In his haste to jump into the driving seat, Gordon Brown failed to appreciate that in America their cars are designed for left hand drive.
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.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Iran or bust...
In his haste to jump into the driving seat, Gordon Brown failed to appreciate that in America their cars are designed for left hand drive.
Is it cos I's black?
I am glad that I am not the only one who believes that some so-called "suspected terrorists" have had a raw deal from our courts. Bob Piper has posted a link to Blairwatch, where Tom highlights the relatively lenient sentence handed down to an ex-BNP member for possession of explosives, compared to the savage sentences handed down to Muslims who it was claimed had in their possession materials for terrorist purpose. For example, instructions on how to fire a mortar. Personally, I think that explosives pose more of a risk than mere pieces of paper. Then again, I am not a judge. I don't possess the necessary qualification to pass off corruption as fair mindedness.
"Catch 22"
According to the Daily Telegraph "Prisons strategy in disarray after ruling". However, Labour's sentencing strategy has been in disarray, which threw the prisons into disarray, long before the Court of Appeal ruling in David Walker's and Nicholas Wells' case. Only today the Prison Reform Trust released its report into the causes of this disarray. This is what happens when the rules of American Baseball are incorporated into the criminal laws of England. The three strikes and you are out rule led to Indefinite Public Protection sentences (IPPs). Laws need to be thought out properly and drafted properly, because knee-jerk reactions to tabloid headlines only lead to chaos. What makes it worse is that it was lawyers in the government who advocated and pushed for these laws to be written into the statute books in the first place. And judges who implemented the laws, and finally the quasi-judicial body of the Parole Board playing God.
Whilst Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Mitting were right to rule in favour of the prisoners in this case, they were wrong to allow Jack Straw, the Minister of Justice, a stay on the declaration, to appeal, on the ground that it was "potentially very disruptive of the prison system as a whole" to release the prisoners. It may be embarrassing politically, tough shit.
Offenders are given a IPPs on the basis of their alleged risk to the public. In effect, it is a life sentence. The Judiciary is against this type of sentence because it is an attempt by the Executive to remove a judge's discretion to impose a sentence he or she thinks fits the crime or criminal. Like with a real life sentence, a judge imposes a minimum tariff to reflect the twin aims of retribution and deterrence. With a real life sentence, there is time to go through the various stages (jump the hoops) before release. However, with IPPs judges have been imposing tariffs of 2 and 3 years which reflects the sentence they would have given but for the interference by the Executive. The Parole Board is under strain with the real life sentences as it is without the case load of the false life sentences. The onus is upon the prisoner to show that he or she is no longer a risk to the public. To achieve this the prisoner has to undergo courses which the Parole Board measures a reduction in risk. Because the prisons are overcrowded, places on these courses are in short supply and some prisoners are unable to access them. Because the prisoners cannot show that they are no longer a risk to the public, the Parole Board refuses to release them even though it is recognised that the fault does not lie with the prisoners.
Minnie Ha-Ha's having a laugh in Cell Block H
Minnie Ha-Ha's having a laugh in Cell Block H
22:09pm 30th July 2007
Richard Littlejohn
At this rate I'm going to be out of a job.
It's only a couple of weeks since I remarked that life in modern Britain is becoming increasingly difficult to parody.
Staying ahead of the game is well nigh impossible.
Regular readers will know that this column pays the occasional pilgrimage to Slade prison in a futile attempt to keep up with the insanities in our penal system.
On my last visit to Fletch, I imagined Genial Harry Grout running a flourishing heroin and pornography franchise.
Scroll down for more...
Regular readers will know that this column pays the occasional pilgrimage to Slade prison in a futile attempt to keep up with the insanities in our penal system
I should have known better.
Earlier this month it was revealed that not only were the prison authorities turning a blind eye to heroin use, they were also issuing inmates with Steradent tablets so they could keep their needles clean.
Oh, and homosexual prisoners are being given access to gay porn.
But never in my wildest imagination could I have invented the latest parcel of lunacy.
A woman doing life for throttling her baby son is suing prison authorities for refusing to let her have a Native American drum so she can talk to dead animals.
Apparently, after she was sentenced, the woman, who hails from Birmingham, announced she was a Red Indian.
As you do.
Last time I looked, there wasn't a Cherokee encampment under Spaghetti Junction. I haven't spotted any reports of tepees being pitched on the halfway line at Villa Park.
There are plenty of Indians in Birmingham, but to the best of my knowledge none of them is Red, unless Martin O'Neill has been busy in the transfer market during Villa's pre-season tour of the U.S.
I'm told Red Robbo is still knocking around, but he's never claimed Apache ancestry as far as I know.
Mind you, it's at least a year since I was last in Brum. Given the scale of immigration, maybe there's a lost tribe of Seminoles camped out in the Lickey Hills, petitioning to turn the old Longbridge car factory into a reservation, complete with casino.
Anyway, this madwoman now styles herself Chaha Oh-Niyol Kai-Whitewind and claims, inevitably, that her "yuman rites" are being violated by the prison authorities at Low Newton, in Durham.
She not only wants a drum, she says she is entitled to potions, spell books and a peace pipe to allow her to practise her religion, which she describes as "Shamanic Paganism".
Minnie Ha-Ha has written to the prison governor, stating: "I do not not believe in violence. I have respect for all life and individuality. This prison, like many others, has an unwritten policy of pagan persecution."
Her respect for human life obviously didn't extend to her 12-week old son, Bidziil, whom she strangled to death for refusing to breastfeed.
She is, of course, stark, staring bonkers. The only thing she needs in her cell is extra padding. But she won't have any difficulty finding some spiv lawyer to take up her case. Don't be surprised if the prison gives in.
That'll be fun for the other inmates. Imagine trying to sleep while Loved By The Buffalo, or whatever she calls herself, is up all night doing a rain dance.
(There's a bloke in the East Stand at Tottenham who bangs a drum at every home game. It's quite amusing from my vantage point on the other side of the ground, but I wouldn't want to sit next to him. Maybe he's the medicine man of the White Hart tribe.)
If Pocahontas gets away with this, you can bet that other prisoners will soon be pulling a similar stroke. Within days, some old lag in the Scrubs will be claiming to be the Last of the Mohicans. Give it time, they'll have their own happy hunting ground on the playing fields at Ford Open.
You may think this is a bit farfetched, but perhaps you missed the story over the weekend that the Home Office is considering building special prisons for Muslims, so that convicted terrorists don't have to mix with filthy infidels. Poor old Captain Hook is whining that he's being bullied in Belmarsh.
We could always arrange a transfer to Guantanamo Bay, where he would feel more at home.
Why stop there? Why not separate nicks for Rastafarians, complete with steel drums, complimentary ganja and a drive-by shooting range?
Or jails where traditional East End gangsters can celebrate their culture; sipping Gold Watch round the old Joanna, singing Knees Up Muvva Brahn, sawing the barrels off a pair of matched Purdeys in the workshop and feeding each other to the pigs on the prison farm?
Tucked away at the end of the story about the Birmingham Blackfoot was the following admission from the Prison Service:
"There are 282 prisoners in England and Wales registered as pagans who can worship in their cells or in dedicated communal areas of the prison. Certain religious artefacts may be allowed in their cells, but each is subject to risk assessment.
"These artefacts include items such as a hoodless robe, a flexible twig and rune stones."
Where will it all end - day trips to Stonehenge for druids? Human sacrifices on B-wing? Roman orgies in the shower block?
You couldn't make it up. There's a Springsteen song, Blinded By The Light, which begins: "Madman drummers, bummers and Indians in the summer."
Sounds like the roll call at Parkhurst.
Cameron attacks children with special needs
David Cameron was told on BBC 1 Breakfast TV that all he had going for him in comparison to Gordon Brown is charm. However, I thought he was smarmy. His policy on schools was not properly thought out. He promised discipline in the classrooms, giving teachers the power to control their classes. They already have this power, and if a teacher does not have control of a class then that teacher should not be in charge of a class. He promised that parents would have contracts with the schools. A viewer emailed into the programme and asked where David Cameron had been for the last ten years, because they already have these contracts. For years organisations have been struggling to get children with special needs into mainstream schools to give them some kind of normality into their lives. However, David Cameron blames children with special needs for the breakdown in Britain and he stated that his policy would be to exclude these children from mainstream schools. Charming! David Cameron stated that he would do away with the appeal process allowing children to challenge exclusion orders. That would be unlawful, because the same body that reached the decision at first instance cannot hear the appeal because of the appearance of bias.
David Cameron's School Report: Spends his time daydreaming. Must do better.
Kafka is alive and well and living in Britain
31 July 2007 - Runaway sentence causes havoc - the indeterminate sentence for public protection
The Prison Reform Trust today accuses the government of recklessly introducing the indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP) that is stretching the stressed prison system to the point of breaking. A complete failure to debate, plan or resource the new sentence means that thousands of people are sentenced to a bureaucratic limbo where they have no means to work towards their release. So far almost 3,000 of these life sentences have been passed, many for relatively minor offences. Projections by the chairman of the Parole Board reveal that, unless checked or indeed overturned, we can expect over 12,000 people to be serving IPP sentences by 2012.
The briefing Indefinitely Maybe? How the indeterminate sentence for public protection is unjust and unsustainable, details how the sentence was framed carelessly, and the chaos it has brought to prison landings. It contains quotes from prisoners and their families that illustrate the desperate and unjust position they have been placed in.
On his visit to Belmarsh prison on 12 July, the new Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw promised a review of this indeterminate sentence. Speaking today, Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:
“It is high time for a review of indeterminate sentences. They were designed as a technical measure to detain a small number of dangerous offenders. But badly drafted, and whipped up by the previous prime minister and home secretary, they have become a ferocious, unjust law that in two years has catapulted around 3,000 people into jail for who knows how long. This catastrophic change has been wished on the prison service without extra resources, leaving prisons under vast pressure and thousands of men held in overcrowded jails, beyond their tariff, with no means to show that they do not present a risk to the public. This is the Kafkaesque nature of modern day imprisonment.”
A ruling on the legality of locking people up until they complete courses and not then providing those courses, is expected from the High Court today. With a new government in place, the time is now right to end this hangover from the days of slapdash, headline grabbing legislation which has had dire unintended consequences.
The briefing recommends that the government:
• Review the use of the indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP): has it been used as a specialised tool for serious violent and sexual crimes, or has it been taken up more generally than planned and more generally than useful? There is no doubt that some of the offences for which the sentence has been given are grave, but what is needed is a review of its overall use and effectiveness.
• Take full account of substantive criticism of IPP sentences levelled by, among others, the Lord Chief Justice, the chairman of the Parole Board and the Chief Inspector of Prisons.
• Issue guidelines to check the growth in the use of IPP sentences during the period they under review.
• Require courts to consider the question of ‘dangerousness’ much more carefully.
• Take immediate account of any decisions made as a result of judicial review of the failure to provide opportunities to undertake offending behaviour programmes in order to progress the IPP sentence.
• Revisit the 2003 act. For example: instead of IPPs being a default setting, operating as a ‘strike’ law, they could be handed down a separate and additional judicial decision, supported by evidence and separately appellable.
• Provide adequate information and support for prisoners and their families facing the prospect of an IPP.
• Look urgently at how the IPP sentenced is being administered in prisons, and to find ways to clear the backlogs.
• Establish proper recording and reporting mechanisms so that the full extent of the impact of the IPP sentence can be assessed and individual progress monitored.
• Tackle the resource needs of the Parole Board and the prison and probation services.
• Look at release and resettlement, people will need a far greater regime of support in leading a constructive life, and an end to the ‘recall to prison first, ask questions later’ approach.
• Conduct an urgent investigation into the number of IPP sentenced men and women in prison who have taken their own lives, and review safer custody procedures.
• Review specifically the prevalence and influence of mental illness on IPP sentencing and subsequent treatment in prison.
download it here
Independent article here.
The Prison Reform Trust today accuses the government of recklessly introducing the indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP) that is stretching the stressed prison system to the point of breaking. A complete failure to debate, plan or resource the new sentence means that thousands of people are sentenced to a bureaucratic limbo where they have no means to work towards their release. So far almost 3,000 of these life sentences have been passed, many for relatively minor offences. Projections by the chairman of the Parole Board reveal that, unless checked or indeed overturned, we can expect over 12,000 people to be serving IPP sentences by 2012.
The briefing Indefinitely Maybe? How the indeterminate sentence for public protection is unjust and unsustainable, details how the sentence was framed carelessly, and the chaos it has brought to prison landings. It contains quotes from prisoners and their families that illustrate the desperate and unjust position they have been placed in.
On his visit to Belmarsh prison on 12 July, the new Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw promised a review of this indeterminate sentence. Speaking today, Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:
“It is high time for a review of indeterminate sentences. They were designed as a technical measure to detain a small number of dangerous offenders. But badly drafted, and whipped up by the previous prime minister and home secretary, they have become a ferocious, unjust law that in two years has catapulted around 3,000 people into jail for who knows how long. This catastrophic change has been wished on the prison service without extra resources, leaving prisons under vast pressure and thousands of men held in overcrowded jails, beyond their tariff, with no means to show that they do not present a risk to the public. This is the Kafkaesque nature of modern day imprisonment.”
A ruling on the legality of locking people up until they complete courses and not then providing those courses, is expected from the High Court today. With a new government in place, the time is now right to end this hangover from the days of slapdash, headline grabbing legislation which has had dire unintended consequences.
The briefing recommends that the government:
• Review the use of the indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP): has it been used as a specialised tool for serious violent and sexual crimes, or has it been taken up more generally than planned and more generally than useful? There is no doubt that some of the offences for which the sentence has been given are grave, but what is needed is a review of its overall use and effectiveness.
