Updated: Essex firefighters walk out in dispute over cuts
8:10am Thursday 28th June 2012 in Local News
ESSEX firefighters are holding the first of five planned strikes in a dispute over cuts.
The Fire Brigades Union said its members plan to take industrial action today and on July 7 and 18, August 18 and October 18.
Today's strike started at 10am and is due to end at 6pm.
The union said the county will have lost one in five frontline firefighters since 2008 if a current round of planned cuts goes ahead.
Alan Chinn-Shaw, chairman of the FBU's Essex branch, said: "This is about cuts to frontline firefighters and changes imposed on firefighters. We've had enough and the cuts are now directly impacting on public and firefighter safety.
"The recent highly provocative removal of key fire engines and vital rescue equipment contradicts the fire authority claim that it is being reasonable. This two-faced approach has gone on for three years and enough is enough."
Essex firefighters voted by 2-1 in favour of strikes following almost three years of action short of a strike over cuts.
In a statement, Essex County Fire and Rescue Service said contingency plans had been put in place.
Chief Fire Officer David Johnson said more than 100 firefighters had signed "resilience contracts" guaranteeing their availability during periods of staff shortage and members of the retained fire service have indicated they will continue to provide cover.
Mr Johnson had hoped the strikes could be avoided but added these hopes were based on an "assumption of reasonableness".
He said: "We have offered the FBU a number of assurances and have agreed to a number of their demands."
He added that contingency plans meant about 30 out of 70 appliances would continue to operate.
"I don't believe the public will notice any difference in our level of service," he said.
Comments(19)
Rayleigh Reader says...
8:22am Thu 28 Jun 12
Say It As It Is OK? says...
8:27am Thu 28 Jun 12
HadleighBoy says...
8:37am Thu 28 Jun 12
Lefty Cyclist Type says...
8:37am Thu 28 Jun 12
fletch12107 says...
10:10am Thu 28 Jun 12
Rayleigh Reader says...
10:25am Thu 28 Jun 12
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:I did read the article and understand it!Rayleigh Reader wrote:Did you read the article at all?
Anyone Know if the BEDS have been cut?
Spoilt meal allowance?
Dental Care.....?
Strike days will give them more time to engage in their main jobs, building, gardening, roofing.
Sack the lot of them and re-employ those who still know a good thing when they see one!
The strike is about cuts to manpower and equipment. Those cuts will put public lives, and firefighter lives, at risk.
Will you be happy with a fire service that cannot respond if you need it?
Essex has the best equipment and highly trained personnel.
Unfortunately times change, the risk's are no longer as great as they used to be.
Fire prevention has had a great impact on this.
When Canvey was changed to a fully retained station it was deemed to be the end of the world!
But stats show the risk factors, and yes there is a Gas and Oil terminal, but do you believe that having 2 full time crews would save the Island?
The Fire Service would not put public lives at risk or firefighters lives, (Health and Safety etc) the service needs to move forward like any other business, we are in 2012 not the 70's a lot has changed.
Bramble1979 says...
10:25am Thu 28 Jun 12
I'm sorry but I don't think these crews striking know how lucky they really are.
Everyone has had to adapt and change to the spending cuts that have effected us all over the past few years, why should they be no different.
The fire service are not talking about compulsory redundancy, just some changes to working practices. Others have had to change with the times, the police, NHS staff and other public services, they have all been effected and have had to accept changes to working practices, pay and conditions.
These Fire Crews are people who get paid a good wage, Most have second jobs,which they are able to fulfil due to the rest time they get at work!
Are they worried these changes will effect their second incomes!
It seems to me they will harp on about potential lack of resources and and changes to working practices and pull on the heart strings of the public by playing the "if the worst were to happen to you" card.
How many times have you driven past a fire station to see no vehicles in there?
Perhaps it is the case that the fire service needs to modernise, change its ways, become more efficient and cost effective.
What they should be doing is getting on with the job they are paid to do and stop moaning about it. If they don't like it go and do something else, I'm sure there are plenty who would gladly step into their shoes.
This is wearing pretty thin now. These guys are really risking a backlash in public support!!
HadleighBoy says...
10:33am Thu 28 Jun 12
Bramble1979 wrote:Knowing a few firefighters they do want to just get on with their jobs. They are also aware that changes have to be made. However they have a process to which the Chief Fire Officer for Essex agreed to and it is not followed.
