Successful Family Mediation in Practice: Learning the Lessons from Ghana

By Matthew Fiddy

‘This is too small.’ In an office in west Accra a mediator tells a father that his offer of child maintenance is not satisfactory. The discussion continues for another twenty minutes before the father eventually produces a figure that is accepted by the mother.

The parties were participating in mediation at the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) in Ghana, an independent organisation set up principally to promote human rights and guard against corruption. Over time, however, CHRAJ has become heavily involved in dispute resolution. The vast majority of these disputes are family matters, specifically child maintenance and custody issues.

CHRAJ resolves family disputes through mediation, a model that is still developing in England and Wales. As family mediation becomes more prominent as a result of recent reforms, the experience of CHRAJ could provide valuable insight into how the new system of family justice might work.

Family Mediation in England and Wales

Mediation remains a fairly alien thing to most parents in England and Wales. Research identified by Gingerbread, a charity set up to support single parents, indicated that while 50,000 couples are referred to mediation each year, only 13,500 couples actually participate. In addition, Gingerbread found that in recent mediation pilots in family courts only 17% of private law disputes were referred to mediation. These figures demonstrate that mediation is currently on the fringes of family dispute resolution.

This is likely to change significantly in the near future, however. The Family Justice Review (FJR), commissioned by the Government, reported in November 2011. The review strongly promoted the idea of mediation becoming the norm in family cases and outlined a new process whereby parents would have to follow various steps encouraging mediation before going to court would be possible.

In its response to the FJR in February 2012, the Government gave its full support to these proposals. Reaction from other groups to the review has also been largely positive across the political spectrum, even if concerns have been raised about implementation. Mediation, therefore, is likely to become a key aspect of the family justice system in England and Wales in the next few years.

The CHRAJ Model

While family mediation is only just coming to the awareness of policy makers in England and Wales, it is very much entrenched in dispute resolution in Ghana. 4,665 family cases were reported to CHRAJ for possible mediation in 2008, significantly higher than the number of family cases registered in court.

The process of dispute resolution is swift. Cases are typically resolved through mediation within two or three weeks of registration. Once a case has been reported by one of the parties to a dispute, an invitation is sent to the other party for mediation with a date.

When the parties arrive for mediation they are informed of the principles behind CHRAJ and the mediation process. These are that participation is voluntary, confidential and fair to both parties. One key difference to family mediation in England and Wales, however, is that the mediators are far more willing to give their opinions about proposed settlements to the parties directly (as the comment to the father in the above example demonstrates). If the discussions are successful, terms of settlement will be drawn up and then signed or (more often) thumb printed by the parties.

Statistics on Success

In 2008 12,919 human rights cases were reported to CHRAJ and the vast majority of these cases were family matters. 74% of the cases in this category, for example, were concerned with children, women’s rights, and property disputes between families. 9,693 cases were successfully disposed of by CHRAJ in 2008.  

The national picture is reflected on a local level. In Greater Accra for instance 538 cases were reported to CHRAJ in 2008. 358 of these cases were settled through mediation. More recent local figures also back up this trend. For example, in the west municipal office of the Greater Accra region, 36 cases were reported to CHRAJ in February and March 2011. All of these cases had been settled by the following month.

Lessons for England and Wales

There are many possible explanations for the success of CHRAJ. One factor already mentioned is the cost of litigation in Ghana. The monetary disincentive of pursuing a case to court undoubtedly helps to focus the minds of participants in mediation. In a country where disposable income is scarce any way of saving money in dispute resolution is welcome.

More optimistically for England and Wales, however, is the idea that mediation genuinely works for families. CHRAJ mediators report that talking to each other to resolve mutual problems has clear therapeutic benefits. The experience of CHRAJ in Ghana provides supporters of reform with evidence that mediation can bring about benefits for families that do not exist in the current system.

Despite this, there may be barriers to achieving the same success. One notable concern is the absence of representation or legal advice to participants at CHRAJ. Parties almost never receive legal advice before taking part in mediation, nor are they represented during the process. This means that there is the potential for power imbalances and negative outcomes for weaker participants. In England and Wales the recent legal aid reforms mean that many participants may also be unable to access legal advice in family cases. The disadvantages in terms of fairness experienced at CHRAJ may therefore surface in England and Wales.

Secondly, the cultural differences between Ghana and England and Wales may prevent family mediation from taking off as successfully. Ghanaians are well used to resolving disputes by talking to each other in public. This custom may derive from the tribal system that still exists across much of Africa. The idea of sitting down with family members and interested parties to resolve disagreements is natural and obvious in this part of the world.

In Europe the nuclear nature of most families means that there might not be this same willingness to collectively resolve private disputes. In general, people maybe less likely to openly discuss problems and more inclined to rely on the official and detached process of litigation.

Conclusion

The recent conversion of policy makers in England and Wales to the merits of family mediation means that there are important lessons to be learned from countries where this is the norm. The Ghanaian experience is certainly proof that family mediation can work, although there may be obstacles to achieving the same success in this jurisdiction.

Sacking More People to Boost Employment?

Yes you read it right. The latest suggestion to emerge from a government policy review is to make it easier for employers to fire workers. A report written by Adrian Beecroft, a venture capitalist and Tory donor, has recommended replacing the current right of employees to sue when they are unfairly dismissed with a concept of 'no fault divorce'. The implication of this, of course, is that Mr Beecroft thinks employers should be able to dismiss employees at whim, however unfair or unreasonable the decision may be.

Employment law in this country allows for employers to dismiss staff unfairly at any time up to the completion of one year's service. Furthermore, agency workers have no recourse at all to the law when they are dismissed without reason. This is not enough, contends Mr Beecroft, who suggests that reforming the law would encourage employers to hire more workers.

I'm sure he is right about this. Clearly there are advantages for employers in being able to hire and fire at will. But it seems to me like Mr Beecroft has missed the point about employment being a two-way relationship. In order to create the conditions for economic growth, businesses must be productive. This requires there to be a mutual arrangement of trust and confidence between employer and employee. If you study the most successful companies in the last twenty years, such as Microsoft, Apple, and Google, positive employee relations are a given. This is because it is highly doubtful that productivity would flourish in situations where employees have no sense of job security or stability.

The knock on effects for consumer spending of this uncertainty are equally obvious. If a person is constantly worried about his job, he is unlikely to spend money on the high street. He might choose to delay improvements to his house or purchasing a new car, for example. Mr Beecroft claims to be concerned about the competitiveness of the UK as a place to do business. It could well be argued however that foreign investors would think twice before relocating to a country with a notoriously fearful, insecure and unproductive workforce.

