It is said that, prison is a great leveller in society. Everybody started off in the mailbag workshop. We had to sew, by hand, eight stitches to the inch, hessian mail bags for the Royal Mail. There was always dust particles in the air, which became more apparent when the sun shone, and its rays filtered in through the windows. We had to sit in rows of chairs, and the seats had a toblerone-shaped ridge on them which fitted into the cheeks of your arse to ensure that we all faced the front. The Silent Rule had gone and we were allowed to talk quietly to the prisoner immediately to our left or right. We were watched over by one guard sat in front on a high platform, and another patrolled the shop floor. We were not allowed to smoke in the workshop, but we were permitted to smoke in the toilet. Only two prisoners were allowed to occupy the two cubicles at any one time, and one at the urinal. We had to put our hand up to attract the attention of the guard in the box, and then ask for permission to go to the toilet.
Wages were very low, and poverty rife. The tobacco ration never seemed to last a whole week. Sometimes we would find ourselves scraping out the pockets of our clothes with a toothbrush to find tobacco dust which we could roll up in toilet paper or pages of the Bible and get a light by wrapping our underpants around the light bulb until it smouldered and caught alight. I wonder wherever did newspaper editors get the impression that prisons are like holiday camps?
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
On this note, what memo?
The corrupt Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, who altered his legal advice, which stated that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, to suit Tony Blair's plan to invade. And, who threatened to prosecute newspapers if they dared to refer to the leaked memo in which George Bush sought to bomb the Al-jazeera television station in Qatar, is urging the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute under the Official Secrets Act two former Labour MPs, Peter Kilfoyle and Tony Clarke for leaking the memo.
Strangely, Downing Street sources are claiming that no record exists of the secret meeting between Blair and Bush, therefore the memo does not exist. If this is the case, then there can be no prosecution because no offence has been committed. On the other hand, there are examples where the jury has refused to convict in such cases where they believe that it was in the public interest to disclose the dirty tricks used by a government department. This is not a case of official secrets, this is a case of political embarrassment for the government.
Strangely, Downing Street sources are claiming that no record exists of the secret meeting between Blair and Bush, therefore the memo does not exist. If this is the case, then there can be no prosecution because no offence has been committed. On the other hand, there are examples where the jury has refused to convict in such cases where they believe that it was in the public interest to disclose the dirty tricks used by a government department. This is not a case of official secrets, this is a case of political embarrassment for the government.
Why we should be afraid, be very afraid.
It is a known fact that Tony Blair and George Bush entered into a conspiracy to invade Iraq, which was not only in contravention of international law but is also an offence under the criminal law of England. Under The Intelligence Services Act 1994 the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS)(formally MI6), is empowered to obtain and provide information relating to the acts and intentions of persons overseas. It was ultra vires (outside the power of) Tony Blair's public office, to obtain and provide the dodgy dossier which he claimed justified the invasion of Iraq. He can, and should be, subject to a judicial review. At the very least, Tony Blair's conduct constituted a misfeasance in public office.
We know that an attempt was made to drag the SIS into this conspiracy to provide false information, and that the then Head of SIS, Sir Richard Dearlove resigned because he was aware that the intelligence presented by Tony Blair had no foundation in fact. John Scarlett (nick named "The Scarlet Pimpenel" for obvious reasons), who was Dearlove's deputy, and involved in preparing the dodgy dossier, was appointed as the new Head of SIS. It is rumoured that Scarlett ensured Dearlove's resignation with the threat of blackmail.
Whereas traditionally, SIS is responsible to and reports to the Foreign Secretary, next month both MI5 and MI6 will report to and be responsible to the new Security Supremo, the present Home Secretary, John Reid. Not since the Cold War has a communist been able to infiltrate the SIS, as easily as John Reid has sneaked in through the back door. It is frightening that this megalomaniac should have been allowed to amass so much power, and without any real sign of any accountability to the electorate. It maybe that this placing him in this position in preparedness for the Iran war is the secret legacy of Tony Blair.
We know that an attempt was made to drag the SIS into this conspiracy to provide false information, and that the then Head of SIS, Sir Richard Dearlove resigned because he was aware that the intelligence presented by Tony Blair had no foundation in fact. John Scarlett (nick named "The Scarlet Pimpenel" for obvious reasons), who was Dearlove's deputy, and involved in preparing the dodgy dossier, was appointed as the new Head of SIS. It is rumoured that Scarlett ensured Dearlove's resignation with the threat of blackmail.
Whereas traditionally, SIS is responsible to and reports to the Foreign Secretary, next month both MI5 and MI6 will report to and be responsible to the new Security Supremo, the present Home Secretary, John Reid. Not since the Cold War has a communist been able to infiltrate the SIS, as easily as John Reid has sneaked in through the back door. It is frightening that this megalomaniac should have been allowed to amass so much power, and without any real sign of any accountability to the electorate. It maybe that this placing him in this position in preparedness for the Iran war is the secret legacy of Tony Blair.
Dirty Old Man in raincoat questioned by police about his relationship with boyish looking LibDem
I have not bothered to include points one to three (anyone interested can click the title and it will link to the original piece), as they are not relevant here. This comedy duo, are making the claim that they can achieve what the Tories and Labour have failed to achieve, that is, make prisons work. Tony Blair took the centre ground from the Tories, forcing the Tories to move Left in an attempt to recapture the lost ground. Now the LibDems are moving to the Right and pitching their tent on the ground that the Tories have vacated. What Menzies Campbell and Nick Clegg are proposing, are policies advocated by Anne Widdecombe MP, who was the Prisons Minister under Michael Howard MP, one of the worst Home Secretary's in the Tory Party, and one of the worst in recent penal history.
"Point four, we will make prison work. The current situation fails both the prisoner and society. Prisoners who do not participate in education or training are three times more likely to go back to crime. Yet well over half of offenders receive no training. And only one in five of prisoners exceed the standards expected of an 11 year old in writing.
Instead, we will treble the number of prisoners working, and make education and training compulsory. And for those with serious mental health problems there will be increased provision of secure mental health services. We can foster skills amongst our prison population and create opportunities for those who would otherwise return to a life of crime. That is why Liberal Democrats say that we can cut crime.
Point five, we will introduce an entirely new approach to compensating victims of crime. It will be fairer. It will be simpler. And it will be swifter. It is only fair that money raised by prisoners in employment should go towards compensating their victims. Prisoners shouldn't sit in their cells for twenty three hours a day: they ought to be engaged in work that is productive and useful.
By making prisoners do real work for a real wage, we can also instil a sense of responsibility, enhance their skills and ensure that victims are properly compensated. Prisoners will literally pay for their crimes, whilst gaining the skills and experiences needed to dissuade them from further offences".
Suddenly, the talk went from making prison work to making prisoners work! There is a big legal problem with their idea. And that is, that there is nothing fair about robbing prisoners who are entitled to receive the National Minimum Wage for their labours, and giving it to people who have not worked for it. Prisoners are already paying for their crimes, by loss of liberty, what Winston Churchill termed "the hard coin of the realm". Nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.
I don't want to hear silly ideas like this. These are not policies, but soundbites. And soundbites that are toothless. Want I want to hear is how do they plan to overcome the legal obstacles in the path of such fancy ideas. Over to you Ming and Nick...
Monday, February 26, 2007
How many dumb blondes does it take to change a light bulb?
Zoe Phillips, who is blonde, attempted to present Blogger TV on 18DoughtyStreet.com - Politics for adults, because Iain Dale is away in Washington, USA. My first ground for complaint is that 18DS has taken to placing a logo on the screen, so that the adults who do tune in know what they are watching. My second ground of complaint, is that the studio backdrop is an 18DS logo, no doubt to underline the fact for the adults tuning in that they are watching 18DS politics for adults. Take it from me, no child would find this programme interesting enough to watch it!
Zoe Phillips announces that she is standing in for Iain Dale, when it is obvious to any viewer that she is sitting down on a sofa. My next complaint is that she invites people to email in or MSN to express their views. And then takes a leaf out of Tony Blair's book by failing to read out any emails or MSN messages for the 55 minutes that the programme was on air. The laptop by her side was not a studio prop, it actually works. Oddly, she stated that people had signed in and that the MSNs were lighting up and turned to the screen and said "I hope you are watching?". Duh!
The programme is called Blogger TV, and for the first five minutes she and the guests actually talked about blogs. But, then it got side tracked onto the subject of the EU and stayed on that for the next 45 minutes. Then Zoe Phillips mentioned a blogger called Elle, and stated "staying on the subject of Europe", and asked why energy saving light bulbs don't come on when you switch them on. Duh! But they do come on, they just take awhile to get up to full brightness! James Oates, one of the guest's, suggested that she change her light bulb. He really should not expect so much from the presenter, and I think he was being unfair assuming that she would know how to do this.
The saving grace was that the arrogant sod Croydonian, was not wearing his day glow yellow socks again! The programme ended 5 minutes early, this was a relief, given that it was advertised as one thing and another programme was being shown. It was not Vox Politix, but Zoe Phillips must have got confused or she did not know how to steer the conversation or keep it on topic. This raises the question why is she a presenter on 18DS? When the credits rolled, I noted that there was no producer credited. I feel that 18DS should spend less on smear ads and hire a producer instead. Vox Politix started 3 minutes late, which meant that we were treated to 8 minutes of looped music and pictures of a blue sky. Someone had thoughtfully invited a psychiatrist to attend Zoe Phillips on the couch...
Has 18DS lost the plot?
Zoe Phillips announces that she is standing in for Iain Dale, when it is obvious to any viewer that she is sitting down on a sofa. My next complaint is that she invites people to email in or MSN to express their views. And then takes a leaf out of Tony Blair's book by failing to read out any emails or MSN messages for the 55 minutes that the programme was on air. The laptop by her side was not a studio prop, it actually works. Oddly, she stated that people had signed in and that the MSNs were lighting up and turned to the screen and said "I hope you are watching?". Duh!
The programme is called Blogger TV, and for the first five minutes she and the guests actually talked about blogs. But, then it got side tracked onto the subject of the EU and stayed on that for the next 45 minutes. Then Zoe Phillips mentioned a blogger called Elle, and stated "staying on the subject of Europe", and asked why energy saving light bulbs don't come on when you switch them on. Duh! But they do come on, they just take awhile to get up to full brightness! James Oates, one of the guest's, suggested that she change her light bulb. He really should not expect so much from the presenter, and I think he was being unfair assuming that she would know how to do this.
The saving grace was that the arrogant sod Croydonian, was not wearing his day glow yellow socks again! The programme ended 5 minutes early, this was a relief, given that it was advertised as one thing and another programme was being shown. It was not Vox Politix, but Zoe Phillips must have got confused or she did not know how to steer the conversation or keep it on topic. This raises the question why is she a presenter on 18DS? When the credits rolled, I noted that there was no producer credited. I feel that 18DS should spend less on smear ads and hire a producer instead. Vox Politix started 3 minutes late, which meant that we were treated to 8 minutes of looped music and pictures of a blue sky. Someone had thoughtfully invited a psychiatrist to attend Zoe Phillips on the couch...
Has 18DS lost the plot?
Forward planning.
About this time last month, I received an email from:
Dr Paul Mason
Director of Postgraduate Research
School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies
Bute Building
Cardiff University
informing me about this
"I'm organising a session on prisons, media and public opinion as part of the 'The Progressive Prison? Historical Narratives, Contemporary Realties' conference which Yvonne Jewkes is running at the Open University, Thurs 21st and Friday 22nd June.
Its a roundtable format in which I'm asking participants to give their views on the role of the media and public views on prison, and then to open it to the floor for discussion. Would you be willing to take part? I'm trying to get as diverse panel as I can - journalist, ex prisoner, academic, pressure groups etc. I thought you could offer some interesting insights into how you see prisons in the public domain and in the press".
I responded that I was happy to take part, and asked whether he had started to take into account blogs in his media study. He said that he had not, but would consider it when the study into newspapers concluded.
The International Centre for Comparative Criminological Research (ICCCR) emailed me today to thank me for agreeing to speak at the ICCCR conference. I am assured that:
"The conference promises to be an exciting event and I look forward to welcoming you to the Open University in June".
My barrister and friend Flo Krause, recently moved to Milton Keynes from Sheffield to live with her partner. I will have to get her to check her diary to see if she is free on those dates, and I might be able to kill two birds with one stone and do a bit of socialising whilst I am down there.
Dr Paul Mason
Director of Postgraduate Research
School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies
Bute Building
Cardiff University
informing me about this
"I'm organising a session on prisons, media and public opinion as part of the 'The Progressive Prison? Historical Narratives, Contemporary Realties' conference which Yvonne Jewkes is running at the Open University, Thurs 21st and Friday 22nd June.
Its a roundtable format in which I'm asking participants to give their views on the role of the media and public views on prison, and then to open it to the floor for discussion. Would you be willing to take part? I'm trying to get as diverse panel as I can - journalist, ex prisoner, academic, pressure groups etc. I thought you could offer some interesting insights into how you see prisons in the public domain and in the press".
I responded that I was happy to take part, and asked whether he had started to take into account blogs in his media study. He said that he had not, but would consider it when the study into newspapers concluded.
The International Centre for Comparative Criminological Research (ICCCR) emailed me today to thank me for agreeing to speak at the ICCCR conference. I am assured that:
"The conference promises to be an exciting event and I look forward to welcoming you to the Open University in June".
My barrister and friend Flo Krause, recently moved to Milton Keynes from Sheffield to live with her partner. I will have to get her to check her diary to see if she is free on those dates, and I might be able to kill two birds with one stone and do a bit of socialising whilst I am down there.
836208
I was 20 and looked and had the mental age of a 14 year old when I first entered prison, in April 1971, for arson, burglary and deception, and received 5 years. Armley Prison, in Leeds, is a grim looking fortress overlooking the city centre.
My first impression upon entering the gates was that the law stopped outside of the gates, and that I was entering a lawless land. I noted that some of the guards wore slashed peaked caps and I was reminded of the SS. I also noted that the step beneath the locked gate to the Reception Area had worn down over the years to such an extent that I knew that I could crawl beneath the gate if I had wanted to. But, there was still the 20ft high wall to negotiate so I put the thought of immediate escape out of my mind. The smell was a mixture of decay, urine, sweat and disinfectant. I was processed at the long desk and given a number, 836208, and had a bath in 6 inches of water, and given a set of badly fitting clothes, the prison uniform had an itchy feeling about it.
I noticed that the Reception Officer gave a nod and a wink to the prisoner orderlies identifying those prisoners who had been convicted of sex offences against children or rapists, and they were dealt with violently when they visited the bathhouse. These prisoners would ask for protection under Rule 43, but before they could get to the relative safety of the Rule 43 landing, in effect, they had to run the gauntlet. I was not happy about this kind of treatment, and what made it worse in my eyes was that the prison doctor was in on this conspiracy. Before going into the main prison we were fed stodge and given a cup of transparent looking luke warm tea. The sex offenders had the added ingredients of urine and spit in their cups of tea.
