And another thing…

Depends, how many of said bloggers were listening to Money Box on Radio 4 this morning?

Plus, of course, “there will be no change in the law and nobody thought there would be in the first place” doesn’t make for much of a scoop.

Fir point. This is good news. For my part – Bailiffs should only ever be allowed to enter property with an order of the court – given by a judge and not magistrates.

Magistrate justice, despite their dedication, is, at the end of the day, justice on the cheap and we certainly do not want to see magistrates being given additional powers to imprison as they are seeking.

Bailiffs are already allowed to break down doors on behalf of the courts. They also routinely break into houses by jimmying doors and windows claiming that houses were “left open”.

On top of that they often lie to people that they have a legal right to enter (they don’t) and pretend to have court orders.

-=-=-

The fact that they’re not allowed to legally break in seems to have very little effect on these companies, not least of which because their staff are usually on extremely low salaries topped up with bonuses based on how much ill-gotten booty they can collect.

Added to all of that, prosecutions for illegal entry are practically unheard of and the return of “illegally seized goods” is nearly impossible as suing these companies requires funds which, almost by definition, people going through repossession are unlikely to have.

Vultures.

I wouldn’t make too much noise about the failure of the left on the blogosphere and it is naive to think the right is going to congratulate the Government for scrapping what was a bloody silly idea in the first place. SOme things should not be even given consideration……

By the way why are you doing an impression of the Gendarme in ‘Allo Allo?’

This moning

;o)

Well, and I can only base this on the BBC story, as far as I can see this means that Minister Bridget has decided to delay activation of powers for bailiffs to force entry on a first visit which are provided for in an Act which, and I may be wrong, looks as though it was introduced under this government.

OK, so she is putting off the introduction of a new power this Government has sought, not sweeping aside some terrible injustice of the Thatcherite past (though there are those who would include the past 12 years in “the Thatcherite past”).

Not all that much to notice really.

It is good to hear things like this, and thanks for letting us know Tom.

But it does somehow get a little over-shadowed by ID cards and ominous databases etc. I don’t know how much power you have as a Labour MP but you might want to do something about that.

I noticed. You want credit? For backing away from letting bailiffs hit people? God, you people are desperate, aren’t you?

I keep an eye on civil liberties (I am a Tory), but I didn’t see it this announced anywhere. I subscribe to several newsfeeds and there was nothing. I would have blogged it if I had have seen it, it’s a welcome reversal.

Sally
Saturday 21 March 2009 at 7:28 pm
I keep an eye on civil liberties (I am a Tory),
—————————————–

Wow another Tory – and one of the opposite gender.

heart-shaped icon, heart-shaped icon, heart-shaped icon.

It’s heartwarming to see politicians starting to feel rather put out if they don’t receive a reaction from the blogosphere, and whining when it doesn’t give them sufficient attention. It’s in direct contrast to the usual sneering dismissal by people such as Derek “GEEK GHETTO” Draper’s sneering dismissals.

But it’s rather crass to express your partisan feelings as an entirely different sort of sneer, that somehow the blogosphere has an anti-Labour bias in its not reporting of what you want it to report. Especially so as Justin has shown you that it’s simply not true: it’s just that reluctant, pursemouthed U-turns away from promises that nobody asked Labour to make in the first place don’t make particularly exciting news. “Labour was going to let some people assault some other people to a certain extent with impunity; decided not to.” Exactly how slow do you expect the handclap to be?

That Labour originally proposed this legislation reflects pretty poorly on the ethics and ideology of the tawdry bunch of nonentities currently involved in co-ordinating party policy. If I were you I’d be heartily glad that people were quietly letting it drop, and not trumpeting the whole sorry affair as some sort of victory.

I noticed Tom, but if you are only looking for big party consensus you obviously read the wrong blogs.

http://tinyurl.com/d68sro

However, trying to take credit is somewhat rich, and I was taken to write the following:

I think it is worth mentioning here that whilst the previous laws were written over a hundred years ago, they were based upon the Rule of Law, protecting individuals rights against the worst kind of brutal treatment at the hands of bailiffs, which this latest Act failed miserably to do.

