Sunday, September 30, 2007
Stamp out the Tory Party
Stamp out the Tory Party
What a good idea. The Tory Party has pledged to cut stamp duty. Somehow, I don't think I have got the hang of this...
Would you save David Cameron if he was drowning?
Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, the shadow Minister for Community Cohesion in the British Nasty Party...
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Huntley takes drugs overdose for third time
Huntley takes drugs overdose for third time
Thair Shaikh
Saturday September 29, 2007
The Guardian
Soham murderer Ian Huntley was admitted to hospital last night after overdosing with prescription medication, despite being on suicide watch.
Huntley, 33, convicted of killing schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002, alerted staff at the Wakefield high security prison after taking the medication, the prison service said.
Officers found him while still conscious and took him to an undisclosed hospital. Late last night he was allowed to return to prison. A prison service spokesman, said: "We can confirm that Ian Huntley was treated in hospital for a suspected overdose. We will be investigating events surrounding this incident."
It is the third such incident involving Huntley, and will raise questions about security at the West Yorkshire prison.
In September 2006 prison staff found him unconscious in his cell in the early hours of the morning, again of a suspected drugs overdose. He had recently been taken off a full suicide watch.
In June 2003, he apparently tried to take his life while on remand in Woodhill prison near Milton Keynes; the former school caretaker was subsequently convicted of murder and is serving a minimum 40-year sentence.
The prison service refused to say what type of drugs Huntley had taken or whether he was receiving prescription medication. Mark Leech, editor of the Prisons Handbook, said it was not uncommon for inmates to trade medication.
Mr Leech said: "This is a dreadful story for the prison service and a huge embarrassment for them, particularly as Huntley is the highest possible security category. It is going to require some heads to be banged together to sort this out."
Thair Shaikh
Saturday September 29, 2007
The Guardian
Soham murderer Ian Huntley was admitted to hospital last night after overdosing with prescription medication, despite being on suicide watch.
Huntley, 33, convicted of killing schoolgirls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002, alerted staff at the Wakefield high security prison after taking the medication, the prison service said.
Officers found him while still conscious and took him to an undisclosed hospital. Late last night he was allowed to return to prison. A prison service spokesman, said: "We can confirm that Ian Huntley was treated in hospital for a suspected overdose. We will be investigating events surrounding this incident."
It is the third such incident involving Huntley, and will raise questions about security at the West Yorkshire prison.
In September 2006 prison staff found him unconscious in his cell in the early hours of the morning, again of a suspected drugs overdose. He had recently been taken off a full suicide watch.
In June 2003, he apparently tried to take his life while on remand in Woodhill prison near Milton Keynes; the former school caretaker was subsequently convicted of murder and is serving a minimum 40-year sentence.
The prison service refused to say what type of drugs Huntley had taken or whether he was receiving prescription medication. Mark Leech, editor of the Prisons Handbook, said it was not uncommon for inmates to trade medication.
Mr Leech said: "This is a dreadful story for the prison service and a huge embarrassment for them, particularly as Huntley is the highest possible security category. It is going to require some heads to be banged together to sort this out."
Lethal injection review may halt US executions
Lethal injection review may halt US executions
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Saturday September 29, 2007
The Guardian
America, which has some 3,350 prisoners on death row, yesterday seemed to be moving towards an unofficial moratorium on executions after the supreme court granted a rare last-minute reprieve to a condemned man in Texas.
The supreme court stay for Carlton Turner Jr, who was scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection for killing his adoptive parents, arrived hours after a death row inmate in Alabama was granted a 45-day reprieve by the state's governor.
Opponents of the death penalty said the moves suggested there would be a lull in executions while the supreme court reviews lethal injection, the method for dispatching prisoners in all but one of the 38 states which impose the death penalty.
"I think this is a sign that maybe all executions are going to be put on hold aside from those who might volunteer, or who don't raise the issue of the lethal injection method," said Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Centre.
In its order on Thursday the supreme court offered no explanation for Turner's reprieve. However, his lawyers had based their appeal entirely on likening lethal injection to a "chemical straitjacket".
The court is expected to hear arguments next January on whether lethal injection, a cocktail of three drugs, represents cruel and unusual punishment and is therefore unlawful. The challenge is on behalf of two condemned men in Kentucky, Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr, who argued in their 2004 suit that they would suffer excruciating pain in the moments before death, but would be unable to cry out because of the immobilising effects of one of the drugs in the injection.
The supreme court's consideration of lethal injection also follows a number of botched executions.
Its decision, expected to arrive by June 2008, would have broad implications. Most of the 37 states using lethal injection use the same drugs as in Kentucky.
In recent months 11 states have suspended executions because of concerns about the cruelty of lethal injection.
However, a spokesman for Amnesty International said it was too early to say whether America was moving towards a "creeping moratorium" on executions. Texas, which operates the busiest execution chamber, appears resistant to a slowdown. The state executed a prisoner hours after the supreme court announced its review - before lawyers for the condemned man could prepare an appeal.
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Saturday September 29, 2007
The Guardian
America, which has some 3,350 prisoners on death row, yesterday seemed to be moving towards an unofficial moratorium on executions after the supreme court granted a rare last-minute reprieve to a condemned man in Texas.
