Whitehall & Party advisors: HOW EVIDENCE is abused in the name of populism

Like peaches and cream, the words politics and spin go together all too well. But just like cream, the spin can't be all that good for us can it? This week's Hear Hear show offers a meaty insight in to how evidence is used and abused in politics.

listen to ‘Hear Hear Episode 7: Evidence based policy in politics’ on Audioboo

Listen in via audioboo above - and if you like what you hear or you just want to share or debate it's contents, do please share the show on Twitter and Facebook and do please embed freely when crediting Audioboo's Hear Hear Show. Now I don't want to go in to all the detail here or you won't listen to the show - but here are some of the flash points to wet your apatite. Julian Huppert, Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge and one of the few MPs with an academic and vocational background in Science told Hear Hear: 1. "We don't yet know exactly what the aim of education policy is". 2. Rarely can evidence give you the definitive answer. 3. Too many MPs come from a media and PR background where the culture is not compatible with changing your mind based on the evidence. 4. Politicians and civil servants are often "not very evidence based". Recent Whitehall Advisor on drugs and justice Alex Stevens, Professor of criminal justice at the university of Kent told me: 1. Massaging of figures "is a big problem. This government and members of the previous government have been rebuked by the office of national statistics for misusing evidence". 2. On Special Advisors, ""Their role is not just as spin doctors". He said, "Ministers are quite remote and very senior figures in Whitehall and one could see special advisors as their representatives' on Earth". 3. THINK TANKS should be more transparent and government consultations should be taken "more seriously" and making them harder to "spin". 4. Ken Clarke tried to use evidence to show that longer prison sentences were not an effective and economic way of cutting reoffending rates but the results were sat on because they weren't held to be popular. Liberal Democrat Policy Advisor Pratiq Buch was Hear Hear's studio guest of the week - a research Scientist by profession, Pratiq spoke of his experience advising the Lib Dems. 1. Backs Nick Clegg on drugs policy, admitting that tensions happen in the coalition. 2. CLIMATE CHANGE: As a supporter of addressing man made climate change, Buch says it's not helpful for politicians to close down debate. 3. Government "consultations are often deeply flawed". 4. POPULISM: Says evidence and recommendations are often measured against how popular they're likely to be. When asked whether focus groups are the bane of his life, Butch replied, "err.. no comment". 5. LOBBYING: Politicians and the civil service are not ideally equipped to tell the difference between scientific evidence and lobbying when certain evidence is presented to them. Please use show audio and quotes freely when crediting Audioboo's Hear Hear Show - and if you want to give me a plug as well, it'll only make me smile :).

Weak Prime Minister "Knee Jerked" over #Leveson says @neilwallis1

Episode 3 of Hear Hear is out and it is undoubtedly one of the most compelling bits of audio I've had the pleasure to present or produce.

listen to ‘Hear Hear Episode 3 - The Press’ on Audioboo

Former Lib Dem MP Lembit Opik rides the waves of high joy and serious shade as he describes his anger and upset at "one of the worst" headlines he's ever been the subject of. The former News of the World Executive Neil Wallis describes his arrest over phone hacking allegations and his 18 months of hell on police bail. Wallis insists that Prime Minister David Cameron is "Weak" and charges him with allowing the biggest attack on press freedom since before Magna Carta.

New weekly political & current affairs show

Today marks the launch of my new show 'Hear Hear' on Audioboo.

listen to ‘Hear Hear Episode 1 - Scottish Independence’ on Audioboo

I'm rather excited about what we've been able to deliver in this new step by the content and social media platform to produce original content - and content that is produced up to national radio standard.

All mainstream media is multimedia in 2013 - but this project is unique.... and talking of unique - it's recorded at the UBC studios in Paddington - the same studio used to record Alan Partridge's mid-morning matters by the way.

It's unique because we are combining mainstream journalism with new media which we hope will integrate seamlessly.

But take a listen and let me know what you think.

Margaret Thatcher: Why we all owe her our gratitude

The sad news that Margaret Thatcher has died, aged 87 will stir much genuine feeling on both sides of the political divide - but more than that, it should stir much genuine feeling in all human beings that Britain's only female Prime Minister succeeded despite historic and even contemporary sexism.

Today is not the day to discuss the Iron Lady's policies or political outlook - for me they don't matter in the context of this committed woman making her way to the top of a male dominated political system. I am certain we will see tributes from across the floor.

State funerals, policies and politics are a discussion for another day

The law on naming arrested people & how media decide whether to pulish and be dammed

There has been much speculation on twitter as to the identity of the 82 year old (Yewtree 5) arrested by Scotland Yard Detectives yesterday.

Please take my advice... STOP IT!

