sitting on the backbenches for even longer?

I would hardly describe Tracey as a serial rebel who causes trouble for the Government at every turn, indeed she as listed "Occasionally rebels" on They Work for you and in the last two years has rebelled 18 times. One of those occasions was also over Asbestosis  sufferers possibly losing legal aid to get compensation - a problem that is serious within the Medway towns and something her constituents feel very strongly about.

I would have thought that someone that knows their own mind, listens to their constituents and works hard for them would be a surer thing for promotion to junior Minister or aide than someone who toes the party line, agrees unreservedly with Dave (and Nick by proxy) on everything (except when Nick doesn't agree with Dave) and knows when to shut up, ignore their own beliefs and vote Yay with the Government.

But then what do I know?

All I can say is that it is the Coalition's loss.

Letter from the leader: Get in and Govern

Dear Chris,

There are still people who talk about the Liberal Democrats being in power as if it is a new and unusual phenomenon. That’s remarkable enough when you think that we have been in Government in Westminster for three years, but it’s even odder when you remember how Liberal Democrats have been in charge in Scotland, Wales and councils throughout the country long before 2010.

Today I’ve been speaking at the Liberal Democrat Local Government Conference in Manchester where I will be highlighting the great work of people like Keith House in Eastleigh, Ruth Dombey in Sutton and Gerald Vernon Jackson in Portsmouth. Those people are just some of the members of our party who have shown how Liberal Democrats have been delivering for people up and down Britain for decades.
They have demonstrated what we are showing at a national level: that the best way to take on vested interests, the best way to challenge the establishment, is to get on the inside and govern.

But we also have to acknowledge that getting into national government has changed some things for our party, and so we need to change too. Partly that means that our national message has to be more consistent than ever before – of course we should always campaign on local issues in our areas, but doing so without saying what we stand for as a party nationally simply won’t hold up to the glare of intense media scrutiny any more.

It also means even more scrutiny on the way we draw up our manifesto. Building on the approach we took in 2010 – where we singled out the four most important policies to us on the front page - we will need to be even clearer with people about the commitments which are priorities and the ambitions which we accept may be affected by resources and circumstances.

You can read more about my speech on the Liberal Democrat website but it’s also worth seeing what some Conservative MPs have said they would like to see the Government focus on in their own ‘Alternative Queen’s Speech’. Next time somebody asks you why they should prefer coalition governments ask them who would they rather have in government – the Liberal Democrats, with our focus on a stronger economy and a fairer society, or people who want to abolish the BBC, bring back hanging and introduce a ‘Margaret Thatcher Day’?

Best wishes,



Nick Clegg

Snoopers bill overturned and Nick Clegg's comment

I hailed the news of the defeat of the Snoopers charter with great relief.

I know the counter argument for the measures were to combat terrorism etc but the bill went to far. Keeping tabs of how everyone used Social networks, the websites you visit, the people you have been emailing...

Just seems far too draconian. After all I do a lot of reading about the German Airforce and the Third Reich which could lead those who do not know my interests to misguidely peg me as a Nazi or racist.

Also, with the checks on emails I'd ask this; How would you feel about the government keeping tabs on who you send letters too?

Yes, there are paedophille websites and Terrorist/Extremist websites out there that need to be watched but can't the sites be moinitered for who goes there rather than everyones?

We should be free of action and state monitering UNTIL we do something wrong.

Any way, here is what Nick Clegg had to say to Lib Dem party members in an email.

Today I’ve made clear that the Liberal Democrats will not support what people have dubbed a “Snoopers’ Charter” – a new Government law which means there would be a record kept of every website you visit and details of who you communicate with on social media sites.

In the Coalition Agreement we committed to ‘ending the storage of email and internet records without good reason’, moving away from Labour’s database state. But this proposal wouldn’t meet that test: expanding the collection of personal data without a solid justification for doing so, and without allaying concerns about the workability of these changes.

There is always a careful balance to strike between security and individual liberty and I have always agreed that we must help our law enforcement agencies keep up with the challenge of policing in the internet age – like the technical issue of what to do when there are more mobile devices with not enough IP addresses to go round.

But the idea of a wider Bill didn’t get the balance right. It would have been neither proportionate nor workable and would not have enjoyed widespread support in Parliament or across the country at large.
The police provide an invaluable service and we should give them our support to get on with fighting crime at every level. But the proposals on the table were not the right solution and will not go ahead.

Return of the Ed-i

"Our Policies are.... erm... ah..."

I awoke with a jolt yesterday afternoon. Having fallen asleep on the train as I usually do after an early shift I drowsily openned my eyes and browsed the paper. Suddenly, in the editorial section Ed Miliband was staring back at me with the words "Labour is riding high"

That's when the adrenaline kicked in and I truly awoke.

Jenni Russell's article makes for difficult reading at first but I do think that she's hit the nail on the head.

Labour are ahead in the polls- it is an inescapable truth. OK you can argue that polls are not always indicative of public opinion or that this is natural for an opposition party mid-parliament, but let's address the fact.

It does seem that the public have short memories and are more concerned with the here and now. Labour's criticism of the economy (which they left in a shambles), railway fare rises (on a formula they put in) or over News international (with whom they'd been quite cozy.) - Indeed, it is a great time to be in opposition.

The big question is; What do they stand for? At the moment it seems like its just "the opposite to the Government." This, unfortunately, will get them elected as it was too close in 2010 and a few marginal seats may swing the balance in a natural anti cuts vote.

The problem is you need policies to make a government work and I'm not convinced that they can do it at the moment. They talk about "predistribition" - the end is something that all parties want but they have no idea how to get there!

They talk about fairer capitalism but when Ms Russell asked a senior strategist what that entails, the response was;

"He expected individual businesses to come up with their versions of good capitalism, telling me that the business community was expressing a lot of interest"

A more responsible capitalism is really desirable and something I really think its something that needs adopting BUT you can't leave it up to the individual businesses or it won't happen. Look at this Government's pledge to equal women's pay - it was left to individual companies and so reform has not happened.

