Just before Christmas I put out my wheelie bin the night before the morning the council send a lorry to collect the waste. The next day I went about my business. When I checked the emptied bins, mine was missing. So, I telephoned the council to report this absence and inquired whether it could have ended up in the back of the wagon along with the waste. I reasoned that nobody would steal a full wheelie bin. Several days went by before the council phoned me back and conceded that my wheelie bin had mistakenly ended up in the back of the wagon and that they would order me another one. When the new one arrived, I painted my address on this like I had done with the previous one. I missed the first collection day after Christmas, but put my wheelie bin out in time for the second week. I couldn't believe that it had gone missing the second time! I phoned the council who said that I would have to pay for a replacement. I refused to do this on the ground that it is not my fault if my wheelie bin keeps doing a disappearing act. The following week, I am taking my dog for a walk and lo and behold amongst the emptied bins I see my first wheelie bin. I recognised my writing where I had painted the house number, even though the remainder of it had been rubbed off. I reclaimed my wheelie bin, and repainted the missing address. This week I keep an eye out, and when the dustbin men had emptied my wheelie bin I rushed straight out and collected it. A little later, I go out to take the dog for a walk and there before me is my second wheelie bin still with my address painted upon it and belatedly being wheeled out of the back of the house that backs onto the front of my house. I confronted the tenant that he was in possession of a wheelie bin with my address painted upon it. His solution was to offer to scrape my address off the wheelie bin as if that was the problem! I got the impression that he has been released from a mental hospital and that he is now being cared for in the community.

This just in from BBC News Scotland.

Court rules on prison voting ban

Prisoners are currently banned from voting
Legal action is being considered which could stop the Scottish Parliament election from taking place because prisoners are excluded from voting.
It follows a ruling at the Court of Session in Edinburgh that the elections would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The UK Government had set up a consultation process following a European Court ruling in 2005.

But legislation would not be introduced before Scotland's elections in May.

It is understood that a number of prisoners are already undertaking legal action to prevent the poll from taking place.

Not compliant

Three judges at Scotland's supreme civil court issued a declaration that the blanket ban on convicted prisoners voting was incompatible with their human rights.

A former prisoner, who was denied the right to vote in the last elections for the Holyrood parliament, took his case to the Registration Appeal Court in Edinburgh.

Lord Abernethy, who heard the appeal with Lord Nimmo Smith and Lord Emslie, said the May elections would take place in a way which was not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judges said they had come to the view that they "should make a formal declaration of incompatibility to that effect".

It is accepted by the government that there will be no amending legislation before the Scottish parliamentary election in May 2007

Lord Abernethy

The appeal arose after a serving prisoner, William Smith, had his application to be included on the electoral roll in 2003 rejected.

Lord Abernethy said Mr Smith's case was "of far-reaching importance".

"It is accepted by the government that there will be no amending legislation before the Scottish parliamentary election in May 2007," he said.

"We fully understand why the Government does not at this stage wish to rush forward with amending legislation but the fact remains that the Scottish parliamentary election in May 2007 will take place in a manner which is not Convention-compliant."

In 2005 a prisoner in England, John Hirst, who was serving life for manslaughter, won a decision over voting rights at the European Court of Human Rights.

I was disturbed in more ways than one last night, when at 8.45 Liana slammed the door knocker as I was at my computer waiting for Blogger TV to come on at 9 on 18doughtystreet.com the internet TV station. She brought me a bag of carrots from the food factory where she is now working. I told her they looked like giant dildos. I am not sure that she understood. She said she had been working 13 hours with only 1 hour for lunch. And that she is working 6 days a week, and refused to work 7 days when she was asked to. That's a long day taking into account travelling time etc. And having to pay for the transport to and from work. Then she dropped the bombshell, that she was only being paid £4 per hour! That's at least £1.35 below the National Minimum Wage. She just said by way of explanation, "Russian Mafia". I would like to pursue this abuse, but it is hard enough for her to get work in the first place and there is a danger that if I chased this matter up she would find herself out of work again and unable to claim any State benefit. The irony is that we live in Hull where William Wilberforce the anti-slavery campaigner lived. It appears that nothing has really changed...

The Daily Telegraph is running an E-Poll, is John Reid 'fit for purpose'? Yes 19%, No 81%. This result does not reflect the public confidence in the system that John Reid was hoping to achieve. Over the weekend in the Sunday Telegraph, John Reid announced that he was proposing to reorganise the Home Office. It is planned to have a department for Homeland Security which John Reid is keen to run, and a new department which is to become the Ministry for Justice. It was originally planned for Lord Falconer to run this department. However, it transpires that such a department would require accountability which only a MP can provide, and not someone from the House of Lords. Therefore, who is likely to head this new department from the House of Commons? One thing for certain is that it won't be Hilary Clinton, for obvious reasons. Nor will it be Anthony Wedgewood Benn, again for obvious reasons. Could it just be that a combination of these two might just be a marriage made in heaven for John Reid? I have been advised to: "Watch the news carefully over the next few days to test your cynicism levels". Why don't you do the same?

"Blair wants 'super-Asbos' for violent thugs" is the headline of David Cracknell's article in The Sunday Times, (14 January 2007). It is irresponsible of this "Political Editor", and The Sunday Times, to print such a headline which is clearly untruthful. This becomes apparent upon reading the first paragraph: "Tony Blair is to mount a final assault on Britain's thug culture by introducing restrictions that will curb potential yobs' movements even before they have committed an offence".