The supreme court stay for Carlton Turner Jr, who was scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection for killing his adoptive parents, arrived hours after a death row inmate in Alabama was granted a 45-day reprieve by the state's governor.
Opponents of the death penalty said the moves suggested there would be a lull in executions while the supreme court reviews lethal injection, the method for dispatching prisoners in all but one of the 38 states which impose the death penalty.
"I think this is a sign that maybe all executions are going to be put on hold aside from those who might volunteer, or who don't raise the issue of the lethal injection method," said Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Centre.
In its order on Thursday the supreme court offered no explanation for Turner's reprieve. However, his lawyers had based their appeal entirely on likening lethal injection to a "chemical straitjacket".
The court is expected to hear arguments next January on whether lethal injection, a cocktail of three drugs, represents cruel and unusual punishment and is therefore unlawful. The challenge is on behalf of two condemned men in Kentucky, Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr, who argued in their 2004 suit that they would suffer excruciating pain in the moments before death, but would be unable to cry out because of the immobilising effects of one of the drugs in the injection.
The supreme court's consideration of lethal injection also follows a number of botched executions.
Its decision, expected to arrive by June 2008, would have broad implications. Most of the 37 states using lethal injection use the same drugs as in Kentucky.
In recent months 11 states have suspended executions because of concerns about the cruelty of lethal injection.
However, a spokesman for Amnesty International said it was too early to say whether America was moving towards a "creeping moratorium" on executions. Texas, which operates the busiest execution chamber, appears resistant to a slowdown. The state executed a prisoner hours after the supreme court announced its review - before lawyers for the condemned man could prepare an appeal.
Police raid Harry Roberts's cell in inquiry over leaked documents
Police raid Harry Roberts's cell in inquiry over leaked documents
By Andy McSmith
Published: 29 September 2007 11:25AM
Police have raided the cell of the notorious police killer, Harry Roberts, as part of an inquiry ordered by the Home Office into how secret documents were leaked to the multiple murderer.
Confidential letters and statements containing damaging and sensitive allegations against Roberts, 71, were sent to him in jail.
Several of the people who made the allegations against Roberts are understood to be considering legal action against the Government, and have claimed their safety is now under threat because of the unlawful disclosure. The Home Office ordered a police inquiry into the leak earlier this summer.
Roberts is seeking parole after spending 40 years behind bars for the murder of three unarmed, plainclothes officers in Shepherd's Bush, West London, in 1966.
At the Old Bailey, the trial judge described the murders as "the most heinous crime for a generation or more" and told Roberts he would serve at least 30 years.
Despite serving 10 years more than his 30 year tariff Roberts has been refused parole following a series of undisclosed allegations that he carried out illegal activities while on day releases.
The Home Office made unprecedented use of anti-terrorist laws to ensure the allegations remained secret, despite repeated legal challenges by Roberts' lawyers. The Parole Board argued that sources would be at risk if Roberts was allowed to view the evidence.
But, earlier this year, the confidential parole documents were leaked and distributed to a number of people, including to Roberts at the low security Category C prison at Littlehey in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire.
Prison officers at Littlehey HMP told Roberts in June, that although he could not keep the documents, he was permitted to look at them several hours a day. A large number of the documents were also photocopied for Roberts at the prison and sent to his solicitor, Simon Creighton.
Mr Creighton, a partner in the firm Bhatt Murphy, having obtained permission from the Parole Board and Ministry of Justice, was then able to read for the first time some of the allegations made against his client. That resulted in the case being referred back to the Parole Board for consideration.
Once news of the disclosure reached the Attorney General's Office, Derbyshire Police were ordered to investigate the source of the leak by the Home Secretary. The documents, contained on a computer disc, were held by a number of organisations including the Parole Board, the police, the Home Office, and the Court of Appeal.
As part of the leaks inquiry, detectives from Derbyshire Police raided Roberts' prison cell and removed all his papers and documents at the beginning of August. They also arrested the man alleged to have sent them to Roberts at the prison and seized documents, and a computer from his home. The Treasury Solicitor has obtained a gagging order prohibiting the media from publishing any details contained in the letters and statements.
The Government and its legal advisers are due to decide later this year whether the secret material should be officially disclosed to Roberts as part of his new parole review.
Home Office lawyers, the Treasury solicitor, and ministers from the Justice department are expected to consider three options: to make public the papers; to keep some of the material restricted, but allow Roberts' lawyers to see it; or to refuse disclosure and have a special advocate re-examine the case.
Mr Creighton said: "The case demonstrates quite how dangerous it is to rely on secret evidence. The underlying principle for everyone, is a right to know the case against them. This is essential to achieve justice."
But some of the people who have made the allegations against Roberts are understood to be considering taking legal action to try and prevent the public disclosure of the information.
By Andy McSmith
Published: 29 September 2007 11:25AM
Police have raided the cell of the notorious police killer, Harry Roberts, as part of an inquiry ordered by the Home Office into how secret documents were leaked to the multiple murderer.
Confidential letters and statements containing damaging and sensitive allegations against Roberts, 71, were sent to him in jail.
