I have been planning for some time to write about the supposed German holocaust of the 1940s, but that would require more time than I have available to me right now.
What I will note today is this famous quote from Lord Shawcross, who was the lead British prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials:
There comes a point when a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is also to answer to his own conscience.
I am not sure that the British establishment has ever allowed this pearl of wisdom to apply to British people - or indeed to people whom they regard as British.
It is reported today that the BBC has argued that William Joyce - also known as Lord Haw Haw - should never have been convicted of treason by the British government on the grounds that he was an American national.
It is also noted that the British government during the Second World War interned people who were suspected of being sympathetic to the German government. The German government sent people to concentration camps on the grounds of their political views, and so too did the British government.
It is curious how people in the political arena can often be adept at spotting hypocrisy in their rivals, but can be utterly blind to their own hypocrisy. In the time I have been writing this blog, I have tried to avoid writing anything which could be seen as hypocritical, and I am pleased that no one has yet accused me of hypocrisy. Comments are welcome as always.
Related previous posts include:
The outdated concept of treason
Sunday, 31 January 2016
Sunday, 24 January 2016
The economics of the minimum wage
The United Kingdom has high levels of unemployment. The level fluctuates, but even in a supposedly good year it will be sufficiently high to ensure that worklessness remains a way of life for far too many people in this country.
An employer can advertise almost any number of job vacancies which pay only the minimum wage, and still expect to fill possibly every single vacancy. Doubtless there may be exceptions where certain very specific skills are required, but I don't see much evidence of actual exceptions.
People who claim jobseekers' allowance soon find out that their payments can be sanctioned at almost any time, and so the incentive to find a job - even at a low wage - soon becomes obvious.
On the one hand, it might seem pointless for an employer to offer to pay more than the minimum wage when they do not need to pay any more in order to fill their vacancies. Then again, a lot of employers rely on the flexibility provided by overtime.
Not everyone is prepared to work overtime, however. In the past few months I have talked with a young woman who was unwilling to work overtime at any price, and with a man who was unwilling to work overtime unless he were to be paid around ten pounds per hour - which is significantly more than the minimum wage.
When employees refuse to work overtime, an employer must either recruit more staff, or pay a recruitment agency to supply more staff, or else allow a backlog of work to build up. Given that newly recruited staff are often of little use until they have received some in-house training, then a backlog of work might build up even where more staff are recruited. In other words, there is an advantage to having existing employees agree to work overtime, and paying above the minimum wage can assist in that process.
A related point is employee retention. It is not productive for managers to be perpetually engaged in recruiting and training new staff, and so there is an obvious incentive for most employers in having their existing staff remain on the payroll. Nevertheless a lot of employers face quite serious problems of staff turnover.
Paying above the minimum wage can probably help employers to retain staff, although there is no magic formula here. There are many reasons why an employee might leave, and not all of them are related to money.
In my experience, people who work either for the minimum wage or for not much more than the minimum wage tend to be efficient and dedicated. Nevertheless, an employer who pays significantly above the minimum wage can expect greater efficiency in the long term through lower levels of staff turnover and higher levels of overtime.
Related previous posts include:
Fellow blogger is wrong about the minimum wage
We get monkeys anyway
An employer can advertise almost any number of job vacancies which pay only the minimum wage, and still expect to fill possibly every single vacancy. Doubtless there may be exceptions where certain very specific skills are required, but I don't see much evidence of actual exceptions.
People who claim jobseekers' allowance soon find out that their payments can be sanctioned at almost any time, and so the incentive to find a job - even at a low wage - soon becomes obvious.
On the one hand, it might seem pointless for an employer to offer to pay more than the minimum wage when they do not need to pay any more in order to fill their vacancies. Then again, a lot of employers rely on the flexibility provided by overtime.
Not everyone is prepared to work overtime, however. In the past few months I have talked with a young woman who was unwilling to work overtime at any price, and with a man who was unwilling to work overtime unless he were to be paid around ten pounds per hour - which is significantly more than the minimum wage.
When employees refuse to work overtime, an employer must either recruit more staff, or pay a recruitment agency to supply more staff, or else allow a backlog of work to build up. Given that newly recruited staff are often of little use until they have received some in-house training, then a backlog of work might build up even where more staff are recruited. In other words, there is an advantage to having existing employees agree to work overtime, and paying above the minimum wage can assist in that process.
A related point is employee retention. It is not productive for managers to be perpetually engaged in recruiting and training new staff, and so there is an obvious incentive for most employers in having their existing staff remain on the payroll. Nevertheless a lot of employers face quite serious problems of staff turnover.
