Zinzin has pointed out that there is to be a memorial service to mark the 10th anniversary of Princess Diana's death. And he asks, What about Dodi? After all, he was killed in the same car crash and was Diana's latest partner.
So, I suggested in his comments to honour Dodi's death as well, we ought to change the saying from "Dead as a Dodo" to dead as a Dodi...
UPDATE: There is now a Dodi Al-Fayed Facebook Link. Courtesy of Zinzin.
UPDATE UPDATE:
The Dodi Al-Fayed Prayer.
Our Dodi Al-Fayed, who art in heaven,
Dodi Al-Fayed be thy name.
Thy time has come,
thy will be ignored,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our Daily Express.
And forgive us our French Underpasses,
as we forgive the driver who crashed and killed us.
And lead us not into another tunnel,
but deliver us from Henri Paul.
For thine is the Mercedes Benz,
the power and the glory. remember me for ever and ever.
Amen
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE: The Sunday Times publishes The Dodi Al-Fayed Prayer
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.
Site Meter
Friday, August 31, 2007
Tory Boy blogger caught exposing himself
The Tory Boy blogger Dizzy Thinks has been caught exposing himself on Bob Piper's blog.
'Too few cells' under prison plan
Breaking News 11.23am
'Too few cells' under prison plan
Predictions for the prison population indicate government building plans may not provide enough cells for inmates.
The Ministry of Justice figures suggest there will only be enough cells in the most optimistic of circumstances.
More than 80,000 people are in prison and the government has promised 9,500 extra spaces to ease overcrowding.
But the tentative projections shown to ministers say current sentencing trends could mean there will be at least 5,000 spaces short by 2014.
Full Ministry of Justice report here in pdf.
Prison Capacity Building Programme Update - Ministry of Justice.
Comment: When in a hole stop digging...
'Too few cells' under prison plan
Predictions for the prison population indicate government building plans may not provide enough cells for inmates.
The Ministry of Justice figures suggest there will only be enough cells in the most optimistic of circumstances.
More than 80,000 people are in prison and the government has promised 9,500 extra spaces to ease overcrowding.
But the tentative projections shown to ministers say current sentencing trends could mean there will be at least 5,000 spaces short by 2014.
Full Ministry of Justice report here in pdf.
Prison Capacity Building Programme Update - Ministry of Justice.
Comment: When in a hole stop digging...
Assaults on female prison officers rise by 121%
11am
Assaults on female prison officers rise by 121%
Ed Hancox
Friday August 31, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Attacks on female prison officers have more than doubled in the past seven years, official figures obtained by Guardian Unlimited revealed today.
The assaults, including stabbings and scalding by boiling water, are directly linked to the surge in the prison population since Labour came to power, experts have said.
Assaults on male prison officers have risen by more than 50% over the same period, the figures showed.
Prison workers said overcrowding was impacting on rehabilitation programmes and leading to increased levels of reoffending.
They said there was an urgent need for thousands of specialist beds for mentally ill inmates who posed a danger to themselves and those who supervise them.
The Prison Officers' Association, which wrongfooted the government by abruptly calling a 24 hour-strike on Wednesday, today said the rise in assaults had made life "miserable" for Britain's 27,000 prison officers.
The Ministry of Justice figures, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, showed a 121% increase in assaults on female prison officers since 2000, with the number rising from 232 to 513.
Male prisons saw a 58% increase in attacks on officers, up from 1,767 in 2000 to 2,804 in 2006. Over the same period, the prison population rose by 24% to the record number of almost 81,000 this summer.
Frances Crook, the director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said the problems in the prison service stemmed from overcrowding and a lack of funds.
"The rise in assaults is absolutely because of the rise in the prison population - not because more prisoners mean more potential assailants, but because pressure of numbers has brought the penal system to its knees," she said.
"The resources to manage the consequences of the government's custodial obsession are simply not there. Indeed, the Ministry of Justice is currently seeking to shave £60m off its prisons budget."
Brian Caton, the POA general secretary, blamed the increase in attacks on an "under-funded and over-filled" prison service. He said that while the prison population has increased by more than one-third since 1997, the number of prison officers had gone up by only 17%.
Mr Caton added that the increase in attacks on officers had been a factor behind the union's decision to launch this week's wildcat action.
"We're not prepared to accept our officers being almost kicked to death on a daily basis," he said. "It's not surprising that officers are miserable when they're scared they might be attacked for doing their jobs."
He accused the prison service of being dishonest to the public about its funding, saying: "They need to admit that, if prisons don't get more funding and more officers, we won't be able to search cells for drugs and weapons.
"Without extra funding, we won't be able to provide drugs tests to prevent reoffending. We also need about 4,000 specialist beds for mentally ill prisoners who are a serious danger to themselves and to officers."
The Ministry of Justice insisted the government was dealing with the pressures on prisons by planning an 8,000 increase in capacity by 2012.
In June, Lord Falconer, the then lord chancellor, announced a controversial scheme to release short and mid-term prisoners 18 days early.
The Howard League has argued that the government should seek to reduce overcrowding not by increasing the capacity of prisons but by reducing the number of custodial sentences in favour of community sentencing.
"It is quite wrong that prison officers should face this increase in assaults, and it's not surprising that they feel so aggrieved," Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary, said.
"There's little doubt about the cause - jails are full to bursting point because ministers repeatedly ignored warnings that capacity would be inadequate."
Assaults on female prison officers rise by 121%
Ed Hancox
Friday August 31, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Attacks on female prison officers have more than doubled in the past seven years, official figures obtained by Guardian Unlimited revealed today.
The assaults, including stabbings and scalding by boiling water, are directly linked to the surge in the prison population since Labour came to power, experts have said.
Assaults on male prison officers have risen by more than 50% over the same period, the figures showed.
Prison workers said overcrowding was impacting on rehabilitation programmes and leading to increased levels of reoffending.
They said there was an urgent need for thousands of specialist beds for mentally ill inmates who posed a danger to themselves and those who supervise them.
The Prison Officers' Association, which wrongfooted the government by abruptly calling a 24 hour-strike on Wednesday, today said the rise in assaults had made life "miserable" for Britain's 27,000 prison officers.
The Ministry of Justice figures, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, showed a 121% increase in assaults on female prison officers since 2000, with the number rising from 232 to 513.
Male prisons saw a 58% increase in attacks on officers, up from 1,767 in 2000 to 2,804 in 2006. Over the same period, the prison population rose by 24% to the record number of almost 81,000 this summer.
Frances Crook, the director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said the problems in the prison service stemmed from overcrowding and a lack of funds.
"The rise in assaults is absolutely because of the rise in the prison population - not because more prisoners mean more potential assailants, but because pressure of numbers has brought the penal system to its knees," she said.
"The resources to manage the consequences of the government's custodial obsession are simply not there. Indeed, the Ministry of Justice is currently seeking to shave £60m off its prisons budget."
Brian Caton, the POA general secretary, blamed the increase in attacks on an "under-funded and over-filled" prison service. He said that while the prison population has increased by more than one-third since 1997, the number of prison officers had gone up by only 17%.
Mr Caton added that the increase in attacks on officers had been a factor behind the union's decision to launch this week's wildcat action.
"We're not prepared to accept our officers being almost kicked to death on a daily basis," he said. "It's not surprising that officers are miserable when they're scared they might be attacked for doing their jobs."
He accused the prison service of being dishonest to the public about its funding, saying: "They need to admit that, if prisons don't get more funding and more officers, we won't be able to search cells for drugs and weapons.
"Without extra funding, we won't be able to provide drugs tests to prevent reoffending. We also need about 4,000 specialist beds for mentally ill prisoners who are a serious danger to themselves and to officers."
The Ministry of Justice insisted the government was dealing with the pressures on prisons by planning an 8,000 increase in capacity by 2012.
In June, Lord Falconer, the then lord chancellor, announced a controversial scheme to release short and mid-term prisoners 18 days early.
The Howard League has argued that the government should seek to reduce overcrowding not by increasing the capacity of prisons but by reducing the number of custodial sentences in favour of community sentencing.
"It is quite wrong that prison officers should face this increase in assaults, and it's not surprising that they feel so aggrieved," Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary, said.
"There's little doubt about the cause - jails are full to bursting point because ministers repeatedly ignored warnings that capacity would be inadequate."
Injustice is swift: Justice is slow
31 August 2007 11:16
Man cleared of teenager's murder after 20 years in jail
By Jonathan Brown
Published: 31 August 2007
A man who was jailed in 1982 for the rape and murder of a schoolgirl has had his conviction overturned after new evidence emerged that he had made a false confession under pressure from the police.
Raymond Gilmour, 45, who was described as a vulnerable individual who could not cope with being stressed, maintained his innocence throughout his 20 years in jail for strangling 16-year-old Pamela Hastie.
Three judges granted his appeal yesterday at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh, declaring the original majority verdict unsafe after hearing "important and significant" evidence in the case. It also emerged that during the investigation into the murder, evidence was given to the police that could link the child killer Robert Black to the crime.
A van driver alleged that Black ran out of the woods and collided with his vehicle on the day that Miss Hastie's body was found. Black was given a life sentence in 1994 after being found guilty of the killings of 11-year-old Borders schoolgirl Susan Maxwell in 1982, five-year-old Caroline Hogg from Portobello a year later and Sarah Harper, 10, from Leeds in 1986.
Speaking outside the court, Gilmour's mother Christina said that the family's long wait for justice was now over. Mrs Gilmour, 76, said: "It's been a long, long wait but we've got what we asked for. It's been very, very tough for all these years, but I've always believed he was innocent. I've never had any doubts."
Gilmour, who is currently serving another sentence for indecent exposure, confessed twice to the original charge but later claimed he was forced into making the admissions. Miss Hastie was killed in November 1981 in Rannoch Woods near to her home in Johnstone, Renfrewshire, where her partly clothed body was later found.
At a court hearing last year, an expert in interrogation and confessions said Gilmour was emotionally disturbed at the time.
Professor Gisli Gudjonsson, a professor in forensic psychology, said: "He was a vulnerable individual. If subjected to pressure he would not have coped well with that pressure."
There was also fresh evidence regarding the significance of cuts found on Miss Hastie's fingers, no mention of which was made in the Crown pathologist's report, which came from two other experts in forensic medicine.
One of the judges, Lord Gill, said he had noted discrepancies between Gilmour's confession and the state of the corpse.
Man cleared of teenager's murder after 20 years in jail
By Jonathan Brown
Published: 31 August 2007
A man who was jailed in 1982 for the rape and murder of a schoolgirl has had his conviction overturned after new evidence emerged that he had made a false confession under pressure from the police.
Raymond Gilmour, 45, who was described as a vulnerable individual who could not cope with being stressed, maintained his innocence throughout his 20 years in jail for strangling 16-year-old Pamela Hastie.
Three judges granted his appeal yesterday at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh, declaring the original majority verdict unsafe after hearing "important and significant" evidence in the case. It also emerged that during the investigation into the murder, evidence was given to the police that could link the child killer Robert Black to the crime.
A van driver alleged that Black ran out of the woods and collided with his vehicle on the day that Miss Hastie's body was found. Black was given a life sentence in 1994 after being found guilty of the killings of 11-year-old Borders schoolgirl Susan Maxwell in 1982, five-year-old Caroline Hogg from Portobello a year later and Sarah Harper, 10, from Leeds in 1986.
Speaking outside the court, Gilmour's mother Christina said that the family's long wait for justice was now over. Mrs Gilmour, 76, said: "It's been a long, long wait but we've got what we asked for. It's been very, very tough for all these years, but I've always believed he was innocent. I've never had any doubts."
