jonathan.rawle.org

Another day, another government initiative to reduce immigration. They feel they need to do something so as to satisfy those on the right, particularly the tabloids, that they are trying to cut immigration. So they have announced measures that will make it even harder for people from outside the EU to work in the UK. Never mind the fact that this makes life very difficult for employers in areas such as science who have to jump through increasing numbers of hoops in order to employ the people they require. Of course, what they never mention when announcing their initiatives is that they are doing exactly nothing to reduce immigration from the EU, which accounts for about a third of all immigration (according to figures in this article – numbers are hard to find.) The reason is that they can do nothing about it, as EU citizens have the same rights to work as British citizens. Hence the increasingly tight squeeze on workers from outside Europe.

The argument against immigration is mainly that they take jobs from British people. However, the question I’d ask is why those jobs go to an immigrant instead of a British person anyway. All other things being equal, one would expect an employer to appoint a native of this country over a foreigner. After all, a recent arrival in this country will be unfamiliar with the culture and customs here, may have problems with English (even if only slight) and so on. The fact that immigrants get jobs says to me that they must be better suited to those jobs than the British people who complain they are losing out. If the immigrants weren’t here, surely it would mean the job was no longer done by the best person?

Of course, that assumes the British person actually bothered to apply for the job in the first place, rather than stay at home on benefits. How many of the jobs are filled by immigrants because British people think the work is beneath them, for example working as a cleaner; or because British people are unable or unwilling to gain the necessary qualifications, for example a PSV driving licence in order to become a bus driver.

I think the fact that newcomers to our country are able – despite the inevitable, if subconscious, discrimination that employers are bound to have against employing a foreigner – to find employment ahead of their British counterparts shows that they are already playing a valuable part in society. Perhaps, if we think the country is becoming overpopulated, we should send some of the useless British people to developing countries and let them find jobs there, as I’m sure they soon would in the absence of benefits. Then the rest of us can be left in peace to enjoy our vibrant country, which has after all been shaped by the many waves of immigration it has seen throughout its history.

Today the BBC carried an article about a family who live on benefits who would be affected by the government’s proposed cap on payments. I hardly need to write this article now, as more than a thousand people have commented saying much the same thing, but here goes anyway.

The man, an unemployed father of seven identified only as Raymond, has been unemployed for 10 years. He says he needs over £30,000 per year to live, and adds that if the cap is introduced, and their income reduced to £26,0000, he can “see eight people here having to choose between eating or heating.”

So what does he spend his weekly budget of £582 on? They give a breakdown. Rent and energy bills seem fair enough, and the £30 per week on public transport seems quite high, but is worth it if it allows his son to go to college. However, it soon becomes obvious how Raymond could save the £82.40 per week he would need to if the cap were introduced as proposed.

Let’s start with the £15 for Sky TV. Raymond complains, “We’re stuck in the house all week – otherwise we wouldn’t have any entertainment.” Funnily enough, most people manage to entertain themselves without paying £60 per month to Sky. If sitting and watching TV is his only idea of entertainment, there is plenty of free-to-air television these days thanks to Freeview, or even Freesat as he already has the dish. Of course, perhaps he should try going out to look for work rather than sitting about watching TV.

Then there is £32 per week on mobile phones. As there is £7 included for phone and internet, they clearly have a landline phone, so why do they need mobile phones at all? Each family member could have a pay-as-you-go phone for emergencies, which would cost next to nothing each week, so let’s budget £5. Having a landline and internet connection is fair enough, as these can be important tools when searching for a job.

But by far the worst aspect of Raymond’s weekly budget are the “24 cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large pouch of tobacco” that form part of his £240 weekly shop, and the £20 he spends each week on Friday night having three or four pints down the pub. I’m sorry, but as a tax payer I don’t expect to be paying for this sort of thing for people on benefits. Leaving aside whether we approve of this aspect of someone’s lifestyle, if people are going to choose to live like that, they have to pay for it themselves. The costs aren’t itemised, but a quick look at supermarket sites online suggests £15 each for the lager and tobacco, and £60 for the cigarettes.

Let’s add up all that unnecessary spending: £15 + 27 + 20 + 90 = £152. So in fact, even with the cap, it would be £70 more than they really need. It’s important to point out that they do live in an area of Wales where housing is particularly cheap, so this doesn’t necessarily mean that a fixed cap on benefits across the country is fair. What it does show is that lots of people are having their idea of a good or comfortable life at the taxpayer’s expense. Benefits should pay for the essentials and nothing more. If people want luxury items, or to indulge themselves with their vices or addictions, they have to pay for them out of their own earnings. It’s hardly surprising the public won’t stand for the present situation continuing.

As for Raymond, the worst aspect of this man’s twisted world view is that he says receiving less money from the state would mean his children are hungry or cold, while he drinks, smokes, and goes down the pub. Raymond, I don’t think you have anyone’s sympathy.

The BBC News website carried an ariticle today on growing dissatisfaction with rail fares. Now fair enough, the article makes some valid points. No-one likes the above-inflation rises in ticket costs that we see each year, and it is undoubtedly cheaper to travel by train in many other European countries.

However, what made me laugh were some of the comments other readers left on the article. Many people made remarks along the lines of how much cheaper, faster and more convenient it is to drive than take the train. If that’s true, why are the trains so overcrowded? Why would anyone take the train if it was simply better to drive? While there are some people who are unable to drive, perhaps due to disability, that does not apply to the vast majority of people. The truth is, despite it being unpleasant for many commuters, taking the train is still better value for money than driving. Of course, value for money can mean on of two things: it is simply cheaper, or it is slightly more expensive but you get more for your money as it’s faster or more convenient.