Central to Beecroft's idea is the notion that employers cannot sack workers who perform badly. In this he has clearly failed to understand the existing law. Incompetence is one of five reasons that employers are permitted to give when dismissing staff. Other permitted reasons include conduct (if an employee behaves badly) or sickness (if the employee takes too many days off). If this is not enough then employers are entitled under the Employment Rights Act 1996 to sack people for any other 'substantial reason'. Therefore there are multiple ways in which a firm can fire unproductive workers.

What this ultimately boils down to is a fundamental misunderstanding of the workplace by someone who, as a wealthy venture capitalist who finances the Tory party, has only ever seen it from one side. In order to stimulate growth in the economy, there must be confidence. Confidence cannot exist as long as there is insecurity and apprehension between the key economic actors. As Franklin D. Roosevelt famously said in the midst of the Great Depression - 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself' - not our bosses.

The Generation Game

I'm just about fed up of reading articles that paint young people as feckless, lazy, and poorly educated. There is a widespread consensus in the media now that the youth of today are less worthy of support than previous generations. Apparently we are all shirkers who are not prepared to work hard or study real subjects, like our parents did in their days.

The latest roasting came from the pen of Rod Liddle in today's Sunday Times. Any criticism from a man who earns his living writing sarcastic pieces about difficult targets like gays and Muslims is hard enough to take but his article today particularly makes the blood boil. Liddle asserts:

'The main reason British employers prefer eastern European migrants is that they will work harder for less. But a contributory factor is that the domestic workforce our schools are turning out are badly educated, incapable of adding things up or writing them down and - most crucially - possessed of the attitude that they shouldn't need to do these sorts of onerous activity, that they are vibrant and valid individuals in a very real sense who must be respected and not, you know, put upon by stuff.'

Let's just examine some of these claims in more detail:

1. Are young people badly educated? Figures from the University and College Admissions Service (UCAS) show that over 540,000 people in the UK applied to study at university in 2011, the vast majority aged 18. This is despite the Government trebling tuition fees in the same year. Ah, but most of these courses are 'mickey mouse subjects' and not serious subjects that people used to study, right? Well I suppose so, if you consider medicine, the most popular choice, to be such a soft course. Or engineering, or law, both of which attract applications from over 100,000 young people.

2. Do young people lack basic skills? Government data indicates that last year's GCSE results were the best ever with 7 out of 10 students achieving grade C or above. Ah, but this is because exams are getting easier, right? Research from ChildLine highlights the shocking numbers of young people who break down under the stress of preparing for these 'easy' exams. In one survey of 1300 students, 96% reported feeling stressed, almost 50% claimed to have skipped meals, 66% said that they had trouble sleeping, and 14% admitted to drinking alcohol to cope with the pressure. Feckless youths, indeed.

3. Are young people afraid of hard work? It is often said that students are too lazy to do hard work. In 2008 NatWest found that almost half of undergraduate students worked part-time to fund their degree courses. This was before both the increase in tuition fees and the abolition of EMA. Some students are so desperate to work that they are forced to take jobs in the sex industry. The National Union of Students estimates that 20% of all prostitutes working in the UK are students - those very same students that have nothing better to do than riot and claim benefits, apparently. Ah, but what about those young people who do not study?  The Government enjoys celebrating its apprenticeship programme but information suggests that young people who want to learn a trade are likely to be disappointed. The Centre for Economic Performance, for example, found that there were only 11 apprenticeships for every 1,000 workers in the UK and 4 out of 5 companies reported barriers to hiring apprentices. So it's a touch unfair to say that young people are not up for hard graft.

These facts prove that contrary to popular opinion, young people are often highly educated, motivated, and certainly not afraid of working hard. Rather, they indicate that Liddle is the lazy one for peddling an evidence-free assumption that members of his generation use to justify their stranglehold on the property market, winter fuel allowance, bus passes etc. Maybe he would be more than happy to sell his (no doubt large) property portfolio, stop writing his bland columns and go back to university (of course he would have to pay this time). Somehow I doubt it.

Independence Day

Tuesday the 6th of March 2012 marked the 55th anniversary of Ghana's independence from the United Kingdom. The day was celebrated with a large parade in Independence Square in Accra, where the President inspected a selection of Ghanaian military and civil society personnel. Across the country similar parades were held and Ghanaians enjoyed a day off to party in the sunshine.

By Ghanaian standards, the parade proceeded in an efficient manner. Troops in traditional uniforms marched past the President first, followed by each regiment of the police and armed forces. New for this year was a special forces unit, decked out in camouflage gear and brandishing all kinds of modern weaponry.

The glossy nature of the parade was intended to demonstrate the significant resources available to this country. This was picked up in the press coverage in the days after the event as newspapers proceeded to pay tributes to Ghana's achievements as one of the fastest developing countries in Africa. It is clear that many Ghanaians regard themselves as privileged and fortunate by the standards of this continent.

As I come to the end of my stay here I have begun to think about the progress Ghana has made and the direction it needs to take if it is to truly join the developed world. In many ways, the newspapers commenting on the parade were justified in their optimism. Ghana has plenty of attributes its African neighbours can be jealous of. It has been free of war since independence was declared. It has been genuinely democratic since the 90s and has overseen two successful hand overs of power between political parties. Infrastructure is pretty good and education is fast improving. When you look for these things in other west African countries such as Sierra Leone, Nigeria, the Ivory Coast, Guinea, Liberia etc, it is easy to understand why Ghanaians are proud of their achievements.

Despite this, Ghana faces significant challenges before the dreams of its founders can be realised. The reality is that life is very hard for the vast majority of people here. Unemployment is rife and if you have no job, you have no money. There is no state support for the unemployed in Ghana. Many people scratch out a living by selling goods on the side of roads or at congested markets. There is an almost cavalier attitude towards life and death: since the opening of a new motorway in Accra last month 34 pedestrians have already died on the road. Corruption continues to plague society - it is widely expected for example that you must bribe police officers when they perform routine traffic inspections.

All of these things hold Ghana back and prevent it from becoming the first world country it inspires to be. The harshness of life is easy to witness. All one has to do to view real poverty is to take a short walk into the slums of Accra, Cape Coast or Kumasi. People in these places literally have nothing at all and the scenes are a far cry from the shiny military hardware on offer at the parade.

One last thing, however. It is a cliché that Africans are the happiest people on Earth in spite of their poor living conditions. After two months in this country though I can honestly say that it is true. The warmth and humour of the people is the most unforgettable thing about Ghana. Everywhere you go you encounter friendliness, jokes, music, dancing, and happiness. This is prosperity that cannot be recorded in studies or statistics. It is this that will stay with me as I leave Ghana and return to my 'first world' home.

Dealing with Death, Ghana Style

Last week I was honoured to be invited to the funeral of a local person in the town I am working in. The deceased was a young woman of 39 years, who sadly passed away last month. It is not uncommon for Ghanaians to invite a whole range of people to a funeral, even people like me who have never met the departed, so our presence at the ceremony was nothing unusual.