Paying above the minimum wage can probably help employers to retain staff, although there is no magic formula here. There are many reasons why an employee might leave, and not all of them are related to money.
In my experience, people who work either for the minimum wage or for not much more than the minimum wage tend to be efficient and dedicated. Nevertheless, an employer who pays significantly above the minimum wage can expect greater efficiency in the long term through lower levels of staff turnover and higher levels of overtime.
Related previous posts include:
Fellow blogger is wrong about the minimum wage
We get monkeys anyway
Thursday, 14 January 2016
Mortocracy versus democracy
Once again I find myself with so many things to write about, but I have opted to reply to a message I came across on social media a few weeks ago. The author - I cannot recall who he was - expressed a dislike of democracy. He said he preferred republicanism, and his argument was along these lines: In a democracy, my rights can be removed according to the wishes of the electorate; but in a republic my rights are protected by a constitution. I will assume that the author was an American national.
I have written in a previous thread about mortocracy, which I define as government by the dead.
Nowadays, democracy is normally envisaged as government according to the will of the people, as expressed at the ballot box. Mortocracy is government according to the dictates of people who are no longer alive. Examples of mortocracy include the Geneva Convention, which was most recently ratified in 1949.
The USA has a written constitution which cannot easily be amended. According to Wikipedia:
A proposed amendment becomes an operative part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (currently 38 of the 50 States).
By contrast, the United Kingdom has a constitution which is not written in any single document, and which can be amended by any act of parliament - passed on a simple majority vote.
The constitution of the USA can be interpreted by judges, and it is normal for judges to the supreme court to be appointed on the basis of how they are expected to interpret the constitution. In a sense this is vaguely democratic. The people elect the president, who then appoints judges to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless it is at best a bizarre form of democracy.
I recall once complaining that a federal judge in the USA had acted undemocratically by overturning the policy of an elected body. Someone replied that the ruling was democratic as it arose from a lawsuit brought by local people. The logic of that escapes me.
I recall also once remarking in a debate that a federal court ruling had been overturned on appeal. Someone replied that he could wait for the Democrats to return to power and - as he put it - reassert the constitution. I asked if he thought it proper that a Democrat administration should interfere in the judicial process, and he replied that the ruling in question was the work of judges appointed by a Republican administration. I then asked him if under a Democrat administration all appointments to the judiciary would be politically neutral, and he conceded that this would not be the case.
When people in the USA bring lawsuits based on the constitution, they will often argue that they are defending the constitution, but I wonder if any one of them truly cares about the constitution.
For example, proponents of the misnamed American Civil War argue that the constitution did not allow any of the states to leave the Union. In that it was utterly undemocractic, as each of the eleven states which left the Union in 1861 did so by the will of their elected politicians.
However what proponents of the misnamed American Civil War rarely admit is that the misnamed American Civil War was by that logic a violation of the constitution. If the states were not allowed to secede, then the citizens of those secessionist states were still technically American citizens. The war deprived many of them of their lives, but in most cases without the privilege of trial by jury, which is guaranteed by the constitution.
People who support government by written constitutions are almost certainly not truly interested in democracy, and are almost certainly hypocrites. I am proud to be a democract, and not a mortocrat.
Related previous posts include:
What is mortocracy?
I have written in a previous thread about mortocracy, which I define as government by the dead.
Nowadays, democracy is normally envisaged as government according to the will of the people, as expressed at the ballot box. Mortocracy is government according to the dictates of people who are no longer alive. Examples of mortocracy include the Geneva Convention, which was most recently ratified in 1949.
The USA has a written constitution which cannot easily be amended. According to Wikipedia:
A proposed amendment becomes an operative part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (currently 38 of the 50 States).
By contrast, the United Kingdom has a constitution which is not written in any single document, and which can be amended by any act of parliament - passed on a simple majority vote.
The constitution of the USA can be interpreted by judges, and it is normal for judges to the supreme court to be appointed on the basis of how they are expected to interpret the constitution. In a sense this is vaguely democratic. The people elect the president, who then appoints judges to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless it is at best a bizarre form of democracy.
I recall once complaining that a federal judge in the USA had acted undemocratically by overturning the policy of an elected body. Someone replied that the ruling was democratic as it arose from a lawsuit brought by local people. The logic of that escapes me.
I recall also once remarking in a debate that a federal court ruling had been overturned on appeal. Someone replied that he could wait for the Democrats to return to power and - as he put it - reassert the constitution. I asked if he thought it proper that a Democrat administration should interfere in the judicial process, and he replied that the ruling in question was the work of judges appointed by a Republican administration. I then asked him if under a Democrat administration all appointments to the judiciary would be politically neutral, and he conceded that this would not be the case.
