I will ask the question if nobody else will, what is someone as corrupt, or incompetent, or both, as Charles Falconer doing in a public office? I know he is a friend of Tony Blair and that the Prime Minister appointed him to office. However, the Department of Constitutional Affairs is responsible for justice, rights and democracy. In my view, the Prisoners' voting rights consultation paper Written ministerial statement http://www.dca.gov.uk/pubs/statements/2006/st061214.htm by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer of Thoroton, appears to be irresponsibly drafted. In other words, it is another dodgy document.

It cannot be comfortable for the government to be taken to the highest court in Europe by a legally unqualified jailhouselawyer, who suffers from a form of autism called Aspergers Syndrome, and to suffer such a humiliating defeat when their qualified lawyers were unable to defend the indefensible. I pay attention to detail. For example, Lord Falconer's opening paragraph is not only outdated but is also nonsensical. He claims that the right to vote in the UK is a privilege. A right is one thing and a privilege is another. In HIRST v. The United Kingdom (No2)(Application No. 74025/01), “The applicant submitted that the right to vote was one of the most fundamental rights which underpinned a truly democratic society. It was not a privilege, contrary to the view expressed by the Secretary of State in February 2001”. The Court agreed with my argument. Having lost this argument, why is the Lord Chancellor regurgitating it here? He claims that his view has the considered support of many, but does not produce any evidence to support his claim. He claims “that persons who are convicted of an offence serious enough to warrant a term in prison have cast aside that privilege and entitlement for the duration of their sentence”. However, “the Court does not consider that a Contracting State may rely on the margin of appreciation to justify restrictions on the right to vote which have not been the subject of considered debate in the legislature and which derive, essentially, from unquestioning and passive adherence to a historic tradition”.

For the first time in history the government was questioned on its blanket ban on convicted prisoners being denied the franchise. It looked around for justification. The best the government could come up with was arguments that the Canadian government had already argued and lost in court. Therefore, it is untruthful to claim that “Successive UK Governments have held to the view that the right to vote forms part of the social contract between individuals and the State, and the loss of the right to vote, reflected in current law, is a proper and proportionate punishment for breaches of the social contract that resulted in imprisonment. That remains this Government's position, and that of a number of other Council of Europe states”. The government lost first in the Chamber, and then lost its appeal to the Grand Chamber, and then has the audacity to claim it still holds those views after two defeats? Before the case, a minority of Member States operated blanket bans on prisoner voting. As a result of the case, these Member States have changed their position. The UK is alone on this one, the odd man out in Europe.

Because the government is in an uncomfortable position, it has resorted to the tactic of procrastination. As the issue has to be debated in Parliament, the consultation process is a meaningless exercise. When the government did not want to give women the vote, it decided to talk about women and the vote rather than give women the vote. This is just history repeating itself. I suspect that the government is trying to drag it out until after the next election. The published consultation document does not consider the principles of prisoner enfranchisement, nor does it include all the options available to the UK. Moreover, the document puts up for consideration the total disenfranchisement for all convicted prisoners, which the Court has ruled out as not being within the terms of the Convention.

Given that the government recognises that it must respond to the Grand Chamber judgment. Why does it not recognise that it should respond with honesty?

This morning I posted the following on Conservative Home.



On the subject of blogs.

Tory A List candidate Iain Dale who has a blog called Iain Dale's Diary, yesterday spat his dummy out and threw it out of his pram. On his blog he operates a system called comment moderation, which allows the blog author the opportunity to read comments submitted before deciding whether to publish or not publish any comment.

Rachel North London, a survivor of the 7/7 bomb attack, also runs a blog. And she questioned Iain Dale's judgment on allowing a comment to be published on his blog which not only attacked me but was off topic. I read this comment by someone claiming to be Peter Hitchins, and posted a moderate response to this rabid attack, which Iain Dale also published.

Oddly, Iain Dale then proceeded to throw out the baby with the bath water in a tantrum one would not and should not expect from someone who wants us to elect him to become a MP. That is, he punished the innocent along with the guilty by banning me from posting further comments. I fought a case and won the right for prisoners to speak to the media. Only to face unfair censorship by Iain Dale. If he behaves like this now, what can we expect if he ever came into real power?

