Randomly Selected Article or Link

This interested me today:

Telegraph - Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes

By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor

Islamic sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in parts of Britain, a report claims.

Sharia, derived from several sources including the Koran, is applied to varying degrees in predominantly Muslim countries but it has no binding status in Britain.

However, the BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali "court" sitting in Woolwich, south-east London.

I expect we're supposed to be appalled. Yet I'm not. I don't see a problem with this idea. In fact it's a good deal more responsible a solution than meting out punishment beatings or kickings to the local scrotes on the say so of the local hard-man.

In fact, I quite like the idea that communities deal with many matters of justice on their own. As the report says, people submit to these courts because their families make them. Those families are shamed amongst their friends and the rest of their communities by their relatives' actions. The only stipulation I'd make is that no punishment should be imposed that would itself be a criminal offense under British law or that the "arrests" do not actually amount to kidnappings - if miscreants do not submit voluntarily to such local community justice.

It has always struck me, especially since the experience of accompanying a friend to a magistrates' court on a driving charge last year, that our good old British magistrate system is failing miserably in many places. They appear merely to be applying a regular slap on the wrist to a group of people, chief amongst them the hapless and hopeless, on behalf of an overburdened legal system. There's no sense, to me at least, that the magistrate system is reflecting the wishes and concerns of the communities they serve in any way that would assist in rehabilitation of relatively minor offenders or reconciliation with the communities they offend against.

But in terms of these Sharia courts, I don't see why we should get any more worked up about it than by, say, a Catholic Charismatic Renewal church that holds confessions in public, or the idea of church congregations "shunning" miscreants in some Christian sects. All our communities should be encouraged to find their own answers within the overall framework of the law to the sort of crimes against the community these courts are dealing with. Far better, say, than a broad brush "Anti-Social Behaviour Order" I'd say.

We should be grateful to Lord Justice Sedley for one thing - re-igniting the debate about the national DNA database. His prescription, however, is completely wrong, and unjustifiable. He is right when he says that:

...the current database, which holds DNA from crime suspects and scenes, was "indefensible" because it was unfair and inconsistent.

but we should be very wary of his suggested fix for that, that...

...whole population and every UK visitor should be added to the national DNA database.

He is of course correct that the current situation is indefensible, Black men are more than twice as likely to be on the database than white, just because of the disproportionate way in which the police target black men for stop and search operations. But his prescription that:

"Going forwards has very serious but manageable implications. It means that everybody guilty or innocent should expect their DNA to be on file for the absolutely rigorously restricted purpose of crime detection and prevention."

So, we are to be scared from committing any crimes because we know they already have our DNA and when they find that at the scene it'll be an easy next step to "pull" anyone whose DNA is found for questioning. With no other probable cause than that their DNA was at the scene - Paul Walter's Liberal Burblings puts this much better than I have, describing it as "presumed guilt", overturning what must probably be, after Habeas Corpus perhaps, the key principle of English law.

One could imagine a situation where, for example, a victim of crime in the hours before being raped or murdered or whatever was in a place with lots of other people - perhaps a bar or a club. He or she brushed up against countless innocent bystanders, some of whom left a hair on the victim's clothes or sneezed over them or somehow transferred DNA to them or to another item of evidence. The police could just pull all of those people for questioning. Or perhaps that the crime scene was quite a publicly frequented place, and countless innocent samples are collected and the owners of that DNA pulled for questioning.

And as if that weren't enough, what sort of access would the defense have to be given to make this fair? Someday one could imagine the argument succeeding that with evidence disclosure rules, the defense could subpoena anyone whose DNA sample was found to try to create reasonable doubt for their client.

And in future, when the purpose of individual genes are steadily discovered, a witness statement might describe someone that may or may not be involved at the scene and based on that physical description the police could pull all blond men with blue eyes and the obesity gene in the local area to question?

The judge talks also about how many "cold cases" have been solved using DNA evidence. Yes, that may be one of the advances that has been made possible with DNA technology. But I wonder how many of them have actually been solved simply by matching up with the database. I rather suspect very few. That most have probably been a case of arresting the person first suspected many years ago and then checking them up against the DNA. Ie that DNA is used merely to corroborate existing evidence that somehow proved insufficient at the time to convict. That's a very different proposition from having a pro-active database from which to go and pull every person that brushed past the victim twenty years ago and happened to leave DNA that was subsequently collected.

No, storing our DNA is storing a little part of each and every one of us. As I said last week, our DNA should be subject to habeas corpus. It's like putting us all on bail for further questioning, sometime, about any other matter they feel we might be able to help with. The implications even now, let alone in some future time when we may have a seriously authoritarian regime in power or where the technology is available to extrapolate from descriptions what the suspect's DNA might look like, are horrendous.