I knew it wouldn't be long until the fire crews jumped on the strike bandwagon. Never wanting to be left out! I'm sorry but I don't think these crews striking know how lucky they really are. Everyone has had to adapt and change to the spending cuts that have effected us all over the past few years, why should they be no different. The fire service are not talking about compulsory redundancy, just some changes to working practices. Others have had to change with the times, the police, NHS staff and other public services, they have all been effected and have had to accept changes to working practices, pay and conditions. These Fire Crews are people who get paid a good wage, Most have second jobs,which they are able to fulfil due to the rest time they get at work! Are they worried these changes will effect their second incomes! It seems to me they will harp on about potential lack of resources and and changes to working practices and pull on the heart strings of the public by playing the "if the worst were to happen to you" card. How many times have you driven past a fire station to see no vehicles in there? Perhaps it is the case that the fire service needs to modernise, change its ways, become more efficient and cost effective. What they should be doing is getting on with the job they are paid to do and stop moaning about it. If they don't like it go and do something else, I'm sure there are plenty who would gladly step into their shoes. This is wearing pretty thin now. These guys are really risking a backlash in public support!!
They have no say on how to sort the problems out this is done by faceless back office staff soon to be housed in their new shiny office who couldn't put the cat out let alone put a fire out, the guys on the front line who know what they are talking about are ignred.
The relationship between the Chief Fire Officer and his employees is at rock bottom they have nowhere to turn as they are sacked if they speak out and criticise the service (only in Essex mind) and are ignored.
Some of these strikes are for just an hour but they will receive no pay for the whole shift.
Questions need to be asked by Essex County Council as to why this situation has arisen and what the management are going to do to resolve the issues raised, but obviously this will not happen.
ethel the frog says...
10:47am Thu 28 Jun 12
Lefty Cyclist Type says...
11:09am Thu 28 Jun 12
APR says...
11:39am Thu 28 Jun 12
Reginald47 says...
12:24pm Thu 28 Jun 12
HadleighBoy says...
12:28pm Thu 28 Jun 12
Lefty Cyclist Type says...
12:43pm Thu 28 Jun 12
CALL ME CLINT says...
1:41pm Thu 28 Jun 12
GentleGiant says...
8:08pm Thu 28 Jun 12
Lefty Cyclist Type says...
9:49pm Thu 28 Jun 12
ethel the frog says...
10:41pm Thu 28 Jun 12
Lefty Cyclist Type says...
10:47pm Thu 28 Jun 12
Source: www.echo-news.co.uk
Essex fire strikes: The dispute comes to a head - ITV
It is a dispute that has been ongoing for three years and centres around changes to the fire service in Essex.
The Fire Brigades' Union is concerned about cuts to frontline services, claiming the county will have lost one in five frontline staff since 2008, if the changes go ahead.
The FBU announced last week its members would stage five strikes over changes to their working practices.
The last talks to try to resolve the dispute took place with ACAS on Monday. The FBU says it has struggled to get the right people at the table for talks. It says it needs representatives from both the fire service and the fire authority in the same room at the same time.
– Alan Chinn-Shaw, Essex FBU Chair"This is about cuts to frontline firefighters and changes imposed on firefighters. We've had enough and the cuts are now directly impacting on public and firefighter safety."
Essex Fire and Rescue service says the FBU has got to wake up to the need for change and that it has already met a number of union demands.
– Chief Fire Officer David Johnson, Essex Fire and Rescue Service"There are only a few points still in dispute - points the Service cannot move on, including no changes to anything without prior union agreement. Another sticking point is moving 'corporate' level from the Chief Fire Officer to the Fire Authority in relation to discipline."
The FBU is also calling for a reversal of the decision to change Brentwood Fire Station crewing arrangements from two wholetime appliances to one wholetime and one retained.
– Councillor Anthony Hedley, Essex Fire Authority Chairman,"The Fire Authority have invested heavily in front line services and will continue to do so. We have assured the public and our staff that there will be no fire station closures, no enforced firefighter redundancies and continued investment to modernise the Service."
As it is such a long-running dispute, plans are in place to cover any firefighters taking part in industrial action. More than 100 Essex firefighters have signed up to resilience contracts guaranteeing their availability during times of severe staff shortages. The fire service says there are also dozens of retained crews.