Several of the people who made the allegations against Roberts are understood to be considering legal action against the Government, and have claimed their safety is now under threat because of the unlawful disclosure. The Home Office ordered a police inquiry into the leak earlier this summer.
Roberts is seeking parole after spending 40 years behind bars for the murder of three unarmed, plainclothes officers in Shepherd's Bush, West London, in 1966.
At the Old Bailey, the trial judge described the murders as "the most heinous crime for a generation or more" and told Roberts he would serve at least 30 years.
Despite serving 10 years more than his 30 year tariff Roberts has been refused parole following a series of undisclosed allegations that he carried out illegal activities while on day releases.
The Home Office made unprecedented use of anti-terrorist laws to ensure the allegations remained secret, despite repeated legal challenges by Roberts' lawyers. The Parole Board argued that sources would be at risk if Roberts was allowed to view the evidence.
But, earlier this year, the confidential parole documents were leaked and distributed to a number of people, including to Roberts at the low security Category C prison at Littlehey in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire.
Prison officers at Littlehey HMP told Roberts in June, that although he could not keep the documents, he was permitted to look at them several hours a day. A large number of the documents were also photocopied for Roberts at the prison and sent to his solicitor, Simon Creighton.
Mr Creighton, a partner in the firm Bhatt Murphy, having obtained permission from the Parole Board and Ministry of Justice, was then able to read for the first time some of the allegations made against his client. That resulted in the case being referred back to the Parole Board for consideration.
Once news of the disclosure reached the Attorney General's Office, Derbyshire Police were ordered to investigate the source of the leak by the Home Secretary. The documents, contained on a computer disc, were held by a number of organisations including the Parole Board, the police, the Home Office, and the Court of Appeal.
As part of the leaks inquiry, detectives from Derbyshire Police raided Roberts' prison cell and removed all his papers and documents at the beginning of August. They also arrested the man alleged to have sent them to Roberts at the prison and seized documents, and a computer from his home. The Treasury Solicitor has obtained a gagging order prohibiting the media from publishing any details contained in the letters and statements.
The Government and its legal advisers are due to decide later this year whether the secret material should be officially disclosed to Roberts as part of his new parole review.
Home Office lawyers, the Treasury solicitor, and ministers from the Justice department are expected to consider three options: to make public the papers; to keep some of the material restricted, but allow Roberts' lawyers to see it; or to refuse disclosure and have a special advocate re-examine the case.
Mr Creighton said: "The case demonstrates quite how dangerous it is to rely on secret evidence. The underlying principle for everyone, is a right to know the case against them. This is essential to achieve justice."
But some of the people who have made the allegations against Roberts are understood to be considering taking legal action to try and prevent the public disclosure of the information.
Falsely accused woman freed after 70 years
Falsely accused woman freed after 70 years
By David Sapsted
Last Updated: 1:50am BST 29/09/2007
Seventy years locked up in institutions hardly seems to be a punishment that befits the crime of stealing half-a-crown.
However, it is just such a fate that befell Jean Gambell when at the age of 15, in 1937, she was falsely accused of stealing 2s 6d (12.5p) from the doctor's surgery where she worked as a cleaner.
She was sectioned under the 1890 Lunacy Act and even though the money was later found, she has been moved from mental institution to mental institution. More recently, she went into a care home and has been lost to her family, who thought she was dead.
But last month, by chance, her brother stumbled across correspondence which led to the discovery of her existence and the family was reunited.
Her brother David Gambell, 63, who still lives in his mother's old home in Wirral, Merseyside, received a questionnaire addressed to his mother from Macclesfield Mews Care Home.
"I thought it was just a survey for old people and I was about to throw it away when I saw Jean's name pencilled in on one corner," he said yesterday.
"I couldn't believe it. I suddenly realised that my sister was still alive. I rang the care home straight away and they confirmed that our sister was there." He and his brother Alan, who had last seen their sister as small children when she was allowed to visit home with two wardens as guards, travelled to the Macclesfield home.
They were told by staff that their 85-year-old sister was deaf, could only communicate in writing and was very unlikely to remember them.
"A little old lady on walking sticks came in," said Alan. "She looked at us and cried out: 'Alan...David'. Then she put her arms around us. It was very emotional.
"I am sure that what has kept her going all these years was the challenge of proving to the authorities that she had a family. The trouble was, nobody would listen to her."
The brothers spent much of their childhood in orphanages because their parents were so poor. They said that they had later discovered that their father had tried for years to get Jean freed after she was put in Cranage Hall mental hospital in Macclesfield for being "of feeble mind", but was unsuccessful because her records had been mislaid.
She spent years, lost in a maze of instutitons and care homes, trying to convince people in authority that she had a family. But nobody would believe her.
Macclesfield Social Services are now conducting an inquiry into Miss Gambell's incarceration.
By David Sapsted
Last Updated: 1:50am BST 29/09/2007
Seventy years locked up in institutions hardly seems to be a punishment that befits the crime of stealing half-a-crown.
However, it is just such a fate that befell Jean Gambell when at the age of 15, in 1937, she was falsely accused of stealing 2s 6d (12.5p) from the doctor's surgery where she worked as a cleaner.