It is all well and good giving out well meaning sound bites about change but it's absolutely necessary to have a way to get there and actually forcing through change (that goes for everyone) because if you leave it to individual businesses to do as they see fit nothing will get done.

If Labour are serious about forming a Government they do need to be responsible and define themselves on their own and actually develop policy with a route rather than just an end. Don't just cruise into power on the back of not being Tories.

Coalition is Listening not U-turning

You just can't win, can you?  Said Nick Clegg this week. No he wasn't talking about the upcoming general election but the accusations from Labour of policy U-turns and climb downs from the proposals in the budget.

Are they U-turns or are they listening exercises?

The Government has made some "embarrassing" climb downs this week over Pasty tax, VAT on static caravans and Charitable donations but is it as bad as the media and of course the Labour party are saying?

I think it;s quite right for a government when people say, 'Look something's not going to work' or 'We really don't think this is right' to listen and adapt it. That's what we've done. Claims Nick.

Indeed these policies were not set in stone, nor ideologically driven ideas merely proposed policies to try and rise more capital for the already hard hit Public purse.

Indeed the Caravan tax climb down is by 5% to 20% and followed consultation. Nick visited business leaders in Hull personally to discuss the impact of the proposal and said at the time;
as a Government, we want to get this right and I came here to listen to what local people have to say and then extended the Consultation period.

As for the Pasty tax, well it can be seen as a victory for the Liberal Democrats in Parliament. Stephen Gilbert Libdem MP for St Austell and Newquay led a  campaign to help Pastie makers in the West Country and put a proposal to the Treasury that was accepted and being implemented.  The original aim was to level the playing field of all hot food providers but after consultation a new policy has been developed that takes in what they have learnt. This has all been done very openly unlike Gordon Brown's attempt to sneak in the abolition of the 10p tax rate which took 18 months and Billions to rectify when they realised it wouldn't work.

The same is true for the Charitable donations cap.

‘The Government will explore with philanthropists ways to ensure this new limit of uncapped reliefs will not impact significantly on charities that depend on large donations.’ Red book, 2.40, pg59

It came about to, again, stop the rich from avoiding taxes and has undergone a lot of consultation as the proposed Cap would unnecessarily hinder charities and donations would dry up. However there will be an implementation of a cap on tax relief which excludes charitable donations that will go into action this summer and when combined with Mansion purchase tax, changes to stamp duty avoidance will net the treasury a projected £700m in 2015/6 (where as the 50p tax rate was only raising £100m) - The Government is doing its bit against the rich too.

I just hope that kind of give and take is something that most people will accept is a sign of a listening government, not a government just charging a head, not listening to anyone at all. Concluded Nick.

Is this the "New Politics" that I feared was dead? Governments are no longer seemingly plowing ahead with their own notions of what is right by some divine right of Governance and the Coalition appears to be listening on issues that cause concern. No one wants a repeat of the 10p rate fiasco or War with Iraq or even the Tuition fees debacle. Governments need to be listening and adapt their ideas but the opposition seem to happy to score points and shout "U-turn". Why worry about the truth when there are points to be scored eh?

I'd rather have a Government that listened and thought its proposals through than one that did just blaze ahead and make a hash of it all.

Energy bills rising out of control

Today's Metro (May 30th) ran an article painting a bleak picture for the people of Britain.

Projections point towards an increase in fuel poverty as prices are set to rise over the next six years.

According to Cheryl Latham's article one in three households will find that their energy bills will be unaffordable  by 2015 and consumer groups have reported bills doubling over the last eight years.

If they continue at the same rate then by 2015 they could be £1582 PA and by 2018 £2766 PA.

Already 6.5million people live in fuel poverty and it is becoming more and more common for families to start rationing power and gas usage or chose between food and warmth and it is estimated that 60% of these people do not have adequate heat.

According to Ann Robinson of uSwitch.com;
The UK is hurtling towards a cliff beyond which the price of household energy will become unaffordable. Time is running out- if pricing trends continue we will hit crunch point in less than three years.

There is also the added rise in price as large energy companies pass the price of making their organisation more green, which in my opinion should come from the share holders and profits.

This, however, is not the only rising price. The cost of living in general including Rail fare and even the basic prices of food are going up whilst wages stay level. Ultimately Capitalism is running off with itself and getting greedy.

Successive Governments have failed to regulate the private companies and now it really has reached that Crisis point. What can happen?

Companies cannot expect to keep rising prices when people can no longer pay. They need to compete and bring prices down and cut wages to Executives and share holders and be reasonable to their service users. What good is a service if it cannot be used?

Ultimately though these figures are merely projections and there may be no cause for alarm, but Companies like Southeastern trains and the Utility companies need to bear in mind that sooner or later their customers will be priced right out of the market.

Culture in the UK needs to change for new age of Austerity

There has been a definite change in the Social approach to Austerity and personal finance over the last century.

Really Chris in a whole century? Through changing times of War and prosperity as well as vast social upheaval and change?

Well yes, obviously things have changed but if you scratch away at the surface the same pressures that threatened our Great-great Grandparents are the same as today yet approaches have changed.

A level of greed and a "Something for nothing" culture have developed as more people believe that they the state will, and should, help them out.

An acceptance of the Nanny state and having everything done for them has led to people not being able to do things for themselves.

For example if a child is failing at School parents are quick to point at the school and ask what they are doing rather than asking what, if anything, can be done at home to help.

Capitalism and mass marketing has affected us all and the need for bigger and shinier stuff has lead to more of our disposable income being spent on "Luxury" items. Who really needs the new Garbage album? Or Diablo III? or War Horse on DVD?

We all know what kids are like at Christmas and Toy manufacturers have perfected their technique for for appealing to kids and parents find themselves caught by the dreaded "I wants" - believe me in four years I'm going to have my children striking me and I shall join the vast hordes of people who become indebted at Christmas.There is also Social pressure to have the "Latest thing" and not just in kids, my wife had wanted an I-phone for well over a year and kept trying to figure out where to get the money or contract.

