Forensic Case Study: The Murder of James Bulger

Forensic Case Study: The Murder of James Bulger James Patrick Bulger was murdered on the 12th of February 1993 at the age of two. He was abducted, tortured, and killed by two ten-year-old boys Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. Bulger was led away from his mother when she was in A.R. Tyms butcher shop in the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle, England. Jamies mother contacted security as soon as she realised her son was missing and the police were called. While reviewing the shopping centres CCTV footage, they saw that Thompson and Venables had approached Bulger before taking him by the hand and leading him out of the shopping centre at 15:42. Thomson and Venables then lead Bulger from there to a railway track 2.5 miles away in Walton, Liverpool. This would later be confirmed by witness statements who saw the three boys together and, at the time, assumed they were family. Once arriving at the railway track, Thomson and Venables threw paint into Bulgers face, some of which went into his left eye. The two boys threw stones at him, kicked him, and beat him with bricks. They then hit him with an iron bar, a partially rusted railway fishplate that was 20ins long and weighed 22lbs. Before leaving the body, Thomson and Venables laid Bulger across the railway tracks and placed rubble over his head, in the hope that a train would hit him and make his death appear to be an accident. After they left the scene, Bulgers dead body was cut in half by a train. His mutilated body was found on the railway line two days later, on February 14th 1993. The first breakthrough in finding Jamess killers occurred when a woman called the police after she recognised CCTV images of the two boys, Thompson and Venables, on national television. She had seen the two boys the day James Bulger went missing and knew that they were skipping school. The police responded to the womans call and the two boys were arrested. The forensic evidence that was found and submitted to the jury was vital to the prosecution. One piece of evidence that put Thomson and Venables at the scene of the crime was the blood found on the right shoe of one of the accused. A home office forensic scientist, Graham Jackson, said that there was only a one in a billion chance of error. DNA testing would have been used to match the blood found on the shoe to that of the victims. Forensic DNA testing is a process that begins with the DNA being isolated from the cells in this case, blood cells -and then is duplicated by a process called polymerase chain reaction. This process copies a specific stretch of DNA over and over, making it easier to analyse. The genetic code is split into separate chunks and then analysed to create a genetic fingerprint. Unlike actual fingerprints, there is a small chance that two different people could have the same genetic markers, especially if they are related to one another. To minimize this risk of error, scientists will test more than one genetic marker from a strand of DNA. Bulgers blood was also found on several bricks and on the 22lb iron bar. A forensic pathologist, Dr Allan Williams, counted 22 wounds on Jamess head and face and another 20 on his body. The wounds were so numerous that a final killing blow could not be established. Dr Williams determined that James would have already been dead by the time the train hit him as he had been stuck at least 30 times and would have endured a short period of survival after the attack began. The deep bruising on Jamess head, along with a cut that went down to the skull and the extensive damage to the back of his head, suggested that bricks and the iron bar had been used. Bulger sustained extensive head injuries, including a haemorrhage at the centre of his brain. Dr Williams also noted a severe blow to Jamess face that left a large bruise and grooved mark on the area around the right cheek and ear. A forensic scientist named Philip Rydeard was able to match the markings left on Jamess right cheek with a shoe worn by one of the boys. The shoe had an unusual arrangement of lacing rings as well as a distinctive stitching pattern. Paint found at the crime scene and on James Bulgers body was also found on the clothes of Thompson and Venables. Paint can be analysed in a few different ways to find a match: solvent tests, gas chromatography, and infrared spectrometry. Solvent tests involve exposing the paint samples to different chemicals and examining any changes that might take place (ie, a change in colour). Gas chromatography is used as a means of telling the difference between two paints that have the same colour, but have a different chemical composition. The paint sample is heated until it breaks down and is then separated into its components. Infrared spectrometry makes use of infrared light to determine the type of paint by examining the way that the paints various components absorb or reflect infrared light. Over the course of the trial, thirty-eight witnesses took the stand and said they had seen Bulger walking with Thompson and Venables, none of which could have ever foreseen the events that unfolded later that day. In addition, the 27 bricks, stones, and the 22lb iron rod used as weapons by Thompson and Venables were all presented to in court to eliminate any idea that the boys may be innocent. To conclude, the forensic evidence provided during the trial of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables was crucial to their prosecution. The DNA evidence from the traces of blood found on their clothes, as well as the shoe mark left on James Bulgers cheek, and the paint found on both the victim and the perpetrators clothing, provided absolute proof that Thompson and Venables had been at the scene of the crime. Backed up by CCTV footage and witness statements, this evidence lead to the prosecution of the youngest murderers in UK history. Sources Used   http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/james-bulger/trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/dna/how.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/james-bulger-suffered-multiple-fractures-pathologist-reveals-twoyearold-had-42-injuries-including-fractured-skull-jonathan-foster-reports-1503297.