She was sectioned under the 1890 Lunacy Act and even though the money was later found, she has been moved from mental institution to mental institution. More recently, she went into a care home and has been lost to her family, who thought she was dead.
But last month, by chance, her brother stumbled across correspondence which led to the discovery of her existence and the family was reunited.
Her brother David Gambell, 63, who still lives in his mother's old home in Wirral, Merseyside, received a questionnaire addressed to his mother from Macclesfield Mews Care Home.
"I thought it was just a survey for old people and I was about to throw it away when I saw Jean's name pencilled in on one corner," he said yesterday.
"I couldn't believe it. I suddenly realised that my sister was still alive. I rang the care home straight away and they confirmed that our sister was there." He and his brother Alan, who had last seen their sister as small children when she was allowed to visit home with two wardens as guards, travelled to the Macclesfield home.
They were told by staff that their 85-year-old sister was deaf, could only communicate in writing and was very unlikely to remember them.
"A little old lady on walking sticks came in," said Alan. "She looked at us and cried out: 'Alan...David'. Then she put her arms around us. It was very emotional.
"I am sure that what has kept her going all these years was the challenge of proving to the authorities that she had a family. The trouble was, nobody would listen to her."
The brothers spent much of their childhood in orphanages because their parents were so poor. They said that they had later discovered that their father had tried for years to get Jean freed after she was put in Cranage Hall mental hospital in Macclesfield for being "of feeble mind", but was unsuccessful because her records had been mislaid.
She spent years, lost in a maze of instutitons and care homes, trying to convince people in authority that she had a family. But nobody would believe her.
Macclesfield Social Services are now conducting an inquiry into Miss Gambell's incarceration.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Exclusive: Prisoners stripped searched turned into porno movie
Exclusive: Prisoners stripped searched turned into porno movie
Whilst I agree with the Director General of the Prison Service, Phil Wheatley that this is, in effect, a non-story because as he states "As to the incident involving the strip search of the young person, I have seen the video and reviewed the matter in great detail. I am convinced that at no point in the process was he compliant and the staff involved dealt with the incident correctly in the circumstances, when faced by a difficult and disturbed young man".
However, perhaps Phil Wheatley will now be carrying out an investigation to discover how Prison Service CCTV security tapes of prisoners being strip searched have found there way onto a pornography website?
Whilst I agree with the Director General of the Prison Service, Phil Wheatley that this is, in effect, a non-story because as he states "As to the incident involving the strip search of the young person, I have seen the video and reviewed the matter in great detail. I am convinced that at no point in the process was he compliant and the staff involved dealt with the incident correctly in the circumstances, when faced by a difficult and disturbed young man".
However, perhaps Phil Wheatley will now be carrying out an investigation to discover how Prison Service CCTV security tapes of prisoners being strip searched have found there way onto a pornography website?
Inmate walks out of prison
Inmate, 57, walks out of prison
Another inmate has walked out of Sudbury Open Prison in Derbyshire.
Michael Bould, 57, was sentenced to six years in prison for the supply of a Class A drug at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court on 26 March 2004.
He absconded on Thursday. Forty-nine inmates have absconded from the open prison since January.
Bould's last known address was in the Hanley area of Stoke. He is white, 5ft 9ins, has short grey hair and brown eyes. He also has a nickname of Pablo.
A total of 78 prisoners absconded from the open jail in 2006.
Inmates 'forcibly strip-searched'
Inmates 'forcibly strip-searched'
Young offenders are being forcibly strip searched according to a report by prison inspectors.
On one occasion at Werrington Youth Offenders' Institution, Staffs, an inmate had his clothing cut off during a search, the inspectors said.
Now the Howard League for Penal Reform, which looks out for the welfare of prisoners, has referred it as a child protection case to council bosses.
Inspectors did however report that in other areas Werrington had improved.
A league spokesman said it was contacting Stoke-on-Trent City Council about the use of forcible and routine strip searches.
Frances Crook, director of the Howard League said: "This is not the first time Werrington YOI has been criticised for its strip searching policies by the Chief Inspectorate of Prisons."
Inspectors found evidence of the searches when they arrived for a surprise visit at Werrington after population pressures exposed serious shortfalls in safety at the institution, Anne Owers, Chief Inspector of Prisons said.
She said while basic levels of safety were maintained, inspectors were concerned there were routine strip searches on reception.
There was also poor management of safeguarding, weak anti-bullying arrangements, and suicide and self-harm prevention needed improvement, according to the inspectors.
Population 'crisis'
In particular Ms Owers said inspectors were concerned about the forcible strip search of an agitated inmate, involving three officers holding him down while his clothing was cut off, despite the fact he was willing to comply.
"Werrington had been through a trying period as a result of the population crisis," she said.
"Though it had continued to improve in a number of areas, the weaknesses we identified in safety were serious and required urgent management attention.
"Werrington is still some distance from its stated ambition of being a safe and effective 'secure college'."
Phil Wheatley, Director General of the Prison Service, said generally it was a good report, and said officers had acted "correctly" during the search of the inmate in question.
