Smith has accused The Sun of having a go at her for the small matter of using inmates on day release from HMP Hewell to decorate her luxury property, when they were supposed to be working for the whole community.

So, not warranted at all, then, Jacqui?

The fact is, the day release scheme is a fantastic scheme which not only prepares inmates for life after prison, but also helps the local communities who are likely to have suffered from their crimes.

It should not be used by an individual seeking cheap labour – regardless of who that individual is.

Smith’s excuses on LBC yesterday (Wednesday) morning were feeble at best, and demonstrated that she is clearly still out of touch with reality.

I suppose it’s just as well she’s no longer in the House of Commons.

Veteran Conservative Councillor Ted Baker will be Mayor of Medway for 2011/2012, after being chosen by the ruling Conservative Group.

Cllr Baker (pictured above), who was re-elected in Rochester West last week with almost 200 extra votes, will be officially elected Mayor at Medway Council’s Annual Meeting on Wednesday, 25th May, along with his Deputy Mayor, Cuxton and Halling Cllr Ray Maisey.

Cllr Baker was Mayor of Medway in 2002/2003 and Deputy Mayor of Medway in 2008/2009, and will be accompanied by his wife Sylvia as Mayoress.

Cllrs Baker and Maisey (picture left) will take the chains of office from present Mayor, Cllr David Brake, and Deputy Mayor, Cllr Vaughan Hewett.

The new Mayor was announced following the first Medway Conservative Group meeting since last Thursday’s local election, which saw Cllr Rodney Chambers and Cllr Alan Jarrett re-elected Leader and Deputy Leader of the group.

It was also announced that, following Ken Bamber’s failure to be elected in Strood South, Cllr Barry Kemp will take over as the Group’s Chief Whip.

Meanwhile, Labour have confirmed that Cllr Paul Godwin will continue as their Group Leader, though, in a surprising move, Cllr Vince Maple replaces Cllr Glyn Griffiths as Deputy Leader. Cllr Julie Shaw will be their Group Whip.

And the Liberal Democrats have announced that Cllr Geoff Juby and Cllr Sheila Kearney will continue as their Group’s Leader and Deputy, after their disappointing results last week, with Cllr Diana Smith as Group Whip.

“We have an archaic education system which allows high achievers to do well. It is something I disagree with.”

No comment needed!

George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, was outlining his financial plans for a future Conservative government. To?wondrous?surprise and support from the floor, Mr Osborne stated “I can tell you today that the next Conservative Government will freeze your council tax for at least two years. Every council tax bill of every family in every council that takes part will be frozen”.

Immediately, the pledge attracted headlines and popular support. From everyone, that is, but Labour. “”George Osborne’s council tax pledge is a con,” said Yvette Cooper, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in response. “Slashing a billion pounds from council budgets [over two years] will put vital programmes at risk,” said Sir Jeremy Beecham, leader of the Labour Group on the Local Government Association.

Fast-forward to February 2011. The Conservatives are in government with the Liberal Democrats. They have pledged to fund councils who freeze council tax to save families money. Medway Council, run by a majority Conservative administration (again, Conservative administration) did exactly that. Council tax in Medway this year has been frozen as part of the budget.

So how, dear reader, did this happen:

Whilst their union chums Unison are calling for a Council Tax rise, Labour are claiming that they have frozen Council Tax for Medway residents.

It would be laughable if the lie (yes, not just dishonesty, but blatant lie) were not so serious.

Labour has been in opposition in Medway for almost eleven years. At first, they produced alternative budgets in advance of council budget meetings to attempt to prove to residents that they, too, could run the local purse efficiently. However, they have not done this for some time, as John Ward restated yesterday.

Most of their contribution to budget meetings, in my experience at least, has been politically-motivated. They consistently vote against the budgets, despite the fact that they are sound, balanced and fair.

At the time the Council Tax freeze was first pledged by the Conservative Party, it was ridiculed and opposed by Labour in government and their representatives on the Local Government Association.

Now, though, ten weeks before a local election, Labour are claiming they froze residents’ Council Tax, when, from what I have heard from sources at the meeting on Thursday, they voted against the budget in which it was frozen.

No doubt it is a lie that will be spread across their literature over the coming weeks. And it is a lie that needs to be rebutted. So, for the record:

The Conservative administration on Medway Council, with the help of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in government, have frozen Council Tax for all Medway residents.

Labour had nothing to do with it!

At the moment, the council is led by a clear Conservative majority, and it would take a large swing to hand power over to Labour.

However, it is clear that that is the only target in the Labour Group?s sights.

Today marks an important step on the road to polling day: the first publication of the council?s budget, to be discussed at Cabinet next Tuesday.

In the face of deep cuts in the Department of Communities and Local Government, Medway Council has needed to plug a ?23.5 million hole in the budget – without cutting vital front line services.

