Defence: inappropriate language
Wednesday 26 June 2013
 But one draws a line at former First Sea Lord, Lord West (pictured) who declares the judgement "totally bonkers". Now a Labour peer, Lord West cited his own experience in the Royal Navy and added: "it's the duty of military men to fight the war they are in with the equipment they have... It's clearly a total nonsense that one can use human rights legislation to go against that". The thing is that it is perfectly valid to disagree with the judgement, but public figures such as Lord West – if they are to do so – should read the judgement first and endeavour to understand it. Had he done so, he would have found that there is nothing in the judgement, per se which makes any commander, or indeed the MoD, liable under law for requiring military men to fight with the equipment they have available – if it is the case where only particular equipment is available and there are no alternatives. What the Sue Smith Snatch case rehearses is the scenario where there is alternative equipment available or, with reasonable foresight and planning, that equipment could have been available, and it is not used or made available. In deciding which equipment to use, the question must be asked as to whether the military authorities could reasonably have foreseen the risks to which soldiers were exposed. In the case of lightly armoured Snatches, they should have asked themselves whether it would have been possible to provide alternative equipment - without prejudicing the success of the military operations – while reducing the risks to the soldiers. Points to take account of are several and varied. Firstly, the Snatches were not designed for combat operations, as such, but for routine patrols in operations more akin to policing. Secondly, the patrols were not one-off events but a routine, repeated month after month, year after year in the same manner with the same equipment. Then, the threats to which the soldiers were exposed were not sudden, unexpected, nor impossible to counter. There had been a slow build-up in hostilities and the nature of potential threats was well known in theatre. To deal with the threats, there were several countermeasures and defences which could, with reasonable foresight, have been provided. As to lawyers "second-guessing" military decisions, the judges were well aware of the "real distinction" between actual operations against the enemy and "other activities of the combatant services in time of war". There is no question of being able to second-guess decisions made during actual operations but the judges have ruled that, just because decisions are made "in time of war", that should not necessarily exclude all such decisions from legal liability. Those who made decisions still had to pass the test of applying a "standard of care that is reasonable under the circumstances". In 71 pages, the judges have offered their reasons for the judgement. They are tightly argued and compelling. West disagrees with the judgement, which is fair enough, but to say it is "totally bonkers" or "total nonsense" is simply to diminish his own standing and credibility. Allowing anyone in authority a "free pass" to make poor decisions, with no comeback, is never sound - and should be permitted only in the most exceptional of circumstances. Just because the military brass have pretty uniforms and their sewing badges shouldn't make any difference.
Thus, reining in the military, and making them more accountable, in circumstances where it is entirely reasonable to expect sensible and careful decisions, is not "bonkers", total or otherwise. We owe those who serve, no less than that.
COMMENT THREAD Richard North 26/06/2013 |
Council tax: the £3.5 billion rip-off
Wednesday 26 June 2013
 At the time, I was estimating that my own local authority was overcharging by a factor of £4 million. But councils nationwide were estimated to have levied in the order of £230 million a year in summons and liability order charges. That rate, sustained for the twenty years Council Tax has been in force, put the cumulative cost at £4 billion, most of it representing an overcharge. Now fast forward to last April and the Blackmore Vale Magazine and we see a headline, "Court costs earn Councils £millions", with the sub-heading telling us that many millions of pounds may have been overcharged by Councils in the pursuit of Council Tax recovery since its introduction in 1992. Local Authorities, said the report, are charged a fraction of the amount passed on to residents in costs. Each Liability Order applied for costs councils £3 according to the Magistrates' Courts fee schedule. Struggling householders are then charged many multiples of this, for example, one London Borough Council imposes £125 costs for making late payments for Council Tax, but for Business rates, this increases to £220 for an identical process. Another Council in the South of England reveals in a document reviewing court costs that where previously it was necessary to seek approval from the Court to ensure costs being levied were reasonable, this was no longer required and "confirmed that it is for the Council to decide on an appropriate level". One authority in the North East admits costs are determined in-house. A Freedom of Information request uncovered a letter sent to the Magistrates' court advising that the "Council has taken the decision to increase the court costs which it charges to tax payers for the non payment of Council Tax". The same council revealed that it aimed to cover the entire budget for running its Council Tax department from court penalties, and with £0.88 million costs raised it had not made a bad attempt. This very council claimed its annual budget for all activity associated with recovery of Council Tax amounted to around £1.13 million. This compared with the cost of £1.04 million for council tax administration including staff costs, contact centre costs, enforcement, other running costs and central recharges. This is quite clearly illegal as the law only allows for "reasonable cost" incurred for the administration involved on processing the summonses and liability orders. With the statutory court fee, the cost for one household would be unlikely to exceed £5.