Iain Dale is guilty of publishing a libel on his blog. The least he should do now is apologise to the injured party, and set the record straight. He has allowed his blog to degenerate to the gutter level of that other Tory blog operated by Guido. Unless the Tory Party cleans up its act, it can forget about winning over the electorate. Sleaze is just as dirty in opposition. Perhaps, it is for the best that it is going down the drain.

Posted by: John Hirst | 20 December 2006 at 13:20

I await Iain Dale's response.

I came across the following load of crap in the Torygraph. Although they invited comments, no comments are recorded. I submitted my comment, which they did not publish, so I add it here at the end of this piece of garbage.

Prisoners don't care about their right to vote

By Jonathan Aitken
Last Updated: 2:56am GMT 15/12/2006

Comment on this story Read comments

Of all the troublesome problems and pressures facing Britain's ever-increasing prison population, the one that led to yesterday's judgement by the European Court of Human Rights on votes for prisoners must rank in importance about as high as tiddlywinks does in the Olympics.

The ECHR's advice (and I hope our MPs remember that in constitutional terms it is no more than advice) for the UK Government to give prisoners the right to vote while serving their sentences will no doubt get a full hearing and airing by the chattering classes.

But the criminal classes are likely to be less impressed. I can offer some well-informed guesses about how my old cellmates in HMP Belmarsh might react to the news that their Christmas present from Brussels is to be a new right to put their crosses on ballot papers from behind bars.

Indifference, incomprehension or dismissive expletives would be their likely responses. By contrast there would be serious interest in almost anything that improved their prison living conditions or their post-release employment prospects. So it needs to be recognised that this issue is much more about the priorities of European lawyers than the anxieties of British prisoners.

Let's hope that Parliament will be given the chance to debate and vote on this judgement by the ECHR for it raises moral, practical and constitutional questions that go deeper than the Whitehall establishment's usual reaction to questionable ECHR pronouncements: "We never refuse to write the Court's judgement into UK statute law."

The moral argument for ignoring the ECHR's advice starts with the commonsense view that prison is meant to be a punishment. A custodial sentence has always resulted in loss of freedom and loss of democratic rights for the duration of a prisoner's sentence. Why change that? Is there any moral imperative for such a change?

According to John Hirst, the former life sentence prisoner now released on licence who won his case before the ECHR: "The human rights court has agreed with us that the Government's position is wrong – it doesn't matter how heinous the crime, everyone is entitled to have the basic human right to vote."

The problem here is that what Mr Hirst and the European judges consider a basic human right is the opposite of what many human rights respecting nations including Britain, the United States and Australia, have long considered to be basic common sense.

The main point of a prison sentence is to show the offender and society as a whole that criminal behaviour results in loss of freedom and most of the rights that freedom offers.

Different societies may wish to argue about precisely which rights should be suspended along with liberty as the cost to the individual of criminal wrongdoing. But the place for this argument to be held is in national legislatures who even in today's EU still have control over criminal laws and penalties.

To pretend that voting is something as "basic" as the right of access to a lawyer is at best special pleading and at worst judicial meddling in the right of EU member states to decide how they will punish their criminal offenders.

The practical reasons for opposing the legislative changes required by the ECHR judgement will be less obvious to outsiders than insiders. But to give an insight into the problems which could be created for prison officers by this new voting right for prisoners, let us make an imaginary visit to the Isle of Sheppey in the General Election of 2008 where the sitting Labour MP, Derek Wyatt will be defending a majority of 79.

I know one part of Mr Wyatt's electorate all too well, the three prisons on the island – HMPs Swaleside, Elmley and Standford Hill – for I was incarcerated in two of them. Between them these jails currently house 2,224 inmates. They probably make up the biggest single interest group in the constituency.

Will Mr Wyatt and his opposing candidates be allowed to canvass the prisoners, to address them at public meetings and to answer their questions? If not will yet more "basic rights" be infringed in the opinion of the ECHR?

But even if some modicum of common sense prevails, these prison voters will be sure to be highly interested, if not highly excited by the promises they are or are not made by the competing candidates via letter and leaflet.

So spare a thought for the prison officers of Sheppey, who already often struggle in a tinderbox situation to maintain order, calm and discipline. Suddenly they will have to cope with the atmospherics of a marginal seat during the run-up to an election in which every vote counts.

"Getting lairy with the screws" (uppity and argumentative – or worse – with the officers) is already an occupational hazard in the prisons of Sheppey. Charles Dickens' Eatanswill by-election will seem tame by comparison to what might happen among the imprisoned voters of Mr Wyatt's constituency.