 Banks ceased to be interested in your balance and more in the Customer's situation. Earlier in the week it was reported that one person who wrote into the Citizens advice bureau in Medway had over 60 credit cards! One load was got out to pay another loan and the debt is just moved around. It seemed that in the mid to late 90's the credit card became more and more prolific. Banks, or at least my bank, began pushing them, adverts fell out of magazines, adverts on TV with Rowan Atkinson and the message was;

"Buy now, pay later. - You can even spread the payments over time!"

The boom years brought economy air travel too so you could go clubbing in Ibiza for an affordable amount and pay it back slowly.

Obviously debt is not all self inflicted and situations and life can throw you a curve ball. Students studying for their finals and not able to work, long term illness, house repairs or even death within the family but they result in the same, though there is no blame and these are the people the Welfare state is meant to help. Too many people are relying on the state to pay out, true the Welfare state is there as a safety net to help those who fall and in need of assistance but it seems that more people are jumping off the cliff on purpose. These may sound like sweeping generalisations but how many people have quit their job and signed on just because they don't like their job? How many people keep having Children just for the increase in Child benefits?

I always thought Liberalism was about freedom of action from state interference and a strong belief in people being able to make their own decisions. Well we're all adults and we have to make adult decisions in life and that means sacrifices. No, I can't afford to buy Skyrim for £44 this month, I can't afford that holiday to Prague next year unless I save up and make sacrifices, our family budget cannot stretch to another child so we won't try to have another one.

The problem is debt spirals and you only need a wild month and you're up a famous creek without any oars.

Society and culture was more geared for living in the "here and now" rather than worrying about the future as the use of credit cards meant you could defer. Our parents and Grand parents who'd lived through real austerity in the 30's and 50's were a bit more sensible and stowed money away for a rainy day or leaner times. Haggling was much more common  and both my Grandfathers had a keen eye for a bargain and banter with shop owners. War time tips for making things last have long been forgotten. When was the last time you heard of someone darning a sock?
Make do and mend is a term lost to the mists of time as are the war on waste. Yes I realise that there are no longer U-boats sinking grain convoys and bread is fairly ubiquitous and cheap but pennys add up so why waste things?

Years ago we all knew our neighbours and cooperatives would help each other out. For example my Great-grandfather used to breed rabbits so during the leaner times he would trade rabbit meat for vegetables from one of the his neighbours. There were also occasions when trades would be shared for favours or discount. Now it seems we all hide behind the drawbridge of our own little castles and watch suspiciously over the ramparts. Community has died out in larger cities and towns for a lot of people and there isn't the help there was.

A new approach to Austerity needs to be taken and in some places has already begun. When I was at school the kid whose parents dressed them up in Charity shop clothes usually bore the brunt of many cruel jokes. I, a mouthy somewhat arrogant ginger kid took enough flak as it was but it was made worse by the market bought tracksuits and the lack of "named brand" trainers. There was also only a small spattering of charity shops on high streets and in towns with the charity bookshop doing very well in university towns where students could sell on their old tomes.
Now charity shops have become more and more prevalent, especially in towns like Gillingham where other larger shops can not find a market or sustain themselves. People like my family go in and pick up good quality children's clothing for our daughter, who is at the age where she grows out of things really quickly. I can assure you that she is always smartly dressed. My wife has an eye for nice clothes and we have saved a small fortune buying from Cats Protection rather than Mothercare!
We as a nation need to make things last, take better care of things and yes be prepared to mend things rather than throw out and buy new.

Keep in mind; "Can I really afford this? Do I really need this?" and if the answer is no then walk away, you'll find yourself better off in the long run.

The State does, however, need to intervene with banks and legal loan sharks though. The banking industry must again see the public as cash cows and instead see us as people who will need help. Part of this whole crash was due to over lending to people who just couldn't pay it back. Why would you keep loaning money to someone who is £43,000 in debt? Sound a ridiculous figure? Well it is in fact the AVERAGE debt of those who have contacted Medway's Citizen's Advice!
As for legal loan sharks, the APR is ridiculous and if you don't pay back in a timely fashion you could find yourself locked in spiralling debt with no way to get out of it. Government needs to cap the level of APR that they can charge so that they can at least be some hope.

Yes Culture has changed over time but there are lessons that we can adapt and adopt that were our Grandparents' to save money and resources. We also need to change our approach to life in that we need to make serious decisions and not keep thinking the state will keep bailing us out - that's not what they are there for. We're all adults and should make adult decisions. However the state must also do its part and support those who do need assistance, the elderly, the sick, those who have suffered tough times and they need to redraw the lines with banks and  legal loan sharks to make try and protect the people form predators.

Crouch victory over Legal Aid bill

Crouch: Constituents before Government

I'd spent the best part of last Tuesday's free time reading through Hansrad trying to get to the bottom of the amendments and proposals to do with the Legal aid Bill and the Mesothelioma amendments. I gratefully received a lot of very useful information from Harry Collins and drafted a rough blog post and statement for the Medway Libdem exec committee meeting to organise a support campaign to support the campaign against the Government's actions but it appears it would be for nought.

I saw a RT on Twitter from Tracey Crouch with excellent news the following morning;

Government concession on exempting Mesothelioma victims from #LASPO Bill is very welcome. Proud to have stood up for victims

I must put in a brief retraction however. In my last post (linked above) I suggested that the Government were trying to remove Legal Aid. After a brief exchange with Tracey last Wednesday I found that, as per usual I had charged off in the wrong direction!
In fact, the Legal Aid bill was about "No win, No fee" reform. (Whoops!!!) According to the Medway Messenger (MP welcomes U-turn on Legal aid bill, 30-4-12 p.3);

There will now be a review of the Legal aid Bill which will see successful claimants pay part of their damages, up to 25%, to their Solicitors.

Tracey went on to say:

I thought it was wrong that the government was trying to force meso victims to have to shop around for a lawyer on the basis of who was going to take the least amount of their pay out.