The funeral was one of the strangest experiences I have had since I arrived here. Having attended a few funerals back home, what struck me was how incredibly different the whole affair was.

In England funerals are usually sombre, quiet, low-key events. You are much more likely to see a quivering lip than outright sobbing. After the funeral itself, the parties tend to decamp to a small reception, which can be an awkward few hours of expressing condolences to the family and trying to remember the deceased in fond terms.

This is a million miles away from the Ghanaian experience. When we were escorted to our seats, the first thing we observed was the local pastor leading loud, vocal, and often musical tributes to the departed. Guests were on their feet clapping and singing to the music. There was no quiet reflection here; the party was well and truly in full swing.

Afterwards we were given the opportunity to observe the body, the first time I have done so. This was characterised by hysterical wailing from the people that knew the deceased. Mourners were literally throwing themselves around the room in grief, crying and asking the Lord why death had occurred. The deceased was placed in a fine casket and dressed up to look her best for the last time.

The funeral ceremony ended once the casket was brought out and loaded on to a pick-up truck to be taken for burial. One could not help but notice the sad contrast between the expensive casket and the ordinary pick-up used to transport the body. The guests at the funeral did not appreciate this inconsistency, however, and proceeded to wail at the casket until it was finally taken away.

This did not mark the end of the festivities though and some mourners stayed on for hours, dancing to the music and giving their tributes to the deceased over the microphone. Later I was told that some people attend funerals as a way of picking up a husband or wife! I was amazed by the grace with which we were welcomed. I doubt I would have the courtesy to tolerate foreigners who I didn’t even know attending a funeral of a close relative but we were embraced with open arms and treated to a generous helping of Kenkey afterwards.

Despite the warm hospitality, I could not help but think that the English funeral experience is a great deal more powerful. There was something artificial about the outright wailing – for me it is the person who tries to keep his composure and then loses it that gives a funeral its emotional resonance. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed this most interesting of cultural experiences.

Five Features of Living in Accra

Over the past month I have observed so many things about living in Accra. In this post I have collated those thoughts to try and give a picture of life in this most interesting of cities.

1. Food – it’s fair to say that there is not a great deal of variety when it comes to food in Ghana. Meat wise, pretty much the only option is chicken, probably the very same chicken you will have seen clucking away on the street a few hours earlier. Everything else is limited to rice, spicy sauces, fish, and various Ghanaian dishes. One of the most popular meals here in Accra is fufu, basically a soup served with mashed plantains. The key thing to remember is not to chew the mash. I made this mistake the first time I eat fufu, much to the amusement of my African colleagues.

2. Transport – the main form of public transport in this city is the tro tro. Essentially clapped out mini buses, tro tros are a remarkably efficient and cheap way of getting around. Disadvantages include a degree of discomfort – most do not have air conditioning and are packed to the rafters by over-enthusiastic tro tro mates (like bus conductors) – and the unbelievably high risk of fatal accidents. If you wish to take your own taxi, you will have no difficulty finding one. Taxi drivers in Accra have this annoying habit of honking at you whenever you are walking in the street in the hope of collecting a nice fare from an obruni (white person).

3. Entertainment – Ghanaians love television (when the power is on), bargain hunting, and football. Coming from England I thought I would find it difficult to encounter a society more passionate about the beautiful game. So far my experience of football in Ghana has consisted of watching the national team in the 2012 African Cup of Nations. The highlight was certainly the 2-1 victory over Tunisia after extra time. When the ‘Black Stars’ scored the winning goal, the whole bar erupted with celebration and the TV commentary was promptly replaced by loud gospel music. Sadly Ghana were narrowly defeated in the semi-finals by Zambia.

4. Religion – this is a subject that people in Ghana are very keen on. Accra is definitely a city for believers. Christian to the core, Ghanaians name everything after Jesus, from their car registration plates to their shops. Walking around Accra one cannot help but notice the proliferation of stalls brandishing titles such as ‘Christ is My Redeemer’ or ‘Jesus Loves You Barbershop’. This personal devotion is supplemented by extreme collective worship. Church on a Sunday is an absolute must and many services are large, pre-planned events featuring thousands of people.

5. Weather – the temperature all year round here is hot. It’s crazy to think that as I write this people back in the UK are buried in snow because the temperature has not dropped below 25 since I have been here. As much as I am enjoying this winter sun, I could not imagine living in a climate where the weather does not change. The only seasonal variations are rain (which occurs from March to September) and dust (Saharan winds blown south, occurring this time of year). Of course, one of the consequences I have suffered is crippling sun burn!

Dixcove

This weekend some friends and I visited the magnificent Busua beach, apparently the finest beach in west Africa. After spending a day playing football with hundreds of children, drinking beer and getting horrendously sun burned, we decided to venture out the following day to the nearby village of Dixcove.

Back in the day Dixcove was the site of the first fort constructed in what was then the Gold Coast. It served its purpose as the first of many points of power built by the British in order to suppress the local population and ensure dominance over the slave trade for many years.

Today the fort still stands and towers over the small fishing village beneath it. It is striking that despite the centuries that have passed, the fort remains the most developed site in Dixcove. The village itself is an astoundingly poor place. Those people fortunate enough to even have shelter reside in tin shacks; the rest sleep under wooden boats along with chickens, goats, and all manner of other animals. Our visit aroused huge interest with the local children and it must have been around thirty kids who occupied themselves by holding our hands and accompanying us up to the fort. Many of these children were without clothes and looked as if food and water were luxuries rather than everyday necessities.

Climbing the steep stone staircase up to the fort, one could not help but notice the young girl lying face down in the dirt. The image of a British man climbing over an African child en route to higher ground can hardly be new to this part of the world and it happened once again yesterday.

Our trip got me thinking about who should bear the ultimate responsibility for the sorry situation in which places like Dixcove find themselves. Without doubt, the British (and in other parts of Africa, the French and the Belgians) must take serious blame. When a country is ruthlessly exploited by rich powers for its people and resources, the impact on human development must be huge. There can be no ‘organic’ progression in these societies – they start with less than nothing and have to work out how to be modern liberal democracies from scratch.

Saying this, most colonial rule in Africa ended some time ago now. Ghana, for example, was the first of the governed African states to become independent and has ruled itself for almost 60 years. It has significant natural resources, an honest and educated population, and decent infrastructure. There must come a time when countries like this start looking after their own and taking responsibility for the staggering levels of poverty I have seen so far on this trip.

In the end, however, it is only going to be a partnership between the developed economies and the nation states themselves that is going to improve things for people in these countries. While the west maintains harmful and self-serving programmes like the EU Common Agricultural Policy, the potential for African states to compete fairly in world markets is artificially limited. Equally, while African governments (democratic and autocratic alike) consistently fail to eradicate the systemic corruption that has curtailed opportunity and meritocracy for years, there can be no real development.