It is possible that this imaginary Eatanswill/Sheppey situation that I envisage might be avoided by only allowing prisoners to vote in their own constituencies, although this will be easier said than done because so many prisoners are of "no fixed abode" and others are truly local to their neighbourhood prison.

But whatever the circumstances in whatever the prison voting rights are bound to create tensions, dramas and probably excuses for inmate-to-inmate violence at General Election time.

Unworldly judges sitting in European courts have no idea what life is like at the coalface of Britain's overcrowded prison system so they would probably pooh-pooh the previous paragraphs as exaggerated nonsense. Well, wait and see.

But long before that we will have to wait and see what happens in the House of Commons where much Parliamentary time will have to be expended on making legislative sense of this unwelcome Christmas present from the EHCR.

The Lord Chancellor on The World at One gave a dangerous hostage to fortune when he said yesterday, "Not every convicted prisoner is in the future going to get the right to vote … we need to look and see whether there are any categories that should be given the right."

Oh really? So are we going to have the umpteenth Criminal Justice Bill to categorise one criminal offence after another as qualifying or disqualifying a convicted prisoner for voting? Pull the other one Charlie!

Here's a better idea. The real constitutional issue behind the judgement of the ECHR's is the Court's indefatigable drive for uniformity within the EU. Because some nations in Europe have given their prisoners voting rights, Britain should now do the same, is what the Eurojudges are really saying.

Surely Britain's MPs should exercise their constitutional right and reject the ECHR's advice. Even if it would be the first time it happened that would be one "prison escape" which majority Parliamentary and public opinion would really approve of.

Comment on this story

A golden rule of writing is that author's should only write about what they know. Otherwise they are in danger of making a complete fool of themselves. Jonathan Aitkin should have borne this in mind when penning this piece of rubbish, which is best suited for the waste paper basket.

Prisoners do care about their right to vote. The editor might recall that it was the Daily Telegraph which broke the story about my setting up the Association of Prisoners. This was formed as a direct result of the European Convention being incorporated into the Human Rights Act (1998). And, it was a ballot of the members which decided that obtaining the vote was a priority.

Not only have you spelt judgment wrong, Jonathan, in my judgement, it was not yesterday, but 30th March 2004, when the the ECtHR handed down its judgment. Where have you been all this time, on Planet Zog? Twiddlywinks is a game, the Olympics sport. This is the world of politics. Welcome to it! I thought even you would have known this.

The ECtHR does not give advice. It makes decisions which are binding on Member States. Your advice to MPs, I suspect that they do not really want to hear what you have to say on the issue, is so out of date in this modern world and totally inaccurate. Had you given me this advice I would have sued you for negligence! The constitution has moved on from the days when you read it at public school. Grow up!

You are so well informed that this Xmas present comes from Brussels. Sprouts might. The Court is in Strasbourg! Wherever did you get this notion that Britain is a human rights respecting nation? It has the worst record of human rights violations in Europe. Moreover, there are 50 cases in which the UK has yet to remedy the human rights violations found against the State in the ECtHR.

I think it is a bit cheeky to claim that you are an insider. You were only in long enough for a shit and a shave! Even in there you were an outsider, someone not to be trusted. Anyone who tries to let someone else take the rap for their crime is deemed to be as low as a child molester.

Unworldly judges sitting in European Courts? They are far more wordly-wise than yourself Jonathan, and our judges in the main, and most of our politicians. I wish you well in whatever other profession you choose to dabble in. Leave the professionals to do what they know best.

I accuse the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer of Thoroton of being not only intellectually dishonest but also of being corrupt in this affair. The issue is "Voting Rights of Convicted Prisoners Detained within the United Kingdom". However, the subheading is not factually accurate and contains government spin on the truth to create the impression that the inaccurate statement is true. It is accurate in so far as it states "-The UK Government's response". However, it is not true to claim that it is "to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Hirst v.The United Kingdom". This is because the judgment states one thing, and the politician asks himself a different question, and answers some of it himself, then purports to throw the whole thing open for consultation, when in fact it has been drafted by a decision-maker who has approached the subject with a closed mind. This is unlawful under the WEDNESBURY reasonableness test. This is not "A consultation produced by the Department for Constitutional Affairs". This is just another dodgy document.