Gilmour, who is currently serving another sentence for indecent exposure, confessed twice to the original charge but later claimed he was forced into making the admissions. Miss Hastie was killed in November 1981 in Rannoch Woods near to her home in Johnstone, Renfrewshire, where her partly clothed body was later found.
At a court hearing last year, an expert in interrogation and confessions said Gilmour was emotionally disturbed at the time.
Professor Gisli Gudjonsson, a professor in forensic psychology, said: "He was a vulnerable individual. If subjected to pressure he would not have coped well with that pressure."
There was also fresh evidence regarding the significance of cuts found on Miss Hastie's fingers, no mention of which was made in the Crown pathologist's report, which came from two other experts in forensic medicine.
One of the judges, Lord Gill, said he had noted discrepancies between Gilmour's confession and the state of the corpse.
Quackery from a former prison doctor and an intelligent question from someone else
Quackery from a former prison doctor and an intelligent question from someone else
Don't trust him, he's a former prison doctor. Part of the problem, not the cure. He's from an age when those doctors who were not good enough for private practice or the NHS ended up becoming prison doctors. He can be dismissed as a quack.
This is more intelligent. Matthew Norman: So, Gordon, do you believe prison works? He asks the question, I would like to know the answer.
Don't trust him, he's a former prison doctor. Part of the problem, not the cure. He's from an age when those doctors who were not good enough for private practice or the NHS ended up becoming prison doctors. He can be dismissed as a quack.
This is more intelligent. Matthew Norman: So, Gordon, do you believe prison works? He asks the question, I would like to know the answer.
Madeleine McCann's parents to sue newspaper
Madeleine McCann's parents to sue newspaper
I think it is a bit rich that Gerry and Kate McCann are suing a Portugese newspaper for libel. They claim that it has caused them "suffering and humiliation" to read reports in the newspaper which they claim are not based on facts. However, I did not hear them complaining when the newspapers printed their version of events which were not based on facts. That is, the alleged abduction of Madeleine and the alleged break-in at their apartment. They will be arguing that the newspaper report has defamed their good character. Let us not forget that this couple were responsible for child neglect and/or abandonment for 3 hours leaving their children home alone whilst they went out for drinks, and a meal and a quiz at a Tapas Bar.
UPDATE: McCanns seek to whitewash their tarnished reputations.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
They think its all over - it is now
Gordon Brown is set to whup the Tory pup, David Cameron, who offered to take on the Great Clunking Fist in a bare-knuckled fight. The latest poll has axed the Bullingdon Club twerp to the canvass. Analysis here.
Action research into the London resettlement pilot
Action research into the London resettlement pilot.
Full Report in pdf here.
My initial view is that it is written in gobbledygook. I will try and translate it to make sense of it. In the meantime, if anyone is able to explain it to me there will be a prize.
It's time for politicians to take a radical approach to criminal justice
It's time for politicians to take a radical approach to criminal justice
By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
Published: 30 August 2007
Britain's prison system is on the verge of collapse. Our crumbling jails have reached breaking point, prisoners are being released early and now, for the first time in their history, the men and women paid to guard the inmates have left their posts.
It's a desperate situation made worse by the grim truth that prison has failed to stop inmates re-offending. And suicide rates remain alarmingly high, a fact brought home by the death of another inmate yesterday.
How long can politicians continue to tell us that the only way to avert this crisis is by building more prisons? Britain already imprisons more people per capita than any other country in Western Europe and if the trend continues the number of inmates will pass 100,000 in the next decade.
Labour's response is to pledge 10,000 more prison places by 2012. The Tories have committed to using prison ships and disused army camps so that all inmates see out their sentences.
For many years Britain's penal reformers have been warning of where these increasingly draconian policies will lead.
Frances Crook, director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, says we are using a Victorian invention to tackle a 21st-century problem: "Prison does nothing to deter offending. Yet our obsession with placing punishment... over cutting crime has led to gross overcrowding."
Justice, the human rights group, says it is impossible to have a sensible debate about penal reform because it has been become bogged down in "electioneering rhetoric and swamped by legislative hyperactivity".
This week an ICM poll showed that only 40 per cent of the public thought the government should aim to send more criminals to prison, against 57 per cent who want to see other, non-custodial forms of punishment.
Now that politicians can see that radical alternatives to prison may no longer alienate the electorate they have little excuse for not trying something different.
Leading article: An impossible task for a beleaguered institution
Published: 30 August 2007
Yesterday saw the first national walkout by members of the Prison Officers' Association in its 68-year history. The strike was, on the face of it, about pay. But there is more to it than that. The dispute is an alarming barometer of the state of the nation's prisons where staff morale is at rock-bottom.
As ever with the issue of prisons, the fact of low morale and the reasons for it should take no one by surprise. Earlier this month a national ballot among prison officers revealed 87 per cent ready to take industrial action. This time last year a strike was only narrowly averted. And statistics on stress, sickness and staff turnover have long revealed a dispirited workforce. That is because they are asked to do an impossible task in conditions of under-funding, overcrowding, and in a system which has never resolved whether it is about punishment or rehabilitation.
David Cameron yesterday emphasised the punishment agenda, in launching what the party's right wing heralded as his most significant policy pledges yet. He promised that a Conservative government would build or create more prisons, using prison ships and disused army camps. It would also abolish early release and make convicts serve their full sentences.
But the grim fact is that there are already too many people in the nation's jails. And in 10 years of government Labour has offered no new solutions, despite Tony Blair's pledge to address the causes of crime. Large numbers of people are imprisoned for comparatively trivial offences. Many prisoners are addicted to drugs or mentally ill and would be better treated elsewhere.
Building more prisons cannot be the answer. In the past decade 12 new jails have opened and most are already overcrowded. A result is that record numbers of inmates are committing suicide, staff sickness is higher than ever, drug use is widespread and purposeful activity such as education, employment or exercise for each prisoner is declining. Many prisoners are locked up idle for most of the day. Some prisons have even had to re-introduce slopping out.
We need to send fewer people to prison. The Sentencing Guidelines Council should gear its work towards reducing sentence lengths, cutting the number of short-term prisoners and countering the sentence-inflation built into the present system. The police and Crown Prosecution Service must divert more low-risk offenders from prosecution. Magistrates should cut the numbers on remand. Politicians must seek alternatives to prison for the large numbers of offenders who are no real danger to the community. The prison service must seek a new flexibility in mixing prison and community punishment in a single sentence – with halfway houses, weekend prisons, individual curfews, exclusion orders and other innovations.
Inside jails we need better education and drug rehabilitation programmes. Half of all burglary, vehicle crime and shoplifting is committed by drug-users, yet very few prisoners ever receive help with their drug problems, despite a host of government pledges. Half of all prisoners have the reading age of an 11-year-old or below. Yet although it famously costs £38,000 a year to keep someone in prison – sending them to Eton would be cheaper – less than 3 per cent of that goes on education. Small wonder that 58 per cent of all prisoners are reconvicted of a further offence within two years of leaving prison.
There is more to justice than locking people up. Prisoners are often multiply disadvantaged, in education, moral training and lack of family support. Addressing this would go a long way to reducing re-offending. And we would need to send far fewer people to prison in the first place.
By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
Published: 30 August 2007
Britain's prison system is on the verge of collapse. Our crumbling jails have reached breaking point, prisoners are being released early and now, for the first time in their history, the men and women paid to guard the inmates have left their posts.
It's a desperate situation made worse by the grim truth that prison has failed to stop inmates re-offending. And suicide rates remain alarmingly high, a fact brought home by the death of another inmate yesterday.
How long can politicians continue to tell us that the only way to avert this crisis is by building more prisons? Britain already imprisons more people per capita than any other country in Western Europe and if the trend continues the number of inmates will pass 100,000 in the next decade.
Labour's response is to pledge 10,000 more prison places by 2012. The Tories have committed to using prison ships and disused army camps so that all inmates see out their sentences.
For many years Britain's penal reformers have been warning of where these increasingly draconian policies will lead.
Frances Crook, director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, says we are using a Victorian invention to tackle a 21st-century problem: "Prison does nothing to deter offending. Yet our obsession with placing punishment... over cutting crime has led to gross overcrowding."
Justice, the human rights group, says it is impossible to have a sensible debate about penal reform because it has been become bogged down in "electioneering rhetoric and swamped by legislative hyperactivity".
This week an ICM poll showed that only 40 per cent of the public thought the government should aim to send more criminals to prison, against 57 per cent who want to see other, non-custodial forms of punishment.
Now that politicians can see that radical alternatives to prison may no longer alienate the electorate they have little excuse for not trying something different.
Leading article: An impossible task for a beleaguered institution
Published: 30 August 2007
Yesterday saw the first national walkout by members of the Prison Officers' Association in its 68-year history. The strike was, on the face of it, about pay. But there is more to it than that. The dispute is an alarming barometer of the state of the nation's prisons where staff morale is at rock-bottom.
As ever with the issue of prisons, the fact of low morale and the reasons for it should take no one by surprise. Earlier this month a national ballot among prison officers revealed 87 per cent ready to take industrial action. This time last year a strike was only narrowly averted. And statistics on stress, sickness and staff turnover have long revealed a dispirited workforce. That is because they are asked to do an impossible task in conditions of under-funding, overcrowding, and in a system which has never resolved whether it is about punishment or rehabilitation.
David Cameron yesterday emphasised the punishment agenda, in launching what the party's right wing heralded as his most significant policy pledges yet. He promised that a Conservative government would build or create more prisons, using prison ships and disused army camps. It would also abolish early release and make convicts serve their full sentences.
But the grim fact is that there are already too many people in the nation's jails. And in 10 years of government Labour has offered no new solutions, despite Tony Blair's pledge to address the causes of crime. Large numbers of people are imprisoned for comparatively trivial offences. Many prisoners are addicted to drugs or mentally ill and would be better treated elsewhere.
Building more prisons cannot be the answer. In the past decade 12 new jails have opened and most are already overcrowded. A result is that record numbers of inmates are committing suicide, staff sickness is higher than ever, drug use is widespread and purposeful activity such as education, employment or exercise for each prisoner is declining. Many prisoners are locked up idle for most of the day. Some prisons have even had to re-introduce slopping out.
We need to send fewer people to prison. The Sentencing Guidelines Council should gear its work towards reducing sentence lengths, cutting the number of short-term prisoners and countering the sentence-inflation built into the present system. The police and Crown Prosecution Service must divert more low-risk offenders from prosecution. Magistrates should cut the numbers on remand. Politicians must seek alternatives to prison for the large numbers of offenders who are no real danger to the community. The prison service must seek a new flexibility in mixing prison and community punishment in a single sentence – with halfway houses, weekend prisons, individual curfews, exclusion orders and other innovations.
Inside jails we need better education and drug rehabilitation programmes. Half of all burglary, vehicle crime and shoplifting is committed by drug-users, yet very few prisoners ever receive help with their drug problems, despite a host of government pledges. Half of all prisoners have the reading age of an 11-year-old or below. Yet although it famously costs £38,000 a year to keep someone in prison – sending them to Eton would be cheaper – less than 3 per cent of that goes on education. Small wonder that 58 per cent of all prisoners are reconvicted of a further offence within two years of leaving prison.
There is more to justice than locking people up. Prisoners are often multiply disadvantaged, in education, moral training and lack of family support. Addressing this would go a long way to reducing re-offending. And we would need to send far fewer people to prison in the first place.