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/james-bulger-suffered-multiple-fractures-pathologist-reveals-two-year-old-had-42-injuries-including-1503297.html http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html http://science.howstuffworks.com/forensic-lab-technique3.htm Comparing Leaders: Desamanya Ken Balendra and Sarath Fonseka Comparing Leaders: Desamanya Ken Balendra and Sarath Fonseka This particular assignment concentrates on comparing on two individual leaders, where one individual is a leader at present and the other has been a great leader in his time. This assignment is not only based on to understand about the particular individuals leadership traits and styles but also to gain knowledge and experience on how they have developed themselves to their positions in life and society they are in today. According to Dubrin, Dalgish Miller (2006, p.3) leadership is the principal dynamic force that motivates and coordinates the organization in the accomplishment of its objectives. Appannaiah Reddy (2006, p.261) says that leadership is an influence process of inducing a subordinate to behave in a desired manner. Therefore in order for us to practically understand the reality of the leadership theory, we have analyzed the leadership qualities of two different leaders that are in the fields of Business and military/politics. The first leader that we selected was Desamanya Ken Balendra. He was the first Sri Lankan Chairman of John Keells Holdings Ltd. (JKH), a highly diversified blue chip company and the only Sri Lankan Company to be listed amongst the worlds best 200 small companies by Forbes Global magazine. In year 2000, on reaching the age of 60, he retired from his position. Our next choice was a simple and more popular choice, which was General (Rtd.) Sarath Fonseka. The former general of the Sri Lankan army who lead the armed forces of Sri Lanka to victory over the war against the Tamil rebels which dragged on for over 2 decades. A detailed analysis on each individual leader is included in the report, as well as a comparison of their leadership traits and styles through a theoretical background. BRIEF INTRODUCTION ON MR. KEN BALENDRA The major reason for choosing Mr. Ken Balendran for this assignment is because he is one of the most successful chairmans of Sri Lanka to ever be successful in a blue chip company like John Keells Holdings. He turned around things for JKH to reach higher objectives and become a well known people oriented company. And he indeed succeeded. After retirement his ways and pace of business is still been conducted at JKH. The present Chairman is also following the ways and footsteps of Mr. Balendra to bring out the best in John Keells. The reason why we selected him as the current leader is because he is still the Chairman of various other companies. He still runs his companies the same way he used to run JKH. With his experience and his visionary ways he is the most respected man in the corporate world today. He is also the holds the current positions of, Chairman of Brandix Lanka Ltd. A leading manufacturer and exporter of apparel. Director of chevron Lubricants Lanka Ltd., a subsidiary of Chevron Texaco. Chairman of the investment committee of Aureos South Asia fund Honorary Consul-General for Poland Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the National Council for Mental Health. Trustee of the Royal College Union HOW DID HE EMERGE AS A LEADER? Deshamanya Ken Balendra was always a Team player. At the interview with him, these were the first words he spoke to us. Saying Im a Team Player. When analyzing his history he was a good sportsman playing sports like Rugby. He was the vice captain of his team in royal college. Also he was in charge of the most important aspects of running a rugby team. Although he never became a Captain, he was determined to lead the team in to greater heights. He also played for the Ceylon Barbarians and captained the team for four years. He also received colors in doing so and is a very successful sportsman as well. When Mr. Ken Balendra was immerged to be a leader in the future, the question of role models and inspirations came in to considerations. Mr. Ken Balendra did not quite have his role models or Inspirations like most of us do, but he would recall his role models to be his bosses when he started his working career. He started his carrier with Tea. His family was in to planting and so into planting he went. Having finished creeping at Halgolla estate near Avissawella, he was transferred to Hapugastanne Group. Where he worked for the most part under the late Sepala Ilangakoon. He still reckons Ilangakoon to be Sri Lankas best ever planter. Mr. Balendra learnt readily by Illangakoons account, he was a model planter. Through this he gave Mr. Balendra experience of both tea and rubber planting. This would stand him in a good stead during his early years at John Keells. Illangakoon later put him in charge of welfare and social activities such as the annual sports meet, a sizeable responsibility considering how many families were employed and housed at Hapugastenne. He continued to play rugby as he had at school, turning out for the Ceylon Rugby Football Club as well as for the national team, the Ceylon Barbarians. Mr. Balendra then moved to the capital and started his work as a fairly senior executive in the tea department of John Keells. He did as well at Keells as he had at planting. Mr. Sepala Illangakoon was gratified to learn from Mark Bostock that the new recruit had graduated to auctioneering in a record time of three months, when most others took at least six. Because of his bosses visionary thinking of diversifying ones ability to handle business, Mark Bostock assigned Mr. Balendra in to touring operator companies and also gem miners and merchants. Here Ken Balendra discovered his true vocation. With all the problems with the JVP and at the height of the war Mr. Ken Balendra was finally appointed Chairman of John Keells. He was on set on a course to chair JKH for the next 10 years. As chairman of JKH he worked hard to strengthen and disseminate the values that had built John Keells. Management meetings were opportunities to pass along some of the old spirit, Which Balendra did in extrovert fashion, using humor, irrelevance and a listening ear to encourage people to speak their minds with eh frankness and lack of formality Keells demanded. His main technique however remained that of handing people more responsibility that they thought they could handle and persuading them that they could handle it. HOW DID MR. KEN BALENDRAN DEVELOP HIS LEADERSHIP SKILLS? Mr. Ken Balendra when answering a question of what a leader should be a person who is down to earth and knows exactly what goes in peoples minds. His leadership skills are still respected today because he knew how to handle people and most of all how listen to his followers. He was also able to motivate his followers and guide them in their journey without discouragement. But a leader would not be existent if there were no followers. Mr. Ken Balendra suggested that ones followers should be courages and able to take risks and believe in something that may not look colorful now but if thought correctly it would be in time to come. Therefore to enhance his followers to become the leaders in the future he developed a team called the 