When the cell door was slammed shut and locked behind me, my sense of bewilderment was distracted by this buff coloured booklet swinging from a hook attached to the back of the cell door. On the cover it stated "General Notes for the Guidance of Convicted Prisoners". I read the booklet, but later found that it bore little or no relation to the day to day realities of prison life that went on on the other side of the cell door. The booklet contained the disciplinary rules, some of which were clearly "catch-all" rules, and it was frustrating that I was not allowed to know all the Prison Rules and yet we were expected to abide by them.
I remember looking up at the half moon shaped window high up in the back wall, and having to put the chair on top of the table and climb up to look out. The walls were 8ft thick. It was a shock to my system to see that the world was still going on out there without me. Rather foolishly, I had imagined that it would have stood still, frozen in time, until such time that I was released. I felt pangs of regret. These quickly disappeared when a screw appeared at the spy hole in the door and shouted for me to get down and not feed the pigeons as it was against the rules. It did not matter that I was not feeding the pigeons. This was just the first of many false allegations levelled against me during 35 years of prison.
People go through life looking for security. I found this in prison.
My first impression upon entering the gates was that the law stopped outside of the gates, and that I was entering a lawless land. I noted that some of the guards wore slashed peaked caps and I was reminded of the SS. I also noted that the step beneath the locked gate to the Reception Area had worn down over the years to such an extent that I knew that I could crawl beneath the gate if I had wanted to. But, there was still the 20ft high wall to negotiate so I put the thought of immediate escape out of my mind. The smell was a mixture of decay, urine, sweat and disinfectant. I was processed at the long desk and given a number, 836208, and had a bath in 6 inches of water, and given a set of badly fitting clothes, the prison uniform had an itchy feeling about it.
I noticed that the Reception Officer gave a nod and a wink to the prisoner orderlies identifying those prisoners who had been convicted of sex offences against children or rapists, and they were dealt with violently when they visited the bathhouse. These prisoners would ask for protection under Rule 43, but before they could get to the relative safety of the Rule 43 landing, in effect, they had to run the gauntlet. I was not happy about this kind of treatment, and what made it worse in my eyes was that the prison doctor was in on this conspiracy. Before going into the main prison we were fed stodge and given a cup of transparent looking luke warm tea. The sex offenders had the added ingredients of urine and spit in their cups of tea.
When the cell door was slammed shut and locked behind me, my sense of bewilderment was distracted by this buff coloured booklet swinging from a hook attached to the back of the cell door. On the cover it stated "General Notes for the Guidance of Convicted Prisoners". I read the booklet, but later found that it bore little or no relation to the day to day realities of prison life that went on on the other side of the cell door. The booklet contained the disciplinary rules, some of which were clearly "catch-all" rules, and it was frustrating that I was not allowed to know all the Prison Rules and yet we were expected to abide by them.
I remember looking up at the half moon shaped window high up in the back wall, and having to put the chair on top of the table and climb up to look out. The walls were 8ft thick. It was a shock to my system to see that the world was still going on out there without me. Rather foolishly, I had imagined that it would have stood still, frozen in time, until such time that I was released. I felt pangs of regret. These quickly disappeared when a screw appeared at the spy hole in the door and shouted for me to get down and not feed the pigeons as it was against the rules. It did not matter that I was not feeding the pigeons. This was just the first of many false allegations levelled against me during 35 years of prison.
People go through life looking for security. I found this in prison.
Reid my lips.
In the Torygraph this morning, John Reid, the Home Secretary, has written an article "Pull together to prevent re-offending" trying to gain support for his plan to inject more from the private sector into the probation service. I do not know whether this will prove to be a good thing or a bad thing. But what I do know, is that John Reid is setting a bad example: "Take the work that is now happening in prisons, where hundreds of different voluntary organisations are helping to rehabilitate and prevent re-offending". I say this because the re-offending rate amongst adults is 63% and amongst young offenders 80%. This is a clear indication that prison doesn't work in the majority of cases. As Jenni Russell argues "This lock-'em-up policy isn't just cruel. It isn't working" (Guardian, Comment is Free). John Reid needs to be concentrating on finding effective alternatives to custody. The public are already paying for both the public and private sector prisons, when I feel that they should only be paying for one or the other, and if he was to introduce the same in the probation service, the public would only be paying twice again and still not getting the desired result.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The history of prisonlawinsideout.
There is the element of knowing a subject, and the common phrase when people refer to someone knowing a subject well, that is, inside out. It is only since the late 80s and early 90s, that prison law has come to be recognised as a specialist area of law in its own right. Prior to that, it was part of administrative law, public and private law, statutes, and the various circular instructions and standing orders issued by the Home Office. As a consequence of the Hull Prison riot in 1976, and the subsequent prisoner litigation, and reawakening of judicial review which established case-law, it was only a matter of time before it was shoved into its own bracket.
It was a coincidence that I found myself, late in 1989, in Hull Prison. And I wanted to legally challenge the Home Office for monetary damages for the loss of some of my personal property. I did exactly what anyone else would do in the same situation outside of prison, and that was contact a lawyer. In fact, I contacted six different lawyers over a period of time, for advice, and they all charged the public purse for their fees and yet none of them delivered the advice. I told a friend, Lucy, who visited me, about how frustrated I was at this state of affairs, and she said she had a friend called Humphrey, who worked at Humberside Law Centre, and she would ask him if he would visit me and see if he could help me out.
Humphrey said to forget about the Legal Aid forms, and confessed that he had no knowledge of prison law, and asked me to teach him. It was only at that point that I realised that those other six lawyers were also ignorant of prison law, but that they had not got the courage to admit their ignorance. We went ahead and won the case on the steps of the court house, the Home Office admitted liability and agreed to pay the full damages. Meanwhile, another case came up and Humphrey prepared the instructions for the barrister, and included within this the admission that he knew relatively little about prison law. The barrister, Tim Owen, was exactly the same, and he realised that lawyers knowledge of the law stopped outside of the prison gates. At best a lawyer could only approach the subject from an outside in perspective, I supplied the missing link by developing the law from an inside out perspective. Hence, prisonlawinsideout.
Once it was established that solicitors and barristers were ignorant of the law, and that judges are former barristers, it soon became apparent that judges were ignorant of the law. Whereas outside of prison things are taken for granted when reading instructions and briefs, this was not the case in prison law. Nothing could be taken for granted, and these things needed to be explained to the judges and how they related to the general principles of English law, for the judges to understand what the case was about and to enable them to judge. Tim Owen went onto to become a QC, and then a judge, and is now a Lord Justice. There is an old saying amongst prison officers, if you want to know something ask a prisoner. In this case, that is certainly true.
It was a coincidence that I found myself, late in 1989, in Hull Prison. And I wanted to legally challenge the Home Office for monetary damages for the loss of some of my personal property. I did exactly what anyone else would do in the same situation outside of prison, and that was contact a lawyer. In fact, I contacted six different lawyers over a period of time, for advice, and they all charged the public purse for their fees and yet none of them delivered the advice. I told a friend, Lucy, who visited me, about how frustrated I was at this state of affairs, and she said she had a friend called Humphrey, who worked at Humberside Law Centre, and she would ask him if he would visit me and see if he could help me out.
Humphrey said to forget about the Legal Aid forms, and confessed that he had no knowledge of prison law, and asked me to teach him. It was only at that point that I realised that those other six lawyers were also ignorant of prison law, but that they had not got the courage to admit their ignorance. We went ahead and won the case on the steps of the court house, the Home Office admitted liability and agreed to pay the full damages. Meanwhile, another case came up and Humphrey prepared the instructions for the barrister, and included within this the admission that he knew relatively little about prison law. The barrister, Tim Owen, was exactly the same, and he realised that lawyers knowledge of the law stopped outside of the prison gates. At best a lawyer could only approach the subject from an outside in perspective, I supplied the missing link by developing the law from an inside out perspective. Hence, prisonlawinsideout.
Once it was established that solicitors and barristers were ignorant of the law, and that judges are former barristers, it soon became apparent that judges were ignorant of the law. Whereas outside of prison things are taken for granted when reading instructions and briefs, this was not the case in prison law. Nothing could be taken for granted, and these things needed to be explained to the judges and how they related to the general principles of English law, for the judges to understand what the case was about and to enable them to judge. Tim Owen went onto to become a QC, and then a judge, and is now a Lord Justice. There is an old saying amongst prison officers, if you want to know something ask a prisoner. In this case, that is certainly true.
Freedom of expression in Spain...Just don't express it or you will be jailed
Eta prisoner 'close to death'
Violence erupts in Bilbao as hunger striker demanding Spanish government restarts peace talks has feeding tube removed
Alfonso Daniels in Bilbao
Sunday February 25, 2007
The Observer
A leading member of the Basque terrorist group Eta was last night close to death following a hunger strike that has lasted more than three months and inflamed tensions in Spain.
Doctors treating the emaciated body of Inaki de Juana Chaos in a secure unit in a hospital in Madrid said his feeding tube had been removed to allow him to continue his hunger strike. De Juana, who has served a 20-year sentence for leading Eta's 'Madrid Commando' unit, which killed 25 people during the Eighties, has been on hunger strike since November.
Article continues
News of his imminent death came as thousands of people waving red-and-yellow flags rallied in Madrid and the Basque country to protest a court ruling that has put de Juana on the verge of parole.
Police made several arrests and 17 people were hurt when violence broke out in the northern city of Bilbao after a banned pro-Eta march went ahead illegally.
Pictures of de Juana tied to his hospital bed, published last week, raised tensions across Spain. The emotive case has become a lightning rod for the country's deep political divisions.
The crowd screamed, 'Murderer, murderer' as they stood in the cold to accuse the Socialist government of being soft on ETA, which has killed more than 800 people in its 40-year fight for an independent state in the Basque region.
De Juana was on the verge of release last year when he was charged anew over newspaper articles he wrote from prison that were judged to be threats. He was sentenced to another 13 years in prison, but on 12 February the Spanish Supreme Court reduced this to three. As he had already been in jail for 17 months since the new charges had been filed, he is now eligible for release. De Juana's hunger strike is intended to put pressure on the government to restart peace talks, deadlocked since Eta killed two people in a car bombing at Madrid airport in December. Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has insisted he will not deal with Eta's outlawed political wing, Batasuna, unless it renounces violence.
But The Observer has learnt that the Socialist government has secretly continued to keep channels of communication with Batasuna open in an effort to revive talks. Their efforts have been kept quiet to avoid provoking Eta victims' families and the conservative opposition Popular Party (PP), which is strongly opposed to any dealings with Eta-Batasuna.
Yesterday the Association of Victims of Terrorism held the latest in a series of large demonstrations in Madrid. Its pressure threatens to derail attempts by the government and Batasuna to participate in local elections next May and push forward the peace process, which many fear could lead to the break-up of Spain.
'Zapatero is reopening old wounds: they kept telling us to be patient, that the state will bring the criminals to justice, and now they're talking about giving them everything they want,' said Salvador Ulayar, 42, who as a child saw his father, a former Basque mayor, gunned down by Eta.
However, Juan Mari Olano, leader of the Askatasuna organisation that takes care of Eta prisoners, said the Madrid attack was a wake-up call: 'They [the government] maintained repression and lost time, convinced that Eta was negotiating out of weakness and that with time it would find it more difficult to resume activities, but they were wrong.'
Experts warn that, unless progress is made, a resumption of Eta attacks could be just weeks away.
Violence erupts in Bilbao as hunger striker demanding Spanish government restarts peace talks has feeding tube removed
Alfonso Daniels in Bilbao
Sunday February 25, 2007
The Observer
A leading member of the Basque terrorist group Eta was last night close to death following a hunger strike that has lasted more than three months and inflamed tensions in Spain.
Doctors treating the emaciated body of Inaki de Juana Chaos in a secure unit in a hospital in Madrid said his feeding tube had been removed to allow him to continue his hunger strike. De Juana, who has served a 20-year sentence for leading Eta's 'Madrid Commando' unit, which killed 25 people during the Eighties, has been on hunger strike since November.
Article continues
News of his imminent death came as thousands of people waving red-and-yellow flags rallied in Madrid and the Basque country to protest a court ruling that has put de Juana on the verge of parole.
Police made several arrests and 17 people were hurt when violence broke out in the northern city of Bilbao after a banned pro-Eta march went ahead illegally.
Pictures of de Juana tied to his hospital bed, published last week, raised tensions across Spain. The emotive case has become a lightning rod for the country's deep political divisions.
The crowd screamed, 'Murderer, murderer' as they stood in the cold to accuse the Socialist government of being soft on ETA, which has killed more than 800 people in its 40-year fight for an independent state in the Basque region.
De Juana was on the verge of release last year when he was charged anew over newspaper articles he wrote from prison that were judged to be threats. He was sentenced to another 13 years in prison, but on 12 February the Spanish Supreme Court reduced this to three. As he had already been in jail for 17 months since the new charges had been filed, he is now eligible for release. De Juana's hunger strike is intended to put pressure on the government to restart peace talks, deadlocked since Eta killed two people in a car bombing at Madrid airport in December. Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has insisted he will not deal with Eta's outlawed political wing, Batasuna, unless it renounces violence.
But The Observer has learnt that the Socialist government has secretly continued to keep channels of communication with Batasuna open in an effort to revive talks. Their efforts have been kept quiet to avoid provoking Eta victims' families and the conservative opposition Popular Party (PP), which is strongly opposed to any dealings with Eta-Batasuna.
Yesterday the Association of Victims of Terrorism held the latest in a series of large demonstrations in Madrid. Its pressure threatens to derail attempts by the government and Batasuna to participate in local elections next May and push forward the peace process, which many fear could lead to the break-up of Spain.
'Zapatero is reopening old wounds: they kept telling us to be patient, that the state will bring the criminals to justice, and now they're talking about giving them everything they want,' said Salvador Ulayar, 42, who as a child saw his father, a former Basque mayor, gunned down by Eta.
However, Juan Mari Olano, leader of the Askatasuna organisation that takes care of Eta prisoners, said the Madrid attack was a wake-up call: 'They [the government] maintained repression and lost time, convinced that Eta was negotiating out of weakness and that with time it would find it more difficult to resume activities, but they were wrong.'
Experts warn that, unless progress is made, a resumption of Eta attacks could be just weeks away.
Barrels of oil but no WMD. Now isn't that a surprise Dubya?
Iraq poised to hand control of oil fields to foreign firms
Baghdad under pressure from Britain to pass a law giving multinationals rights to the country's reserves
Heather Stewart, economics correspondent
Sunday February 25, 2007
The Observer
Baghdad is under pressure from Britain and the US to pass an oil law which would hand long-term control of Iraq's energy assets to foreign multinationals, according to campaigners.
Iraqi trades unions have called for the country's oil reserves - the second-largest in the world - to be kept in public hands. But a leaked draft of the oil law, seen by The Observer, would see the government sign away the right to exploit its untapped fields in so-called exploration contracts, which could then be extended for more than 30 years.
Article continues
Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has admitted that the government has discussed the wording of the Iraqi law with Britain's oil giants.
In a written answer to a parliamentary question, from Labour's Alan Simpson, Howells said: 'These exchanges have included discussion of Iraq's evolving hydrocarbons legislation where British international oil companies have valuable perspectives to offer based on their experience in other countries.' The talks had covered 'the range of contract types which Iraq is considering'.