David Cameron talks tough on immigration
Desperate Dave Cameron plays the race card as he lurches to the right. He is advocating limiting immigration to this country based upon what they can give us and not take away in benefits. I am waiting to hear him come out with "tough on immigration tough on the causes of immigration". As for his policies on crime, I don't think digging up the name of Michael Howard is a forward step. Dracula should be allowed to sleep. Much of the mess in our criminal justice system can be laid at Michael Howard's door.
AUSTRALIAN HIGH COURT UPHOLDS RIGHT TO VOTE IN LANDMARK CASE
Thu, 30 Aug 2007
AUSTRALIAN HIGH COURT UPHOLDS RIGHT TO VOTE IN LANDMARK CASE
In a landmark decision, the High Court has today upheld the fundamental human right to vote, finding that the Howard Government had acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally in imposing a blanket ban denying prisoners the vote.
In 2006, the Howard Government passed legislation which denied all prisoners the right to vote. This law was challenged in the High Court by Vickie Roach, an Aboriginal woman who is a prisoner at the Dame Phyllis Frost Prison in Melbourne. In orders made today, the High Court struck down the blanket prohibition on prisoners voting. The Court upheld the validity, however, of the law providing that prisoners serving a sentence of three years or longer are not entitled to vote.
The decision of the High Court is a victory for representative democracy, accountable government, the rule of law and fundamental human rights. With Aboriginal Australians incarcerated at a rate of almost 13 times that of their fellow Australians, it is also a vindication of Aboriginal rights.
Speaking after the decision was handed down, Philip Lynch, Director of the Human Rights Law Resource Centre which ran the case, said, ‘This is a common sense decision. The Howard Government disenfranchised prisoners on the spurious ground that to do so would promote respect for the social contract and the rule of law. Far from achieving this, denial of the fundamental human right to vote results in social exclusion, isolation, resentment and unaccountable and unrepresentative government. This is particularly undesirable given that the overwhelming majority of prisoners will be released at some stage.’ Mr Lynch said that the supreme courts of Canada, South Africa and Europe had, over the last ten years, reached the same conclusion.
Mr Lynch paid tribute to Vickie Roach for taking her fight to the High Court. ‘In running this case, Vickie has stood up not just for the human rights of prisoners and Aboriginal Australians, but the interests of the entire community. She has done so with courage, integrity and commitment.’
The Human Rights Law Resource Centre was provided with outstanding legal assistance throughout the case by leading Australian law firm Allens Arthur Robinson, Ron Merkel QC, Michael Pearce SC, and Fiona Forsyth and Kristen Walker of Counsel. ‘The legal team brought significant commitment, expertise, resources and dedication to this matter. They acted to protect human rights and uphold the rule of law and, in so doing, acted in the highest traditions of the profession and the interests of the community as a whole.’
AUSTRALIAN HIGH COURT UPHOLDS RIGHT TO VOTE IN LANDMARK CASE
In a landmark decision, the High Court has today upheld the fundamental human right to vote, finding that the Howard Government had acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally in imposing a blanket ban denying prisoners the vote.
In 2006, the Howard Government passed legislation which denied all prisoners the right to vote. This law was challenged in the High Court by Vickie Roach, an Aboriginal woman who is a prisoner at the Dame Phyllis Frost Prison in Melbourne. In orders made today, the High Court struck down the blanket prohibition on prisoners voting. The Court upheld the validity, however, of the law providing that prisoners serving a sentence of three years or longer are not entitled to vote.
The decision of the High Court is a victory for representative democracy, accountable government, the rule of law and fundamental human rights. With Aboriginal Australians incarcerated at a rate of almost 13 times that of their fellow Australians, it is also a vindication of Aboriginal rights.
Speaking after the decision was handed down, Philip Lynch, Director of the Human Rights Law Resource Centre which ran the case, said, ‘This is a common sense decision. The Howard Government disenfranchised prisoners on the spurious ground that to do so would promote respect for the social contract and the rule of law. Far from achieving this, denial of the fundamental human right to vote results in social exclusion, isolation, resentment and unaccountable and unrepresentative government. This is particularly undesirable given that the overwhelming majority of prisoners will be released at some stage.’ Mr Lynch said that the supreme courts of Canada, South Africa and Europe had, over the last ten years, reached the same conclusion.
Mr Lynch paid tribute to Vickie Roach for taking her fight to the High Court. ‘In running this case, Vickie has stood up not just for the human rights of prisoners and Aboriginal Australians, but the interests of the entire community. She has done so with courage, integrity and commitment.’
The Human Rights Law Resource Centre was provided with outstanding legal assistance throughout the case by leading Australian law firm Allens Arthur Robinson, Ron Merkel QC, Michael Pearce SC, and Fiona Forsyth and Kristen Walker of Counsel. ‘The legal team brought significant commitment, expertise, resources and dedication to this matter. They acted to protect human rights and uphold the rule of law and, in so doing, acted in the highest traditions of the profession and the interests of the community as a whole.’
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Dave Cameron on top of Ann Widdecombe
David Cameron states that it is time to fight back against the menace on our urban housing estates. Below, an example of the menace the battleaxe Ann Widdecombe...
Hoodies claim that Ann Widdecombe intimidated them...
The Chink in the net curtain and blog haters
The Chink in the net curtain. I like the term netizens for citizens who trawl the internet. But not the Chinese censorship, especially tens of thousands of security officers spying on its peoples freedoms to surf the net.
Blog haters on Comment is Free.
Blog haters on Comment is Free.
Ireland's answer to the drug problem
Ireland's answer to the drug problem. To tar and feather the drug dealers. Is this because they are against the drugs? Or, was it because he was selling them and depriving the big boys of their profits?
Gerry McCann throws his dummy out of the pram
Gerry McCann throws his dummy out of the pram, on a Spanish TV station, when asked a simple but probing question that only required a simple answer. Instead, Gerry McCann threw a tantrum. He did not appear to react like the father of a missing child when it was announced that blood traces had been found in the apartment. Gerry was not grief struck, rather it was business as usual. Perhaps, the kind of confidence displayed by someone who already knew it would amount to nothing? Perhaps, because he knew what had really happened? This latest display of Gerry McCann's loss of temper might help to explain what happened to Madeleine on that fateful day.
Now let out 80% of the prison population
Given that "Mr Straw has said the answer was not to build more prisons but to keep people out of them". A good starting point would be the immediate dismissal of all those prison officers who have broken the law by going on an unofficial strike.
The Times story here. I note in the last paragraph it states: "The head of the Prisons Service, Phil Wheatley, is reported to be on holiday. In his absence, it would fall to Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Justice, to deal with the prison officers' action". However, given that the Prison Service is based upon a hierarchy of powers, surely it falls to Michael Spurr the Deputy Director General of the Prison Service to deal with the prison officers unlawful strike action and not Jack Straw the Minister of Justice? The former is responsible for the operational side whereas the latter is responsible for policy. Remember the Michael Howard and Derek Lewis affair?
According to the Independent: "An independent pay review body recommended a 2.5% pay rise but the Government decided this should be made in two stages of 1.5% in April and 1% in October, which reduced the value of the award". Surely, 1.5% + 1% = 2.5% so what is their problem? I can't see how a recommendation for 2.5% and being given that, albeit in two stages rather than all at once, reduces the size of the award.
Oh, and before the Tory Party wallahs start giving knee-jerk responses to this crisis digest this little snippet of info first: "The union had its right to take industrial action taken away by the Conservative Government in 1993 and even if it could strike it would have to give seven days' notice before any action".
Whatever next? Screws claiming they have got human rights! "Brian Caton, the general secretary of the POA, said he believed 90% of his members were on strike. He disputed the illegality of the action.
"I believe every officer has human rights and they include the right to withdraw their labour," he said". You've got the human right to join the dole queue like the rest of us...
UPDATE: Are prison officers right to strike?
Government granted prison strike injunction.
Criminal Justice Act 1994 as it relates to prison officers striking and pay conditions.
Chapter IV he Prison Service
126 Service in England and Wales and Northern Ireland
(1) The relevant employment legislation shall have effect as if an individual who as a member of the prison service acts in a capacity in which he has the powers or privileges of a constable were not, by virtue of his so having those powers or privileges, to be regarded as in police service for the purposes of any provision of that legislation.
(2) In this section “the relevant employment legislation” means—
(a) the [1978 c. 44.] Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the [1992 c. 52.] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; and
(b) the [S.I. 1976/1043 (N.I. 16).] Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, the [S.I. 1976/2147 (N.I. 28).] Industrial Relations (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and the [S.I. 1992/807 (N.I. 5).] Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person is a member of the prison service if he is an individual holding a post to which he has been appointed for the purposes of section 7 of the [1952 c. 52.] Prison Act 1952 or under section 2(2) of the [1953 c. 18 (N.I.).] Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (appointment of prison staff).
(4) Except for the purpose of validating anything that would have been a contravention of section 127(1) below if it had been in force, subsection (1) above, so far as it relates to the question whether an organisation consisting wholly or mainly of members of the prison service is a trade union, shall be deemed always to have had effect and to have applied, in relation to times when provisions of the relevant employment legislation were not in force, to the corresponding legislation then in force.
(5) Subsection (6) below shall apply where—
(a) the certificate of independence of any organisation has been cancelled, at any time before the passing of this Act, in consequence of the removal of the name of that organisation from a list of trade unions kept under provisions of the relevant employment legislation; but
(b) it appears to the Certification Officer that the organisation would have remained on the list, and that the certificate would have remained in force, had that legislation had effect at and after that time in accordance with subsection (1) above.
(6) Where this subsection applies—
(a) the Certification Officer shall restore the name to the list and delete from his records any entry relating to the cancellation of the certificate;
(b) the removal of the name from the list, the making of the deleted entry and the cancellation of the certificate shall be deemed never to have occurred; and
(c) the organisation shall accordingly be deemed, for the purposes for which it is treated by virtue of subsection (4) above as having been a trade union, to have been independent throughout the period between the cancellation of the certificate and the deletion of the entry relating to that cancellation.
127 Inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline
(1) A person contravenes this subsection if he induces a prison officer—
(a) to withhold his services as such an officer; or
(b) to commit a breach of discipline.
(2) The obligation not to contravene subsection (1) above shall be a duty owed to the Secretary of State.
(3) Without prejudice to the right of the Secretary of State, by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section, to bring civil proceedings in respect of any apprehended contravention of subsection (1) above, any breach of the duty mentioned in subsection (2) above which causes the Secretary of State to sustain loss or damage shall be actionable, at his suit or instance, against the person in breach.
(4) In this section “prison officer” means any individual who—
(a) holds any post, otherwise than as a chaplain or assistant chaplain or as a medical officer, to which he has been appointed for the purposes of section 7 of the [1952 c. 52.] Prison Act 1952 or under section 2(2) of the [1953 c. 18 (N.I.).] Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (appointment of prison staff),
(b) holds any post, otherwise than as a medical officer, to which he has been appointed under section 3(1) of the [1989 c. 45.] Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989, or
(c) is a custody officer within the meaning of Part I of this Act or a prisoner custody officer, within the meaning of Part IV of the [1991 c. 53.] Criminal Justice Act 1991 or Chapter II or III of this Part.
(5) The reference in subsection (1) above to a breach of discipline by a prison officer is a reference to a failure by a prison officer to perform any duty imposed on him by the prison rules or any code of discipline having effect under those rules or any other contravention by a prison officer of those rules or any such code.
(6) In subsection (5) above “the prison rules” means any rules for the time being in force under section 47 of the Prison Act 1952, section 39 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 or section 13 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (prison rules).