In an accompanying article, the BBC puts the other side of the case. We already hold proportionally more DNA samples than any other country. Since it was first allowed in 1995 it has been steadily extended. The evidence of "mission creep" is clear already. We cannot trust any government with this sort off information. One only has to have seen the film Gattaca to know why. We must go back to the 1995 regulations, and strengthen them indeed so that people have rights to know and control whether their DNA is held if they are not currently in the criminal justice system for a good reason.

I had an early meeting yesterday of a governors' committee where someone mentioned this Guardian article from Monday about how Oxford and Cambridge Universities have proven lukewarm or downright icy towards the idea that they should sponsor New Labour academies.

Oxbridge snub to government on academies

Polly Curtis and Patrick Wintour
Monday December 3, 2007
The Guardian

Oxford and Cambridge universities have turned down ministerial attempts to persuade them to adopt a city academy, the Guardian has learned. Their decisions deliver a fresh blow to the government, which is trying to raise the academic profile of the schools by wooing top universities to sponsor one. Confidential documents, seen by the Guardian, reveal that Cambridge has vetoed the idea to avoid any negative fallout should the school fail or receive bad press. Sponsoring a school could also present a "conflict of interest" over admissions for pupils at the school, it says.

Which is interesting, and something itself of a turn-around on several hundred years' history. Some of the existing "Oxbridge Academies" may only take pupils to 13 years old - St John's or King's in Cambridge, New College or Christ Church in Oxford. Another, Magdalen in Oxford, is a leading feeder school to the universities' colleges. Others not necessarily located in the same place have direct, often founding, links with colleges - such as Winchester and New College or Eton and King's College. Then there are innumerable local schools the colleges of the two universities have effectively founded through their ecclesiastical benefices.

The formal recruiting links may have been broken with the demise of closed scholarships at Oxford and Cambridge but there can be no doubting that "conflicts of interest" were built into the Oxbridge system from the start. Now, that's not to say that it would be a good move to set up a new possible conflict of interest. As noted in that article the decision of my own university, Oxford Brookes University, to participate in the new Oxford academy that will replace The Peers School next year, was not without controversy. And some of my own qualms were similar to those of the head of the PGCE course at Oxford - that our school of education has links with many local schools, that our widening participation and outreach programs work with all local schools, and how would all this be affected if we had a founding stake in just one local school.

Another issue I'd have with the country's two leading universities starting academies is precisely that academies cannot select on ability. It seems to me that this is one case where selection could be justified, and probably boarding too - two national schools run by the two leading universities, able to pull in the brightest and the best who would benefit most from being taken up a level in their studies to equip them for the academic rigours of the world's best universities. And why not? Public money funds things like national sporting academies which are selective on a different sort of ability.

Neither of us are large cities where our universities' local connections could provide a base for such an academy - unlike perhaps Imperial or UCL who have the huge and still growing "market" of London schools to mix in. Though I suppose there is an argument that more people in our respective counties should be helped to get into Oxbridge because we should benefit more from the presence of those universities in our midst. Could you ever find a fair way of sticking a pin in the map somewhere and saying that only kids in this catchment area/city/county have the chance of an Oxbridge partnered school?

But how about another idea altogether - that they set up a virtual academy. Just as Oxford and Cambridge are, along with Imperial, in a different league of universities worldwide, so their prospective students need to be brought into that different league as early as possible. I know that in my case, my hopes of an Oxbridge education were probably dashed by the time I was about thirteen or fourteen, when my interest at school "peaked", for a variety of reasons, but mostly because I was not driven or permitted to go as fast as I could go academically and as a result became the disinterested teenager in many lessons - coasting on previously acquired knowledge and skills.

One of the great advantages of private school was that I had lots of teachers who were academics and not just educationalists. This made it easier to place me with a mentor for S level subjects for example which were much less related to the curriculum of the day and more to "added-value" academic skills and disciplines like historiography instead of just history, the study of literary criticism instead of just literature and so on. I just don't think that state sector teachers have the time, after all the paperwork and so on, to indulge their academic fancies in the same way somehow - it's not to do with their skills and abilities but the sausage machine system of state schools. So an Oxford University "Virtual Academy" could work like the Open University for bright kids, to add value to the knowledge and skills they gain from their existing state school. To run summer camps and crammer camps for the brightest and the best to keep them that little bit more stimulated and their learning skills on top form.

Every state school has to have a program now for dealing with "gifted children" in their Special Educational Needs strategy. Many I know from school governors discussions struggled to define "gifted" fairly to all sorts of gifts. But here would be one way of targeting a particular sort of academic giftedness - you could tie up an academically bright child whose talents were not being fully realized because of being thrown in with the mix of average pupils with a real life academic, or even an undergraduate student who could mentor them through extra tuition. They could create online courses, like the Open University, that schools around the country could be encouraged to send their brightest pupils on to add to their in house education.