• Take full account of substantive criticism of IPP sentences levelled by, among others, the Lord Chief Justice, the chairman of the Parole Board and the Chief Inspector of Prisons.
• Issue guidelines to check the growth in the use of IPP sentences during the period they under review.
• Require courts to consider the question of ‘dangerousness’ much more carefully.
• Take immediate account of any decisions made as a result of judicial review of the failure to provide opportunities to undertake offending behaviour programmes in order to progress the IPP sentence.
• Revisit the 2003 act. For example: instead of IPPs being a default setting, operating as a ‘strike’ law, they could be handed down a separate and additional judicial decision, supported by evidence and separately appellable.
• Provide adequate information and support for prisoners and their families facing the prospect of an IPP.
• Look urgently at how the IPP sentenced is being administered in prisons, and to find ways to clear the backlogs.
• Establish proper recording and reporting mechanisms so that the full extent of the impact of the IPP sentence can be assessed and individual progress monitored.
• Tackle the resource needs of the Parole Board and the prison and probation services.
• Look at release and resettlement, people will need a far greater regime of support in leading a constructive life, and an end to the ‘recall to prison first, ask questions later’ approach.
• Conduct an urgent investigation into the number of IPP sentenced men and women in prison who have taken their own lives, and review safer custody procedures.
• Review specifically the prevalence and influence of mental illness on IPP sentencing and subsequent treatment in prison.
download it here
Independent article here.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Brown's bump on the head affects his senses
According to Gordon Brown: "We should acknowledge the debt the world owes to the United States for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism".
Why?
As I understand it, America, and George Bush, in particular, started the war against terror. Therefore, it is only right that America should be in the forefront of a war that it started.
I don't see how that puts the world in debt to America.
If anything, I feel that America owes the world a justification for the war in Iraq and for its abuses in Guantanamo Bay.
Hat-Tip to Guido for the photo.
A preventable death
It is tragic that Tim Whattler, who suffered from Aspergers Syndrome (a form of Autism), and ADHD, committed suicide at the age of 17, whilst in the so-called care of Beech Court psychiatric unit in Somerset, just 6 hours after he was admitted.
The coroner decided that his death was preventable.
His parents are distraught and are looking for someone or some organisation or something to blame for his death.
I suspect that Tim would have felt he had been rejected by his parents, even though they were trying to get the best help available for him in institutions.
Clearly, Tim is to blame for his own death. He had tried to commit suicide on previous occasions, this time he was successful.
Institutions are no substitute for parental love and care.
Brown bounced on 56 days internment
Gordon Brown's attempt to extend the period of internment from 28 days to 56 days has been rejected by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Gordon Brown sought the extended powers but failed to provide any evidence that they were needed. The 28 days without charge or trial is already 3 or 4 times longer than other countries in Europe. Instead of trying to seek greater powers, I feel that there should be justification for the 28 day period.
Kafkaesque.
In its report the committee concludes: "A power with such a significant impact on liberty as the proposed power to detain without charge for more than 28 days should, in our view, be justified by clear evidence that the need for such a power already exists, not by precautionary arguments that such a need may arise at some time in the future."
Kafkaesque.
In its report the committee concludes: "A power with such a significant impact on liberty as the proposed power to detain without charge for more than 28 days should, in our view, be justified by clear evidence that the need for such a power already exists, not by precautionary arguments that such a need may arise at some time in the future."
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Outlaw political prisoners
According to the Sunday Telegraph "Prisoners to claim millions for parole delay". However, the story fails to support the headline with any evidence. True, some prisoners are challenging the Parole Board for breaching their human rights for failing to speedily determine whether they should be subjected to continued detention. And, in some cases the prisoners claims are justified and they will be entitled to claim £100 per day, in effect, for false imprisonment. If the system does not get its act together, it could well be that the compensation pay outs will reach the millions. Cooper v The Parole Board is just the latest of several cases which highlights a failing in the system. The problem is not so much about prisoners claiming compensation, rather it is about the Executive sending people to prison when this should be the sole reserve of the Judiciary. In effect, we now have thousands of political prisoners in overcrowded prisons. What is needed is for a courageous High Court judge to make a ruling outlawing the power of the Executive to imprison citizens who have not been the subject of a magistrate's or Crown Court or High Court decision to impose custody.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Plane madness
The British Airports Authority at Heathrow Airport is seeking to ban legitimate protest at the building of another runway, by claiming that legitimate protest groups are terrorists, and is seeking a High Court injunction to ban freedom of expression.
Anyone in doubt that our civil liberties are being eroded should read this.
Anyone in doubt that our civil liberties are being eroded should read this.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Judge doesn't go overboard in sentencing wannabe terrorists
At least a judge with some common sense, giving relatively minor prison sentences to a group of silly idealists who wished to become terrorists when they grow up. The downside is that they will probably mix with hardened terrorists in prison who will tell them how to do it properly in future.
BNP loses libel action against Searchlight
British National Party (BNP) thugs Christopher and Barry Roberts alleged that Gerry Gable, Steve Silver and the Searchlight Magazine Ltd libelled them in an article in the October 2003 edition of a monthly magazine called Searchlight. The article stated that Christopher Roberts had stolen money collected for the BNP at a BNP rally, and that he did not return the money until threatened with the police, and that both Christopher and Barry Roberts threatened to kneecap, torture and kill Dave Hill and Robert Jeffries alias Bob James, and the families of Dave Hill and Robert Jeffries alias Bob James, and that both of the Roberts might be subject to a police investigation.
The BNP case for libel was thrown out of court at the first instance, by Eady J, on the grounds that Searchlight argued the privilege defence.
The BNP appealed to the Court of Appeal, and lost their appeal. The full law report is here, it makes for interesting reading.
The BNP case for libel was thrown out of court at the first instance, by Eady J, on the grounds that Searchlight argued the privilege defence.
The BNP appealed to the Court of Appeal, and lost their appeal. The full law report is here, it makes for interesting reading.
Balancing our rights against their wrongs
"Nobody seems to have an answer to this conundrum: why should the terrorist threat require the civil liberties of British people to be circumscribed by measures such as identity cards while foreign nationals who pose the threat are protected by human rights laws"?
Discuss.
It is debatable whether this is in fact a riddle at all. I suspect that it is just a question. Is it a legitimate question? I think it is fair to say that there is a terrorist threat. Although the perceived scale of it may vary according to points of view being expressed. I don't accept that the terrorist threat requires the civil liberties of British people to be circumscribed. The former is posed by terrorist groups whereas the latter is imposed by a draconian government. For example, somebody who commits a robbery and is sentenced to prison, we don't jail innocent people as a result of his or her committing the crime.
I cannot see the link between a terrorist threat and ID cards. I don't suppose terrorists will have the word terrorist written or stamped on their ID card.
Then there is the foreign nationals. The way the question is framed it gives the impression that all foreign nationals rather than just a few pose a problem. And, what about home grown terrorists?
Discuss.
It is debatable whether this is in fact a riddle at all. I suspect that it is just a question. Is it a legitimate question? I think it is fair to say that there is a terrorist threat. Although the perceived scale of it may vary according to points of view being expressed. I don't accept that the terrorist threat requires the civil liberties of British people to be circumscribed. The former is posed by terrorist groups whereas the latter is imposed by a draconian government. For example, somebody who commits a robbery and is sentenced to prison, we don't jail innocent people as a result of his or her committing the crime.
I cannot see the link between a terrorist threat and ID cards. I don't suppose terrorists will have the word terrorist written or stamped on their ID card.
Then there is the foreign nationals. The way the question is framed it gives the impression that all foreign nationals rather than just a few pose a problem. And, what about home grown terrorists?
The law against wanking
Never mind the war against terror, here is something far more serious. It's a law against prisoners wanking. It could only happen in the US. In my view, the prison department is negligent in not providing adequate privacy for the prisoner to do what comes naturally. If this female prison guard is so hung up about this kind of thing, why did she get a job in a man's prison in the first place?
McCanns seek to censor criticisms of their conduct
From the outset of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, Gerry McCann has sought to control the media so that only his particular spin on events is published and accepted as the truth. However, there have been growing voices on the internet as it emerges that the McCanns version of events do not hold up to close scrutiny. I am aware that the Mirror online forum has been particularly vociferous at condemning the McCanns, and it has emerged that there are those on the Leicester Mercury who have been voicing their criticisms. It now appears that Gerry McCann has sought to censor any criticisms in his local newspaper, and the editor of the Leicester Mercury has now banned people from criticising the McCanns.
Why doesn't Gerry McCann answer the criticisms rather than try to silence them? If he has got nothing to hide, it shouldn't bother him. In my view, the truth hurts. He is hurt that he has not been able to fool all of the people all of the time.
Why doesn't Gerry McCann answer the criticisms rather than try to silence them? If he has got nothing to hide, it shouldn't bother him. In my view, the truth hurts. He is hurt that he has not been able to fool all of the people all of the time.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Technorati's Ping pongs
As Technorati's Ping has failed to work on my blog now for over 24 hours, and it's email support takes a week to get back to you to look into the problem, below are the list of links that I have pinged to Technorati in the last 24 hours which they have so far failed to check and update on their service. If Technorati does not listen to me, it may pay attention to Google.
Link.
Link.
Link.
Link.
Link.
Link.
Link.
I think you will have to agree Technorati that your Ping pongs. That is, it stinks. Your service, that is. What service?
Link.
Link.
Link.
Link.
Link.
Link.
Link.
I think you will have to agree Technorati that your Ping pongs. That is, it stinks. Your service, that is. What service?
The sky's the limit
If the police were unable to charge those involved in the cash for honours scandal after a 16 month police investigation, what is the point of Gordon Brown seeking to extend the 28 day limit for holding terrorist suspects without charge for an unspecified time limit?
War on terror becomes comedy of errors
Here is another example of why the war on terror has become a comedy of errors. By drafting what constitutes terrorist material too widely, it may be possible that possession of a Lego set would constitute terrorist material, and the instruction for an airfix kit be deemed to be a blueprint for terrorism.
MysexoffenderSpace
Almost 30,000 sex offender profiles have been deleted from the internet social network called MySpace. The company owned by Rupert Murdoch originally claimed that it had only deleted 7,000 sex offender profiles. It is disturbing that registered sex offenders are targeting these kind of sites to find children.
Motorists are guilty until proved innocent
It is disturbing to hear that parking fines will be issued without giving drivers notice, and that the word of a parking attendant will be gospel without any need to provide photographic evidence that any offence has been committed.
This reminds me of the kangaroo courts in prison where the word of a prison officer is taken for gospel in the belief that all prisoners are liars.
It is getting difficult to argue that this is not just another form of revenue collecting, and not just a road safety issue, when laws are going to be passed to ban motorists from possessing lasers and speed camera detectors.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Damned lies, statistics and LibDem councillor Carl Minns
I don't think it helps the cause, seeking financial aid for the Forgotten City, when the leader of the LibDem council, Carl Minns is caught out lying about 16,000 houses being flood damaged. Then the figure was revised when John Prescott challenged this and it was claimed that 10,000 houses were flood damaged. It now transpires that 6,000 houses were flood damaged. Perhaps, this is why they are nicked named the FibDems?
On a different subject. I don't suppose Mousie will be best pleased.
It has also emerged that the NHS intends to employ 2 axe wielding job cutters at a cost of £70,000 per year each, to decide which 600 hundred of the NHS work force are to lose their jobs.
On a different subject. I don't suppose Mousie will be best pleased.
It has also emerged that the NHS intends to employ 2 axe wielding job cutters at a cost of £70,000 per year each, to decide which 600 hundred of the NHS work force are to lose their jobs.
The strange case of Edward and Elaine Brown
A pair of cranks in America, Edward and Elaine Brown, have been convicted and sentenced to prison for tax evasion, but they are refusing to surrender to law officials and have holed up inside their home. It seems pointless to me that officials have cut them off from the outside world, by denying them electric power and communications etc, and yet allow armed supporters to take them food and drink supplies which only prolongs the siege. Given that the couple own a 110 acre plot, why doesn't the authorities simply take some of their land to cover the cost of the debt?
The folly of jailing fools
The folly of jailing fools
A bunch of blowhards have been turned into public martyrs; their sentences are an incitement to violence.
Edward Pearce
The judge got it wrong - which is a pity. The judiciary is one British institution which has stood out for sense in the Blair/Reid-led hysteria, bravely offending a succession of twitchy ministerialists keen to put dust covers over constitutional law. But the men sent down for six years apiece for vicious talk should not have been sent, should not be going to prison at all.
I know what they said - wanting to see British troops come back in body bags and the rest if it. They said odious, savage and disgusting things, but they said them; and we should never forget the Spanish wisdom: "Words are feathers." Nobody was killed on that demonstration, nobody even slightly hurt. But, says the letter of this ill-considered law, they incited violence and murder. Other and susceptible people might hear, might act, might injure, might kill.
Respectfully, the law should not be suppositious, should not reside in the subjunctive mood. It involves something judges are normally chary about: want of certainty. This is a law of conjecture, of long-shot possibility. If you live in the fraught world of Chief Constable Jones, Professor Glees and Great Aunt Ada Doom, possibility is accomplishment, risk is certainty and we must all be afraid all the time. It is trite to say so, but Clarksonian motorists, "get out of my way" 80-plus merchants, kill more people in a fortnight than the British chapter of al-Qaida have killed throughout their campaign.
The shining and blessed quality of that campaign has been its incompetence, the arithmetical miscalculations, the badly set fuses, the miserably low quality of the operatives. Certainly fools can set a bomb that kills 100 people, but that is no excuse for making our own terror by overselling the threat and slewing a response which should be, not outraged, but rational and calculated.