2020 Team. Whose members were outstanding young executives deemed likely to be among those running the group in the year 2020. Gatherings of the 2020 team were the most informal of all. As I quote, I used to encourage them to speak up, criticize the board and so on, and that brought out a whole lot of good ideas. Two of the groups are now Chairman and Deputy Chairman: Susantha Ratnayake and Ajit Gunawardene. They were in the 2020 Team in the early nineties and jumped over several heads to join the board at such a young age Even at his time he made it a point to attend every seminar possible and was heavy reader in various books and magazines published both here in Sri Lanka and internationally. And later his art of management came in play of handing responsibility and being accountable for ones actions. This is one of the ways he was able to get his results. But he would never sack someone due to not meeting targets, but would do so if the norms and ethics were breached by anyone. Therefore he was a visionary person who was very much People oriented as oppose to Task Oriented. He was more interested in the welfare of people more than the company itself. After all the companies existence is because of the people who work for it. Mr. Balendras efforts, combined with those of his colleagues, were effective at preserving the Keells Spirit. BRIEF INTRODUCTION ON GENERAL (RTD.) SARATH FONSEKA Named Gardihewa Sarath Chandralal Fonseka born on the 18th of December 1950 is a former commander of the Sri Lanka Army and a former Chief of Defense Staff of Sri Lanka. As the Commander of the Army General (Rtd.) Fonseka played an instrumental role in ending the two decade Civil War Sri Lanka, in 2009. Thereafter he became the first serving officer to be promoted to a four star rank in the Sri Lanka Army. (Sarath Fonseka the future leader, n.d.) Gen. (Rtd.) Fonseka joined the Sri Lanka Army way back in 1970 and witnessed all action throughout the 26 year civil war, culminating in a term as commander from December 2005 to July 2009. As commander, he oversaw the final phase of the civil war of Sri Lanka which end resulted in the defeat of the militant Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam organization (LTTE). Gen. (Rtd.) Fonseka has been described and viewed as Sri Lankas most successful army commander by local and foreign nationals alike, and his run of significant military victories against the LTTE during Eelam War IV led the Indian National Security Advisor Mayankote Kelath Narayanan to describe him as the best army commander in the world. (Sri Lanka Army Commander General Sarath Fonseka, n.d.) After having chosen a career in the Army in 1970 to serve this great nation, Sarath Fonseka met his life partner Ms. Anoma in 1972. They entered wedded life in 1979 and thereafter have had two daughters named Apsara and Aparna. While a career in the Army meant that Gen. Fonseka had to spend time away from his family, he always made sure that he was a devoted husband to his wife and a loving and caring father to his daughters. (Sarath Fonseka the future leader, n.d.) In mid April, 2006 Gen. (Rtd.) Fonseka survived an assassination attempt when an LTTE suicide bomber attacked his motorcade, where he suffered critical abdominal injuries. Following the end of the war he was appointed Chief of Defense Staff, a post from which he retired on November 16th, 2009. (Sri Lanka Army Commander General Sarath Fonseka, n.d.) General Foneskas experience in military matters made him a very popular figure amongst all Sri Lankan citizens. Many statesmen admired his courage, stance on military matters, and his astute policy insights into governance and strengthening democracy. As a moderate he has been able to achieve what was once thought the unthinkable in Sri Lankas political history. Due to his determination and commitment to put his country before himself, he has been able to unite major political parties and ethnic communities to work with him to guide our beloved motherland to a prosperous future; a place where every citizen regardless of their ethnicity, religion and identity can live freely with pride and dignity. (Sarath Fonseka the future leader, n.d.) HOW DID HE EMERGE AS A LEADER According to Mr. Fonseka there are many characteristics of a good leader. One is that he/she needs to be very transparent should be unbiased and be able to provide good strategic direction to his followers. And Gen. (Rtd.) Fonseka is a strong believer of discipline and abiding conduct. These are some of the main qualities which influenced Gen. (Rtd.) Fonseka to be a good leader. Another element of his characteristics is that he was able to clearly handle the pressures of political influence and his own leadership demands and act accordingly; people were called effective leaders because they had followers who trusted them and would go that extra mile for them. An important quality he possesses is the ability to understand his subordinates and realized that influencing others alone is not sufficient in order to be a good leader. In most incidents he tried to lead by example and create a role model of himself to others. However it is a must to influence others, when and where it is required. Gen. (Rtd.) Fonseka portrays a high degree of legitimate power as a Commander of the Sri Lankan armed forces. However a point which he mentioned was that some of his leadership qualities were hindered because, according to his position; he is under obligation to the president and he doesnt have the full authority to handle things his own way. (I Survived To Do My Duty by My Country, 2009) Therefore we can say that situation also plays a vital role in bringing about leadership qualities. Another quality that he possesses is that he has a high level of motivation. He doesnt believe in isolating his team and he delegates power and authority to them. Delegation and follow up is his method of working. Following up is how he attempted to keep his control, where as delegation is how he empowered his team in order to take challenges and complete their tasks. However, in an interview with Gen. (Rtd.) Fonseka, it was evident that he was a courageous person. We can say this clearly because when we confronted him about his strengths and weaknesses he said that his only weakness is that he doesnt wait for the opportunity to come to him. He goes behind the opportunity or tries to create an opportunity himself. It would appear to work at times but also vice versa, at times it doesnt. (I Survived To Do My Duty by My Country, 2009) Gen. (Rtd.) Fonseka also maintains positive work life balance though it is tough to keep up with the different changes in his life. Hence, we view it as, a leader should also know how to strike that type of work-life balance even when their engaged in long, gruesome and tireless line of employment. 