Cuts mean prisoners kill themselves or opt for punishment blocks to escape overcrowding, says Chief Inspector of Prisons

Read More

Graphs at a glance: Government policy of cutting the cost of Justice risks denying justice for the innocent and the guilty

Being beastly to foreigners seems to be back in vogue. At least to foreigners without much money. In its pursuit of popularity the Tory Party proposed stopping printing welfare leaflets in foreign languages and stop providing translators at benefits offices for those who don't speak English.


According to an un-named 'Tory insider' quoted by the Daily Mail, "The vast majority of voters will think this idea is plain common sense. It is unreasonable to expect taxpayers to spend huge sums on translators when people should be learning to read and write English."

Maybe the Tory insider is right about voters, maybe not. Either way, denying poor foreigners their legal right to benefits by putting up a language barrier won't really affect the "vast majority of voters". On the other hand, the government's ongoing outsourcing of providing interprepters for the Justice System will. Impairing foreigners' access to good interpreters when they appear in courts and police stations will affect all of us. Those voters who care little whether an innocent foreigner gets an undeserved punishment should remember: when the innocent get punished for a crime they did not commit the guilty who did commit the crime get away to offend again.


A report by the National Audit Office in January 2014 took another look at the performance of the Ministry of Justice's attempt at outsourcing the provision of interpreters to the justice system. 

The Ministry of Justice had earlier been scolded by Parliament's Justice Committee and the National Audit Office for the calamitous performance of this outsourcing arrangement. A key element in this outsourcing cockup was Capita (the outsourcer) slashing the rates of pay of interpreters. This pay-slash caused a boycott by the best qualified (Tier 1) interpreters, resulting in an unacceptable level of Capita's failure to provide suitable interpreters when required.


The January 2014 report includes a graph showing how Capita have done recruiting interpreters between October 2012 and November 2013

While Capita have managed to triple the number of Tier 3 interpreters, and double the number of Tier 2 interpreters, the number of the best qualified Tier 1 interpreters has only increase by less than one fifth (17%). Perhaps due to the ongoing boycott by the best interpreters, perhaps due to a policy of using lowest cost interpreters regardless of their qualifications.

Cuts in the Justice System don't only affect defendants. Cuts to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have meant prosecutors have been unable to pursue cases properly. According to a report by the Bureau of Investigation, Michael Turner QC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, said:

Read More

BIJ Story: Crown Prosecution Service criticised for ‘wilful, calculated and prolonged disobedience’ in trial

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that cuts in staffing and funding at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is resulting in prosecutions being thrown out of court.

January 14, 2014 by Maeve McClenaghan (Bureau of Investigative Journalism)

The Crown Prosecution Service has once again come under fire by a top judge for failing to prepare properly for a serious trial, and for citing financial constraints as the reason for that failure.

The judge told the court that the case ‘raises serious issues about the practice of the CPS in cases where complex evidence is involved,’ and called the CPS’s actions ‘completely unacceptable’.

Recently published court records reveal that judge Peter Murphy was forced to throw out a trial for conspiracy to supply class A drugs just two days in to proceedings, after the CPS failed to prepare properly, claiming that submitting certain evidence would have a negative financial impact.

The judge’s comments are part of growing criticism of the CPS, as uncovered by the Bureau last year.

A six month investigation by the Bureau found that budget cuts had led to the CPS losing 23% of its barristers (202), 22% of its solicitors (518) and 27% (296) of its higher court advocates.

That loss in staff correlated with an increase in the rate at which homicide trials failed because the CPS provided insufficient or no evidence after a not guilty plea. This was equivalent to one in twenty homicide cases and represented a rise of 50% compared with 2010. The rate at which the CPS offers ‘no evidence’ had also risen for burglary, robbery, fraud and forgery, and criminal damage trials.

Related article: New figures reveal the CPS has lost more than 20% of its legal teams

Read More

Graphs at a glance: Confiscation orders recover just 0.35% of ill-gotten gains. Crooks keep £99.65 in every crooked £100.

It is not just taxes paid by the little people that are avoided by the big people. 

Nor is it just the big energy companies and banks that find it child's play to run rings around their poodlish regulators.

In 2012 the government's policy of pursuing people with no money rather than people with money to hide resulted in the prosecution of 9,863 people for benefits fraud and only 617 for tax fraud. Even though according to the National Fraud Authority tax fraud (£14 billion) is seven times greater than benefits fraud (£1.9 billion).

Such favours are not restricted to the unconvicted. A National Audit Office report published in December 2013 reveals that British courts follow the example of British taxmen, pursuing little crooks while letting the big crooks scarper with their ill-gotten capital gains: 

"The annual amount of fraud perpetrated by criminals in England and Wales has been estimated by the National Fraud Authority as some £52 billion. On this basis, it has been further estimated that, out of every £100 generated by the criminal economy, £99.65 was kept by the perpetrators."