'Disturbed' inmate
"As to the incident involving the strip search of the young person, I have seen the video and reviewed the matter in great detail," he said.
"I am convinced that at no point in the process was he compliant and the staff involved dealt with the incident correctly in the circumstances, when faced by a difficult and disturbed young man."
Inspectors did say that in other respects Werrington had risen to the challenges facing it, and had improved and developed in a number of areas.
In particular, purposeful activity had improved with young people spending sufficient time out of their cells and with a good range of education and skills.
'Disaster area' prison and probation agency to be scrapped in weeks
'Disaster area' prison and probation agency to be scrapped in weeks
· Leaked Whitehall paper confirms shakeup
· Sources say brand is damaged beyond repair
Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Friday September 28, 2007
The Guardian
The government's troubled £2.6bn programme to manage convicted criminals in order to cut reoffending rates is to be scrapped within weeks, the Guardian has learned.
Leaked Whitehall papers confirm that an internal shakeup at the recently created Ministry of Justice will lead to the demise of the much-criticised National Offender Management Service (Noms) only three years after it was set up.
Noms is responsible for managing the prisons and probation services and was designed to provide "end-to-end offender management" for the first time, but Whitehall sources have confirmed that it will be scrapped in a shakeup to be announced early next month.
It is understood that senior justice ministry sources have admitted that the Noms "brand is so damaged, it cannot continue" and have claimed that it is simply "a disaster area" with costs spiralling out of control.
Earlier this summer the government had to admit it had frozen further spending on the £155m computer system that would have given prison and probation staff joint access to offenders' files across the criminal justice system for the first time. More than £5m has been spent in consultants' fees alone in the past two years trying to fix the problems facing the troubled service.
The need for a 1,300-strong headquarters has also been criticised. The cumbersome structure was adopted after a move to merge the prison and probation services was dropped.
A leaked copy of a confidential review of justice ministry internal structures set up to ensure it was "fit for purpose" after taking over the 60,000-strong prison and probation services from the Home Office confirms that it is now to be ditched.
The shakeup was thrashed out at an away-day three weeks ago and is designed to be implemented by the time the justice ministry moves to the old Home Office headquarters in Queen Anne's Gate.
It will be accompanied by a major report on managing the prison population crisis by Lord Patrick Carter, the original architect of Noms, who is believed to have been disillusioned by its progress.
The report, by Ursula Brennan of the Office of Criminal Justice Reform, says delay could jeopardise the justice ministry's status: "Our reputation as a reliable and capable department in Whitehall and in the media is critical and early failures could tip us into crisis management before we have built the capacity to respond in a more measured and strategic way."
She adds that the "inherent cultures in the two parts of the MoJ are not particularly well aligned", in an admission that the Home Office split has not proved as smooth as some might have hoped. The paper also envisages that the court service will remain within the department and not gain the independent status demanded by senior judges.
The shakeup will see a second permanent secretary appointed as chief operating officer, with responsibility for the day-to-day operational delivery of the department's services, including prisons, probation and the courts. Separate directorates will be responsible for ensuring that strategy and policy are based around "client outcomes".
The leaked paper admits this model contains "presentational risks from the perceived demise of Noms", but the flow charts contain no room for the organisation. The review says that the central directorates will provide "a robust analytical capability and a strong strategic focus" and will negotiate with the "various delivery arms and external providers".
In the case of prison places and offender management, "this includes delivery through a commissioning/contracting model while the courts and tribunals will do it through service level agreements with the respective delivery arms".
A second model, which would have "retained a degree of corporate autonomy in Noms" and "ensured its current approach remains intact" has been rejected.
The justice secretary, Jack Straw, earlier this week denied reports that the future of Noms was in doubt, insisting that the review would merely make "adjustments in the relationship between Noms and the prisons and probation services". But it is clear from the leaked paper that its death warrant has been signed.
Harry Fletcher, of Napo, the probation union, said: "The Noms project was flawed from the outset because of the lack of consultation. It has been expensive, bureaucratic, has added nothing to the front line and has been unfocused and obsessed with theoretical models rather than what is needed on the ground."
· Leaked Whitehall paper confirms shakeup
· Sources say brand is damaged beyond repair
Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Friday September 28, 2007
The Guardian
The government's troubled £2.6bn programme to manage convicted criminals in order to cut reoffending rates is to be scrapped within weeks, the Guardian has learned.
Leaked Whitehall papers confirm that an internal shakeup at the recently created Ministry of Justice will lead to the demise of the much-criticised National Offender Management Service (Noms) only three years after it was set up.
Noms is responsible for managing the prisons and probation services and was designed to provide "end-to-end offender management" for the first time, but Whitehall sources have confirmed that it will be scrapped in a shakeup to be announced early next month.
It is understood that senior justice ministry sources have admitted that the Noms "brand is so damaged, it cannot continue" and have claimed that it is simply "a disaster area" with costs spiralling out of control.
Earlier this summer the government had to admit it had frozen further spending on the £155m computer system that would have given prison and probation staff joint access to offenders' files across the criminal justice system for the first time. More than £5m has been spent in consultants' fees alone in the past two years trying to fix the problems facing the troubled service.
