62p for the Monarchy? I'd pay a pound.

I can't work out why people have an objection to the Monarchy, I think they are fantastic and cost us as tax payers very little. I came to be pondering their place in society, because my girlfriends mam (yes she is a Geordie) is off to meet the Queen and I'm jealous!

If you have ever met any of our royal family anywhere for any length of time you will remember it for the rest of your life and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. They are a national asset for a whole myriad of reasons: - how much money to the Americans spend coming here to gawp on what they abandoned? How many trips do they as a whole take as ambassadors? Leaving Nick and Dave to run/ ruin the country (pick your adjective), how lovely was the recent royal wedding? And all bar the Queen, Philip, and Charles have proper and in some case noble and dangerous jobs!

I personally think the example the Queen sets as the leader of the country is worth far more than you can measure in monetary terms. And to quote the greatest drunk in the world 'God elected her to be the best person in the country, nay the world... so do what she says!' (I had just lost a coin flip at 4am over who was ordering the takeaway, but I feel his point is just as poignant here)

So stop bitching about the 62p it cost us each a year to have them and appreciate them, because we almost fucked it up and let Cromwell take them away! Which would have left us with a politician as the head of the country...

Are juries really just?

I wrote a post recently about the U-turn on the reduced prison sentences for admitting your guilt early and proposed the idea of restricting the option to specific white collar crimes. This got me thinking about the fairness for juries in complex white collar crimes.

On the whole I support juries and their place at the centre of our legal system, if I'm ever tried in court I hope to be faced with a jury of my peers. But what if the crime I'm accused of is a complex case of fraud involving stock markets, securities, off shore bank accounts, foreign investors and any other complicated financial mechanisms that may exist? Are my peers really equipped to make and informed decision upon my alleged crimes, even with the best efforts of the prosecution?

Are Graham and Sarah Bloggs going to be in a position to understand a crime that has had the sharpest legal and financial minds in the country working tirelessly for 12 months to understand, and work out if a crime has even been committed?

I'm not even sure how you would go about fixing this hypothetical problem. Have a level of education as a criteria for different crimes? That has many flaws, for instance my father is one of the smartest men I know bar none, yet he never went to university so would it be fair to him or the defendant to exclude him from some cases? In short, no.

Another option maybe to have some form of pre trial education for the juries? Again it has flaws, it could be argued that you would prejudice them by telling them certain facts and excluding others (for times sake and no other reason), this would also add an extra cost to an already expensive process in these austere times.

This isn't a pressing issue by any means but it does have me in a quandary! If anyone knows the solution or has an idea which seems practical, please let me know.

I'm a racist. But it's ok, I have addictions.

John Galliano the British fashion designer is trying to claim that his addictions made him subject people to some vile racism. I would have more respect for him if he just apologised for his racism and left it at that, but blaming your horrid views on alcohol (with whom I have a strong friendship) and drugs, just insults every one's intelligence.

I have been so drunk that I have passed out on my own doorstep face down in a pizza and managed a decent nights sleep (yes my friends left me there) or fell down 3 flights of stairs and only worried about spilling my pint, but I didn't start insulting people's clothes or proclaiming my love for Adolf, unlike Mr Galliano!

I grew up in an area of prejudice and racism, and know a lot of men and women with opinions that make Mr Galliano seem meek yet I have more respect for them because they have the decency not to blame alcohol and drugs for their stupid and hurtful views. I understand that he needs to dodge prison otherwise he will be someone's bitch (and a pirate faced one at that), but just admit you're a shit, we all know it and move on with your life!

50% off prison terms... Not all bad me thinks

So Ken and Dave have had a change of heart of the reduction of prisons sentences if you admit it at the earliest stage... I personally think they were on to something interesting.

The idea of cutting up to 50% off a sentence at first glance seems to be bad idea seeing rapist, murders and child molesters being released after only serving a pittance of a prison sentence, but what if it was only any option for white collar crime? Interesting idea I hear you say!

Some of the longest and most complex trials are white collar crime. In some (not all) surely it would be acceptable to have up to 50% off option. In some cases would the loss of jobs, reputation, trust and status within their community do more to 'punish' the offender than an extra X amount of tax payer funded years in a category C prison? I'm not claiming its perfect, or morally just, but it would make some much need savings of money and courts time?

I think it might be worth some serious thought and a little more indepth deliberation... Or you could pull a u-turn and hack some more money away from already over stretched prison budget.

Don't make us come back again! Because we can't.

The long running international tiff that is the question of the Falkland Islands is getting to the point of insanity, we have been arguing over this tiny outcrop of civilisation for nearly 200 years, fought a bitter if unofficial war over it and yet it still remains unresolved for the Argentine government. The likelihood of another armed conflict is miniscule, which is handy because we have no aircraft carriers for the next decade or so… cheers Dave, great foresight!