3.2 COGNITIVE FACTORS OF HIS LEADERSHIP Problem solving and intellectual skills could be identified as cognitive factors. In order to be a successful leader, the leader must have the mental ability to inspire people, bring about constructive changes and problem solving creativity. The cognitive factors of a leader can be classified in to several parts, and these are a few identified with regard to Gen. Fonseka. Knowledge of business In order to establish a relationship with group members, the leader must have knowledge of the business and technical and professional competence related to the business. Considering the army commander, who has been working with fellow comrades before he was appointed to the position of General, it is obvious that Gen. Fonseka has the relevant technical capabilities, professional competence on operations and more than enough experience. Insight into people and situations This simply means that the leader should have the required level of intuition and common sense to make wise choices in selecting people for key assignments, enabling the leader to make the assignment work better and a better dob training and development. When appointing senior military officers to different areas, the commander acted in a way that is expected by a leader who has that required level of intuition and common sense needed. As an example, the Brigadier Walagama who previously acted as the chief of Diyathalawa army academy was identified by the commander to have brilliant experience regarding Trincomalee area and he was immediately appointed as the commander of the Trincomalee area. (I Survived To Do My Duty by My Country, 2009) Farsightedness In order to establish a corporate strategy and vision, the leader must have the farsightedness and understanding of the implications in the long run. With regard to the commander, was known to be a thinker and an extremely farsighted individual. For example when the commander had the opportunity to clear the Kilinochchi town are before clearing the Poonarin area, he restrained himself from doing so, because he knew that if he did that the army forces would be undoubtedly ambushed by the LTTE. (I Survived To Do My Duty by My Country, 2009) Openness to experience The commander admits that he still learns something new every day from his subordinates. And this statement was made of national television. LEADERSHIP TRAITS COMPARISON 4.1 GENERAL PERSONAL TRAITS Self confidence Mr. Ken Balendran: Self Confidence through the analysis of the interview has outlined that the fact of climbing the ladder to being the Chairman of John Keells requires more self confidence than any other factor. Being a Leader would be mostly based on how confident you are in your actions and opinions. Therefore through analysis Mr. Ken Balendra indeed is the most self confident Chairman Sri Lanka has ever experienced. Gen. (Rtd.) Sarath Fonseka Gen. Fonseka is a self assured personality without being bombastic or overbearing, he instills confidence in his team members. He always states that it is possible for the army to reach a position of strength not only to achieve its objectives according to a well conceived plan but also to retain the areas cleared. Trust worthiness Mr. Ken Balendra: Mr. Ken Balendra always believed in his visions. He was able to foresee the future because of the exposure his bosses put him through. He was always the faithful and trust worthy character in John Keells right from the start. This is why he became the chairman of John Keells. He still remains chairman of many other companies due to the fact that he is able to take up responsibility and is trust worthy in his actions to making the company succeeds. Gen. (Rtd.) Sarath Fonseka: In Riviresa operations General Fonseka had to face many accusations on fraud due to over use of a satellite phone. The bill was raised up to 10 million rupees. However ultimately the court recovered the reason behind this to be; that the commander had given his phone to soldiers to contact their parents. (I Survived To Do My Duty by My Country, 2009) Assertiveness Mr. Ken Balendra: Mr. Ken Balendra always wanted to know what each employee in the company thought about. He even would see the worker of factory at anytime he can. He was always assertive and didnt quite hold his head up high because he was the chairman of John Keells. Gen. (Rtd.) Sarath Fonseka: In a television interview Gen. Fonseka once stated that it is his task to eliminated terrorism as practiced by the LTTE leader while the Sri Lanka Government will resolve the political problem with a political solution, which statement sows the assertiveness and of his mind. (I Survived To Do My Duty by My Country, 2009) High Tolerance For Frustration Mr. Ken Balendra: Although he was able to be calm at any stage, he mentioned that he would have any person accountable for their actions. He was also lenient on the other side of encouraging them to take up responsibility. Through this he was quite tolerant and knew how to take up problems or anything that could frustrate the company. He handled them quite well. Because of these aspects he is the most respected man in Sri Lanka today. Gen. (Rtd.) Sarath Fonseka: The major factor which enabled the LTTE to increase its strength and influence was because the Government during the earlier periods did not act accordingly and they were undecided whether to fight or not to fight. This gave the terrorists time to motivate and build a nexus. Gen. Fonseka observed and frustrated that due to the lack of a strategy to defeat the LTTE areas which were cleared would soon be lost due to the absence of direction and commitment. However he tolerated that. He thought that the day would eventually come when he would lead the defeat of the LTTE. (Sri Lanka Army Commander General Sarath Fonseka, n.d.) 4.2 TASK ORIENTED TRAITS Passion for the work and people Mr. Ken Balendra: In developing the 2020 team as mentioned above, he was quite visionary and interested in the small man. He was interested to educate young recruits in to being the future leaders of the company. And is still motivating young employees of Brandix Ltd. to enhance the future leaders of the company. Gen. (Rtd.) Sarath Fonseka: Extremely passionate for his work and for his country. The commander identified group members, their interests and attitudes and the way which can use to reach and to best communicate with and influence them. When the time where he was engaging in operations he would let his personal phone be given to his subordinate to contact their families. Emotional intelligence Mr. Ken Balendra: His emotional level was quite down to earth, sharing his experience and passion often motivated his followers and the young executives at his time. When suggesting his ways of doing things it