(7) This section shall be disregarded in determining for the purposes of any of the relevant employment legislation whether any trade union is an independent trade union.
(8) Nothing in the relevant employment legislation shall affect the rights of the Secretary of State by virtue of this section.
(9) In this section “the relevant employment legislation” has the same meaning as in section 126 above.
128 Pay and related conditions
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the establishment, maintenance and operation of procedures for the determination from time to time of—
(a) the rates of pay and allowances to be applied to the prison service; and
(b) such other terms and conditions of employment in that service as may appear to him to fall to be determined in association with the determination of rates of pay and allowances.
(2) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult with such organisations appearing to him to be representative of persons working in the prison service and with such other persons as he thinks fit.
3) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) Regulations under this section may—
(a) provide for determinations with respect to matters to which the regulations relate to be made wholly or partly by reference to such factors, and the opinion or recommendations of such persons, as may be specified or described in the regulations;
(b) authorise the matters considered and determined in pursuance of the regulations to include matters applicable to times and periods before they are considered or determined;
(c) make such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and
(d) make different provision for different cases.
(5) For the purposes of this section the prison service comprises all the individuals who are prison officers within the meaning of section 127 above, apart from those who are custody officers within the meaning of Part I of this Act or prisoner custody officers within the meaning of Part IV of the [1991 c. 53.] Criminal Justice Act 1991 or Chapter II or III of this Part.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
David Cameron's knee-jerk response is to call for less knee-jerk responses
David Cameron's knee-jerk response is to call for less knee-jerk responses from the government. His reported knee-jerk responses can be seen in these quotes from the Daily Telegraph. "But he said that some quick measures, such as ending the early release of prisoners, were also necessary to keep crime in check.
"Doubling up prisoners in cells, introducing prison ships, and converting disused army camps into jails would all help ease the pressure to release prisoners, he said".
UPDATE: Dave Cameron and his three gees "gangs, guns and graffiti" and three dees "We must fight back against the drugs, the danger and the disorder". What a clown, clot and cnut he is.
Yelp frail 81 year old accused of assaulting two burly young PCs
A frail 81 year old pensioner is accused of assaulting two burly, young PCs and they radio for back up assistance! Why did this case even come to court in the first place? Secondly, why has it dragged on for so long? He was accused of being drunk whilst driving, when all he had drunk was a sip of communion wine. Haven't the police got better things to do than harass this old codger? "Pc Steven Cole told Medway magistrates' court that Mr Gibson had grabbed his thumb. "It hurt. He twisted it back and I noted down in my pocket notebook that I let out a yelp. There is no way else of describing it." More a case of the police wasting police time, methinks. "The officers said that they were so traumatised by the OAP's actions they called for back-up before arresting him".
Plodberry: This reminds me I must make a blackberry pie with the blackberries I picked the other day.
Hat-Tip to Charon QC.
Plodberry: This reminds me I must make a blackberry pie with the blackberries I picked the other day.
Hat-Tip to Charon QC.
Yahoo sued over disclosure of Chinese citizens' identities
Yahoo! sued over disclosure of Chinese citizens' identities
Mark Tran
Tuesday August 28, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
The internet company Yahoo! has become embroiled in a legal battle with a human rights group over a decision to disclose the identity of Chinese citizens, leading to their arrests.
Yahoo! is being sued by the World Organisation for Human Rights, based in Washington, on behalf of Wang Xiaoning and his wife, Yu Ling.
He is serving a 10-year prison sentence for advocating democratic reform in articles circulated on the internet.
The group is also suing Yahoo! on behalf of Shi Tao, a journalist serving a 10-year sentence for sending an email summarising a Chinese government communiqué on how reporters should handle the 15th anniversary of the 1989 crackdown on the pro-democracy movement.
The suit alleges that these people - and others yet to be identified - were tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment at the hands of the Chinese authorities because of information that Yahoo!, Yahoo! China or Alibaba.com, a Chinese company in which Yahoo! has a minority stake, had passed on to the government.
Shi's case has been taken up by the British human rights group Amnesty International. The group says he is kept under tight control, with family visits requiring special approval from the prison manager, and is not allowed to receive printed matter, including books or newspapers.
Last November, he was awarded the Golden Prize of Freedom by the World Association of Newspapers.
Amnesty has also criticised Yahoo! for providing information to the authorities that led to the arrests and, more generally, the involvement of the company in the practice of government censorship.
In a 40-page defence filed in Oakland, California yesterday, the internet firm argued that US courts were not the place for political grievances against the Chinese government.
"This is a political and diplomatic issue, not a legal one," Kelley Benander, a Yahoo! spokeswoman, told the Los Angeles Times. "The real issue here is the plaintiffs' outrage at the behaviour and laws of the Chinese government. The US court system is not the forum for addressing these political concerns."
Yahoo! does not dispute turning over information in response to Chinese government demands, but argues there was little connection between that information and the arrest, prosecution and conviction of the prisoners.
In its court filings, the company said it "deeply sympathises" with the plaintiffs and their families and does not condone the suppression of their liberties. However, it also argues that the company has no control over Chinese laws or their enforcement.
Human rights groups have criticised other internet companies over their dealings with China.
Google has come under fire for its decision to censor its search services on subjects such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in order to gain greater access to China's fast-growing market.
Mark Tran
Tuesday August 28, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
The internet company Yahoo! has become embroiled in a legal battle with a human rights group over a decision to disclose the identity of Chinese citizens, leading to their arrests.
Yahoo! is being sued by the World Organisation for Human Rights, based in Washington, on behalf of Wang Xiaoning and his wife, Yu Ling.
He is serving a 10-year prison sentence for advocating democratic reform in articles circulated on the internet.
The group is also suing Yahoo! on behalf of Shi Tao, a journalist serving a 10-year sentence for sending an email summarising a Chinese government communiqué on how reporters should handle the 15th anniversary of the 1989 crackdown on the pro-democracy movement.
The suit alleges that these people - and others yet to be identified - were tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment at the hands of the Chinese authorities because of information that Yahoo!, Yahoo! China or Alibaba.com, a Chinese company in which Yahoo! has a minority stake, had passed on to the government.
Shi's case has been taken up by the British human rights group Amnesty International. The group says he is kept under tight control, with family visits requiring special approval from the prison manager, and is not allowed to receive printed matter, including books or newspapers.
Last November, he was awarded the Golden Prize of Freedom by the World Association of Newspapers.
Amnesty has also criticised Yahoo! for providing information to the authorities that led to the arrests and, more generally, the involvement of the company in the practice of government censorship.
In a 40-page defence filed in Oakland, California yesterday, the internet firm argued that US courts were not the place for political grievances against the Chinese government.
"This is a political and diplomatic issue, not a legal one," Kelley Benander, a Yahoo! spokeswoman, told the Los Angeles Times. "The real issue here is the plaintiffs' outrage at the behaviour and laws of the Chinese government. The US court system is not the forum for addressing these political concerns."
Yahoo! does not dispute turning over information in response to Chinese government demands, but argues there was little connection between that information and the arrest, prosecution and conviction of the prisoners.
In its court filings, the company said it "deeply sympathises" with the plaintiffs and their families and does not condone the suppression of their liberties. However, it also argues that the company has no control over Chinese laws or their enforcement.
Human rights groups have criticised other internet companies over their dealings with China.
Google has come under fire for its decision to censor its search services on subjects such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in order to gain greater access to China's fast-growing market.
Planned control orders raise judges' fears for civil liberties
Planned control orders raise judges' fears for civil liberties
Alan Travis and Clare Dyer
Tuesday August 28, 2007
The Guardian
Senior judges have warned ministers they risk a re-run of their clash with the courts over control orders by introducing new proposals that will place "massive restrictions" on certain convicted violent offenders after they have left prison.
The Council of HM Circuit Judges has told ministers that the proposal to introduce a violent offender order - similar to sex offender orders but which apply to violent offenders after they have served their sentences - lacks any intellectual rigour and is based on hardly any reasoned argument or analysis.
The orders, which are expected to apply to 300 to 450 offenders a year including teenagers as young as 16, are a cornerstone of the latest criminal justice and immigration bill, which MPs will debate on the day parliament returns in the autumn.
The orders will allow the police to apply to a magistrates court to impose a series of bans and requirements on offenders convicted of serious violent offences and who are believed to remain a danger to the public after they finish their prison terms. The orders will remain in force for a minimum of two years with no statutory maximum and will carry a penalty of up to five years imprisonment if breached.
The possible conditions include banning somebody from having contact with members of their own family if there is a risk of violence, and living in certain areas where victims or known criminal associates reside.
Ministers have also considered making it possible for the orders to include compulsory mental health treatment and attendance of drug or alcohol rehabilitation courses with the penalty of prison for those who fail to comply.
The proposed violent offender orders consider options to cover a range of risk factors: offenders could be banned from entering specific roads or areas such as a town centre where drunken disorder is a problem; people convicted of violence to be made subject to sex offender-style restrictions requiring regular reporting to police to inform of their movements, travel abroad and any development in personal relationships; and individuals could be banned from membership of specified groups and possession of material promoting extremist views.
The judges have privately told ministers that they are unhappy with the thrust of the proposal. They say the range of conditions to be imposed highlights all the problems inherent in the violent offender orders.
"The implications of these orders are that they will place massive restrictions on the liberty, movement, freedom of association and lifestyle of individuals who are not being sentenced for any offence," said Judge David Swift, chairman of the council's criminal subcommittee.
"The orders are said to be purely preventative. The problems of proportionality that have been thrown up by control orders are once again revealed here and do not need rehearsal."
The judges say they do not think the police by themselves should be allowed to apply for such sweeping orders and that professional full-time judges rather than magistrates should decide who they are imposed upon. They are also concerned that no provision appears to have been made to allow for legal representation.
The Ministry of Justice defended the orders saying they are needed to manage the risk posed by offenders still considered potentially violent when they leave prison but who were not awarded an "open-ended" public protection sentence.
Comment: I think that this is quite frightening for civil liberties, that behaviour that does not amount to a criminal offence, can be the subject of a control order by the police, and the courts just used to rubber stamp the decision with the effect of imposing 5 year prison sentences for breach of the control orders. The courts should not be used in this way. It is introducing punishment through the back door without a crime having been committed. It is an attempt to do away with due process. It is paving the way for thought crime. We think that you might commit a crime in the future, so we are punishing you first. Kafkaesque.
Alan Travis and Clare Dyer
Tuesday August 28, 2007
The Guardian
Senior judges have warned ministers they risk a re-run of their clash with the courts over control orders by introducing new proposals that will place "massive restrictions" on certain convicted violent offenders after they have left prison.
The Council of HM Circuit Judges has told ministers that the proposal to introduce a violent offender order - similar to sex offender orders but which apply to violent offenders after they have served their sentences - lacks any intellectual rigour and is based on hardly any reasoned argument or analysis.
The orders, which are expected to apply to 300 to 450 offenders a year including teenagers as young as 16, are a cornerstone of the latest criminal justice and immigration bill, which MPs will debate on the day parliament returns in the autumn.
The orders will allow the police to apply to a magistrates court to impose a series of bans and requirements on offenders convicted of serious violent offences and who are believed to remain a danger to the public after they finish their prison terms. The orders will remain in force for a minimum of two years with no statutory maximum and will carry a penalty of up to five years imprisonment if breached.
The possible conditions include banning somebody from having contact with members of their own family if there is a risk of violence, and living in certain areas where victims or known criminal associates reside.
Ministers have also considered making it possible for the orders to include compulsory mental health treatment and attendance of drug or alcohol rehabilitation courses with the penalty of prison for those who fail to comply.