I look forward to a time when I can return to Dixcove and observe that the old fort has become more of a quaint relic than the continuing dominant presence in this village.

First Impressions of Africa

I arrived at Kokota International Airport in Accra, Ghana, at midnight on Monday. Having expected to be decimated by a wave of heat, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the temperature is actually not too hot. It is more like very warm British summer days without suffocating humidity.

One feature of Ghana at this time of year, however, is extreme dustiness. This is apparently caused by winds blowing down from the Sahara and makes breathing/visibility less easy than usual. Where I am staying in greater Accra is particularly dusty. My black shoes I intended to wear for work have already turned brown.

So far I have enjoyed my stay in this fascinating country. The people are almost universally friendly with most truly taken aback by the presence of white people in their neighbourhoods. Things here are pretty laid back. Most people do not bat an eyelid about doing stuff quickly or on time. This pace of life suits me quite well!

Earlier in the week I drafted some agreements relating to a new school that is being constructed in rural Ghana. A couple of days ago we were able to go and visit the school so it was nice to see what we were working towards. In the last couple of days I have started work at the Human Rights Commission, working largely on family based mediation, which I intend to write about later in my stay.

Assuming I survive the unbelievably dangerous road system and do not contract any tropical diseases, I will be posting weekly updates on my stay in Ghana. I look forward to sharing some of the weird and wonderful experiences I will be exposed to!

My African Adventure

On Monday I will be leaving the frosty wasteland of England and jetting off for the sunnier climes of Africa. Starting next week, I will be volunteering as an intern with Voluntary Partnerships for West Africa (VPWA) in Ghana, working on human rights and justice projects.

I'm not entirely clear on exactly what I will be doing in Ghana but I'm sure I will find out soon enough. My impression is that I will be assisting communities in dispute resolution through mediation/informal litigation and also providing advice to local people about their legal rights. I am supposed to do that knowing next to nothing about Ghanaian law and Ghana in general, of course. Personally I feel sorry for the poor souls I will be 'helping' but I'm sure it will be a positive experience for all involved!

I'll be working with VPWA for two months before flying down to South Africa and spending a few days in the beautiful city of Cape Town. After that I'm picking up a tour of southern Africa, visiting the Namibian desert, the Okavango delta in Botswana, and then finishing off at the majestic Victoria falls in Zambia.

Throughout my trip I will be blogging my experiences - highs and lows- of living and working in Africa. In addition, I'll be giving my views on Africa in general and hopefully recording some of the life changing lessons I'm sure to learn while spending time in this beautiful continent.

Playing the Race Card

This week's conviction and sentencing of two men for the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993 should have been a proud moment for all of those people who have campaigned for justice for almost twenty years. Lawrence's parents, Doreen and Neville, expressed relief that their son's killers had been held to account after a long and flawed police investigation. Many people would be forgiven for thinking that this event represented a watershed point in UK race relations.

Any benefits this case could have produced, however, were dampened by the comments of politicians and writers in the media following the trial. The most notorious of those has been the remarks of Labour MP Diane Abbott, who discouraged a black journalist from questioning the merits of referring to 'one black community'. Abbott said that this 'divide and rule' tactic was something white people love to employ and that black thinkers should not engage with this approach.

For this she has been roundly criticised. Labour leader Ed Miliband forced her to issue an immediate apology for issuing an 'unacceptable' comment. Deputy PM Nick Clegg called her remark 'stupid and crass'. Unsurprisingly, Abbott's political opponents jumped at the chance to brand her a racist and to call for her sacking.

The interesting thing about race is how it makes people forget their principles. Despite general criticism in the mainstream media, Abbott was largely defended by writers on the left. Feminist commentator Laurie Penny, for example, argued that us ordinary folk had failed to understand that Abbott was reflecting on a history of structural racial politics. Samira Shackle of the New Statesman claimed that Abbott was not intending to make a general comment about the attitudes of white people as a whole.

Really? The comment 'white people love playing divide and rule' looks pretty general to me. An intelligent MP, she could have said 'racist white people' or 'oppressive white people'. She didn't. She said 'white people' meaning precisely that: white people in general.

Granted, I may not have an in depth understanding of structural racial politics, but that seems like racism to me.

It's not just the Diane Abbott row that has exposed hypocrisy on the part of certain commentators. Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre was quick to use the Lawrence verdicts as a vindication of the actions of his newspaper back in 1997 when it ran a headline accusing a number of men, including Dobson and Norris, of Lawrence's murder. These men had not yet been convicted of any crime relating to Stephen Lawrence and were therefore innocent in the eyes of the law.

Despite this flagrant perversion of the ordinary course of justice, liberal commentators took the chance to forgive the Daily Mail, an otherwise right-wing, xenophobic publication, and support the headline claiming innocent men were murderers. Instead of reserving judgment until the outcome of a fair trial, these commentators just assumed these aggressive, racially intolerant, working class white men were responsible for the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Human rights barrister (someone who should understand the presumption of innocence better than anyone) David Malone, posted a link on twitter to a post claiming the headline amounted to brave and bold journalism. I doubt he would have reacted in the same way had the Mail accused a number of young Muslim men of acts of terrorism. Would that be bold and brave journalism? Or would it be an example of feral media distorting the correct legal process?

I was delighted for the Lawrence family when I saw that these disgusting individuals had been brought to justice for a cowardly, racist murder of an innocent young man. I was equally pleased to read commentary from the likes of Trevor Phillips, someone who has done more for race relations in this country than most, claiming that the UK was now a better, more tolerant country in which to live. The hypocrisy of certain people on this issue though is further evidence that we are still some way from being able to have a sensible discussion on race.

The Case for a Living Wage

Today the Chancellor outlined just how much of an economic mess this country is in. According to George Osborne, the UK economy is now unlikely to grow beyond 1% in either this year or the next. Various factors are trotted out to explain our decline; so far Osborne has blamed snow, strikes, riots, Europeans, and even Kate and Wills.

As for answers, most of the Government's rhetoric has been directed towards 'deregulation' and 'easing burdens on businesses'. Examples of this include Vince Cable's plan to make it easier to sack people and Chris Grayling's intention to scrap the vast majority of EU health and safety provisions. Welfare reforms designed to encourage people back into work have very much taken on the 'stick' rather than the 'carrot' tone with punitive new measures for job seekers who refuse work.

The problems in the British economy mainly derive from an absence of key demand. Growth is stagnant because people are not working and therefore not spending. Any plan to change our economic fortunes must be geared towards motivating the human capital largely wasted at the current time.