And in return, those schools that use the services of the Oxbridge Virtual Academy would have the benefit of retaining their brightest and best locally, keeping them as an example to younger kids and perhaps even filtering down their enthusiasm and additional skills to others in their "home" school. It seems like a win-win idea to me. No doubt both universities would say that their existing widening participation activities already do much of this. But I think actually harnessing it as an identifiable "virtual institution", part of the Oxford or Cambridge "brand", would take it that one step further, make it, and them, more visible and perhaps even widen the opportunities beyond the schools they already choose to co-operate with in their W-P programs.

...or at least his party does, much more eloquently than any of the debates on the subject in either house of parliament:

In ConservativeHome's current poll of support amongst Tory members for their leader's choice of Shadow Cabinet Davis tops shadow cabinet league table again with Warsi at bottom.

Listed below are the rankings given by 1,274 Tory members for twenty-seven shadow cabinet ministers

1. David Davis: +79% | 88% satisfied, 9% dissatisfied
...
27. Sayeeda Warsi: -20% | 19% satisfied, 39% dissatisfied

Now, I am perfectly willing to concede the distinct possibility that she could have got +19% just for being anti-gay and -39% just for being of a race and gender that grassroots Tories do not consider as belonging to the governing classes, but it strikes me that this might come to be a case of "act in haste, repent at leisure". For in his haste to add a bit of colour to his shadow cabinet, Cameron neatly side-stepped the democratic process, as others have done certainly in the past just as egregiously, and made this woman a permanent member-for-life of the UK's legislature.

Actually, anyone who has seen her on television can see why Tory members would disapprove. She comes across as loud and boorish. If I were a Conservative member I'd probably cringe that she was representing my party on Question Time too. But that's not the point of this really. It's merely the fact that she is now there for life, or at least for as long as she deigns to grace the second chamber with her presence.

Indeed, it seems worse that this is someone who had attempted to get elected and had failed - she doesn't merely not have a mandate in common with all her fellow members of the second chamber, she went for one and the people, the core of our democracy in theory, didn't give her one. I've opined before that, as a rule, we should be even more wary of giving defeated ex-MPs a permanent consolation prize in the form of a peerage - let alone defeated candidates who have no prior experience of government. Those who step down voluntarily are somehow slightly less of a democratic outrage, but only just - as we shall see again when the former Deputy Prime Minister takes the ermine.

Still, it's done now. She has presumably had her letters patent and is now immovable, short of making anti-gay statements a thought crime which might land her in chokey and potentially disqualify her from sitting - though that would disqualify half the Tory benches in the Lords before her. Whether the grassroots Conservatives like it or not, she is likely to remain representing them for as long as she likes. Appointed peers are simply not the answer to the democratic deficit at the core of our legislature, and the sooner the Marquis of Minster Lovell finally gets round to finishing the job his government promised to do ten years ago the better.

The education bill debates present a very good opportunity to show how landowners are the ones to gain from public infrastructure investment for doing nothing and that taxing land values would be a good way of recouping public infrastructure investment more fairly through a market driven tax system...

Picture the scene. You've just moved into your quiet surburban semi ready for your retirement. And the uncaring council comes along and decides it's going to build a new school right across the road. You get out your placards and march on the Town Hall to fight the planning application. You find any reason you can why this "predominantly elderly population area" does not need such a development, that it will "blight your lives" and "adversely affect property value in the vicinity" and so on. You might even fight on beyond the "obviously biased" local councillors, to the High Court.

You are defeated. You settle down to a retirement of valium and earplugs, you might even want to electrify the front drive just in case any kids get too close. You can only just bear the construction traffic. And the following year, this brand spanking new school takes its first pupils, with everyone predicting great things from it. And someone pops up on your doorstep one day having dodged the teen-proofing on the driveway and offers you and extra £42,000 for your home.

You are a bit taken aback. After all, you had been confidently informed by your friendly local amateur surveyor that the new school would depress property values. Surely you just adding triple glazing to keep the intolerable noise of happy children out wasn't worth £42,000? Nothing you've done has added that sort of value. So you ask..."why pay £42,000 more than for that house down the road there?"

"Because you're in the catchment area of this brand spanking new school everyone's got high hopes for and I want my child to have the best education i can afford. So I'm prepared to pay you, who hold a monopoly on the only property for sale in the catchment area, whatever price you name within reason."

You accept, realising, somewhat smugly, that your only contribution to this little windfall was the prominence your anti-school campaign brought to the new school.

Tax Payer -> Government investment -> Landowner

And it happens with most things. That new railway line making your life hell? Just pity poor Don Riley, property developer around the Jubilee Line extension stations, who saw his portfolio value rise by over £3bn when the line opened (and now an advocate himself, by the way, for LVT).

You just need to read any estate agent's property particulars to see the sort of factors that affect land value, none of which the current owner has any great part in - "walking distance from local shopping", "20 minutes Northern Line to City", "easy access to motorway", "good local educational and medical services" and so on.