Engines fitted with CCTV for Essex fire strike
Firefighters ready to strike
Source: www.itv.com
Timeline: Chronology of Obama healthcare law legal battle - Reuters UK
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare overhaul, handing him a huge election-year victory by preserving his signature domestic policy achievement.
Here is a chronology of the key events in the legal battle over the law that sought to provide health insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans.
* March 23, 2010: Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which Congress approved after a long, bruising political fight. The law, which amounted to some 2,700 pages, imposed new obligations on individuals, insurers, employers and states in restructuring the nation's $2.6 trillion healthcare system. The law, which sought to obtain near-universal coverage and slow down soaring healthcare costs, became Obama's signature domestic policy accomplishment. It was fiercely opposed by most Republicans. At the White House signing ceremony, Obama said the law embodied "the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care."
* March 23, 2010: Immediately after Obama signed the law, a group of 13 states led by Florida sued to challenge the law's constitutionality, one of a number of lawsuits brought by various parties around the country. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Florida, was later joined by 13 more states, for a total of 26 of the 50 U.S. states, and by the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents small businesses across the country. The states argued the requirement that people obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty - a provision known as the individual mandate - exceeded the powers of Congress under the U.S. Constitution to regulate interstate commerce. The states argued the mandate could not be severed or separated from the rest of the law and they also objected to other provisions, saying Congress improperly coerced the states to expand the Medicaid healthcare program for the poor. The state of Virginia filed its own lawsuit on behalf of its citizens.
* January 31, 2011: U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Florida ruled for the states and struck down the law as unconstitutional. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void," he said in his opinion, dealing the Obama administration a major setback. "Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution," wrote Vinson, appointed to the bench by Republican President Ronald Reagan. The Obama administration vowed to appeal to a U.S. appeals court and said it believed the law ultimately would be upheld.
* August 12, 2011: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled by a 2-1 vote that it was unconstitutional to require Americans to buy insurance, siding with the 26 states that challenged the law. It rejected the administration's arguments that Congress could adopt the individual mandate under its powers under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce or to tax. "This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy and make them repurchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," the majority said in the opinion. The appeals court refused to strike down the rest of the law and it rejected the challenge by the states to the Medicaid provision.
* September 28, 2011: The Obama administration, the 26 states and the group representing small independent businesses filed separate appeals with the U.S. Supreme Court. Government attorneys urged the high court to uphold the mandate as constitutional. They argued that Congress had adopted the law to address a crisis in the nation's healthcare market, with millions of uninsured people shifting billions of dollars in costs to others. The states and the National Federation of Independent Business in their appeals argued that the mandate was unconstitutional and that the entire law must fall. The states also argued that Congress acted unconstitutionally by forcing them to expand their Medicaid programs or risk losing federal funding.
* November 14, 2011: The Supreme Court announced it would hear the appeals, setting up an expected ruling by the end of June 2012. That would be in the heat of the campaign for the U.S. presidency, which culminates on November 6, 2012. The court could leave in place the entire law, it could strike down the individual insurance mandate or other provisions, it could invalidate the entire law or it could put off a ruling on the mandate until after it takes effect in 2014. A ruling striking down the law would be a huge political and legal defeat for Obama before an election when he will be seeking a second four-year term. A ruling upholding the law would be vindication, but might make healthcare an even bigger political issue for the Republican presidential candidates, all of whom oppose it and want to repeal it.
* March 26-28, 2012: The Supreme Court heard six hours of oral arguments over three days on the fate of the healthcare law. The court appeared sharply divided along ideological lines, with the five Republican-appointed conservatives doubting the law would survive and the four Democratic-appointed liberals offering a strong defence for the statute.
* June 28, 2012: The Supreme Court upheld the law against the legal challenges to the individual mandate and the requirement that states dramatically expand Medicaid in order to extend coverage to many previously uninsured people. By a 5-4 vote, the justices decided that the individual mandate "may reasonably be characterized as a tax" and that "the Constitution permits such a tax." The court found that Congress exceeded its constitutional power by enacting the provision of the law that requires states to expand Medicaid. But the ruling said this problem is fully remedied by precluding the government from using that provision to withdraw existing Medicaid funds from states for failing to comply with terms of the expansion.
The Supreme Court cases were National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, No. 11-398; and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 11-400.