One way of doing this is to introduce what has been called the 'living wage'. Put simply, this involves raising the national minimum wage rate to £7.20 (£8.30 in London) from its current level at £6.08. The living wage is designed to enable every worker in the country to provide their family with the essentials of life. Currently, the scheme is voluntary and there are a number of employers that adhere to the campaign by paying their workers the higher rate. If it was incorporated into law, however, the economic benefits would be significant.

Firstly, it would serve as genuine encouragement for those on welfare to find work. Many young people in particular fail to see the incentive in finding a full time job that promises a weekly income of £200 at the most. Instead, they are content to spend their time on benefits at a huge cost to the taxpayer or, failing that, many turn to a life of crime to supplement their earnings. While tough welfare reform to prevent abuse is also required, the introduction of a living wage would motivate those in desperate situations to turn their lives around.

Secondly, it would improve levels of productivity in the economy. If employees know that they are receiving a decent wage they will be more likely to work hard to keep their jobs. In addition, they would be more likely to actively seek out promotion opportunities in order to rise further up the income scale. Improving productivity in the workforce is hugely important for the UK given the fierce competition from highly efficient economies, such as China and India.

Employers who have brought in the living wage have reported a 25% drop in absenteeism and significant gains in terms of work quality as a result of moving to the higher rate. Rather than making employers more cautious before taking on new staff, therefore, there is every chance that the living wage could actually boost recruitment.

David Cameron and other senior Conservatives like Boris Johnson have voiced support for the living wage campaign. If they truly believe in the merits of this cause, however, they will pledge to enact the living wage as law in order to get our economy moving again. Doing so would send out a positive message that trust and optimism will get us out of this mess, rather than the fear and division current policies are producing. Time will tell if the Government has the bravery to face down its demons and do what is right for our country.

We Must Not Let Eurosceptics Ruin Our Future

It's decidedly unfashionable these days to say anything positive about the European Union. Received wisdom is that European integration has become a 'failed project', an obsession of the political class enjoyed at the expense of ordinary people in the UK. The recent problems in the Eurozone have served to add fuel to the fire with any prospect of the UK joining the single currency howled at with derision by almost all mainstream commentators.

While only one national newspaper, the Daily Express, advocates outright withdrawal, it surely cannot be long before all centre-right media clambers onto the bandwagon. British politics has become hugely Eurosceptic in recent years. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) is set to replace the pro-european Liberal Democrats as the third largest party at election time. This in turn has shifted the centre-ground further towards the Eurosceptic cause. Whearas the Conservative Party was previously divided on the issue of Europe, with fierce battles between the likes of Ken Clarke and John Redwood, these days Tory backbenchers and activists are almost exclusively hostile to all things European. The debate now within the party is how to go about distancing the UK from the EU, not whether this is a desirable objective.

There is no doubt that Europe faces challenges and needs reform. The aysemmetric development it has undertaken since the advent of the Euro was always going to create problems. Economies in southern Europe, such as Greece and Italy, are fundamentally different from Germany and France and require contrasting monetary policies in the abscence of fiscal harmonisation. As George Osborne has pointed out, it is a matter of 'remorseless logic' that the only solution to the Eurozone crisis is full fiscal integration (without the UK, of course).

This should not, however, obscure the cold hard reality that the UK needs Europe. Eurosceptics like Nigel Farage & Co simply have no idea of the modern world in which the UK has to exist. For them, it is still 1910 and the British Empire serves to protect our economic and military hegemony across the planet. We do not need help from a bunch of lazy, uncivilised countries on the continent.

The fact is that Britannia no longer rules the waves. China, India, Brazil, and Russia now rule the waves. The only possible way in which we can survive in this new world is by co-operating with our nearest neighbours on a more integrated basis. A Chinese trade delegation would not give much weight to a British representative claiming to represent a mere 60 million people. If that represenative spoke for 500 million European citizens, however, he may start listening.

So what does the EU need to do now? It must re-connect its leaders with the people and convince them of the merits of integration. One biproduct of economic downturns throughout the ages is nationalism. Only by making the argument that trade and co-operation promote growth and jobs will European leaders begin to really sell Europe. It must also address the continuing issue of the democratic deficit. The time has come for direct elections for the European President and the Commissioners. This will go someway towards ameliorating the sense of it all being a bit of a 'stitch up' by a bunch of unaccountable technocrats.

What cannot happen is for national leaders to turn their backs on Europe for good. It would be a fundamental mistake for politicians to retreat into a nationalistic comfort zone and indulge the false claims of Eurosceptics that we are 'better off out'. After all, the loser will not be the mandarins in Brussels, it will be the British people.

Ferries, Fredalos and Flying Boots: How Harsh Should We Treat Sportsmen?

It goes without saying that England sports fans are used to disappointment. Year after year we endure frustrated expectations and, more often than not, outright embarrassment. The latest such episode was the failure of the England rugby team in the World Cup.

England were dumped out by a fairly average French side after much of the damage was done in the first half when 'Les Blues' savaged our defence. Throughout the tournament, England had struggled to string any kind of form together so it was little surprise when we collapsed to our inevitable defeat. Perhaps naturally, therefore, the headlines were dominated by off the field antics.

Our campaign in New Zealand was more akin to a club rugby tour than a professional, determined attempt to win a major international sporting event. The players were frequently spotted getting wasted in local bars in between matches. Mike Tindall, the England captain and member of the royal family, was photographed appearing to cheat on his new wife in the early hours of one morning. Surely the most notorious incident, however, came after our collapse against France when centre Manu Tuilagi was reported to have jumped off a ferry in Aukland harbour.

England coach Martin Johnson attempted to defend these antics by claiming to treat the players as 'adults'. In his view, professional sportsmen should be given the freedom to enjoy themselves on tour and to take responsibility for their own performance. If this includes binge drinking, fooling around in bars, and midnight swimming, then so be it.

Fabio Capello attracted a great deal of criticism (from me included) for the way he conducted his disciplinarian, military approach to the England football team's campaign during the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. On one hand, it surely cannot be helpful to induce a state of fear into players before they take the field. Nerves stifle creativity and inhibit any kind of relaxation on the pitch. On the other hand, there is something to be said for treating a professional expedition as just that, rather than as a glorified piss-up where players are free to do as they please.

Of course, the ideal situation would be one where the players themselves recognise the importance of representing their country. An excellent example of this can be found in the current England cricket team, where coach Andy Flower and captain Andrew Strauss have created an atmosphere of constant professionalism and high standards. This is a far cry from England teams of old, which would include frequent day trips to vineyards (David Gower) and moonlit pedalo voyages (Andrew Flintoff). Today's England side recognise the importance of fitness, quality, and conducting themselves properly off the field. It is no coincidence that under Flower and Strauss they have become the world's number one side.