People can argue about whether the railways should have been privatised, but if the private rail companies are really creaming off profits, it’s market forces that are keeping tickets high, and prices would fall if people stopped taking the train. To some extent, this would be true even with a nationalised railway. So the answer is, if you think it’s better to drive, please do so. Only when people stop buying train tickets will the price fall in real terms. However, I suspect that most of the people who claim it’s so much better to go by car are the ones who take the train about once a year, and people of that mentality are never going to see any value in not having to drive.

There has been a spate of cases recently of jurors in criminal trials being themselves jailed for acting inappropriately. A number of jurors have been found guilty of researching cases or suspects online, others have used social media such as Facebook to post comments about or even contact the person whose case they were hearing. There was even one juror who phoned in sick in order to go to the theatre.

Today it was the case of Dr Theodora Dallas, who was jailed for not only finding out online that the defendant had previously been charged with another offence, but then going on to share that fact with the other jurors hearing the case. This is despite the trial judge and other court officials warning jurors not to do any background reading about the case, and specifically warning them not to do research on the internet.

Now, Dr Dallas is presumably an intelligent woman, given that she was a lecturer at the University of Bedfordshire, so you would have thought that when the judge said don’t look things up online, she would have known not to do that, and even if she did inadvertently see some information while looking for something else, she should have kept it to herself. She claimed to have been looking up the meaning of GBH, but of course the correct way to find the meaning of legal terms would be to ask the court staff. Her claim not to have understood instructions due to a poor grasp of English is shocking too: how can she fairly reach a verdict if she might not understand all the evidence? It hadn’t occurred to me that foreign citizens with sub-standard English might find themselves on a jury.

It’s extremely important that defendants receive a fair trial. While it may seem harsh to jail someone for contempt of court, it’s worth remembering that a trial biased by inadmissible evidence could result in someone innocent being jailed for considerably longer. Alternatively, it could cause a trial to collapse, resulting in either a retrial at significant cost to the taxpayer, or a criminal being set free, at the expense of the victim.

Some people have suggested that the current rules for jurors are outdated in the age of the internet, and unworkable or unenforceable. I disagree with this assertion. Just because technology makes it easier to do something doesn’t mean it automatically becomes right. The invention of television didn’t mean that it was suddenly OK for jurors in high-profile cases to watch coverage of the trial. Nor should the internet or social media make it all right to do background research. It’s quite easy to go home and use the internet to e-mail, contact friends on Facebook, do some research for work, etc., but avoid looking up the case, just as it’s possible to watch a soap or the football on TV without watching the News at Ten. Other than telling people not to do it, and jailing anyone who steps out of line, how do you control it? If you keep jurors shut up in a hotel for the duration of the trial with no access to the internet, that is rather harsh on the majority who would not be tempted to research the case – and acting as a juror is arduous and inconvenient for those people called for duty as it is without that. Scrapping jury trials is hardly desirable, either.

Hopefully the recent high-profile cases where people have been jailed for contempt will serve as a warning to jurors in the future, and enable us to retain this important part of the justice system, even in the 21st century.

On Thursday there was an item on BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight about Kodak filing for bankruptcy protection, which included an interview with Terry O’Neill, whom they introduced as, “One of the great British fashion photographers of the 1960s,” a description that proved rather apt. You can hear the interview on iPlayer.

After lamenting the fate of Kodak, O’Neill was asked his opinion of digital photography. He thinks that digital is simply not up to the job for professional photographers. He said that the difference in quality between film and digital photography is similar to that between HD and regular television. I have to disagree. In terms of resolution, digital has now caught up with 35mm film – you probably need around 15 megapixels to equal the finest-grain film. Admittedly, if O’Neill uses larger film formats, digital currently still lags behind, although it will catch up quickly. From a technical point of view, a good analogy for film is in fact old analogue television, or vinyl records rather than CDs or MP3s. I can believe that O’Neill can tell if a photo was shot on film, in the same way that some people prefer to listen to LPs. It isn’t that the quality is better, just that they like the perceived warmth of the old analogue format.

Unfortunately, O’Neill then appeared to confuse the difference between film and digital formats with the difference between professional and amateur cameras. He claimed that digital photography means that anyone can just press the button to take a photo without having to know anything about photography. However, compact, fully automatic cameras have been around a lot longer than digital cameras. I agree with him when he says that there are lots of people taking photos, but few are any good, and that this doesn’t make them photographers. What I don’t agree with is that it’s the type of camera that makes someone a photographer or not. Surely for a renowned portrait photographer like O’Neill himself, it’s the interaction between the photographer and model, the way they make them pose, the lighting arrangement, and the framing that makes him successful. That would be true whether he was using film or digital, an SLR or a mobile phone camera. While it is true that digital cameras have made photography much more accessible, and allowed people to take many more pictures, a large number of which have little artistic merit, it doesn’t follow that a digital camera is an inferior tool in the hands of a professional.

O’Neill finished by saying good photography is a three-dimensional medium, and that only a real photographer would appreciate that. I’m not entirely sure what he meant, so clearly I’m not a good enough photographer, but I can only assume he is referring to depth of field. Compact digital cameras have a very large depth of field due to their tiny sensors and focal lengths. This means the entire frame is usually in focus. One of the pleasures of using a digital SLR, though, is the ability to control the depth of film, and a full-frame digital SLR will have exactly the same depth of field characteristics as a 35mm film camera.

Ultimately, Terry O’Neill’s views sound like those of someone who has been in the business such a long time and doesn’t want to change his ways. I can’t believe no professional photographers use digital. Patrick Lichfield had already started to try it, and he died in 2005. Perhaps someone who produced such a lot of good work in the ’60s can afford can eschew advances in technology, but the rest of us will undoubtedly produce better results if we move with the times.