'Victims' in Popular Understanding

The Guardian had a big special report today on the case of a woman who was convicted of perverting the course of justice. This woman, given the false name of 'Sarah', had been jailed after making an allegation of rape against her husband and later retracting it, admitting that she had made the whole story up.

The coverage of the case immediately prompted a discussion about how victims are treated in the criminal justice system. Women's rights campaigners used it as evidence of how society continues to overlook the needs of rape and domestic violence victims. While these concerns are mostly well-founded, I object to the use of the word 'victim' in this context.

The Guardian presented 'Sarah' as a 'victim' and her story as fact. Fact it may well be; it is possible that Sarah endured a horrific experience at the hands of her husband. Equally, however, it is also possible that nothing ever happened and that Sarah was not a victim at all. Indeed, that is the position the law should take. A cornerstone of the rule of law is the presumption of innocence. It should be presumed that her husband committed no crime until it has been proven otherwise.

Rape is a very serious offence. Society condemns rape in the strongest terms possible. It is the most serious offence short of murder and attempted murder. A rapist may be sentenced to life imprisonment. If not, he may be indefinitely locked up for public protection to be released only on the approval of the parole board. In any event, few rapists are likely to escape at least ten years in jail. Moreover, the social stigma attached to rape is overwhelming. It is fundamentally important, therefore, that we only use the term 'rapist' after a person has been properly convicted of the offence.

Given the nature of rape, the logical corollary of this is that the term 'victim' should only be used when it has been proven that a rape took place.

There has been a growing trend in criminal justice to pander to the needs of 'victims' at every possible opportunity. Tabloid newspapers frequently posit the question: what about the victim? It is right that society should support victims who have been through the most awful experiences. Describing them as 'victims' before conviction, however, pre-supposes that a crime has taken place. The only thing to support this at this stage is suspicion, however reasonable. This is very dangerous in a democratic society.

In my view, journalists and commentators should restrict the use of the term 'victim' until the suspect has been convicted. I acknowledge the considerable challenges in securing convictions in rape cases. However, the risks to the presumption of innocence when society accepts a victim's account as fact before it has been proven in court requires a more balanced approach.

The Beautiful Game?

Following England's latest football disappointment this evening, the usual post-mortem began on the airwaves with various ex-players and commentators opining on where we are going wrong as a nation. Losing 2-1 at home to France, the old enemy, is obviously upsetting. I don't share the view that the players or even the manager were at fault tonight though. My finger is firmly pointed in the direction of the way we think about football in this country.

Tonight we fielded a B-team that would have struggled to make the first teams of the other home nations. With the exception of established stars Ferdinand (who only played 45), Gerrard and Barry, our team was drawn largely from players who either fail to make their club starting XI or turn out every week for second rate sides. We had in our squad, for example:

Foster (Birmingham City, 18th in Premier League)

Jagielka (Everton)

Gibbs (our left-back tonight, despite being kept out of his club side by the French reserve left-back)

Lescott (fails to make Man City first team)

Walcott (fails to make Arsenal first team)

Henderson (Sunderland, on debut)

Carrol (Newcastle, on debut)

Richards (fails to make Man City first team)

Smalling (fails to make Man Utd first team)

Cahill (Bolton Wanderers)

Johnson (fails to make Man City first team)

Carlton Cole (West Ham, 20th in Premier League)

Green (West Ham, 20th in Premier League)

Bothroyd (Cardiff City, Championship, on debut)

With such a team I would have been amazed if we had beaten a French side featuring players like Benzema, Malouda, and Nasri.

Despite the usual doom and gloom emanating from the discussion on 5 live, there was a gradual recognition of two points that I have been making about England for some time:

1. Grass roots football - rich, though it was, for David Ginola to gloat about how skilful and creative the French were in comparison to the English, he was undoubtedly right in his criticism. Ginola made the point that if the French midfield took on the English midfield in a small game, the French would win every time. The same would be said of the Brazilians, the Spanish, the Argentinians, and the Germans. Why? Because we have a system of grass roots football in this country that fundamentally ignores key skills.

Anyone who has seen Sunday League games between children will identify the following characteristics: fathers screaming at their kids to 'get stuck in', long balls, swarms of bodies chasing long balls, 11-a-side games on full pitches, rigid formations etc etc. What do you think happens in Spain? They learn to pass, move, and control the ball. They don't bump it up field for the big centre forward to lumber after it. Rather, small technical games will be held with huge emphasis on concentration and ball retention.

When my friends and I went to Ibiza a few years ago, we were playing keep-ups on the beach when a 11-12 year-old native came up and embarrassed us with his ability to control the ball. When we were his age, we were learning to boot the ball out of play when under pressure and hoof it up field.

Until we move away from this, we will keep producing centre-forwards like Carrol, Bothroyd, Carlton Cole, and Crouch, and not like Benzema, Messi or David Villa.

2. Balance between Premier League and National Game

It's telling that Gibbs made our national side while Clichy, above him at Arsenal, was on the bench for France. However much Wenger & Co may not like it, the truth is that the influx of foreign players prevents English talent from developing.