The Foolishness of Interfering With the Family

Last week I lambasted commentators on the left for blaming the Government's economic policy for the senseless destruction seen in what is now being referred to as the 'England riots'. Shortly after writing that piece, however, I felt I had unfairly singled out the lefties for criticism. Many of those at the other end of the political spectrum have also come out with bonkers theories about the causes of the riots.

One such theory, repeated almost as if it were gospel by those on the right, is that a major factor in leading to the violence and looting was the failure of the last Labour Government to properly instil 'family values' in society.

Peter Oborne, for example, writing in the Telegraph, railed against the decay of family values under Blair and Brown:

Most disturbing of all was New Labour’s teaching on the family. Behind much of the outrage of the past few days lies the absent father, and the collapse of traditional marriage. Young children, boys in particular, need male role models. If they cannot find such figures at home, they will look elsewhere. Horrifically, this means joining the gangs that caused such mayhem and destruction.

He was joined by Daily Mail columnist, Melanie Phillips, who loves a good old moral panic even at the best of times:

When Labour came to power in 1997, it set about systematically destroying not just the traditional family but the very idea that married parents were better for children than any other arrangement.

So apparently, it is Tony Blair and the Labour party who are responsible for the destruction of families and the 'feral youth' roaming our streets.

The sheer ridiculousness of these comments is not immediately apparent. It is true that there are more households with fatherless families than ever before. It is equally true that there is a disproportionate number of young people in the criminal justice system who come from such families. To imply that the Government is somehow responsible for this, however, is absolute, unbelievable nonsense.

Oborne and Phillips seem to imply that there was a Minister in Whitehall, who for 13 years was charged with monitoring the daily routines of Britain's families. If Mr and Mrs Smith in Coventry had a row, this was obviously a failing on the part of the Labour Government to properly buttress the married, two parent family. Whenever a father deserted his pregnant partner, this was a clear and unforgivable error that had been perpetrated by Labour party officials. Of course it was nothing at all to do with that particular couple, who for any number of reasons, had separated. The fault had to lie with Labour.

Much is said of the abolition of the married couples' tax allowance. It is argued that by making it more financially viable for single parents to live on their own, Labour, in Phillips' words set out to 'destroy the traditional nuclear family'. What a load of rubbish. Only a person with a warped sense of the realities of life could suggest that a tax break would have any impact on a family's choices. If a father loves a mother, he will stay with her. That is true whether or not he receives favourable treatment in the tax system.

The Government simply cannot influence what goes on in the homes of its citizens. To suggest otherwise represents a Stalinist imposition of rules and regulations totally alien to a liberal democracy. It is a particularly curious angle for those on the right to take, given their hostility towards government when it tries to introduce basic controls like the minimum wage and maternity rights.

Even if, as in the disturbed minds of Oborne and Phillips, the Government had absolute influence over the choices of people in adult relationships, preserving the 'traditional nuclear family' might not always have the desired effect. Huge numbers of successful and prosperous individuals now come from one parent households. It is frankly insulting to those people to suggest that the Government ought to have prevented their parents from separating. Coercing fathers - financially or otherwise - into staying with their partners against their will may not produce the happiest children.

No, the cause of the riots was not the decline of two parent households under Labour, or the deficit reduction programme under the coalition. Nor was it immigration (an odd argument to make in light of the amazing unity shown by different communities across the country), police brutality (I am certain most of those seen looting foot locker did not know the man shot in Tottenham), or our 'celebrity culture' (the rioters only seemed to idolise themselves). When all is said and done it was nothing more than opportunistic crime committed by those who made a rational decision to take that course of action. So please stop the moralising.

There is Nothing 'Inevitable' or 'Understandable' About Rioting

Those of us on the left like to believe that we are on the 'nice' side of politics. Left wingers tend to advocate good things like help for the disadvantaged, fair taxation, and social tolerance. My own view is that this is broadly the best place to be in terms of political positioning. Every now and then, however, those on the left undermine that theory and make me wonder whether they are really standing up for the right things.

The latest example of this is the response to fierce rioting in London - and now, as I write, Birmingham - in the last view days. Most observers were united in unequivocally condemning the rioters, who tore through the streets attacking the police, smashing up property, and looting local businesses. Despite this general consensus, a few on the harder left tried to present the riots as the inevitable consequence of Government economic and social policy.

Former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, for example took the opportunity to attack the coalition's cuts shortly after the Tottenham riots on Saturday:

“The economic stagnation and cuts being imposed by the Tory government inevitably create social division. As when Margaret Thatcher imposed such policies during her recessions this creates the threat of people losing control, acting in completely unacceptable ways that threaten everyone, and culminating in events of the type we saw in Tottenham.'

He was joined by socialist campaigner Peter Tatchell, who tweeted the following:

Well-off communities don’t riot. #Riots occur in deprived areas. Mere coincidence? I don’t think so. Injustice > riots #Tottenham #MetPolice

In these comments, therefore, both Livingstone and Tatchell attempted to imply that the riots had a degree of justification and could have been avoided were it not for the dogmatic policies of the Tory-led government.

Not only is this offensive to any notion of moral responsibility, it is also factually questionable. The people seen looting shops on Saturday night did not seem to be crusaders against the cuts. They are clearly not the same people who flocked to London for the TUC march earlier this year. Rather, they are criminal opportunists who spotted a chance to get something for nothing and took it.

There is not and will never be any justification for the violence seen in the last few days. The victims of this behaviour will not be members of the government (whose leaders were not even bothered enough to return from their holidays), the Conservative party (not many Tory voters in north London), or the evil bankers (still earning their bonuses). Instead, it will be small business owners, individual police officers, and the hard-working majority of residents in these areas. It will be people like the Turkish immigrant interviewed on BBC News, whose van was destroyed in the riots, preventing him from working as a painter and decorator and from supporting his family.

The people seen taking part in riots today do not warrant sympathy for the 'injustice' they have suffered at the hands of the government or the police. They forfeited their right to be heard when they started destroying homes and livelihoods. Until commentators on the left like Livingstone and Tatchell start standing up for hard-working Londoners and condemning looting opportunists, their prospects of winning back the support of the public will be like most of north London - up in smoke.

Standing Up for Multiculturalism

Last week a number of Lithuanian men died after an accident on an industrial estate in Lincolnshire. The men died while trying to brew 'super-strength' vodka, which they intended to supply to shops serving the Eastern European community. The alcohol is illegal in the United Kingdom.

This incident is a stark example of the problems surrounding integration that have become common with certain immigrant groups. Naturally, when you move to a foreign country, you tend to group yourself around other people who speak your language, share your culture, and experience the same difficulties in seeking to live abroad. The issue with this is that it, in the short term at least, prevents you from fully embracing new values, culture, and language.

It is in this context that tabloid headlines and populist politicians have called for an end to 'multiculturalism'. By promoting difference, it is argued, you create division. Division leads to conflict and hostility, which, at its most extreme, results in terrorism and violence. David Cameron articulated this argument in a speech in Munich earlier in the year where he declared that multiculturalism had failed.