was clear that his position in the people and task grid was on the far right suggesting that he is indeed a people oriented person. He is definitely interested in the people who make things happen for the company rather than the tasks which are done for the company. Gen. (Rtd.) Sarath Fonseka: His staff members and followers always observed his emotions. He always used his emotions to persuade his followers. Flexibility and adoptability Mr.Ken Balendra: Since the 2020 team was quite informal it is clear that he was flexible in his thoughts and tasks. With his adoptability to conflicts in Sri Lanka at his time at JKH he is able to handle any situation when necessary. He is now handling the recession with Brandix very well produces the same output. Therefore his adoptability is no doubt at the best of standards and is flexible because of the fact that his ego levels and his demand of respect are extremely low. Gen. (Rtd.) Sarath Fonseka: Considering the behavior of the commander, who changed the structure of the army and established a clear coordination among different forces such as the army, navy and the air force to match with the modern and required level of specifications one could say that Gen. Fonseka was indeed flexible and very much adaptable to new technology and other. Furthermore he went out for new technology and aircrafts such as M27 to battle against the terrorist when the terrorist went for air attacks. These can be identified as evidence of flexibility in his leadership. Locus of control Mr.Ken Balendra: Mr. Balendra is a person with a high internal Locus of control. His ways and decision were based on what he believes in and is based on what his followers want need. His art of obtaining followers were automatic. Followers who were his needed to be able to take up responsibility for their actions and is able to be confident in what they believe. Therefore Mr. Balendra always exhibited his faiths and would allow his followers to make their own decisions. Gen. (Rtd.) Sarath Fonseka: The commander once said in a television program, I am confident that once the Tamil youth in the East see the advantages of peace they will not go back to join the terrorists. All communication in the East is cooperating with the security forces and the Government as they can visualize a bright and peaceful future for all communities.Hence this would realize Gen. Fonseka to have an internal locus of control. Courage Mr.Ken Balendra: Mr. Ken Balendra definitely is courages in turning around John Keells. And is also still making things brighter for the companies he is chairman to. Therefore is quite clear that his level of courage to make those changes going through various critics certainly has rewarded him in being the most successful chairmans of Sri Lanka. Gen. (Rtd.) Sarath Fonseka: He can be identified as a courages person. He had to face many barriers in reaching to his position but he never gave up his vision and his target of peace to his mother land. LEADERSHIP STYLE COMPARISON The basic leadership styles can be categorized in to three main stages. And they are; Autocratic: All the decisions of the group are made unilaterally by the leader. The leader does not give any aut hority to subordinates to make any decision. Participative: The leader gives considerable amount of autonomy and authority to take part in the decision making and the leader applies being participative. Laissez Faire The leader has gives full autonomy to subordinates for decision making and to initiate whatever decision they see fit. The leadership style of Gen. Fonsek a could be categorized into the participative style, because he shares the decision making process with the other members of his group and after the decision was made by the subordinates the general would give his consensus, if the decision is at a considerable condition. The Leadership style of Deshamanya Ken Balendra could be categorized as a participative style. He is a down to earth person who likes to delegate work to subordinates and young people to help them gain experience for their future endeavors. His leadership style also reflected that he is quite charm and would listen to anyone and their ideas in any position. His change management is successful and visionary and has made sure everyone was happy in the company. He has been the most suitable man to any company to occupy the chairmanship position. He is still the most respected man in the country and is looked up upon by anyone. CONCLUSION In analyzing of this two great individuals who have made it big in their respective careers, it is evident that these two possess different leadership styles, but whereas the essence to it are almost the same. Though various scholars have explained it in their own respective way, the question still remains; are leaders born or made? Looking at these two highly respected individuals it is quite hard to fathom of how a leader can be made, in fact if it is possible can another Ken Balendra or Sarath Fonseka made? Can you or I become one? It is sometimes too good to be true but if we look into the characteristics and traits of all leaders we tend find common ground. Some may have a bit more on certain traits or characteristics and some less. But it isnt about how good or bad these characteristics and traits are but rather how effective He/she is. Nurturing of these traits and characteristics can possibly make us a leader in our own field too and its quite sure it doesnt happen overnight. REFERENCE LIST Appannaiah, H.R., Reddy, P.N. (2006). Business management (2nd Ed.).Bangalore, India: Himalaya Publishing House ( p 260- 300) De Janasz., Wood., Gottschalk., Dowd., Schneider. (2007). Interpersonal skills in Organizations, NSW: McGraw Hill Dubrin, A., Dalgish, C., Miller, C (2006). Leadership (2nd ed.). Queensland, Australia: John Wiley Sons Australia, Ltd ( p 26 -95) Hosking, D. M. (1988). Organizing, leadership, and skilful process. Journal of Management Studies, 25, pp. 147-166. I Survived To Do My Duty by My Country. (December 13th 2009), The Sunday Leader, p.2. Internet Referencing Sarath Fonseka the future leader. [n.d.] Retrieved January, 2010 from http://www.sarathfonseka.com/about.html Sri Lanka Army Commander General Sarath Fonseka. [n.d.] Retrieved January, 2010 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/11514520/Sri-Lanka-Army-Comander-General-Sarath-Fonseka Anti-Discrimination Laws in the UK | Analysis Anti-Discrimination Laws in the UK | Analysis In recent years the Government has been attempting a massive review of the UK’s anti-discrimination laws. The impetus behind this, amongst other things is the influence from Europe. There have been several European Directives which have required implementing and there is becoming a plethora of confusing anti-discrimination laws. More recently we have seen the introduction of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, The Equality Act 2006 and there is also a new Commission for Equality and Human Rights[1] which replaces the Equal Opportunities Commission, Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission. In light of recent changes in the law and with the decision that more changes were necessary, the Discrimination Law Review was set up in 2005 with the purpose of considering the: â€Å"opportunities for creating a clearer and more streamlined discrimination legislative framework which produces better outcomes for those who currently experience disadvantage†.