When people in the USA bring lawsuits based on the constitution, they will often argue that they are defending the constitution, but I wonder if any one of them truly cares about the constitution.
For example, proponents of the misnamed American Civil War argue that the constitution did not allow any of the states to leave the Union. In that it was utterly undemocractic, as each of the eleven states which left the Union in 1861 did so by the will of their elected politicians.
However what proponents of the misnamed American Civil War rarely admit is that the misnamed American Civil War was by that logic a violation of the constitution. If the states were not allowed to secede, then the citizens of those secessionist states were still technically American citizens. The war deprived many of them of their lives, but in most cases without the privilege of trial by jury, which is guaranteed by the constitution.
People who support government by written constitutions are almost certainly not truly interested in democracy, and are almost certainly hypocrites. I am proud to be a democract, and not a mortocrat.
Related previous posts include:
What is mortocracy?
Sunday, 27 December 2015
Of Jews and paedophiles
As 2015 draws to a close, a national newspaper has published a list of notable people who died in the past year. Cilla Black and Jimmy Hill are among the more prominent names, but Lord Janner is also mentioned, and with these words:
Besides being a politician, Lord Janner was also a barrister and a writer.
He was a Labour MP for 27 years, from 1970 to 1997.
Lord Janner was president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews from 1978 to 1984 and was a prominent campaigner in the efforts to gain reparations for victims of the Holocaust.
No mention of him raping children.
Janner was first outed as a paedophile in 1991, but no charges were brought. In April 2015, another national newspaper reported that a retired police officer called Kelvyn Ashby had been forbidden from charging Janner, apparently on the grounds that he was an MP.
Janner went on to avoid being charged in 2002, 2006, and 2013 - each time in spite of substantial victim testimony. The Daily Mail reports that:
Update: this newspaper report about the trial of Jeremy Thorpe in 1979 is relevant.
Besides being a politician, Lord Janner was also a barrister and a writer.
He was a Labour MP for 27 years, from 1970 to 1997.
Lord Janner was president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews from 1978 to 1984 and was a prominent campaigner in the efforts to gain reparations for victims of the Holocaust.
No mention of him raping children.
Janner was first outed as a paedophile in 1991, but no charges were brought. In April 2015, another national newspaper reported that a retired police officer called Kelvyn Ashby had been forbidden from charging Janner, apparently on the grounds that he was an MP.
Janner went on to avoid being charged in 2002, 2006, and 2013 - each time in spite of substantial victim testimony. The Daily Mail reports that:
Ten
days ago Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders announced
there was enough evidence to charge Janner with 22 offences against nine
alleged victims – but he could not be prosecuted because he has severe
dementia.
The
CPS claimed Janner was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2009. But analysis
of his activities since then shows he went on at least 20 foreign
trips, including to Israel and America as part of his work fighting
anti-semitism and bringing Nazis to justice. He was still chairman of an
all-party Parliamentary group two years ago.
This man was eager that one group of people - supporters of the National Socialist regime - should not escape justice (or injustice perhaps), but was also eager that he should avoid justice for his own crimes.
It is also notable that the establishment seemed eager to protect Janner all the way along the line. Consider this timeline.
- 1979: Margaret Thatcher leads the Conservative Party to victory in a general election. Her close friend and fellow Tory MP Peter Morrison is an active paedophile. Allegations that Liberal MP Cyril Smith is also a paedophile result in his being questioned by police just once. Muslim grooming gangs may already be operating in the United Kingdom.
- 1989: Mrs Thatcher's government brings in legislation for the prosecution of National Socialist veterans living in Britain.
- 1991: Labour MP Greville Janner, a Jew, is first outed as a paedophile, but is protected from prosecution. Britain still has a Conservative government, now led by John Major.
- 1997: A Labour government led by Tony Blair allows Janner to enter the House of Lords.
- 2000: Tony Blair confirms an annual Holocaust Memorial Day.
- 2001: The British National Party becomes aware of Muslim grooming gangs operating in the north west of England, and begins campaigning for prosecutions. Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
- 2002: Janner is again protected from prosecution for his crime. Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
- 2004: BNP leader Nick Griffin is secretly filmed by the BBC talking about Muslim grooming gangs.
