Madeleine McCann investigation re-opened

Everyone wants to see Madeleine McCann back home, but the £3.5 million being spent on re-opening a four year old case is a gross misuse of public funds.

Thirty police officers from the stretched Metropolitan Police, some of whom are, granted, taking voluntary redundancy or near retirement, will work the case.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has told the Mirror that "no limit will be put on the investigation, led by Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood of the Met's Homicide and Serious Crime Command.

Only London Assembly member Jenny Jones, Labour's Lord Harris (a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority) and Liberal Democrat peer and vice-chairman of Thames Valley Police Authority Lord Bradshaw have had the guts to criticise this use of public funds during a recession.

David Cameron has simply found what he believes is a good public relations exercise, one that will play well among the mass media(until they decide to turn on the McCanns to sell more papers and get more mouse clicks).

The Carlisle News and Star's Anne Pickles has written a particularly gusting defence of David Cameron.

Donate to Missing People:

It is simply odious that this case gets so much more resources and money than the other 250000 people who go missing or run away each year.

Why not donate to Missing People and give these others a chance?

They don't get top billing in the Sun and their parents aren't invited onto GMTV, but their friends and family miss them just as much as Madeleine McCann's do.

London brings out the bunting...at public expense

Further evidence that recessions and hosting the Olympics do not mix.

Despite drastic public spending cuts, Boris Johnson has given a £50,000 grant to each London borough to purchase flags, banners and bunting for their streets - more enforced celebration.

With thirty-two London boroughs, this works out as £1,600,000 of public money being spent on decorating streets for a short-term event.

That money could have avoided a 20% funding cut for London's HIV prevention groups, with a million pounds left over.

Some people will say "It's the Olympics, it's a fantastic once in a lifetime event, stop carping."

Well, I think spending money on HIV prevention or keeping police station front counters open in Croydon is more important than our streets looking a bit bare.

With a shocking Evening Standard report that many London children grow up in homes without books or magazines, the money could also have been spent on increasing library opening hours or sending three books to every child under sixteen in London.

Perhaps supporters of the 2012 Olympics should decorate streets in their local borough themselves, instead of expecting London council tax payers to foot the bill.

Why weren't people protesting about this at the Rally Against Debt?

Why aren't people demonstrating outside Olympic venues?

If you believe that public money should be spent on public services instead of an Olympic Games which will cost far more than the benefits it brings(such as increased tourist revenue), join me in boycotting the 2012 Olympics.

The 2012 Olympics fat cats:

Of course, some people will do very well out of the 2012 Olympics farce.
The Daily Mail reports that the head of the London Olympics, former Goldman Sachs banker Paul Deighton, is in line for a £130,000 redundancy pay-out when the Games has finished.

Mr Deighton is on a salary of £480,000, almost twenty times the average wage in London.

(In fairness, Mr Deighton did give his six figure bonus to charity last year).

Around 2,000 Olympics staff will join Paul Deighton in being eligible to payments after London 2012 has ended.

It should be noted that Boris Johnson has begun his re-election campaign.

When he gives soundbites in support of the Government's cuts, I hope people will bear how he spends London's revenue, and vote for a different candidate.

Want something investigated in Kentish Town?

Paul Bradshaw has tweeted this link, from an investigative journalist covering North London's NW5 postcode.

Kentish Town Investigations is intended to fill a void left by "desk-bound journalists" who "do not leave their offices as often as they used to", as well as the decline in resources directed towards long-term public interest investigations.

The focus is on issues with a strong public interest element to them, such as education or health-related stories.

So far, Kentish Town Investigations has interviewed Labour party councillor Meric Apak regarding the government's housing benefit cuts, covered the standards of schools in Kentish Town, looked at the priorities of Kentish Town's Safer Neighbourhoods Team and why only 25% percent of eligible people voted in a recent by-election.

One to watch.

You can also follow them on Twitter, @KTInvestigation.

Former Indonesian president's son wins defamation case

Hutomo Mandala Putra, the youngest son of Indonesia’s former President Suharto, has been awarded 12.5 billion Rupiah ($1.46 million) for a Garuda Airlines magazine article which described him as a "convicted murderer".

Clearly, this accusation was untrue and disgraceful. Hutomo Mandala Putra has not been found guilty of murdering anyone.

He has, however, been found guilty of hiring someone to do it for him, which of course is completly different.