(Compiled by Jim Vicini; Editing by Will Dunham)
Source: uk.reuters.com
Essex firefighters strike over cuts - Socialist Worker
Issue: 2309 dated: 30 June 2012
News
online only
posted: 5.09pm Thu 28 Jun 2012 | updated: 5.15pm Thu 28 Jun 2012
comment on article | email
| print
Share:
Firefighters outside Brentwood station applaud as Blue Watch walks out the start of their strike (Pic: Socialist Worker)
by Anindya Bhattacharyya
Firefighters across Essex walked out on strike at 10am this morning in protest against cuts to frontline service across the county.
The eight hour action was the first of five strikes announced by the FBU union in their long-running dispute with Essex fire authority.
FBU general secretary Matt Wrack joined strikers outside Brentwood fire station this morning. The station is threatened with losing one of its full-time fire engines.
“Were fighting cuts to fire services all over the countryand for us, Essex is the front line,” he told Socialist Worker. The FBU is calling a demonstration against fire service cuts in Essex on 18 July, he added.
Essex fire authority is cutting frontline services despite a lack of budget cuts over all. Some 100 full-time and 60 part-time posts have been axed in the county since 2008.
Service
Nick Mayes is Essex FBUs assistant secretary and has worked as a firefighter at Brentwood for over 25 years. “The management think they can provide the same level of service with fewer firefighters,” he told Socialist Worker.
“Were saying thats an impossibility. You can have as many fire engines as you wantwithout firefighters to crew them theyre just sitting pretty.”
This situation isnt confined to Essex, said Matt Wrack. “There are a few fire authorities that are building their reserves and still making cuts. Essex is not the only one.”
The fire authority should be scrutinising the plans put forward by senior managers rather than simply rubberstamping them, Nick Mayes added.
Job cuts for frontline firefighters coincide with what one striker described as a “corporate expansion” by the fire authorityplush new headquarters, bloated IT budgets, flash cars for senior officers. “You get a similar thing in all public services,” Nick noted.
The management response to the strike has been heavy-handed. Firefighters have been banned from holding union meetings on fire service premises or setting foot on them while on strike. There have also been persistent threats of disciplinary action against strikers from management.
The next strike dates are set for 7 July, 18 July, 18 August and 18 October. The 18 July strike, which coincides with the Essex demo, is scheduled to last for 24 hours.
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
Source: www.socialistworker.co.uk
Sussex edge Essex in thriller - Sporting Life
South Group leaders Sussex maintained their unbeaten record in this season's Friends Life t20 with a dramatic four-wicket victory over nearest rivals Essex.
Luke Wright: Helped his side claim victory
Faced with a daunting run-chase after James Foster's 65 not out led the Eagles to 177 for four, Sussex got home in a thrilling finish with just one delivery to spare.
When Ryan ten Doeschate began the final over, they still required 10 for victory, but Will Beer rose to the occasion by scoring nine from the first four balls, after which Ben Brown found a boundary to seal the win.
The foundations for their success had been laid by openers Chris Nash and Luke Wright, who raised the 50 in the sixth over and took the total to 77 before the former, on 31, hit Reece Topley to James Franklin at long-on.
Wright, with the help of three sixes and four fours, went on to make 46 from just 26 deliveries before Greg Smith held on at the boundary following another big hit.
Matt Prior kept the momentum going with a 19-ball 35 that included two sixes among his five boundaries.
Sussex required just 36 from the final five overs and, despite losing a couple of cheap wickets, managed to hold their nerve to get home.
Essex were indebted to an outstanding captain's innings from Foster, who struck five fours and four sixes during his 31-ball stay.
The wicketkeeper-batsman's dominance was best underlined by the fact big-hitting Adam Wheater contributed only five to their 65-run stand.
Foster's fireworks
arrived after Graham Napier and ten Doeschate had threatened to tear the Sussex attack apart;
both hit three fours and two sixes before falling without delivering substantial innings.
Napier was first to go, caught by wicketkeeper Brown, who atoned for dropping a chance off the same batsman two overs earlier, for 32.
Ten Doeschate was caught low down on the midwicket boundary for 39 and the Eagles were left rueing his and Napier's failure to capitalise on fine starts.