The need for a 1,300-strong headquarters has also been criticised. The cumbersome structure was adopted after a move to merge the prison and probation services was dropped.
A leaked copy of a confidential review of justice ministry internal structures set up to ensure it was "fit for purpose" after taking over the 60,000-strong prison and probation services from the Home Office confirms that it is now to be ditched.
The shakeup was thrashed out at an away-day three weeks ago and is designed to be implemented by the time the justice ministry moves to the old Home Office headquarters in Queen Anne's Gate.
It will be accompanied by a major report on managing the prison population crisis by Lord Patrick Carter, the original architect of Noms, who is believed to have been disillusioned by its progress.
The report, by Ursula Brennan of the Office of Criminal Justice Reform, says delay could jeopardise the justice ministry's status: "Our reputation as a reliable and capable department in Whitehall and in the media is critical and early failures could tip us into crisis management before we have built the capacity to respond in a more measured and strategic way."
She adds that the "inherent cultures in the two parts of the MoJ are not particularly well aligned", in an admission that the Home Office split has not proved as smooth as some might have hoped. The paper also envisages that the court service will remain within the department and not gain the independent status demanded by senior judges.
The shakeup will see a second permanent secretary appointed as chief operating officer, with responsibility for the day-to-day operational delivery of the department's services, including prisons, probation and the courts. Separate directorates will be responsible for ensuring that strategy and policy are based around "client outcomes".
The leaked paper admits this model contains "presentational risks from the perceived demise of Noms", but the flow charts contain no room for the organisation. The review says that the central directorates will provide "a robust analytical capability and a strong strategic focus" and will negotiate with the "various delivery arms and external providers".
In the case of prison places and offender management, "this includes delivery through a commissioning/contracting model while the courts and tribunals will do it through service level agreements with the respective delivery arms".
A second model, which would have "retained a degree of corporate autonomy in Noms" and "ensured its current approach remains intact" has been rejected.
The justice secretary, Jack Straw, earlier this week denied reports that the future of Noms was in doubt, insisting that the review would merely make "adjustments in the relationship between Noms and the prisons and probation services". But it is clear from the leaked paper that its death warrant has been signed.
Harry Fletcher, of Napo, the probation union, said: "The Noms project was flawed from the outset because of the lack of consultation. It has been expensive, bureaucratic, has added nothing to the front line and has been unfocused and obsessed with theoretical models rather than what is needed on the ground."
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Four jailed for gang war killing
Four jailed for gang war killing
Four people have been jailed for their role in killing 19-year-old gang leader Liam Smith, who was shot in the head in a revenge attack outside a prison.
Four people have been jailed for their role in killing 19-year-old gang leader Liam Smith, who was shot in the head in a revenge attack outside a prison.
Jail term for child porn teacher
Jail term for child porn teacher
A teacher from Gresford, near Wrexham has been jailed for six months after being convicted of using his home computer to access child pornography.
David Mulvey, 51, who taught in Crewe, Cheshire, must also register as a sex offender for seven years and has been banned from ever working with children.
At his trial, Mulvey said he had no idea how 243 images and eight video clips had got onto his home computer.
The judge said Mulvey had downloaded images of children over three months.
Mulvey was also made the subject of a 10-year Sopo - Sexual Offences Prevention Order - similar to an Asbo but aimed at controlling sex offenders.
Tip-off
He was convicted last Friday of possessing the images and making one level four image of a child by downloading it off the internet.
The jury, which sat at Mold Crown Court, also convicted him of a further 11 counts of making indecent images by downloading them by a majority of 10 to two.
Mulvey's activities were uncovered when North Wales Police, acting on a tip-off from their Italian counterparts, went to his home in December 2006 as he downloaded two images, the trial heard.
Despite using a programme aimed at removing evidence of internet activity, police were able to recover a large number of images from the computer's hard drive using sophisticated software, the jury was told.
Judge John Rodgers QC, sitting at Mold Crown Court, said that in sentencing Mulvey he had taken into account his attempts to hide the images using the software he had downloaded.
His good character and the fact that the convictions would end his career as a school teacher had also been considered, said the judge.
Teaching position
But a request from the defence to suspend the prison sentence was refused by Judge Rogers.
"Bearing in mind that you contested this case to the bitter end, that would not be appropriate," he said.
Defending barrister Andrew Jebb said his client's conviction by the jury had meant he had lost his teaching position at St Thomas More Catholic High School, where he was also head of year eight.
He and his wife had put their home, her car and his motorcycle up for sale in order to combat the financial pressures, he told the court.
He had also lost his good name and he and his family would have to live with the stigma of the case, Mr Jebb added.
Mulvey was suspended from his teaching position when the allegations were first made.
Stopping racism is descending into a farce
Stopping racism is descending into a farce
I find it incredible that "Police are considering charging a 10-year-year boy with a race hate crime after he was beaten by a Slovakian woman with an iron bar".