In 2002, Hutomo Mandala Putra, also known as Tommy Soeharto was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for paying a hitman to kill Supreme Court judge Syafiuddin Kartasasmita, who had convicted him of graft.

He was released after four years in Cipinang Penitentiary Institution, East Jakarta.

The Economist compared Hutomo Mandala Putra's treatment with that of other Indonesians convicted of murder.

Most Indonesians convicted of murder receive much harsher sentences and see their appeals fail. Few get the privileges afforded to Mr Hutomo, such as his own specially expanded cell from where he oversaw his business empire.

The judge said that Hutomo Mandala Putra has "served his sentence and since the completion of the term he has fully regained his rights as a citizen and for his past to not be mentioned", and also claimed that his identification was irrelevant to the article.

In addition to the monetary compensation, the court has ordered the magazine to publish an apology in the next three monthly editions.

So there you are. Hutomo Mandala Putra, convicted of hiring someone to murder a judge, is not a convicted murderer, and anyone convicted of a crime should not have their past mentioned after serving their sentence.

Imagine if this ruling was applied to the British press.

I can think of a few famous people who'd be relieved, while the rest of the country would groan and put their heads in their hands.

Dr Agnes Callamard, Executive Director ARTICLE 19, commented that:

It is very disturbing that an Indonesian court awarded damages to Tommy Suharto for the publication of an article which mentioned true facts about his conviction.

"This ruling carries severe implications for press freedom in Indonesia and is further aggravated by the million-dollar compensation.

"The Tommy Suharto defamation case sends out the wrong signal as it implies that the judiciary system in Indonesia favours the protection of the rich and powerful.

Reporters Without Borders Asia-Pacific head Benjamin Ismail said his organisation

...strongly condemns the decision of the South Jakarta District Court Court to sentence Garuda Magazine for defamation...

Even though, the judge refused the demand for an apology to be printed in three national newspapers, a Rp12.5 billion fine marks a clear intention to dismantle permanently the magazine.

It is totally unnacceptable, criminal defamation proceedings must stop. We call on the Supreme Court of Indonesia to overhaul this sentence, as it did for Tempo editor Bambang Harymurti.

£30k of our money on David Cameron's kitchen

Prime Minister David Cameron is a busy man.

He can't wait for someone to bring him food from the catering kitchen, and if he went down himself for a quiche he might see a working class person.

He is also a modern Mondeo man, and would not be able to use a "dingy, outdated 1960s kitchen", as the Daily Telegraph describes it.

So only one thing for it.

£30,000 of taxpayer's money (you know, the stuff right-wing commentators keep telling us there is No More Of) on a kitchen re-fit, and then release a picture of Michelle Obama and Samantha Cameron chatting in the kitchen in order to convince the British people it was money well spent.

Ceri Roberts certainly approves of the kitchen, describing it as a "thing of beauty" in an article for America Online.

The Telegraph also has an annotated diagram of David Cameron's kitchen, but differs on the cost of each item from Ceri Roberts. I've used the lowest figure for each item to give Cameron a chance.

Thankfully, our money - which could have gone towards less pretty things like keeping a library open or the National Health Service - has been used to make sure Britain's First Family have such essentials as a £270 Magimix food processor (Ceri Roberts says £499, the Telegraph says £270) and a £130 Dualit toaster.

How could David Cameron lead the cost-cutting across Britain without being able to drink coffee from his £200 Gaggia espresso maker?

How could David Cameron make the kids' tea before tackling those red boxes without having a new cooker with a £325 Miele hood (£900 according to Ceri Roberts)?

How could David Cameron bear Cabinet meetings without an egg cooked in one of his £585 set of stainless steel saucepans?

As Ceri Roberts says, there is only one question we should ask the shiny Prime Minister.

Just how do they keep that kitchen so clean?

Sugar pie Desanto - Soulful Dress

A song to cheer you up even when the sky is overcast:



Via comedian Mark Steel on Twitter, @mrmarksteel

A cat in a flowerbed

Here is a nice picture of Trillion, who belongs to one of the people I lived with in Walthamstow:

Policy Exchange's first welfare report: My comments

Policy Exchange, a think tank and charity, has published a report on reforming welfare, "No Rights Without Responsibility", written by Matt Oakley and Peter Saunders.

The report's overall view is that jobseekers have had it far too easy, and that a series of sticks are needed to get more people off Job Seekers' Allowance (JSA) and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).