Source: www.sportinglife.com
Court's health law ruling could limit Congress' powers - USA Today
That was the upshot of the Supreme Court's complex decision on Thursday, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, upholding the core of President Obama's landmark health care overhaul, while simultaneously embracing potentially significant new limits on the sweep of the federal government's authority to regulate commerce and spend money.
In a splintered decision, Roberts and the court's four more liberal justices held that the insurance mandate was nothing more than a tax on people who did not have health coverage, and that the Constitution gives Congress the ability to impose those types of taxes.
But Roberts also joined the court's conservatives and Justice Anthony Kennedy in finding that Congress' separate power to regulate commerce did not give lawmakers the authority to force people to buy insurance if they don't want to. And he joined six other justices in saying that Congress could not use its checkbook to coerce state officials into going along with policies they don't like, the first time in more than a generation that the court had put any real limits on the federal government's power to spend money.
Those findings mean nothing for the future of the health care law, because its status as a tax made it constitutional. But lawyers on both sides of the case said they could change the contours of the federal government's authority for years to come.
Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar said Roberts' approach was "brilliant." Because Roberts voted with the court's liberals to uphold the mandate, it's hard to cast him as a partisan. But "he did so even as he moved the case law to the right by narrowing the scope of Congress' Commerce Clause power and accepting the conservative principles."
The insurance mandate challenge was one of the broadest tests of the federal government's authority ever to reach the Supreme Court. It raised questions of how far Congress could go under its constitutional powers to regulate commerce, spend money and impose taxes — the provisions that underpin many, if not most, federal laws.
And while lawyers who challenged the law said they were disappointed that they had not persuaded Roberts — and, by extension, the court — to find that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, many said they were encouraged by its reasoning. As recently as two years ago, many constitutional scholars had dismissed the constitutional objections to the health law as baseless; on Thursday, most of those objections commanded a majority of the justices.
"All of us, of course, are disappointed with the ultimate outcome today, but we cannot lose sight of what we've accomplished," said Pam Bondi, the attorney general in Florida, one of the 26 states that had challenged the health law. "We learned that there are enforceable limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. We've always said that is very important."
Similarly, Paul Clement, the former Bush administration lawyer who argued most of the challenge before the justices, said Thursday that "it would be hard to think of a case where more of the arguments we made were accepted by the court" even though he lost. He said the court's 7-2 decision to limit the penalties states could face for opting out of a Medicaid expansion was "really quite significant."
Still, not all of the challengers shared that view.
"You can look for silver linings in the cloud, but it's still a cloud," said George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, who wrote a brief opposing the health law. He said that Thursday's decision offers Congress a road map to enact similar laws in the future by crafting them as taxes instead of mandates.
Source: www.usatoday.com
Pregnant woman, 20, and her unborn baby dies after being left in the street following brutal attack - Daily Mail
- Victim Eystna Blunnie, from Harlow in Essex, was discovered next to a busy road with severe head injuries
- Her unborn child also died after the vicious attack
- Distraught parents Kevin and Susan Blunnie pay tribute to their 'wonderful and loving daughter'
- Police arrested a 23-year-old man and are treating the college student's murder as 'domestic related'
By Tom Gardner
|
A heavily pregnant woman and her unborn baby have been brutally killed following a savage street attack.
Victim Eystna Blunnie, 20, from Harlow, Essex, was just days from giving birth, when she was discovered near to a busy main road in the town suffering from severe head injuries.
The college student was rushed to the town’s Princess Alexandra Hospital, but was later pronounced dead.
Brutal: The body of pregnant Eystna Blunnie, pictured, was found dying on the side of a road in Harlow
Essex Police arrested a 23-year-old man, yesterday afternoon, and were questioning him in connection with the murder and the death of the unborn child.
In a statement, her devastated parents Kevin and Susan Blunnie, said: ‘We hope that you will understand that we have suffered a tragic loss to our family.
Tragic: Estyna Blunnie, who has spoken of her excitement about becoming a mum, posted an ultrasound scan of her unborn child
‘Our daughter and granddaughter have been taken from us in such a tragic and horrific way.
'We can't begin to explain how we feel.
‘Eystna was a wonderful and loving daughter who was looking forward to the birth of her first child.
‘Sadly this will no longer be. We hope that everyone will understand the sadness in our hearts and let us mourn our sadness of the passing of our loved ones.
‘We would also like to thank everyone for their support to our family at this very sad time.’