That the Government has had to go back to revise the TCE Act goes some way to show that the sheer weight of legislation that this government has thrust upon us is neither considered, weighted, reviewed or has any but the most cursory of impact assessment carried out.

The Ministry of Justice, just like its predecessor function within the Home Office is clearly still not fit for purpose, and had it any morals at all would scrap entirely the TCE Act.

Tom, merely ignoring the Libertarian voices will not save Labour, perhaps you should listen, and act on it more often.

Rhetorical responce, to an ex minister in transport retorical by the way!

Northampton County Court, The Road Traffic Act 1991, Traffic Regulation Orders, Parking Fines…. Bailiffs

Bill of Rights 1689

“That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;”

I agree with Richard.

More needs to be done to both give people protection in their own homes, and make them aware of their rights.

TV Licence people are another example. They often bully their way into people’s homes, and if they are ignored, they’ll just lie and say they spoke to the householder who admitted to having a TV. Cue a warrant on false pretences and yet another example of a person’s rights being violated.

While I welcome the government not following existing policies of urinating on people’s rights, FAR more needs to be done.

If you don’t have the right to make your home your castle, and frustrate any would be intruder, what rights do you have?

As they say. Man has only those rights he can defend. If I can’t defend my own property against intrusion, then I have no rights.

I remember writing to my (Labour) MP to protest about these laws and he replied basically saying “Get stuffed”. It is the poorest who will be affected by these laws, they’re also the most likely to beleive the “make it up as you go along” approach of the bailiffs when it comes to quoting the law. I have read of many cases where bailiffs have broken or forced their way in. Does what “Justice” Minister Prentice says mean this will never happen again? I doubt it.

I was reading the other day that clone ministries of “Justice” are being formed in all EU countries at the behest of the EU Parliament so it’ll probably be what the EU says goes, not what Prentice says.

I’m mystified as to why you think this is something to be proud of Tom. It’s just a nakedly partisan move with the potential to cause real damage to society. Bailiffs are like traffic wardens; everybody love to hate them and there are certainly a few bad apples who bring the profession into disrepute, but they nevertheless fulfil a socially important role – enforcing the rights of creditors (which are every bit as valid as the rights of debtors). Moreover, they need the appropriate powers to carry out these roles effectively.

Despite the economic crisis going on around us, one fundamental rule of economics has not changed; a functioning society still depends to some degree (albeit a lesser degree than had been assumed) on the availability of credit. When Government takes moves that overly weaken the rights of creditors to enforce their own rights against bad debtors, it is the rest of us who pay for this, in the form of increased prices and less credit available to the prudent and the genuinely needy.

We are in a situation now where a large section of the general public, which foolishly believed the “no more boom and bust” mantra, is burdened with debt it cannot possibly repay. The form varies a little; be it overloaded credit cards or mortgages at eight times salary, but the fundamental problem is the same.

Trying to protect these people from the consequences of rash, greedy and often stupid decisions over their personal finances will only prolong the current crisis. If we are to rebuild a genuinely strong economy after the current downturn ends (and end it eventually will), we need to have a public which is better educated about credit. And, unfortunately, the only way in which many people are going to learn is by experiencing the consequences of their actions.

So yes, let the respossessions roll and let the responsible bailiffs do their job (and send the ones who break the existing laws to prison). It won’t be pretty, but in modern society, nobody’s going to die as a result. They might learn that happiness and the trappings of wealth are things that need to be earned, rather than an automatic right (note the US Declaration of Independence talks of a right to the “pursuit of happiness”, rather than just “happiness”). They almost certainly won’t vote for the Government that “let” them learn this much-needed lesson. But they will be wiser and warier at the end of the process.

And judging by a lack of Pollwatch on his site, Tom Harris has obviously refused to believe the latest ComRes poll showing Labour up 5 points (Torries still with lead of 11 points)

I wonder if the ‘blogscape’ will refuse to notice Tony McNulty’s expenses claims.