While confiscation orders of upto £1,000 are almost all collected, larger amounts manage to do a runner. Big crooks have places offshore to hide their 'earnings', and banks of well paid lawyers to camouflage their villainy:

Read More

Justice is supposed to be blind, but not when signing outsourcing contracts. House of Commons committees expose Ministry of Justice outsourcing contract calamities.

In a previous post we complained about the coalition government's plan to reduce spending on public services to the lowest level since before 1948. 

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provides a good (i.e. dreadful) example of this blind rush to cut costs. 

Rather like someone looking for a miracle diet, the MoJ showed it was prepared to swallow anything to lose costs. Sadly this is the same with all the ministries chasing the government's strategy of cutting costs. They measure success by the number of pills they take, and not by the effectiveness of the resulting 'body shaping'. They rush because they know the pill-box may be taken away from them at the next election (though Labour say they will pop the same pills, so it is doubtful us ripped-off Britons will be any less ripped-off).

Outsourcers tempted by this careless slopping out of public sector contracts claim they improve services and lower costs by deploying their ninja-like private sector skills. In practice, their bright ideas are focussed on extracting profits.


Probably the key innovation the private sector brings is cutting staff pay and benefits. Cutting the pay of public sector staff is a very blunt instrument that could be done without outsourcing to the private sector. However governments dare not do this directly because the public sector workforce is better organised by unions to resist. Privatised employees are broken off from this mutual support and become easier prey. A report by IDS, who do independent research on employment issues, shows that the private sector pays worse in general, and exceptionally worse when it comes to female employees:

Read More

The Home Office's GREAT Club helps top foreign business executives avoid...what exactly?

In November 2013 the Home Office launched a GREAT Club. Yes, the capitals in GREAT and C are appropriate - the name of the club is "GREAT Club", as you will see from the Home Office press release below. Clearly the Home Office has access to some really great minds to think up a great name like that. Or have they mispelled GREET, as in greeting visitors to the UK? Or perhaps GREED, as in greedy (see hypothesis below)?.

Anyway, the birth of the GREAT Club was proclaimed in a Home Office press release is:

"the launch of the GREAT Club, an invitation only service providing top business executives with bespoke support from UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI). The Club will start in the New Year as a 12 month pilot aimed at around 100 global business leaders who use the visa service and have strong links to the UK. They will be provided with an account manager to ensure their journey through the visa and immigration service is swift and smooth. The account manager will also be able to arrange visa services tailored to each individual’s needs at no extra cost during the pilot."

Now I suppose the immigration process can be frustrating. But you can be pretty sure that the 100 "top business executives" invited to join the GREAT Club will be well served by their own Personal Assistants, and their Personal Assistants' Personal Assistants (when you get to be PA to a truly top executive you don't have to make your own coffee) to lap up all the tedium and frustration of the visa application process. The Home Secretary won't be finding prospective members to invite into her exclusive GREAT Club sitting on their suitcases in Heathrow.

The reason top business executives shift their businesses to the UK has little to do with how easily they themselves can pass through immigration. It is not to avoid the inconvenience of getting a stamp in their own passports that they hesitate from relocating. However, there are other things they may be more keen on avoiding that may lure them to our shores.

And here we are persuaded to show some sympathy for tax accountants. This is not without precedent - Ripped-off Britons has already been nice to estate agents and to bankers. Now we consider the plight of the tax accountant.

The poor things are getting beaten up by MPs for helping their clients through dodgy-but-legal loopholes. And then they are getting beaten up and severly fined by a High Court Judge for not helping their clients through dodgy-but-legal-at-the-time loopholes.

First, here's the sort of beating they get from MPs from a session of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the UK Parliament looking into tax avoidance schemes. In this session MPs questioned Aidan James, a director of a tax consultancy advising those who want to avoid tax:

Q103 Ian Swales: How many of the schemes you have marketed are now illegal?

Aiden James: Most of them.

Ian Swales: Most of them?

Aiden James: All of them, I suspect.

Q104 Ian Swales: All the schemes you have marketed are now illegal, so you are now looking for the next loophole-is that a fair description of your business?

Aiden James: That is how it works, yes.

Read More

New “tough stance” means all benefit fraudsters face increased sentences of up to 10 years in jail

Read More

Graphs at a glance: Are swingeing cuts to legal aid needed because the cost is ballooning out of control? Actually the Legal Aid bill has been falling for years.

The wealthy live more opulently than the poor. But generally speaking the expensively dressed wealthy don't themselves benefit from the tatty outfits of their less well heeled fellow citizens. Indeed, when they are able the wealthy take the trouble to dress their servants very well. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amesservants.jpg

Old bangers breaking down on the road don't really make the man in his £50k motor car feel better. Broken down crocks just cause traffic jams to infuriate rich and poor alike. 