So good news for sufferers and their families. I hope that the review will rule come out in favour.

Asbestosis and Mesothelioma are an awful blight and condition in the Medway towns (the standardised mortality rates for males in Medway in 1981-2005 was 284 cases, the second highest in the Southeastern region after Portsmouth with 335). Medway is a Kent hot spot for the condition quickly followed by the Gravesend & Gravesham, Swale and Dartford constituencies. Indeed 432 people have died from this condition in the County between 2006 and 2010 with the peak still some way in the distance. In 2009 some 2300 people died, roughly 6 a day! Once the condition manifests itself it is often too late for treatment so it is ultimately very fatal with maybe a year to live.

This compensation should be for the families and victims not for lawyers and Tracey is right, at a time of upset and stress like this do you really want to be trawling the web and high streets comparing quotes?

Congrats though to Tracey who has worked and I'm sure will continue to work hard on this. This is something I am embarrassed to say was not supported by some Libdems as well as Conservatives in the house but helping and supporting victims of this awful disease should be everybody's stance here in Medway and I'm sure everyone from all political groups agree and owe Tracey a vote of thanks on this.

More on this story here more information on Mesothelioma here and here.

Response to Laurie Penny's article

Yesterday I saw a tweet with the comment depreciating an article by Laurie Penny and Remembrance Day stating how disrespectful and inaccurate it was. Of course, despite my brain telling me how much I would hate it, I read it and boy was I cross. Any way on my third read I have managed to come up with a review and can see what she's driving at in a few places but I also agree that her attacks on "the Establishment" is a little misplaced and her facts a little shaky.

Anyway the actual article is here. 

One of her driving thrusts is that Politicians wearing Poppies is hypocritical because they have authorised the deaths of British Service people in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and also have;

"Authorised the decimation of jobs, welfare and public education to defend Britain's military spending and Nuclear arsenal."

I agree with the sentiment of not cancelling Trident. I was most disappointed by that but it was one of the things that we Libdems had to suck up as part of the Coalition. As for the preservation of the Military budget then she is way off the mark. When a Government CUTS military budgets it is the soldiers on the ground who suffer.



The other side. German Soldiers at the Marne



As any student of military campaigns knows the British army has often suffered from this, be it in the War of Independence, the Crimea, Zulu War, World War One and even in World War Two British Infantrymen have found themselves without vital kit and have either had to make do or succumb to the enemy. Even recently the British soldier has been known as the "Borrowers" by US military personnel as they have never got enough kit, we have rifles that don't fire or go off when you're on sentry duty, radios that are picked up on Mobile phones, a lack of ammunition, aircraft that are as old as I am and burst into flames... This is not a high tech over spent military, we've officially got more Generals than serviceable tanks, more Admirals than warships and now it has been reported in the Metro that we don't have any warships guarding Britain's home waters for the first time in centuries! We are also not a Miltary orientated state, unlike the Kaiser's Germany or even Pre World War One Britain. Her beloved protests have not been met by the Army, nor a single bullet fired by the state. If we were like the afor mentioned states then things would have turned out differently in the riots and protests of the last year. Pre 1914 a gunboat openned up on striking workers in Liverpool and the cavalry were deployed against protestors in Ireland before the Black and Tans moved in.

As for politicians being hypocritical for wearing poppies. I can see her point however the argument is again flawed. Governments of all ilks have to make the important decision and War is always furthest from their minds. (usually.) When war was declared in 1914 it was not Asquith's intention to fight, nor was it when Chamberlain offered his ultimatum to Hitler over Poland, he wanted war to be averted. Other politicians such as Eden and Blair struck first in the Middle East and those were unjust wars. Should that mean that they shouldn't wear poppies and remember the fallen as a consequence of their actions? Also the death toll in both World Wars, the big ones commemorated by remembrance day, touched every family. My Grandmother lost three relatives on the same day in the Somme. How can you say, Clegg, Cameron or Miliband or even Blair cannot wear a Poppy to remember the deaths of their family? The sacrifices they're forebears made for this country and the cause of democracy. Its not hypocritical it is the very reason to wear a Poppy.

If we are going to talk of hypocrisy of poppy wearers we should look at the senior officers who commanded men in the field, the ones who plan the campaigns, or is it the junior officers and NCO's who actually physically send their men to die? After all British Commanders on the field ignored the reports of the German army preparing to use gas at Ypres, they had German defector's testimony and gas mask equipment shown to them but they ignored the warnings. When my Grandfather was in Italy they warned a Grenadier Guard officer not to march his men down a road because of the minefield. He ignored them and most of them were killed. Soldiers are killed. How is Asquith, who lost his son in World War One, more responsible than these men? Also, and lets be fair about this, the enemy, be they German, Korean, Japanese, Iraqi, Islamic extremist terrorists, Argentine etc, are all trying to kill British soldiers and occasionally they succeed.

I do agree that the war in Iraq was an illegal war. Yes it overthrew a vile genocidal dictator but the British public were lied to by Government and the West has profited from the peace. This should not mar the process of Remembrance though it is something separate. The same is true for those who burnt Poppies in protest of perceived "British Militarism."
Remembrance is a deeply personal thing, a moment to think about sacrifice and loss, the day is a day for the fallen and their families to mourn and commemorate, whatever cause they fell for or the government's motivation for sending them. Protests should be directed in other formats on another day. This is their day, an apolitical day.

A mythology has grown up about both wars and media doesn't help. The struggle seem to be glorified with the Second which by the way Laurie was quite avoidable for the West especially in June 1940. Does that mean that the blood of all those Britons who died after the "Appeal to reason" from Germany is on Churchill's hand's?  No Churchill did what had to be done. The same with Cameron and Libya.
Ms Penny asserts that the soldiers are being to sent to fight for a cause that they don't understand, all I can say is this is not the 19th Century when there were all manner of Political reasons, or even World War One when "Belgian Neutrality" and "German Militarism" were facades for complicated foreign policy. We sent troops into the Balkans to stop genocide, to Afghanistan to overthrow a terror state, Libya to stop oppression and encourage democracy. If anything I can't think of a cause more worthy than democracy and freedom of others (or yourselves.).