A cursory glance of right-wing tabloids reveals a wider anti-immigrant fixation. The Daily Express routinely refers to 'waves' of immigrants and highlights crimes committed by foreign nationals. If you were to purchase the Express or the Daily Mail, it is almost certain that you would discover multiple reports on the evils of immigration in the first 10 pages.

This critique of immigration is not confined to the right, however. Very recently, Lord Glasman, the man behind the 'Blue Labour' movement and a key advisor to Ed Miliband, argued that there should be an immediate freeze on all non-EU immigration and that the UK should renegotiate the rules on free movement of labour with our EU partners. Glasman's whole strategy is based on tapping into working class disenchantment with low wages and fierce competition from foreign workers. This disenchantment has manifested itself in strong support for the BNP in working class areas.

So there appears to be a degree of consensus that immigration creates problems for society. The main political parties are now attempting to out flank each other in terms of being tough on further immigration. After Labour enacted a restrictive points regime which cut immigrant numbers significantly, the coalition government decided that this was not enough and put in place a firm quota on the numbers of people who can come and live in the UK. As a result, we now face absurd situations where the world's most talented scientists are unable to gain entry to the country as the quota has already been filled.

At this point it is probably worth reminding ourselves why so many people wish to come to the UK. After all, it's wet (I'm writing this listening to rain pounding my window in mid-July), cold, grey, expensive, with terrible food and many national flaws.

The reason these poor deluded people wish to abandon their home countries, pack up their lives and move to Britain is because of the promise it offers. The UK is seen as a beacon of tolerance, fairness, order and tradition, opportunity, and stability. There are plenty of nations that lack these attributes. If a person from one of those nations wishes to make their home here, is that such an ignoble ambition? Should the thought of that repulse us? Or should we take it as a source of national pride and seek to encourage, rather than discourage and stigmatise, this person?

And should we expect them to start living like 'British' people from the moment the plane hits the tarmac? Are we to require all newcomers to start binge drinking, complaining, cooking rubbish food, and instigating football riots from day one? Or is it more reasonable to allow them to live their own lives within our laws and regulations?

I'm not advocating total, uncontrolled immigration. What I am arguing for is a change in the way we look at individual immigrants, be they asylum seekers or economic migrants. Instead of rejecting new arrivals as sponging, insular, parasites, how about we view them as human beings trying to do what they can? If this means persisting with multiculturalism then so be it. In the long term, this will do far more for reducing division and hostility than the current consensus apparent on all ends of the political spectrum.

Consuming Students

I am coming to the end of my studies at BPP Law School. BPP is a private 'University College' that prides itself on providing good quality, practical education to its students. My campus is a glossy, modern building in the centre of London where tuition is given through interactive seminars, large group sessions, and electronic 'e-learning'. In return, it demands the paltry sum of £15,000.

Grateful though I am for this first-class teaching, it saddens me to think that BPP will come to represent the future of higher education provision. If Universities Minister David 'Two Brains' Willetts has his way, the coalition government will create a market in further education with students acting as consumers and businesses supplying degrees. Willetts intends to make it easier for private colleges such as BPP to compete with publicly funded institutions. This is part of a package of whole scale reform in this area, which has seen tuition fees trebled at public universities and more emphasis being placed on the publishing of graduate recruitment statistics.

At first glance, any attempt to improve the standards of higher education should be welcomed. In my last post I lamented the awful graduate employment prospects facing those currently leaving university. Therefore, the government is surely right to prioritise careers and to focus on students getting better value for money.

There is something fundamentally troubling, however, about students being turned into consumers. At BPP there is a strange atmosphere, which is totally different from the atmosphere I experienced at my undergraduate public university. It does not feel like a centre of academic discovery. That's not to say the standards are low; the tuition is of high quality and the assessment process is rigorous to say the least. Rather, it feels like a place where people pass through as a means to an end, not a place that it is enjoyable to be for the sole purpose of learning.

In order to understand why this is problematic it is necessary to consider the purpose of higher education. Is it to produce top graduates? Or is there more to it than that?

Certainly, one of the key aims of a university education is to gain a good qualification that will lead to a prosperous career. That is why most young people make the decision to spend money and head to university. In the global economy it is nothing short of essential for the UK to produce the best graduates in order to support our industries. So the government is right to be fixated with driving up standards and improving graduate recruitment.

This is surely not enough by itself, however. One of the core aspects of a university education must be to stimulate intellectual curiosity. To foster thinking for no reason other than to think. To learn more about one's opinions. My fondest memories of undergraduate life include having discussions with my tutors about points of law for reasons of interest alone, not to pass an exam or succeed in a job interview.

Willetts seems to forget this with his desire to commoditize higher education. 'Two Brains' has overlooked the need to learn how to use one's brain. His plan to allow more private universities to run degree courses is a recipe for taking the soul and meaning out of academic endeavour. In my last post I also mentioned the New College of the Humanities, a private university which will offer the best possible teaching in exchange for fees of £18,000 a year, making BPP look cheap. No doubt the graduates of the New College will be in an envious position in the labour market. What of their university experience though? Will there be genuine intellectual curiosity when the students are mere consumers? Or will it be, as at BPP, that the majority of students attend because they see it as a means to an end, having paid so much money?

Maybe the view I have expressed is a romantic vision of further study. It may be possible that the notion of spending three years debating and thinking for no vocational gain is simply outdated in the modern economy. If this is right though I think it is a sad reflection on our society. As with most things, the government seems to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

No Country for Young Men

Perhaps Neil Kinnock's greatest ever moment was his 1983 'I warn you' speech where he desparately tried to prevent the British public from re-electing Margaret Thatcher. Kinnock warned people not to be ill, ordinary, unemployed or anything else that could put them at risk in Thatcher's Britain. While the speech has now been forgotten and consigned to the history books, one remark has never been more appropriate: 'I warn you not to be young'.

There is no doubt that young people face the greatest challenges under this Conservative government. Across the board, changes are being made that will make it harder than ever for young people to study, get jobs, find housing or become valued members of society. This is nothing short of tragic with far-reaching implications for the future of this country.

Let's take employment. In February it was reported that youth unemployment had surged to 20.5%. 1 in 5 people between 16 and 24 who are looking for work are unable to find any. The economic crisis has hit younger people worse than any other group. Employers are reluctant to take on young employees as they are unwilling to spend the time and effort training them. Younger employees are by definition inexperienced and in need of development.

Even graduates cannot find jobs. In my own sector, law, it is becoming increasingly difficult for younger applicants to compete with older cross-qualifying professionals. The Crown Prosectuion Service, for example, has suspended recruitment of legal trainees. Instead, those approaching retirment in the CPS are being forced to work two or three jobs to make up for the shortfall.