In my view, "No Rights Without Responsibility" is a bit of a curate's egg.

While it makes some good points, I strongly disagree with other areas, and I believe it misses out some important ways to get people back to work.

Sweeping negativity towards claimants:

The report does have a rather sweeping view of jobseekers as lazy people being prepared to put the bare minimum of effort in.

For example, it highlights that a Department of Work and Pensions report found that "11% of benefit claimants ‘feel fully justified being on benefits and believe they have discovered that life without the added complication of work has much to recommend it’".

"Another 9% felt that ‘to work or claim benefits is simply a choice individuals should be free to make – there is no right or wrong about it’.

"A further 11% felt that ‘job search is less urgent as they make the most of the benefits of not working’".

However, even if we assume that all these people are not making much of an effort to look for jobs, this only accounts for 31% of all benefit claimants surveyed.

One assumes that the other 69% did not agree with any of these statements and were determined to find a job as soon as possible.

Therefore, the Department of Work and Pensions survey could be taken to show that just over two-thirds of jobseekers did not want to stay on welfare.

Also mentioned is that "recent research" shows that JSA claimants spent as little as eight minutes a day searching for work. This is a sweeping statement and ignores those who do spend a large percentage of their time looking for work.

JSA claimants need to show evidence of having taken six steps a fortnight to find work at each signing.

Clearly, one cannot take six steps to find work in eight minuites, so unless there is evidence that people are making some or all of these steps up I find this research hard to credit.

Certainly, it does not make the case for more punative sanctions being applied to all jobseekers, only the ones who make up some of the steps they have taken to find work each fortnight.

More checks on the steps taken - for example contacting employers who are named in the signing book - would be a better solution.

I've been unemployed for a short period of time in my life, and I spent seven to eight hours a day looking for work, improving my CV and interview skills and going to job interviews.

The report also seems to misunderstand the nature of ESA, which is paid to people who cannot work. Therefore, no wonder "neither...nor those claiming ESA are obliged to look for work..." However, most of the report appears to be about JSA claimants.

Recommendations from the Policy Exchange report:

The report makes five recommendations:

1. Conditions on claimants should be increased so that more time each week has to be spent engaging in job search.

2. The length of time some claimants can spend searching for their ‘preferred work’ should be reduced.

3. Sanctions need to become a stronger tool for influencing the behaviour of those who fail to fulfil activity conditions.

4. In order to re-establish a ‘something for something’ approach, a stronger link needs to be created between the National Insurance Contributions (NICs) individuals make and the benefits they can receive if they fall on hard times.

5. To ensure that claimants who are unlikely to find work on their own are not left on benefit for extended periods of time, we need to find better ways of segmenting and fast-tracking claimants to the Work Programme.

My thoughts on the five recommendations:

1 is a good idea, but little suggestions are given of how to but this into practice.

Should people be required to fill out twelve steps per fortnight? When I was on JSA I often filled out fourteen steps per fortnight as my job search was so intensive.

Should people be encouraged to volunteer more?

What about removing the restriction on volunteering that only allows it to take place with a registered charity?

How about organising one day a week internships for jobseekers in an area they have experience or interest in?

2. is a harsh but reasonable idea. However, this assumes that people enjoy being on benefits and have no interest in looking for a role, a sweeping statement.

A jobseeker who gets a job in an area he or she is interested in is more likely to be an asset to the company than one who gets a job in an area he or she has no interest in - though Policy Exchange make the reasonable point that people have to go to badly paid, rubbish jobs every day.

Perhaps if more British people joined unions, working conditions would improve and most jobs would appeal more.

3. mentions the use of smart cards to limit sanctions in the report. However, how do we define what gods are essential?

A novel will stimulate someone's mind and make them more motivated to look for work.

Buying a laptop to look for jobs is a better idea than relying on an internet cafe.

A textbook could be used to improve a jobseeker's knowledge on a subject ahead of interview.

4. would have a terrible effect on people leaving university or school, those who are least to blame for the credit binge that helped to destroy the world economy.

Is it their fault that they have not had much of a change to accumulate National Insurance Contributions? (I know that students can work part time but even a few years of working part time would not bring a huge amount of benefits under these proposals).

The result of 4. would be a drastic rise in crime as unemployed young people, unable to feed themselves, turn to shoplifting and mugging to make ends meet, leading to stretched police resources.