To make a different conjecture, it is probable that these sentences, vividly re-stated in thousands of Muslim homes from websites, are more dangerous, have a better prospect of setting the fuse that works, blows heads off and ruptures arteries than any amount of malignant rubbish spouted by the fools sentenced - fools just now converted into martyrs. I blush to say anything so obvious, but clearly it isn't obvious enough.
The Muslim population of Britain is a long spectrum, it is complex and very fragile. Between the end-points of active engagement (very few) and categorical rejection (very many), there are other categories. The fellow-travellers are self-limited, but ready to give a minor hand, refuge and encouragement. A fuzzier group, less clear in outlook, might be called "the sneaking regarders". This is the band of opinion most significant for policemen trying to contain the threat, and is quite big enough. It is a source of silence and non co-operation, but its younger members may be recruitable. Mostly, it embodies passive sympathy. "We are the fish," said General Vo who drove the Americans out of Vietnam, "they are the water."
We need nothing done which takes fragile emotions and breaks them, nothing which shifts any Muslim into the mood of anger which becomes a course of support and collaboration. The soft line, mindful of emotions, which makes no martyrs and no new enemies, is the only wisdom. On Wednesday, a bunch of blowhards were converted into public martyrs. Those sentences are best defined in their own terms. Honourably intended, they are an incitement to violence and murder.
A bunch of blowhards have been turned into public martyrs; their sentences are an incitement to violence.
Edward Pearce
The judge got it wrong - which is a pity. The judiciary is one British institution which has stood out for sense in the Blair/Reid-led hysteria, bravely offending a succession of twitchy ministerialists keen to put dust covers over constitutional law. But the men sent down for six years apiece for vicious talk should not have been sent, should not be going to prison at all.
I know what they said - wanting to see British troops come back in body bags and the rest if it. They said odious, savage and disgusting things, but they said them; and we should never forget the Spanish wisdom: "Words are feathers." Nobody was killed on that demonstration, nobody even slightly hurt. But, says the letter of this ill-considered law, they incited violence and murder. Other and susceptible people might hear, might act, might injure, might kill.
Respectfully, the law should not be suppositious, should not reside in the subjunctive mood. It involves something judges are normally chary about: want of certainty. This is a law of conjecture, of long-shot possibility. If you live in the fraught world of Chief Constable Jones, Professor Glees and Great Aunt Ada Doom, possibility is accomplishment, risk is certainty and we must all be afraid all the time. It is trite to say so, but Clarksonian motorists, "get out of my way" 80-plus merchants, kill more people in a fortnight than the British chapter of al-Qaida have killed throughout their campaign.
The shining and blessed quality of that campaign has been its incompetence, the arithmetical miscalculations, the badly set fuses, the miserably low quality of the operatives. Certainly fools can set a bomb that kills 100 people, but that is no excuse for making our own terror by overselling the threat and slewing a response which should be, not outraged, but rational and calculated.
To make a different conjecture, it is probable that these sentences, vividly re-stated in thousands of Muslim homes from websites, are more dangerous, have a better prospect of setting the fuse that works, blows heads off and ruptures arteries than any amount of malignant rubbish spouted by the fools sentenced - fools just now converted into martyrs. I blush to say anything so obvious, but clearly it isn't obvious enough.
The Muslim population of Britain is a long spectrum, it is complex and very fragile. Between the end-points of active engagement (very few) and categorical rejection (very many), there are other categories. The fellow-travellers are self-limited, but ready to give a minor hand, refuge and encouragement. A fuzzier group, less clear in outlook, might be called "the sneaking regarders". This is the band of opinion most significant for policemen trying to contain the threat, and is quite big enough. It is a source of silence and non co-operation, but its younger members may be recruitable. Mostly, it embodies passive sympathy. "We are the fish," said General Vo who drove the Americans out of Vietnam, "they are the water."
We need nothing done which takes fragile emotions and breaks them, nothing which shifts any Muslim into the mood of anger which becomes a course of support and collaboration. The soft line, mindful of emotions, which makes no martyrs and no new enemies, is the only wisdom. On Wednesday, a bunch of blowhards were converted into public martyrs. Those sentences are best defined in their own terms. Honourably intended, they are an incitement to violence and murder.
Corporate manslaughter law to cover deaths in custody
Corporate manslaughter law to cover deaths in custody
David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
Tuesday July 24, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Prisoners who are injured or killed while in custody will be covered by new corporate manslaughter laws, it emerged today.
The government has caved in to criticism and agreed to extend the new legislation to prisoners and youth offenders.
Ministers had previously insisted that the prison service should be exempt from prosecution if prisoners were injured or killed while, for example, being illegally restrained or if ethnic minority prisoners were placed in cells with white racists.
Peers and MPs cited the death of Zahid Mubarek in Feltham young offenders centre as a prime example of the need to change the law.
Mr Mubarek, 19, was bludgeoned to death by psychopath Robert Stewart in 2000.
The government yesterday agreed to introduce new protection for prisoners three years after the act comes into force.
As a result the bill will become law this summer.
Tory peer Lord Hunt of Wirall said: "It is sad that it has taken 12 debates over a period of almost six months for the government to concede that a duty of care is owed to those held in custody, and that all - including the government - should be subject to the same test of the law.
"The Lords are to be commended on their resilience in upholding this profound principle in a series of extraordinary and compassionate debates."
The TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, and the Unite union, welcomed the new law.
Mr Barber said: "We are pleased that a sensible decision has been taken and the bill will now become law.
"Even though unions wanted the bill to make individual directors personally liable for safety breaches and penalties against employers committing safety crimes to be tougher, we hope it will mean the start of a change in the safety culture at the top of the UK's companies and organisations."
Bud Hudspith, Unite Amicus section's national health and safety officer, said: "Unite welcomes the legislation that will provide greater physical protection for people at work, especially after such a long wait.
"However, we will still press for individual duties for directors found guilty of serious breaches of health and safety to be included."
David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
Tuesday July 24, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Prisoners who are injured or killed while in custody will be covered by new corporate manslaughter laws, it emerged today.
The government has caved in to criticism and agreed to extend the new legislation to prisoners and youth offenders.
Ministers had previously insisted that the prison service should be exempt from prosecution if prisoners were injured or killed while, for example, being illegally restrained or if ethnic minority prisoners were placed in cells with white racists.
Peers and MPs cited the death of Zahid Mubarek in Feltham young offenders centre as a prime example of the need to change the law.
Mr Mubarek, 19, was bludgeoned to death by psychopath Robert Stewart in 2000.
The government yesterday agreed to introduce new protection for prisoners three years after the act comes into force.
As a result the bill will become law this summer.
Tory peer Lord Hunt of Wirall said: "It is sad that it has taken 12 debates over a period of almost six months for the government to concede that a duty of care is owed to those held in custody, and that all - including the government - should be subject to the same test of the law.
"The Lords are to be commended on their resilience in upholding this profound principle in a series of extraordinary and compassionate debates."
The TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, and the Unite union, welcomed the new law.
Mr Barber said: "We are pleased that a sensible decision has been taken and the bill will now become law.
"Even though unions wanted the bill to make individual directors personally liable for safety breaches and penalties against employers committing safety crimes to be tougher, we hope it will mean the start of a change in the safety culture at the top of the UK's companies and organisations."
Bud Hudspith, Unite Amicus section's national health and safety officer, said: "Unite welcomes the legislation that will provide greater physical protection for people at work, especially after such a long wait.
"However, we will still press for individual duties for directors found guilty of serious breaches of health and safety to be included."
Monday, July 23, 2007
Is David Cameron politically washed out?
Flooding hell.
Some are asking where David Cameron, Member of Parliament for Witney, is when Oxfordshire is washed out by the recent floods. Some are saying he should be closer to home right now. I ask is David Cameron now politically washed out? He appears to be taking the Tory Party up shit creek without a paddle, and there might be a better chance of the boat not sinking if he was thrown overboard.
RDF (Right Dodgy Fuckers) etc.
RDF (Right Dodgy Fuckers) and SAS (Soft as Shit).
Shambolic. "Mark Hoskins, representing Skanda Vale, told the appeal judges killing Shambo "would be comparable to killing a human being". Bullshit!
What about fact finding in Portugal?
Shambolic. "Mark Hoskins, representing Skanda Vale, told the appeal judges killing Shambo "would be comparable to killing a human being". Bullshit!
What about fact finding in Portugal?
Rwandan Diary entry worthy of credit
Quite often I disagree with the Fink's web grab, or the Grauniad's best of the web. But today the Grauniad has this as one of its choices, and I find myself in agreement.
Lord Levy says the upper class can kiss his arse
Members of the House of Lords gather to pay homage to their idol the Honours Broker Lord Levy. It is proposed that a statue be erected of Lord Levy bent over so all those entering the House of Lords can kiss his ring.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Guantanamo inmates win right to see evidence
Guantanamo inmates win right to see evidence
By Philip Sherwell in New York, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:28am BST 22/07/2007
A court in Washington has ordered the United States government to hand over nearly all the information it holds on prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, marking a new blow to its controversial detention of alleged terror suspects.
The ruling by a federal appeals court paves the way for a fresh round of legal challenges to the detentions at the US naval base in Cuba.
The government must now provide defence lawyers with classified evidence gathered against the detainees, making it easier to challenge their designation as "unlawful enemy combatants".
The White House had fought unsuccessfully to limits how much information it must share with the courts and lawyers of the 360 remaining detainees.
Defence lawyers have complained that with only limited access to information about the accusations against their clients, it has been hard to represent them properly.
advertisement
The appeals court ruling was "a resounding rejection of the government's effort to hide the truth", said P Sabin Willett, a lawyer who put the detainees' case before the Washington court.
The latest legal setback came just hours after President George W Bush signed an executive order requiring the CIA's interrogators to comply with Geneva Conventions against torture.
The CPS decision in cash for honours case can be challenged
The facts. A total of £14 million in loans was given by twelve wealthy individuals to Labour during the 2005 general election campaign and eight of these men were subsequently nominated for Life Peerages. It is not known whether the other four were offered or given any other kind of reward. Following complaints by the Scottish National Party and others, in March 2006, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that they were investigating possible breaches of the The Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. Subsequently, the police widened their investigation to cover whether any offences had been committed under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. And, offences of perverting or attempting to pervert the course of justice. After a 16 month police investigation, David Perry QC, acting on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service, reached a decision not to prosecute. This decision is susceptible to judicial review, and can be quashed, and an Order of Mandamus can be sought to force the CPS to do its duty.
Currying favour with Lord Levy
At the time, 11 July 2006, "A Labour Party spokesman said: "These matters are subject to an ongoing police investigation and therefore we have nothing to say". We now know that the police investigation has concluded and, therefore, there is no valid reason for remaining silent on these matters.
In 2005 the Labour Party needed funds to fight a general election. Sir Gulam Noon offered to donate between £50,000-£75,000 to the Labour Party. Lord Levy, the Labour Party's chief fundraiser, told Sir Gulam Noon that he was looking for £1M and in return he would be given a peerage. Sir Gulam thought that this was too steep considering that he had already donated £220,000 to the Labour Party. They negotiated and settled for a donation of £250,000. There was offer and acceptance, a contract was entered into, albeit an illegal one under the 1925 Act.
Lord Levy reported to Tony Blair that he had secured the £250,000 donation, and Tony Blair told Ruth Turner to inform Sir Gulam Noon that Tony Blair was nominating him for a peerage and to send him the relevant forms. With the forms was a letter stating that a loan was not reportable under the 2000 Act. The paper trail could not be more explicit for obvious reasons as it would highlight underhandedness. However, neither Sir Gulam Noon nor his accountant realised its hidden significance. Firstly, because he was originally making a donation, and secondly, because both Sir Gulam Noon and his accountant were following this advice on the forms: "The commission will wish to be aware of any donations - both in money or in kind - to political parties that were declarable to the Electoral Commission under the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000... the Commission will also want to be informed of any personal financial relationship between you and a senior member of a political party". (Source: Guidance from the House of Lords Appointments Commission for those nominated for life peerages). The accountant declared the donations on the relevant forms and they were sent back to 10 Downing Street.
At Number Ten there was consternation, the idea was to hide the political funding and the subtle, implied approach had failed, so Lord Levy phoned Sir Gulam Noon and expressly informed him that if he wanted his peerage he would need to amend the forms to read that he had not made any donation, on the basis that if it was a loan then it would not need to be disclosed and it would not look like he was selling a peerage and Sir Gulam was not buying his way into the House of Lords. What Lord Levy did was advocate that Sir Gulam Noon break the law like he was doing himself. He advised that he get the forms back from a civil servant at Number Ten, which he was able to do and resubmitted them without disclosing the donations. However, the civil servant had photocopied the originals. The Lords Appointments Commission discovered the attempt at deception, and Number Ten was asked to withdraw the nomination.
According to a statement Lord Levy made to the police, when asked who had suggested that the donation become a loan instead he said the idea was Sir Gulam Noon's. However, this contrasted with the statement given by Ruth Turner who said that it came from Lord Levy. The police informed Lord Levy of the gist of what Ruth Turner had said in her statement, and Lord Levy stuck to his version but then tried to apply pressure upon Ruth Turner to pervert the course of justice and change her statement to favour Lord Levy's version of events.
Given that Sir Gulam Noon was prepared to disclose the donations, and that he would not necessarily have been barred by the Lords Appointment Commission had he disclosed them, given a reasonable time lapse between donations and the nomination, and that they would have liked to have heard about them, why did Lord Levy seek secrecy? If there was nothing to hide, why try to hide it? Now that the police investigation is over, when can we expect an explanation from the Labour Party?
In 2005 the Labour Party needed funds to fight a general election. Sir Gulam Noon offered to donate between £50,000-£75,000 to the Labour Party. Lord Levy, the Labour Party's chief fundraiser, told Sir Gulam Noon that he was looking for £1M and in return he would be given a peerage. Sir Gulam thought that this was too steep considering that he had already donated £220,000 to the Labour Party. They negotiated and settled for a donation of £250,000. There was offer and acceptance, a contract was entered into, albeit an illegal one under the 1925 Act.
