Tony Cox trial and the EU referendum: Whose 'evidence'? Whose 'verdict'? Whose politics? Whose 'voting rights'

By Dude Swheatie of Kwug

Tony Cox' supporters rolled up outside the court in Dundee on his trial day

The report from Scottish Unemployed Workers Network (SUWN) — Class 'Justice' —regarding Tony Cox' trial yesterday does not make joyous reading for KUWG members (Kwuggies) and welfare advocates everywhere: 

The sheriff (judge) presiding in the case found Tony 'guilty' of 'threatening behaviour' towards the staff of privatised disability assessment company Maximus, acknowledging in his verdict that it all boiled down to whose evidence he preferred despite contradictions in the evidence provided by Tony's accusers. 

It would also seem — at least according to this blogger's perception of things —that regarding the Sheriff's apparent contempt for the evidence available from the vulnerable woman Tony attempted to accompany to her Work Capability Assessment, he sided with the view that as the taxpayer-funded privatised assessor, Maximus and its staff knew what was best for the vulnerable person Tony was attempting to support. And it did not matter one jot what the vulnerable person herself had to say in response to very loaded questions from the judge.(1) 

Loaded questions betray one's prejudices, and that is a clear basis of rapport between Sheriff Griffiths and what MaximusUK likes to represent its 'Eligibility Support' [sic] as.

Maximus | United Kingdom: Eligibility Support — "Processing eligibility support claims quickly and efficiently" [sic]

Whose 'evidence'? Whose 'verdict'? Whose politics? Whose 'voting rights'? And allegiance to who and to what?

The SUWN blog post reports on an 'in our experience' framework regarding MaximusUK and its 'output' or the fruits by which Maximus and Tony shall be comparatively 'known' and omits reference to, say, Labour MP Louise Haigh's evidence regarding the 'corporate outsourcing giant's "track record, ethics and even criminal behaviour of Maximus in delivering public contracts in the US" before being appointed to replace Atos as WCA company of Conservative Government choice. Haigh has said of MaximusUK 'Eligibility Support' output on the basis of her publicly funded casework:

"There seems to be an alarming trend of cases being rejected based on factual errors or even — I hesitate to say this — falsification.

"I have had several cases of people telling me that their assessment report bears absolutely no relation to the assessment that they experienced with Maximus or Atos [the company that it took over running of Work Capability Assessments (WCA's) from].

“One or two cases could be dismissed as an honest mistake, but the situation appears to reveal a disconcerting pattern of behaviour that indicates that the trade-off between cost-cutting and profit maximisation is being felt by very vulnerable people.”(3)

This blogger would say that MaximusUK's claims in general are about as valid as those of the Vote Leave campaign regarding how much money could be re-allocated to the NHS by Britain leaving the European Union. Now that Britain has apparently voted to leave the EU, we shall probably see what truth there is regarding such claims, and what the real public spending priorities of those left in charge will be.

Regarding the downfall of David Cameron resulting from the Vote Leave decision of those who were deemed 'eligible' to vote in that referendum — whatever their reasoning for that decision — there will be new 'leadership' in Downing Street. I suppose that that 'leadership' will reward its BBC News supporters for all their 'services to democracy' in favouring Vote Leave propaganda during that referendum.

As a Green Party member, I shudder regarding the diminishing prospects for furthering of equalities legislation and democracy that EU membership has brought us. Further, to combat such international issues as climate change, terrorism, tax evasion, imbalances of economic power, international disputes, etc, UK involvement in EU cooperation is essential and will be tragically absent

Kilburn Unemployed (KUWG) members are of various political parties and varying positions regarding EU membership. Some though have had no say in this referendum because of their nationality not being British. 

One of the huge advantages that birthright British citizens have over those wishing to claim British citizenship is that they do not have to 'pledge allegiance to the Crown'. As someone who very much prefers monarchy and finds the kowtowing to court decisions such as the 'Tony Cox is guilty despite absence of CCTV evidence' that would 'reward' Tony with a lighter sentence to the detriment of welfare advocates everywhere.

I regard such directives as worthy of contempt rather than allegiance. (I have greater 'allegiance' to my non-UK citizen friends and comrades in Kwug than I have for a birthright publicly funded family of benefit claimant royalty and the courts operating in its name that make some very dodgy decisions.) What do you reckon?


Link addresses

1. https://scottishunemployedworkers.net/2016/06/23/class-justice/
2. https://www.maximusuk.co.uk/health-programmes/eligibility-support
3. http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/maximus-has-falsified-results-of-fitness-for-work-tests-says-mp/

Legitimacy of electoral systems vs illegitimate and vicious government policies

Dude Swheatie has just signed a Make Votes Matter petition letter Minister for Constitutional Affairs John Penrose. This is in support of a change: 

1. from a 'first past the post' electoral system 
2. to a Proportional Representation (PR) system.(1)

Dude Swheatie has added this message to support his signature:

Under a 'first past the post' electoral system, the economic clout of campaign funders — even those who are non-UK citizens — dominates over the interests of the most vulnerable in our society.

How many of those who voted against proportional representation know of the extent and viciousness of what U. Glasgow law professor Dr David Webster 'Britain's secret penal system'?(2)

I believe that Proportional Representation would help bring about far more legitimate government in the UK.

Link

1. https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron-reform-our-voting-system-to-make-it-fair-and-representative-makeseatsmatchvotes/u/16905545
2. https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/benefit-sanctions-britains-secret-penal-system

Electoral reform, wishful thinking and informed decision making

A guest post by Joan Grant, a member of KUWG expressing personal views. Internet search-term-friendly title by Dude Swheatie. Joan's original title appears below

Be careful what you wish for, or Nigel was right

I thought it was ironic that both Nigel Farage and Natalie Bennett were “pissed off” for want of a better word, by the election result. They made strange bed fellows calling for reform of the electoral system. One has to say that Farage had more to moan about than Bennett. UKIP got 4 million votes and yet just one MP. [Editor's note: The electoral system under which the UK currently operates as it has done for centuries is generally known as 'first past the post'.]

The Electoral Reform Societyⁱ have produced a very interesting report which shows how many seats each party would have got had the election been held under a proportional representation scheme.(1) There are a number of different versions of PR. The report looked at them all. Their preferred system is the Single Transferrable Vote system.

Had the election been held under this system, the result would have been the hung parliament that all the polls predicted. The Tories would still be the biggest party but with 276 seats as opposed to the 331 they have got. Labour would be about the same but it only have 40 fewer seats rather than 99, which it is now.

The Lib Dem would have got 26 seats rather than a mere 8. That would have been fairly respectable and Nick Clegg might well have stayed on as party leader. The SNP would have done well, but not as well. They would have got 34 seats.

The Greens would have got 3 seats which better reflects the overall support that they got.

But it is UKIP who would have been the biggest winners. They would have got 54 seats. Yes, you read that right. 54 seats. I think it is fair to say that would have been a quite astonishing result. That would have been the earthquake that Nigel Farage keeps harping on about.

UKIP would have held the balance of power. There would have been a coalition. Nigel Farage would now be Deputy Prime Minister. There might be two or three UKIP ministers.

 

I am really not sure which is worse: an electoral system that does not properly reflect the votes cast or the thought of Nigel Farage as Deputy Prime Minister. Whichever way you cut it, Nigel Farage was right about the level of support for UKIP. Only time will tell if their support will rise or fall over the next few years.

Note

(1) http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/publication/2015%20General%20Election%20Report%20web.pdf [accessed 25 June 2015]

i The 2015 General Election, A voting system in Crisis by jess Garland and Chris Terry. May 2015 (Electoral Reform Society)