This, I believe, they have done with success.

The Labour Group, though, will call the cuts ?excessive? and ?avoidable?, and claim that the budget has been mismanaged by the Conservative administration.

Indeed, it has become clear that Labour will use any threat at their fingertips to raise their estimations at the Conservatives? expense.

But what is missing from them is what voters really want: front line services protected, council tax kept low and a clear statement of intention.

Over the past nine months, the Conservatives on Medway Council have spoken out to defend their budget from the government. The government, in return, has slashed it regardless.

So the Conservatives have worked around the clock to prepare a transparent budget which combines the protection of front line services, such as libraries and Sure Start, with a freeze in Council Tax.

The budget for the next 12 months has been proposed, and is likely to remain unaltered. It serves as a clear statement of intention from the Conservatives of their priorities.

Labour purport to be a credible alternative, a team ready to run the council. But words mean nothing against actions.

People need to be able to see that Labour can produce a balanced budget, protecting front line services, before they will trust them to run the council.

A balanced budget in itself is not difficult, and I have no doubt from speaking to Labour sources that they could do this at a moment?s notice.

But Labour insiders privately admit that they would probably cut services including libraries, and have publicly opposed the council?s yellow bus scheme for school children without a direct public bus route to school.

They have even privately muted the idea of introducing a toll for the Medway Tunnel.

The people of Medway need to see an alternative budget proposal from Labour to show that they can balance the books without cutting the services people in Medway depend on.

Today, Cllr Alan Jarrett, the Conservatives? Deputy Leader and Finance Portfolio Holder, threw down the gauntlet to Labour, and I am echoing that call.

If you are serious about getting elected to run Medway, show us you can protect our services and without hitting us in the pocket!

The Conservative-run Medway Council has announced its budget plans, which show transparently how the Council is proposing to address its ?23.5 million gap.

Despite this large reduction in funding, the budget proposals maintain key front line services without cutting important areas including Sure Start, libraries or green spaces.

Yet Labour has yet to reveal what budget changes they would like to make.

An insider from the Medway Labour group has revealed that they may target libraries, yellow buses and impose a toll on the Medway tunnel.

Labour has also refused to publicly support funding for Sure Start. At a vote at the last Full Council meeting (13 January 2011) they refused to support a Conservative motion fully funding the 19 Sure Start centres in Medway.

And last year, at a Council meeting in January 2010, Labour suggested that the popular yellow bus scheme should be cut. Instead the Conservative group made the decision to expand this scheme onto the Hoo Peninsula and St Mary?s Island.

This comes as Labour controlled councils elsewhere, such as in Manchester, have announced swingeing cuts to services, targeting public toilets, rubbish collection, swimming pools and libraries.

Deputy Leader Cllr Alan Jarrett said “We have now published our clear and transparent budget proposals, which detail how we?re going to breach the ?23.5 million gap the Council is facing. It is time Labour also revealed what they?d do. Sources are suggesting that they want to cut key services, such as libraries and yellow buses and impose a new tax on motorists with a toll on Medway tunnel, which would be a travesty for the area. It is a matter of record that Labour ? despite the rhetoric ? does not support funding for our Sure Start centres.

“Labour councillors have always been quick to criticise but never offer any worthwhile suggestions nor present their own alternative budget. If they wish to be taken seriously they must reveal their own plans so residents can judge for themselves whether Labour has anything to offer.

“I?m concerned that councils controlled by Labour elsewhere are introducing swingeing cuts to valued services such as toilets, leisure facilities and libraries. Residents deserve to know whether Labour in Medway want to do the same If they were ever in a position to do so.”

The Council’s proposed budget, which is due to be discussed at next Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting, can be found on Medway Council’s website.

“Unbelievable?#labourgain from Tories in ward in Witney! (Cameron’s own constituency) Great work all involved.” came the cry from Ellie Gellard (a.k.a. @BevaniteEllie, The Stilletoed Socialist).

The only problem is that the Tories were not actually beaten. Yes a Tory councillor was replaced by a Labour councillor (the only Labour councillor on the 17-strong council), but the Conservatives didn’t actually contest the by-election.

It was called because Conservative Councillor Louise Chapman was disqualified for not attending a meeting for six months. In response, the Conservatives branded the by-election a “waste of money”, according to the Witney Gazette, as full elections are to take place this year anyway.

Labour (and Co-operative) Party winner Duncan Enright saw off a challenge from Liberal Democrat Mark Balaam and Green Kate Griffin.

With full elections only months away, though, something tells me that Mr Enright shouldn’t get too comfortable in his new role…

Adetomi Yemi (Twitter name @Tomo4real) yesterday openly used a vile word (I’m not going to repeat it as it goes too far even for me, but let’s just say it starts with a ‘c’, and sounds an awful lot like ‘punt’) to describe Kelvin Mackenzie, the former editor of The Sun.

