The Pin Factory Blog

Operation Trident, to quote its website, is “an anti-gun crime operation that was set up in 1998 to help bring an end to a spate of shootings and murders among young, black Londoners”. Despite it being in effect for 12 years, on the 13 April Agnes Sina-Inakoju, aged 16, was shot by mistake in the neck and subsequently died. The current approach towards gang crime is evidently not working and conventional logic is equally at fault. What is clear is that a radical new approach is necessary. Conventional logic would increase CCTV or place ASBOs on people, a totalitarian solution that has failed, where a liberal one may succeed.

Much violence is based on a desire for respect and in reaction to perceived slurs in gang dominated sections of society. Outside these gangs the same problems are dealt with entirely differently, however this was not always the case. Medieval knights, noblemen and royals would do anything to be seen as courageous and to preserve their honour, and as is the case with modern city gangs were prepared to die defending that image. The system that was established is that of duelling.

Strict rules were in place for how grievances should be redressed. These came in a variety of forms subject to locality, ranging from the Lex Alamannorum dated 712-730 AD to The Code of Honor; or Rules for the Government of Principals and Seconds in Dueling published in 1838 America. All duels would be fought in isolated locations, which would in the tragic case above have saved the life of one 16 year old girl and countless more. Before a duel could take place an apology or redress would be sought, both by the parties involved and by neutral third parties, again, likely to save lives lost in vain to misunderstandings.

It ought to be a right that people can do with their body exactly as they wish. The UK courts do not appreciate this as the case of R v Brown [1994] illustrates, however, one can risk death participating in boxing, a conflict fought one to one. It seems logical that by legalising duels that are properly organised, after arbitration has been tried and other means of redress dismissed, many aimless deaths could be avoided as well as increasing individuals’ liberties to engage as they wish in regards to their actions, thus increasing their liberty.

Jamie Brooke is the winner of the 2010 Young Writer on Liberty.

All three major parties in UK politics have insisted ‘fairness’ is one of the vital aspects they could bring to government, yet I am of the opinion the policies they intend to implement will do the opposite.

It goes without saying that different people or groups have natural advantages over others- be it strength, intellect, inherited wealth or simply good fortune. Despite this, mainstream social and taxation policy attempts to bridge the gap between the better off (not solely in financial terms), be it by the decline of grammar schools, ever increasing inheritance tax or most significantly varying tax rates on income.

It is the last policy I would like to discuss in depth as I it goes furthest to decrease individual liberty as well as being most detrimental to society as a whole. The vast majority of people want to work and work hard. Take some time off work. How long is it before one finds them self longing to be productive and to serve a purpose again? So, why is this positive aspect of the human psyche punished in monetary terms through higher tax rates for high earners?

Obviously, more money means a higher disposable income, so once necessities have been purchased a larger fund remains for higher earners than lower earners. Governments have utilised this as an opportunity to seize more money and hence more power for themselves, though of course it will be argued that it is for the good of society. This, when accompanied with state hand outs and benefits, leads to a culture in which hard work is punished and apathy rewarded. Those earning over £150,000 a year are now paying a 50% rate of tax. The revenue that is generated goes towards paying for schools and NHS hospitals they and their children are less likely to use. The temptation invariably is to go elsewhere, taking the jobs their businesses may provide and their individual skills abroad. This ‘brain drain’ means the UK faces losing one of its biggest assets to other nations, its intelligent populous.

A flat rate of tax would be fairer in that it would effect the entire working population proportionately. Were it to be introduced, governments would be obliged to cut spending down to a rate that the public as a whole, not just the very rich can afford to pay for, and (excluding monarchical systems) a decrease in the role of a country’s government can only be good for advancing its peoples’ liberty.

Jamie Brooke is the winner of the 2010 Young Writer on Liberty.

There are two arguments that are frequently quoted opposing the use of referenda in UK politics. The first is the cost associated with educating the electorate on the issues involved and administering the vote, the second, the fact that holding them would undermine Parliamentary sovereignty. In fact it is clear these arguments are not simply flawed, but are in fact arguments in favour of an increase in the use of referenda.

At present the vast majority of decisions made in Whitehall are done so in back rooms, by quangos or other such bodies. The manner in which they operate is far from transparent, with deals being reached out of the rightful glare of public scrutiny. These vast bloated groups are inefficient as well as costly, taking excessively long periods of time to reach ant substantial conclusion. It seems logical therefore, that were the same amount of taxpayers' money spent on educating the electorate on the issues at hand, the benefit would be twofold. The electorate will ultimately have a better grasp on political issues, meaning personality and media play less of a role in electing future politicians, and the mood of the public can be properly gauged. The cost in education will be partly borne by pressure groups interested in whichever area is being voted on. As long as suitable controls on lobbying are introduced this free market approach can be transferred to mainstream politics. 

The largest ever protest in the UK was in opposition to the Iraq War. The march through London saw approximately one million people objecting to the invasion. Did the invasion go ahead, despite the evident public opposition? Yes. Would that have been the case had it gone to a referendum that had been binding on the government? No. The Blair government knew this would be the case, that there would be widespread national objection to the conflict, and so acted against public opinion, thus committing billions of pounds and the lives of hundreds of troops to an unwanted illegal war. New Labour was also in favour of joining the single European currency, but as part of their manifesto pledge promised a vote that they knew they would lose. Had Britain committed, it is suggested that it would be in a similar position as Greece is now, dependent on the IMF. This demonstrates how a government is prepared to alter its behaviour to be more in keeping with the public mood even with the simple potential for a referendum. 

Jamie Brooke is the winner of the 2010 Young Writer on Liberty.