The proposed violent offender orders consider options to cover a range of risk factors: offenders could be banned from entering specific roads or areas such as a town centre where drunken disorder is a problem; people convicted of violence to be made subject to sex offender-style restrictions requiring regular reporting to police to inform of their movements, travel abroad and any development in personal relationships; and individuals could be banned from membership of specified groups and possession of material promoting extremist views.
The judges have privately told ministers that they are unhappy with the thrust of the proposal. They say the range of conditions to be imposed highlights all the problems inherent in the violent offender orders.
"The implications of these orders are that they will place massive restrictions on the liberty, movement, freedom of association and lifestyle of individuals who are not being sentenced for any offence," said Judge David Swift, chairman of the council's criminal subcommittee.
"The orders are said to be purely preventative. The problems of proportionality that have been thrown up by control orders are once again revealed here and do not need rehearsal."
The judges say they do not think the police by themselves should be allowed to apply for such sweeping orders and that professional full-time judges rather than magistrates should decide who they are imposed upon. They are also concerned that no provision appears to have been made to allow for legal representation.
The Ministry of Justice defended the orders saying they are needed to manage the risk posed by offenders still considered potentially violent when they leave prison but who were not awarded an "open-ended" public protection sentence.
Comment: I think that this is quite frightening for civil liberties, that behaviour that does not amount to a criminal offence, can be the subject of a control order by the police, and the courts just used to rubber stamp the decision with the effect of imposing 5 year prison sentences for breach of the control orders. The courts should not be used in this way. It is introducing punishment through the back door without a crime having been committed. It is an attempt to do away with due process. It is paving the way for thought crime. We think that you might commit a crime in the future, so we are punishing you first. Kafkaesque.
More prisons are not the answer to punishing criminals, says poll
More prisons are not the answer to punishing criminals, says poll
· Concern about system strong among women
· Detention is believed by many to create criminals
Julian Glover
Tuesday August 28, 2007
The Guardian
A Guardian/ICM poll published today overturns the assumption that the public think tough prison sentences are the best way to tackle crime. It shows that a majority of voters think the government should scrap its prison building programme and find other ways to punish criminals.
Politicians in all parties routinely assume that voters think prison works. But 51% of those questioned want the government to find other ways to punish criminals and deter crime.
The poll was carried out after a week that has seen crime dominate the news, including the shooting of 11-year-old Rhys Jones in Liverpool and a row over the possible deportation of the killer of London headmaster Philip Lawrence - issues which might have been expected to increase support for imprisonment.
Concern about the prison system is particularly strong among women. Only 40% think the government should aim to send more convicted criminals to prison, against 57% who want to see other, non-custodial forms of punishment. But the issue divides voters of all ages and opinions. Only among pensioners is there a majority in favour of expanding the prison population.
Opposition to more imprisonment is driven by a widespread belief that prisons make crime worse. More people agree with the statement "prison doesn't work, it turns people into professional criminals who then commit more crime" than think "prison punishes crime, keeps criminals off the streets and deters others".
Only 42% of all voters, and 39% of women, think prisons are an effective punishment, against 49%, and 52% of women, who say they fail to work. Conservative voters are most likely to back prisons, Liberal Democrats most likely to oppose them. Among Labour voters, 52% do not want to see more prisons built and 46% do.
The findings follow a sharp rise in prison numbers, and overcrowding forced the justice department to order some prisoners to be released early. Last week the total prison population stood at 80,693, just 654 below the prison service's total capacity. In 1997 there were on average 61,114 prisoners in England and Wales.
That rise and the pressure it has put on the service has forced the government on to the defensive, and this week led Conservative leader David Cameron to talk of "anarchy in the UK". In a speech on Friday he said crime-fighting measures would fail "if we don't build the prisons and train the necessary staff to run them".
This month the government sought bids to build two new prisons, the first in Britain since 2005, as part of a programme to create 9,500 additional prison spaces by 2012.
The poll shows public unease about the effectiveness of this programme is not part of a wider hostility to a tough law and order policy. Asked whether they think courts should pass tougher sentences, 77% of all voters agree. Only 2% of those questioned say sentences are already too harsh, and only 18% believe the courts have got the balance about right.
· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,016 adults aged 18+ by telephone between 22nd and 23rd August 2007. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
Comment: This poll finding is in keeping with Jack Straw's recent comment that building more prisons is not the answer. Therefore, why is the government seeking bids to build two more prisons? Don't they listen?
Prisoners of public opinion
Michael White
Tuesday August 28, 2007
The Guardian
It might be easier for politicians to respond to anxieties about violent crime among young people and children if the public could be persuaded that "paedophobia" is a bigger threat to its peace of mind than paedophilia.
Today's Guardian/ICM poll, however, suggests suggests the underlying mood out there is more thoughtful.
Yet polls routinely report that many people in Britain are more afraid of crime and antisocial behaviour than the facts - bad enough in themselves - warrant. They are certainly afraid of teenagers congregating in our streets, whether they are drunk, hooded, aggressive or simply boisterous.
As a result, politicians are expected "to do something". After the murder of 11-year-old Rhys Jones last week, Gordon Brown staged a youth crime "summit" at No 10. Jacqui Smith, surely the first home secretary to weep on live TV as she watched Rhys's parents, promised more "resources and attention" to tackle street gangs.
As for David Cameron, whose "anarchy in the UK" speeches won headlines last week, he will unveil a package of meaures to "tackle Britain's crime crisis" today. But he too is aware of the pitfalls of instant policy. If Mr Cameron really believes the behaviour of individuals, families, whole communities, must change, he will also have been told that changing behaviour is one of the hardest things to do.
It can be done, though: smoking is down thanks to government action on the back of a growing public consensus. Cheap drink, knives, guns: they are not inevitable either.
Governments tend to move in long cycles. After Michael Howard's "prison works" and "zero tolerance" rhetoric pushed up prison numbers, Tony Blair's gentler promise in 1997 to be tough on the root causes of crime as well as on the criminals struck a chord.
But successive Labour home secretaries, with the partial exception of the unlucky Charles Clarke, found that "tough" sounded better.
That may reflect the prejudices of the mouthy tabloids. ICM's findings for the Guardian suggest that, asked less emotive questions, voters prefer non-custodial forms of punishment to the "lock 'em up" option, even in so distressing a month as August 2007.
That is not because the (admittedly narrow) majority are complacently soft on crime; more that they are aware that prison is the University of Crime for many inmates. As with other forms of higher education, student numbers are up - by one third since 1997. Surely not what young Blair intended.
Election battle lines are set over Crime and Punishment - Polly Toynbee
· Concern about system strong among women
· Detention is believed by many to create criminals
Julian Glover
Tuesday August 28, 2007
The Guardian
A Guardian/ICM poll published today overturns the assumption that the public think tough prison sentences are the best way to tackle crime. It shows that a majority of voters think the government should scrap its prison building programme and find other ways to punish criminals.
Politicians in all parties routinely assume that voters think prison works. But 51% of those questioned want the government to find other ways to punish criminals and deter crime.
The poll was carried out after a week that has seen crime dominate the news, including the shooting of 11-year-old Rhys Jones in Liverpool and a row over the possible deportation of the killer of London headmaster Philip Lawrence - issues which might have been expected to increase support for imprisonment.
Concern about the prison system is particularly strong among women. Only 40% think the government should aim to send more convicted criminals to prison, against 57% who want to see other, non-custodial forms of punishment. But the issue divides voters of all ages and opinions. Only among pensioners is there a majority in favour of expanding the prison population.
Opposition to more imprisonment is driven by a widespread belief that prisons make crime worse. More people agree with the statement "prison doesn't work, it turns people into professional criminals who then commit more crime" than think "prison punishes crime, keeps criminals off the streets and deters others".
Only 42% of all voters, and 39% of women, think prisons are an effective punishment, against 49%, and 52% of women, who say they fail to work. Conservative voters are most likely to back prisons, Liberal Democrats most likely to oppose them. Among Labour voters, 52% do not want to see more prisons built and 46% do.
The findings follow a sharp rise in prison numbers, and overcrowding forced the justice department to order some prisoners to be released early. Last week the total prison population stood at 80,693, just 654 below the prison service's total capacity. In 1997 there were on average 61,114 prisoners in England and Wales.
That rise and the pressure it has put on the service has forced the government on to the defensive, and this week led Conservative leader David Cameron to talk of "anarchy in the UK". In a speech on Friday he said crime-fighting measures would fail "if we don't build the prisons and train the necessary staff to run them".
This month the government sought bids to build two new prisons, the first in Britain since 2005, as part of a programme to create 9,500 additional prison spaces by 2012.
The poll shows public unease about the effectiveness of this programme is not part of a wider hostility to a tough law and order policy. Asked whether they think courts should pass tougher sentences, 77% of all voters agree. Only 2% of those questioned say sentences are already too harsh, and only 18% believe the courts have got the balance about right.
· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,016 adults aged 18+ by telephone between 22nd and 23rd August 2007. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
Comment: This poll finding is in keeping with Jack Straw's recent comment that building more prisons is not the answer. Therefore, why is the government seeking bids to build two more prisons? Don't they listen?
Prisoners of public opinion
Michael White
Tuesday August 28, 2007
The Guardian
It might be easier for politicians to respond to anxieties about violent crime among young people and children if the public could be persuaded that "paedophobia" is a bigger threat to its peace of mind than paedophilia.
Today's Guardian/ICM poll, however, suggests suggests the underlying mood out there is more thoughtful.
Yet polls routinely report that many people in Britain are more afraid of crime and antisocial behaviour than the facts - bad enough in themselves - warrant. They are certainly afraid of teenagers congregating in our streets, whether they are drunk, hooded, aggressive or simply boisterous.
As a result, politicians are expected "to do something". After the murder of 11-year-old Rhys Jones last week, Gordon Brown staged a youth crime "summit" at No 10. Jacqui Smith, surely the first home secretary to weep on live TV as she watched Rhys's parents, promised more "resources and attention" to tackle street gangs.
As for David Cameron, whose "anarchy in the UK" speeches won headlines last week, he will unveil a package of meaures to "tackle Britain's crime crisis" today. But he too is aware of the pitfalls of instant policy. If Mr Cameron really believes the behaviour of individuals, families, whole communities, must change, he will also have been told that changing behaviour is one of the hardest things to do.
It can be done, though: smoking is down thanks to government action on the back of a growing public consensus. Cheap drink, knives, guns: they are not inevitable either.
Governments tend to move in long cycles. After Michael Howard's "prison works" and "zero tolerance" rhetoric pushed up prison numbers, Tony Blair's gentler promise in 1997 to be tough on the root causes of crime as well as on the criminals struck a chord.
But successive Labour home secretaries, with the partial exception of the unlucky Charles Clarke, found that "tough" sounded better.
That may reflect the prejudices of the mouthy tabloids. ICM's findings for the Guardian suggest that, asked less emotive questions, voters prefer non-custodial forms of punishment to the "lock 'em up" option, even in so distressing a month as August 2007.
That is not because the (admittedly narrow) majority are complacently soft on crime; more that they are aware that prison is the University of Crime for many inmates. As with other forms of higher education, student numbers are up - by one third since 1997. Surely not what young Blair intended.
