The first meeting of the Licensing & Committee. McDonald’s at the Chilton Industrial Estate near Sudbury wishes to increase its service hours for an extra hour a day ending at midnight. McDonald’s are professionally & capably represented. The application is turned down. It is a zero sum game between McDonald’s and their clientele and the residents of the surrounding area, who are supported by a District Councillor, Parish Councillor and a Police Inspector.

The second case of the day concerns a village hall which wishes to increase its operating hours and its capability to serve alcohol for fifteen hours a day. A member of the village hall management committee (who is also a District Councillor) is present together with four objectors (two spousal couples). Why serve alcohol so early in the morning – well you might be watching a rugby match from the other side of the world, you might be celebrating and wanting to serve Buck’s Fizz or even be holding a barbecue breakfast requiring Bloody Mary’s. The application is rweaked so that everyone feels satisfied and the license is granted – everyone can be happy – which is unusual.

The newspapers today have two main political stories. First the enshrining of the Military Covenant in law and then the legal requirement to give 0.7% of our annual GDP to developing countries. The Military Covenant idea is attacked for not being detailed enough and being impractical. The idea goes back to Pericles who argued that soldiers should believe that their country is worth fighting
for and that those values will include looking after their veterans. The idea is good but the opposition and the media are treating it as rubbish. It’s a  classic case why we should pay attention  to the Biblical imperative not to cast pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Meanwhile The Times includes a column by Tim Montgomerie, co-founder of the  Centre for Social Justice and it includes the following: “Family, school, and work were the three routes out of poverty and to the good life”. More can be found on http://conservativehome.blogs.com/.

Following our tour and bonding exercise we meet Sir Henry Bellingham, Member of Parliament for North West Norfolk, currently Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. His ministerial oversight includes United Nations, Africa, Overseas Territories.

I am suited and tied and after a brief introduction by our Group Leader (John Malley of CAFOD) Sir Henry opens up the discussions by (very bravely I thought) inviting questions. He looks to me, as I am on his right, and I open the batting by asking about Uganda, large scale v. small scale aid, and the need to support U.K. manufacturers with U.K. taxpayers money. He responds very well and is fully master of his brief, stressing the process of good governance leading to full democracy and the
reduction of corruption. The newspapers that day had lead with a report of dissention in the Cabinet over overseas aid targets – so our discussions were very much on the button. He gave us a full hour’s worth of attention. We enjoyed it. He looked as if he also enjoyed the time spent with us and our CAFOD shepherd was happy with the connections made.

A quiet day – except that about 8 p.m. I get a telephone call from a friend about his daughter who had had a visit from the bailiff that morning for non payment of her (family) Council Tax. The bailiff did not gain access inside the house and promised to return on Monday – what to do and what advice do I have?

Two years ago  I attended a course promoted by the Zaccheus 2000 Trust to enable us to become McKenzie’s Friends and to assist people who are
being unfairly oppressed for the non payment of debt. I offer to call on the family at noon on Saturday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_friend  reports that a  McKenzie friend assists a litigant in person in a common law court. This person does not need to be legally qualified. The crucial point is that litigants are entitled to have accompanying assistance, lay or professional, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Their role was set out most clearly in the eponymous 1970 case McKenzie v. McKenzie. Although in many cases a McKenzie friend may be an actual friend, it is often somebody with knowledge of the area. He or she may be liable for any misleading advice given to the litigant in person. The role is distinct from that of a next friend or of an amicus curiae.