Lord Levy reported to Tony Blair that he had secured the £250,000 donation, and Tony Blair told Ruth Turner to inform Sir Gulam Noon that Tony Blair was nominating him for a peerage and to send him the relevant forms. With the forms was a letter stating that a loan was not reportable under the 2000 Act. The paper trail could not be more explicit for obvious reasons as it would highlight underhandedness. However, neither Sir Gulam Noon nor his accountant realised its hidden significance. Firstly, because he was originally making a donation, and secondly, because both Sir Gulam Noon and his accountant were following this advice on the forms: "The commission will wish to be aware of any donations - both in money or in kind - to political parties that were declarable to the Electoral Commission under the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000... the Commission will also want to be informed of any personal financial relationship between you and a senior member of a political party". (Source: Guidance from the House of Lords Appointments Commission for those nominated for life peerages). The accountant declared the donations on the relevant forms and they were sent back to 10 Downing Street.
At Number Ten there was consternation, the idea was to hide the political funding and the subtle, implied approach had failed, so Lord Levy phoned Sir Gulam Noon and expressly informed him that if he wanted his peerage he would need to amend the forms to read that he had not made any donation, on the basis that if it was a loan then it would not need to be disclosed and it would not look like he was selling a peerage and Sir Gulam was not buying his way into the House of Lords. What Lord Levy did was advocate that Sir Gulam Noon break the law like he was doing himself. He advised that he get the forms back from a civil servant at Number Ten, which he was able to do and resubmitted them without disclosing the donations. However, the civil servant had photocopied the originals. The Lords Appointments Commission discovered the attempt at deception, and Number Ten was asked to withdraw the nomination.
According to a statement Lord Levy made to the police, when asked who had suggested that the donation become a loan instead he said the idea was Sir Gulam Noon's. However, this contrasted with the statement given by Ruth Turner who said that it came from Lord Levy. The police informed Lord Levy of the gist of what Ruth Turner had said in her statement, and Lord Levy stuck to his version but then tried to apply pressure upon Ruth Turner to pervert the course of justice and change her statement to favour Lord Levy's version of events.
Given that Sir Gulam Noon was prepared to disclose the donations, and that he would not necessarily have been barred by the Lords Appointment Commission had he disclosed them, given a reasonable time lapse between donations and the nomination, and that they would have liked to have heard about them, why did Lord Levy seek secrecy? If there was nothing to hide, why try to hide it? Now that the police investigation is over, when can we expect an explanation from the Labour Party?
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Patel seeks damages for slipping on greasy Levy
Recently, it was announced that a man was set to claim damages for slipping on a petal outside a flower shop. But, what about the case of Lord Levy slipping up in relation to Mr (not even Lord) Chai Patel? The "'Loans for peerages' scandal erupts when Mr Patel complains of blocked peerage and reveals Labour took secret loans from him". However, it is clear that whatever Labour might like to call Mr Patel's donation, it was not a loan at commercial rates, because no interest was set and no date was set for repayment, therefore, it was required to be declared by the Labour party and this was not done. That an offer of a peerage was made to Mr Patel by Lord Levy in acceptance for a financial inducement is clear by the following statement: "Mr Patel says: 'There is clearly a history here and a reality of peerages for fund-raising'". Is it any wonder then that "John Yates, the senior detective who led the cash-for-honours investigation, made it as plain as he could that he disagreed with Crown Prosecution Service over its decision not to bring any charges"? Especially, given the text of paragraph 30 of the CPS statement "In relation to possible breaches of the 2000 Act, we are satisfied that we cannot exclude the possibility that any loans made – all of which were made following receipt by the Labour Party of legal advice - can properly be characterised as commercial".
'Unsuitable' inmates released
'Unsuitable' inmates released
By John Steele Crime Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:41am BST 21/07/2007
Nearly 1,000 out of 1,390 criminals let out early to ease the jails overcrowding crisis had been assessed as too much of a risk to be released under the electronic tagging system, it has emerged.
Several have already committed further crimes after they were released at the end of June and the beginning of this month.
The Conservatives last night described the Government's early release scheme - or End of Custody Licence (ECL) - in which prisoners were also given cash to help them, as "shambolic" and "potentially highly dangerous".
The shadow justice minister, Edward Garnier, said: "Between June 29 and July 2 alone, the Government let out 1,390 inmates convicted of robbery, burglary and offences involving violence, 951 of whom had previously been refused release on Home Detention Curfew."
Those prisoners released under the curfew scheme were required to wear electronic tagging devices.
Each early release prisoner receives up to £173 to compensate them for loss of bed and board for the time they would have been in prison, because they cannot receive state benefits.
In addition, they will receive a normal discharge grant of £46 and allowances will be paid to landlords to meet housing costs in some cases.
"If they were not safe to let out on tags, why are they safe to let out with £200 of taxpayers' cash in their pockets but no tags on their ankles?'' asked Mr Garnier.
''A total of 225 of these inmates were serving sentences of between one and four years, which suggests they had committed very serious crimes."
Mr Garnier described the early release scheme as "a panic measure to reduce the prison population, but it is not even achieving that''.
Mr Garnier added: "Now they are letting out utterly unsuitable offenders early without proper checks, nine of whom have simply grabbed the £200 cash given them on release and gone out to commit further offences. This scheme is potentially highly dangerous and undermines public safety."
Details of the releases were given in the Commons in response to a Parliamentary question from the Tories.
David Hanson, the justice minister, told the house: "Of the 1,390 prisoners released under End of Custody Licence on June 29 2007 and July 2 2007, 951 have previously been refused release on Home Detention Curfew."
It emerged that one offender convicted of domestic violence and released on ECL went straight home and within hours was re-arrested for affray. Another violent offender was released to an address from which he is banned under an exclusion order.
Up to 25,000 non-violent offenders could be freed early in a year, which means the scheme will cost about £4.5 million this year. They will get out 18 days earlier than would have been the case.
Criminals have 40 chances to flout the rules
Last Updated: 12:41am BST 21/07/2007
Young criminals placed on the Government's flagship community punishment scheme could break the rules more than 40 times before being sent back to court, it has been disclosed.
Offenders handed a 12-month version of the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) had to be deemed "non-compliant" on 40.5 occasions on average before official action was taken against them.
In comparison, other under-18s on the six-month version of the scheme had to break the rules only 17 times before being taken to court.
In all, 55 per cent of youths placed on pilot versions of the 12-month scheme committed a breach, compared with 65 per cent in the six-month version.
A Youth Justice Board report said: "Practitioners appeared more reluctant to breach 12-month ISSP young people than their six-month counterparts."
Those on the longer version of the order - designed as an alternative to a term of confinement - were more likely to commit a second and third breach, statistics showed.
ISSPs force youngsters to undertake a tough programme of education and other activities. The 12-month schemes were piloted in 11 areas but have now come to an end.
A Youth Justice Board spokesman said: "This study looked at a small sample - just 106 young people - going through the scheme nearly three years ago and has highlighted that there was evidence of variation in regard to breaching policy, with staff using a wide degree of discretion when deciding when non-compliance should be dealt with by breach action.
"Non-compliance is often very minor misbehaviour, including late attendance or rudeness to staff.
"However, since this study was undertaken much work has been done with youth offending team practitioners to emphasise the importance of applying the national standards regarding breach in a robust and consistent manner.
"A fresh emphasis has been placed upon swift breach for non-compliance and the importance of reinforcing the seriousness of the order by returning young people who do not comply to court."
More up to date figures showed the number of breaches had more than doubled between 2004/05 and 2005/6, he added.
Two years ago it emerged that 90 per cent of those on the scheme were re-convicted within two years, with each participant committing an average seven crimes while taking part.
A report said the principal aim of the ISSP - to reduce the rate and seriousness of offending by a hard core of young criminals - had been achieved because the frequency of offending had fallen by almost 40 per cent and the seriousness by 13 per cent.
The Youth Justice Board conceded at the time that the re-conviction rate was "very high", but added: "It was always unlikely that persistent young offenders would cease offending completely as a result of ISSP."
The study, by academics at Oxford University, said the offenders in the sample committed an average of nearly 12 crimes in the previous 24 months before going on an ISSP, so the re-conviction rate of 91 per cent was "not surprising".
ISSPs were introduced in 2001 and set out a compulsory programme of activities for offenders while keeping them closely monitored, sometimes using electronic tagging.
By John Steele Crime Correspondent
Last Updated: 12:41am BST 21/07/2007
Nearly 1,000 out of 1,390 criminals let out early to ease the jails overcrowding crisis had been assessed as too much of a risk to be released under the electronic tagging system, it has emerged.
Several have already committed further crimes after they were released at the end of June and the beginning of this month.
The Conservatives last night described the Government's early release scheme - or End of Custody Licence (ECL) - in which prisoners were also given cash to help them, as "shambolic" and "potentially highly dangerous".
The shadow justice minister, Edward Garnier, said: "Between June 29 and July 2 alone, the Government let out 1,390 inmates convicted of robbery, burglary and offences involving violence, 951 of whom had previously been refused release on Home Detention Curfew."
Those prisoners released under the curfew scheme were required to wear electronic tagging devices.
Each early release prisoner receives up to £173 to compensate them for loss of bed and board for the time they would have been in prison, because they cannot receive state benefits.
In addition, they will receive a normal discharge grant of £46 and allowances will be paid to landlords to meet housing costs in some cases.
"If they were not safe to let out on tags, why are they safe to let out with £200 of taxpayers' cash in their pockets but no tags on their ankles?'' asked Mr Garnier.
''A total of 225 of these inmates were serving sentences of between one and four years, which suggests they had committed very serious crimes."
Mr Garnier described the early release scheme as "a panic measure to reduce the prison population, but it is not even achieving that''.
Mr Garnier added: "Now they are letting out utterly unsuitable offenders early without proper checks, nine of whom have simply grabbed the £200 cash given them on release and gone out to commit further offences. This scheme is potentially highly dangerous and undermines public safety."
Details of the releases were given in the Commons in response to a Parliamentary question from the Tories.
David Hanson, the justice minister, told the house: "Of the 1,390 prisoners released under End of Custody Licence on June 29 2007 and July 2 2007, 951 have previously been refused release on Home Detention Curfew."
It emerged that one offender convicted of domestic violence and released on ECL went straight home and within hours was re-arrested for affray. Another violent offender was released to an address from which he is banned under an exclusion order.
Up to 25,000 non-violent offenders could be freed early in a year, which means the scheme will cost about £4.5 million this year. They will get out 18 days earlier than would have been the case.
Criminals have 40 chances to flout the rules
Last Updated: 12:41am BST 21/07/2007
Young criminals placed on the Government's flagship community punishment scheme could break the rules more than 40 times before being sent back to court, it has been disclosed.
Offenders handed a 12-month version of the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP) had to be deemed "non-compliant" on 40.5 occasions on average before official action was taken against them.
In comparison, other under-18s on the six-month version of the scheme had to break the rules only 17 times before being taken to court.
In all, 55 per cent of youths placed on pilot versions of the 12-month scheme committed a breach, compared with 65 per cent in the six-month version.
A Youth Justice Board report said: "Practitioners appeared more reluctant to breach 12-month ISSP young people than their six-month counterparts."
Those on the longer version of the order - designed as an alternative to a term of confinement - were more likely to commit a second and third breach, statistics showed.
ISSPs force youngsters to undertake a tough programme of education and other activities. The 12-month schemes were piloted in 11 areas but have now come to an end.
A Youth Justice Board spokesman said: "This study looked at a small sample - just 106 young people - going through the scheme nearly three years ago and has highlighted that there was evidence of variation in regard to breaching policy, with staff using a wide degree of discretion when deciding when non-compliance should be dealt with by breach action.
"Non-compliance is often very minor misbehaviour, including late attendance or rudeness to staff.
"However, since this study was undertaken much work has been done with youth offending team practitioners to emphasise the importance of applying the national standards regarding breach in a robust and consistent manner.
"A fresh emphasis has been placed upon swift breach for non-compliance and the importance of reinforcing the seriousness of the order by returning young people who do not comply to court."
More up to date figures showed the number of breaches had more than doubled between 2004/05 and 2005/6, he added.
Two years ago it emerged that 90 per cent of those on the scheme were re-convicted within two years, with each participant committing an average seven crimes while taking part.
A report said the principal aim of the ISSP - to reduce the rate and seriousness of offending by a hard core of young criminals - had been achieved because the frequency of offending had fallen by almost 40 per cent and the seriousness by 13 per cent.
The Youth Justice Board conceded at the time that the re-conviction rate was "very high", but added: "It was always unlikely that persistent young offenders would cease offending completely as a result of ISSP."
The study, by academics at Oxford University, said the offenders in the sample committed an average of nearly 12 crimes in the previous 24 months before going on an ISSP, so the re-conviction rate of 91 per cent was "not surprising".
ISSPs were introduced in 2001 and set out a compulsory programme of activities for offenders while keeping them closely monitored, sometimes using electronic tagging.
Jury service forces Cherie Booth to miss start of prisons inquiry
Jury service forces Cherie Booth to miss start of prisons inquiry
Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Saturday July 21, 2007
The Guardian
Cherie Booth QC missed the first meeting of an inquiry into English prisons yesterday because she has been on jury service. Her stint in the jury room is believed to have included sitting on at least one case.
The exemption that allowed judges, lawyers, doctors and other professionals to be excused jury service was ended by David Blunkett when he was home secretary who argued that it amounted to a "middle-class cop out".