Graduate employment in general is around the 20% mark. One of the key triggers of the Arab Spring was graduates angry at being able to find jobs, even blue collar jobs, and taking out their anger on the repressive regimes of North Africa and the Middle East. This was expressed most powerfully in the story of Mohammad Bouazizi, a Tunisian graduate, who set himself on fire in protest after he was prevented from selling fruit and vegetables on a market stall. Tunisia is of course a far cry from the UK. It is a stark example, however, of the extreme consequences of graduate joblessness.

Younger people are not just facing a raw deal in the labour market. The reforms pushed through by this government will make it harder for ordinary young people to go to university. Tuition fees have now been trebled to £9,000 a year at almost all universities. It was reported a few weeks ago that a new college is being created in London with fees of £18,000 a year. Most observers predict that this model of higher education will become the norm in the next few years. The effect of this will be huge, irreparable damage to social mobility. There is simply no way that young people from modest social backgrounds will be able to access this kind of education. So what are they to do instead? Get a job? Fat chance.

Everywhere you look younger people are being placed at a disadvantage in society. In addition to trebling tuition fees, this government have abolished the educational maintenance allowance, providing a lifeline to students from less affluent homes. It has scrapped the future jobs fund, which would have created up to 200,000 jobs for young people. It has axed building schools for the future and consigned places of education to ruin and disrepair. Its failure to deal with the rising cost of living has disproportionately affected younger members of society. Its failure to put measures in place to guarantee affordable housing has left younger people unable to take their first steps on the property ladder.

Why is all this bad? It risks creating a 'lost generation' of people who have underdeveloped CVs. Research shows that a prolonged period of unemployment earlier in life can be fundamentally damaging for a person's employment prospects as they get older. This is bad for the individual, the economy, and society as a whole. In addition, having fewer people go to university is problematic in terms of the skills set of the workforce and the general need to create an educated citizenry. More than this though, it is a betrayal by an older generation who benefited from free higher education and an easy pathway into top jobs.

Until the political class take note of the vast challenges facing young people in Cameron's Britain, this state of affairs is unlikely to change. While young people are the losers now, the real loser will be society in the long-term.

The Burglar's Gamble

Last week the Sentencing Council published a new consultation on the sentencing regime applicable to offences of burglary. The consultation invited responses on the Council's proposals to increase sentences depending on the consequences of the burglary, particularly the actual harm inflicted on the victim. Sir Brian Leveson, Chairman of the Council, summed up the new approach by stating that it would ensure 'that the impact on victims is at the centre of considerations about what sentence should be passed on a burglar.'

The Council's latest intervention represents a continuation in thinking in criminal justice policy apparent over the last 10 years with victims placed at the forefront of political rhetoric. Successive Home Secretaries have hit the airwaves promising to make victims the most important players in the criminal justice system. Much of the reform has been largely symbolic, such as the unenforceable Victims Charter, and victims have gained few new rights despite the political posturing. This suggested change, however, may do more to improve the standing of victims when it comes to the consequences of offending.

Is this really right though? For those of us who would like to see tougher sentences across the board, any change that increases the punishment for people who commit burglary is to be welcomed. However, there are wider considerations that make this a problematic development in the theory of sentencing.

Traditionally, sentencing has concentrated on the culpability of offenders, rather than the actual harm caused. This is why attempted murder is treated largely the same as murder itself. Society recognises that failing to commit an offence - whether by luck or bad judgment - does not extinguish the offender's culpability. That person is as morally responsible as if he had succeeded in committing the crime.

Applying these principles, the sentence for a burglar should be the same whether or not his victims are upstairs asleep, downstairs watching TV, or out of the house. The burglar's act and mental state are the same in each case. The presence or absence of any victim is a matter of simple luck. Under the Council's new proposals, however, a burglar who frightens victims inside a house will receive a markedly longer sentence than a burglar who has the happy fortune of finding his house unoccupied.

This reflects a general trend towards compensating victims for harm caused. I once witnessed a case where a drunk driver drove from Cambridge to Huntingdon as high as a kite, swerving around moving vehicles, riding the kerb, and driving over roundabouts. Amazingly, his tripped out journey resulted in no casualties or damage. As a result he was given a suspended sentence. Just imagine the sentence he would have received had he hit a child. What would be the principled difference? His culpability would be the same in both cases and sentencing ought to recognise this.

While I am always satisfied, therefore, to hear about offenders being dealt with more severely, I have a profound objection to the current obsession with consequence rather than culpability. I see no reason why a burglar who finds his victim in the house should face different treatment to the burglar who guesses right and discovers an empty house. Both are serious acts warranting significant punishment. To punish one but not the other is a bizarre social choice.

Opening Up a Can of Worms

The news that Osama Bin Laden has been killed by US Special Forces in a fire fight in a Pakistani town will be greeted by celebrations across the Western world. Already reports are emerging of Americans donning 'we got him' T-shirts and waving the stars and stripes. I must confess that I'm not in such a celebratory mood for the following reasons.

Firstly, if the West is to prevail in the war against terror, it is essential that it retains some form of moral legitimacy. The sight of Americans and Europeans dancing around the camp fire after the murder of a Muslim in a Muslim country is not likely to go down too well with those already contemplating embracing radical Islam. Wouldn't it be better if we demonstrated quiet dignity in moments like these? Western moral standing, already weakened by Iraq, cannot afford to suffer such damage.

Secondly, there is a very real chance of revenge attacks. Many people have been questioning for years the extent to which Bin Laden really controls Al-Qaeda. According to some observers, his death is unlikely to have much of a disruptive influence on the planning of Al-Qaeda in Asia and the West. The closed cell nature of Al-Qaeda's operations, where only a few operatives know the nature of what they are working on, means that the loss of one person is not likely to be terminal. What it will do, however, is lead to massive calls for revenge attacks in Islamist circles.

Thirdly, the circumstances of Bin Laden's death raise important questions about Pakistan's role in the war on terror. Bin Laden was killed in a town not far from Islamabad, which included an elite military training centre of the Pakistani military. This is a far cry from the remote border caves in which he has supposedly been hiding for years. How the Pakistani intelligence and armed forces can not have known about this is a matter for speculation. How long has Bin Laden been in Pakistan? These questions will be repeated by those already critical of Pakistan's reluctance to fully engage with radical elements in its population.

I'm not so sure that making Osama Bin Laden a martyr was really the best tactical approach to adopt in the war on terror. Regardless of its strategic implications, it makes me upset to see that people in the West cannot rise above celebrating the murder of a human being in moments like these, even that of a human being as evil and despicable as Bin Laden. Despite not being a Christian myself, I think those who profess to follow that religion would do well to remember this Proverb: 'Do not rejoice when your enemy falls. And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles.'