I do agree with her sentiment about the commercial side of Remembrance day and with the Crystal encrusted poppies, and the pomp and ceremony that can over hype the whole day, the glorification of War in some places. Although, if you ignore the Media side of it and look to the parish churches and to families you will see the true face of Remembrance, people talking over their losses, of the friends and family who didn't make it and there is the true message.

Finally, there comes the notion of sacrifice. Yes, there are two kinds of sacrifice; Volunteers who willingly give their lives and the ones who were sacrificed by Generals. Unfortunately, Ms Penny again misses the tragic point. In war, they are often both the same thing. Tough decisions have to be made and people lost. Yes, there are many great mistakes, failures and defeats as well as piric victories too. War is awful.
Yes it is OK to hate the Armament producers as she does but the simple fact is they only exist because there is a need for them, and business is good (in a time when austerity has struck everyone else) because War is so prolific. The simple facts are;
1: They pay their taxes and provide massive employment.
2: Until the Human race can evolve a higher sense of purpose and overcome its petty differences War will always exist thus so will Arms producers.

So in answer to the question of what my response is, I think Remembrance is a deeply personal thing, you cannot generalise as Ms Penny has done and say no one group should not be allowed to commemorate and that save the protests and flag waving for another day. Remembrance day is not about celebrating War, or politicising War, its about the lost and the fallen and remembering them no matter what side they fell for.

Fat tax on unhealthy food. Is this fair?

mmmm Whopper.... *drool*

Obesity is a major problem in Britain. Hell I'll admit it I could do with losing a stone... maybe two to look really trim, and I do enjoy good meals and don't get that much exercise as I travel by train and spend my working day sat down watching screens all day.

Individual studies have found that Obesity and heart disease, mostly caused by unhealthy living is one of the top killers in this country, even more so than Cancer. It is a major drain on our economy and on the NHS and something should be done.

Que the new proposals to levy a duty on high calorie food. This, like the duty on beer and tobacco products will raise money for the Treasury which can be put back into the NHS to help fund treatments and re-education on correct eating. Also with the raised costs it may put people off ordering a Whooper meal and perhaps eating something more healthy which again is a good thing right?

Well that's the merits dealt with, lets talk about the cons.

I like MacDonald's, Burger King and KFC. I like food that's not good for me. I don't eat it all the time but when I've got up for work at 4.30 am and caught a train so I can be in London for 6.30 why not have a McMuffin meal to make me feel better about myself? I have OJ with it...

Some people do eat to excess but why should we all have to suffer? Its not fair as its the casual munchers that suffer. Why should Government tell me what I can and can't eat? Will Chocolate be next?!

I don't smoke so that particular vice has gone and I already can't afford a beer anymore and I didn't even drink to excess anyway!!! If the Government take away my Zinger tower meals I will be most distraught.

Let people live the way they want to. Let them have the freedom to eat what they want to. If they want to fill their faces with greasy crap and face the consequences let them.

I know this is a weak argument in the face of sorting out Obesity and off setting the cost of health care but lets face it, it is a case of the Paternal Government taking you by the hand and saying.

"Now son, do you really want a Big Mac? Have some salad... Go on. There's a good boy."

As a closing statement I must say;

I could eat healthily and get hit by a bus tomorrow. I could eat KFC, Sausages, MacDonalds, Red meat and live to the grand age of 100. You never know, shouldn't life be about enjoyment? (Not controlled fun.)

You Gov polls on Ed Miliband's Labour 1 year on.

54% of people think Labour have seriously lost touch with the ordinary working people.
60% think Labour haven't faced up to the damage they did to the UK economy.
17% say they'd be delighted if Labour would be returned to Government with Ed Miliband at the helm.
41% say they would be dismayed.
26% say Ed Miliband is doing a good job.
62% say Ed Miliband is not up to the job of Prime Minister.
45% say they would have been better off under David Miliband

6% say they would have been worse off under David Miliband.

(source; Tom Bradby's blog at http://blog.itv.com/news/author/tombradby/ )

Well, those stats make interesting reading. I'm not going to indulge in anti Labour or Pro Coalition rhetoric - it is easy and is mostly hot air that achieves nothing.

Instead, however, I'm going to look at the figures critically and as fairly as I can. Things don't look as cheery as Labour's 40% Yougov rating shows. A year on, and after massively unpopular Coalition policies; Tuition fees, NHS reform, Policing Cuts added to the riots, Labour have failed to capitalise. Even at the local elections they failed to gain anywhere near the landslide victory they had been expecting. Even here in Medway their net gain was not much and in fact the Conservatives got in with a few more seats!

I'm not a Labour party member and obviously pro Coalition so my point of view might be bias but I am not inspired by Ed Miliband as a leader. His calls to join Labour have inspired many of my fellows to tear up their membership cards and go Red but I'm just not inspired. He just doesn't seem to have a charismatic draw, and accordingly the figures show that his party members agree with me. I can't see him as Prime Minister, he's just missing something. At the moment the British Public seem to elect charismatic showmen like Blair, Cameron and dare I say it Clegg rather than proven politicians who have good track records like the PMs of old like MacDonald, Baldwin or Wilson and Ed Miliband just doesn't quite cut the mustard. I feel it is unfair to bring David Miliband into the mix but then there were always going to be those comparisons and suggestions that the wrong brother will always surface when things are going tough, but then don't we all do that? Should things improve for Labour I'm sure this will turn around, after all Ed Miliband has only been in charge of the party for a year so I'd urge Labour members to give him time in the post and see how he develops.

I do also agree that Labour should acknowledge their role in the current crisis. Like the 1929 crash the causes of the economic crisis are more complicated than just one Government in one country and it is unfair to blame it all on Labour. However they didn't handle it as well as they could have, but as well as they thought and they made mistakes as any government would have. They need to come forward and admit those mistakes to the public. It takes a big person to admit when they've made a mistake and I think popular opinion would go up if they did say to the public;

Sorry We really messed up on these policies and it led to X Y Z. But this was because of global measures A B C.