Today friends told how the young mum-to-be was excited about the birth of her first child, due later this week, before she was discovered with fatal injuries near to Howard Way in Harlow, Essex.
Detectives initially said the death was being treated as unexplained but following the results of a post mortem, it is now being treated as murder.
The horrific nature of the attack at around 3am on Wednesday morning has shocked and upset residents in the area who have laid floral tributes at a bench near to where her body was found.
One of her best friends Chloe Hickman, 20, said: ‘It’s a terrible and wicked thing to happen to such a lovely, bubbly girl.
Suspicion: Police guard the house of a man who has been arrested in connection with Eystna's murder
‘Eystna was such a popular and positive person and was due to be induced at the weekend.
‘She was really looking forward to becoming a mum.’
The young mum-to-be had studied catering at nearby Harlow College and had been excited about life as a full-time mother.
One of Eystna’s close friends Charlotte Bird wrote on Facebook: ‘Hates that I’m gonna go bed tonight and not sleep a wink but all I will be thinking bout are my 2 Beautiful darling Angels tonight who are at peace and now out of trouble sleep tight princesses.’
When Eystna was five months pregnant she told friends online she was hoping to give birth to a boy, but the brave expectant mother was preparing for life as a single mother.
As she excitedly counted down the days she spoke of the father of her baby, who is believed to be the suspect, not wanting the child and having a new partner.
Describing herself on her profile page Eystna said: ‘I’m 20yrs old 21yrs old this year and going to be a mummy soon can’t wait.
‘So if you have any problems with me or my ex then im not interested as im an adult unlike some of you.’
Her current profile picture features a recent ultrasound scan.
She told friends she 'could not wait' to be a mother and added: 'Only 17 days and counting.'
Distraught: People lay flowers on the side of a main road Howard Way, Harlow near to where Estyna Blunnie and her unborn baby were brutally beaten to death
Grief: Two friends console each other beside tributes to college student Estyna Blunnie who was found fatally wounded in the street having been savagely beaten
Detectives from the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate are investigating the case and have appealed for more information.
An Essex Police spokesman said: ‘A murder investigation was launched following the conclusion of a post mortem examination on Wednesday.
‘Police were contacted just before 3am with reports of a woman found with injuries in Howard Way.
‘The woman, aged in her 20s, was taken by ambulance to Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow where she was sadly later pronounced dead.
‘Police are investigating the circumstances leading up to the woman’s death and ask anyone with information to contact officers from the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate at Harlow on 101.’
Tragic: Friends of Estyna Blunnie, who was found dying on the side of a road in Harlow, lay floral tributes to the pregnant college student and her unborn child
Shocking: Flowers have been laid in tribute to a heavily pregnant woman, named locally as Estyna Blunnie, and her baby, near the scene where she was found brutally murdered in Harlow, Essex
Source: www.dailymail.co.uk
We make up the law as we go along, admits Britain's new Euro-judge - Daily Telegraph Blogs
A court with a mission is a menace, a supreme court with a mission is a tyranny
Think of some of the more bizarre interpretations that have come out of the European Court of Human Rights. How does the ‘right to a family life’ allow illegal immigrants to defy deportation orders? How did ‘freedom of expression’ come to encompass pornography in prison cells? How does the prohibition of torture mean that a state can’t repatriate dangerous militants to places where they won’t be tortured, but someone else might have been?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of such rulings, they are plainly political rather than legal. You can make a case that, for example, felons should not lose the right to vote. But if that is your view, you should stand for election and seek to alter the legislation. The objection to the ECHR is not that all its judgments are idiotic – though some of them are – but that it is behaving as a legislative rather than a judicial body, ruling on the basis of what it thinks the law ought to say rather than what it says.
One of the reasons it does so is that it isn’t staffed by judges – not, at least, as we understand the term. Like its cousin, the European Court of Justice, it doesn’t require its members to have served on the bench in their home countries. Many of them are academics, politicians and human rights activists who happen to have law degrees. And some are quite blatant about using the institution to advance an agenda that would be rejected at the ballot box.
Consider Britain’s new representative, Paul Mahoney. James Slack describes him as ‘A Eurocrat who has never been a judge in Britain’: for 30 years, he has worked within the Strasbourg system.