Few people take active pleasure in the poverty of others. They enjoy the inequality in the form of their own comfort, and just ignore the discomfort of the rest.

This is true with clothes and jewelry and houses and cars. It is true with private education and health. The wealthy buy their privileges. The principal benefit to the wealthy few of the poor services meted out to the majority is low taxes.

But this is not true of justice. Justice denied to one is justice escaped by another. The withdrawal of legal aid will mean those who can't afford to pay for their justice will not be able to afford to pursue those who can. According to a BBC report:

"The government is removing funding from entire areas of civil law. They include:

• Private family law, such as divorce and custody battles
• Personal injury and some clinical negligence cases
• Some employment and education law
• Immigration where the person is not detained
• Some debt, housing and benefit issues"

The BBC's list does not include the cuts for criminal cases, which are in addition to the above.

To justify pulling legal aid, we are told a host of fibs about how it is 'ballooning' out of control. So we looked around, and found some data in a report by the parliamentary select committee responsible for Justice:

1) Has the Legal Aid cost been ballooning? No: it has been falling since 2004:

2) Is this because the number of cases has been falling? No, they have been rising. In spite of rising number of cases since 2004, the costs have NOT been rising:

Read More

Junior Barristers ‘on £14 a day’ after proposed legal aid cuts

Fee and KJ are losing faith in British justice. Are you?...

Read More

UK rendition to the US? Not always a bad thing!

Can KJ get Fee to compromise on her principles, just a little...

Read More

British Gas raises energy bills for winter

Fee knows what we all know about the Big Six energy suppliers, British Gas, SSE, Npower, Eon, EDF and Scottish Power...

Read More

Harry Redknapp used Monaco tax haven to dodge his taxes

Fee gets ready to make her voice heard on the pitch

Read More

Occupy movement evicted

The gang discuss the high court's decision to evict the Occupy London protesters

Read More

“Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations” - the law that legalises ripping-off in Britain

The right to rip-off Britons is enshrined in British law, most explicitly by the ironically named “Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations”. It is not our contention that the rip-offs we write about in this blog are illegal – just that they are rip-offs. But that is the problem: as you will read in the rest of this blog, the rip-offs are not in breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations so long as they rip-off no more than half their target market.


The preamble in this legislation tells us that the law will protect the “average consumer” (and of course all those smarter or better informed than average). It helpfully goes on to qualify this “average consumer” as being “reasonably well informed, reasonably observant and circumspect”.


It further states that:

“In determining the effect of a commercial practice on the average consumer where the practice is directed to a particular group of consumers, a reference to the average consumer shall be read as referring to the average member of that group.”

...going on to say:

“(a) where a clearly identifiable group of consumers is particularly vulnerable to the practice or the underlying product because of their mental or physical infirmity, age or credulity in a way which the trader could reasonably be expected to foresee,

and

(b) where the practice is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour only of that group,

a reference to the average consumer shall be read as referring to the average member of that group”

Thus, in words comprehensible to the average trader, the legislation makes clear that the trader is permitted to rip off the "below average" half of the population. If the trader, be he a high-street banker or a purveyor of sweeties, is selling specifically to a mentally infirm or credulous group then he is permitted to rip off the more infirm and credulous half of the group.

The act goes on to stipulate explicitly what a trader may and may not do:

• A commercial practice is unfair if…..it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product. 

• A commercial practice is a misleading action if…. it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. 

• A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context…. it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. 

• A commercial practice is aggressive if….it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence

The act continues that a trader is guilty of an offence if:

• (a) he knowingly or recklessly engages in a commercial practice which contravenes the requirements of professional diligence under regulation 3(3)(a);

and

• (b) the practice materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product under regulation 3(3)(b).

Never underestimate the power of an “and”. Einstein, in one of his quips about the world we live in, thought compound interest was the most powerful force in the universe. I think it is “and”, and/or perhaps “or”. Two little words that make almost anything possible. In this case the “and” tells us that the trader is legally allowed to use any tactic he wants, be it unfair, misleading, aggressive, reckless, unprofessional so long as the “average consumer” won’t be tricked by them. Anyone “less than average” is fair game to be recklessly coerced, misled, and handled unfairly. On them it’s open season 12 months a year!