Judges and leading barristers such as Ms Booth are now encouraged to serve but are warned it is simpler not to reveal their legal background to their fellow jurors. Most judges have no problem in doing this but Ms Booth's instantly recognisable face will make this problematic.
She would have had to stand down from serving on a jury in any case in which she personally knew the judge or barristers. It is believed her period of jury service began shortly after the Blairs left Downing Street and it has delayed the family holiday.
The experience should stand her in good stead in her role as the president of the Commission on English Prisons Today, which includes leading criminologists, serving prisoners, the Parole Board chairman, crime victims, as well as former prison governors and chief probation officers. It also includes people from outside the criminal justice system.
David Wilson, who is chairing the commission, said that with the jail population at an all-time high the inquiry will investigate the purpose and proper extent of the use of prison and examine the issues which drive up prison numbers. It will also investigate the greater use of alternatives, including restorative justice, and look at what is happening in Scotland and Canada.
The commission, which has been organised by the Howard League for Penal Reform, is modelled on a similar body which reported in 1922 at a time when the prison population in England and Wales halved from 22,029 to just over 11,000 between 1908 and 1939 and 20 prisons closed. The jail population in England and Wales yesterday stood at 79,979.
Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Saturday July 21, 2007
The Guardian
Cherie Booth QC missed the first meeting of an inquiry into English prisons yesterday because she has been on jury service. Her stint in the jury room is believed to have included sitting on at least one case.
The exemption that allowed judges, lawyers, doctors and other professionals to be excused jury service was ended by David Blunkett when he was home secretary who argued that it amounted to a "middle-class cop out".
Judges and leading barristers such as Ms Booth are now encouraged to serve but are warned it is simpler not to reveal their legal background to their fellow jurors. Most judges have no problem in doing this but Ms Booth's instantly recognisable face will make this problematic.
She would have had to stand down from serving on a jury in any case in which she personally knew the judge or barristers. It is believed her period of jury service began shortly after the Blairs left Downing Street and it has delayed the family holiday.
The experience should stand her in good stead in her role as the president of the Commission on English Prisons Today, which includes leading criminologists, serving prisoners, the Parole Board chairman, crime victims, as well as former prison governors and chief probation officers. It also includes people from outside the criminal justice system.
David Wilson, who is chairing the commission, said that with the jail population at an all-time high the inquiry will investigate the purpose and proper extent of the use of prison and examine the issues which drive up prison numbers. It will also investigate the greater use of alternatives, including restorative justice, and look at what is happening in Scotland and Canada.
The commission, which has been organised by the Howard League for Penal Reform, is modelled on a similar body which reported in 1922 at a time when the prison population in England and Wales halved from 22,029 to just over 11,000 between 1908 and 1939 and 20 prisons closed. The jail population in England and Wales yesterday stood at 79,979.
Debunked: politicians' excuse that cannabis has become stronger
Debunked: politicians' excuse that cannabis has become stronger
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 21 July 2007
In a week in which Gordon Brown signalled a toughening of the law on cannabis and Labour MPs queued up to confess to smoking dope in their youth - a dozen cabinet ministers at the last count - there has been a widespread assumption bandied about that the country is in the grip of an epidemic of cannabis-induced psychosis.
But there is no evidence that cannabis poses a greater threat to health today than it did 30 years ago, and reports that stronger forms of the drug, called skunk, have 25 times the potency are wildly exaggerated. The joint, symbol of peace and love in the 1960s, has become a totem of degenerate Britain - increasingly linked with mental breakdown and axe-wielding maniacs.
The Prime Minister, who has ordered the second review of the classification of cannabis in two years, is said by insiders to want to reverse the decision of the former home secretary, David Blunkett, who downgraded the drug from class B to class C in 2004.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which examined the issue 18 months ago, will be asked to do so again. It concluded in its report in December 2005 that the strength of cannabis resin (hash) had changed little over 30 years and was about 5 per cent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Skunk, it found was 10 to 15 per cent THC - two to three times as strong, not 25 times.
Professor Leslie Iversen, a pharmacologist at Oxford University, said the widespread belief that skunk was 20 to 30 times as powerful was "simply not true".
The biggest change over recent decades has been in the strength of indoor-cultivated herbal cannabis, but even this has only doubled to 12 to 14 per cent THC. Although exceptionally strong skunk can be found on the market in Britain, it always has been available, according to reports from the UN Drug Control Programme.
On the question of psychosis, the advisory council was clear. Cannabis use may worsen the symptoms of schizophrenia and lead to a relapse in some patients. But on causation, it said: "The evidence suggests, at worst, that using cannabis increases the lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia by 1 per cent."
It added that more than three million people were estimated to have used cannabis in the previous year, but "very few will ever develop this distressing and disabling condition".
Scientists led by Professor Murray, at the Institute of Psychiatry, have argued that cannabis smoking can trigger psychosis in vulnerable individuals. A key worry is that young people are starting to smoke the drug earlier, in their mid-teens, when their brains are more vulnerable.
But experts led by Professor David Nutt, a specialist in addiction psychiatry at the University of Bristol, said in The Lancet in March that a causal link had not been established. Even if it were, cannabis could account for at most 7 per cent of cases of schizophrenia, he said.
One difficulty is distinguishing an association from a cause. Marjorie Wallace, the chief executive of Sane, the mental health charity, was quoted as saying evidence of the damaging effects of cannabis was mounting, with psychiatrists claiming "80 per cent of patients have been using cannabis". Cannabis use is widespread among mental patients, but their attempt to self-medicate tends to be a symptom of their suffering, not the cause.
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
Published: 21 July 2007
In a week in which Gordon Brown signalled a toughening of the law on cannabis and Labour MPs queued up to confess to smoking dope in their youth - a dozen cabinet ministers at the last count - there has been a widespread assumption bandied about that the country is in the grip of an epidemic of cannabis-induced psychosis.
But there is no evidence that cannabis poses a greater threat to health today than it did 30 years ago, and reports that stronger forms of the drug, called skunk, have 25 times the potency are wildly exaggerated. The joint, symbol of peace and love in the 1960s, has become a totem of degenerate Britain - increasingly linked with mental breakdown and axe-wielding maniacs.
The Prime Minister, who has ordered the second review of the classification of cannabis in two years, is said by insiders to want to reverse the decision of the former home secretary, David Blunkett, who downgraded the drug from class B to class C in 2004.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which examined the issue 18 months ago, will be asked to do so again. It concluded in its report in December 2005 that the strength of cannabis resin (hash) had changed little over 30 years and was about 5 per cent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Skunk, it found was 10 to 15 per cent THC - two to three times as strong, not 25 times.
Professor Leslie Iversen, a pharmacologist at Oxford University, said the widespread belief that skunk was 20 to 30 times as powerful was "simply not true".
The biggest change over recent decades has been in the strength of indoor-cultivated herbal cannabis, but even this has only doubled to 12 to 14 per cent THC. Although exceptionally strong skunk can be found on the market in Britain, it always has been available, according to reports from the UN Drug Control Programme.
On the question of psychosis, the advisory council was clear. Cannabis use may worsen the symptoms of schizophrenia and lead to a relapse in some patients. But on causation, it said: "The evidence suggests, at worst, that using cannabis increases the lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia by 1 per cent."
It added that more than three million people were estimated to have used cannabis in the previous year, but "very few will ever develop this distressing and disabling condition".
Scientists led by Professor Murray, at the Institute of Psychiatry, have argued that cannabis smoking can trigger psychosis in vulnerable individuals. A key worry is that young people are starting to smoke the drug earlier, in their mid-teens, when their brains are more vulnerable.
But experts led by Professor David Nutt, a specialist in addiction psychiatry at the University of Bristol, said in The Lancet in March that a causal link had not been established. Even if it were, cannabis could account for at most 7 per cent of cases of schizophrenia, he said.
One difficulty is distinguishing an association from a cause. Marjorie Wallace, the chief executive of Sane, the mental health charity, was quoted as saying evidence of the damaging effects of cannabis was mounting, with psychiatrists claiming "80 per cent of patients have been using cannabis". Cannabis use is widespread among mental patients, but their attempt to self-medicate tends to be a symptom of their suffering, not the cause.
Robert Fisk: No wonder the bloggers are winning
Robert Fisk: No wonder the bloggers are winning
These gutless papers explain why more people are Googling than turning pages
Published: 21 July 2007
I despise the internet. It's irresponsible and, often, a net of hate. And I don't have time for Blogopops. But here's a tale of two gutless newspapers which explains why more and more people are Googling rather than turning pages.
First the Los Angeles Times. Last year, reporter Mark Arax was assigned a routine story on the 1915 genocide of one and a half million Armenians by the Ottoman Turkish authorities. Arax's report focused on divisions within the local Jewish community over whether to call the genocide a genocide.
It's an old argument. The Turks insist - against all the facts and documents and eyewitness accounts, and against history - that the Armenians were victims of a civil war. The Israeli government and its new, Nobel prize-winning president, Shimon Peres - anxious to keep cosy relations with modern Turkey - have preferred to adopt Istanbul's mendacious version of events. However, many Jews, both inside and outside Israel, have bravely insisted that they do constitute a genocide, indeed the very precursor to the later Nazi Holocaust of six million Jews.
But Arax's genocide report was killed on the orders of managing editor Douglas Frantz because the reporter had a "position on the issue" and "a conflict of interest".
Readers will already have guessed that Arax is an Armenian-American. His sin, it seems, was that way back in 2005, he and five other writers wrote a formal memo to LA Times editors reminding them that the paper's style rules meant that the Armenian genocide was to be called just that - not "alleged genocide". Frantz, however, described the old memo as a "petition" and apparently accused Arax of landing the assignment by dealing with a Washington editor who was also an Armenian.
The story was reassigned to Washington reporter Rich Simon, who concentrated on Turkey's attempt to block Congress from recognising the Armenian slaughter -- and whose story ran under the headline "Genocide Resolution Still Far From Certain".
LA Times executives then went all coy, declining interviews, although Frantz admitted in a blog (of course) that he had "put a hold" on Arax's story because of concerns that the reporter "had expressed personal views about the topic in a public (sic) manner...". Ho ho.
Truth can be dangerous for the LA Times. Even more so, it seems, when the managing editor himself - Frantz, no less - once worked for The New York Times, where he referred to the Armenian massacres as, yes, an "alleged" genocide. Frantz, it turns out, joined the LA Times as its Istanbul correspondent.
Well, Arax has since left the LA Times after a settlement which forestalled a lawsuit against the paper for defamation and discrimination. His employers heaped praise upon his work while Frantz has just left the paper to become Middle East correspondent of the Wall Street Journal based in - of course, you guessed it - Istanbul.
But now let's go north of the border, to the Toronto Globe and Mail, which assigned columnist Jan Wong to investigate a college murder in Montreal last September. Wong is not a greatly loved reporter. A third-generation Canadian, she moved to China during Mao's "cultural revolution" and, in her own words, "snitched on class enemies and did my best to be a good little Maoist."
She later wrote a "Lunch With" series for the Globe in which she acted all sympathetic to interviewee guests to catch them out. "When they relax, that's when their guard is down," she told a college newspaper. "It's a trick, but it's legit." Yuk!
Wong's take on the Montreal Dawson College shooting, however, was more serious. She compared the killer to a half-Algerian Muslim who murdered 14 women in another Montreal college shooting in 1989 and to a Russian immigrant who killed four university colleagues in Montreal in 1992. "In all three cases," she wrote, "the perpetrator was not 'pure laine', the argot for a 'pure' francophone. Elsewhere, to talk of racial purity is repugnant. Not in Quebec."
Painfully true, I'm afraid. Parisians, who speak real French, would never use such an expression - pure laine translates literally as "pure wool" but means "authentic" - but some Montrealers do. Wong, however, had touched a red hot electric wire in "multicultural" Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper complained. "Grossly irresponsible," said the man who enthusiastically continued the policy of sending Canadian troops on their suicidal mission to Afghanistan.
The French-Canadian newspaper Le Devoir - can you imagine a British paper selling a single copy if it called itself "Duty"? - published a cartoon of Wong with exaggerated Chinese slanted eyes. Definitely not pure laine for Le Devoir. The hate mail was even more to the point. Some contained excrement.
But then the Globe and Mail ran for cover. Its editor-in-chief, Edward Greenspon, wrote a cowardly column in which he claimed that the offending paragraphs "should have been removed" from her story. "We regret that we allowed these words to get into a reported (sic) article," he sniffled. There had been a breakdown in what he hilariously called "the editorial quality control process".
Now I happen to know a bit about the Globe's "quality control process". Some time ago, I discovered that the paper had reprinted an article of mine from The Independent about the Armenian genocide. But they had tampered with it, altering my word "genocide" to read "tragedy".
The Independent's subscribers promise to make no changes to our reports. But when our syndication folk contacted the Globe, they discovered that the Canadian paper had simply stolen the article. They were made to pay a penalty fee. But as for the censorship of the word "genocide", a female executive explained to The Independent that nothing could be done because the editor responsible had "since left the Globe and Mail".
It's the same old story, isn't it? Censor then whinge, then cut and run. No wonder the bloggers are winning.
These gutless papers explain why more people are Googling than turning pages
Published: 21 July 2007
I despise the internet. It's irresponsible and, often, a net of hate. And I don't have time for Blogopops. But here's a tale of two gutless newspapers which explains why more and more people are Googling rather than turning pages.
First the Los Angeles Times. Last year, reporter Mark Arax was assigned a routine story on the 1915 genocide of one and a half million Armenians by the Ottoman Turkish authorities. Arax's report focused on divisions within the local Jewish community over whether to call the genocide a genocide.