5. is a reasonable idea, but as I will mention later more needs to be done to give people the tools and confidence to get back into work.

Relying on public support:

Much of the argument in the report quotes surveys showing public support for harsher conditions for claimaints.

For example: "We highlighted earlier that a recent poll commissioned by Policy Exchange found that nearly 70% of people thought that ‘jobseekers should lose their unemployment benefit if they turn down job offers...’.

"This agreement with the principle of sanctions is not restricted to considering jobseekers. A 2007 survey found that 54% of the British public thought lone parents should have their benefit cut, and another 25% wanted it stopped altogether, if they failed to attend a Work Focused Interview.

"Claimants themselves also tend to see sanctions as fair: 75% of JSA claimants think sanctions are fair, and even two-fifths of those who have been penalised agree with this."

Firstly, it is worth noting that sanctions have been tightened since 2007, and therefore it would be interesting to see what the current levels of support are for sanctions among jobseekers.

Secondly, just because there are high levels of public support for something does not make a policy right.

A large percentage of the public read the conservative press, which uses a handful of true stories about a minority of benefit claimants who cheat or play the system to imply that people on benefits are thieving lying scum who steal YOUR TAX MONEY.

Curiously, the £3.5 million of public money being spent on reopening the four-year old case of Madeline McCann going missing, which has thirty Metropolitan Police officers assigned to it, has not aroused any anger from the conservative press.

Many of the poll respondents no doubt have had little or no experience of unemployment and see claimants as "the other" whom they will never join.

My ideas to reduce the number of people on Jobseekers Allowance:

*All jobseekers need to receive interview practice sessions, assistance with writing CV's and directions to vocational courses on a regular basis.

*The process for having travel money to a job interview paid should be easier. It is better that people receive their fares for travel to a job interview than they do not go because of the cost.

Let's use a fictional jobseeker called Dawn as an example. Dawn lives in Seven Sisters and has two interviews for cleaning jobs, one in Penge and one in Maida Vale.

Travel to the first interview and back would cost £6.90 by tube/National Rail, assuming she needs to travel during the morning peak for the 9am interview and can travel back at "all other times", or £2.40 by bus, which would take just over two hours (more if there are roadworks or congestion).

Travel to the second interview and back, on a different day, would would cost £5.40 by tube, assuming she can travel at "all other times" for the 4pm interview and travels back during the afternoon peak, or £2.40 by bus, which would take one and a half hours (more if there are roadworks or congestion).

In this example, I'm assuming that Dawn lives above a shop next to Seven Sisters station and that the cleaning jobs are for businesses next to Penge West and Maida Vale stations.

*Subsidise gym memberships for the unemployed.

They will be fitter, so will be more likely to be chosen for jobs involving heavy lifting or lots of walking.

They will be more confident, so will do better at job interviews, and will feel better about themselves, so will be more motivated to look for work.

*Clients need to be encouraged to volunteer one day a week as soon as they sign on, instead of when they begin Stage 2 of their claim three months down the line.

The restriction on volunteering that only allows it to take place with a registered charity should be removed, and one day a week internships for jobseekers should be organised in an area they have experience or interest in.

I feel that my ideas will be more effective and less harsh than Policy Exchange's, and I look forward to reading and commenting on their future reports on welfare.

Have a look at the Policy Exchange report and let me know your thoughts, both on the report itself and my response to it.

I can smile at the old days...

Hello.

It's been several months since I posted on this blog, the longest since I set it up in June 2007.

I stopped posting mainly because my new job - which I'm no longer in - didn't allow me to have my own blog or tweet.

Partly, though, I wanted to concentrate on creative writing, which I'm determined to pick up again. I've written 5000 words of a satire on university life so far.

So the biggie. I've been unwell for the past few years, and only found out in February 2011.

A few weeks ago I moved back to Oxfordshire from Walthamstow, North East London, and have been trying to recover.

I have one blog post I want to write, on Policy Exchange's report "No Rights Without Responsibility."

I'm not sure if I'm going to blog more after that.

Aside from the fact that I'm very ill, I'm not sure how much I have to say.

Also, this blog really needs one theme, but I don't really feel like starting a new one.

Perhaps I'll post from time to time, on my better days. I'll keep tweeting and will try to do some more creative writing.

To be honest, I'm feeling very regretful (and a bit angry) about the recent past, concerned about the present and daunted about the future.

But there were good time and hopefully there will be good times to come.