Election battle lines are set over Crime and Punishment - Polly Toynbee
Monday, August 27, 2007
Obituary: Common sense has died
In his recent speech, I got bored with the frequency David Cameron used the words "common sense" to get across his message. And, in today's Daily Telegraph it is reported that Common sense has taken a holiday, because a Pakistani national has been told to leave the country on the expiry of her visa. Because she is the spouse of a Tory Party "A List" candidate the Home Office decision is lacking in common sense. Especially, given that the husband paid £200,000 in tax last year. The truth is, they failed to renew the visa within the time limit. Now they are blaming the Chindamo ruling for their own mistakes and because he can stay in this country and the Pakistani national can't then we have lost common sense. Philip Johnston's article is basically a load of clap trap. However, this following comment about the obituary of common sense I found amusing and worth cutting and pasting here.
"Comments
I feel you are too late as the following obituary testifies:
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and Maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more
than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but
overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6 -year-old boy
charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Tylenol, sun lotion or a Band-Aid to a student; but could not
inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an
abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as churches became businesses; and
criminals received better treatment than their victims.
Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to
realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his
daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason.
He is survived by his 3 Stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I'm A Victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
Posted by Brian Connor on August 27, 2007 9:53 AM".
"Comments
I feel you are too late as the following obituary testifies:
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
Knowing when to come in out of the rain; Why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and Maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more
than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but
overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6 -year-old boy
charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Tylenol, sun lotion or a Band-Aid to a student; but could not
inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an
abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as churches became businesses; and
criminals received better treatment than their victims.
Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to
realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his
daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason.
He is survived by his 3 Stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I'm A Victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
Posted by Brian Connor on August 27, 2007 9:53 AM".
One law for one and another law for another
I couldn't help but compare how quickly the police released suspects in the Rhys killing case, and the calls for holding suspected terrorists for longer without any evidence and no charges being laid.
Ministry of Justice goes flat out to ease prison overcrowding
Now, this is interesting. Crime suspects swap cells for city flats to ease prison overcrowding. I will come back to this story shortly.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Barrister pleads guilty to perverting the course of justice
Bruce Hyman a falling star (or should that be fallen star?).I don't know how my legal eagle eyes missed this little gem, but the usually sozzled Charon QC on some strange wine he calls Rioja, which he drinks for breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner, when I only drink cheapo Tesco wino, did manage to spot it through bleary eyes. Hat-Tip to the chappie. (I must say that this second triple G&T is beginning to get to me).
What strikes me, is that this smart-arsed barrister expected to get away with a crime that only a lawyer would think of. Given that his opponent was legally inexperienced and representing himself, it would take some stretch of the imagination to believe that he had dreamed it up.
It is not just the callous desire to win the case. He was prepared to see an innocent man go to jail for perverting the course of justice. Given that the likes of Aitken and Archer went to jail. It would be more fitting if this bastard received a custodial sentence. I suspect the funny hand shakes will come out and spare him the ultimate humiliation.
There again, they are short of jailhouselawyers inside so perhaps the judge will do the right thing in this case?
Where do banks go on Bank Holidays?
Tomorrow is a bank holiday, which got me to thinking where do banks go on holiday?
Answers on a post card please.
Tip: I have tried to find the answer on Google without success, so I'll save you the bother of looking.
Answers on a post card please.
Tip: I have tried to find the answer on Google without success, so I'll save you the bother of looking.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Gerry McCann: Tells media to stop asking awkward questions
Gerry McCann, who has yet to give a satisfactory explanation into the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine, and was obsessed by getting media attention, has now called for the media obsession with the missing Madeleine to end. Basically, he is not too happy with the change of focus from his abduction theory to the conduct of Gerry and Kate McCann in Madeleine's disappearance. Gerry has thrown a boomerang and wonders why it has come spinning back at him.
Prison Officers: Sack the lot of them if they go on strike
It is unlawful for prison officers to go on strike. "Up to 10,000 prison officers are threatening not to turn up to work on Friday in a protest over pay - despite being banned from taking industrial action". There is a simple solution to this problem, and that is, that the Prison Service should notify these members of staff that should they take such strike action then they will face immediate dismissal.
Chindamo: There needs to be a proportionate response
I believe that Learco Chindamo, if and when he is released, should be allowed to live in peace. However, I don't support the idea of giving him a new identity, at public expense, under the witness protection plan, because he is not a witness to a crime and under threat of reprisals from the underworld. He is the murderer of Philip Lawrence who was a school headmaster. If he wishes to change his identity, he can do so at very little cost to himself by way of Deed Poll. It is being reported that if the government decides to go down this route "The cost to the taxpayer during the rest of Chindamo's life would run to millions of pounds". I feel that this is an unnecessary and totally unjustified expense. However, I don't agree with Frances Lawrence comparing this cost with what she received from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority following her husband's murder. They are two separate issues. There needs to be some genuine justification why the Chindamo family needs 24 hour police protection. They are not members of the Royal Family, nor MPs in sensitive jobs. Part and parcel of having committed a crime is having to reintegrate back into society at large, and this includes society accepting that an ex-prisoner needs to be allowed to get on with the remainder of his or her life. As high profile as the media has made this case, it is not in the same league as Mary Bell nor the Jamie Bulger killers. Would it be too much to ask that we have a sense of proportion injected into this case?
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Humberside police fail to police and respond to 999 calls
Is it just me or is there something wrong here? Last night I posted this. Tonight I go out into Pearson Park and it's the turn of older youths to get involved in a bit of disturbing the peace and breaking the law. I had just passed a gang of 6 or 8 Asian-looking youths when a missile came flying past my head and hit the tree in front of me with a audible thud. You might recall this case where the police decided to prosecute a boy of 12 for throwing a cocktail sausage at an old man. In any event, I turned and faced this group or gang, if you like, and asked who had thrown the missile. One of them grassed the culprit up so I directed my attention towards him, and asked him what he thought he was playing at? His response was to laugh and call me an old man. If 56 is old, then I am an old man. Still, it is disrespectful to launch such an attack and then when confronted about the conduct become insulting. In effect, adding insult to injury. I wouldn't walk away when he started to threaten me with violence. Instead, I dialled 999 on my mobile phone. And, they thought I was calling for some mates to come and back me up, and said that they would deal with them as well. When they realised I had called the police, they laughed and said that they won't respond. The operator started asking me questions, and I said that an old man and his dog was being attacked by some men in Pearson Park. I had to explain what city I was calling from. She asked, what did they look like? And, I repeated her question out aloud. The youths assisted me by saying "Asian looking youths", so I relayed their description of themselves to the operator. She asked for my date of birth, and address, so that they can do a Criminal Record check on me rather than responding to a 999 emergency call. Her advise was to move away from the area. That might be sound advice for my health and safety, however, it is also a cop out. A law-abiding citizen is told to move along whilst the law breakers are allowed to stay and win the situation. As I was walking away disgusted at the lack of police response to a 999 Emergency call, one of the youths shouted "You're a fucking racist!". Let me get this right, a group of immigrants or asylum seekers take it upon themselves to attack a native of this country, and when I verbally confront them that constitutes racism? If there was any racism here it was them displaying it against me, not to mention the ageism!
The problem as I see it is that because the police do not respond, and that the lawbreakers are aware that they will not respond, then it gives them the bravado or right to do whatever they like. I am thinking of suing the Chief Constable for his failure to respond appropriately to an 999 Emergency call. If they are saying that my criminal record means that I am not entitled to a police response, then I must surely be entitled to do a Charles Bronson Death Wish? If the lawbreakers are to be given free reign by the police, then policing must be the responsibility of the citizens themselves. This could lead to anarchy in the UK.
So, are the police going to police or what?
"Welcome from Tim Hollis, Chief Constable
I am confident that 2007 is going to be a good year for Humberside Police...".
And why is that Tim?
"During 2007, as a force we are committed to a policing style which seeks to meet the desire of local people paying particular attention to:
*
Increasing public satisfaction and confidence;
*
Tackling crime, particularly criminal damage, violent crime and burglary;
*
Further developing our Neighbourhood Policing Teams;
*
Promoting community safety through closer partnership working and
*
Working jointly with other forces to provide improved protection from higher level threats of crime and terrorism.
The foundation stones to Humberside Police are to be found in our increasing network of Neighbourhood Policing Teams which, between them, cover the entire force area. They based within our four Policing Divisions based at: Beverley, Grimsby, Hull and Scunthorpe".
Emergency Calls
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average police response time to (a) grade one emergency 999 calls and (b) other 999 calls is, broken down by region; and what steps his Department is taking to ensure the effective prioritisation of 999 calls. [158844]
Ms Blears: This information is not collected centrally. Responsibility for prioritising calls and deciding the most appropriate time to respond to 999 calls lie with the chief officer in each police force area. However, the vast majority of forces are committed to attending to calls requiring an immediate response within 10 minutes for urban areas and 20 minutes for rural areas.
The problem as I see it is that because the police do not respond, and that the lawbreakers are aware that they will not respond, then it gives them the bravado or right to do whatever they like. I am thinking of suing the Chief Constable for his failure to respond appropriately to an 999 Emergency call. If they are saying that my criminal record means that I am not entitled to a police response, then I must surely be entitled to do a Charles Bronson Death Wish? If the lawbreakers are to be given free reign by the police, then policing must be the responsibility of the citizens themselves. This could lead to anarchy in the UK.
So, are the police going to police or what?
"Welcome from Tim Hollis, Chief Constable
I am confident that 2007 is going to be a good year for Humberside Police...".
And why is that Tim?
"During 2007, as a force we are committed to a policing style which seeks to meet the desire of local people paying particular attention to:
*
Increasing public satisfaction and confidence;
*
Tackling crime, particularly criminal damage, violent crime and burglary;
*
Further developing our Neighbourhood Policing Teams;
*
Promoting community safety through closer partnership working and
*
Working jointly with other forces to provide improved protection from higher level threats of crime and terrorism.
The foundation stones to Humberside Police are to be found in our increasing network of Neighbourhood Policing Teams which, between them, cover the entire force area. They based within our four Policing Divisions based at: Beverley, Grimsby, Hull and Scunthorpe".
Emergency Calls
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average police response time to (a) grade one emergency 999 calls and (b) other 999 calls is, broken down by region; and what steps his Department is taking to ensure the effective prioritisation of 999 calls. [158844]
Ms Blears: This information is not collected centrally. Responsibility for prioritising calls and deciding the most appropriate time to respond to 999 calls lie with the chief officer in each police force area. However, the vast majority of forces are committed to attending to calls requiring an immediate response within 10 minutes for urban areas and 20 minutes for rural areas.
Madeleine: Police believe parents killed her - it is claimed
Madeleine: Police believe parents killed her - it is claimed Gerry and Kate McCann appear to be losing their composure as they come under closer scrutiny and probing from the Portugese media. The old saying: "live by the media, die by the media" is for them becoming a truism. The McCanns have played the Portugese police for fools and are now upset that the police are leaking to the media. It looks to me like poetic justice. The McCanns played the worlds media, particularly the British media, to their advantage as they advanced their version of events which claimed that Madeleine had been abducted. And, criticised the Portugese police for not finding Madeleine on this false trail that they had dreamed up for them to pursue.
UPDATE: The forgotten victim in the McCann case.
BBC coverage. I think it is a bit rich coming from Gerry McCann to say that it is not necessary to "bombard people on a daily basis" with Madeleine's image. That is precisely what he did and what he wanted. His complaint is that he no longer has control of the media. The honeymoon period is over Gerry, you had better get used to it. There is one way to end the speculation, and that is to tell the media and the police what really happened to Madeleine.