- 2005: Griffin is charged with inciting racial hatred, presumably to punish him for daring to talk about Muslim grooming gangs. Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
- 2006: Griffin stands trial, and is cleared. A retrial is promptly announced. Janner is again protected from prosecution for his crimes. Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
- 2009: The BNP wins two seats in the European Parliament, and the press begin reporting the prosecution of a small number of Muslim paedophiles. Janner apparently begins suffering from Alzheimers, but continues working. Labour is still in government, and Gordon Brown is now the Prime Minister.
- 2013: Janner is again protected from prosecution for his crimes. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are now in government, and David Cameron is now the Prime Minister
- 2015: David Cameron is able to form a majority Conservative government. Janner is protected from prosecution once again, this time on the grounds of a medical condition which does not prevent him working.
Update: this newspaper report about the trial of Jeremy Thorpe in 1979 is relevant.
Related previous posts include:
Tuesday, 22 December 2015
The living wage and household debt
Two recent news items require attention. The first is that a lot of businesses in the United Kingdom expect to increase their prices in the new year. This is in response to the so-called national living wage which will come into force in April next year at a rate of £7.20.
The other news item is that household debt in the United Kingdom is rising at an alarming rate. The Daily Mail reports that:
... families are set to spend £40 billion more than they earn this year.
In the depths of the crisis in 2009/10, families spent £67 billion less than they earned as they moved to cut their debts.
The other news item is that household debt in the United Kingdom is rising at an alarming rate. The Daily Mail reports that:
... families are set to spend £40 billion more than they earn this year.
In the depths of the crisis in 2009/10, families spent £67 billion less than they earned as they moved to cut their debts.
Saturday, 12 December 2015
Another victory for Nick Freeman
Nick Freeman is a successful lawyer who is often referred to in the press as Mr Loophole. Over the years he has represented numerous famous clients in courts of law, often for motoring offences.
In many cases his line of defence is pretty much what any defending solicitor might use, for example arguing that singer Ian Brown should avoid a driving ban because he needed his car to go shopping for his elderly parents. In many of the cases, however, his line of defence demonstrates a detailed knowledge of relevant law. One example of this is the acquittal of Andrew Flintoff for speeding, on the grounds that the prosecution notice was sent two days later than the law permits.
It is not surprising that Freeman annoys a lot of people. Like many people, I am not impressed by someone committing an offence and then escaping justice on a technicality. Nevertheless, I wonder why people who work in the public sector cannot just do their job properly in the first place. Should we blame Nick Freeman for Andrew Flintoff avoiding justice? Or should we blame the prosecution for not submitting the relevant paperwork in time?
It is now reported that Mr Freeman has represented a woman pro bono in respect of a prosecution for letting her dog off the leash in a cemetary. The Daily Express reports that:
Mrs Tweedale was issued with the £50-pound fine despite pointing out there was no sign at the entrance of the cemetery warning of the rule about keeping dogs on leads.
Mr Freeman has also made a formal complaint to police against the council for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
He said he expects the failed attempt to fine Mrs Tweedale to cost the council more than £10,000.
It looks as though someone who works for Bedford Borough Council really ought to resign - not that I expect anyone to.
Related previous posts include:
Dog owners need to get real
A small victory in Barnet
A small victory in Hertfordshire
In many cases his line of defence is pretty much what any defending solicitor might use, for example arguing that singer Ian Brown should avoid a driving ban because he needed his car to go shopping for his elderly parents. In many of the cases, however, his line of defence demonstrates a detailed knowledge of relevant law. One example of this is the acquittal of Andrew Flintoff for speeding, on the grounds that the prosecution notice was sent two days later than the law permits.
It is not surprising that Freeman annoys a lot of people. Like many people, I am not impressed by someone committing an offence and then escaping justice on a technicality. Nevertheless, I wonder why people who work in the public sector cannot just do their job properly in the first place. Should we blame Nick Freeman for Andrew Flintoff avoiding justice? Or should we blame the prosecution for not submitting the relevant paperwork in time?
It is now reported that Mr Freeman has represented a woman pro bono in respect of a prosecution for letting her dog off the leash in a cemetary. The Daily Express reports that:
Mrs Tweedale was issued with the £50-pound fine despite pointing out there was no sign at the entrance of the cemetery warning of the rule about keeping dogs on leads.
Mr Freeman has also made a formal complaint to police against the council for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
He said he expects the failed attempt to fine Mrs Tweedale to cost the council more than £10,000.
It looks as though someone who works for Bedford Borough Council really ought to resign - not that I expect anyone to.
