Liberal Vision

Drugs Tsar accuses government of distorting the facts on drugs

Sexed up / distorted documents from Government to justify their actions sound familiar at all? Yes indeedy – but its about drugs not illegal wars this time. …..

The delightfully named Professor David Nutt, who heads the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), has reopened the row on drugs classification by accusing ministers of “distorting” the evidence about the effects of cannabis.

You will recall that May last year, Jacqui Smith decided to reclassify cannabis to Class B from C  because of what she called “widespread concerns” about the increasing prevalence of Skunk. This was despite the AMCD review (commissioned by Gordon Brown) saying it should stay class C.

“There is a compelling case for us to act now, rather than risk the future health of young people” said Jaqui Smith at the time. Well actually no Ms Smith – no compelling case at all - unless the compelling case was “bloody hell our poll ratings are down – we need a quick publicity stunt now”. And as I have said before this Government knows that the ”save the kids” line never fails.  (Drugs bad, but porn ok – is that right Jacqui?).

Having his august body ignored – or indeed worse – having its work distorted has clear wrankled Prof Nutt for some time. Through his lecture and briefing paper, entitled Estimating Drug Harms: A Risky Business he has reignited the row. He re-iterates that cannabis does NOT cause major health problems, creating only a “relatively small risk” of psychotic illness, and that the risks of taking ecstasy are no worse than riding a horse ! That’ll have the Pony Club in all sorts of a quandry. But the most damning statment is of course the accusation of Government distortion of the research.

Why do Governments appoint quango’s such as the ACMD only to ignore them on the important stuff ? And what can the possible benefit be of lying to young people – scaring them with a distorted version of the facts – when surely what they need – and have a right to expect  – is accurate information. Prof Nutt says “ If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably wrong” . You are right there prof. In fact it will almost certainly have actively encouraged some to actually take it.

Clearly we can’t now blaim skunk on the Tories schizophrenic behaviour. Are they liberal today or not? Errr No. not today. Tory home affairs spokesman James Brokenshire has said: ‘Rather than adding clarity to the debate on drug classification, Professor Nutt’s comments will add even more confusion.‘ What’s there to be confused about? The Government twisted the facts to suit its own agenda. Der….

(ps: sadly Professor Nutt also states that alcohol should rank on a “harm scale” fifth, behind only cocaine, heroin, barbiturates and methadone, while tobacco should rank ninth, ahead of cannabis, LSD and Ecstasy- so no doubt the next round of restrictive legislation on alcohol WILL contain copious amounts of Professor Nutt’s research…..)

Tags: cannabis, Professor Nutt

Brown bows to Blair (again) but Nick says “naff off”

“Get in” as they say on the football terraces.

 The BBC reports today that Gordon Brown has finally admitted defeat – and – presumably through gritted teeth, let it be known that he will  actively lobby for his predecessor Tony Blair to be named the first president of the European Council.

In the same report it is said that later today (Wednesday) Nick Clegg will  publicly declare his opposition to Blair’s appointment. I hope so. Tony Blair, is, afterall, not yet cleared of war crimes. He orchestrated what most of us recognise as an illegal war against Iraq. A war that the Lib Dems single-handedly opposed when the Labour party, the Conservative party, large chunks of the media and a significant proportion of the British population (no doubt as a result of the above) thought was “a good thing”.  

Nick – sing it loud and sing it clear. Until there has been an honest and open public investigation into the events surrounding the war on Iraq (i.e not the current one), a suspected war criminal - who went at odds with the rest of Europe on the matter – can’t surely be eligible for this post – no matter what ones feelings are on Europe more generally.

Tags: EU President, Nick Clegg, Tony Blair

This 45 year olds plan to avoid criminalisation

I am 45 and in a rapidly diminishing minority. I have not yet been criminalised. Surely it is now a matter of time before I slip up on a speed trap (I drive a Porsche), a wheelie bin infringement (not actually got to wheelie bins where I live) or get caught accidentally snapping a copper on my mobile phone .

I have come perilously close – I was stopped a while back on the M11 for eating tic tacs . The policeman is his unmarked police car was absolutely certain that I was “using a mobile phone whilst driving in the outside lane” – I am not sure what the outside lane had to do with it by the way but thats another matter. When I explained that what he saw was me necking a few tic tacs he was having none of it. Even when I brandished the box at him (hmm that was risky with hindsight). Fortunately for me my mobile was actually in my handbag in the boot of my car – so that would have been a pretty magnificent feat had I achieved it. Lucky escape.  

But I am quite clearly living on borrowed time – only a matter of time before some agency or other catches up with me.

It is reported today that Parliamentary answers show the number of first-time entrants to the criminal justice system who are over 50 increased by 46.3 per cent between 2000/01 and 2007/08, from 16,400 to 24,000. In the 40-49 age group, the leap was 57.4 per cent, with 32,900 previously law-abiding people being criminalised. The increases in the middle-aged groups far outstripped the general picture. In the population as a whole, there was a rise of just 18.6 per cent.

There we all were worrying about drunken teenagers littering our streets on a Friday night, looking at us in a menacing way, and its the parents that are the real criminals! 

