HMRC loses data

I note with interest that our servants, the Government, have shambolically lost private data relating to around 25 million people. These same people seem to think we buy their statement that the same would not be true of the data held for their ID card systems. Why should we believe that this bunch of incompetents would be able to hold anything private. It is for this very reason that I refuse to provide HMRC with my bank account details 'so that they can process refunds more expeditiously'. I assume they mean they would contrive to lose this detail as rapidly as possible so that the criminal elements around could make proper use of it.

What amuses me greatly is that the Chump of the Exchequer stands there and says, the data is lost but it is not likely to be in criminal hands. I only have one question for him: If this data is lost, then how can Mr Darling be certain where it isn't?

We all know the answer to that, so there is no prize for telling me he can't. Still it is one way to solve the debt problems of the Third World isn't it?

Jury Service

I had a call to do jury service a few weeks ago. Never having done it before I looked forward to particpating in the checks and balances which should make our legal system work well and in times past certainly gave it an international reputation for fairness which was second to none.

To be fair, I only sat on one case as a juror so this may not be representative, but the Crown's case seemed to me to be so shambolic as to be laughable. Police evidence was so inconsistent that you had to wonder what the problem was. Fingerprint evidence was not undertaken because it would have been 'too expensive'. On a split decision the defendant was found guilty and it seemed to me this was not based on the evidence but more on the supposition that he looked like a 'toe-rag' and was therefore probably guilty. A view I shared, but I was one of the dissidents who voted 'not guilty' purely because I felt the Crown had not proved its case 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

Was this a miscarriage of justice? Given the miscreant's history of convictions provided after the verdict makes it seem unlikely, but I can assure you I was not impressed at all. The evidence that was produced was so sketchy that I think you had to find the defendant not guilty because the burden of proof was not there. Any one of us might well have been found guilty by that jury on the evidence provided and my view is that in most cases that would be a miscarriage of justice.

Should we change the system? No. But we should expect the police and the Crown to make an effort to meet the requirements of 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

That European Constitution, I mean Treaty

I saw in a newspaper report that President Sarkozy of France has said that we cannot have referendums for the new treaty in the various countries in Europe as the vote will be a 'no'. I had to read it twice to confirm that was what he said. So, we now have a politician saying we cannot give the public a democratic vote on this issue because they will say no and we wish to defy the will of our employers. If he was the CEO of a company this would be asking for a sacking. In this case I suggest the situation is even worse. This sounds like treason to me. If a politician can say he denying the will of the voters then he must surely be guilty of treason? No doubt Brown will be slightly smarter, he won't say why we won't have a referendum here, we just won't have one.