Peter Rhodes: Anyone for the Opposition?

Peter Rhodes on re-balancing Parliament, re-writing rape law and the future of the woggleberry

Published

LOVERS of democracy may wish to look away now. The latest opinion poll, conducted for the Times after the Budget and the Chancellor's subsequent U-turn, shows the Tories have increased their lead to 17 points over Labour. In a functioning democracy this simply should not be happening. Couldn't some of the other parties lend Corbyn a few MPs to create a proper Opposition?

JUSTICE Secretary Liz Truss has announced changes to court procedure, in an attempt to spare rape victims added trauma and to increase the number of rape convictions. From September, anyone claiming to have been raped will have the option of pre-recording their cross-examination, rather than giving evidence in open court. Although some have welcomed the move, there is surely a glaring weakness in the Truss plan.

IT is this: if giving pre-recorded evidence is an option, then jurors, who are encouraged to be sceptical and inquiring, will surely wonder why the alleged victim has exercised that option. They may feel they are not being given all the facts. They may even suspect the complainant has something to hide, and be even more reluctant to convict. So here's an alternative idea. As a pilot project, let's see all rape trials starting with full disclosure of the defendant's previous criminal history. If the defendant has no previous offences, or has been convicted of a string of sex attacks, let the court know. Defence lawyers will throw up their hands in horror but the most effective way to increase the number of convictions and persuade rapists to plead guilty is that old tenet – the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

MORE names for emulsion paints that tell you absolutely nothing about the colour. Our local DIY shop is now stocking Wellbeing and Urban Mystery.

BROADCASTERS stand accused of taking a negative view of how leaving the EU could affect farming. The trouble is that agricultural reporters tend to follow the same old formula. The report begins by explaining how a product of the UK farming industry – let us call it the woggleberry – is a huge success which must be protected at all costs (cut to stern-faced reporter). In order to keep the woggleberries flowing, thousands of seasonal migrant workers are essential (footage of cheerful pickers in the fields). And if Brexit means such workers are banned, the crop cannot be harvested. But, infuriatingly, we never seem to be told what terms such as "the entire UK woggleberry industry" actually mean. If it's thousands of struggling farmers, I sympathise. If it's one enormously wealthy landowner, I don't.

I HAVE just trudged to the Post Office to pay the outstanding postage on a delivery from eBay. The firm advertised "fast and free delivery." It's certainly free if you don't put a stamp on it.

A COUPLE of readers have consulted their dictionaries to discover that "diarise," a word I scoffed at on Tuesday, actually exists. I will make three points. 1) If you need to use a dictionary to find it, then it's not a proper word; 2) My dictionary describes it as archaic; and 3) After 47 years in a profession which lives, breathes and exists around diaries, I've never heard it. Nonetheless, "diarise" does exist and I have takenonboardarised your comments.