Control of oil is an explosive political issue in Iraq. Hasan Jumah Awwad al-Asadi, leader of the country's oil workers' union formed after the invasion in 2003, warned this month: 'History will not forgive those who play recklessly with the wealth and destiny of a people.'
With much of the country on the brink of civil war, and a fractious government in Baghdad, campaigners say Iraq is in a poor position to negotiate with foreign oil firms. 'Iraq is under occupation and its people are facing relentless insecurity and crippling poverty. Yet, with the support of our government, multinationals are poised to take control of Iraq's oil wealth,' said Ruth Tanner, senior campaigner at War On Want.
The law, which is being discussed by the Iraqi cabinet before being put to the parliament, says the untapped oil would remain state-owned but that contracts would be drawn up giving private sector firms the exclusive right to extract it.
'There is this fine line, that the wording is seeking to draw, that allows companies to claim that the oil is still Iraqi oil, whereas the extraction rights belong to the oil companies,' says Kamil Mahdi, an Iraqi economist at Exeter University. He criticised the US and Britain, saying: 'The whole idea of the law is due to external pressure. The law is no protection against corruption, or against weakness of government. It's not a recipe for stability.'
Simpson said 'This confirms the view of those who have said all along that the war in Iraq was not about weapons of mass destruction, but the control of the levers of mass production ... This is a cartel carve-up by the occupying powers.'
Oil production in Iraq has slipped to below two million barrels a day - less than before the invasion - and Britain and the US argue that Iraq urgently needs foreign investment to boost output. But Ewa Jasiewicz, of campaign group Platform, said all the other Gulf states had kept production in government hands. 'Iraq could borrow the money to develop its industry, and pay that off through oil revenues.'
Baghdad under pressure from Britain to pass a law giving multinationals rights to the country's reserves
Heather Stewart, economics correspondent
Sunday February 25, 2007
The Observer
Baghdad is under pressure from Britain and the US to pass an oil law which would hand long-term control of Iraq's energy assets to foreign multinationals, according to campaigners.
Iraqi trades unions have called for the country's oil reserves - the second-largest in the world - to be kept in public hands. But a leaked draft of the oil law, seen by The Observer, would see the government sign away the right to exploit its untapped fields in so-called exploration contracts, which could then be extended for more than 30 years.
Article continues
Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has admitted that the government has discussed the wording of the Iraqi law with Britain's oil giants.
In a written answer to a parliamentary question, from Labour's Alan Simpson, Howells said: 'These exchanges have included discussion of Iraq's evolving hydrocarbons legislation where British international oil companies have valuable perspectives to offer based on their experience in other countries.' The talks had covered 'the range of contract types which Iraq is considering'.
Control of oil is an explosive political issue in Iraq. Hasan Jumah Awwad al-Asadi, leader of the country's oil workers' union formed after the invasion in 2003, warned this month: 'History will not forgive those who play recklessly with the wealth and destiny of a people.'
With much of the country on the brink of civil war, and a fractious government in Baghdad, campaigners say Iraq is in a poor position to negotiate with foreign oil firms. 'Iraq is under occupation and its people are facing relentless insecurity and crippling poverty. Yet, with the support of our government, multinationals are poised to take control of Iraq's oil wealth,' said Ruth Tanner, senior campaigner at War On Want.
The law, which is being discussed by the Iraqi cabinet before being put to the parliament, says the untapped oil would remain state-owned but that contracts would be drawn up giving private sector firms the exclusive right to extract it.
'There is this fine line, that the wording is seeking to draw, that allows companies to claim that the oil is still Iraqi oil, whereas the extraction rights belong to the oil companies,' says Kamil Mahdi, an Iraqi economist at Exeter University. He criticised the US and Britain, saying: 'The whole idea of the law is due to external pressure. The law is no protection against corruption, or against weakness of government. It's not a recipe for stability.'
Simpson said 'This confirms the view of those who have said all along that the war in Iraq was not about weapons of mass destruction, but the control of the levers of mass production ... This is a cartel carve-up by the occupying powers.'
Oil production in Iraq has slipped to below two million barrels a day - less than before the invasion - and Britain and the US argue that Iraq urgently needs foreign investment to boost output. But Ewa Jasiewicz, of campaign group Platform, said all the other Gulf states had kept production in government hands. 'Iraq could borrow the money to develop its industry, and pay that off through oil revenues.'
Where is Dixon of Dock Green when he is most needed?
The other night I popped out for some bread buns and milk, and as I neared the end of the road I could see and hear a group of youths being a bit loud. Outside the police station, I noted two policemen sat in their police car. As I came out of the shop, I saw a youth across the main road running like a bat out of hell. Then one of the policemen crossing the road running towards the remainder of the group. As he reached them and blocked their path, I saw him depress the button on his radio which transmits the conversation back to the control room. The second policeman started running across the road to provide support. I don't know what had happened whilst I was in the shop, but I suspect that the second policeman was delayed because he was radioing for back up, and I could hear the wail of a siren screaming louder as it got closer.
What puzzles me, is why the control room dispatch police from Queen's Garden HQ in the City Centre and from Hessle Road to an incident on Beverley Road, right opposite the new police station, and from this police station to other areas of the city. Surely it would be better to provide more effective policing to protect the community, if they were dispatched from the nearest point to the incident? The present Chief Constable is relatively new and replaced the one who disgraced himself over the Ian Huntley affair and the killing of a man in the Queen's Garden police HQ. It would appear that resources are not being put to their most effective use. No wonder that the policemen have such low morale and the public have so little confidence.
What puzzles me, is why the control room dispatch police from Queen's Garden HQ in the City Centre and from Hessle Road to an incident on Beverley Road, right opposite the new police station, and from this police station to other areas of the city. Surely it would be better to provide more effective policing to protect the community, if they were dispatched from the nearest point to the incident? The present Chief Constable is relatively new and replaced the one who disgraced himself over the Ian Huntley affair and the killing of a man in the Queen's Garden police HQ. It would appear that resources are not being put to their most effective use. No wonder that the policemen have such low morale and the public have so little confidence.
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But is it?
Iain Dale's Diary led me to these two pieces, and reproduced for all the conspiracy theorists out there. What ever take you put on them, it's certainly brain food.
Conspiracy on conspiracy
* Mike Rudin
* 22 Feb 07, 12:54 PM
I suppose it had to happen. First we’re accused of being spies. Then we’re told we’re getting our orders from others.
But then came an even more outlandish conspiracy theory suggesting there were two versions of the 9/11 programme which was broadcast last Sunday. Conspiracy piles on conspiracy.
Ian Crane, Chairman of the 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK and Ireland, claimed last Friday that a source had told him that we were in a “in a quandary over which version of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files will be put out to air”.
He alleged: ”One version is a well-balanced piece of investigative journalism, whereas the alternative version is a hit-piece, intent on portraying 9/11 Truth Campaigners as nothing more than a lunatic fringe group.”
And the story was picked up on the Alex Jones’ website Prison Planet with the headline “BBC Pressured to Air 9/11 Hit Piece?”
Only trouble is there weren’t two versions, no-one bothered to check with us and, what's more, we worked very hard to make sure the programme was fair and balanced.
Behind it all there seems to be a concern that we wouldn’t run a story supporting a conspiracy theory if we found convincing evidence. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
First, there was no editorial interference in the programme whatsoever. Second, if we had found convincing evidence of a conspiracy before 9/11 no one could have held us back from broadcasting such an important story.
We didn’t find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories. Instead we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version and contradicted the various conspiracy theories.
Where there was some evidence of a conspiracy after the event to cover-up intelligence failures, we included that in the programme, together with an interview with Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired a Congressional Inquiry into 9/11.
I know the 9/11 Truth Campaign in the UK and Prison Planet in the USA, among others, are encouraging their supporters to write in. And it’s great to see so many comments on the blog. They make fascinating reading and contain a lot of interesting information.
However, our opinion poll carried out by GfK NOP did not find much support for the underlying conspiracy theory. In a telephone poll of a 1000 adults we asked:
“Attacks were made on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, commonly known as 9/11. It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by ’Al Qaeda’, however some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American Government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?”
16% people believed the American Government was involved in a wider conspiracy as against 64% of those questioned who did not believe that. The rest said they did not know.
In fact our opinion poll found much more widespread doubts of the official accounts of the deaths of Princess Diana and the British Government scientist Dr David Kelly. Almost one in three (31%) people questioned believed the car crash that killed Princess Diana was not an accident, 43% agreed it was an accident, and the rest did not know. Almost one in four (23%) people questioned believed the government scientist Dr Kelly did not commit suicide as against 39% who believed he did commit suicide, with the rest unsure.
And this Sunday, The Conspiracy Files series will examine the many questions that surround the death of Dr David Kelly and reveals new material that challenges the official account of his death.
Mike Rudin is series producer, The Conspiracy Files
Kelly death not suicide, says MP
David Kelly
Sunday 25 February
9pm on BBC Two
Timeline: David Kelly
Programme preview
An MP investigating the death of Dr David Kelly says he is convinced the weapons scientist did not kill himself.
Norman Baker tells BBC Two's The Conspiracy Files he has reached the conclusion Dr Kelly's life was "deliberately taken by others".
Mr Baker has also obtained letters suggesting the coroner had doubts about the 2003 Hutton inquiry's ability to establish the cause of death.
Hutton reached a verdict of suicide but a public inquest was never completed.
Dr Kelly, whose body was found in July 2003, had been under intense pressure after being named as the suspected source of a BBC report claiming the government "sexed up" a dossier on the threat posed by Iraq.
Distress
Coroner Nicholas Gardiner opened an inquest into his death in Oxford just a few days after his body was found on Harrowdown Hill.
As you will know, a coroner has power to compel the attendance of witnesses. There are no such powers attached to a Public inquiry
Nicholas Gardiner, writing to Lord Falconer in August 2003
Q&A: David Kelly
But he was ordered to adjourn it by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, as the Hutton inquiry would take over, and it was not resumed.
Lord Falconer said he wanted to minimise the distress caused to the Kelly family.
The official account given by the Hutton inquiry was that Dr Kelly committed suicide by cutting his left wrist, and taking an overdose of the painkiller Co-Proxamol.
In his report, Lord Hutton said: "There was no involvement by a third person in Dr Kelly's death."
Assassinated
Mr Baker, who has spent a year investigating the case, believes there is enough evidence to suggest that the scientist did not kill himself.
The Liberal Democrat MP said toxicology reports suggested there was not enough painkiller in Dr Kelly's system to kill him, and the method he had apparently chosen to commit suicide was not a recognised or effective one.
"I'm satisfied it was not suicide. And after that you're left with the conclusion that his life was deliberately taken by others," he tells The Conspiracy Files.
He tells the programme it has been suggested to him that the weapons scientist was assassinated.
Speaking last week on BBC Radio 5 Live, Mr Baker said he was not ready to reveal all the evidence he has unearthed, but would consider passing a file to the police in due course.
Witnesses
Mr Baker has obtained letters between Mr Gardiner and the Lord Chancellor's office from 2003, suggesting the coroner was not happy with the Hutton inquiry's ability to establish the cause of death.
The letters were given to the MP by Constitutional Affairs minister Harriet Harman and have not been revealed publicly before.
I believe that David was probably a victim of Iraqi Intelligence Service
Richard Spertzel, former colleague of Dr Kelly
On 6 August 2003 Mr Gardiner wrote to the Lord Chancellor expressing concern about Hutton's lack of legal powers compared with an inquest.
"As you will know, a coroner has power to compel the attendance of witnesses. There are no such powers attached to a public inquiry," Mr Gardiner wrote.
The Oxfordshire coroner also asked to be allowed to continue with the inquest because "the preliminary cause of death given at the opening of the inquest no longer represents the final view of the pathologist, and evidence from him would need to be given to correct and update the evidence already received".
Mr Gardiner met officials from the Department of Constitutional Affairs on 11 August 2003 "to discuss the mechanics of admitting evidence from the pathologist and analyst".
Death certificate
The Lord Chancellor then accepted the coroner's need to have one further hearing.
Lord Hutton
Lord Hutton was given the job of establishing how Dr Kelly died
In a letter to Mr Gardiner, dated 12 August 2003, Sarah Albon, private secretary to the Lord Chancellor, said that "the cause of death of Dr David Kelly is likely to be adequately investigated by the judicial inquiry conducted by Lord Hutton".
It said Lord Falconer accepted Mr Gardiner may want to take fresh evidence from the pathologist and analyst.
But he was "most anxious to avoid any unnecessary distress to the family, and has asked that you keep the proceedings as short as possible and, so far as the Coroner's Rules allow, take the evidence in writing".
The coroner did just that in a hearing on 14 August 2003.
On 18 August 2003 a death certificate was registered setting out the causes of death.
'Hit list'
Yet the Hutton inquiry had only just started taking evidence and its report was published a full five months later.
In March 2004, a final hearing was held in Oxford at which Mr Gardiner said he was satisfied there were "no exceptional reasons," including concerns about the Hutton inquiry's powers, for the inquest to be resumed.
The Conspiracy Files explores a number of alternatives as to how Dr Kelly might have met his end.
A former colleague of the weapons inspector, former UN weapons inspector Richard Spertzel, tells the programme he believes the scientist was murdered by the Iraqis.
Mr Spertzel, who was America's most senior biological weapons inspector and who worked alongside Dr Kelly for many years in Iraq, believes the Iraqi regime may have pursued a vendetta against Dr Kelly.
"I believe that David was probably a victim of Iraqi Intelligence Service because of long standing enmity of Iraq towards David," he says.
"A number of us were on an Iraqi hit list. I was number three, and my understanding, David was only a couple behind that.
"And none of the people on that hit list were welcome in Iraq. Immediately after David's death, a number of the other inspectors and I exchanged emails saying, 'Be careful.' "
The Conspiracy Files is on Sunday, 25 February, at 2100 GMT on BBC Two.
Conspiracy on conspiracy
* Mike Rudin
* 22 Feb 07, 12:54 PM
I suppose it had to happen. First we’re accused of being spies. Then we’re told we’re getting our orders from others.
But then came an even more outlandish conspiracy theory suggesting there were two versions of the 9/11 programme which was broadcast last Sunday. Conspiracy piles on conspiracy.
Ian Crane, Chairman of the 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK and Ireland, claimed last Friday that a source had told him that we were in a “in a quandary over which version of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files will be put out to air”.
He alleged: ”One version is a well-balanced piece of investigative journalism, whereas the alternative version is a hit-piece, intent on portraying 9/11 Truth Campaigners as nothing more than a lunatic fringe group.”
And the story was picked up on the Alex Jones’ website Prison Planet with the headline “BBC Pressured to Air 9/11 Hit Piece?”
Only trouble is there weren’t two versions, no-one bothered to check with us and, what's more, we worked very hard to make sure the programme was fair and balanced.
Behind it all there seems to be a concern that we wouldn’t run a story supporting a conspiracy theory if we found convincing evidence. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
First, there was no editorial interference in the programme whatsoever. Second, if we had found convincing evidence of a conspiracy before 9/11 no one could have held us back from broadcasting such an important story.
We didn’t find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories. Instead we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version and contradicted the various conspiracy theories.
Where there was some evidence of a conspiracy after the event to cover-up intelligence failures, we included that in the programme, together with an interview with Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired a Congressional Inquiry into 9/11.