Indeed, Yemi, a third-year Politics and International Relations student at the University of Kent, has used the word before. On 14 October, he wrote: ‘Getting peed off by Max Hastings and David Willets’, immediately before using the same word to describe them. That that time he used?asterisks?to hide part of the word does not dilute its effect.

I’m always keen to support freedom of speech and freedom of expression, especially in political discourse, but for a supposedly serious candidate to use such a vile word so openly sends out entirely the wrong message both about them and their colleagues.

Defending himself on Twitter to a (rightfully)?disgusted?Conservative candidate, Yemi said ‘silence will be d best response for u. My twit page is for my expressions ONLY and I dont need to be formal, u need not read also.’

There is a fine line between personal views and indecent comments – and Yemi has done a tremendous triple jump way over it. Formality is not a pre-requisite for Twitter (its 140-character limit makes that difficult to achieve) but to suggest in some way that fault in being disgusted lies with the reader is naive at best, and just plain stupid at worst.

As candidates build up a local profile, the community (through individual investigation and media scrutiny) become more interested. The media will try to find any scandal possible (which a third-year politics student should, in theory, already know) and individuals will try to find out more about the character of their candidate.

Seeing someone looking for their vote using such a powerful expletive will certainly not win their support – whatever their leanings.

Update @ 01:15

One of the offending tweets has now been removed (though, naturally, I have kept copies of both), and Yemi is keen to impress that “My twitter page is for me and my friends ONLY so if you don’t like what I write, I REALLY CAN’T HELP YOU.”

The website, yourfirstinchatham.org.uk, was promoted only days ago by Medway Labour activist and blogger Tristan Osborne, as the Labour Party tries to win back voters following the controversial election of “Red” Ed Miliband as party leader.

Medway Labour sources are keen to impress that there was no personal or secure data stored on the website, and that it was merely a basic website with a secure link to the national Labour social network Membersnet.

They also indicate that the server has not been compromised, leading to suggest that the Chatham Labour website was the intended target.

However, it is not the first time that Labour’s online presence has been the target of hackers.

Last year, Gillingham and Rainham’s former Labour MP Paul Clark had to apologise after his website was hacked twice (April and May).

Medway Conservative blogger Alan W Collins warned of the need to maintain strong online security after Paul Clark’s website was hacked.

Following this incident, he said “It is one thing for a single editorial oversight, it is quite another to lose your entire website to a hacker.

“There seems to be a flaw in whatever system the Labour Party is using for their online communications with voters, because they keep succumbing to these attacks.

“It hardly presents a credible message to voters that the country is safe with them if they cannot even protect their own websites.”

An official comment from the Labour Party in Chatham is yet to be released.

The case concerns immigration – one of the most controversial and complex areas of both political policy and law but, fortunately, one which one is not required to study in depth to obtain a Law degree.

However, this author was fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to attend an enlightening talk delivered by an immigration judge last year, and that same judge has now passed to this author the barest of facts about the above case.

The case, in its?entirety, comprised six appellants and six?respondents:

1. The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Anastasia Pankina;
2. Margaret Malekia v The Secretary of State for the Home Department;
3. Aves Ahmed v The Secretary of State for the Home Department;
4. Mohamed Junaideen v The Secretary of State for the Home Department;
5. Irfan Ali v The Secretary of State for the Home Department; and
6. Navindra Sankar v The Secretary of State for the Home Department.

All individuals involved were “graduates of approved United Kingdom tertiary institutions” who wished to remain in the UK and use their new qualifications in positive employment in this country.

Again, it must be stressed that immigration legislation and case law is complex, and rules relating to non-UK students studying in UK institutions are just as complex. Thus, in the interests of keeping this article as concise as possible, background information will be kept to a minimum.

That notwithstanding, the key piece of legislation relating to this case is the Immigration Act 1971 (“the 1971 Act”), and, more specifically, section 3 (2):

The Secretary of State shall from time to time (and as soon as may be) lay before Parliament statements of the rules, or of any changes in the rules, laid down by him as to the practice to be followed in the administration of this Act for regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom of persons required by this Act to have leave to enter, including any rules as to the period for which leave is to be given and the conditions to be attached in different circumstances; and section 1(4) above shall not be taken to require uniform provision to be made by the rules as regards admission of persons for a purpose or in a capacity specified in section 1(4)(and in particular, for this as well as other purposes of this Act, account may be taken of citizenship or nationality).
If a statement laid before either House of Parliament under this subsection is disapproved by a resolution of that House passed within the period of forty days beginning with the date of laying (and exclusive of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days), then the Secretary of State shall as soon as may be make such changes or further changes in the rules as appear to him to be required in the circumstances, so that the statement of those changes be laid before Parliament at latest by the end of the period of forty days beginning with the date of the resolution (but exclusive as aforesaid).