This instead of the somewhat obstinate;

We didn't do anything wrong and the Coalition have messed it all up for you.

The public aren't stupid, they remember 2010 and the dubious "We're out of money" note in the treasury.
All the time they repeat the same line the more people are turned away.

It would be fair to say the Labour has lost its way with representing the ordinary working people. As I've written before Labour were founded to represent the TUC and the concerns of the unions but since the mid nineties they have become a sort of Diet Conservative party with similar values and drifted away from the streets and more towards business which helped the Lib Dems to capitalise and grow as we are/were beginning to represent the concerns of people on local issues and constituency issues. Labour seem to have become attracted by power and national Government rather than what really matters, the voters. There was talk of Labour re founding itself so that it can find its way and its beginnings rather than continue the way it is going, after all a good opposition is the opposite of the party in power, they also have to have policies and alternate views so that they can debate issues rather than oppose for oppositions sake.

I know that no poll is completely accurate and that it is just a segment of the population and Labour party members who have been asked and the problems may not be as deep set as the poll shows but they are interesting that even a percentage feel this way. I'm not saying that Ed Miliband won't develop into an able leader or that Labour or the Coalition have the right answers but I offer up a few observations as fuel for thought.

Parliamentary Knee Jerks- Are we endanger of making the situation worse?

Yesterday, with the return of Parliament David Cameron and the government have begun laying the foundations of restoring Civil order and the rule of law to be imposed but... and I don't believe that I am asking this... Are some of the knee jerk reactions going too far, not curing the problem and even making it worse?

A big cause of the civil unrest was the inability to listen to the people in the streets and a growing feeling of separation between the Government and ordered society with this separate culture that has grown up. As questions flew from around the house it was becoming obvious that retribution was the main theme along with compensation for those who lost property etc.

Now I completely agree with this. Those who had their property and business' damaged completely deserve compensation and I fully support the Government's policies and aims to help them. I can't imagine the hardships that are in front of those people, to be made homeless and lose everything and have to rebuild their lives. They do deserve justice and those that are responsible do deserve to be punished and shown that society has laws, whether you acknowledge the rule of the society's law or not. However the truth of the matter is that the Prison system cannot handle the massive influx of prisoners that will be put in and in the long run the revolving door policy will mean many are back on the streets by the end of the year. The prison system has long been in need of reform and reworking and now when it really needs to have space for a large influx there is none and it won't get fixed overnight.

Other punitive measures were bandied around such as the removal of social housing and benefits. This, on the surface seems fair, yet at the same time turfing the already poor out onto the street will solve nothing and if anything will cause those who already hate the government and law hate it even further. The same would occur with the removal of state benefits. After all they will get their money one way or the other through nefarious means if necessary. It would be better to show clemency at this time or even an alternate form of punishment. Would it not be better to get them to pay their debt to society by making them perform community service and clean up duties for their benefits so that they still get paid what they need, get punished and the community that they helped to destroy has hands to repair it?

Another question that worried me, and was nicely sidestepped by the Prime Minister was;
"Will those that were involved in the riots and are not to British citizens be deported?"

"Those who do not have a right to be hear will indeed be removed." - meaning any illegal immigrants will be removed.

The scary face of it was that anyone who isn't a British citizen, does that count for Commonwealth citizens or EU citizens?

I'm undecided on this issue. After all if you don't want to take part in British society and the way we live then yes Dover is that way...
However, this is someones home and I fear it as a right-wing knee jerk to get rid of Jonny Foreigner and that pushes me back the other way but that may be a reaction to my lifelong studies of Germany 1933-45. As I say, I'm undecided.

The one that I thought Nick Clegg would stand up and say something on, was the threat to freedom of speech. During the riots there was a brief freeze on Blackberry instant messaging to slow the coordination of the riots. Now there is talk of policing or banning Twitter and Facebook. This would be a direct attack on our freedom of speech. Yes it is awful that social networking and media has been abused by those who want to bring terror and crime to our streets but what of the rest of us who watched on in horror?
What of the commuters who are reliant, in Southeastern's ineptitude, on Twitter for update on travel information? Or Kent Police on dispelling the rumours and lies about riots in Maidstone and Chatham?

It was up to Tracey Crouch, Conservative MP for Chatham and Aylesford, to be the voice of reason and point out how Twitter and Facebook had helped to dispel these rumours. surely the majority of innocents should not suffer because of a handful of trouble makers? It is as if the Government feel that social networking sites are to blame for the riots and that before Twitter there were no riots. How were the riots in the 80's or Poll tax riots coordinated? What's next? Banning Mobile phones?
I think maybe keeping an eye on what is being said and preempting the rioters is a good thing but again there are times when the wrong end of the stick could be grasped by the authorities and a well meaning jab at sarcasm could be seen as inciting.
I once said to my baby daughter; If you break Daddy's model tank he will kill you - It doesn't mean I'm going to commit infanticide!

Other measures, such as giving the Police more powers to get groups to remove their hoods and masks, although an attack on freedom of action is clearly necessary. The Liberties of the individual have indeed outstretched the liberties of the group. The needs of the one are outweighing the needs of the many which is wrong.
The Police have come under a lot of stick in the past, if they are too gung-ho they are being oppressive, if they hold back for fear of public persecution they are being cowards and ineffective. Clear lines need to be drawn up and used so that they can react accordingly as the situation dictates.

Tracey Crouch MP

It would also seem that these people have no respect for the state and why should they? As Charles Kennedy has said, British Parliamentary democracy is impenetrable to the average citizen, even for some of us who are interested in it! For many all the parties are the same and Westminster filled with dry old grey suit wearing old men who have little interest in anything other than lining their own pockets.Politics needs to go back to being for the people and MPs need, like David Lammy, Tracey Crouch, Mark Reckless even Nick Clegg and David Cameron did, go out on the streets.