I know the 9/11 Truth Campaign in the UK and Prison Planet in the USA, among others, are encouraging their supporters to write in. And it’s great to see so many comments on the blog. They make fascinating reading and contain a lot of interesting information.
However, our opinion poll carried out by GfK NOP did not find much support for the underlying conspiracy theory. In a telephone poll of a 1000 adults we asked:
“Attacks were made on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, commonly known as 9/11. It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by ’Al Qaeda’, however some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American Government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?”
16% people believed the American Government was involved in a wider conspiracy as against 64% of those questioned who did not believe that. The rest said they did not know.
In fact our opinion poll found much more widespread doubts of the official accounts of the deaths of Princess Diana and the British Government scientist Dr David Kelly. Almost one in three (31%) people questioned believed the car crash that killed Princess Diana was not an accident, 43% agreed it was an accident, and the rest did not know. Almost one in four (23%) people questioned believed the government scientist Dr Kelly did not commit suicide as against 39% who believed he did commit suicide, with the rest unsure.
And this Sunday, The Conspiracy Files series will examine the many questions that surround the death of Dr David Kelly and reveals new material that challenges the official account of his death.
Mike Rudin is series producer, The Conspiracy Files
Kelly death not suicide, says MP
David Kelly
Sunday 25 February
9pm on BBC Two
Timeline: David Kelly
Programme preview
An MP investigating the death of Dr David Kelly says he is convinced the weapons scientist did not kill himself.
Norman Baker tells BBC Two's The Conspiracy Files he has reached the conclusion Dr Kelly's life was "deliberately taken by others".
Mr Baker has also obtained letters suggesting the coroner had doubts about the 2003 Hutton inquiry's ability to establish the cause of death.
Hutton reached a verdict of suicide but a public inquest was never completed.
Dr Kelly, whose body was found in July 2003, had been under intense pressure after being named as the suspected source of a BBC report claiming the government "sexed up" a dossier on the threat posed by Iraq.
Distress
Coroner Nicholas Gardiner opened an inquest into his death in Oxford just a few days after his body was found on Harrowdown Hill.
As you will know, a coroner has power to compel the attendance of witnesses. There are no such powers attached to a Public inquiry
Nicholas Gardiner, writing to Lord Falconer in August 2003
Q&A: David Kelly
But he was ordered to adjourn it by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, as the Hutton inquiry would take over, and it was not resumed.
Lord Falconer said he wanted to minimise the distress caused to the Kelly family.
The official account given by the Hutton inquiry was that Dr Kelly committed suicide by cutting his left wrist, and taking an overdose of the painkiller Co-Proxamol.
In his report, Lord Hutton said: "There was no involvement by a third person in Dr Kelly's death."
Assassinated
Mr Baker, who has spent a year investigating the case, believes there is enough evidence to suggest that the scientist did not kill himself.
The Liberal Democrat MP said toxicology reports suggested there was not enough painkiller in Dr Kelly's system to kill him, and the method he had apparently chosen to commit suicide was not a recognised or effective one.
"I'm satisfied it was not suicide. And after that you're left with the conclusion that his life was deliberately taken by others," he tells The Conspiracy Files.
He tells the programme it has been suggested to him that the weapons scientist was assassinated.
Speaking last week on BBC Radio 5 Live, Mr Baker said he was not ready to reveal all the evidence he has unearthed, but would consider passing a file to the police in due course.
Witnesses
Mr Baker has obtained letters between Mr Gardiner and the Lord Chancellor's office from 2003, suggesting the coroner was not happy with the Hutton inquiry's ability to establish the cause of death.
The letters were given to the MP by Constitutional Affairs minister Harriet Harman and have not been revealed publicly before.
I believe that David was probably a victim of Iraqi Intelligence Service
Richard Spertzel, former colleague of Dr Kelly
On 6 August 2003 Mr Gardiner wrote to the Lord Chancellor expressing concern about Hutton's lack of legal powers compared with an inquest.
"As you will know, a coroner has power to compel the attendance of witnesses. There are no such powers attached to a public inquiry," Mr Gardiner wrote.
The Oxfordshire coroner also asked to be allowed to continue with the inquest because "the preliminary cause of death given at the opening of the inquest no longer represents the final view of the pathologist, and evidence from him would need to be given to correct and update the evidence already received".
Mr Gardiner met officials from the Department of Constitutional Affairs on 11 August 2003 "to discuss the mechanics of admitting evidence from the pathologist and analyst".
Death certificate
The Lord Chancellor then accepted the coroner's need to have one further hearing.
Lord Hutton
Lord Hutton was given the job of establishing how Dr Kelly died
In a letter to Mr Gardiner, dated 12 August 2003, Sarah Albon, private secretary to the Lord Chancellor, said that "the cause of death of Dr David Kelly is likely to be adequately investigated by the judicial inquiry conducted by Lord Hutton".
It said Lord Falconer accepted Mr Gardiner may want to take fresh evidence from the pathologist and analyst.
But he was "most anxious to avoid any unnecessary distress to the family, and has asked that you keep the proceedings as short as possible and, so far as the Coroner's Rules allow, take the evidence in writing".
The coroner did just that in a hearing on 14 August 2003.
On 18 August 2003 a death certificate was registered setting out the causes of death.
'Hit list'
Yet the Hutton inquiry had only just started taking evidence and its report was published a full five months later.
In March 2004, a final hearing was held in Oxford at which Mr Gardiner said he was satisfied there were "no exceptional reasons," including concerns about the Hutton inquiry's powers, for the inquest to be resumed.
The Conspiracy Files explores a number of alternatives as to how Dr Kelly might have met his end.
A former colleague of the weapons inspector, former UN weapons inspector Richard Spertzel, tells the programme he believes the scientist was murdered by the Iraqis.
Mr Spertzel, who was America's most senior biological weapons inspector and who worked alongside Dr Kelly for many years in Iraq, believes the Iraqi regime may have pursued a vendetta against Dr Kelly.
"I believe that David was probably a victim of Iraqi Intelligence Service because of long standing enmity of Iraq towards David," he says.
"A number of us were on an Iraqi hit list. I was number three, and my understanding, David was only a couple behind that.
"And none of the people on that hit list were welcome in Iraq. Immediately after David's death, a number of the other inspectors and I exchanged emails saying, 'Be careful.' "
The Conspiracy Files is on Sunday, 25 February, at 2100 GMT on BBC Two.
Dame Eliza Dolittle-Mainwaring-Bullshitter
Secret report: Terror threat worst since 9/11
By Sean Rayment, Security Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:30am GMT 25/02/2007
The terrorist threat facing Britain from home-grown al-Qaeda agents is higher than at any time since the September 11 attacks in 2001, secret intelligence documents reveal.
Eliza Manningham-Buller of MI5 on terror plots
Eliza Manningham-Buller warned there are over 1,600 'identified individuals' engaged in terror plots
The number of British-based Islamic terrorists plotting suicide attacks against "soft" targets in this country is far greater than the Security Services had previously believed, the government paperwork discloses. It is thought the plotters could number more than 2,000.
Under the heading "International Terrorism in the UK", the document - seen by The Sunday Telegraph - states: "The scale of al-Qaeda's ambitions towards attacking the UK and the number of UK extremists prepared to participate in attacks are even greater than we had previously judged."
It warns that terrorist "attack planning" against Britain will increase in 2007, and adds: "We still believe that AQ [al-Qaeda] will continue to seek opportunities for mass casualty attacks against soft targets and key infrastructure. These attacks are likely to involve the use of suicide operatives."
The document, which has been circulated across Whitehall to MI5, Scotland Yard's Counter Terrorist Command, the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence, also reveals that al-Qaeda has grown into a world-wide organisation with a foothold in virtually every Muslim country in North Africa, the Middle East and central Asia.
advertisement
Eliza Manningham-Buller, the director general of MI5, warned recently that there were more than 1,600 "identified individuals" actively engaged in plotting terrorist attacks. There were 200 known networks involved in at least 30 terrorist plots. It is thought that the number of British citizens involved in plots could be well in excess of 2,000.
MI5 believes that soft targets, such as the transport system and economic targets such as the City of London and Canary Wharf, are most at risk.
A senior political source said the picture painted by the document was "particularly bleak and unlikely to improve for several years".
He said: "The Security Services have constantly warned that the task of countering Islamist terrorism is a daunting one. There will be more attacks in Britain."
Patrick Mercer, the Tory spokesman for homeland security, said: "This document absolutely underlines the threat and makes me wonder why the Government still has a counter-terrorist strategy that has been officially declared obsolete. It does make the Government's response look hugely complacent."
Police at Liverpool Street London Underground station
The transport system and City of London are thought to be most at risk
Entitled Extremist Threat Assessment, the document, which was drawn up this month, also discloses that Afghanistan, where more than 7,000 British troops will be based by the end of May, is expected to supersede Iraq as the location for terrorists planning Jihad against the West.
It says that al-Qaeda's influence extends from North Africa, including Egypt, through to Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan, and into Somalia and Sudan. Al-Qaeda is "resilient and effective" in Iraq, its "operating environment and financial position" in Pakistan has improved and a new group had emerged in Yemen.
"With violence in Afghanistan intensifying, and therefore receiving greater media attention, the country may well become more attractive as a venue for foreigners wishing to fulfil their Jihad ambitions", the document states.
Two years ago, western intelligence said that al-Qaeda was virtually a spent force, disrupted by counter-terrorist operations around the world.
In July 2005 the Pentagon obtained a letter written by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's deputy leader, stating that the organisation had lost many of its leaders and that it had virtually resigned itself to defeat in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda's lines of communication, funding and structure had been severely damaged.
Dr Jonathan Eyal, the director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute, said that the al-Qaeda revival was down to the West's inability to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq made matters worse.
"This document clearly demonstrates a marked shift from the mood of western government only a year or two ago," he said. "It is a clear admission that the organisation is re-emerging and the reasons are that none of al-Qaeda's top leaders have been killed or captured."
By Sean Rayment, Security Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:30am GMT 25/02/2007
The terrorist threat facing Britain from home-grown al-Qaeda agents is higher than at any time since the September 11 attacks in 2001, secret intelligence documents reveal.
Eliza Manningham-Buller of MI5 on terror plots
Eliza Manningham-Buller warned there are over 1,600 'identified individuals' engaged in terror plots
The number of British-based Islamic terrorists plotting suicide attacks against "soft" targets in this country is far greater than the Security Services had previously believed, the government paperwork discloses. It is thought the plotters could number more than 2,000.
Under the heading "International Terrorism in the UK", the document - seen by The Sunday Telegraph - states: "The scale of al-Qaeda's ambitions towards attacking the UK and the number of UK extremists prepared to participate in attacks are even greater than we had previously judged."
It warns that terrorist "attack planning" against Britain will increase in 2007, and adds: "We still believe that AQ [al-Qaeda] will continue to seek opportunities for mass casualty attacks against soft targets and key infrastructure. These attacks are likely to involve the use of suicide operatives."
The document, which has been circulated across Whitehall to MI5, Scotland Yard's Counter Terrorist Command, the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence, also reveals that al-Qaeda has grown into a world-wide organisation with a foothold in virtually every Muslim country in North Africa, the Middle East and central Asia.
advertisement
Eliza Manningham-Buller, the director general of MI5, warned recently that there were more than 1,600 "identified individuals" actively engaged in plotting terrorist attacks. There were 200 known networks involved in at least 30 terrorist plots. It is thought that the number of British citizens involved in plots could be well in excess of 2,000.
MI5 believes that soft targets, such as the transport system and economic targets such as the City of London and Canary Wharf, are most at risk.
A senior political source said the picture painted by the document was "particularly bleak and unlikely to improve for several years".
He said: "The Security Services have constantly warned that the task of countering Islamist terrorism is a daunting one. There will be more attacks in Britain."
Patrick Mercer, the Tory spokesman for homeland security, said: "This document absolutely underlines the threat and makes me wonder why the Government still has a counter-terrorist strategy that has been officially declared obsolete. It does make the Government's response look hugely complacent."
Police at Liverpool Street London Underground station
The transport system and City of London are thought to be most at risk
Entitled Extremist Threat Assessment, the document, which was drawn up this month, also discloses that Afghanistan, where more than 7,000 British troops will be based by the end of May, is expected to supersede Iraq as the location for terrorists planning Jihad against the West.
It says that al-Qaeda's influence extends from North Africa, including Egypt, through to Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan, and into Somalia and Sudan. Al-Qaeda is "resilient and effective" in Iraq, its "operating environment and financial position" in Pakistan has improved and a new group had emerged in Yemen.
"With violence in Afghanistan intensifying, and therefore receiving greater media attention, the country may well become more attractive as a venue for foreigners wishing to fulfil their Jihad ambitions", the document states.
Two years ago, western intelligence said that al-Qaeda was virtually a spent force, disrupted by counter-terrorist operations around the world.
In July 2005 the Pentagon obtained a letter written by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's deputy leader, stating that the organisation had lost many of its leaders and that it had virtually resigned itself to defeat in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda's lines of communication, funding and structure had been severely damaged.
Dr Jonathan Eyal, the director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute, said that the al-Qaeda revival was down to the West's inability to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq made matters worse.
"This document clearly demonstrates a marked shift from the mood of western government only a year or two ago," he said. "It is a clear admission that the organisation is re-emerging and the reasons are that none of al-Qaeda's top leaders have been killed or captured."
Generals warn Bush enough is enough
From The Sunday Times
February 25, 2007
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”
A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.
The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.
Iran ignored a United Nations deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment programme last week. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that his country “will not withdraw from its nuclear stances even one single step”.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran could soon produce enough enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs a year, although Tehran claims its programme is purely for civilian energy purposes.
Nicholas Burns, the top US negotiator, is to meet British, French, German, Chinese and Russian officials in London tomorrow to discuss additional penalties against Iran. But UN diplomats cautioned that further measures would take weeks to agree and would be mild at best.
A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: “The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.”
But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq with sophisticated roadside bombs, forcing Bush on the defensive over some of the allegations.
Pace’s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government’s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was “far from clear”.
Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.
“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said. “It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”
Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being “seriously careful” in the Gulf.
The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month.
A senior defence source said the air force “could do a lot of damage to the country if there were no other considerations”. But army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war.
Britain is concerned that its own troops in Iraq might also be drawn into any American conflict with Iran, regardless of whether the government takes part in the attack.
Bush is still pursuing a diplomatic agreement with Iran — urged on by secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.
One retired general who participated in the “generals’ revolt” against Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack. “We don’t want to take another initiative unless we’ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,” he warned.
February 25, 2007
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter, Washington
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
“There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations.”
A generals’ revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. “American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.
The threat of a wave of resignations coincided with a warning by Vice-President Dick Cheney that all options, including military action, remained on the table. He was responding to a comment by Tony Blair that it would not “be right to take military action against Iran”.
Iran ignored a United Nations deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment programme last week. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that his country “will not withdraw from its nuclear stances even one single step”.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran could soon produce enough enriched uranium for two nuclear bombs a year, although Tehran claims its programme is purely for civilian energy purposes.
Nicholas Burns, the top US negotiator, is to meet British, French, German, Chinese and Russian officials in London tomorrow to discuss additional penalties against Iran. But UN diplomats cautioned that further measures would take weeks to agree and would be mild at best.