Just because someone expresses something differently does not make them truly revolting
I must say that I was flattered when I scanned The Times Online, Comment Central, Friday's comment from the papers in...The Daily Fix, and clicked on Dominic Lawson: (The Independent)- If we respect the law, then we must also respect Learco Chindamo's right to be free, only to find my name and blog user name in the first line. "John Hirst, the self-styled "jailhouse lawyer" who successfully took the Government to the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of prisoners' votes, has little time for Frances Lawrence. In the wake of her attack on the decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal not to deport her husband's soon-to-be released killer, Learco Chindamo, Mr Hirst writes: "If Frances Lawrence still wishes to wallow in self-pity after 12 years, that's her problem."
"There's more where that came from. Hirst describes as "an irrational whine" her broadcast complaint that she was "unutterably depressed that the Human Rights Act has failed to encompass the rights of my family to live a safe and happy life". Truly revolting as Mr Hirst's lack of sympathy is, he is right that Frances Lawrence's outburst against the Human Rights Act was irrational".
It is not that I have little time for Frances Lawrence. She hasn't asked me for any of my time. I have little time for anyone who is displaying self-pity, including myself. Whenever I catch myself slipping into self-pity mode, I tell myself to snap out of it because it serves no good purpose. Therefore, it makes me cringe when I hear and see it in others.
What jumped out at me from Dominic Lawson's otherwise excellent piece was this quote: "Truly revolting as Mr Hirst's lack of sympathy is...". It is not that I lack sympathy for Frances Lawrence, losing a husband to the killer Learco Chindamo, that is deserving of anyone's sympathy, including mine. Having said that, it does not follow that I should block my senses and refrain from comment when I hear her coming out with something that gets my goat up. And that was the irrationality of her statements.
It is not nice for someone to be told that they are truly revolting, especially if that is not true. Dominic Lawson is trying to create the impression that I am an unfeeling person and that is not the case. At least, Dominic Lawson then goes on to say that what I say is right. However, I recall my personal officer in Hull Prison Special Unit, the late Trevor Drewery, once saying: "John is right 99.99% of the time, it's the way that he says it which is wrong". There may well be some truth in that.
Dominic Lawson points out that Frances Lawrence had attacked "the decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal not to deport her husband's soon-to-be released killer, Learco Chindamo". Experience has taught me that if you are to attack such a decision, then it has to be done in a rational manner. Similarly, if you are speaking to the media you need to come across as cool, calm and collected to get your message across. Getting emotional defeats the objective. The Tribunal decided the merits of the case dispassionately. By being emotional, it feeds the gutter press, and this is read by politicians who then knee-jerk an emotional response, and speak sound bites without thinking it through properly what they are saying. It has the effect of becoming infectious. I cannot be fairly criticised for not wanting to become embroiled up in all of that.
It wasn't just that Frances Lawrence attacked the tribunal decision, she also attacked Learco Chindamo and the Human Rights Act 1998. She was lashing out all over the place. Like a bear with a sore paw. It's time that injury was treated and given a chance to heal. If Dominic Lawson wants to know what sympathy is, that's a dose of it. You can feel for someone without agreeing with what they are saying. Dominic Lawson is wrong when he states: "if anyone could be said to have a reason for becoming "irrational", Frances Lawrence is that person". I would have used the word cause, because reason and irrational are opposites. Someone who is applying reason is not irrational, and someone who is irrational is not applying reason. The solution here is to apply logic and not illogic to the situation.
"There's more where that came from. Hirst describes as "an irrational whine" her broadcast complaint that she was "unutterably depressed that the Human Rights Act has failed to encompass the rights of my family to live a safe and happy life". Truly revolting as Mr Hirst's lack of sympathy is, he is right that Frances Lawrence's outburst against the Human Rights Act was irrational".
It is not that I have little time for Frances Lawrence. She hasn't asked me for any of my time. I have little time for anyone who is displaying self-pity, including myself. Whenever I catch myself slipping into self-pity mode, I tell myself to snap out of it because it serves no good purpose. Therefore, it makes me cringe when I hear and see it in others.
What jumped out at me from Dominic Lawson's otherwise excellent piece was this quote: "Truly revolting as Mr Hirst's lack of sympathy is...". It is not that I lack sympathy for Frances Lawrence, losing a husband to the killer Learco Chindamo, that is deserving of anyone's sympathy, including mine. Having said that, it does not follow that I should block my senses and refrain from comment when I hear her coming out with something that gets my goat up. And that was the irrationality of her statements.
It is not nice for someone to be told that they are truly revolting, especially if that is not true. Dominic Lawson is trying to create the impression that I am an unfeeling person and that is not the case. At least, Dominic Lawson then goes on to say that what I say is right. However, I recall my personal officer in Hull Prison Special Unit, the late Trevor Drewery, once saying: "John is right 99.99% of the time, it's the way that he says it which is wrong". There may well be some truth in that.
Dominic Lawson points out that Frances Lawrence had attacked "the decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal not to deport her husband's soon-to-be released killer, Learco Chindamo". Experience has taught me that if you are to attack such a decision, then it has to be done in a rational manner. Similarly, if you are speaking to the media you need to come across as cool, calm and collected to get your message across. Getting emotional defeats the objective. The Tribunal decided the merits of the case dispassionately. By being emotional, it feeds the gutter press, and this is read by politicians who then knee-jerk an emotional response, and speak sound bites without thinking it through properly what they are saying. It has the effect of becoming infectious. I cannot be fairly criticised for not wanting to become embroiled up in all of that.
It wasn't just that Frances Lawrence attacked the tribunal decision, she also attacked Learco Chindamo and the Human Rights Act 1998. She was lashing out all over the place. Like a bear with a sore paw. It's time that injury was treated and given a chance to heal. If Dominic Lawson wants to know what sympathy is, that's a dose of it. You can feel for someone without agreeing with what they are saying. Dominic Lawson is wrong when he states: "if anyone could be said to have a reason for becoming "irrational", Frances Lawrence is that person". I would have used the word cause, because reason and irrational are opposites. Someone who is applying reason is not irrational, and someone who is irrational is not applying reason. The solution here is to apply logic and not illogic to the situation.
Friday, August 24, 2007
One Fucking Idiot and His Dog
Rocky made a canine arrest of a girl of about 10 years of age, who with a group of about 8 others, some older and some younger, had allegedly committed criminal damage to a roof adjoining the swimming baths off Beverly Road. I had just exited Fenchurch Street Park and saw all the debris littering the pavement and road. Two large iron girders, too many roof tiles and the decorative bits that go on the top to mention. I am just asking myself "what has happened here?", and muttering "that's dangerous", when I hear children giggling up on the roof, just as they are about to climb down and run away.
What am I supposed to do? Be public spirited? What if the kids had screamed "paedo"? Or, "assault"? Meanwhile, Rocky had taken charge and was barking at the kids feet as they jumped down. Should I call him back? There is the Dangerous Dog's Act, could I be prosecuted under that and would they put Rocky down? So far, he hadn't bitten any of them. He knew they were up to mischief. I was watching out in case any tried to kick him or throw missiles down at him or me or at him or me from the ground. Just then I see a police car turn into the end of the street from Beverley Road.
As it approached, I expected it to pull up and the police officers to get out. But no, I was greeted by "well, get out of the way then you fucking idiot!", by the male driver, in the front passenger seat was a WPC. Apparently, he wanted to drive around the corner before getting out, maybe the distance of six feet or so. I was so incensed I shouted back that "I am not a fucking idiot!". Just then I heard the girl say "he's bit me", I looked at her leg but could not see any blood or obvious teeth marks from where I was standing, and I called Rocky to me as a community support officer came down the path towards the girl. He asked me if I would recognise the kids if I saw them again. I replied, "I doubt it. Kids are kids".
I continued the walk and popped into the Chippy for my supper. It's possible that Rocky nipped the girl. It's possible that had they not closed the police station on Beverley Road the police would have responded quicker and grabbed some more members of the gang. As it transpires, the only one they have got is the one Rocky arrested. But, for him and me they wouldn't have had that lead to work on.
Might I suggest that Humberside Police work on its PR? They might find people more public spirited if they were not sworn at by the police, and if they didn't have to worry about getting arrested and charged if they became involved...
Tory council guilty of sex discrimination
Tory council guilty of sex discrimination. They should have made a clean breast of it.
Dyslexia means that chief inspector of police is disabled
Dyslexia means that chief inspector of police is disabled
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Published August 22, 2007
Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Before Mr Justice Elias, Mrs C. Baelz and Mr R. Lyons
Judgment July 23, 2007
A chief inspector of police who was dyslexic and who was found by an employment tribunal to have been disadvantaged in comparison with his work colleagues in examinations for promotion, was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal so held when allowing an appeal by the claimant, Chief Inspector David Paterson from the dismissal by a south London employment tribunal on July 24, 2006, of his disability discrimination claim against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
Section 1 of the 1995 Act provides: “...a person has a disability for the purposes of this Act if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”.
Mr James Laddie for the claimant; Ms Alison Padfield for the police.
MR JUSTICE ELIAS said the claimant had discovered in 2004 that he suffered from dyslexia. He alleged that he was disabled and had been discriminated against for a reason relating to his disability particularly in determining whether he should be promoted and that his employers had failed to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal had found that there was no substantial disadvantage in day-to-day activities. Any adverse effects of his impairment were minor. There was a substantial disadvantage with respect to carrying out promotion examinations but that was not a day-to-day activity.
It was argued for the claimant that once it was accepted that the disability affected his ability to progress in his profession, the only reasonable inference was that it had a substantial effect on his day-to-day activities.
Where it was not disputed that an employee was suffering a substantial disadvantage because of the effects of his disability in the procedures adopted for deciding between candidates for promotion, the only proper inference was that those effects must involve a more than trivial effect on his ability to undertake normal day-to-day activities.
It would fundamentally undermine the protection which the Act was designed to provide were it otherwise. The claimant was disabled within the meaning of the 1995 Act and the appeal would be allowed.
Solicitors: Russell Jones & Walker; Ms E. McCafferty, Victoria.
Comment: I wondered who was responsible for writing ECILOP on the front of police vehicles...
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Published August 22, 2007
Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Before Mr Justice Elias, Mrs C. Baelz and Mr R. Lyons
Judgment July 23, 2007
A chief inspector of police who was dyslexic and who was found by an employment tribunal to have been disadvantaged in comparison with his work colleagues in examinations for promotion, was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal so held when allowing an appeal by the claimant, Chief Inspector David Paterson from the dismissal by a south London employment tribunal on July 24, 2006, of his disability discrimination claim against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
Section 1 of the 1995 Act provides: “...a person has a disability for the purposes of this Act if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”.
Mr James Laddie for the claimant; Ms Alison Padfield for the police.
MR JUSTICE ELIAS said the claimant had discovered in 2004 that he suffered from dyslexia. He alleged that he was disabled and had been discriminated against for a reason relating to his disability particularly in determining whether he should be promoted and that his employers had failed to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal had found that there was no substantial disadvantage in day-to-day activities. Any adverse effects of his impairment were minor. There was a substantial disadvantage with respect to carrying out promotion examinations but that was not a day-to-day activity.
It was argued for the claimant that once it was accepted that the disability affected his ability to progress in his profession, the only reasonable inference was that it had a substantial effect on his day-to-day activities.
Where it was not disputed that an employee was suffering a substantial disadvantage because of the effects of his disability in the procedures adopted for deciding between candidates for promotion, the only proper inference was that those effects must involve a more than trivial effect on his ability to undertake normal day-to-day activities.
It would fundamentally undermine the protection which the Act was designed to provide were it otherwise. The claimant was disabled within the meaning of the 1995 Act and the appeal would be allowed.