[2] A Consultation Paper was then published in June 2007 which establishes the Government’s proposal of a Single Equality Bill. Only a few months earlier, in February 2007 was Trevor Phillip’s Equalities Review published. Whilst the consultation paper and the Equalities Review considered the same topic, they have worked in parallel and looked at different angles. The consultation paper considered the legislative framework whilst the Equalities Review looked at the wider issues surrounding the topic of inequality.[3] This essay will consider these reviews and consultation paper, and discuss the Government’s proposals for a new anti-discrimination law in the UK. We will firstly examine the history behind the proposed changes in the law before turning to discuss what exactly the Government is proposing. We will then look to responses to the Government’s proposals, including analysing criticisms that the planned changes fail to address issues of enforcement and access to justice concerns. A fresh look at the anti-discrimination laws of the UK was deemed necessary after the much publicized Stephen Lawrence enquiry.[4] The Macpherson Report concluded that there was â€Å"institutional racism† both within the Metropolitan Police and the Police generally. The report made no less than 70 recommendations and the Government has been keen to implement them. The Race Relations Act 1976 has now been expanded so that it covers public bodies and authorities, and changes to double jeopardy laws have been implemented.[5] The proposed changes in anti-discrimination are intended to be an extension of the review of racism and other discriminatory practices and to move the UK forward into a 21st Century where such discrimination is a thing of the past. The changes in the law brought about by this report are more than likely to be mirrored and taken across so that they do not only apply to racial discrimination but also age, gender, religion and so forth. There is no denying that the Macpherson report has had a resounding effect but how successful the Government’s proposals will be remains to be seen. Trevor Phillips in his Equalities Review provides a definition of an equal society: â€Å"An equal society protects and promotes equal, real freedom and substantive opportunity to live in the ways people value and would choose, so that everyone can flourish. An equal society recognises people’s different needs, situations and goals and removes the barriers that limit what people can do and can be.†[6] He set out 10 recommendations in his review, which were focused on setting definitions and goals for equality and setting up a simpler legal framework with a better enforcement regime. The review recommends that the Government’s proposed Single Equality Act covers all bases of inequality, for example it should cover age, gender, sexual orientation and racist discrimination amongst others all under the same legislation. The act should also be â€Å"simpler, more coherent†.[7] Phillip’s review places a large emphasis and role, to the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights. He suggests that the Commission should â€Å"play a more dynamic role in enforcement†, which would involve inspections of known equality gaps and transparency should be encouraged. Public and private bodies should also be made to measure and publish their equality performance. The Equalities Review clearly has ambitious and far reaching aims, but it does not provide very clear explanations for how these changes are to happen. It appears as if most of the regulatory and enforcement work it attributes to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, as is also recommended by the consultation paper, although seeing as the Commission was not up and running at the time these reports were written, no feedback was possible from them themselves. The majority of Trevor Phillip’s review is concerned with the history of inequality in the UK and its effect and what the future would look like without discrimination. Very little is focused upon definite ideas and practices which could be implemented to ensure that this vision is a success. It works well as a tandem document, providing a background into the necessity for a change in law and for providing an ideal to aspire to. The Consultation Paper, a Framework for Fairness however is supposed to be more concrete and provide definite, workable proposals for discussion. The paper is split into three parts, each of which we will consider in turn. There is also a more recent publication on the single Equality Bill is from the Government Equalities Office – Framework for a Fairer Future: The Equality Bill, which was published in June 2008 which also provides some clarification on some of the issues raised in the consultation paper. Part one of the consultation paper relates to harmonising and simplifying the law. This we will see is essential, not least because of the recent flurry of case law and legislation on discrimination laws. Employers and public bodies need to know the current law and this is easier if it is codified into one document. The proposal is that the Commission for Equality and Human Rights will be pivotal in this aspect, publishing practice notes and guidance and working together with public, private and volunteer organisations. This section also includes proposals on equal pay provisions, meaning that truly, everything relating to discrimination is brought under the umbrella of this one act. It is hoped that this codification procedure will make the law more readily accessible and easier to understand and create a â€Å"culture of compliance with the law†.