A second US navy aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS John C Stennis arrived in the Gulf last week, doubling the US presence there. Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the commander of the US Fifth Fleet, warned: “The US will take military action if ships are attacked or if countries in the region are targeted or US troops come under direct attack.”
But General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said recently there was “zero chance” of a war with Iran. He played down claims by US intelligence that the Iranian government was responsible for supplying insurgents in Iraq with sophisticated roadside bombs, forcing Bush on the defensive over some of the allegations.
Pace’s view was backed up by British intelligence officials who said the extent of the Iranian government’s involvement in activities inside Iraq by a small number of Revolutionary Guards was “far from clear”.
Hillary Mann, the National Security Council’s main Iran expert until 2004, said Pace’s repudiation of the administration’s claims was a sign of grave discontent at the top.
“He is a very serious and a very loyal soldier,” she said. “It is extraordinary for him to have made these comments publicly, and it suggests there are serious problems between the White House, the National Security Council and the Pentagon.”
Mann fears the administration is seeking to provoke Iran into a reaction that could be used as an excuse for an attack. A British official said the US navy was well aware of the risks of confrontation and was being “seriously careful” in the Gulf.
The US air force is regarded as being more willing to attack Iran. General Michael Moseley, the head of the air force, cited Iran as the main likely target for American aircraft at a military conference earlier this month.
A senior defence source said the air force “could do a lot of damage to the country if there were no other considerations”. But army chiefs fear an attack on Iran would backfire on American troops in Iraq and lead to more terrorist attacks, a rise in oil prices and the threat of a regional war.
Britain is concerned that its own troops in Iraq might also be drawn into any American conflict with Iran, regardless of whether the government takes part in the attack.
Bush is still pursuing a diplomatic agreement with Iran — urged on by secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.
One retired general who participated in the “generals’ revolt” against Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the Iraq war said he hoped his former colleagues would resign in the event of an order to attack. “We don’t want to take another initiative unless we’ve really thought through the consequences of our strategy,” he warned.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The hate crime and stalking of a blogger called The Hitch
Scene of the crimes photo, hat-tip to The Hitch.
There is this sick individual who for a long time cyber-stalked a journalist called Peter Hitchens. He has now turned his attention to stalking me on the internet. I do not know why he has this personal axe to grind, but I am not intimidated by him. He is a sad individual who is just clamouring for attention like a spoiled brat. I think he has hung himself with his own petard. If he was shitting himself when a journalist came to call, what will he be like when an Inspector calls?
Upadte: According to The Hitch's blog, he claims to have reported me to both the police and the probation service, for allegedly stalking him. This is rather like Peter and the wolf. I know that I am getting quite a bit of traffic from Kingston Upon Hull, but I do not know whether those hits are from ordinary members of the public or whether they are from the police and the probation service. If the police and probation service are looking for a crime on my blog, you are wasting taxpayers money. I suggest that you charge this reprobate who calls himself The Hitch with wasting police time. It comes to something when the stalker goes to the authorities and claims that he is being stalked!
There is this sick individual who for a long time cyber-stalked a journalist called Peter Hitchens. He has now turned his attention to stalking me on the internet. I do not know why he has this personal axe to grind, but I am not intimidated by him. He is a sad individual who is just clamouring for attention like a spoiled brat. I think he has hung himself with his own petard. If he was shitting himself when a journalist came to call, what will he be like when an Inspector calls?
Upadte: According to The Hitch's blog, he claims to have reported me to both the police and the probation service, for allegedly stalking him. This is rather like Peter and the wolf. I know that I am getting quite a bit of traffic from Kingston Upon Hull, but I do not know whether those hits are from ordinary members of the public or whether they are from the police and the probation service. If the police and probation service are looking for a crime on my blog, you are wasting taxpayers money. I suggest that you charge this reprobate who calls himself The Hitch with wasting police time. It comes to something when the stalker goes to the authorities and claims that he is being stalked!
Location, location, location.
I have recently installed sitemeter, in addition to Google analytics, which is just as well, because the former gives a better indication of location than mere dots on a map. For example, in an earlier post I inadvertently moved Calgary, Alberta, Canada over the border into the USA. For this I apologise. It is one thing to move house, but to move States is traumatic. For those of you who maybe interested, there follows a breakdown of the hits I received yesterday, any updates from abroad:
Australia; Brisbane, Queensland; Canberra, Australian Capital Territory; Launceston, Tasmania;
Austria; Vienna, Wien;
Brazil;
Bulgaria; Khaskovo; Dimitrovgrad;
Canada; Calgary, Alberta;
Chile; Santiago, Region Metropolitana;
China; Beijing; Changzhou; Jiangsu; Central District; Fuzhou; Nanchang, Harbin, Zhengzhou; Shijiazhuang;
Czech Republic; Kralupy Nad Vitavou;
England; Kingston upon Hull; Fairfield, Stockport; Ashton-under-lyne, Tameside; Beckton, Newham; London, Lambeth; Milton Keynes; Crawley, Bromley; Wolverhampton; Manchester;
Germany; Bottrop, Nordrhein-Westfalen;
Hong Kong;
India; Delhi; Mahemdavad; Bangalore, Karnataka;
Ireland; Cork; Antrim;
Lithuania; Vilnius;
Netherlands: Zuidhorn, Groningen;
Norway; Oed;
Prague;
South Africa; Parrow, Western Cape;
Spain; Madrid;
Turkey; Istanbul;
United States; Seattle, Washington; Pleasant Hill, California; San Fransisco, California; Hampton, South Carolina; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Raleigh, North Carolina; Las Vegas, Nevada; Madison, Tennessee;
Wales; Cardiff.
The main hits are from the United Kingdom, United States and China. I must be tripartide.
Thanks for visiting me. Call again, anytime.
Australia; Brisbane, Queensland; Canberra, Australian Capital Territory; Launceston, Tasmania;
Austria; Vienna, Wien;
Brazil;
Bulgaria; Khaskovo; Dimitrovgrad;
Canada; Calgary, Alberta;
Chile; Santiago, Region Metropolitana;
China; Beijing; Changzhou; Jiangsu; Central District; Fuzhou; Nanchang, Harbin, Zhengzhou; Shijiazhuang;
Czech Republic; Kralupy Nad Vitavou;
England; Kingston upon Hull; Fairfield, Stockport; Ashton-under-lyne, Tameside; Beckton, Newham; London, Lambeth; Milton Keynes; Crawley, Bromley; Wolverhampton; Manchester;
Germany; Bottrop, Nordrhein-Westfalen;
Hong Kong;
India; Delhi; Mahemdavad; Bangalore, Karnataka;
Ireland; Cork; Antrim;
Lithuania; Vilnius;
Netherlands: Zuidhorn, Groningen;
Norway; Oed;
Prague;
South Africa; Parrow, Western Cape;
Spain; Madrid;
Turkey; Istanbul;
United States; Seattle, Washington; Pleasant Hill, California; San Fransisco, California; Hampton, South Carolina; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Raleigh, North Carolina; Las Vegas, Nevada; Madison, Tennessee;
Wales; Cardiff.
The main hits are from the United Kingdom, United States and China. I must be tripartide.
Thanks for visiting me. Call again, anytime.
Spring is in the air
I am aware of the saying that one swallow does not a Summer make. However, this morning I saw a bird on my garden fence with nesting material in its beak, could this herald the arrival of Spring? What with climate change, and global warming, its been a mild Winter here.
School boy prank? Hardly Alexander the Great is he?
Here's a little gem I found on Bryan Appleyard's blog.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Harry Saves Iraq
Prince Harry is going to Iraq! But, hang on, aren't we supposed to be pulling out? Ah yes, but Blair is looking for a legacy and here it is. We bring the boys home leaving just Harry to patrol the mean streets of Basra. The prince says goodbye to his clubbing boyhood and becomes a man. In an explosive final shootout, he takes on both Sunni and Shia militias in defence of an orphanage. His dying words are, 'Tell mummy I did my best.' Hearing this, the militias fall into each other's arms, vowing never to fight again. 'He was, in a very real sense,' says Blair, 'the people's prince.' As Elton John sings Candle in the Wind, rewritten again, another river of tears floods Westminster Abbey. A dull thumping is heard. It is Gordon Brown banging his head against the door.
# posted by Bryan Appleyard : 8:40 AM
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Harry Saves Iraq
Prince Harry is going to Iraq! But, hang on, aren't we supposed to be pulling out? Ah yes, but Blair is looking for a legacy and here it is. We bring the boys home leaving just Harry to patrol the mean streets of Basra. The prince says goodbye to his clubbing boyhood and becomes a man. In an explosive final shootout, he takes on both Sunni and Shia militias in defence of an orphanage. His dying words are, 'Tell mummy I did my best.' Hearing this, the militias fall into each other's arms, vowing never to fight again. 'He was, in a very real sense,' says Blair, 'the people's prince.' As Elton John sings Candle in the Wind, rewritten again, another river of tears floods Westminster Abbey. A dull thumping is heard. It is Gordon Brown banging his head against the door.
# posted by Bryan Appleyard : 8:40 AM
Friday, February 23, 2007
Congolese Rice, nobody likes a smart arse but don't say I didn't tell you so
From The Times
February 24, 2007
Forget saving Blair’s legacy. Our troops must come first
Matthew Parris
Like old soldiers, controversies do not die, they fade away. Iraq is set to become one of these. The argument is exhausted. So are the protagonists. So are you. So am I.
Listening to the Prime Minister interviewed by John Humphrys on the Today programme on Thursday, I became aware of a once keenly contested debate limping into the sunset. Ever pugnacious, there was yet a sort of sigh in Mr Humphrys’s voice: an inquisitor coming to accept that he never will get a signed confession from this prisoner — belabour and stump him though he may. From Tony Blair we heard the weary defiance of a man who knows he fails to convince, but knows too that he can flail his way through this spat, as he has through every spat before it. Flounder as he may, Mr Blair has become almost impossible to floor.
And as he reeled towards another messy draw, I said to myself: Grow up. What are we asking for? The heads of Blair and Bush on a stick?
It isn’t going to happen. They’ll both retire, grow rich, grow grey and grow mellowly adept at explaining, for the umpteenth time at the umpteenth banquet that, whatever the consequences of what they did, the consequences of not doing it would have been even worse. Few will choose to believe them, but nobody will ever prove them wrong.
Henry Kissinger is still defending his corner over Vietnam. Doyens of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament still insist that the Soviet Union would have crumbled anyway. And Arthur Scargill will die unrepentant about the miners’ strike. Bad causes must be left to wither on the vine.
I find myself suddenly attracted to the Blairite exhortation to “move on”. Let us turn our backs not only on this but on another increasingly pointless argument: the question of what is likely to be Tony Blair’s principal legacy. For the word “likely” doesn’t come into it, and we may dispense with “principal” too. It will be Iraq. Only Iraq. The marble headstone is ready, and there is only one word on it.
Sometimes there simply isn’t an argument. Justly or unjustly a single story towers above the rest in a leader’s career. Churchill? The legacy was victory. Roosevelt? The New Deal. Eden? Suez. Nixon? Watergate. Attlee? The welfare state. Reagan? The fall of the Berlin Wall. On Thursday Mr Blair declared himself proud of what he had done in Iraq. Here at last, then, is a meeting of minds. Let us agree that Iraq is Blair’s legacy, agree to differ on whether that legacy is good or bad, and move on.
For the party most likely to form the next Government, the Conservatives, the need to move on is especially strong. It is now impossible for the Tories to disentangle themselves from the original decision to go to war. An opportunity to do so was briefly presented when it emerged that the Conservative leadership, along with the rest of the country, had been misled over the reasons for the invasion. At that moment the official Opposition could logically and honourably have withdrawn its support for the occupation, but it did not do so. Now it is too late. To renege on its backing for the principle of the invasion only because the subsequent war of occupation is being lost would impress no one. It would look opportunistic.
My Times colleague, Daniel Finkelstein, has indicated (without himself advocating) a possible way through: to say that the decision was “right” in the sense that it appeared reasonable in the circumstances of the time. Events later, events that were unforeseeable at the time, may cause us to regret the decision, but this does not mean we were wrong to take it when we did. It’s not, for instance, foolish to set out without an umbrella if the sky is clear and the forecast benign, even if a freak shower later causes us to regret the decision. In logic, anyway, the Tory party could in this way reconcile its original support for the war with a change of mind today. But it might look slippery, too clever by half. The time it has taken me to construct this paragraph and make the argument (I hope) intelligible suggests that it would not work on a soapbox at the next general election. Nevertheless, in the court of history I think that “if we had had known then what we know now . . .” is the Tories’ best ultimate line of defence. It is probably what the majority of the voters think, too.
The party, however, needs a more immediate way of getting off the hook, for there is surely neither mileage nor wisdom in urging the present Government forward in Iraq. Nor is there profit in buying into what is evidently going to be HMG’s official line, that Britain will withdraw “when the job is done”, which is, er, now.
We have lost. The job has not been done. The job cannot be done. Most people can see that. There is in the air a palpable sense of frustration and defeat. Not for a second will most voters entertain the possibility that the Iraq policy has been a success or that the troops are coming home because their task has been accomplished. If that’s what ministers want to claim, and what Gordon Brown (if he becomes Prime Minister) tries to claim, then the Tories should have nothing to do with it. By most citizens it will be treated with contempt. All the evidence suggests that the public are ready to admit defeat, and ready for their Government to admit defeat, even if ministers are not. Interestingly, polling data show even greater hostility to the war among Conservative voters than among the public as a whole.
So, for the official Opposition, how to get off the hook and back in touch with its own supporters? The answer does not lie in playing catchup with the Liberal Democrats. Charles Kennedy and Sir Menzies Campbell have rightful possession of the antiwar, peacenik, march-against-Bush constituency. And anyway this is slightly uncomfortable ground for Tories because it risks appearing antimilitary. Mr Kennedy was at his least comfortable when accused of “undermining the troops”. The British public, who admire their Armed Forces, are very sensitive to anything that could seem to undermine young men and women whom politicians have sent to war. So are many Conservative backbenchers, as David Cameron will know.
He should go with the Tory grain. Here’s how. The Conservative message on Iraq must be that what is now paramount is the safety and wellbeing of our Armed Forces. All other considerations should bow before this. Hopes of establishing a liberal democracy in Iraq, plans for training up a local police force and Iraqi Army, deference to Washington, sparing the blushes of a beleaguered president, support for the Iraqi Prime Minister and his Government, even the security and wellbeing of the Iraqi people themselves — all these things must now take second place behind the overriding need not to expose our troops to avoidable danger as we draw our forces down.
If that means not dragging out the withdrawal too long, speed it up. If it means not leaving behind a depleted garrison that could be susceptible to surprise assault, then bring them home. The question that must take priority is not “What’s best for Mr Blair’s legacy?” It is “What’s best for the men and women we have sent there?”
To die in a military offensive in a war that looks winnable may be a bearable sorrow. What would be insupportable would be to die in a retreat executed in a manner aimed more to save face than to save soldiers’ lives. As it becomes ever clearer that Britain is disengaging from an operation that has not been a political success, more deaths of British Service personnel will seem increasingly to be lives lost in vain.