More importantly these people need to be shown what society is and that it includes them and that they can no longer do what they wish. It must start in schools where for too long pupils have got away with doing nothing if that is how they choose. I remember from my time at school that some pupils who didn't want to work got detention, if they didn't go to that more detention, if they avoided that they were suspended - a free week off! Something needs to be done to encourage kids to pull their own weight. Also Parents need to take an interest and be involved with their kids, they seem to just let them run the streets or get away with not doing home work, being rude to elders or people in authority. It is like society in parts of Great Britain have degraded. A cause must be found and treated like rather than lopping the head off this Hydra only to find in a year or two another one pops up.

It is easy to swing to the right on issues like this. I'm urging instead of swift and terrible justice, the careful considered approach that with a hearts and minds aim will win back this lost group to society and the rule of law rather than alienating them further. We must understand the cause so that it will never be repeated.

The Big Society and New Politics; have they failed?

As London continues to burn and imagery reminiscent of the Luftwaffe raids on London are flashed across the media this morning. Many people are forced to ask if the aims of the  Coalition have been proved a failure and that Politicians are too far removed from the situation on the ground that such a reaction was inevitable.

It was a warning that Nick Clegg put forward last year ( http://t.co/XJBAFQL Thanks to Dr Keevil) that austerity measures would lead to this situation. People are angry at the cuts, angry at services being removed - they don't care about the national debt, or the collapse of the eurozone - they want to keep their services. For them Westminster is full of corrupt millionaires who are trying to line their own pockets. There has been no change in Politics in this parliament or in any since 1945.

As for the "Big Society." it could be argued that Society has collapsed if it ever existed in the first place. Local communities are torn down the middle as gangs of youths and criminals are more than happy to rampage through streets breaking and entering homes and setting fire to personal property of neighbours or family friends. Its not just big business  like MacDonald's or Sony that are being hit, in Croydon a furniture business that was 150 years old was completely destroyed. Society has failed these people and now they are striking back, they don't feel part of anything, they aren't confined by the law or fear the Police. What have they got to look forward to? Ordered around government that doesn't represent what they want, forced to work long hours for little pay and for what?

Communities have broken down. Big society relies on people working together as neighbours towards a common good and helping out those in need. How many can honestly say that they know their neighbours or name four people on their street these days? How many people stop to help someone who looks obviously lost or looks like they need assistance? Its probably a staggering minority. Most of us put on our Ipods and keep walking as there is always the worry that you will get stabbed or robbed or you just simply don't have time. In the wartime/post war societies that Big Society is trying to recreate this simply wouldn't be the case and community spirit was when  for helping each other. People also understood the needs and pressures on the government. Who could blame the cuts or government measures when the Germans were set to roll in and remove their rights?

Politics is changing, it takes time for such changes to come about and the Coalition has only been in power for a year. Certain MPs like David Lammey and Tracey Crouch have visited the disaster scenes and are reassuring the people what is going on. One of our Councillors, Vince Maple, tweeted that he was on the phone to Kent Police at 1am for a status update on his ward and riots in Chatham! Politicians are returning to our streets to help and work with the communities they represent.

As for Austerity, maybe the chancellor does need to look at the situation and see if salves can be applied to the cuts to calm the fraid tensions. People don't understand the need for the damages to their way of life when investment bankers are still unscathed.  They also don't understand, nor want to understand why these measures are being made. Its not a physical enemy like the Germans but a theoretical enemy of bankrupcy and all that flows with it, no one has ever seen Britain bankrupt. What is in the Public interest is rarely in the public interest. Things need to be explained more clearly.

Society is rallying around in the way "Big Society" wants. Groups are forming and on Twitter the #riotcleanup has begun and people are returning to damaged areas to help those in need. Already in Gillingham the Socialist party are organising a meeting Thursday night about the Riots and assisting a better future for young people to solve the crisis in the long run. On top of that charitable donations for those who have lost everything are being made. There is also the growing condemnation of those involved and anger at the damage done to this country's capital, major cities and Medway.

Big Society was always going to be difficult to enact, the way of life that David Cameron and Nick Clegg envisioned has slowly dissolved over the last half a century to the point that it is almost an implausible dream but still communities are working together through this hardship and I trust that people know the minority are in the wrong, maybe not in their beliefs about austerity or frustration but in their actions. We also have to look at the way Government works, there are good constituent focused MP's and councillors who are out there trying to help and making themselves accessible but the whole of Government needs to do it and take part. It is seriously time for one of David Cameron's "Stop, listen and think again" moments before a permanent schism occurs in society.

Short drop and a sharp stop - The return of Capital Punishment?

Today the spectre of Capital punishment has again reared its head to public debate as Guido Fawkes submitted an e-petition for its return. Ultimately it is a moot point as the UK has signed up with other European governments to Human right protocols that ban the state execution of any citizen no matter how the heinous the crime. However the debate is one that should be had from time to time if only to remind us how we came to where we are.

So why is capital punishment a bad thing? Aren't our prisons overflowing? There are no active deterrents now to real crime such as murder and child sex offences? Wouldn't seeing a few of these felons swing from the gallows put people off?
Well its all really final isn't it? Once you've executed someone they can't come back if you've cocked up during the investigation or the trial has been miscarried. Sometimes it happens. Take Amanda Knox in the Meredith Kercher case. The Italian Police seem to have been massively incompetent, what if she turns out to be innocent because of their mistakes, it would have been awful if another innocent life had been taken. Similar things have happened in the UK as well, there was a man that was held in prison for eight years for murder and turned out to be innocent. Even now there is talk of pardoning General Jodl who was hanged at Nuremberg for Crimes against humanity!

Secondly, who has the right to take a human life? Surely if the state decides and executes someone it makes the state no better than the condemned? I know its in the Bible but it also tells us that you shouldn't eat prawns. We would be robbing someone of their freedom and people can change, do they not deserve the chance for redemption and reform? One night, when my Grandfather was a Police sergeant in Brixton a man came in very shaken and admitted to butchering his whole family in a caravan in Kent. He said he didn't even know why he did it, he just snapped. Apparently when the Kent CID went to have a look the caravan was swimming in blood. This man arguably deserved to hang for the crime but he had never done anything previous or since and showed genuine remorse.