In the "Foreward by Lord Falconer of Thoroton", he states "The right to vote in the UK is considered by many to be a privilege as well as an entitlement, and that persons who are convicted of an offence serious enough to warrant a term in prison have cast aside that privilege and entitlement for the duration of their sentence". This statement is irrelevant to the issue under the WENDESBURY principle. I am privileged to have the right to vote O Lord and Master, doff me cap to you Sir, with thou 17th, 18th and 19th century patronage thinking. Bullshit. What is relevant is paragraph 59 in the judgment: "As pointed out by the applicant, the right to vote is not a privilege. In the twenty-first century, the presumption in a democratic State must be in favour of inclusion, as may be illustrated, for example, by the parliamentary history of the United Kingdom and other countries where the franchise was gradually extended over the centuries from select individuals, elite groupings or sections of the population approved of by those in power. Universal suffrage has become the basic principle".

I suspect that the Lord Chancellor, now that he has lost the case at first instance, and then lost his appeal to the highest court in Europe, is now attempting to unlawfully appeal to the electorate to bail him out of this mess. I state this because the arguments he is advancing have already been advanced in the Court, and they were ruled out by the judges. Here is more of the Lord Chancellor's Victorian mentality waffle: "Successive UK Governments have held to the view that the right to vote forms part of the social contract between the individual and the State, and that the loss of the right to vote, reflected in the current law, is a proper and proportionate punishment for breaches of the social contract that resulted in imprisonment. That remains this Government's position, and that of a number of other Council of Europe states".

The right to vote has sweet FA to do with Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) philosophy of the social contract. "Prior to the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867, the right to vote was limited and based on rights in property" (Hilaire Barnett). It is an outright lie to claim that in relation to convicted prisoners "that the loss of the right to vote, reflected in the current law, is a proper and proportionate punishment". This loss of the right to vote dates from the Forfeiture Act 1870. And yet, the effect of the 1867 Act was only to increase the total of people entitled to vote to 14% of the population! It is not proper, because Parliament has never debated the issue of disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners. It is not proportionate, because the Court ruled that the blanket ban was not proportionate. It is not a punishment because only judges can impose punishment and no judge has ever stated that a convicted prisoner loses the franchise when passing a prison sentence. There is no lawful authority for "That remains this Government's position", when that position has been defeated in the highest Court in Europe. "And that of a number of other Council of Europe states". It was the UK and not other Council of Europe States which I took to court. Moreover, the large majority of other Council of Europe States already allow convicted prisoners to vote. And those that did not before the judgment have had to change the law to comply with the judgment, for example, Ireland which has passed a Bill to allow for prisoners to have the postal vote.

This morning, I got up and had a fag whilst I had a shit. Then another fag with my first cup of tea of the day. Then off into Pearson Park to take Rocky for his first walk of the day. My mobile rang, and then went dead before I could answer it. I rang the number that had called me and nobody responded. Continued with the walk, and the mobile rang again. It was Southern Counties Radio informing me that the government had announced that it had started the consultation process on whether prisoners should have the vote. And, would I be prepared to be interviewed. I agreed. There was just time to finish the walk, have another fag, fry a bacon butty and have a coffee and another fag before the interview. Apparently the story is on Ceefax, but because I do not have a TV Licence, I do not watch TV so could not see it there. I think the interview went well, the switchboard lights up like Blackpool illuminations as all the irate listeners want to stone me to death! Then I did the soapbox on Radio Humberside. In the afternoon, Iain Dale emailed me to offer me the opportunity to go on 18doughtystreet.com in the New Year to talk about the prisoners votes case. I emailed him back to say that I would like this. I cannot help but wonder, given that I started all this, why the government has not spoken too me first in its consultation exercise?

John Reid admitted yesterday, to the Home Affairs Select Committee, that the two suspected terrorists who broke their control orders by removing their electronic tags and going on the run in August are still at large. However, he added, that he was satisfied that the two on the run presented little direct risk to public safety. This begs the question why they were deemed terrorist suspects, and subjected to house arrest in the first place?