I suspect that there is no such thing as a "Britain's thug culture". Even if some smart arsed social scientist proves me wrong in this respect, there is no justification for the State to infringe the civil liberties of innocent youths by placing restrictions on their freedom of movement. There is no such thing as a "potential yob", one either is or is not a yob. It is pure witchdoctory to predict who may offend in the future. The principle of innocent until proven guilty should not be removed nor should the principle be stood on its head. If someone has not committed an offence, then they are innocent and should be allowed to go about their law-abiding business unmolested by State interference.

It is quite frightening that Tony Blair is considering attempting to use the civil courts to impose Violent Offender Orders (VOOs), where the standard of proof is lower than under the criminal law needed for the criminal courts, and yet it is planned to make it a criminal offence to breach one of these VOOs imposed upon an innocent youth and the penalty could be 5 years in prison for not having committed any criminal offence. Our jails are already overcrowded with the guilty, adding to this 80,000 plus with how many innocents? This is plain madness. Tony Blair and John Reid should be locked up in a mental hospital before they do any more damage.

On Wednesday 10th January 2007, it was a busy day for me. At 9am, I did a Radio 5 Live interview for an hour, on the Grand Chamber hearing of Dickson v. The United Kingdom (app.no. 44362/04), in which a convicted murderer claimed that it was a breach of his human rights under Article 8 and Article 12 of the Convention, for the State to refuse access to artificial insemination facilities.

Then at 1.45pm, I was in the magistrates court in Hull, acting as a "McKenzie Friend", for my Latvian friend, Liana, who had been prosecuted for non-payment of council tax. It is strict liability, it is no defence to be destitute. As Latvia is one of the A8 States, migrants are not entitled to any State benefits unless they have worked for 12 months without a break. I think that it is unfair to expect everyone who comes over here from another European State is automatically going to get a job and stay in that job for the required period. I feel that there should be a safety net for the less fortunate. Although the magistrates granted the council a liability order against Liana, it was not for the full amount claimed by the council, nor did the magistrates grant the council and order for £65 costs against Liana. As Liana will only be liable for between £40-50 in council tax, it cost the council using taxpayers money, at least £15 more than the sum claimed to claim this amount. Talk about a waste of money!

At 6.20pm, I did another radio interview on the artificial insemination case, this time it was for Radio London.

Sunday morning at 9 'O Clock, I have another interview with Radio Birmingham. I would have preferred to stay in bed...

Rachel North London, whom I have a lot of time for and respect, highlighted on her blog an issue that is close to my heart. And that issue is bullying on the internet. Bullying in any form is totally unacceptable behaviour. It ironic that last night Rachel appeared on 18doughtystreet.com, the internet TV station, hosted by Iain Dale, to discuss the issue of internet bullying, when Iain Dale allows this type of thing to go on his blog Iain Dale's Diary. I thought it was irresponsible of Iain Dale to try to shrug it off as having nothing to do with him, on the ground that he is ignorant of the law on this issue. However, the legal maxim applies "ignorance of the law is no excuse". He is both the author and publisher of his blog, and is therefore legally liable for its content. He has adopted the its his blog he can do what he likes with it stance. He can as long as it is within the constraints of the law. Nobody is above the law not even Iain Dale. His attitude reminds me of some prison governors and the Home Secretary who believe that they are law unto themselves until challenged in the courts and judges tell them otherwise. But he is not alone with this couldn't care less attitude, Guido Fawkes behaves in a similar vein. Perhaps there should be a test case in the courts so that blog authors are taught the limits of acceptable behaviour on the internet?

I note that on Donal Blaney's blog that he does not allow anonymous posters. I think that this is a good idea. But it is not just the anonymous posters who post malicious and harrassing and libellous communications, there are the likes of "peter hitchens" and "verity" who are particularly bad examples of good conduct on the blogs. They feel that they are safe, however, it is not called the long arm of the law for nothing.

I advocate freedom of speech which is not an absolute right. There is a saying in prison that a few bad examples spoil it for the many. And this appears to be true of the blogosphere. If there is not going to be self regulation, then it should be for Parliament and/or the courts to regulate. Parliament has passed the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997, and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Perhaps, they should be invoked to see if they are sufficient to stem this growing nuisance?

Shit or bust...

Shit or bust...

I remember the day Phil Wheatley, the then Deputy Governor of H.M.Prison Gartree, walking into the Tailors Shop and as Tip Guilfoyle distracted the Chief Officer, Jimmy Stevens went and put a bucket of shit and piss that the IRA had supplied over Phil Wheatley's head and patted it down for good measure. The alarm bell rang and the Heavy Mob ran into the shop and for a split second I could see that they did not know whether to laugh or cry as the Deputy Governor tried to pull turds out of his ginger beard.

Phil Wheatley's beard has gone grey now and he is the Director General of H.M.Prison Service. That he rose through the ranks did not surprise me. When I asked him at Hull Prison, where he was the Governor, why he had joined the service, he replied "power". He's a minature meglomaniac. He is also a good friend of mine. Once he told me that I was too truthful for my own good. I disagree with him, but I know what he meant. Some people do not like the truth. I found he would not try to defend the indefensible. He said he preferred to apologise and move on and try and see that the same mistake was not made again.

The Prison Service is very inward looking, it does not take kindly to criticism, and gets very embarrassed very easily. It is a shame that Phil Wheatley is getting a hard ride at the moment from the media. The National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO), is pissed off that John Reid intends to get rid of some public sector probation officers and replace them with some from the private sector. Therefore it has decided to embarrass the Prison Service. First it attacked the amount of lifers and rapists who go to open prisons, now it is attacking the amount who abscond from open prisons. How many recalls do the probation officers instigate where the Parole Board has to release them again because the probation service has cocked it up?

It does appear as though Phil Wheatley is in the shit again. Instead of from the head down, this time it is from the feet up. What is interesting from my point of view, is that NAPO is using the same tactics employed by the IRA.