My parents are politicians, and have been for ~30 years. I have a lifetime's experience of the effort they put into their political work, the demands made upon them, and the tangible results. I get my morals from them. Whether you regard that as further evidence to support the pondscum hypothesis is entirely up to you ;)
However, I think Plato had it right: "The penalty that good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves.
As far as I can tell, there's a specific problem with David Blunkett. It doesn't help that Home Secretary's probably the trickiest post in government, but I don't really think that he's up to it, to be honest. He made a quite incredible mess of education, too, most of which is being slowly secretly undone. He seems like a nice enough guy in himself, which I think is part of the problem too, for home secretaries. I think he sees himself as the home secretary in a way without any historical perspective, I think the same's true of the government in general, too. He's only the present encumbant of the post of Home Secretary, and there will be people after him who are not so nice, and accumulating power to an individual, even a well-intentioned individual, is dangerous because not only of their own flaws, but because eventually they will pass that power on to someone who may well not be so nice, or as competent (shudder!). But when I see things like your link, I wonder if he's even his hand on the tiller.
I think that economicism has been getting to them, and really polluting their thinking, too, turning them into mad Utilitarians and assigning too much liquidity to ethics. They should read more Kant. I think they see the country as a human resource.
It's worth noting that the first case, Paddy Hill, has received £960,000 in compensation, and they're looking for £50,000 back in consideration of board and lodging.
Had such a deduction been negotiated as part of the original compensation settlement, I doubt anyone would be complaining much: if he is being compensated for his losses, why is it wrong to set whatever small benefit he received from the mistake against that loss?
The problem seems to be that they're asking for the money now, having already given out the compensation. This is clearly very bad press for the government, but whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, but I can't help wishing the article gave more details of the terms of the compensation payout.
Firstly, I'm not sure I buy that you ought to pay for involuntary detention, regardless. You were forced to be there against your will; the government made the mistake and ought to pay for the costs. Furthermore, if victims of miscarriage of justice are charged that fee then why is it not charged to the guilty too? I don't see how this is at all consistent. If you have the attitude that prison shouldn't be a free ride (I'd disagree that it is; I think loss of freedom and the work normally assigned to prisoners can easily be set against that), then you should be lobbying for the guilty to pay for their bed and board too.
Discarding that for a moment, though, I think I agree that Paddy Hill's case is not the most persuasive of those mentioned. How about Robert Brown at the end, though, who hasn't actually received full compensation yet?
I agree that I'd have liked to see more details of how compensation payments break down, but nevertheless for me the very attitude that you ought to pay for your own unjustified detention just beggars belief.
I thought the deal was that the fact prisoners didn't pay for board and lodging was set against their not earning money for work done while in prison?
Given that one of those prisoners went on hunger strike, it may well be that some of them also refused to work while in prison.
As for the one who hasn't received compensation yet, raising the matter before a final compensation sum is agreed is, as previously mentioned, surely the right way round to do it?
But, again, we don't know the full facts in any of these cases. Given those facts, they may not even turn out to be comparable to one another.
They're not forced to work, but if they do work, they don't earn any money from doing so. (Isn't having worked while in prison allowed to count in one's favour at parole hearings, by the way?)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cjwatson![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-15 05:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-15 10:33 am (UTC)I get my morals from them. Whether you regard that as further evidence to support the pondscum hypothesis is entirely up to you ;)
However, I think Plato had it right: "The penalty that good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-15 05:30 am (UTC)I think that economicism has been getting to them, and really polluting their thinking, too, turning them into mad Utilitarians and assigning too much liquidity to ethics. They should read more Kant. I think they see the country as a human resource.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-15 05:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-15 05:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-15 06:55 am (UTC)It's worth noting that the first case, Paddy Hill, has received £960,000 in compensation, and they're looking for £50,000 back in consideration of board and lodging.
Had such a deduction been negotiated as part of the original compensation settlement, I doubt anyone would be complaining much: if he is being compensated for his losses, why is it wrong to set whatever small benefit he received from the mistake against that loss?
The problem seems to be that they're asking for the money now, having already given out the compensation. This is clearly very bad press for the government, but whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, but I can't help wishing the article gave more details of the terms of the compensation payout.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-15 07:12 am (UTC)Discarding that for a moment, though, I think I agree that Paddy Hill's case is not the most persuasive of those mentioned. How about Robert Brown at the end, though, who hasn't actually received full compensation yet?
I agree that I'd have liked to see more details of how compensation payments break down, but nevertheless for me the very attitude that you ought to pay for your own unjustified detention just beggars belief.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-15 09:00 am (UTC)Given that one of those prisoners went on hunger strike, it may well be that some of them also refused to work while in prison.
As for the one who hasn't received compensation yet, raising the matter before a final compensation sum is agreed is, as previously mentioned, surely the right way round to do it?
But, again, we don't know the full facts in any of these cases. Given those facts, they may not even turn out to be comparable to one another.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-15 10:25 am (UTC)No. Prisoners cannot be made to work: forced work is slavery.
China is routinely criticised for doing just this.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-15 10:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-15 10:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-03-15 02:14 pm (UTC)