Connecting Crouch End and Hornsey with news, views and information

Just because I am paranoid does not mean they are not getting at me. I don't think I'm paranoid, I think I am thoughtful and quite insightful, and analytical, but maybe I do see connections where none exist.For instance, I can feel my constitutional rights and safeguards http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2561719.stm being eroded everywhere I look. For example, in Harringay, in Parliament and and at the sports club.

There is a consultation currently running in Haringey about additional licensing for Homes in Multiple Occupation in Harringay and St. Ann's. The good people on HoL http://www.harringayonline.com/forum/topics/additional-licensing-sc... largely seem to think this is a good idea. I don't. My view is that the Housing Act 2004, by giving local authorities the opportunity to introduce another layer of bureaucracy achieves exactly that. Another level of bureaucracy. If the Town and Country Planning Act, The Landlord and Tenant Act, The mandatory license, the laws against fly tipping, the building regs and the fire regulations have not worked then why should some other optional voluntary license have any effect? All this is going to do is to make work for some one in the council. The landlords who currently ignore all the other legislation will simply ignore this license as well. All the landlords who already comply with all the other legislation will get themselves another (unnecessary) license. Net result - no improvement, based on additonal (local) government interference.

If I look at the bill to abolish quangos http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/afua-hirsch-law-blog/2010/nov/09/lord... I can see further evidence that our parliamentarians are getting above themselves.  The Bill grants extensive powers to Ministers to abolish, to merge, to modify the constitutional arrangements of, to modify the funding arrangements of, to modify or transfer the functions of, or to authorise delegation in respect of a very significant number and range  of public bodies, as listed in the Schedules to the Bill. Now these public bodies are Quangos most of which have been created by Act of Parliament. So each should be removed by Act of Parliament. But no, the ministers are taking the power to sidestep this requirement. A report produced by people much more learned than I http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldselect/ldconst/... concludes  "The Public Bodies Bill [HL] strikes at the very heart of  our constitutional system, being a type of ‘framework’ or  ‘enabling’ legislation that drains the lifeblood of legislative amendment and debate across a very broad range of public arrangements. In particular, it hits directly at the role of the House of Lords as a revising chamber." So with a stroke of the pen ministers skip straight past both houses of our ancient and (formerly) much revered Parliament.

 At the Sports Club, I might consider becoming a coach. I'm a smart arse, just like you, I like showing off how much I know about stuff. At my local school I might want to be a governor (I used to be). But in either case I would have to undergo a CRB check. That is, I would be assumed guilty until I proved myself, or soemone else proved me to be, innocent. Now isn't that exactly the opposite of the assumption that the law has made for a very long time? Isn't that exactly the sort of hurdle that will prevent taking either of those community minded steps? Isn't it exactly the sort of hurdle that a cunning, manipulative, determined paedophile will find his/her way around with little or no trouble? Is it not the sort of precaution that would have made no difference to the Soham murders, because it was not the murderer but his girlfriend who would have undergone the check? 

Go on then, tell me I'm paranoid

Tags: crouch, crouchend, discussion, end, haringey, hornsey, infringe, london, n8, news, More…rights, views

Views: 225

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Just regarding your last comment about the Soham murders. Didn't the lack of CRB check there mean that he was able to take a job as a caretaker at the school?  If the school had bothered to properly check his status they would have undercovered that he had previous convictions involving underage girls. As it was, no police checks were carried out so he was allowed to work at the school, which is why the girls recognised and trusted him.
Huntley was a school caretaker but not at the victims' school. The connection to the girls was through his girl friend. If there had been a CRB check at the school where he did have a job he might have been an unemployed murderer, except that he had never previously been convicted of anything.


© 2022   Created by Adrian Essex.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service