The saddest casualties in war are always the ones closest to the armistice. The Conservative Party should seize this truth and make it its own. “If we’re pulling out, make it swift, decisive and clean,” should be the Tories’ theme.
February 24, 2007
Forget saving Blair’s legacy. Our troops must come first
Matthew Parris
Like old soldiers, controversies do not die, they fade away. Iraq is set to become one of these. The argument is exhausted. So are the protagonists. So are you. So am I.
Listening to the Prime Minister interviewed by John Humphrys on the Today programme on Thursday, I became aware of a once keenly contested debate limping into the sunset. Ever pugnacious, there was yet a sort of sigh in Mr Humphrys’s voice: an inquisitor coming to accept that he never will get a signed confession from this prisoner — belabour and stump him though he may. From Tony Blair we heard the weary defiance of a man who knows he fails to convince, but knows too that he can flail his way through this spat, as he has through every spat before it. Flounder as he may, Mr Blair has become almost impossible to floor.
And as he reeled towards another messy draw, I said to myself: Grow up. What are we asking for? The heads of Blair and Bush on a stick?
It isn’t going to happen. They’ll both retire, grow rich, grow grey and grow mellowly adept at explaining, for the umpteenth time at the umpteenth banquet that, whatever the consequences of what they did, the consequences of not doing it would have been even worse. Few will choose to believe them, but nobody will ever prove them wrong.
Henry Kissinger is still defending his corner over Vietnam. Doyens of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament still insist that the Soviet Union would have crumbled anyway. And Arthur Scargill will die unrepentant about the miners’ strike. Bad causes must be left to wither on the vine.
I find myself suddenly attracted to the Blairite exhortation to “move on”. Let us turn our backs not only on this but on another increasingly pointless argument: the question of what is likely to be Tony Blair’s principal legacy. For the word “likely” doesn’t come into it, and we may dispense with “principal” too. It will be Iraq. Only Iraq. The marble headstone is ready, and there is only one word on it.
Sometimes there simply isn’t an argument. Justly or unjustly a single story towers above the rest in a leader’s career. Churchill? The legacy was victory. Roosevelt? The New Deal. Eden? Suez. Nixon? Watergate. Attlee? The welfare state. Reagan? The fall of the Berlin Wall. On Thursday Mr Blair declared himself proud of what he had done in Iraq. Here at last, then, is a meeting of minds. Let us agree that Iraq is Blair’s legacy, agree to differ on whether that legacy is good or bad, and move on.
For the party most likely to form the next Government, the Conservatives, the need to move on is especially strong. It is now impossible for the Tories to disentangle themselves from the original decision to go to war. An opportunity to do so was briefly presented when it emerged that the Conservative leadership, along with the rest of the country, had been misled over the reasons for the invasion. At that moment the official Opposition could logically and honourably have withdrawn its support for the occupation, but it did not do so. Now it is too late. To renege on its backing for the principle of the invasion only because the subsequent war of occupation is being lost would impress no one. It would look opportunistic.
My Times colleague, Daniel Finkelstein, has indicated (without himself advocating) a possible way through: to say that the decision was “right” in the sense that it appeared reasonable in the circumstances of the time. Events later, events that were unforeseeable at the time, may cause us to regret the decision, but this does not mean we were wrong to take it when we did. It’s not, for instance, foolish to set out without an umbrella if the sky is clear and the forecast benign, even if a freak shower later causes us to regret the decision. In logic, anyway, the Tory party could in this way reconcile its original support for the war with a change of mind today. But it might look slippery, too clever by half. The time it has taken me to construct this paragraph and make the argument (I hope) intelligible suggests that it would not work on a soapbox at the next general election. Nevertheless, in the court of history I think that “if we had had known then what we know now . . .” is the Tories’ best ultimate line of defence. It is probably what the majority of the voters think, too.
The party, however, needs a more immediate way of getting off the hook, for there is surely neither mileage nor wisdom in urging the present Government forward in Iraq. Nor is there profit in buying into what is evidently going to be HMG’s official line, that Britain will withdraw “when the job is done”, which is, er, now.
We have lost. The job has not been done. The job cannot be done. Most people can see that. There is in the air a palpable sense of frustration and defeat. Not for a second will most voters entertain the possibility that the Iraq policy has been a success or that the troops are coming home because their task has been accomplished. If that’s what ministers want to claim, and what Gordon Brown (if he becomes Prime Minister) tries to claim, then the Tories should have nothing to do with it. By most citizens it will be treated with contempt. All the evidence suggests that the public are ready to admit defeat, and ready for their Government to admit defeat, even if ministers are not. Interestingly, polling data show even greater hostility to the war among Conservative voters than among the public as a whole.
So, for the official Opposition, how to get off the hook and back in touch with its own supporters? The answer does not lie in playing catchup with the Liberal Democrats. Charles Kennedy and Sir Menzies Campbell have rightful possession of the antiwar, peacenik, march-against-Bush constituency. And anyway this is slightly uncomfortable ground for Tories because it risks appearing antimilitary. Mr Kennedy was at his least comfortable when accused of “undermining the troops”. The British public, who admire their Armed Forces, are very sensitive to anything that could seem to undermine young men and women whom politicians have sent to war. So are many Conservative backbenchers, as David Cameron will know.
He should go with the Tory grain. Here’s how. The Conservative message on Iraq must be that what is now paramount is the safety and wellbeing of our Armed Forces. All other considerations should bow before this. Hopes of establishing a liberal democracy in Iraq, plans for training up a local police force and Iraqi Army, deference to Washington, sparing the blushes of a beleaguered president, support for the Iraqi Prime Minister and his Government, even the security and wellbeing of the Iraqi people themselves — all these things must now take second place behind the overriding need not to expose our troops to avoidable danger as we draw our forces down.
If that means not dragging out the withdrawal too long, speed it up. If it means not leaving behind a depleted garrison that could be susceptible to surprise assault, then bring them home. The question that must take priority is not “What’s best for Mr Blair’s legacy?” It is “What’s best for the men and women we have sent there?”
To die in a military offensive in a war that looks winnable may be a bearable sorrow. What would be insupportable would be to die in a retreat executed in a manner aimed more to save face than to save soldiers’ lives. As it becomes ever clearer that Britain is disengaging from an operation that has not been a political success, more deaths of British Service personnel will seem increasingly to be lives lost in vain.
The saddest casualties in war are always the ones closest to the armistice. The Conservative Party should seize this truth and make it its own. “If we’re pulling out, make it swift, decisive and clean,” should be the Tories’ theme.
I have a dream
The serious faced chap at the front is myself at 4 years of age, and the smiling one is my younger brother David, 3 years, going on a test drive to foster parents from the orphanage. My foster mother is on the right, foster father took the photo, and the other woman is the Matron of the Barnardo's Home in Ripon, in Yorkshire, and I don't know who the little scallywag is with his back to the camera.
I'm feeling sentimental, so I thought I would share the image with you all. The reason I am telling you this story, is that we went to live in a little farmhouse called Throstle Nest Farm, in the village of South Milford, near Leeds in Yorkshire. At an early age I was fascinated with place names. In Anglo Saxon times it was Sud (South) of the Mill Ford (Bridge). I used to love sitting on the Pack Horse Bridge and watch the Beck (stream) flow underneath, and the little fish and the occasional eel; and watch the traffic, especially when the horse racing was on at Tadcaster or York and see all the posh cars come from London. Sometimes The Queen and or the Queen Mother would go by in their chauffeur driven Rolls Royce.
The next town is called Sherburn - in- Elmet, about 2 miles away. One day I asked my foster father why it was called that when it was actually Sherburn in Yorkshire. He said that he did not know. Neither did the headmaster of the primary school. Just by chance, one day, I was looking through a historical atlas of Great Britain, and came across a reference to the Kingdom of Elmet, which was larger than the present day Yorkshire, and included in its territory what is now Yorkshire, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, and Northumbria. Years later, I went to the library in Leeds and did some research. King Athlestan actually had his seat where the present church stands at Sherburn. All very exciting for a child growing up in an area so steeped in history.
At one end of the village, is Steeton Hall and its battlemented gateway is an Ancient Monument. Knights used to ride out of there going on The Crusades. York used to be the capital of England long before London. There is talk going on at the moment to allow Scotland its independence. If this happens, and Wales and Ireland follow suit, Cornwall would wish to go the same way. I have a dream, to re-establish the Kingdom of Elmet and give us the freedom from Westminister rule. I am talking about a revolution here. Does anybody want to jump on my bandwagon. I would certainly make room for Ginger.
I'm feeling sentimental, so I thought I would share the image with you all. The reason I am telling you this story, is that we went to live in a little farmhouse called Throstle Nest Farm, in the village of South Milford, near Leeds in Yorkshire. At an early age I was fascinated with place names. In Anglo Saxon times it was Sud (South) of the Mill Ford (Bridge). I used to love sitting on the Pack Horse Bridge and watch the Beck (stream) flow underneath, and the little fish and the occasional eel; and watch the traffic, especially when the horse racing was on at Tadcaster or York and see all the posh cars come from London. Sometimes The Queen and or the Queen Mother would go by in their chauffeur driven Rolls Royce.
The next town is called Sherburn - in- Elmet, about 2 miles away. One day I asked my foster father why it was called that when it was actually Sherburn in Yorkshire. He said that he did not know. Neither did the headmaster of the primary school. Just by chance, one day, I was looking through a historical atlas of Great Britain, and came across a reference to the Kingdom of Elmet, which was larger than the present day Yorkshire, and included in its territory what is now Yorkshire, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, and Northumbria. Years later, I went to the library in Leeds and did some research. King Athlestan actually had his seat where the present church stands at Sherburn. All very exciting for a child growing up in an area so steeped in history.
At one end of the village, is Steeton Hall and its battlemented gateway is an Ancient Monument. Knights used to ride out of there going on The Crusades. York used to be the capital of England long before London. There is talk going on at the moment to allow Scotland its independence. If this happens, and Wales and Ireland follow suit, Cornwall would wish to go the same way. I have a dream, to re-establish the Kingdom of Elmet and give us the freedom from Westminister rule. I am talking about a revolution here. Does anybody want to jump on my bandwagon. I would certainly make room for Ginger.
Boo! You don't scare us...
From Times Online
February 23, 2007
Comment: Asia no longer in awe of US superpower
Times Asia Editor looks at how Dick Cheney's visit has displayed a new mood in the region
Richard Lloyd Parry, Asia Editor of The Times
A year ago, it would have been hard to imagine Dick Cheney making a tour of Asia like this one.
Back then, the United States and Japan were as one in their refusal to brook any compromise with North Korea over its nuclear programme. But in Tokyo this week, the hawkish Mr Cheney found himself in the position of flogging to the Japanese public an agreement which plenty of them view with suspicion.
A year ago, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, seemed unassailable, a rock solid supporter of Mr Cheney and his president. Today, though, he also felt obliged to meet Kevin Rudd, the Australian Opposition leader who is riding high in opinion polls ands who has promised to pull Australian troops out of Iraq if he is elected.
Events – from the loss of Congress to the Republican party to the North Korean nuclear test, and above all the continuing morass in Iraq – have forced a new realism, even a humility on the US government. From Asia, the change is striking: in Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing, the Bush Administration has shed credibility, authority and respect.
Japanese Cabinet ministers speak openly of US “cockiness” and “childishness”. Long-held principles are jettisoned – after insisting for years that it would not deal one-to-one with North Korea, the US was forced to do exactly that in order to reach the disarmament agreement in the Six Party Talks in Beijing last week. Having reassured Japan that it gave high priority to its demand for the return of Japanese kidnapped by North Korea, the US supported a document last week that made no mention of them.
Mr Cheney made a point of playing down expectations of the agreement. “Pyongyang,” he said, “has much to prove.” But it was his remarks on China that were most interesting.
It is China, remember, which hosted and brokered last week’s talks on Korea, “the first hopeful step towards a better future”, as Mr Cheney put it. But rather than grateful thanks, the emphasis of his remarks was on the threat which China is beginning to represent.
“The Chinese understand that a nuclear North Korea would be a threat to their own security, [but] other actions by the Chinese government send a different message,” he said. “Last month's anti-satellite test and China's continued fast-paced military build-up are less constructive and are not consistent with China's stated goal of a 'peaceful rise'.”
He sounded more than anyone like Japan’s Foreign Minister, Taro Aso, the man who a few weeks ago, called his government “childish”. Was Mr Cheney signalling a new sternness towards China? Or was he merely trying to keep his Japanese friends happy?
February 23, 2007
Comment: Asia no longer in awe of US superpower
Times Asia Editor looks at how Dick Cheney's visit has displayed a new mood in the region
Richard Lloyd Parry, Asia Editor of The Times
A year ago, it would have been hard to imagine Dick Cheney making a tour of Asia like this one.
Back then, the United States and Japan were as one in their refusal to brook any compromise with North Korea over its nuclear programme. But in Tokyo this week, the hawkish Mr Cheney found himself in the position of flogging to the Japanese public an agreement which plenty of them view with suspicion.
A year ago, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, seemed unassailable, a rock solid supporter of Mr Cheney and his president. Today, though, he also felt obliged to meet Kevin Rudd, the Australian Opposition leader who is riding high in opinion polls ands who has promised to pull Australian troops out of Iraq if he is elected.
Events – from the loss of Congress to the Republican party to the North Korean nuclear test, and above all the continuing morass in Iraq – have forced a new realism, even a humility on the US government. From Asia, the change is striking: in Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing, the Bush Administration has shed credibility, authority and respect.
Japanese Cabinet ministers speak openly of US “cockiness” and “childishness”. Long-held principles are jettisoned – after insisting for years that it would not deal one-to-one with North Korea, the US was forced to do exactly that in order to reach the disarmament agreement in the Six Party Talks in Beijing last week. Having reassured Japan that it gave high priority to its demand for the return of Japanese kidnapped by North Korea, the US supported a document last week that made no mention of them.
Mr Cheney made a point of playing down expectations of the agreement. “Pyongyang,” he said, “has much to prove.” But it was his remarks on China that were most interesting.
It is China, remember, which hosted and brokered last week’s talks on Korea, “the first hopeful step towards a better future”, as Mr Cheney put it. But rather than grateful thanks, the emphasis of his remarks was on the threat which China is beginning to represent.
“The Chinese understand that a nuclear North Korea would be a threat to their own security, [but] other actions by the Chinese government send a different message,” he said. “Last month's anti-satellite test and China's continued fast-paced military build-up are less constructive and are not consistent with China's stated goal of a 'peaceful rise'.”
He sounded more than anyone like Japan’s Foreign Minister, Taro Aso, the man who a few weeks ago, called his government “childish”. Was Mr Cheney signalling a new sternness towards China? Or was he merely trying to keep his Japanese friends happy?
The X Files
The truth is out there somewhere. Tony Blair is alleging that his present predicament is down to conspiracy theorists. And that he is proud about having gone to war with Iraq. Meanwhile, Jack Straw who was opposed to the war, is promising a full public inquiry once Tony Blair stands down.
I remember the images on TV of Saddam Hussein's statue being toppled. Recently, a statue of Margaret Thatcher has been erected in the House of Commons by the very people who toppled her from power. There is some hypocrisy about all of this.