It is, admittedly, a mouthful of words joined together in legal matrimony, however the key principle is this: the Secretary of State may create a set of immigration rules and present them to Parliament. Parliament then has forty days to object to the rules (“by a resolution”) and if no objection is lodged, the rules become legally enforceable.

The immigration rules, which for a long time recognised that foreign graduates of UK universities were assets to the UK economy, were amended in February 2008 by HC 321, which introduced a points-based system of assessing students’ eligibility. This was further amended by HC 607 in June 2008, which amendment was in force when the applicants in Pankina & Others sought leave to remain as Tier 1 migrants.

Paragraph 3 of Sedley LJ’s judgement provided proof, if proof were needed, that, even in the most complex of cases, even the most senior of judges are capable of injecting humour into their work:

By rule 245Z such applicants must meet a series of requirements, one of which is to have a minimum of 10 points under paragraphs 1 and 2 of Appendix C. Paragraph 2 of Appendix C as amended requires the applicant to have “the level of funds shown in the table below” and to provide “the specified documents”. The table contains a single figure, ?800, to which it allocates a single value of 10 points (why a table is necessary for this purpose is an enigma we are not required to solve).

Furthermore, rule 245AA defines “the specified documents” rather helpfully as “documents specified by the Secretary of State in the Points Based System Policy Guidance as being specified documents for the route under which the applicant is applying”. So no cause for confusion, then… But then again, these are graduates!

The June 2008 guidance defined the documents for the above route as “personal bank or building society statements covering the three-month period immediately before the application … [which showed (amongst other things)] … that there are sufficient funds present in the account (the balance must always be at least ? ?800 ?.)”.

All fair and all clear. As mud. But remember the promise about background information? November 2008 saw new Policy Guidance issued which rearranged the subject completely:

In November 2008 this provision was reorganised so as to transfer the continuity requirement from a parenthesis in the description of the specified document to a bullet point under an introductory cross-heading preceding the cross-head “Documents we require”. It now read:

“Applicants ? must have at least ?800 of personal savings which must have been held for at least three months prior to the date of application.”

That was the policy which led to five of the six individuals being refused leave to remain in the UK – and, according to the Court of Appeal (delivering judgement, Sedley LJ, and assenting, Rimer LJ and Sullivan LJ), it was exactly that. A policy. And “[a] policy is precisely not a rule”.

In order to be effective, so said the Court of Appeal, the “policy” would need to have been incorporated in the set of rules laid down before Parliament. The Court of Appeal weren’t fussy. Any set of amendments would do. It just needed to be laid before Parliament.

In so stating, the Court of Appeal had held that the “policy” was ultra vires, conferring powers beyond, well, its powers. However, that is not the only criticism held by the Court of Appeal:

[T]he objection goes deeper. Albeit the first version of the policy guidance was brought into being within the 40 days allowed by s.3(2) for the Parliamentary procedure, it has been open to change at any time. It is this, rather than the fact that it has in the event been changed, which, in answer to question (1)(c), is in my view critical. It means that a discrete element of the rules is placed beyond Parliament’s scrutiny and left to the unfettered judgment of the rule-maker.

In other words, the Court of Appeal is saying to the (last) government (and no apologies are offered for the very liberal interpretation) “we live in a democracy; no legally-binding rules with such consequences may be delivered by one individual without the approval first of the other 649 democratically-elected individuals”. So ner.

The Court of Appeal considered other matters, but, in order to keep the promise on minimal background information (at over 1300 words already), this author will not. Except one.

The Court of Appeal, in so?criticising?the last Labour government and, in all but one case, overturning the decision of the Home Office, has overlooked one small, tiny, insignificant fact. Chaos in the foreign graduate immigration system will now ensue. So many applications have been lodged and refused – and many of the refusals have potentially now been ruled “unlawful”.

The floodgates have been opened for those who were unsuccessful to appeal the decision, or spend their non-working time to find similar such non-effective rules to allow them to have their application approved as well. This at a time when the economy is unstable, and hordes of British graduates are struggling to find work (again, no apologies, this time for linking to an article you can only read if you pay the subscription fee. It’s ?2 a week! Less than sponsoring a child in a war-torn country!). It’s every graduate for himself (or herself), and now it looks as though the competition could be about to increase dramatically.

And guess which party is left to pick up the pieces? Yup, you guessed it. One powerful parting shot by a government that, really, should have lost its right to govern when it lost its mandate in 2007.

Remember to keep checking back on?AlanWCollins for legal news and analysis from Medway and England, from the perspective of a law?school undergraduate.

To return to?Legal Leanings directly, bookmark?legalleanings.co.uk in your preferred web browser.