Since getting a computer for a present last Xmas, I have gone from being computer illiterate to being a prolific blogger. According to Google, jailhouselawyer has posted 534 times. I did a few under LadyMargaretThatcher, and TrollsRus, but the switching of identities back and forth can get a bit confusing, so now I stick to the one nick. I found some flattering comments about me on Frank Fisher's blog, from names I remember when CIF was the in thing before it went down the pan. Frank Fisher even used jailhouselawyer in a quiz, what was the case he won at the ECtHR? Upon giving the answer, that it was the prisoners votes case, Frank Fisher added the comment that is a sore point with me. That is, that the government has not responded to the victory as yet. This is nothing personal, whilst conducting some research, I discovered from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that there are another 49 cases in which violations were found against the UK and the government has not remedied these either. When I started to study law, I remember in one of the text books that it said a right is not a right if it cannot be enforced. There is machinary in place to enforce the decisions of the ECtHR, but it requires the will to start the machine up and the will is absent in those who are supposed to monitor compliance. I recall Tony Blair making his statement with great fanfare about bringing rights home. Then, he said that prisoners because they had committed crimes had lost the moral authority to vote. However, moral authority has never been a qualification for the franchise. On the other hand, I would argue that Tony Blair has lost moral authority by taking the country into a war that is illegal under international law.

The familiar envelope lay upon the door mat face up, having just been delivered by the postman, TV Licencing logo, catching my eye. I thought, 'here we go again'. (See TV Licencing case, archive, November 11). The letter is addressed to "The Legal Occupier". Its a title of sorts I suppose, but I prefer to use my own name. The letter is headed threateningly "OFFICIAL WARNING - THIS PROPERTY IS UNLICENCED". I am sorry, but I do not take kindly to an organisation that assumes it has the power to issue me with an official warning. Especially, as I have done nothing wrong to receive such an official warning. I am not a naughty schoolboy in front of a headmaster at school. I am past all of that. The letter states, "You are hereby notified that we have authorised officers from our Enforcement Division to visit your home and interview you under caution, as our records show there is still no TV Licence at this address and as yet we have received no response to previous communications from you". They can send the whole division for all I care. I will send them packing without even letting them inside the house, let alone interview and caution me. I have made my position clear, "there is still no TV Licence at this address" because I don't want one nor need one, if they don't like it tough shit. It is a false statement to claim "we have received no response to previous communications from you". If my going to court upon receiving a summons and defeating the prosecution is not classed as communication ie sending a strong message, then I don't know what is!

"Your statement will be taken in compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and is the first step in our action to prosecute if we find evidence that you watch or record television without a valid licence". My statement will not be taken, because I will not be making one. The last time it was not in compliance with PACE, because there was no evidence to find. I could not believe that I was prosecuted in the absence of evidence. Even more absurd was the magistrates finding that I was technically guilty. On appeal to the Crown Court, my appeal against conviction was allowed. It might be a good idea if some of the TV Licence fee went on improving the communication breakdown within Crapita!

I deem these letters to not only be junk mail, but also to be offensively threatening in nature. If Crapita continues to send these letters, I just might begin my own legal proceedings against the company.

Yesterday I received a phone call from Radio 5 Live asking me to take part in a show last night hosted by Stephen Nolan. The topic for discussion was the Law Commission Report on Murder, Manslaughter, and Infanticide. Whilst Stephan Nolan questioned some chap from the Law Commission on the subject, he seemed to think that he could then subject me to trial by radio which was off topic. I declined to allow him to get away with taking this liberty, and would question the BBC's legal authority to subject people to trial by radio. We have courts in this country to subject people to trials which are conducted within a legal framework, this allows for fairness and justice to be done. Although Stephen Nolan was unable to get his own way with me and act as judge, jury and executioner, he succeeded in subjecting another lifer on life licence to a hard time. I felt sorry for this lifer as he got mauled. It was a pity that a serious subject did not get the airing it deserved because of Stephen Nolan's abuse of his position. I trust that the BBC will now examine the conduct of Stephen Nolan, and take the appropriate action to prevent him from abusing other peoples civil, human and legal rights.

It is not April Fools Day, nonetheless, the Grauniad has an article written by Alan Travis, headlined "Public to be sold shares in new prisons", and subheaded "Buy-to-let scheme planned to fund building of 8,000 new jail places". According to Phil Wheatley, Director General of H.M. Prison Service, "Nonsense". And, he should know. He added, "You shouldn't believe everything you read in the newspapers". I don't. For example, it is claimed that Alan Travis is "home affairs editor". There are fairies at the bottom of my garden...

Guido Fawkes mentions on his blog that the Home Office has now started to monitor the blogs for any reference to the Home Office. Fancy buying a prison ship, spending money on it to make it fit for purpose, just to sell it for scrap and then to buy it back again, to spend money on it to make it fit for purpose...