spin lies and the justice dept

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Justice secretary accused of acting like 'cowboy' as insider claims officials have been infuriated by spin machine

as noted Grayling has form

Grayling came under fire as Shadow Home Secretary over the Conservative Party's use of statistics on violent crime.[15] In February 2010, the Conservative Party issued press releases to every constituency in the UK claiming that crime had "risen sharply" in the UK. They failed, however, to take into account the more rigorous system for recording crime. The chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir Michael Scholar, said that the figures Grayling was using were "likely to mislead the public" and "likely to damage public trust in official statistics" as the way in which crime was calculated had been changed in 2002.[16][17] Scholar further added that reliable statistics showed that there had not been an increase in crime during Labour's period in office.[18] A Conservative commissioned report by the independent House of Commons library suggested that, depending on how figures were calculated, Grayling's claims may have been justifiable and that violent crime may have risen in the period between 1998 and 2009.[17] The incumbent Home Secretary, Alan Johnson called Grayling's use of crime statistics "dodgy" and that, using the British Crime Survey, it could be shown that violent crime had, in fact, reduced by 41% over the same period.[17]
wicki

[Serial_Apologist]

"No, Minister"

I don't hold Khan's brief - he's another Labour Party apparatchik - but do rather like the way he's persuaded unnamed civil servants to get their own back, and taken advantage of that to expose Grayling's weaknesses.

Talk about Machiavellian!

[Barbirollians]

Grayling is a disgrace but a child of New Labour . They allowed non lawyers to become Justice Secretary and this career politician has no understanding of or respect for the rule of law .

[Flosshilde]

he's another Labour Party apparatchik

Not sure what you mean by that? He is the shadow minister for justice, so yes, he's a member of the Labour Party.

The Government have become past-masters at dodgy statistics. Labour weren't bad (Brown was always double-counting spending) but the Con-Dems have taken it several levels beyond (Thatcher wasn't bad, either).

[Serial_Apologist]

Not sure what you mean by that? He is the shadow minister for justice, so yes, he's a member of the Labour Party.

I'm not au fait these days with inner Labour Party shenanigans, who's whos etc, and admittedly I only have Khan's disappointing appearances on Sunday Politics, hob-nobbing with one of his opponents, with which to judge him via that remark, and now the Wiki entry on him:

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadiq_Khan

[Flosshilde]

I was curious about the way you seemed to dismiss him - and his work - as being of no importance. Admittedly I've not been sure exactly what an apartchnik was - vaguely assuming it meant a placeman; ie someone who's in the post not because of their merits but because of favour; which, given that he was selected as a candidate in open competition, and has been critical of Blair's foreign policy, doesn't really seem likely. Looking up a definition I found derogatory or • humorous an official in a large political organization:, which could cover Khan. But I've also assumed that it was in some way derogatory, & by using it I assumed you were indicating that you didn't place much value on his work, especially ythe example in Calum's post - exposing Tory manipulation of statistics (hardly a surprise) and, more importantly, their attempts to coerce civil servants and corrupt the democratic processes of the Commons.

Oh, and he is a lawyer, so presumably would get Barbirollians' approval.


(I liked the bit at the top of his Wikipedia article - "This article is about the British politician. For the 18th-century shah of Persia, see Sadiq Khan Zand" )

[Barbirollians]

He is a lawyer and he was a partner in a legal aid firm yet his defence of the fourth pillar of the Labour Govt of 1945's welfare state - that rights mean nothing without the means to enforce them - was pathetic in the extreme and Lord Bach did a better job. He is hopeless and if Labour is elected I hope they find a much better candidate for Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.