Advice issued by the Attorney General's Office in recent years confirms that there is no contempt offence per say in correctly naming an arrested person and the reason for their arrest - but there are two big buts... a) it can be a contempt to do anything other than name the person and the reason for their arrest depending on the content. b) Regardless of contempt laws, you can be sued for identifying an arrested person since the mere reporting would be likely to lower the reputation of the arrested person in the mind of others. It is therefore potentially defamatory - and that goes for tweeters and mainstream media alike.

The key here is that an arrest is neither a sanction nor an indication of guilt. It's an old fashioned thing called due process. Broadly, an arrest without warrant can be made when a Constable (usually) reasonably suspects an offence MAY have taken place, be taking place or about to be taken place or otherwise to prevent a breach of the peace. We could get in to any person powers of arrest without warrant and arrests with warrant here but it will muddy the waters - so let's not. The crucial point for any arrest made by a police officer without warrant is that they have reasonable grounds to suspect an offence may have taken place. This could include an allegation made by another for instance. Only a Court can Rule on guilt or innocence.

So why are arrested people sometimes named by the media?

This is always a calculation on the part of the media organisation. With very few exceptions (and certainly any ethical media outlet) they will be 100% sure of the fact that person A has been arrested and will normally double source that information as a dead minimum

A media organisation may take in to consideration how likely a charge is... for instance, did a reporter for that organisation or other very trusted source see a named person hit a random stranger without provocation in a public place with many witnesses? The outlet may take the view that they are 100% sure of the facts that witnesses can be tracked down to defend any claim by the other party - or that the circumstances are such that the person will at least be charged. In this instance, the reporting of an arrest is immaterial.

In high profile cases such as in cases of alleged child abduction or murders, a media organisation may choose to name anyone who is arrested so not to be left behind other media organisations and due to the public interest involved. Public interest is not a defence to riding rough over due process and calling detained persons "creepy" and the like. Speculation is a no no.

Lastly and in normal circumstances the media organisation will consider who the third party is. If it's Joe Bloggs from Number 37, any naming may be considered a risk because Mr Bloggs has nothing to risk of his reputation in challenging any reporting... however, if the arrested person is an MP, or otherwise has a public profile that could be damaged by a drawn out legal affair, it's highly unlikely - though not impossible - they would wish to highlight the arrest.

As you can see, there is a terribly complicated decision making process which goes in to whether an arrested person is or is not named. I chose not to identify a tory politician's identity on an occasion when his arrest was my exclusive story (or scoop) and I'm pleased because he was unquestionably innocent as it turned out. Nevertheless, the BBC did (understandably) name him and the MP did consider legal action... he did however, as suspected, not sue for the BBC- almost certainly for the reasons above.

In summary, the law is a terribly complicated business and media law and the decision to publish and be dammed is complicated matter influenced as often by any likely legal action and realistic circumstances as by the law.

If you THINK you know who a particular arrested person is - consider how you would feel if you were arrested, turned out to be innocent of any crime but were forever branded a pervert.

Above all - don't try and guess the law. You will get it wrong.

***** Scroll down one post to see how the media do sometimes choose to name arrested people. Eric Joyce was within the last 48 hours released with no further action ****

Eric Joyce's latest arrest and the future of drinking in parliament

Eric Joyce's latest arrest is deeply sad news, not so much for the reputation of the House which will of course suffer once again, but for Eric Joyce himself who will, if charged, surely now have to call for the Chiltern Hundreds - or resign in layman's terms.

The Independent on Sunday's political editor Jane Merrick rightly tweeted her concern for Mr Joyce within the last few hours, and I admire her courage in marking this tragedy when so many others appear to be gloating in Joyce's misfortunate - however, I think it would be unfair to include the House Authorities in any criticism of Westminster not caring about alcoholism since they have been working hard to strike the right balance in Parliament as Speaker Bercow told me in an exclusive interview for Total Politics magazine last summer - you can read that interview here

As a regular patron of most of the bars in the commons and as someone who has written about the issue, I foresee this latest incident sparking a renewed interest in booze in parliament and extra policing (whether by the Met or other House staff) to be present in the short to mid term. Whether this is yet another 'one off' by the same man or not, it is clear to even the least clued up of Westminster watchers that the commons cannot continue to receive the type of headlines Eric Joyce is responsible for delivering... not in 2013 - and Jane's point on alcoholism in Westminster will surely now take even greater focus.

*****

I would like readers of this blog to know that contrary to the impression you might understandably get from this type of incident, your MPs are not spending all their time, and all of your money on cheap booze in parliament. Last point first - there has been a profit on the sale of alcohol in commons bars for over 10 years - and since 2010, prices are benchmarked with local establishments and the cost of drink in the palace of Westminster is comparable to those outside. Most importantly, I hope readers will take my word when I say that bars are normally quite sociable and quiet and so I will retch for days now as I hear of rowdiness which simply doesn't usually happen.