[8] Ensuring that the law is simple and easy to comprehend is vital in enforcing the law, as people are more likely to adhere to a law that they are aware of an fully understand. Greater transparency will also increase access to justice, as citizens will be more aware of their rights and the means of resolving a discrimination grievance. Part two of the consultation paper concerns making the law more effective. This is a large concern where anti-discrimination law is concerned, as it is often felt that it is not the law that is the problem, but rather the fact that enforcing the law is difficult. It is this section of the consultation paper that is the weakest. The proposals include simplifying and extending public sector duties and improving the practice of equality in the private sector and outside the workplace. There are very little concrete ideas or tools which are suggested to ensure that the new laws are adhered to. The proposals mention encouraging the use of alternative dispute resolution outside of workplaces situations and giving an increasing role to the Ombudsman but these are measures that are used after an alleged discrimination has taken place. Whilst access to justice issues are clearly important, surely the primary aim should be to prevent the discrimination in the first place? Preventative measures discussed in the consultation paper are a ‘light touch’ equality check tool and a voluntary equality standard. These provisions are insufficient. They may be all well and good for those businesses that may be discriminating unknowingly, but where are the enforcement procedures for those who wantonly breach anti-discrimination laws? Part three relates to modernising the law. This reflects the proposals in Trevor Phillip’s review. The paper states that whilst part of the aim is a codification of the current law, it wants to go beyond this: â€Å"Rather than just consolidating the current legislation, we want to take this opportunity to review it, and decide whether we can improve it, to make it fit for the 21st century.†[9] This report recognises that the law does need to be streamlined, but also modernised. For example, the proposed single Equality Act will codify the recent changes to the law regarding public bodies and racism and gender and disability discrimination, but it will go further than this and include â€Å"gender reassignment, age, sexual orientation and religion or belief.†[10] Further than this the new Act is proposed to include some altogether new laws regarding age discrimination. There is already new legislation in force protecting from age discrimination in the workplace and the plan is to extend this to the supply of goods and services: â€Å"The Equality Bill will enable us to make it unlawful to discriminate against someone because of their age when providing goods, facilities and services or carrying out public functions.†[11] This is a contentious claim on the part of the consultation paper, as we will see later. There may well be new protections provided but many critics argue that the proposals do not go far enough. Clearly, therefore the new Act proposal promises the world, but can it deliver? There have been several responses to the consultation paper, and many of them negative. We will turn to discuss a selection of these now. We have seen how the Racial Equalities Commission produced a damning response, which is interesting, especially as the Racial Equalities Commission has now merged into the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights. If an organisation that is to be at the centre of the new proposals is not entirely supportive of them, it would seem that the Government is on the back foot already. The Citizen’s Advice Bureau’s response is less overt in its criticism but still feels that the proposals for a single Equality Act do not go far enough.[12] The Citizen’s Advice Bureau’s response comments that there appears to be no correlation between the new Equality Act and existing Human Rights legislation. They are of the opinion that the human rights framework should not only be a consideration in the new legislation but that they should be in some way integrated: â€Å"Not to do so seems to us to be a missed opportunity to establish a new, more integrated and effective system of human rights and discrimination law which will be fit for purpose for decades to come.†[13] Amongst other things, the Citizen’s Advice Bureau also believes that the proposals are weak in the areas of public authority duties, and that there is no parity between strands of discrimination. Of particular concern to them is that there seems to be less provided for the elderly, comparably to other strands, specifically regarding to access to goods and services. Predictably also, their response is critical of the lack of enforcement measures in the new proposals. The general consensus of this organisation’s report is that the proposals do not go far enough and they want the new law to go further than simply codifying what exists already. They are of the opinion that the proposals need an urgent review: â€Å"We would therefore urge the Government to look again at the challenge of how to achieve a workable, fair, straightforward and effective single equality law, and to address our concerns about compliance, enforcement and sanctions and the changing context of discrimination.†[14] Another key organisation which has responded to the new proposals is Age Concern.[15] Their report seems to also suggest that they do not think that the new proposals are sufficient. They are fully supportive and understanding of the need for codification and simplification but they also view the proposed Act as a wasted opportunity. They agree with the Citizen’s Advice Bureau concerning the duties of public bodies and feel that by only requiring them to focus on a limited number of equality requirements the law is actually taking a step back. They are again critical of the proposed enforcement methods and show concern about access to justice. They believe that there is still a poor awareness of legal rights under anti-discrimination law and that there is very little legal aid available which will hinder people’s access to justice. They are concerned that the proposals do little to address these issues: â€Å"Low public awareness of legal rights under discrimination law, together with the severe limitations in availability of legal aid for advice and representation in this field, represent serious barriers to effective access to justice. The idea of allowing representative claims, with an appropriate filter stage, should be revisited. This would allow bodies such as the CEHR, trades unions and consumer organisations act on behalf of groups of claimants.†[16] In fact, looking generally at some of the responses to the consultation paper and there is a striking theme. Many organisations have the same concerns on the same areas and while being supportive of the ideology of a single Equality Act are disappointed that it is not more revolutionary.