Ok, it was wrong for the 10 year old boy to tell the Slovakian woman “to go back to her own country”. And, he should not have thrown a blackberry at her. However, I feel that the woman overreacted by attacking the 10 year old boy with a 2ft long iron bar. And, the police are overreacting by calling the throwing of the blackberry "racially aggravated assault". It wasn't that long ago that a judge criticised the police for prosecuting a young boy for throwing a cocktail sausage at an old age pensioner.
Eastern Europeans are not even black or brown, they are white. They are different only in their language. All too often people are badly treated for being different. And this is clearly wrong. I feel that parents and schools should teach children that it is wrong to pick on people just because they are different. And, where it comes to their or police attention, then they should speak to the children and tell them about the error of their ways. However, to use laws designed for more serious offences for such trivial matters makes a mockery of justice. It is like taking an elephant gun to swat a fly.
I find it incredible that "Police are considering charging a 10-year-year boy with a race hate crime after he was beaten by a Slovakian woman with an iron bar".
Ok, it was wrong for the 10 year old boy to tell the Slovakian woman “to go back to her own country”. And, he should not have thrown a blackberry at her. However, I feel that the woman overreacted by attacking the 10 year old boy with a 2ft long iron bar. And, the police are overreacting by calling the throwing of the blackberry "racially aggravated assault". It wasn't that long ago that a judge criticised the police for prosecuting a young boy for throwing a cocktail sausage at an old age pensioner.
Eastern Europeans are not even black or brown, they are white. They are different only in their language. All too often people are badly treated for being different. And this is clearly wrong. I feel that parents and schools should teach children that it is wrong to pick on people just because they are different. And, where it comes to their or police attention, then they should speak to the children and tell them about the error of their ways. However, to use laws designed for more serious offences for such trivial matters makes a mockery of justice. It is like taking an elephant gun to swat a fly.
R (HILL) v HOME SECRETARY
R (HILL) v HOME SECRETARY
Last Updated: 2:27am BST 27/09/2007
Queen's Bench Division (Admin)
Irwin J
September 19, 2007
Discretion - Life prisoners - Open prisons - Parole Board - Parole Board's recommendation for transfer to open prison - Exercise of discretion by Secretary of State not to transfer
FACTS
The claimant life prisoner (H) applied for judicial review of the decision of the respondent secretary of state refusing to accept the recommendation of the Parole Board that he be moved to open prison. In 1980 H, then a serving soldier, murdered his homosexual partner as he had threatened to inform the army of their relationship. H was sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of 12 years. In 2004 the Parole Board recommended that H was moved to open prison and the secretary of state accepted that recommendation. H was subsequently removed from open prison conditions due to staff concern at his behaviour. The following year the Parole Board again recommended a move to open prison but the secretary of state refused to accept the advice. H objected to the decision on the basis that the secretary of state had not considered the expert oral evidence at the Parole Board hearing or the Parole Board's decision. The secretary of state agreed that his decision was flawed and reconsidered the matter on two further occasions but again rejected the advice.
ISSUE
Whether the approach of the secretary of state when exercising his discretion and refusing to accept the advice of the Parole Board to transfer a life prisoner to open prison had been rational.
HELD (application granted)
(i) For practical purposes a spell in open prison was a pre-requisite of release. Under the relevant legislation and regulations the Parole Board gave advice and the secretary of state had a discretion whether to accept that advice. It was clear from statistical evidence that when the Parole Board refused to recommend a transfer to open prison the secretary of state accepted that advice in the overwhelming majority of cases. In the past there had been a pattern of general acceptance of the Parole Board's advice recommending transfer. However, in the year to March 2007 there had been a marked increase in the number of times the secretary of state had rejected the Parole Board's recommendation and an inference could be drawn that a change of policy had been adopted by the secretary of state.
(ii) The secretary of state's approach to the exercise of his discretion in H's case had not been rational or even-handed. If the secretary of state was to keep his discretion he had to be even-handed in his approach. Given there had clearly been a change of policy, the secretary of state should either accept the Parole Board's advice every time, save in exceptional circumstances, or he could look carefully at every piece of advice whether it was positive or negative. Further, the secretary of state's reasoning was not clear and did not reflect the oral evidence or the views of the Parole Board. The decision was irrational and was quashed, R (on the application of Clift) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 54, [2007] 1 AC 484 distinguished.
Sam Grodzinski (instructed by Bhatt Murphy) for the claimant. Nicola Greaney (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the defendant.
Last Updated: 2:27am BST 27/09/2007
Queen's Bench Division (Admin)
Irwin J
September 19, 2007
Discretion - Life prisoners - Open prisons - Parole Board - Parole Board's recommendation for transfer to open prison - Exercise of discretion by Secretary of State not to transfer
FACTS
The claimant life prisoner (H) applied for judicial review of the decision of the respondent secretary of state refusing to accept the recommendation of the Parole Board that he be moved to open prison. In 1980 H, then a serving soldier, murdered his homosexual partner as he had threatened to inform the army of their relationship. H was sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of 12 years. In 2004 the Parole Board recommended that H was moved to open prison and the secretary of state accepted that recommendation. H was subsequently removed from open prison conditions due to staff concern at his behaviour. The following year the Parole Board again recommended a move to open prison but the secretary of state refused to accept the advice. H objected to the decision on the basis that the secretary of state had not considered the expert oral evidence at the Parole Board hearing or the Parole Board's decision. The secretary of state agreed that his decision was flawed and reconsidered the matter on two further occasions but again rejected the advice.