Related previous posts include:
Dog owners need to get real
A small victory in Barnet
A small victory in Hertfordshire
Sunday, 29 November 2015
France, Russia, Turkey
My most recent post on this blog was written just as the terror attacks in Paris were being reported in the national press. I decided not to write about these attacks at the time, however, as I had already decided to write about student finance, and because I felt it proper to learn more about the terror attacks before writing about them.
One of the first questions which occurred to me was whether or not the attacks were a false flag. The attacks may have been - as is widely reported - the work of Islamic terrorists linked to ISIS. They may also have been - as the columnist Peter Hitchens has suggested - the work of Islamic terrorists unconnected with ISIS. The atrocities might have been the work of the French government, just as the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers was almost certainly the work of the United States government. Another possibility is that the attacks were an elaborate hoax with nobody actually dead, as happened with the Sandy Hook school shooting.
I watched some videos on Youtube which argued for the Paris attacks as being a hoax, but found them lacking substance, and so I will proceed in the belief that the attacks were indeed the work of Muslims, although I will concede that Peter Hitchens might well be correct about there being no link to ISIS.
The President of France has used the terror attacks to justify air strikes against ISIS positions in Syria, which reminds me of the Renaissance writer Niccolo Machiavelli who argued that a prince who is unpopular at home should start a war.
Russia has already been attacking ISIS positions for some time, and recently suffered the loss of an aircraft shot down by the Turkish army for allegedly violating its airspace. It is widely reported that the Russian aircraft would have been in Turkish airspace for maybe ten seconds at most, whereas the Turkish government has claimed that the Russian jet was in its airspace for around five minutes during which time several warning were issued.
Some commentators have even gone so far as to argue that this incident could trigger World War Three, but I will believe that when I see it.
The facts as I understand it are that ISIS is funded in large part by oil revenues. Oil companies are expected not to buy from ISIS however, and so ISIS sends much of its oil in tankers into Turkey, where it can be sold on the international market as if it had been sourced in Turkey. In other words, it appears that the Turkish authorities are helping to fund ISIS.
Predictably, Turkey objects to the destruction of ISIS oil tankers in Russian air strikes, and so it has been argued that they decided to hit back by taking out a Russian military aircraft. Obviously, however, the loss of just one aeroplane makes little difference to the Russian bombing campaign, which leads me to conclude that either the Turkish government is planning to shoot down yet more Russian aircraft, or else that the Turkish government is in fact telling the truth about the five minute violation of airspace.
Related previous posts include:
The insanity of a war without frontiers
A war against ISIS would be savage and pointless
One of the first questions which occurred to me was whether or not the attacks were a false flag. The attacks may have been - as is widely reported - the work of Islamic terrorists linked to ISIS. They may also have been - as the columnist Peter Hitchens has suggested - the work of Islamic terrorists unconnected with ISIS. The atrocities might have been the work of the French government, just as the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers was almost certainly the work of the United States government. Another possibility is that the attacks were an elaborate hoax with nobody actually dead, as happened with the Sandy Hook school shooting.
I watched some videos on Youtube which argued for the Paris attacks as being a hoax, but found them lacking substance, and so I will proceed in the belief that the attacks were indeed the work of Muslims, although I will concede that Peter Hitchens might well be correct about there being no link to ISIS.
The President of France has used the terror attacks to justify air strikes against ISIS positions in Syria, which reminds me of the Renaissance writer Niccolo Machiavelli who argued that a prince who is unpopular at home should start a war.
Russia has already been attacking ISIS positions for some time, and recently suffered the loss of an aircraft shot down by the Turkish army for allegedly violating its airspace. It is widely reported that the Russian aircraft would have been in Turkish airspace for maybe ten seconds at most, whereas the Turkish government has claimed that the Russian jet was in its airspace for around five minutes during which time several warning were issued.
Some commentators have even gone so far as to argue that this incident could trigger World War Three, but I will believe that when I see it.
The facts as I understand it are that ISIS is funded in large part by oil revenues. Oil companies are expected not to buy from ISIS however, and so ISIS sends much of its oil in tankers into Turkey, where it can be sold on the international market as if it had been sourced in Turkey. In other words, it appears that the Turkish authorities are helping to fund ISIS.
Predictably, Turkey objects to the destruction of ISIS oil tankers in Russian air strikes, and so it has been argued that they decided to hit back by taking out a Russian military aircraft. Obviously, however, the loss of just one aeroplane makes little difference to the Russian bombing campaign, which leads me to conclude that either the Turkish government is planning to shoot down yet more Russian aircraft, or else that the Turkish government is in fact telling the truth about the five minute violation of airspace.
Related previous posts include:
The insanity of a war without frontiers
A war against ISIS would be savage and pointless
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)