It's an old argument. The Turks insist - against all the facts and documents and eyewitness accounts, and against history - that the Armenians were victims of a civil war. The Israeli government and its new, Nobel prize-winning president, Shimon Peres - anxious to keep cosy relations with modern Turkey - have preferred to adopt Istanbul's mendacious version of events. However, many Jews, both inside and outside Israel, have bravely insisted that they do constitute a genocide, indeed the very precursor to the later Nazi Holocaust of six million Jews.
But Arax's genocide report was killed on the orders of managing editor Douglas Frantz because the reporter had a "position on the issue" and "a conflict of interest".
Readers will already have guessed that Arax is an Armenian-American. His sin, it seems, was that way back in 2005, he and five other writers wrote a formal memo to LA Times editors reminding them that the paper's style rules meant that the Armenian genocide was to be called just that - not "alleged genocide". Frantz, however, described the old memo as a "petition" and apparently accused Arax of landing the assignment by dealing with a Washington editor who was also an Armenian.
The story was reassigned to Washington reporter Rich Simon, who concentrated on Turkey's attempt to block Congress from recognising the Armenian slaughter -- and whose story ran under the headline "Genocide Resolution Still Far From Certain".
LA Times executives then went all coy, declining interviews, although Frantz admitted in a blog (of course) that he had "put a hold" on Arax's story because of concerns that the reporter "had expressed personal views about the topic in a public (sic) manner...". Ho ho.
Truth can be dangerous for the LA Times. Even more so, it seems, when the managing editor himself - Frantz, no less - once worked for The New York Times, where he referred to the Armenian massacres as, yes, an "alleged" genocide. Frantz, it turns out, joined the LA Times as its Istanbul correspondent.
Well, Arax has since left the LA Times after a settlement which forestalled a lawsuit against the paper for defamation and discrimination. His employers heaped praise upon his work while Frantz has just left the paper to become Middle East correspondent of the Wall Street Journal based in - of course, you guessed it - Istanbul.
But now let's go north of the border, to the Toronto Globe and Mail, which assigned columnist Jan Wong to investigate a college murder in Montreal last September. Wong is not a greatly loved reporter. A third-generation Canadian, she moved to China during Mao's "cultural revolution" and, in her own words, "snitched on class enemies and did my best to be a good little Maoist."
She later wrote a "Lunch With" series for the Globe in which she acted all sympathetic to interviewee guests to catch them out. "When they relax, that's when their guard is down," she told a college newspaper. "It's a trick, but it's legit." Yuk!
Wong's take on the Montreal Dawson College shooting, however, was more serious. She compared the killer to a half-Algerian Muslim who murdered 14 women in another Montreal college shooting in 1989 and to a Russian immigrant who killed four university colleagues in Montreal in 1992. "In all three cases," she wrote, "the perpetrator was not 'pure laine', the argot for a 'pure' francophone. Elsewhere, to talk of racial purity is repugnant. Not in Quebec."
Painfully true, I'm afraid. Parisians, who speak real French, would never use such an expression - pure laine translates literally as "pure wool" but means "authentic" - but some Montrealers do. Wong, however, had touched a red hot electric wire in "multicultural" Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper complained. "Grossly irresponsible," said the man who enthusiastically continued the policy of sending Canadian troops on their suicidal mission to Afghanistan.
The French-Canadian newspaper Le Devoir - can you imagine a British paper selling a single copy if it called itself "Duty"? - published a cartoon of Wong with exaggerated Chinese slanted eyes. Definitely not pure laine for Le Devoir. The hate mail was even more to the point. Some contained excrement.
But then the Globe and Mail ran for cover. Its editor-in-chief, Edward Greenspon, wrote a cowardly column in which he claimed that the offending paragraphs "should have been removed" from her story. "We regret that we allowed these words to get into a reported (sic) article," he sniffled. There had been a breakdown in what he hilariously called "the editorial quality control process".
Now I happen to know a bit about the Globe's "quality control process". Some time ago, I discovered that the paper had reprinted an article of mine from The Independent about the Armenian genocide. But they had tampered with it, altering my word "genocide" to read "tragedy".
The Independent's subscribers promise to make no changes to our reports. But when our syndication folk contacted the Globe, they discovered that the Canadian paper had simply stolen the article. They were made to pay a penalty fee. But as for the censorship of the word "genocide", a female executive explained to The Independent that nothing could be done because the editor responsible had "since left the Globe and Mail".
It's the same old story, isn't it? Censor then whinge, then cut and run. No wonder the bloggers are winning.
Friday, July 20, 2007
I Cannot Tell a Lie - what people with autism can tell us about honesty
I Cannot Tell a Lie - what people with autism can tell us about honesty
By Simon Baron-Cohen
In moral terms, honesty is without doubt a virtue, and dishonesty is a vice. But in social terms, absolute honesty can lead to trouble, risking causing offense to others who may not want or need to hear the complete truth. White lies may be desirable. And in biological terms, dishonesty is a sign of typical brain development, whereas someone who is incapable of dishonesty may be neurologically atypical. Dishonesty is one defining characteristic of what it is to be human. It is not the only defining characteristic, but it does separate us from other animals. Some nonhuman species may have a limited capacity for deception, but humans have a flexible, unlimited capacity for deception. And since anything that is uniquely human is likely to be part of our genetic makeup, it stands to reason that we are, in a sense, built for dishonesty — and those incapable of dishonesty, like people with autism, have a uniquely human disability. Beyond having deficits in social interaction, they live with a different relationship to morality. Their experience is a unique window into the typical human mind.
We’ll return to this point in just a moment. But before we can see what honesty means for being human, and what we can learn about it from autism, we need to take an unexpected detour and examine first what other species can and can’t do when it comes to deception. To understand how humans lie, it profits us to begin by looking at monkeys.
Consider, for example, the reports of how one monkey will wait until a second monkey (who is watching him) is not around before approaching a food source. Some interpret this as the first monkey trying to ensure that the observer does not discover the food source. Critics call this the “rich” interpretation. The “lean” interpretation is that the first monkey has simply learned that if he waits until no other animals are around before going to the food source, he will get more food. In this interpretation, there is no need to attribute to the first monkey any capacity to deceive. They are simply able to learn the rule that eating alone = more food.
Or consider the examples of animals who hunt in silence. Imagine the lioness who lies in wait in the long grass, silently watching a wildebeest who has not yet spotted her. The lioness waits for her moment, remaining as still and as invisible as possible, until she sees her split-second opportunity and lunges, as if out of nowhere, to successfully seize and kill her prey. Some interpret this as the lioness trying to ensure that the wildebeest does not discover she is there, so that he will believe he is safe and not run away. Again, critics call this the rich interpretation. The lean interpretation is that the lioness has learned that hunting in silence results in a kill, while making a noise results in the prey getting away. In this lean interpretation, there is no need to attribute to the lioness any capacity to deceive. She is simply able to learn the rule that hunting in silence = more food. An even leaner interpretation might be that silent stalking is in the lioness’s genes – that it does not even require learning. The lioness just does this because she inherited genes that produce this behavior, much as a spider spins webs. Such genes have been passed on precisely because they lead to more food and therefore better chances of survival.
How do we decide if the rich or the lean interpretation is correct or better? Among scientists, good practice dictates that a lean interpretation, where possible, is preferable over a rich one, since lean interpretations are more parsimonious. In science, we want to explain events with the fewest number of factors; the aim is to avoid a proliferation of unnecessary factors. Explaining monkeys’ or lionesses’ behavior in terms of rule-learning is more parsimonious than explaining it by attributing to them the capacity for deception. This is because we already know they can learn rules. So why invoke an extra capacity when an existing one will do?
Leaving parsimony aside, one may wonder: If monkeys or lions or other animals could truly deceive, why do we only see possible instances of deception in very limited situations? If they can deceive, why don’t they do it left, right, and center? Why only when hunting, or when locating food, or during sex? (Some monkeys mate in silence and out of sight, to avoid a fight with a rival male. Presumably the rule is mate silently and out of sight = less conflict.) According to this line of thought, the idea is that if nonhuman animals appear to deceive only in very limited situations, perhaps it isn’t genuine deception at all. The philosopher Daniel Dennett gives the wonderful example of his dog going to the back door and scratching his paw on the door, as if to signal that he wants to go out. When his master gets out of his favorite armchair to let the dog out, the dog doubles back to sit in the now empty armchair. Did the dog deceive his master? Again, one can always give a leaner interpretation. The dog may simply have learned the rule scratching at the door = get comfy seat.
If what other animals are doing when they appear to be dishonest is not real deception, this begs the question of what counts as real deception. True deception assumes the deceiver knows that (1) other beings have minds, (2) different beings’ minds can believe different things are true (when only one of these is actually true), and (3) you can make another mind believe that something false is actually true. Defined in this way, one can see that deception is no trivial achievement! The deceiver needs to have the mental equipment to juggle different representations of reality. No wonder that scholars of animal behavior are wary of elevating a single instance of behavior to genuine deception, and prefer to reduce it to simpler mental processes like learned associations.
.....
When we look at human cases of dishonesty, could these not also be demoted to simple rule-learning? In the human case, it is actually more parsimonious to regard typical children’s deception as true deception – the single easiest way of explaining the multifarious cases of children’s deception is to admit that, yes, the child has a real capacity for deception. A typical child of four years old (or older) does not only lie in relation to eating chocolate cookies but also in relation to pushing his sister, or sneaking a look at his birthday presents, or saying that he liked his present when he did not. One either has to say that each of these situations gives rise to a separate learned association or rule (e.g., to avoid punishment or get a reward) or to acknowledge that typical preschoolers have the capacity for deception.
So what is entailed when we say that the child’s brain is capable of genuine deception? Rutgers psychologist Alan Leslie suggests that to deceive, the child must be able to represent two parallel but different versions of reality. The child knows that version 1 is the true description of an event, and that
version 2 is false or fictional but is held to be true to some other person. Leslie calls this ability to keep two parallel versions of reality simultaneously in mind the capacity for meta-representation.
Meta-representation involves understanding how you can play with “truth conditions.” Consider the sentence “John believes the moon is made of cheese.” This can be true even if we know the moon is made of different stuff, so long as it is the case that John believes his assertion. So, when Leslie suggests that at four years old typical children are capable of meta-representation, what he means is that the typical four-year-old child can separate the truth conditions of the two versions of reality. One version of reality – “The moon is made of rocks” – is true if and only if the moon is really made of rocks. And four-year-old children understand this. The other version of reality – “John believes the moon is made of cheese” – is true if and only if John believes this, and four-year-old children understand this as well. And that is why the typical four-year-old child can deceive. He can represent “I ate the chocolate cookies” and at the same time represent “Mom believes I didn’t eat the chocolate cookies.” One can marvel at the psychological and neurological complexity of such a capacity, already in place in a typical four-year-old.
.....
And then there are people with autism. Their neurological condition leads not only to difficulties socializing and chatting but also to difficulties recognizing when someone might be deceiving them or understanding how to deceive others. Many children with autism are perplexed by why someone would even want to deceive others, or why someone would think about fiction or pretense. They have no difficulty with facts (version 1 of reality) and can tell you easily if something is true or false (“Is the moon made of rocks? Yes! Is the moon made of cheese? No!”). But they may be puzzled by version 2 of reality, that “John believes the moon is made of cheese.” Why would a person believe something that is untrue?
They have major difficulties grasping that another person might hold a false belief that to that person is true. A large body of experimental research shows that while the typical child achieves this understanding easily by four years old, children with autism are to varying degrees delayed in this area of development. As a result, they show some degree of “mindblindness.” Even the higher-functioning children on the autistic spectrum, such as those with Asperger’s syndrome, show delays in the development of mind-reading ability. This neurological (and ultimately genetic) set of conditions can leave the person with autism or Asperger’s syndrome prey to deception and exploitation.
Take the boy with Asperger’s syndrome in the playground at school who was approached by a group of other boys, one of whom asked, “Can I have a look your wallet?” Innocently, the boy handed it over, and was shocked when the other boy ran off with it. This lack of “street smarts” boils down to not being aware that other people may say one thing but mean another. For the child with autism, there is only one version of reality. The other version (the world of beliefs and intentions) may be one he rarely glimpses, or grasps too slowly, too late. This tells us something very important: that the skills you need to survive and negotiate the social world involve mind-reading and meta-representation – and that the capacity to deceive is a marker that a child is developing typical social skills.
When I was a young Ph.D. student, I tested children using the “penny-hiding game.” This is the age-old game where you sit opposite the child and show him you have a penny. You then put your hands behind your back, conceal the penny in one of your hands, and then bring your two closed hands in front of your body to invite the child to guess which hand the penny is in. Obviously he has a 50/50 chance of choosing the correct hand. You then repeat this, varying which hand you hide the penny in. To trick the child, your best strategy is to be unpredictable, rather than always hiding it in the same hand. Most children find this game lots of fun. But to test whether he himself can deceive, you then swap roles. Now he is the hider and you are the seeker. The question is: how good is he at trying to trick you?
Playing this game with a typical child over four years old soon reveals that this is – literally – child’s play. He realizes that in the role of hider he needs to do three things: (1) conceal the penny only when his hands are behind his back; (2) keep both hands tightly shut when inviting you to choose; and (3) over a series of trials, hide the penny in a sequence that is hard to predict. But playing this game with a child with classic autism – even if he is older than four – soon reveals major difficulties. The child with autism typically makes one of three kinds of error: transferring the penny from one hand to another in full view of you, in front of his body; keeping one hand open when inviting you to guess which hand the penny is in; or hiding the penny in an easy-to-predict pattern (such as in the same hand each time, or just alternating). The first two of these errors suggest he is not keeping track of what you might know, based on what you can see. He is just not keeping track of another person’s beliefs.