That’s what happens when you get the country run by a cabal of lawyers; whether it is dodgy dossiers or dodgy expenses claims, as long as the letter of the law is adhered to then we’re ok. The spirit of th law is of course something to be trampled underfoot in the dash for cash.

Mind you, sticking to the letter of the law was beyond the few among you (yes ‘you’) who were to escape prosecution only at the whim of the CPS.

Lone Labour MP doesn’t fiddle expenses. Blogscape refuses to notice.

To quote Dickens (Yes, it’s in Hard Times) At the next election we will “piss you out of the window”.

@ wrinkled weasel – “Lone Labour MP doesn’t fiddle expenses”.

That’s hardly fair. I’d imagine that quite a large number of Labour MPs aren’t fiddling their expenses.

I’m told by a blog commenter that I should resign my seat because of my “inappropriate: Twittering! Can anyone enlighten me?

I’ll try. That person is a complete and utter tosser.

Yep, that about does it I think.

Personally, I don’t use twitter or know anything about it. However, I do enjoy reading your twitter posts on the top right of your blog.

Keep up the good work!

Ever since this story broke, this issue puzzled me. I’ve dealt with Bailiffs professionally and whilst always charming with me, I would not like to cross some of them.
As it is, it was fair question to ask where this mad policy initative originated? I cannot imagine that even within the depths of Labour Party HQ someone came up with an idea like this and all the evidence suggests to me it was a Civil Service proposal. Its something all Government’s fall for when the bureaucracy seeks to restrict, reduce or scrap one more piece of liberty. Your Government alas seems to be more guilty than most since the will to resist it requires strong Government Ministers.

I can tell you within one week of it being introduced, the Daily Mail would have a story of a War-Widow whose goods were incorrectly seized by such Bailiffs who broke into her house while she was at the funeral of her best friend/husband etc.
By the way I presume I am right is saying that in your Constituenct this legislation is a devolved matter on which you have no say?
I and many others oppose your policies and your Party but we oppose you- we all however share a common enemy- the bureaucracy

Last week at PMQs I was astounded to see a Michael Rennie look-alike, sitting beside the PM, who could take the crown from Tom Harris as “Labour MP who most looks like a Sci-Fi hero”.

(To non-believers, Michael Rennie played Klaatu, in the fantastic fifties Sci-Fi drama, “The Day the Earth Stood Still”.)

Turns out it is Jim Murphy the Scottish Secretary who was once so left wing that he called Tommy Sheridan a softie:

“I remember sitting with a group and we’d say to him: “What’s up with joining Militant?” And he said: “It’s not revolutionary enough.’” said Sheridan.

This comes about because I recall Tommy Sheridan making strenuous attempts to reform the rules on bankruptcy. So there is a link, however tenuous, to this desultory midnight mumble.

(Lest you think I am somewhat out of the loop, I am not. It is simply that I do not have a television, and so, in answer to the question, “Do you know who I am?” I am likely to look confused.

Tom – you need to check this story out. There is reason to believe that the proposal is only being deferred to 2012 until the English bailiffing industry is “properly regulated”. No skin off my nose because I live in Scotland, but you may have been misled by others as to the malignity of the Department’s intent. And since we are going to win the next election, it does matter.

I had the usual credit card and loan (like most people) which I was happy to pay for each month as I had a job and it was no problem, then the finance director of the company I worked for decided a cut back of staff was required so out the door 500 of us went.
Low and behold one year later I was still out of work because nobody wanted to employed a 53 year old IT pro when there was so much young blood looking for work.
My savings by this time had dwindled to zero paying my debts. Then the faceless men from the government want to hand powers to nasty thugs to break down my door and take the little property and dignity I have left. Shame on the Labour party (a party that was once for the working man). I’m glad that the bill was kicked out. Introduce a bill to make companies more responsible to the employees that are left in such termoil when kicked out through no fault of their own. I WILL NEVER VOTE LABOUR AGAIN