Having looked repeatedly at the arguments for each sides claim to the Falklands, one point keeps screaming out at me, and I find it astounding that the news papers and politicians keeps failing to mention it. It’s the fact that the Argentine Government does not recognise the Falklanders right to be there or their right to choose who they want to be ‘ruled’ by. To quote the Argentine Government 'Self-determination principles are not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population'. How on earth do they ever expect to be taken serious or even enter into a dialogue if they don’t even recognise the right of 3,104 people to live on the islands their families have called home for 188 years? This is a little redundant because they on mass have choosen to be British. Frankly it disgusts me that this is their attitude, as far as I know every country on the planet operates the policy that if you are born in a country you have the right to be a citizen of that country and have a right to vote, so why should the Falkland Islands be any different?

The lack of respect for the Falklander's right to self determination, negates all arguments the Argentineans can put forward, and that is the end of it... On a slightly different note, did you realise that there are 117 minefields and unknown amounts of unexploded ordnances still on the islands? If either government really cares maybe they should clear up after the last war. 

My opposition to the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition in the United Kingdom.

When it comes to national politics I'm a flip flopper, with a soft spot for a decent speech. There are many examples of speeches that make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up :- 'This was their finest hour' by Churchill or Barrack Obama's 'Yes We Can' speech on the night of the New Hampshire's primary. These are goliaths in the world of speeches, they inspired, they gave hope and they will go down in history as such- and the men who gave them, will be regarded among the very best leaders the world has ever seen (If Obama fails to get re-elected I'll eat my own foot)

I'm harping on about goliath speeches, hope and inspiration because we, as a nation, need a smattering of all three and it’s our opposition's duty to provide some when our government is hacking itself to bits. Yet so far they have failed miserably. Ed Miliband should be a fantastic leader, he has the credentials, he was a speech writer and researcher for Harriet Harman and Gordon Brown at the start of his climb up the greasy pole after short stint in television journalism. He was an advisor at the treasury and helped on the Scottish Labour election campaign in ‘99; he spent a year lecturing at Harvard for god’s sake, the old labour leadership gave him a safe seat to run for over another promising candidate... In short he is not thick and he should have ability to inspire people with ideas and writings of the highest political calibre...

So how come every time I see his smug face on TV does my heart sink? I think it's because I feel let down by his inability to sound or look like a leader of a party let alone the country. With Dave at least I felt he had the balls to give it a bloody good go and at least fake it till he made it. With Ed I genuinely see a child throwing tantrums and failing to convince me that I can trust him with anything other than his house keys and even then I pray they are clipped to his belt by his wife before he leaves the house.

Forget this new direction, forget making a play at stepping away from the Blair and Brown eras (both had some monumental achievements of which he should be proud) this is an old and recycled method of launch a supposed new era. I want to hear 'yes we got some things wrong, yes I'm sorry for mistakes of the previous labour government but I promise you we have learnt our lessons..  I won't let them foul up our country anymore, with broken promises and sly mean policy... I'm coming for you with every fibre of my being and I promise you this is your first and last term in government' if he even uttered words to that affect it would have me running to join the party (or at least taking them seriously)... If I'm honest I want him to become a Jed Bartlet ( If you don't know who he is I pity you) and to come and give me some hope, restore some of my faith and maybe even answer the question he was asked on occasion...Too much to hope for?

Stop jeering and start asking something useful or watch Erick Pickles get gutted.

It annoys me, it really annoys me. We elect these men and women to be our representatives, our voice in government, the people we trust with the decisions which affect us all too some greater or lesser extent. So why do they jeer at each other like a bunch of idiots? My girlfriend is a primary school teacher and wouldn't let her class communicate across the classroom like that; one of my friends is an English teacher and would never allow this childish behaviour. These men and women are well educated so we can rule out a lack of basic manners and social etiquette. Are they not meant to hold themselves to a higher moral standard and to be role models for younger generations? Yet they sit opposite each other and jeer! If you're going to do that you might as well have the decency to sing a clever song about the opposition, even football hooligans can muster up a song. (Your Mum's your Dad, your Dad's your Mum, you're interbred, you're Labour scum... hell even I can do it).

I usually watch the prime minister's questions, and it annoys me when the opposition (I'll get to them in another rant) ask a question, any question and don’t even wait to hear the answer before they start the jeering. This isn’t a question of whether you agree with him, disagree with him or want his head atop a spike on London Bridge; let him answer the sodding question you as a party asked! Have some manners.

Basic manners is all I ask (in this rant anyway), I get disheartened when I see the leaders of this country behaving like drunk monkeys; I'm half waiting for the poo slinging to begin. This behaviour is unacceptable in every other place I can think of from family dinner tables to the pub, if your mate/ partner is talking utter balls you let him finish (ish) before call them up on it.

I was once told that if you cross the red lines on the floor of the commons chamber whilst someone was addressing the house, it was duelling time... Please if you care that much about what you're hearing, grab a sword, leap across aforementioned line and have at the person who has offended you so much you couldn't contain your rage for a minute or two more (If this happens I pray to any and every god, Eric Pickles gets it first). At least people would watch the PMQ's and BBC Parliament.