Solicitors: Russell Jones & Walker; Ms E. McCafferty, Victoria.
Comment: I wondered who was responsible for writing ECILOP on the front of police vehicles...
If we respect the law, then we must also respect Learco Chindamo's right to be free
If we respect the law, then we must also respect Learco Chindamo's right to be free
Dominic Lawson in The Independent Comment section.
Published: 24 August 2007
John Hirst, the self-styled "jailhouse lawyer" who successfully took the Government to the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of prisoners' votes, has little time for Frances Lawrence. In the wake of her attack on the decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal not to deport her husband's soon-to-be released killer, Learco Chindamo, Mr Hirst writes: "If Frances Lawrence still wishes to wallow in self-pity after 12 years, that's her problem."
There's more where that came from. Hirst describes as "an irrational whine" her broadcast complaint that she was "unutterably depressed that the Human Rights Act has failed to encompass the rights of my family to live a safe and happy life". Truly revolting as Mr Hirst's lack of sympathy is, he is right that Frances Lawrence's outburst against the Human Rights Act was irrational. The legislation which appears to guarantee residency rights to Mr Chindamo – an Italian national – is the EU Citizens' Directive of 2004, which was incorporated into British law last year. The Human Rights Act has nothing to do with it.
However, if anyone could be said to have a reason for becoming "irrational", Frances Law-rence is that person. It is not just the circumstances of her widowhood which makes me say that, although it is clear from her television appearance that her mental anguish at the murder of the father of her four children has not diminished in the slightest with the passing of time. She has also suffered greatly at the hands of the state, which has consistently treated her with indifference, bordering on contempt.
This week Mrs Lawrence told the BBC how she had learned from a news broadcast of the decision that Chindamo would not be deported, even though she had been consistently assured by the authorities that he would be removed to Italy at the end of his sentence. Similarly, when two years ago Chindamo was let out on day release, Mrs Lawrence was not told, learning about it from a newspaper report. Worst of all, in 2002, Mrs Lawrence was rung at home by a probation officer who asked her to "apologise" to Chindamo for criticising his lack of remorse. "She was direct and very cross with me," Mrs Lawrence said later. "She said it was because he[Chindamo] would be very upset at his 'lifer board'."
Incidentally, Mrs Lawrence's belief that Chindamo lacked remorse might be entirely rational. He had consistently claimed throughout his trial that the murder had been committed by one of his fellow gang members, on the basis that this unnamed person had stolen his jacket, which was so gruesomely covered with Mr Lawrence's DNA. Once sentenced, he appealed against the conviction. When that was lost, he appealed against the length of his sentence – life, with a minimum term of 12 years before parole could be considered. It is those 12 years which are very nearly up, and the Parole Board has declared, in its usual way, that Chindamo is a "model prisoner". It added that he has passed a number of qualifications while inside, and has attended an "anger management" course.
Forgive me if I sound slightly cynical, but I can't help recalling what the Parole Board had said about Damien Hanson, a young man who in 2004 murdered my wife's cousin only months after being released half-way through a 12-year sentence for attempted murder. Hanson, too, had been a diligent student in prison. He, too, had attended anger management sessions. Nevertheless, let us take the gamble of trusting the Parole Board's assessment of Learco Chindamo. He might indeed be a reformed character. Government ministers have not attempted to criticise the decision of the Parole Board. Their concern seems solely to be with the ruling of the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal, that it would be an infringement of Chindamo's rights under the 2004 Directive, which gives all citizens of the EU free rights of residency throughout the Union.
Chindamo has been in this country since he was five years old and his mother and siblings live here. The Tribunal can hardly be faulted for interpreting the law in his favour: if this causes the Government huge embarrassment, then that is its fault for continuing to reassure Mrs Lawrence that Chindamo would be deported, even after passing into British law a measure which would appear to make such a deportation illegal. It is true that there is a way in which Chindamo, though an EU citizen, could be deported back to Italy.
The relevant directive says that deportation within the EU is permissible if there are "imperative grounds of public security". That, in fact, seems to be the basis of the Home Office's forthcoming appeal against the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal's decision. If that appeal were to be upheld then it would render absurd the Parole Board's decision to authorise Chindamo's release from prison: if, as it argues, he presents an extremely low risk of re-offending then he cannot simultaneously be a great threat to the security of the public.
If the Home Office's position is paradoxical, then David Cameron's is preposterous. While Dominic Grieve, the shadow Attorney General, must surely have told his boss of the legal facts of the case, Mr Cameron continues to blame the non-deportation of Chindamo on the Human Rights Act. This is presumably because the Conservative leader's campaign to abolish the HRA, in favour of what he calls a "British Bill of Rights", has earned the approbation of The Sun newspaper – which is not something he has otherwise managed to achieve.
On Wednesday, Mr Cameron declared: "What about the rights of Mrs Lawrence? We ought to abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights that we can write ourselves." Leave aside the fact that the Human Rights Act is not relevant to this case: can Mr Cameron draft a Bill of Rights in such a way that would guarantee both a Mrs Lawrence's right not to be distressed and a Chindamo's right to live with his own family? I can't imagine how such a clause might read, and I'm certain Mr Cameron can't either.
More fundamentally – and hard though it might be to accept in the circumstances – respect for the law demands that Chindamo's desire to live with his family be respected. If Chindamo has served the minimum sentence set out by the former lord chief justice at the time of his appeal – which he will have done – then he has fulfiled the requirements of the law.
In the moral sense, Chindamo has not repaid his "debt to society" – it's hard to imagine how he ever could, having murdered one of the country's most admired head teachers; but in the strictly legal sense, he can be said to have done so.
He has been punished for his dreadful crime in accordance with the law. If he is to be freed, then he must be a free man.
d.lawson@ independent.co.uk
Dominic Lawson in The Independent Comment section.
Published: 24 August 2007
John Hirst, the self-styled "jailhouse lawyer" who successfully took the Government to the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of prisoners' votes, has little time for Frances Lawrence. In the wake of her attack on the decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal not to deport her husband's soon-to-be released killer, Learco Chindamo, Mr Hirst writes: "If Frances Lawrence still wishes to wallow in self-pity after 12 years, that's her problem."
There's more where that came from. Hirst describes as "an irrational whine" her broadcast complaint that she was "unutterably depressed that the Human Rights Act has failed to encompass the rights of my family to live a safe and happy life". Truly revolting as Mr Hirst's lack of sympathy is, he is right that Frances Lawrence's outburst against the Human Rights Act was irrational. The legislation which appears to guarantee residency rights to Mr Chindamo – an Italian national – is the EU Citizens' Directive of 2004, which was incorporated into British law last year. The Human Rights Act has nothing to do with it.
However, if anyone could be said to have a reason for becoming "irrational", Frances Law-rence is that person. It is not just the circumstances of her widowhood which makes me say that, although it is clear from her television appearance that her mental anguish at the murder of the father of her four children has not diminished in the slightest with the passing of time. She has also suffered greatly at the hands of the state, which has consistently treated her with indifference, bordering on contempt.
This week Mrs Lawrence told the BBC how she had learned from a news broadcast of the decision that Chindamo would not be deported, even though she had been consistently assured by the authorities that he would be removed to Italy at the end of his sentence. Similarly, when two years ago Chindamo was let out on day release, Mrs Lawrence was not told, learning about it from a newspaper report. Worst of all, in 2002, Mrs Lawrence was rung at home by a probation officer who asked her to "apologise" to Chindamo for criticising his lack of remorse. "She was direct and very cross with me," Mrs Lawrence said later. "She said it was because he[Chindamo] would be very upset at his 'lifer board'."
Incidentally, Mrs Lawrence's belief that Chindamo lacked remorse might be entirely rational. He had consistently claimed throughout his trial that the murder had been committed by one of his fellow gang members, on the basis that this unnamed person had stolen his jacket, which was so gruesomely covered with Mr Lawrence's DNA. Once sentenced, he appealed against the conviction. When that was lost, he appealed against the length of his sentence – life, with a minimum term of 12 years before parole could be considered. It is those 12 years which are very nearly up, and the Parole Board has declared, in its usual way, that Chindamo is a "model prisoner". It added that he has passed a number of qualifications while inside, and has attended an "anger management" course.
Forgive me if I sound slightly cynical, but I can't help recalling what the Parole Board had said about Damien Hanson, a young man who in 2004 murdered my wife's cousin only months after being released half-way through a 12-year sentence for attempted murder. Hanson, too, had been a diligent student in prison. He, too, had attended anger management sessions. Nevertheless, let us take the gamble of trusting the Parole Board's assessment of Learco Chindamo. He might indeed be a reformed character. Government ministers have not attempted to criticise the decision of the Parole Board. Their concern seems solely to be with the ruling of the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal, that it would be an infringement of Chindamo's rights under the 2004 Directive, which gives all citizens of the EU free rights of residency throughout the Union.
Chindamo has been in this country since he was five years old and his mother and siblings live here. The Tribunal can hardly be faulted for interpreting the law in his favour: if this causes the Government huge embarrassment, then that is its fault for continuing to reassure Mrs Lawrence that Chindamo would be deported, even after passing into British law a measure which would appear to make such a deportation illegal. It is true that there is a way in which Chindamo, though an EU citizen, could be deported back to Italy.
The relevant directive says that deportation within the EU is permissible if there are "imperative grounds of public security". That, in fact, seems to be the basis of the Home Office's forthcoming appeal against the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal's decision. If that appeal were to be upheld then it would render absurd the Parole Board's decision to authorise Chindamo's release from prison: if, as it argues, he presents an extremely low risk of re-offending then he cannot simultaneously be a great threat to the security of the public.
If the Home Office's position is paradoxical, then David Cameron's is preposterous. While Dominic Grieve, the shadow Attorney General, must surely have told his boss of the legal facts of the case, Mr Cameron continues to blame the non-deportation of Chindamo on the Human Rights Act. This is presumably because the Conservative leader's campaign to abolish the HRA, in favour of what he calls a "British Bill of Rights", has earned the approbation of The Sun newspaper – which is not something he has otherwise managed to achieve.
On Wednesday, Mr Cameron declared: "What about the rights of Mrs Lawrence? We ought to abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights that we can write ourselves." Leave aside the fact that the Human Rights Act is not relevant to this case: can Mr Cameron draft a Bill of Rights in such a way that would guarantee both a Mrs Lawrence's right not to be distressed and a Chindamo's right to live with his own family? I can't imagine how such a clause might read, and I'm certain Mr Cameron can't either.
More fundamentally – and hard though it might be to accept in the circumstances – respect for the law demands that Chindamo's desire to live with his family be respected. If Chindamo has served the minimum sentence set out by the former lord chief justice at the time of his appeal – which he will have done – then he has fulfiled the requirements of the law.
In the moral sense, Chindamo has not repaid his "debt to society" – it's hard to imagine how he ever could, having murdered one of the country's most admired head teachers; but in the strictly legal sense, he can be said to have done so.
He has been punished for his dreadful crime in accordance with the law. If he is to be freed, then he must be a free man.
d.lawson@ independent.co.uk
Paedophile is spared jail
I am all for making less use of imprisonment and imposing community sentences. However, if the name of the game is public protection I have to wonder if the judge got it wrong in this case. A 38 year old man who used his position "as a ministerial servant in the Jehovah's Witnesses" for 14 years to sexually abuse children, including an 18 month old baby, has been spared jail because it was claimed that he had now undergone therapy and he knew what he had done was wrong. Surely, he knew that beforehand when he was actually abusing the children?
Is this judge fit to judge cases in court?
UPDATE: Guardian story here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)