Of the players that made the squad this evening, Gibbs, Lescott, Richards, Johnson, Smalling, Milner and Walcott fail to appear every week for their clubs. Four of those players are at Man City, who spent their endless resources attracting foreign players. How on earth are these youngsters meant to develop as footballers by sitting on the bench? It's no answer to say that they can drop down to lesser clubs. Players like Jagielka, Green, Cole, Carrol, Henderson, and Bothroyd are never going to get the same chance to play against the world's best while languishing in second-rate Premier League sides.

The only solution is to impose a fixed number on foreigners that can play in each team. Yes the Premier League will suffer. It may well be the case that we are unable to attract the Henrys, Drogbas, and Ronaldos of the future. However, can anyone really say that the national team has benefited from our league being 'the best in the world'? I would much rather enjoy the immortal pride that comes with winning a World Cup.

Least of all avoiding the disappointment of losing to France at Wembley.

We're All in This Together

In order to show how fair the current tuition fee rise is, I thought I would list the members of the cabinet that received an Oxbridge education absolutely free of charge. This way we can see how we are all in this together, as the coalition like to say. So here goes:

David Cameron (Con) - Prime Minister - Brasenose College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

Nick Clegg (LD) - Deputy Prime Minister - Robinson College, Cambridge. Has paid = £0

George Osborne (Con) - Chancellor of the Exchequer - Magdalen College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

William Hague (Con) - Foreign Secretary - Magdalen College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

Theresa May (Con) - Home Secretary - St Hugh's College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

Michael Gove (Con) - Education Secretary - Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford. Has paid = £0

Ken Clarke (Con) - Justice Secretary - Gonville and Cauis College, Cambridge. Has paid = £0

Danny Alexander (LD) - Chief Secretary to the Treasury - St Anne's College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

Chris Huhne (LD) - Energy Secretary - Magdalen College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

Philip Hammond (Con) - Transport Secretary - University College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

Andrew Mitchell (Con) - International Development Secretary - Jesus College, Cambridge. Has paid = £0

Owen Paterson (Con) - Northern Ireland Secretary - Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Has paid £0

Jeremy Hunt (Con) - Culture Secretary - Magdalen College, Oxford. Has paid £0

Francis Maude (Con) - Cabinet Office Secretary - Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Has paid £0

Sir George Young (Con) - Leader of the House of Commons - Christ Church, Oxford. Has paid £0

Dominic Grieve (Con) - Attorney-General - Magdalen College, Oxford. Has paid = £0

These people are now trying to force students to pay £9,000 a year for the privilege of attending University.

WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

Welfare or Well unfair?

Whatever view one takes of Danny Alexander (and I happen to think Harman's remark was an insult to rodents everywhere) one cannot accuse the coalition of failing to be radical with welfare. The ginger Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced a plan at the weekend to force long term claimants of Job Seekers' Allowance (JSA) to perform unpaid work in the community. Such a proposal represents the most politically risky reform attempted with welfare since the state assumed responsibility for social security in 1948.

Already, the plans are drawing sharp criticism from a range of people. The most vocal opponent of the plans is the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. Dr Williams has suggested that the impact on benefit claimants of being forced into work may lead to long-term depression. Others have likened the policy to criminalising the poor by making them perform the tasks usually reserved for offenders serving community sentences.

My suspicion though is that the general public will broadly agree with this proposal. There is a growing sense of anger - not least amongst the working poor - against people who are perceived to be lazy, work-shy and undeserving of state support. I strongly dispute the allegation that JSA claimants can 'get rich' off collecting their £65 a week. Many of the long-term unemployed live in unenviable conditions of poverty. Nevertheless, it is sadly the case that many recipients of JSA are simply unable to make the transition from being unemployed to working a full-time job. This policy will help to bridge that divide.

I think it's imperative that Labour adopt a position that recognises the concerns of the working poor in relation to a number of issues largely ignored in the New Labour years - I'm talking about immigration, welfare, and economic inequality. This is not just because these people deserve our support and encouragement. The dangers of marginalising people in this social demographic leads only one way: into the hands of far-right extremists.

All that said, however, I do have reservations about the plans. Any legislation would have to be conditional on two factors in my view:

1. The individuals in question must have turned down offers of employment.

2. There must be employment out there for people to take advantage of.

It is on this second point that I strongly challenge the course taken by the Government. These reforms have been announced following plans in the spending review to cut 500,000 public sector jobs. When you include the knock-on job losses in the private sector, the total figure for unemployment as a consequence of Government policy could be 1 million. That's a lot of people on the dole.

In this context, it would seem extremely unfair to subject people to forced labour. The fact that they are in receipt of JSA is no fault of their own. If they could get a job they would. There is no use in trying to re-integrate these people back into working life. Without an available supply of jobs to advertise, these plans serve no purpose and represent an outright attack on hard-working decent people. That is simply wrong.

So while I understand the idea behind the welfare changes, I must say it doesn't strike me that there is much in the way of joined-up thinking going on in Government. Hardly surprising you might say, given the circumstances of the coalition in this country.