However, councils are not only illegally using late payers to subsidise their tax collection operations, they are using the inflated changes as a "deterrent" element or to coerce payment. The same council documented that "the extra cost is seen as a way of encouraging prompt payment", and as a bonus would raise additional income of £38k a year. This is patently illegal.
To conclude, the report finds that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) identifies more than £179 million raised in summons and liability costs in 2010-11. Based on these figures and indexing inflation – since 1992 (the introduction of Council Tax) the best part of £3.5 billion may have been overcharged by councils in a bid illegally to cross-subsidise Council Tax collection.  However, despite this huge sum – of what amounts to legalised theft – the national legacy media have been quite incapable of getting a "handle" on the story. And as for the Manchester media, it gets the story completely upside down. It calls this a "tax dodger" story, failing to recognise that nearly a quarter of GMC householders were ripped off to the tune of over £4 million last year. To compound the error, we have the Taxpayers' Alliance. Chief Executive, Matthew Sinclair, tells us: "Manchester can’t afford for so much Council Tax to be left unpaid, nor the cost of taking so many people to court". Totally oblivious is our Matthew to the fact that Manchester council is making a healthy and totally illegal profit from ripping off its taxpayers - the very thing the Taxpayers' Alliance is supposed to be opposing. When you have national campaign groups missing the point, and supporting illegal activity by local government, we clearly have a long way to go. Small wonder, North Jnr thinks the "tax dodging" has become both a moral and civic duty. He certainly isn't going to get any help from Matthew Sinclair. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 26/06/2013 |
EU regulation: Codex is the top table – Part II
Tuesday 25 June 2013
 These three organisations, however, are a central element to the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement, itself a central part of the WTO structure – but how they inter-relate is crucial to understanding how our new global government works. As Bjorn Knudtsen (pictured) told me when we met yesterday, the chain starts with the WTO, which is host to the international trade agreements, upon which modern trade relations are founded. However, contrary to popular perception, the WTO itself does not make detailed trading rules. Instead, it relies on organisations such as Codex to make them in their specific sectors. Then, in the case of a trading dispute, where a country is erecting trade (non-tariff) barriers, the WTO explores whether there is an international standard or agreement which covers the issue. If there is, conformity with international standards is deemed sufficient to permit the relevant products to be traded. Refusal to admit conforming products is deemed to be a breach of the WTO agreement. Thus, while there is no compulsion for individual countries to adopt international standards, they have become the "pass" which permits free trade. The pressure is on, therefore, for each country within the international community to adopt these standards into their own domestic law. Increasingly, throughout the world, this is what is happening. We are moving towards a standardised, global rule book. Here, though, we are really dealing with the nuts and bolts of technical legislation, in a detail and at a level of tedium that would send ordinary mortals rushing for the exit. No fine rhetoric or soaring vision can make anything dramatic of the "Proposed Draft Performance Criteria for Screening Methods for Marine Biotoxins in the Standard for Raw and Live Bivalve Molluscs", the "Draft Standard for Smoked Fish, Smoke-Flavoured Fish and Smoke-Dried Fish" or the "Draft Standard for Quick Frozen Scallop Adductor Muscle Meat". Yet such things are, to coin a phrase, the meat and drink of international trade. As to the UK, in theory it is represented by the EU on most international standards bodies. This is certainly the case with Codex where, in the main committee, the member state currently holding the presidency – at the moment Ireland – formally negotiates on behalf of the 27 member states, and approves new standards. In this, they are "assisted" by Commission officials. However, the process is much more subtle than this. While the main committee in plenary session is the body of record, the real work goes on in the sub-groups and the task forces. There, individual member states are well-represented and, interestingly, are not accorded any preferential treatment according to who they are or their membership of any particular bloc. Thus, the powerful sit cheek-by-jowl with the minnows. Says Knudtsen, anyone who has a view and wants to be heard is given a hearing. But the most influential are those who have the expertise and understand the system. In that sense, he says, the UK has more influence on the seafood committee than Norway. Delegates are skilled in the procedures, are experienced in the workings of the committee and bring with them considerable expertise in a wide range of subjects. They are "very good diplomats", Knudtsen agrees. This has startling implications for British membership of the EU, and any ambitions it might have to align itself with any other grouping, such as EFTA. The UK enjoys its influence by virtue of the capabilities it brings to the table, which earns it respect and prestige. If it maintained its performance, it would be treated