*****

Security in parliament is the finest you'll find, and all those who work to keep us passholders safe are the nicest of nice people - whether sworn police officers, specialist counter terror community support officers, metropolitan police security officers or other House security, it saddens me greatly to think of anyone assaulting them - and I know I speak for every passholder (including Eric Joyce when he's sober)  when I say we appreciate the work they do.

*****

 

At the time of writing (04:29 on Friday morning) Eric Joyce will be tucked up in a police cell - most likely at Charing Cross police station - as other officers work to draw up a picture of what may have unfolded, which will certainly involve taking statements from any allegedly aggrieved party and any witnesses. If reports of a drunk Joyce are accurate, he will not be able to be interviewed until the drink has left his system. In practical terms, this is likely to mean an awful micro-waved all day breakfast with a tea or coffee around 8 o'clock followed by faffing after that while any legal representative is arranged and attends. When this is all arranged, Eric Joyce is likely to be interviewed on tape. During this interview, any allegations will be put to the Falkirk MP and he will have the opportunity to account for any actions - remembering of course that he does not have to say anything. The police will conduct regular custody reviews set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and though actual custody time won't touch this, they have up to 24 hours to either charge, release on bail, release with no further action, or apply to a senior police officer for extra detention time. it is unthinkable however that one of these options will not be exercised by mid to late afternoon at the very latest. There's a lot of process in this sort of thing and it's pretty standard - but for now, Chris Huhne may be hoping for a new cell-mate.

 

****

I would like to take this opportunity to praise Tony Grew, @ayestotheright for his balanced eye-witness reporting of the incident on BBC Radio 5 Live and for ITV News. It should be noted of course that though many were unfortunate enough to witness the latest sorry affair, the observant Mr Grew witnessed last year's bar war too.

HOW THOUSANDS COULD BE DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE AND NOT KNOW IT: Is it time to change the law?

There are an estimated 1.4 million uninsured drivers on our roads, and they're a menace to law abiding members of the public.

Some years ago, in an attempt to reduce the danger presented by drivers, who on the most part have little consideration for the wellbeing of themselves or other road users, the government introduced the power to seize uninsured motor vehicles known as Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act.

There is a slight issue of this power flying in the face of the Magna Carter - no fine or seizure without Order of the Court -but leaving that rather big issue to one side, I think the vast majority of the law abiding public think it's right this action is taken, and whereas driving without insurance may have been considered quite run of the mill 20 years ago, it's now socially unacceptable and transgressors are dealt with harshly.

Only trouble is... driving without third party insurance is known as a "strict liability" offence, which means you're either guilty of that offence or you're not. However much justification and even proof a driver is able to produce that they had a genuinely held belief that they were insured is irrelevant - and this is where cracks in the system start to appear.

Now none of this affects me since I do not, and cannot drive - but I am a huge believer in the rule of law, which goes hand in hand with the average law abiding person (known in legal circles as the man on the Clapham Omnibus) respecting those laws.

This post was prompted by one of those 'traffic cops' type shows appearing on my TV during a channel hop. Truthfully I really can't stand them for very long - but a driver was featured who had been pulled over due to an activation on the traffic officers' automatic number plate system (ANPR) indicating that he had no insurance. The driver produced a certificate from e-sure.com , which when explored by the police turned out to have been issued legitimately, but cancelled due to bounced direct debit payments - an issue which the driver, quite convincingly said he was unaware of.

Now if we're being sanctimonious, we could give the kind of answer to this issue as given by one of the officers (brought to you through the magic of live rewind on sky digital), "The reason that we didn't feel sorry for him is because legally, in this country you have to have insurance on your car. You cannot take a vehicle on the road without insurance", but in my own view, this kind of attitude toward generally law abiding members of the public leaves that member of the public with a bitter taste in their mouth - and for what it's worth, is probably partly responsible for a general fall in respect levels for police, the majority of whom, I honestly believe are doing the best they can, but all should remember that police officers are not supposed to be judges of law. But the point is that thousands of people could be driving with no insurance without even realising.

Is it time therefore to re-visit the laws surrounding third party insurance in the UK? This writer would never advocate a softening approach to uninsured drivers, but given that there are criminal consequences for missed or confused payments (I'm not going to enter in to argument about criminal consequences here because it is a criminal offence, and a permanent record is kept by the DVLA, and it will therefore show up on any check of the police national computer - a criminal record to all intents and purposes) is it time to change the rules governing partial payments and withdrawal of an insurance policy.

As one possible solution, should any insurer who has accepted a customer on a payment plan be required to serve legal papers on anyone who they wish, for whatever reason to stop insuring before their insurance is invalidated, and their car index number removed from the motor insurance bureaux database? Or perhaps payment plans should be dealt with as a credit arrangement that must be chased through the civil courts if defaulted upon?

I'm not soft on uninsured drivers, but isn't it time to introduce safeguards to prevent law abiding people becoming unwitting criminals? Isn't this the only way to maintain respect in the law?

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This writer neither drives, nor has any criminal conviction of any kind.