But seriously, as Chris Huhne  so rightly said “Labour have criminalised a generation and treated tens of thousands of law-abiding middle-aged and elderly citizens like villains.” And all in the name of “targets”. May that word be banned from the lexicon of the next government.

The only group of over 40′s that seem to be able to avoid criminalisation are those residing in the House of Commons and House of Lords (after the last election the average age of an MP was 50) . They appear to be able to cheat, lie and thieve to their hearts content, and when they get caught, say sorry and at worst pay back a small proportion of what they took. And of course that is not forgetting war criminals. You may be prosecuted for not wearing a seatbelt – but are made president of Europe no less if take your country into an illegal war.

So, as I do not see a peerage coming my way anytime soon,  there would appear to be only one option left open to me. I must stand as an MP at the next general election. That way I might, just might, escape the increasingly long arm of the law.  

Tags: Chris Huhne, criminalisation, over 40's

Another government scam to fleece us

Rant time. I am not sure how this one passed me by. It’s a tad out of date as the story actually came out late last week  - but it’s so bad I cannot let it go by without comment as it has to be one of the most outrageous Government scams to fleece of us of our money yet.

New regulations set to come into force later this month, will see motorists forced to cough up court costs – even when they are found not guilty or acquitted of the motoring offence concerned.

As it stands today, if you have paid for legal representation and are prosecuted for an offence and found not guilty, you receive an order for your costs to be assessed and paid back by the court. A reasonable way for a civilised society to operate. Justice should not be something only the rich can afford.

Not so anymore- it was costing the government too much.Yes really! The Ministry of Justice says the principle of “the loser pays”  was costing the government too much money. If it wasn’t so serious it would be hilarious.

Now I am all for cutting government costs, but what has it come to when we have to pay to clear our names? And we are not talking about a few idle rich folk here.  A handful might be overpaid footballers with glitzy lawyers in Armani suits – but the vast majority are normal folks who depend on their car for work and family commitments. Something like 1.4 million motorists were prosecuted through the magistrates courts in 2007. 26% were found not guilty.

These are the people who need their cars. They will face points on their licence, fines and increased insurance costs, and worse, if they simply plead guilty. And why should they plead guilty if they are innocent? Many will need to employ lawyer to defend their livelihoods or family-life.  (I have been down this route myself and believe me,  you are running a serious danger of falling foul of the system on a myriad of technical points if you don’t use a lawyer).

I know that these days we are all, in the eyes of this government, guilty until proven innocent, but surely it is taking too much of the piss to then deny the innocent the right to reclaim costs when the prosecutors are found have been wrong. Especially when we know how much money motoring fines raise for the government – and therefore just how incentivised the system is to slap in prosecutions willy-nilly in the first place. So what about those that most need to prove their innocence and just can’t afford the costs? Does justice bypass them?  

According to the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers, the “consultation” was first announced in 2008. Despite what looks like a huge amount of opposition to the changes, the government has just rolled it forward. So much for consultation, though I think we all know about that by now.

There is a petition you can sign if you oppose it. Go to  http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery/ . I am afraid that I do not hold out much hope for the petition- but it is something.

There is also a move afoot to force a debate the issue in the House to justify the change.  Let’s hope we do get one and those rebel backbench Labour MPs show their teeth one more time. That’s about what is has come to folks.

Tags: court costs, Motorists

Mark Littlewood appointed as next Director General of the IEA

Liberal Vision’s Mark Littlewood has been appointed as the IEA’s next Director General. The IEA’s press release is below:

MARK LITTLEWOOD APPOINTED DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE IEA

 

The Institute of Economic Affairs has appointed Mark Littlewood as its next Director General.

 

Littlewood, 37, takes on the role from 1^st December 2009.

 

Mark Littlewood said:

 

“This is an enormously exciting opportunity. But it is also an awesome responsibility. The IEA has made an incredible contribution to the understanding of the importance of free markets over the past five decades. I am determined to ensure that the Institute builds on its rich history to ensure that the case for free markets is made loudly and clearly at this challenging time, when politicians of all parties show an alarming tendency to place trust in increasing regulation and statist solutions to cure many of society’s ills. The need for the IEA has never been greater and I’m honoured to be given the chance to play such a key role in building on the Institute’s reputation, influence and history.”

 

Mark Littlewood has previously worked as the Head of Media for the Liberal Democrats (2004-2007), the Campaigns Director of human rights group Liberty (2001-2004) and was the co-founder and first chief executive of NO2ID, the campaign against the introduction of identity cards. Since 2007, he has been the Communications Director of the classical liberal think tank, Progressive Vision.

 

Professor D. R.  Myddelton, the Chairman of the IEA Trustees, said:

 

“We are delighted that Mark Littlewood has agreed to join the IEA as our next Director General.  He brings the experience and skills the Institute needs to continue to make the case for free markets clearly and energetically.”

Mark has now resigned from the Liberal Democrats to take on this role. But you can be sure that Liberal Vision will continue to make the case for classical liberalism – loudly and clearly – within the party.

Tags: IEA, Mark Littlewood