the same, and have roughly the same reach, whether it was in the EU or not. The point is that, in this "new world order", no single nation or bloc is going to get its way. The Europeans are balanced by the North Americans who are increasingly having to deal with the Cairns grouping and powerful Asian alliances. Getting standards through the system requires compromise, and the need to have an agreement often outweighs the requirements for achieving specifics. The irony of that is also very apparent. In or out of the EU, the UK – or its representatives - would still find itself sitting in endless, impenetrable technical committees, discussing obscure standards on issues which would defeat most minds, alongside much the same people, with very much the same outcomes. But in no sense would standards ever be imposed on the UK, any more than they are Norway. That simply is not the way the system works. What would be different is that the UK would be able to divest itself of much of the political baggage that attended membership of the European Union. Trade issues would continue to be negotiated in much the same way that they are now. What comes over so clearly is that the world has moved on from the days when "Europe" was a powerful player, setting the rules for its tiny corner. In fact, without it really being apparent, the "new world order" is seeing a resurgence in national power. When I asked him whether he would like his own people, his "global policemen" to enforce his standards, Knudtsen said "no". The nations still made the rules, he said. Only they had the local knowledge, the resources and experience to enforce them. And as long as the rules were seen to be fair, and achieving a purpose, they were generally enforced. The world is moving on from regional trade blocs and, as trade becomes more globalised, there are too many players for "little Europe" to getsits way. Each of the national players want their own voices heard in the areas which concern them, and the global arena not only recognises that need, but allows for it. Richard North 25/06/2013 |
UKIP: the unaccommodating Tim Congdon
Tuesday 25 June 2013
 Seeking confirmation from Congdon that these were truly his views, I wrote to him over the weekend, and yesterday got a response. He told me: I must make clear to you, and others, that I regard the debate on article 50 as tiresome. We do not depend on it to leave the EU. (Indeed, it is important to make clear that we do not depend on it. The two-year period specified in the article would oblige us to pay our contributions in that two-year period, so that about £30 - £35 billion is at stake.)This idea that we would save money by not invoking Article 50 is a new one, but rather superficial, so I wrote back in these terms: The offer of a gradualist approach to leaving, with a structured exit settlement, probably gives a better chance of winning an in-out referendum, to the extent that we could manage to leave in two years instead of sometime never. In my scenario, we save many billions more than your somewhat overstated £30-35 billion, and actually get to leave.This frames the Article 50 argument, but I then take on Congdon's view about the debate in general, telling him: I am utterly appalled, therefore, that you should seek to close down the debate, when clearly there are options and eventualities, of which you have not taken account - and especially when you have a somewhat jaundiced view of the origins of Article 50, which does not seem to be supported by any facts whatsoever.I also rehearse theme about "splits" … From diverse sources, I am enjoined not to add to the splits within the eurosceptic movement, yet your intervention place me in an impossible position. I could not disagree with you more about your position on Article 50 and, if you seek actively to close down the debate, then you place me in a position of outright opposition, where I must defend my own position.… but nevertheless conclude: I would like to think that we can, from here, reach some sort of accommodation, but that is very much up to you. I will not accept my attempts to open a genuine debate on our exit from the EU being described as tiresome.To this the response was quite swift, with the merit also of being short and to the point. Says Congdon: I am not in the least bothered about disagreeing with you on this matter, and neither my view nor my behaviour has not been in the slightest "appalling". You have a position, which in my view is very mistaken and I have every right to oppose it. I am not going to seek an accommodation of any sort with you over this question.Here, I think Prof. Congdon misses the point. Of course he has "every right" to oppose my position - that is the very essence of debate and is to be welcomed. But what he is actually doing is seeking to dismiss it – with the word "rubbish" used. Discussion, according to the professor, is a "waste of time". He wants to close down the debate. We should not even talk about Article 50. This, incidentally, is the man who once aspired to the leadership of UKIP. Rather ironically, he is also honorary chairman of the Freedom Association, despite being less than an enthusiast for free debate. And there we do have a problem. In my view, there is nothing more pressing an issue for the euosceptic community than to develop and agree a credible exit strategy. It is hard to understand why there should be such reluctance on this, from certain quarters, and one has to say that Prof. Congdon's additional input does not take us very much further forward. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 25/06/2013 |
Posts