[17] The question of whether the Government should rethink it’s plans for reform is a tricky one. There is definitely a general consensus that reform is necessary, despite the current criticisms of the proposed reforms. There is no doubt that the law needs simplifying and thus making it more transparent. However, there is clearly little point in implementing yet more legislation which is not far reaching enough and will require further legislation in the not too distant future to bring it more up to date. This will only result in adding more legislation to the plethora we already have. The government has an ideal opportunity here to really make a difference and take a stand against discrimination and it is very important that they make the most of it. Nevertheless, whilst the review of the law is clearly necessary, the government definitely need to review the responses to the consultation paper and take them very seriously into account. There are several common points of contention which must be addressed. There are clearly issues that need resolving regarding duties of public authorities and the new proposals for limiting the amount of equality requirements is a concern to both the Citizens Advice Bureau and Age Concern. There is a worry that if the government is too cautious with the new legislation, then anti-discrimination law will be taking a step back and will retreat from the ideas and motivation provided by the Macpherson report. The government will also need to review the numerous concerns regarding the enforcement of these new laws. Additionally, there is little consideration of how to make it easier for people to have access to justice in these proposals. The National Union of Students even comments in their review that they feel that the government has overlooked the role of education and that it can play a vital part, not only in educating about inequality but also about the law and access to justice through it.[18] It is essential that nothing is overlooked in creating such a potentially great piece of legislation, and clearly education can play a vital part, not least in attempting to rid our society of the prejudices that have resulted in the need for such legislation. If the government addresses the issues contained in many of the responses to the consultation paper they should consider bringing out a wider, more expansive and more complete proposal. The current proposals have good intentions but have not been entirely thoroughly thought out. There is also not enough correlation between Trevor Phillip’s review and the consultation paper. Many of the issues raised are covered, but not always to a satisfactory standard. For example, it would probably greatly impress the organisation’s whose reviews we have looked at here if there was some indication of Phillip’s recommendations of measured equality performance and regular and involved action by the Commission for Equality and Human Rights in the proposals, both which would aid enforcement of these laws. Overall therefore, the Government do not need to rethink its plans for reform, just the content of the reform so that the new legislation brings the UK to the forefront of the legal world in the field of human rights and anti-discrimination, which is the position we want to be in. Bibliography ADCS consultation response A framework for fairness: The Government’s ideas for a law about equality. Ideas from the Discrimination Law Review, found online at http://www.adcs.org.uk/ (as accessed on 1st December 2008) Age Concern, Summary: Age Concern’s response to a Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain, September 2007 Citizen’s Advice Bureau, Discrimination Law Review A Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain Citizens Advice Response, September 2007 Discrimination Law Review, Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain, June 2007 Equalities Review, Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review, Trevor Phillips, February 2007 Government Equalities Office, Framework for a Fairer Future: The Equality Bill, June 2008 Local Government Association Response to Consultation paper, September 2007, found online at http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/103575 (as accessed on 1st December 2008) Lockton, Deborah, Employment Law, Palgrave Macmillan: London, 2008 Lord Lester of Herne Hill Kate Beattie, The New Commission for Equality and Human Rights, P.L. 2006, Sum, 197-208 McColgan, Aileen, Reconfiguring discrimination law, P.L. 2007, Spr, 74-94 McCrudden, Christopher, Equality legislation and reflexive regulation: a response to the Discrimination Law Reviews consultative paper, I.L.J. 2007, 36(3), 255-266 National Union of Students, A Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain: NUS Response, September 2007 Smith, Ian Gareth Thomas, Smith Woods Employment Law, Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2008 The Equality Bill, Government Response to the Consultation, July 2008 The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Report of an Inquiry by Sir William MacPherson of Cluny, The Stationary Office, February 1999 www.equalities.gov.uk (as accessed on 1st December 2008) www.westlaw.co.uk (as accessed on 1st December 2008) 1 Footnotes [1] Established in October 2007 [2] Consultation Paper, Discrimination Law Review, Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain, June 2007, p.3 [3] See McCrudden, Christopher, Equality legislation and reflexive regulation: a response to the Discrimination Law Reviews consultative paper, I.L.J. 2007, 36(3), 255-266 [4] The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Report of an Inquiry by Sir William MacPherson of Clunt, The Stationary Office, February 1999 [5] See Criminal Justice Act 2003 [6] Equalities Review, Fairness and Freedom: The Final Report of the Equalities Review, Trevor Phillips, February 2007 [7] Ibid [8] Consultation Paper op cit (fn 2) p.16 [9] Consultation Paper Op cit (fn 2) p.12 [10] Government Equalities Office, Framework for a Fairer Future: The Equality Bill, June 2008 p. 13 [11] Government Equalities Office, Framework for a Fairer Future: The Equality Bill, June 2008 p. 16 [12] Citizen’s Advice Bureau, Discrimination Law Review A Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain Citizens Advice Response, September 2007 [13] Ibid, p. 4 [14] Ibid, p. 5 [15] Age Concern, Summary: Age Concern’s response to a Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain, September 2007 [16] Ibid, p. 5 [17] Local Government Association Response to Consultation paper, September 2007, found online at http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/103575 (as accessed on 1st December 2008); ADCS consultation response A framework for fairness: The Government’s ideas for a law about equality. Ideas from the Discrimination Law Review, found online at http://www.adcs.org.uk/ (as accessed on 1st December 2008) and National Union of Students, A Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain: NUS Response, September 2007 [18] See National Union of Students, A Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain: NUS Response, September 2007