Like his predecessor, Sir Nicolas Bratza – though in more measured words – he cheerfully admits that the ECHR makes things up as it goes along: ‘The open textured language and the structure of the Convention leave the Court significant opportunities for choice in interpretation. In exercising that choice, particularly when faced with changed circumstances and attitudes in society, the Court makes new law.’
Changed attitudes, eh? As defined by whom? Not, obviously, by the electorate as a whole, or the law would have been altered. But you, the ECHR, somehow have a direct connection with ‘attitudes in society’ that elected representatives have not? And you’re absolutely certain that these attitudes represent society as a whole, not just the opinions you get from Guardian leader-writers and Matrix Chambers activists?
The odd thing is that the autocracies which were defeated in 1945, and whose re-emergence the ECHR was supposed to prevent, likewise justified themselves by arguing that they had a better sense of the people’s welfare than a parliamentary system would produce. The whole purpose of representative government is to ensure that our rulers don’t get to decide, on their own, what’s good for us. It’s hard to improve on C.S. Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Source: blogs.telegraph.co.uk
Little Mix star’s brother spared jail after judge heard he dealt cocaine to pay off drug dealers threatening to kidnap the X Factor star - Daily Mail
By Damien Gayle
|
Spared jail: Jonathan Nelson, brother of Little Mix star Jesy Nelson, arriving at Southend Crown Court today
Little Mix starlet Jesy Nelson was today named at the centre of a kidnap plot as her brother was spared jail for peddling cocaine for dealers who had threatened her.
Jesy's older brother Jonathan Nelson was in December caught red-handed selling the Class A drug to an undercover reporter for a national newspaper at a carpark in Hornchurch, Essex.
As he appeared at Southend Crown Court for sentencing today he sensationally claimed he had only agreed to sell cocaine after threats were made to his sister.
The court heard the 23-year-old was feeding a 100-a-day cocaine habit which had left him 3,000 in debt to an underworld character he knew only as 'Mr Turner'.
Nelson, whose mother Janis, 51, is a Police Community Support Officer in Canvey Island, Essex, had pleaded guilty to a single charge of supplying cocaine at an earlier hearing.
But James Lachkovic, defending Nelson, said he was 'simply a delivery boy'.
Dressed in a smart light grey suit, with white shirt and open collar, Nelson today was asked to take to the stand to give evidence in his mitigation.
After swearing on the bible, Nelson, who has dark brown slicked back hair, said that as a result of his cocaine habit he had found himself owing 500 to Mr Turner who, angered by a delay in repayment, had summarily increased the debt to 3,000.
Nelson told the court that he was warned in a sinister phoned call from Mr Turner in December that his sister would be kidnapped unless he came up with the cash.
He said: 'I asked him for more time. He was angry. He was making threats and he threatened to kidnap my sister because she had just become famous.
'I said if there is anything I can do to pay the money I would do it.'
Nelson added: 'He called me again and said "you will have to do me a few favours".'
It was not the first intimidation Nelson had suffered. Earlier that month he had been at his girlfriend's house when three men burst in and attacked him with a baseball bat.
He said: 'They pushed their way in, saying ‘you owe Mr Turner money’, I was whacked on the back of the head and one of them grabbed and spun me round and the other one hit me with a wooden baseball bat.
'They were shouting abuse at me but I told them I did not have it.
'They said: "you have to pay the money you owe him, if we have not got it, we will be back within a week for the money".'
That attack left Nelson with a broken arm which had to be patched up with surgery to install two metal plates.
Threats: Nelson told the court that he owed money to drugs dealers who had made threats to kidnap his sister Jesy, who was then appearing on X Factor
Nelson, who would often buy five grammes of the drug for his own use, claimed it was as a result of those threats to his family and himself that he had started dealing.
He admitted selling two wraps of cocaine for 80 to an undercover reporter from his Smart car on December 14 last year.
Nelson’s family were in the courtroom to hear evidence of his drug addiction although sister Jesy stayed away.
Matt Morgan, prosecuting, said Nelson had been captured on hidden camera selling two wraps of cocaine for 80 from his car.
'A black Smart car pulled up and out of the came the defendant Mr Nelson,' said Mr Morgan. 'He was recognised by the reporter as someone he has seen previously.
'[The reporter] approached the window of the Smart car. A conversation ensued in which he was presented with two wraps of paper, each about two inches by half an inch in size.