Iraq is a foreign country. It posed no threat to either Britain or America, and it was a breach of international law for us to go in and depose the president. Years ago we used to go into foreign lands supposedly to teach the savages about religion, and whilst they knelt down and closed their eyes to pray we would strip the country of its natural resources; gold, silver, diamonds and other precious stones. Here it is no different, except that it was the oil that the American Empire sought to liberate and not the Iraqi people.
This has nothing to do with 9/11, this is not a war on terror, this is about two rich and powerful nations plundering the wealth of another nation. It should be equated with street robbery, it is nothing short of a mugging. And the politicians are mugging the people into believing something else. I wish America would wake up from its American Dream and see it for what it really is...a nightmare!
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Prison politics.
Has the Director of Prison Reform Trust, Juliet Lyon, lost the plot? After emailing me this document http://prisonersvoice.blogspot.com/2007/02exclusive-breaking-news.html I blogged it and contacted some media friends. Only for Juliet Lyon to phone me and ask me to pull it on the grounds that it would harm their tactics. I complied only to find out that she then went and published it on their own website. This was not about tactics. I assume that she was miffed that I had published it before they got their act together. Strangely, she said that she was not yet putting out a press release. However, any journalist worth his or her salts and seeing the story on their website would not need a press release as the information is already out there for grabs. The mind boggles...
Visitors to my site from around the world
Welcome and a big thanks to the visitors from the following locations;
USA; Calgary, Redlands, Littleton, Oaklahoma City, La Valle, Palatine, Springville, Marietta (Georgia or Washington?);
China; Beijing, Fuzhou;
India; Delhi;
Istanbul; (is one of them you Istanbultory?);
Lithuania; Vilnius;
Prague; (is that you Praguetory?);
Belgium; Kortenberg;
United Kingdom; London, Kingston upon Hull, Rawtenstall, Walsall, Birmingham (is that you Bob Piper?), Buckhorn Western, Chatam, Aylesbury.
USA; Calgary, Redlands, Littleton, Oaklahoma City, La Valle, Palatine, Springville, Marietta (Georgia or Washington?);
China; Beijing, Fuzhou;
India; Delhi;
Istanbul; (is one of them you Istanbultory?);
Lithuania; Vilnius;
Prague; (is that you Praguetory?);
Belgium; Kortenberg;
United Kingdom; London, Kingston upon Hull, Rawtenstall, Walsall, Birmingham (is that you Bob Piper?), Buckhorn Western, Chatam, Aylesbury.
Just rambling.
As it's now 1.30 GMT, Thursday, yesterday I was speaking to Simon Irael, Home Affairs, Channel 4, about the prisoners votes case and that the Prison Reform Trust is preparing to submit its response to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Basically, we are saying that the consultation process is legally flawed. I submitted my advice before the recent case in the High Court which Greenpeace won arguing that the consultation process for nuclear power was legally flawed. The legal principles are the same, so I do not anticipate any problems in the court if the government does not change its position. I also spoke to Duncan Campbell, a journalist at the Guardian and he is after some advice on the Criminal Justice System, in particular the overcrowded penal system.
On Tuesday, I saw my probation officer and he dropped the bombshell that he is being moved onto another job and that in two weeks time he will be introducing me to another one. The trouble with probation officers is that they are like a lucky dip. You might be lucky and get a good one, or unlucky and get a bad one like the one before last. If he or she cocks up, you might suddenly find yourself arrested and recalled to prison even if you have not committed any offence. They only have to believe that your risk level has become unacceptable. There has to be a relationship of trust for it to work out. Just when I was getting along fine, I will have to go through a period of uncertainty.
Last night I watched a programme on BBC 2, about a 14 year old boy who has Aspergers Syndrome. He is one of 4 children with it in a family of 7 children, no father about he had buggered off, but at least he has a wonderful and understanding mother. I had seen it before, but this time I was concentrating more and relating to the symptoms. The first time I missed the significance of diet and how certain foods or ingredients make matters worse. For me it is like a roller coaster ride, the ups and downs of managing my own life and trying to walk through the life outside without coming into conflict with anybody. When two worlds collide there is conflict. I am constantly having to watch out for something that will trigger my dog Rocky into mischief. I can usually avoid the situation by watching his body language and pre-empt him chasing after a cyclist, jogger, postman or whatever. I have heard or read that dogs are supposed to be colourblind, I do not believe this as Rocky takes exception to people wearing Day Glow Green, Orange or Yellow jackets.
I'm feeling tired now, I'm off to bed.
On Tuesday, I saw my probation officer and he dropped the bombshell that he is being moved onto another job and that in two weeks time he will be introducing me to another one. The trouble with probation officers is that they are like a lucky dip. You might be lucky and get a good one, or unlucky and get a bad one like the one before last. If he or she cocks up, you might suddenly find yourself arrested and recalled to prison even if you have not committed any offence. They only have to believe that your risk level has become unacceptable. There has to be a relationship of trust for it to work out. Just when I was getting along fine, I will have to go through a period of uncertainty.
Last night I watched a programme on BBC 2, about a 14 year old boy who has Aspergers Syndrome. He is one of 4 children with it in a family of 7 children, no father about he had buggered off, but at least he has a wonderful and understanding mother. I had seen it before, but this time I was concentrating more and relating to the symptoms. The first time I missed the significance of diet and how certain foods or ingredients make matters worse. For me it is like a roller coaster ride, the ups and downs of managing my own life and trying to walk through the life outside without coming into conflict with anybody. When two worlds collide there is conflict. I am constantly having to watch out for something that will trigger my dog Rocky into mischief. I can usually avoid the situation by watching his body language and pre-empt him chasing after a cyclist, jogger, postman or whatever. I have heard or read that dogs are supposed to be colourblind, I do not believe this as Rocky takes exception to people wearing Day Glow Green, Orange or Yellow jackets.
I'm feeling tired now, I'm off to bed.
Going forwards backwards, the retreat from an illegal war
Onwards British soldiers marching backwards to war
With the legacy of Blair
To stop Prince Harry going on to war.
With the legacy of Blair
To stop Prince Harry going on to war.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Truly a world wide web.
Yesterday I installed Google Analytics and found out that I get visitors from these places from around the world: welcome Beijing, Haidar-Pacha, Vilnius, Redlands, Oklahomah City and Marietta, and Kortenberg, and all those in the various cities in the UK. A special mention to all those referred from Gingersnaps.
Exclusive - Breaking News
Last month the Prison Reform Trust sought my legal advice in response to Lord Falconer's dodgy dossier. (Some readers may recall that recently Greenpeace won a High Court action in another legally flawed consultation exercise.) That advice was accepted by the PRT and is now the subject of a press release. I have published it below.
Response of the Prison Reform Trust to the consultation produced by the Department for Constitutional Affairs:
‘Voting Rights of Convicted Prisoners Detained within the United Kingdom
The UK Government’s response to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Hirst v. The United Kingdom’
February 2007
For further information contact
Juliet Lyon, Director
Geoff Dobson, Deputy Director
E-mails: juliet.lyon@prisonreformtrust.org.uk geoff.dobson@prisonreformtrust.org.uk Tel: 020 7251 5070
PRISON REFORM TRUST, 15, Northburgh Street, London EC1V 0JR
Tel: 020 7251 5070 Fax: 020 7251 5076
E-mail: prt@prisonreformtrust.org.uk
The Prison Reform Trust (PRT) is an independent UK charity working to create a just, humane and effective penal system. We do this by inquiring into the workings of the system; informing prisoners, staff and the wider public; and by influencing Parliament, Government and officials towards reform.
INTRODUCTION
The Prison Reform Trust (PRT) was pleased to be granted permission by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to intervene in writing in support of the applicant’s position at the Grand Chamber. PRT welcomed the judgment that Mr Hirst’s convention rights under Protocol 1 Article 3 had been breached.
Protocol 1, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees “free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.” This guarantee is now contained in the Human Rights Act, which became part of law throughout the United Kingdom on 2 October 2000.
The electoral ban on sentenced prisoners voting is contained in Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, amended by the Representation of the People Acts 1985 and 2000. The disenfranchisement of sentenced prisoners dates back to the Forfeiture Act of 1870. The origins of the ban are rooted in a notion of civic death, a punishment entailing the withdrawal of citizenship rights.
Remand prisoners, people imprisoned for contempt of court and fine defaulters held in prison are eligible to vote. The Electoral Commission has been working to ensure that those held on remand, a target group in the Commission’s categorisation of ‘hard to reach voters’, are fully aware of, and can exercise, their rights. The anomalous position of the very many British citizens held in prisons overseas is not stated in consultation paper annex A, ‘History of the UK’s policy on voting rights of prisoners’. It is however highlighted by the following parliamentary question and the response given on 7 February 2007:
Prisoner Voting
Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether British citizens imprisoned in jails overseas are eligible to vote in UK general elections if they have been resident in the UK in the last 15 years. [117622]
Bridget Prentice: The Representation of the People Act 1985 (as amended) provides a facility for British citizens overseas to retain their voting rights if they have been resident in the UK in the previous 15 years, so long as they are not otherwise subject to a legal incapacity to vote. The Representation of the People Act 1983 makes convicted prisoners detained in a penal institution (or unlawfully at large from one) legally incapable of voting in a UK general election. However, ‘penal institution’ is defined in the 1983 Act by reference to Prisons Acts, which do not extend to foreign jails.
Accordingly, British citizens imprisoned in jails overseas are eligible to vote in UK general elections if they are otherwise eligible to vote as an overseas elector under the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1985.
Other important omissions from annex A of the consultation paper, ‘History of the UK’s policy on voting rights of prisoners’, include, the policy clarification given by then DCA minister Chris Leslie that prisoners serving a sentence of intermittent custody would be entitled to vote in an election if the date for this fell on a day when their punishment was being served in the community rather than a day when it was being served in custody, underscoring the ad hoc, and somewhat confused, situation regarding prisoners’ voting rights. Nor did it give the grounds for dismissal of other UK legal challenges namely that the enfranchisement of prisoners was said to be a matter for parliament not the courts (England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) decisions (4th April 2001) Pearson and Mertinez v. Home Secretary and others; Hirst v. Attorney General BAILII Database EWHC Admin 239).
In March 2005 PRT and UNLOCK’ the national association of ex-offenders, published a briefing paper Barred from Voting: the right to vote for sentenced prisoners. The briefing concluded:
The UK ban on prisoners voting is a relic from the nineteenth century, which is neither a deterrent nor an effective punishment. The right to vote poses no risk to public safety. Giving prisoners the vote would encourage them to take the responsibilities that come with citizenship. It would also encourage politicians to take more of an active interest in prisons, which in turn should raise the level of debate about prisons and penal policy. There is widespread support for the removal of the ban, which the European Court has ruled violates human rights law. The Government should act to restore the right to vote to sentenced prisoners without delay.
PRT believes the current consultation to be a flawed exercise. It precludes a legitimate option from consideration: that all sentenced prisoners should be enfranchised as is the case in many other EU countries. This is the option favoured by PRT.
Moreover, it declares a Government view in favour of the status quo. It invites respondents contrary to the ECtHR ruling to comment on an option declared unlawful – that of automatic, blanket disenfranchisement. This calls into question the validity of the consultation process. The nature of the consultation exercise will doubtless be a matter for consideration, either by the Parliamentary Ombudsman or when Parliament is presented with legislative proposals.
Since the consultation paper was produced the Republic of Ireland has moved fully to enfranchise its prisoners. Following parliamentary debate, the Dial decided to meet ‘ fully our obligations under the relevant provisions of The Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ (Dial Debate, Vol.624 No %, Electoral (Amendment Bill) 2006:Order for Second Stage). Eighteen out of 51 Council of Europe countries have no restrictions on voting. In the case of prisoners held in British and American jails in Iraq the decision was taken that they should maintain their voting rights as an ‘aid to the democratic process’. Some European countries ban some sentenced prisoners from voting. For example, in France courts have the power to impose loss of voting rights as an additional punishment. The UK remains one of only nine Council of Europe countries to disenfranchise sentenced prisoners.
The Grand Chamber based its ruling on the following general principles:
i) Protocol 1, Article 3 “the Court has established that it guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote” and that “it required the government to take positive measures as opposed to merely refraining from interference” (paras. 56-57).
ii) Democratic Principles, “The Court would use this occasion to emphasise that the rights guaranteed under Article 3 of Protocol No1 are crucial to establishing and maintaining the foundations of an effective and meaningful democracy governed by the rule of law”(para.58).
iii) Universal suffrage, “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...Universal suffrage has become the basic principle” (para59).
iv) Legitimate aim, the Grand Chamber recognises that Article 3 of Protocol No.1 does not specify or limit the aims which a measure must pursue. The Grand Chamber rejected “the notion that imprisonment after conviction involves the forfeiture of rights beyond the right to liberty, and especially the assertion that voting is a privilege not a right...It recalls that the Chamber in its judgment expressed reservations as to the validity of these aims, citing the majority opinion of the Canadian Supreme Court in Sauve (No.2)(paras.74-75).
v) Proportionality, “The Court recalls that the Chamber found that the measure lacked proportionality, essentially as it was an automatic blanket ban imposed on all convicted prisoners which was arbitrary in its effects and could no longer be said to serve the aim of punishing the applicant once his tariff (that period representing retribution and deterrence) had expired”(para.76).
vi) Margin of appreciation, “while the Court reiterates that the margin of appreciation is wide, it is not all-embracing. Further, although the situation was somewhat improved by the Act of 2000 which for the first time granted the vote to persons detained on remand, section 3 of the 1983 Act remains a blunt instrument. It strips of their Convention right to vote a significant category of persons and it does so in a way which is indiscriminate. The provision imposes a blanket restriction on all convicted prisoners in prison. It applies automatically to such prisoners, irrespective of the length of their sentence and irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offence and their individual circumstances. Such a general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction on a vitally important Convention right must be seen as falling outside any acceptable margin of appreciation, however wide that margin might be, as being incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No.1(para.82)”.
The Grand Chamber also stated:
“There is, therefore, no question that a prisoner forfeits his Convention rights merely because of his status as a person detained following conviction. Nor is there any place under the Convention system, where tolerance and broadmindedness are the acknowledged hallmarks of democratic society, for automatic disenfranchisement based purely on what might offend public opinion” (para. 70).
While the consultation paper makes reference to the above, it also indicates government’s view that the enfranchisement of sentenced prisoners, citizens behind bars, is unlikely to find favour with the public. It makes no reference to those on public record as fully in support of the enfranchisement of sentenced prisoners, nor does it refer to their stated reasons for coming to this view, based on considerable experience and knowledge. These include former and current HM Chief Inspectors of Prisons, the Prison Governors Association, the Anglican and Catholic Bishops to Prisons, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the many organisations working in the field which comprise the Penal Affairs Consortium, Liberty and other civil liberties and human rights organisations, former Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, David Winnick MP and other parliamentarians across parties (EDM posted 2nd March 2004).
Finally, it is worth reflecting that the ECtHR ruling that the UK Government’s blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting was in violation of Protocol 1, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights was made in March 2004. The finding was unanimous. The appeal to the Grand Chamber, the delay before a response was given by the UK Government and the announcement of two consultation exercises might be described as procrastination.