As such, children with autism make very poor liars. Like the typical two-year-old boy who says, “I didn’t eat the chocolate cookies,” but who has chocolate smeared all over his face and fingers, or like the two-year-old girl who plays hide-and-seek by standing in the middle of the room with her eyes shut and saying, “You can’t see me!,” the child with autism is very poor at telling lies. But whereas the two-year-old child is well on the way to developing a capacity for deception (spontaneously playing peekaboo because she is interested in what other people can see), the child with autism finds very little pleasure in playing such mind games.
Far more satisfying for a child with autism is a game rooted in version 1 of reality, the version he does understand, the world of physical objects. Lego bricks, which can be built into pleasing patterns and constructions, and which can be assembled and disassembled in the same predictable way each time, or can be varied in a logical, systematic, rule-governed way, are far more attractive than a game of deception. Hence a neurological disability that leaves the child challenged in fast-changing social situations also leaves him or her more virtuous, more truthful, less deceitful. The person with autism or Asperger’s syndrome may say that your haircut is awful, and this may be true. He means no offense in such a personal remark. He is simply saying what he thinks, and don’t see the purpose of saying the opposite of what he thinks.
And even after twenty-five years in the field of autism, I am still shocked. A Ph.D. student with Asperger’s syndrome said to me last week, “I’ve just discovered that people don’t always say what they mean. So how do you know how to trust language?” Her “discovery” at the age of twenty-seven is one that the typical child makes at age four, in the teasing interactions of the playground.
.....
Brain-scanning studies reveal that one key brain region typically involved in mind-reading is the left medial prefrontal cortex. This brain region is underactive in people with autism and Asperger’s syndrome. Since these conditions to some extent run in families, genes will partly determine whether a person finds mind-reading easy or hard. I say “partly” because autism is not wholly genetic. Environmental experience is also important, but it appears to interact with genetic makeup. And if mind-reading is in part genetically programmed, it means it is the result of our evolution, since the processes shaping evolution (such as natural selection and sexual selection) act by enabling animals to survive to the age of reproduction, find a mate, and pass on their genes. It has been speculated that the first hominids who could mind-read would have had major advantages over those who could not – by deceiving and outwitting them, by being able to create shared plans and collaborate, by being able to teach each other, by being able to see other perspectives and negotiate to avoid conflict, or by being able to mind-read their offspring to anticipate their needs and thus provide better parenting.
So does this mean that people with autism or Asperger’s syndrome are somehow less evolved? Not at all. What appears to have happened in human evolution is that the brain has developed down more than one path. The “neurotypical” brain has been selected for its capacity to socialize and chat with ease, keeping track of the rapidly changing social world, different points of view, innuendo, hidden meanings, exchanges of glances, and exploitation. The autistic brain, on the other hand, has been selected for its capacity to focus on the physical world in greater depth than is typical, noticing small details that others miss (such as patterns in numbers or shapes) and attending to highly specific topics in order to understand them completely.
Pejoratively, clinicians describe the deep, narrow interests in autism as “obsessions,” but a more positive description might be “areas of expertise.” Sometimes the area of expertise a person with autism focuses on appears not to be very useful (e.g., geometric shapes, or the texture of different woods). Sometimes the area of expertise is slightly more useful, though of limited interest to others (e.g., train timetables, or flags of the world). But sometimes the area of expertise can make a real social contribution (such as fixing machines, or solving mathematical problems, or debugging computer software).
It is not that the neurotypical brain or the autistic brain is more evolved than the other: each has evolved differently, one to empathize and master the social climate, the other to systemize successfully so as to master the physical niche. The unique qualities of human intelligence are characterized not just by the capacity for mind-reading (and deception), which has enabled humans to work in coordinated activity unusually well, but also by the capacity to systemize, which has enabled humans to understand how things work, and to develop innovative technology par excellence. People with autism, who can perceive patterns better and concentrate better than their peers, are also more honest. Rather than regarding autism as a “disease,” we should recognize it as a difference that deserves our respect. Some features of it, like a learning or language disability, may benefit from treatment. But other features, like remarkable attention to detail and utmost honesty, are valuable human qualities.
.....
Simon Baron-Cohen is a professor of developmental psychopathology at the University of Cambridge and a fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge.
Whitewash
If you think about it you cannot have such a thing as "purer than pure" the limit is pure. Nor can you have whiter than white. When the government talks about transparency what it really means is that it will be as clear as mud. One only has to read the Crown Prosecution Statement in the post below, particularly paragraph 30 which I have highlighted, to realise that this has been yet another example of a whitewash. I don't feel that the job has been done properly, therefore, I offer Carmen Dowd the following link and she can discover tips how to do a proper job.
Tip.
Cash for honours: CPS statement in full
CPS statement in full
Last Updated: 1:06pm BST 20/07/2007
Page 1 of 3
# Cash for honours: 'No charges brought'
The Crown Prosecution Service has announced there is insufficient evidence to bring any charges after the 16-month inquiry. Here is their statement in full:
CPS decision: "Cash for honours" case
1. Carmen Dowd announced today her decision on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that there would be no criminal proceedings arising out of the so called “Cash for Honours” investigation. In reaching this decision, she was advised by a team of independent counsel, led by David Perry QC. The Director of Public Prosecutions played no part in the decision-making process. In his stead, Carmen Dowd consulted the Director’s Principal Legal Advisor, Chris Newell.
2. The investigation, by a team of the Metropolitan Police led by Assistant Commissioner John Yates, commenced in March 2006, following a complaint made by a member of the Scottish National Party, that an attempt had been made to confer peerages in contravention of section 1 of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 (‘the 1925 Act’). The complaint alleged that a number of individuals had agreed to make substantial loans to the Labour Party on the understanding that they would be rewarded by the grant of a peerage.
3. From the outset, the CPS assisted the police with their enquiries, offering legal advice as appropriate and whenever sought. The police passed material to the CPS on a regular basis, before submitting their main report in April 2007. Having considered that substantial report in detail, the CPS invited the police to undertake further enquiries. Further submissions followed, culminating in the seventeenth and final submission of evidence on 2 July 2007. Thereafter, counsel considered all the material submitted by the police and provided their own lengthy and detailed advice to the CPS.
4. Advice from counsel is provided to the CPS on a confidential basis. It is not our practice to publish such advice, particularly where it analyses in great detail the conduct of named persons against whom no criminal proceedings can properly be brought. The CPS does not intend to depart from that practice in this case; but we recognise the great public interest in the investigation and its outcome. We therefore wish to say as much as we believe we properly can to explain the nature of the issues that we had to consider, which we hope will assist in understanding the decision that has today been announced.
5. It is a matter of public knowledge that the principal focus of the investigation was into possible breaches of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 (‘the 1925 Act’). There were some subsidiary issues relating to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, 2000 (‘the 2000 Act’); and during the course of the investigation itself it became necessary to consider whether certain events might be interpreted as acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. For the avoidance of doubt, we wish to emphasise that today’s decision indicates unequivocally that there is insufficient evidence to support proceedings against any individual, for any offence under either the 1925 Act or the 2000 Act, or for any offence of perverting, or attempting or conspiring to pervert, the course of justice. Background
6. On 5 May 2005, the Labour Party won a general election. About a month later, Downing Street officials began work on the preparation of a list of suitable candidates for nomination as Labour working peers.
7. Throughout the summer of 2005, various drafts of the list were prepared. On 3 October 2005, the final list (which included candidates proposed by other political parties) was approved by the Prime Minister and shortly thereafter sent for scrutiny to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (‘HOLAC’).
8. On 9 March 2006, reports began to appear in the press that a number of the Labour Party nominees had made ‘secret’ loans to the Party, and that these loans had not been disclosed to HOLAC. Shortly afterwards, the Labour Party published the names of the individuals from whom the Party had received loans. The individuals included four of the nominees who appeared on the list submitted to HOLAC.
9. The police investigation subsequently revealed that the names of other individuals who had loaned money to the Labour Party appeared on earlier drafts of the working peers list.
10. The loans had been obtained in order to meet the high level of expenditure connected to the 2005 election campaign. Life Peerages
11. This case concerns the creation (or recommendation for creation) of life peers knows as “working peers”.
12. “Working peer” is simply the term given to a peer who is expected to attend the House of Lords on a regular basis in support of the party by which he is nominated. Individuals are therefore nominated on a party political basis. The Prime Minister will decide how many working peers are to be created and how the numbers are to be apportioned between the political parties. Where peerages are created for representatives of the opposition parties, the names of the nominees are selected by each party leader and passed to Downing Street for the Prime Minister’s consideration. Once the list of nominees has been drawn up, it is submitted to HOLAC for scrutiny. The 1925 Act 13. Section 1 of the 1925 Act creates two offences of abuse in connection with the grant of honours. Section 1 provides: ‘(1) If any person accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, or for any purpose, any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of an offence. (2) If any person gives, or agrees or proposes to give, or offers to any person any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of an offence.’
14. The offences are triable either way. On conviction on indictment, a person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to an unlimited fine, or both.
15. In essence, the conduct which the 1925 Act makes criminal is the agreement, or the offer, to buy and sell dignities or titles of honour. Section 1(1) is drafted in wide terms and captures any agreement in which a seller agrees to procure a peerage in return for money or other valuable consideration. Section 1(2) is also drafted in wide terms and captures any agreement in which a buyer agrees to provide money or other valuable consideration, in order to induce a seller to procure a peerage.
16. The core ingredients of the offence contrary to section 1(1) of the 1925 Act (‘the seller limb’) are as follows: (1) accepting, obtaining or agreeing to accept or attempting to obtain; (2) any gift, money or valuable consideration; (3) as an inducement or reward for procuring, or assisting or endeavouring to procure, the grant of a dignity or title of honour.
17. The core ingredients of the offence contrary to section 1(2) of the 1925 Act (‘the buyer limb’) are as follows: (1) giving, agreeing or proposing to give, or offering; (2) any gift, money or valuable consideration; (3) as an inducement or reward for procuring, or assisting or endeavouring to procure, the grant of a dignity or title of honour. The 2000 Act
18. The relevant offence under the 2000 Act is committed by a failure to report the receipt of a loan made other than on commercial terms. Perverting the Course of Public Justice
19. The common law offence of perverting the course of public justice is committed where a person: (a) acts or embarks upon a course of conduct, (b) which has a tendency to, and, ©) is intended to pervert, (d) the course of public justice.
20. The offence may be committed where acts are done with the intention of concealing the fact that a crime has been committed, although no proceedings in respect of it are pending or have commenced, and even in circumstances where a police investigation has not yet begun. A positive act is required: inaction is insufficient. Conclusions
21. In arriving at our conclusions, we have acted strictly in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
22. A decision whether or not to prosecute is a two stage process. First, consideration must be given to whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction (‘the evidential test’). Secondly, if (and only if) it is decided that a realistic prospect of conviction exists, consideration must then be given to whether a prosecution is in the public interest (‘the public interest test’). The evidential test is contained in paragraph 5 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors which, so far as is material, provides as follows: ‘2. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a “realistic prospect of conviction” against each defendant on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case. 3. A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that a jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a separate test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court should only convict if satisfied so that it is sure of a defendant’s guilt. 4. When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. There will be many cases in which the evidence does not give any cause for concern. But there will also be cases in which the evidence may not be as strong as it first appears. Crown Prosecutors must ask themselves the following questions: Can the evidence be used in court? a. Is it likely that the evidence will be excluded by the court? There are certain legal rules which might mean that evidence which seems relevant cannot be given at a trial. For example, is it likely that the evidence will be excluded because of the way in which it is gathered? If so, is there enough other evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction? Is the evidence reliable? b. Is there evidence which might support or detract from the reliability of a confession? Is the reliability affected by factors such as the defendant’s age, intelligence or level of understanding? c. What explanation has the defendant given? Is a court likely to find it credible in the light of the evidence as a whole? Does it support an innocent explanation? … f. Are there concerns over the accuracy or credibility of a witness? Are these concerns based on evidence or simply information with nothing to support it? Is there further evidence which the police should be asked to seek out which may support or detract from the account of the witness. 5. Crown Prosecutors should not ignore evidence because they are not sure that it can be used or is reliable. But they should look closely at it when deciding if there is a realistic prospect of conviction.’
23. As will be clear from paragraphs 13 to 17 above, an offence is committed if • an unambiguous offer of a gift, etc, in exchange for an honour, is either made or solicited by one person to or from another, even if that other person refuses either to accept or to make such an offer; or • one person agrees with another to make/accept a gift, etc, specifically in exchange for an honour.
24. There is nothing in the circumstances of this case to suggest that the first of these routes to the offence has been taken. There is no complaint from any person that they have been offered a gift, etc, in exchange for an honour. There is no complaint from any person that they have been asked to make a gift, etc, in exchange for an honour. The investigation has therefore necessarily focused on the question whether there was any agreement between two people to make/accept a gift, etc, in exchange for an honour.
25. In a case such as this, the essence of the offence lies in that unambiguous agreement. If one person makes an offer, etc, in the hope or expectation of being granted an honour, or in the belief that it might put him/her in a more favourable position when nominations are subsequently being considered, that does not of itself constitute an offence. Conversely, if one person grants, etc, an honour to another in recognition of (in effect, as a reward for) the fact that that other has made a gift, etc, that does not of itself constitute an offence. For a case to proceed, the prosecution must have a realistic prospect of being able to prove that the two people agreed that the gift, etc, was in exchange for an honour.
26. Such an agreement might be proved either by direct evidence, or by inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances of the case. Such inferences must be so strong as to overwhelm any other, innocent, inferences that might be drawn from the same circumstances.
27. There is no direct evidence of any such agreement between any two people subject of this investigation.
28. The CPS has therefore considered with the greatest care what inferences can properly be drawn from the circumstances. In doing so, we have recognised the dangers in viewing circumstantial evidence in isolation, on a piecemeal basis. In order properly to appreciate the significance and to understand the inference, or possible inferences, that might be drawn from any piece of evidence, it is necessary to examine it in the context of the case as a whole. What might appear in one light when viewed on its own can appear in a wholly different light when viewed against a wider backdrop.