'The price was agreed as 80 and he handed it over. The incident was photographed.
'The reporter took the drug to be forensically examined and they were found to contain 0.7g in one wrap and 0.61g in the other of a white powder which was found to contain cocaine.'
No evidence was heard by the court about the purity of the cocaine which Nelson had dealt.
Southend Crown Court: Judge Jonathan Black heard Nelson only dealt cocaine after he was attacked and his sister threatened by dealers he owed money to
Mr Lachkovic, mitigating, told the court that Nelson was 'simply a delivery boy and one cannot envisage a lesser role than that.' The court heard that Nelson was no longer using drugs.
Judge Jonathan Black, sentencing, branded Nelson 'stupid' for agreeing to become involved with the drug dealing.
'This will no doubt cause embarrassment to your sister who has taken a strong anti-drugs stance,' Judge Black said.
Although the offence could have led to custody, the judge said the threats received by Nelson, and his previous good character, meant he would not be jailing him.
Nelson, who is unemployed and lives in Hornchurch, was sentenced to a 10-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, and ordered to carry out 200 hours unpaid work in the community.
He was also ordered to pay costs of 600.
Clean cut: X-Factor winners Little Mix - (left-right) Jade Thirlwall, Jesy Nelson, Leigh-Anne Pinnock, and Perrie Edwards - have said they neither drink nor do drugs
As well as the drugs conviction, Nelson was also sentenced to three months prison, suspended, to run concurrently after admitting driving whilst disqualified.
For another charge of driving with no insurance the judge ordered there would be no separate penalty.
The case will come as an embarrassment to Nelson’s sister and her fellow Little Mix bandmates Perrie Edwards, Leigh-Anne Pinnock and Jade Thirlwall.
They have made much of their squeaky clean lifestyles in their bid for pop chart success, with all four saying they never use drugs or drink.
There is absolutely no suggestion that teetotal Jesy, of nearby Romford, Essex, or any of her family were aware of her brother’s drug dealing, or were in any way involved.
Source: www.dailymail.co.uk
Lawmakers react to Supreme Court decision upholding Obama health care law - FOX News
The nation's highest court on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of President Obama's sweeping health care law, which was celebrated as victory among Democrats, while blasted by Republicans who vowed a repeal.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio:
"The president's health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans' access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country ObamaCare." -- House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.:
"This decision is a victory for the American people. With this ruling, Americans will benefit from critical patient protections, lower costs for the middle class, more coverage for families, and greater accountability for the insurance industry. The Affordable Care Act is already paying dividends for millions of Americans -- with more to come: Children can no longer be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Seniors are paying less for prescription drugs. Students and young adults can stay on their parents' plans. Being a woman is no longer a pre-existing medical condition.
"In passing health reform, we made history for our nation and progress for the American people. We completed the unfinished business of our society and strengthened the character of our country. We ensured health care would be a right for all, not a privilege for the few. Today, the Supreme Court affirmed our progress and protected that right, securing a future of health and economic security for the middle class and for every American."
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va:
"The Supreme Court's decision to uphold ObamaCare is a crushing blow to patients throughout the country. ObamaCare has failed to keep the President's basic promise of allowing those who like their health care to keep it, while increasing costs and reducing access to quality care for patients. In this tough economy, jobs and economic growth are on the minds of most Americans, but ObamaCare has increased uncertainty for small businessmen and women and forced them to put their hiring decisions on hold.
"During the week of July 9, the House will once again repeal ObamaCare, clearing the way for patient-centered reforms that lower costs and increase choice. We support an approach that offers simpler, more affordable and more accessible health care that allows people to keep the health care that they like.
"The court's decision brings into focus the choice the American people have about the direction of our country. The president and his party believe in massive government intrusions that increase costs and take decisions away from patients. In contrast, Republicans believe in patient-centered, affordable care where health care decisions are made by patients, their families and their doctors, not by the federal government."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada:
"Mr. President, I'm happy. I'm pleased to see the Supreme Court put the law ahead of partisanship and ruled that the affordable care act is constitutional. Mr President, it's a long opinion and we know that when we come back here after the elections there may be something we need to improve the law and we'll do that working together. But today millions of Americans are already seeing the benefit of that law that we passed, seniors are saving money on their prescriptions and checkups.
Source: www.foxnews.com
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Or