Finally Guido's petition is to bring back the Death penalty for heinous murders of children and Police officers - wow... So a Policeman's murder is more of a loss to his family than my death to mine? That's not equality. If you were going to bring back execution for the murder of a Policeman you'd have to do it for everyone. My loss, although not a great impact to society or the world in general would upset my wife and family in the same way and don't they deserve the same amount of justice? The petition is not aimed at creating a Soviet or National Socialist style justice system with routine executions being handed out by a vengeful state that is trying to keep the civilian's in check but it still has its flaws.

Some might say there are people that are beyond redemption and impossible of reform. Take Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Brady, Ian Huntly or even Gary Glitter. These people are, in some respects, broken - a faulty wire as my Grandfather would've said. Some would even describe them as monsters, the kind of people who have done the worst acts that one human being can do to another. One serial killer, I forget his name, asked the judge to hand down the death penalty saying that he needed to be stopped and had tried himself many times but couldn't. Others such as Bundy were horrific killers who showed no remorse what so ever and no amount of psychiatric help would ever cure them. These people cannot be given freedom as their freedom WILL be used to take the freedom of life from others and the state should no longer fund their existence and that they should pay for their crimes and put out of their misery as you would a rabid dog.

Restricting execution to certain top drawer offences could be seen to be valid but what of death by dangerous driving? Could that be considered on a par as taking an axe to someone? Think about it, if you were on your mobile whilst driving and you caused a collision that ultimately killed someone you have taken a life in the same way as if you had cut them up BUT the difference is you didn't intend to do it. Where is the line? You have an angry and upset family calling for justice and you have a punishment. What if your crime would normally only carry a life sentence but the Judge decided to make an example of you or bowed to the pressure of public opinion or a media campaign? Justice would have many question marks hanging over it and the price is someones life.

There is a compelling argument in the affore mentioned cases and if execution was to be brought back for certain cases some would argue it to be a good thing but who are we to hand down death and judgement with hearts filled with vengeance? State's should also never carry the power to take the life of a citizen as justice can be affected by human error, passions and pressure from the press.

The Press and Freedom of speech

On Wednesday, as I hopped channels and trying to absorb the unfolding situation I came across Kay Burley on Sky news asking, what I thought was a fairly stupid question.

"Does this all mean an end to investigative journalism?"

Then I saw comments on the Twittersphere and blogs about government attacks on free speech and press or of the government waging war on the press.

When one reads of government interference and control of the press images of Goebbels or a Soviet commissar reviewing and censoring every report.
I cannot believe that any government that we are a part of, or indeed in the UK would ever, outside of a state of war/emergency, control the press.

Gordon Brown stated on Wednesday in his speech to the house;

"With the exceptions on peace and war, there is no matter of greater importance than the basic liberties of our citizens."

It is the liberties of the individuals - You, I, Ryan Giggs, Nick Clegg, Milly Dowler etc...etc

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right and a key belief of our party but then so are others freedoms. The basis of law is that the individual is allowed to carry out any action unless it causes offence to sensibilities or restricts the freedom of another individual(s) causes damage to the state.
This is why you are free to say what you like UNLESS it is prejudice or incites hatred or violence.
I, the individual am also free to act as I please in my own home and personal life as I see fit, again as long as I do not interfere with another individuals rights or freedoms.

The business at News corp has indeed crossed the lines, driven to get the next best story or gossip some journalists have soared where even the police fear to tread and engaging, as Mr Brown said, engaged  in "Law breaking often on an industrial scale."
This is indeed true. They have been invading Your liberty, or the Liberty and freedom of individuals to sell news papers and to dig dirt. Even worse they targeted a thirteen year old murder victim and then even deleted some of the messages which not only means the family think Milly Dowler was alive but also perverts the course of justice.
Other possible victims include families of servicemen lost in Afghanistan, September 11th, or even the 07/07 victims. For what reason though? To spice up a story further?

I'm not saying that investigative journalism should be stopped but there should be limits to what is done, such as attacking an individuals freedoms. Indeed investigative journalism has done amazing things and turned up very important stories that have had major ramifications in the world of politics and even in life in general. In recent times nothing more poignant has been turned up than the Westminster "expenses scandal."
It must continue and the press must be free to write and print what they want as long as it doesn't affect the individuals rights and liberties.

The next issue is the bribing of Police officers for information. I understand that sometimes the Police and Press do discuss matters for mutual benefit however the paying for information is straight up corruption and BOTH parties are guilty. A full investigation must be carried out to discover the depths of corruption with in the Police force, they are not above the law only the enforcers.

David Cameron was right to say that the press needs to be regulated by an independent body, like Offcom does for television. The media has to be reminded that they cannot break the law and are not above it.
These allegations against News international do show that criminal law has been broken and that the Police, whilst having a long look at themselves, need to investigate thoroughly.


Why Rebekah Brooks had to go.

It may be argued that she has become a scapegoat along with Andy Coulson and that as Editor in chief she had nothing to do with or knowledge of any wrong doing.

This is irrelevant. The Head of department is always responsible for the actions of their employees be it good or bad. German Field marshals were executed for the misconduct of some of their men whether they knew about it or not because they were their commanders and thus responsible.

Her willingness to lead the investigation could have been a genuine drive to save the company she loved and root out any wrong doing. However, as she was implicated in the crimes it would be massively hypocritical or even that she was destroying any evidence of any wrong doing by herself. It would be like asking Bruce Ismay to look into the Titanic disaster.

Her willingness to "Stay on the bridge" would only be noted as self serving. Ex News of the world employees were already touting the idea that they had been sacrificed to save her, it looked like Rupert Murdoch was willing to sever a limb of the company to save her and bury the evidence.
She had to accept full responsibility and resign and to rid any further investigation of a taint of unfairness.