29. It is the case that each of those who lent or donated money to the Labour Party and who have been interviewed during the course of the investigation has denied that any improper agreement was made, as have all those concerned within the Labour Party and in Downing Street. There is furthermore substantial and reliable evidence that there were proper reasons for the inclusion of all those whose names appeared on the 2005 working peers list, or drafts of that list: that each was a credible candidate for a peerage, irrespective of any financial assistance that they had given, or might give, to the Labour Party. Against that backdrop, the CPS is satisfied beyond doubt that the available evidence is not sufficient to enable an overwhelming inference to be drawn, such as to afford a realistic prospect of convicting any person for any offence contrary to Section 1 of the 1925 Act.
30. In relation to possible breaches of the 2000 Act, we are satisfied that we cannot exclude the possibility that any loans made – all of which were made following receipt by the Labour Party of legal advice - can properly be characterised as commercial.
31. In relation to any events which might have been interpreted as acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice, we are satisfied that the weight of the evidence that has now been considered does not support that suggestion. There is therefore no realistic prospect of conviction in respect of the offence of perverting the course of public justice against any individuals.
32. The events under investigation and the police enquiry itself have become the subject of intense political controversy and prolonged media interest. The investigation has involved an enquiry into the probity of senior political figures working at the very heart of government. Indeed, the investigation has been primarily concerned with the conduct of individuals working within Downing Street and who were, therefore, closely connected to the former Prime Minister. Owing to the political context of the matters investigated, it is inevitable that the issues raised by the enquiry have become the subject of political debate, often conducted in partisan terms. The CPS makes it clear that political questions have played no part in its analysis of this case. The criminal law of England and Wales applies to every citizen alike, regardless of his or her political affiliation or official status. Equally, the criminal law cannot be used to single out a citizen for adverse treatment because he or she has such an affiliation or enjoys such status. Moreover, the conclusions reached by the CPS are the result of independent and professional judgment, following a thorough and professional investigation by the police. Extraneous considerations such as political or public opinion have played no part in the analysis, nor have they played any part in the decision making.
Last Updated: 1:06pm BST 20/07/2007
Page 1 of 3
# Cash for honours: 'No charges brought'
The Crown Prosecution Service has announced there is insufficient evidence to bring any charges after the 16-month inquiry. Here is their statement in full:
CPS decision: "Cash for honours" case
1. Carmen Dowd announced today her decision on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that there would be no criminal proceedings arising out of the so called “Cash for Honours” investigation. In reaching this decision, she was advised by a team of independent counsel, led by David Perry QC. The Director of Public Prosecutions played no part in the decision-making process. In his stead, Carmen Dowd consulted the Director’s Principal Legal Advisor, Chris Newell.
2. The investigation, by a team of the Metropolitan Police led by Assistant Commissioner John Yates, commenced in March 2006, following a complaint made by a member of the Scottish National Party, that an attempt had been made to confer peerages in contravention of section 1 of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 (‘the 1925 Act’). The complaint alleged that a number of individuals had agreed to make substantial loans to the Labour Party on the understanding that they would be rewarded by the grant of a peerage.
3. From the outset, the CPS assisted the police with their enquiries, offering legal advice as appropriate and whenever sought. The police passed material to the CPS on a regular basis, before submitting their main report in April 2007. Having considered that substantial report in detail, the CPS invited the police to undertake further enquiries. Further submissions followed, culminating in the seventeenth and final submission of evidence on 2 July 2007. Thereafter, counsel considered all the material submitted by the police and provided their own lengthy and detailed advice to the CPS.
4. Advice from counsel is provided to the CPS on a confidential basis. It is not our practice to publish such advice, particularly where it analyses in great detail the conduct of named persons against whom no criminal proceedings can properly be brought. The CPS does not intend to depart from that practice in this case; but we recognise the great public interest in the investigation and its outcome. We therefore wish to say as much as we believe we properly can to explain the nature of the issues that we had to consider, which we hope will assist in understanding the decision that has today been announced.
5. It is a matter of public knowledge that the principal focus of the investigation was into possible breaches of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 (‘the 1925 Act’). There were some subsidiary issues relating to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, 2000 (‘the 2000 Act’); and during the course of the investigation itself it became necessary to consider whether certain events might be interpreted as acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. For the avoidance of doubt, we wish to emphasise that today’s decision indicates unequivocally that there is insufficient evidence to support proceedings against any individual, for any offence under either the 1925 Act or the 2000 Act, or for any offence of perverting, or attempting or conspiring to pervert, the course of justice. Background
6. On 5 May 2005, the Labour Party won a general election. About a month later, Downing Street officials began work on the preparation of a list of suitable candidates for nomination as Labour working peers.
7. Throughout the summer of 2005, various drafts of the list were prepared. On 3 October 2005, the final list (which included candidates proposed by other political parties) was approved by the Prime Minister and shortly thereafter sent for scrutiny to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (‘HOLAC’).
8. On 9 March 2006, reports began to appear in the press that a number of the Labour Party nominees had made ‘secret’ loans to the Party, and that these loans had not been disclosed to HOLAC. Shortly afterwards, the Labour Party published the names of the individuals from whom the Party had received loans. The individuals included four of the nominees who appeared on the list submitted to HOLAC.
9. The police investigation subsequently revealed that the names of other individuals who had loaned money to the Labour Party appeared on earlier drafts of the working peers list.
10. The loans had been obtained in order to meet the high level of expenditure connected to the 2005 election campaign. Life Peerages
11. This case concerns the creation (or recommendation for creation) of life peers knows as “working peers”.
12. “Working peer” is simply the term given to a peer who is expected to attend the House of Lords on a regular basis in support of the party by which he is nominated. Individuals are therefore nominated on a party political basis. The Prime Minister will decide how many working peers are to be created and how the numbers are to be apportioned between the political parties. Where peerages are created for representatives of the opposition parties, the names of the nominees are selected by each party leader and passed to Downing Street for the Prime Minister’s consideration. Once the list of nominees has been drawn up, it is submitted to HOLAC for scrutiny. The 1925 Act 13. Section 1 of the 1925 Act creates two offences of abuse in connection with the grant of honours. Section 1 provides: ‘(1) If any person accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, or for any purpose, any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of an offence. (2) If any person gives, or agrees or proposes to give, or offers to any person any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of an offence.’
14. The offences are triable either way. On conviction on indictment, a person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to an unlimited fine, or both.
15. In essence, the conduct which the 1925 Act makes criminal is the agreement, or the offer, to buy and sell dignities or titles of honour. Section 1(1) is drafted in wide terms and captures any agreement in which a seller agrees to procure a peerage in return for money or other valuable consideration. Section 1(2) is also drafted in wide terms and captures any agreement in which a buyer agrees to provide money or other valuable consideration, in order to induce a seller to procure a peerage.
16. The core ingredients of the offence contrary to section 1(1) of the 1925 Act (‘the seller limb’) are as follows: (1) accepting, obtaining or agreeing to accept or attempting to obtain; (2) any gift, money or valuable consideration; (3) as an inducement or reward for procuring, or assisting or endeavouring to procure, the grant of a dignity or title of honour.
17. The core ingredients of the offence contrary to section 1(2) of the 1925 Act (‘the buyer limb’) are as follows: (1) giving, agreeing or proposing to give, or offering; (2) any gift, money or valuable consideration; (3) as an inducement or reward for procuring, or assisting or endeavouring to procure, the grant of a dignity or title of honour. The 2000 Act
18. The relevant offence under the 2000 Act is committed by a failure to report the receipt of a loan made other than on commercial terms. Perverting the Course of Public Justice
19. The common law offence of perverting the course of public justice is committed where a person: (a) acts or embarks upon a course of conduct, (b) which has a tendency to, and, ©) is intended to pervert, (d) the course of public justice.
20. The offence may be committed where acts are done with the intention of concealing the fact that a crime has been committed, although no proceedings in respect of it are pending or have commenced, and even in circumstances where a police investigation has not yet begun. A positive act is required: inaction is insufficient. Conclusions
21. In arriving at our conclusions, we have acted strictly in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
22. A decision whether or not to prosecute is a two stage process. First, consideration must be given to whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction (‘the evidential test’). Secondly, if (and only if) it is decided that a realistic prospect of conviction exists, consideration must then be given to whether a prosecution is in the public interest (‘the public interest test’). The evidential test is contained in paragraph 5 of the Code for Crown Prosecutors which, so far as is material, provides as follows: ‘2. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a “realistic prospect of conviction” against each defendant on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case. 3. A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that a jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a separate test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court should only convict if satisfied so that it is sure of a defendant’s guilt. 4. When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. There will be many cases in which the evidence does not give any cause for concern. But there will also be cases in which the evidence may not be as strong as it first appears. Crown Prosecutors must ask themselves the following questions: Can the evidence be used in court? a. Is it likely that the evidence will be excluded by the court? There are certain legal rules which might mean that evidence which seems relevant cannot be given at a trial. For example, is it likely that the evidence will be excluded because of the way in which it is gathered? If so, is there enough other evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction? Is the evidence reliable? b. Is there evidence which might support or detract from the reliability of a confession? Is the reliability affected by factors such as the defendant’s age, intelligence or level of understanding? c. What explanation has the defendant given? Is a court likely to find it credible in the light of the evidence as a whole? Does it support an innocent explanation? … f. Are there concerns over the accuracy or credibility of a witness? Are these concerns based on evidence or simply information with nothing to support it? Is there further evidence which the police should be asked to seek out which may support or detract from the account of the witness. 5. Crown Prosecutors should not ignore evidence because they are not sure that it can be used or is reliable. But they should look closely at it when deciding if there is a realistic prospect of conviction.’
23. As will be clear from paragraphs 13 to 17 above, an offence is committed if • an unambiguous offer of a gift, etc, in exchange for an honour, is either made or solicited by one person to or from another, even if that other person refuses either to accept or to make such an offer; or • one person agrees with another to make/accept a gift, etc, specifically in exchange for an honour.
24. There is nothing in the circumstances of this case to suggest that the first of these routes to the offence has been taken. There is no complaint from any person that they have been offered a gift, etc, in exchange for an honour. There is no complaint from any person that they have been asked to make a gift, etc, in exchange for an honour. The investigation has therefore necessarily focused on the question whether there was any agreement between two people to make/accept a gift, etc, in exchange for an honour.
25. In a case such as this, the essence of the offence lies in that unambiguous agreement. If one person makes an offer, etc, in the hope or expectation of being granted an honour, or in the belief that it might put him/her in a more favourable position when nominations are subsequently being considered, that does not of itself constitute an offence. Conversely, if one person grants, etc, an honour to another in recognition of (in effect, as a reward for) the fact that that other has made a gift, etc, that does not of itself constitute an offence. For a case to proceed, the prosecution must have a realistic prospect of being able to prove that the two people agreed that the gift, etc, was in exchange for an honour.
26. Such an agreement might be proved either by direct evidence, or by inferences that can be drawn from the circumstances of the case. Such inferences must be so strong as to overwhelm any other, innocent, inferences that might be drawn from the same circumstances.
27. There is no direct evidence of any such agreement between any two people subject of this investigation.
28. The CPS has therefore considered with the greatest care what inferences can properly be drawn from the circumstances. In doing so, we have recognised the dangers in viewing circumstantial evidence in isolation, on a piecemeal basis. In order properly to appreciate the significance and to understand the inference, or possible inferences, that might be drawn from any piece of evidence, it is necessary to examine it in the context of the case as a whole. What might appear in one light when viewed on its own can appear in a wholly different light when viewed against a wider backdrop.
29. It is the case that each of those who lent or donated money to the Labour Party and who have been interviewed during the course of the investigation has denied that any improper agreement was made, as have all those concerned within the Labour Party and in Downing Street. There is furthermore substantial and reliable evidence that there were proper reasons for the inclusion of all those whose names appeared on the 2005 working peers list, or drafts of that list: that each was a credible candidate for a peerage, irrespective of any financial assistance that they had given, or might give, to the Labour Party. Against that backdrop, the CPS is satisfied beyond doubt that the available evidence is not sufficient to enable an overwhelming inference to be drawn, such as to afford a realistic prospect of convicting any person for any offence contrary to Section 1 of the 1925 Act.
30. In relation to possible breaches of the 2000 Act, we are satisfied that we cannot exclude the possibility that any loans made – all of which were made following receipt by the Labour Party of legal advice - can properly be characterised as commercial.
31. In relation to any events which might have been interpreted as acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice, we are satisfied that the weight of the evidence that has now been considered does not support that suggestion. There is therefore no realistic prospect of conviction in respect of the offence of perverting the course of public justice against any individuals.
32. The events under investigation and the police enquiry itself have become the subject of intense political controversy and prolonged media interest. The investigation has involved an enquiry into the probity of senior political figures working at the very heart of government. Indeed, the investigation has been primarily concerned with the conduct of individuals working within Downing Street and who were, therefore, closely connected to the former Prime Minister. Owing to the political context of the matters investigated, it is inevitable that the issues raised by the enquiry have become the subject of political debate, often conducted in partisan terms. The CPS makes it clear that political questions have played no part in its analysis of this case. The criminal law of England and Wales applies to every citizen alike, regardless of his or her political affiliation or official status. Equally, the criminal law cannot be used to single out a citizen for adverse treatment because he or she has such an affiliation or enjoys such status. Moreover, the conclusions reached by the CPS are the result of independent and professional judgment, following a thorough and professional investigation by the police. Extraneous considerations such as political or public opinion have played no part in the analysis, nor have they played any part in the decision making.