The remainder of this response comprises answers to the questions in the consultation paper. PRT takes the view that the narrative and questions in the consultation paper are skewed to produce answers in support of the Government’s position and to inhibit views in favour of the enfranchisement of all sentenced prisoners. PRT regrets that the Government did not accept the ECtHR ruling as an opportunity to consider the benefits that would arise from giving sentenced prisoners the right to vote.
RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Question 1
Do you support the proposal that enfranchisement of detained prisoners should be determined by reference to the length of sentence they receive?
No – PRT believes that all prisoners should have the right to vote.
Question 2
What length of sentence do you consider appropriate as the threshold above which prisoners will be disenfranchised? Please give reasons for the threshold you suggest.
The case for enfranchising all prisoners stems from the view that they remain citizens while incarcerated, deprivation of liberty being their punishment. Removal of the nineteenth century concept of ‘civic death’ would provide a clear statement of their citizenship and act as an aid to rehabilitation and eventual resettlement. It would allow prisoners a continued, tangible stake in society. It is worth noting that John Hirst brought his case to the ECtHR, and was considered to meet its admissibility criteria, whist serving a sentence for the serious offence of manslaughter
Question 3
Should the decision to either grant or withdraw voting rights from convicted prisoners be made by UK sentencers on a case by case basis, at the time of sentencing? Please give reasons to support your view, eg. If you do not believe sentencers should be given a power to determine voting rights, is this because you believe it would place an unjustifiable burden on sentencers?
No – there is no need for courts to consider the matter on a case by case basis if all prisoners are enfranchised.
Question 4
If the Government were to follow this approach, which variant do you favour?
that statute should provide that convicted and sentenced prisoners should automatically lose their right to vote, but subject to the sentencing judge’s right to specify that they shall be entitled to retain that right.
That statute should remove the general rule of disenfranchisement of sentenced prisoners, but should confer on sentencing judges the right to disqualify sentenced offenders.
Neither – the general rule of disenfranchisement should simply be removed.
Question 5
Should offences specifically related to the electoral process automatically attract a withdrawal of the franchise? Please provide reasons to support your answer.
No – by retaining the franchise those who have attempted to manipulate the process would be constantly reminded of the importance of an inclusive, democratic process.
Question 6
Should any voting rights given to prisoners detained in mental hospitals be determined on the same basis as ordinary prisoner, or are there any categories that should be treated exceptionally? Please list those categories and give reasons.
As before, all prisoners should have the right to vote.
Question 7
If your answer to question 6 was no, do you consider that any categories of detained offenders in mental hospitals should be enfranchised?
PRT’s answer to question 6 is ‘Yes’.
Question 8
Should any of the circumstances covered by the statutory provisions referred to in Annex B more properly be aligned with the position of pre-conviction remand prisoners?
Yes – unconvicted and convicted persons in the categories set out in Annex B should be enfranchised.
Response of the Prison Reform Trust to the consultation produced by the Department for Constitutional Affairs:
‘Voting Rights of Convicted Prisoners Detained within the United Kingdom
The UK Government’s response to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Hirst v. The United Kingdom’
February 2007
For further information contact
Juliet Lyon, Director
Geoff Dobson, Deputy Director
E-mails: juliet.lyon@prisonreformtrust.org.uk geoff.dobson@prisonreformtrust.org.uk Tel: 020 7251 5070
PRISON REFORM TRUST, 15, Northburgh Street, London EC1V 0JR
Tel: 020 7251 5070 Fax: 020 7251 5076
E-mail: prt@prisonreformtrust.org.uk
The Prison Reform Trust (PRT) is an independent UK charity working to create a just, humane and effective penal system. We do this by inquiring into the workings of the system; informing prisoners, staff and the wider public; and by influencing Parliament, Government and officials towards reform.
INTRODUCTION
The Prison Reform Trust (PRT) was pleased to be granted permission by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to intervene in writing in support of the applicant’s position at the Grand Chamber. PRT welcomed the judgment that Mr Hirst’s convention rights under Protocol 1 Article 3 had been breached.
Protocol 1, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees “free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.” This guarantee is now contained in the Human Rights Act, which became part of law throughout the United Kingdom on 2 October 2000.
The electoral ban on sentenced prisoners voting is contained in Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, amended by the Representation of the People Acts 1985 and 2000. The disenfranchisement of sentenced prisoners dates back to the Forfeiture Act of 1870. The origins of the ban are rooted in a notion of civic death, a punishment entailing the withdrawal of citizenship rights.
Remand prisoners, people imprisoned for contempt of court and fine defaulters held in prison are eligible to vote. The Electoral Commission has been working to ensure that those held on remand, a target group in the Commission’s categorisation of ‘hard to reach voters’, are fully aware of, and can exercise, their rights. The anomalous position of the very many British citizens held in prisons overseas is not stated in consultation paper annex A, ‘History of the UK’s policy on voting rights of prisoners’. It is however highlighted by the following parliamentary question and the response given on 7 February 2007:
Prisoner Voting
Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether British citizens imprisoned in jails overseas are eligible to vote in UK general elections if they have been resident in the UK in the last 15 years. [117622]
Bridget Prentice: The Representation of the People Act 1985 (as amended) provides a facility for British citizens overseas to retain their voting rights if they have been resident in the UK in the previous 15 years, so long as they are not otherwise subject to a legal incapacity to vote. The Representation of the People Act 1983 makes convicted prisoners detained in a penal institution (or unlawfully at large from one) legally incapable of voting in a UK general election. However, ‘penal institution’ is defined in the 1983 Act by reference to Prisons Acts, which do not extend to foreign jails.
Accordingly, British citizens imprisoned in jails overseas are eligible to vote in UK general elections if they are otherwise eligible to vote as an overseas elector under the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1985.
Other important omissions from annex A of the consultation paper, ‘History of the UK’s policy on voting rights of prisoners’, include, the policy clarification given by then DCA minister Chris Leslie that prisoners serving a sentence of intermittent custody would be entitled to vote in an election if the date for this fell on a day when their punishment was being served in the community rather than a day when it was being served in custody, underscoring the ad hoc, and somewhat confused, situation regarding prisoners’ voting rights. Nor did it give the grounds for dismissal of other UK legal challenges namely that the enfranchisement of prisoners was said to be a matter for parliament not the courts (England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) decisions (4th April 2001) Pearson and Mertinez v. Home Secretary and others; Hirst v. Attorney General BAILII Database EWHC Admin 239).
In March 2005 PRT and UNLOCK’ the national association of ex-offenders, published a briefing paper Barred from Voting: the right to vote for sentenced prisoners. The briefing concluded:
The UK ban on prisoners voting is a relic from the nineteenth century, which is neither a deterrent nor an effective punishment. The right to vote poses no risk to public safety. Giving prisoners the vote would encourage them to take the responsibilities that come with citizenship. It would also encourage politicians to take more of an active interest in prisons, which in turn should raise the level of debate about prisons and penal policy. There is widespread support for the removal of the ban, which the European Court has ruled violates human rights law. The Government should act to restore the right to vote to sentenced prisoners without delay.
PRT believes the current consultation to be a flawed exercise. It precludes a legitimate option from consideration: that all sentenced prisoners should be enfranchised as is the case in many other EU countries. This is the option favoured by PRT.
Moreover, it declares a Government view in favour of the status quo. It invites respondents contrary to the ECtHR ruling to comment on an option declared unlawful – that of automatic, blanket disenfranchisement. This calls into question the validity of the consultation process. The nature of the consultation exercise will doubtless be a matter for consideration, either by the Parliamentary Ombudsman or when Parliament is presented with legislative proposals.
Since the consultation paper was produced the Republic of Ireland has moved fully to enfranchise its prisoners. Following parliamentary debate, the Dial decided to meet ‘ fully our obligations under the relevant provisions of The Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ (Dial Debate, Vol.624 No %, Electoral (Amendment Bill) 2006:Order for Second Stage). Eighteen out of 51 Council of Europe countries have no restrictions on voting. In the case of prisoners held in British and American jails in Iraq the decision was taken that they should maintain their voting rights as an ‘aid to the democratic process’. Some European countries ban some sentenced prisoners from voting. For example, in France courts have the power to impose loss of voting rights as an additional punishment. The UK remains one of only nine Council of Europe countries to disenfranchise sentenced prisoners.
The Grand Chamber based its ruling on the following general principles:
i) Protocol 1, Article 3 “the Court has established that it guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote” and that “it required the government to take positive measures as opposed to merely refraining from interference” (paras. 56-57).
ii) Democratic Principles, “The Court would use this occasion to emphasise that the rights guaranteed under Article 3 of Protocol No1 are crucial to establishing and maintaining the foundations of an effective and meaningful democracy governed by the rule of law”(para.58).
iii) Universal suffrage, “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...Universal suffrage has become the basic principle” (para59).
iv) Legitimate aim, the Grand Chamber recognises that Article 3 of Protocol No.1 does not specify or limit the aims which a measure must pursue. The Grand Chamber rejected “the notion that imprisonment after conviction involves the forfeiture of rights beyond the right to liberty, and especially the assertion that voting is a privilege not a right...It recalls that the Chamber in its judgment expressed reservations as to the validity of these aims, citing the majority opinion of the Canadian Supreme Court in Sauve (No.2)(paras.74-75).
v) Proportionality, “The Court recalls that the Chamber found that the measure lacked proportionality, essentially as it was an automatic blanket ban imposed on all convicted prisoners which was arbitrary in its effects and could no longer be said to serve the aim of punishing the applicant once his tariff (that period representing retribution and deterrence) had expired”(para.76).
vi) Margin of appreciation, “while the Court reiterates that the margin of appreciation is wide, it is not all-embracing. Further, although the situation was somewhat improved by the Act of 2000 which for the first time granted the vote to persons detained on remand, section 3 of the 1983 Act remains a blunt instrument. It strips of their Convention right to vote a significant category of persons and it does so in a way which is indiscriminate. The provision imposes a blanket restriction on all convicted prisoners in prison. It applies automatically to such prisoners, irrespective of the length of their sentence and irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offence and their individual circumstances. Such a general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction on a vitally important Convention right must be seen as falling outside any acceptable margin of appreciation, however wide that margin might be, as being incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No.1(para.82)”.
The Grand Chamber also stated:
“There is, therefore, no question that a prisoner forfeits his Convention rights merely because of his status as a person detained following conviction. Nor is there any place under the Convention system, where tolerance and broadmindedness are the acknowledged hallmarks of democratic society, for automatic disenfranchisement based purely on what might offend public opinion” (para. 70).
While the consultation paper makes reference to the above, it also indicates government’s view that the enfranchisement of sentenced prisoners, citizens behind bars, is unlikely to find favour with the public. It makes no reference to those on public record as fully in support of the enfranchisement of sentenced prisoners, nor does it refer to their stated reasons for coming to this view, based on considerable experience and knowledge. These include former and current HM Chief Inspectors of Prisons, the Prison Governors Association, the Anglican and Catholic Bishops to Prisons, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the many organisations working in the field which comprise the Penal Affairs Consortium, Liberty and other civil liberties and human rights organisations, former Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, David Winnick MP and other parliamentarians across parties (EDM posted 2nd March 2004).
Finally, it is worth reflecting that the ECtHR ruling that the UK Government’s blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting was in violation of Protocol 1, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights was made in March 2004. The finding was unanimous. The appeal to the Grand Chamber, the delay before a response was given by the UK Government and the announcement of two consultation exercises might be described as procrastination.
The remainder of this response comprises answers to the questions in the consultation paper. PRT takes the view that the narrative and questions in the consultation paper are skewed to produce answers in support of the Government’s position and to inhibit views in favour of the enfranchisement of all sentenced prisoners. PRT regrets that the Government did not accept the ECtHR ruling as an opportunity to consider the benefits that would arise from giving sentenced prisoners the right to vote.
RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE
Question 1
Do you support the proposal that enfranchisement of detained prisoners should be determined by reference to the length of sentence they receive?
No – PRT believes that all prisoners should have the right to vote.
Question 2
What length of sentence do you consider appropriate as the threshold above which prisoners will be disenfranchised? Please give reasons for the threshold you suggest.
The case for enfranchising all prisoners stems from the view that they remain citizens while incarcerated, deprivation of liberty being their punishment. Removal of the nineteenth century concept of ‘civic death’ would provide a clear statement of their citizenship and act as an aid to rehabilitation and eventual resettlement. It would allow prisoners a continued, tangible stake in society. It is worth noting that John Hirst brought his case to the ECtHR, and was considered to meet its admissibility criteria, whist serving a sentence for the serious offence of manslaughter
Question 3
Should the decision to either grant or withdraw voting rights from convicted prisoners be made by UK sentencers on a case by case basis, at the time of sentencing? Please give reasons to support your view, eg. If you do not believe sentencers should be given a power to determine voting rights, is this because you believe it would place an unjustifiable burden on sentencers?
No – there is no need for courts to consider the matter on a case by case basis if all prisoners are enfranchised.
Question 4
If the Government were to follow this approach, which variant do you favour?
that statute should provide that convicted and sentenced prisoners should automatically lose their right to vote, but subject to the sentencing judge’s right to specify that they shall be entitled to retain that right.
That statute should remove the general rule of disenfranchisement of sentenced prisoners, but should confer on sentencing judges the right to disqualify sentenced offenders.
Neither – the general rule of disenfranchisement should simply be removed.
Question 5
Should offences specifically related to the electoral process automatically attract a withdrawal of the franchise? Please provide reasons to support your answer.
No – by retaining the franchise those who have attempted to manipulate the process would be constantly reminded of the importance of an inclusive, democratic process.
Question 6
Should any voting rights given to prisoners detained in mental hospitals be determined on the same basis as ordinary prisoner, or are there any categories that should be treated exceptionally? Please list those categories and give reasons.
As before, all prisoners should have the right to vote.
Question 7
If your answer to question 6 was no, do you consider that any categories of detained offenders in mental hospitals should be enfranchised?
PRT’s answer to question 6 is ‘Yes’.
Question 8
Should any of the circumstances covered by the statutory provisions referred to in Annex B more properly be aligned with the position of pre-conviction remand prisoners?
Yes – unconvicted and convicted persons in the categories set out in Annex B should be enfranchised.
Spot the difference? Click on the link (the bar) to see Iain Dale has been caught out lying again...
The lie:
That Blair Roadpricing Email in Full...
Photo credit: Bloggerheads.com
The truth:
From Times Online
February 21, 2007
Tony Blair's e-mail reply to almost two million who petitioned against road pricing
Tony Blair has e-mailed almost two million people who petitioned against road pricing plans explaining Government's position
Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.
This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.
It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.
That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.
But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.
One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.
Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.
But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.
One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.
A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.
Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.
That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.
It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.
I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.
Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.
Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.
We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Blair
That Blair Roadpricing Email in Full...
Photo credit: Bloggerheads.com
The truth:
From Times Online
February 21, 2007
Tony Blair's e-mail reply to almost two million who petitioned against road pricing
Tony Blair has e-mailed almost two million people who petitioned against road pricing plans explaining Government's position
Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.
This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.
It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.
That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.
But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.
One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.
Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.
But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.
One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.
A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.
Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.
That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.
It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.
I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.
Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.
Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.
We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Blair