To understand the implications of the legislation:

Read More

Kicking up a fuss over cuts

Fee, KJ and Chris have second thoughts about launching a protest

Read More

Neither admit nor deny wrongdoing - when nobody is responsible, anything is acceptable

One of the stellar successes of the internet has been the Massively Multiplayer Online Role-playing Games (MMORPG). Improved internet line speeds, enhanced graphics, thick clients, multiprocessors, and games like “World of Warcraft” have contributed to multiverses of fantasy and mayhem that suck millions of people and billions of productive hours out of the real world. The great attraction of these virtual worlds is that you can take on a new incarnation. You can be what you’re not, dare what you don’t, and smoke in public places. In these worlds you are Super Sized in every way – weapons, skills, appendages - and create the sort of mayhem you only see in the movies. Perhaps the greatest attraction of these virtual worlds is that you take no responsibility for what you do. You can be reckless, you can be stupid, you can be really really bad (the sort of thing even your own mum wouldn’t forgive), and there is no comeback. Burn a village or two; kick a goblin when he is down; type really rude words that you saw someone else type. You are immortal – get “killed”, and you are back in action within seconds. And when you’ve had enough for the day, you just brush your teeth (unless you’re really pumped up with adrenalised recklessness), rub on your creams, and snuggle up in bed to dream about tomorrow’s mayhem.

A world where you can get away with what you like, destroy, lie, cheat, steal, and have to take no responsibility. Who would have thought it could be possible!

“Bank of America Corp., the No. 3 U.S. bank, was fined a record $10 million by the Securities and Exchange Commission because it lied to the regulator during a probe into trading by the bank and a former employee…….[Bank of America] neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing, and neither the bank nor the SEC named the employee whose records were at issue.”

“Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $102 million to end an investigation in Massachusetts into unfair lending practices….Under the terms of the settlement, Morgan Stanley admitted to no wrongdoing.”

“JPMorgan Chase has agreed to pay US$153.6 million (£95 million) to settle civil fraud charges that it misled buyers of complex mortgage investments just as the housing market was collapsing. JP Morgan did not admit any wrongdoing.”

“Goldman Sachs to Pay Record $550 Million to Settle SEC Charges Related to Subprime Mortgage CDO…Goldman agreed to settle the SEC's charges without admitting or denying the allegations.”

Read More

Diffusing the doorstep energy salesman

Chris turns the tables on an energy salesman who won't take no for an answer

Gas

Electricity

Utility

Bills

Read More

PPI leaves its mark on the population

Chris, Fee and KJ pay their respects to the PPI victims

UK banks won't appeal ruling to compensate customers missold payment protection insurance, Lloyds to settle PPI claims, PPI: 'Banks behaved disgustingly', Coming up: Jan. PPI, housing starts, Payment protection insurance complaints still rising, US core PPI falls in Oct, largest drop in 4 yrs, Payment protection insurance sale curbs approved

Read More

Fear of financial services outguns terrorism

After a historic victory over the banks on mis-selling Payment Protection Insurance (PPI), our heroes discover why the FSA is now investigating the banks' newest idea: ID Theft Insurance

[KEYWORDS: Three million bank customers ripped off over payment protection insurance in line for payouts worth £4.5bn after High Court victory, Payment protection insurance complaints still rising

Payment protection insurance sale curbs approved, Payment protection insurance complaints soar

Lloyds stops selling payment protection insurance, Complaints over payment protection insurance on the rise, says FOS, New rules on payment protection insurance are delayed, PPI, refund, compensation, rip-off

income protection, income protection insurance, ppi, redundancy insurance, unemployment insurance, mortgage payment protection, mortgage protection insurance, mortgage protection, mortgage insurance]

Read More

The law that makes it quite legal to rip off 50% of Britons

The rotten secret hidden inside “The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations”:

Jesus’ reference (Mathew 23:27) to certain individuals as “whited sepulchres” compared them to white painted tombs – pristine on the outside and full of rotting decay inside. Among the whitest of legislative sepulchres is “The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008”. 

The foulest corpse in this graveyard of ‘fair practice’ is the reference to “the average consumer”. The legislation states that a practice is only “unfair” if it brings detriment to the “average consumer”. It is this camel-sized loophole that has given the banking, television, energy, lottery, train, insurance, and charity industries and just about any other economic actor free range to rip chunks off Britons to the fullest extent of their appetites.

It is this legislation that allows Ripped-Off Britons to be entirely legally ripped off. Subtle references to the “average consumer” by well compensated lawyers have kept up company profits and executive bonuses at the expense of the less than average consumer. The fact is, half the population falls into this ‘less than average’ category.

Is it an indictment of us Britons that half the population of the UK has a lower than average IQ?  Are schools failing because half of students have less than average literacy for their ages? And that half the population is less than average height? And that half of everything and everyone is less than average in just about every way? Because, that is what “average” means.  It broadly means the middle value, from which half are above and half below.  (***Mathematical pedants, please see note at the bottom of this post).

With “The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” British legislators declared open season on half the population of Britain! An invitation few successful British corporations hesitate to pitilessly accept.

Defining the “average consumer”, the act states

Read More