ISSUE
Whether the approach of the secretary of state when exercising his discretion and refusing to accept the advice of the Parole Board to transfer a life prisoner to open prison had been rational.
HELD (application granted)
(i) For practical purposes a spell in open prison was a pre-requisite of release. Under the relevant legislation and regulations the Parole Board gave advice and the secretary of state had a discretion whether to accept that advice. It was clear from statistical evidence that when the Parole Board refused to recommend a transfer to open prison the secretary of state accepted that advice in the overwhelming majority of cases. In the past there had been a pattern of general acceptance of the Parole Board's advice recommending transfer. However, in the year to March 2007 there had been a marked increase in the number of times the secretary of state had rejected the Parole Board's recommendation and an inference could be drawn that a change of policy had been adopted by the secretary of state.
(ii) The secretary of state's approach to the exercise of his discretion in H's case had not been rational or even-handed. If the secretary of state was to keep his discretion he had to be even-handed in his approach. Given there had clearly been a change of policy, the secretary of state should either accept the Parole Board's advice every time, save in exceptional circumstances, or he could look carefully at every piece of advice whether it was positive or negative. Further, the secretary of state's reasoning was not clear and did not reflect the oral evidence or the views of the Parole Board. The decision was irrational and was quashed, R (on the application of Clift) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] UKHL 54, [2007] 1 AC 484 distinguished.
Sam Grodzinski (instructed by Bhatt Murphy) for the claimant. Nicola Greaney (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the defendant.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
McCanns steal £300,000 from findmadeleinefund
McCanns steal £300,000 from findmadeleinefund
It is no wonder that the McCanns are called the McScams in some circles. They are suspects in the killing and disposing of Madeleine's body. And set up a fund which people donated money to, on the basis that the money would be used to help find Madeleine.
"Meanwhile, the directors of Madeleine's Fund, which was set up to finance the search for the four-year-old, announced they have spent about £300,000 so far. Much of the money has been spent on poster campaigns, private investigators and the McCanns' living expenses".
Why don't they simply rename it the McCanns living expenses fund? As far as I am concerned they are cheeky beggars. They have chosen not to work for a living. If the police are looking for a motive, it is staring them in the face. Financial motive is a strong reason for murder.
The Great Phone-in Robbery by GMTV
The Great Phone-in Robbery by GMTV
I can't for the life of me understand why the Serious Fraud Office is not investigating and seeking to prosecute in this multi-million pound fraud. GMTV made £40M profit from these fraudulent phone-ins, and even after paying the £2M fine imposed by Ofcom, they are still £38M in profit. Who said crime doesn't pay? Who said cheats don't prosper? Who said criminals should not benefit from the proceeds of crime? The Great Train Robbers got 30 years for £2.3M. I am not suggesting that kind of sentence for GMTV, but a £2M fine is making a mockery of justice.
I can't for the life of me understand why the Serious Fraud Office is not investigating and seeking to prosecute in this multi-million pound fraud. GMTV made £40M profit from these fraudulent phone-ins, and even after paying the £2M fine imposed by Ofcom, they are still £38M in profit. Who said crime doesn't pay? Who said cheats don't prosper? Who said criminals should not benefit from the proceeds of crime? The Great Train Robbers got 30 years for £2.3M. I am not suggesting that kind of sentence for GMTV, but a £2M fine is making a mockery of justice.
Monk reported killed by troops in Burma
Monk reported killed by troops in Burma
By Graeme Jenkins in Rangoon, and Natalie Paris
Last Updated: 3:30pm BST 26/09/2007
Attempts by the military to stop street protests in Burma have escalated into violence, with attacks on demonstrators leaving many Buddhist monks injured and at least one reported dead.
Anti-government protesters turned out again today to in their thousands to demonstrate against the dictatorship in defiance of a ban on public gatherings.
But crowds outside Rangoon's holiest shrine, the Shwedagon Pagoda, were left severely bloodied after they were beaten by troops wielding batons and firing live rounds.
Dozens of monks were injured in the beatings, while hundreds of people were arrested and dragged onto waiting trucks.
Local radio reported that at least one monk has been shot and killed.
Reports from exiled journalists and activists in Thailand have claimed that as many as five people, including monks, have been killed. These reports cannot be confirmed.
A crowd of around several thousand protesters, many of who were wearing masks or wet towels to protect against tear gas, was confronted by troops near the pagoda.
Warning shots were fired at around one hundred monks who refused to be chased away and tried to hold their positions near the eastern gate of the vast pagoda complex.
Demonstrators then regrouped to march to the city's Sule Pagoda, with the monks in the middle and members of the public on either side.
Troops again sought to disperse the crowds, with warning shots and tear gas sending people swarming to seek shelter indoors.
Six of the big activist monasteries in Rangoon are under military guard following a night-time curfew.
Gordon Brown has called for a UN Security Council meeting on what are the biggest anti-government protests in 20 years.
"The whole world is now watching Burma," the Prime Minister said.
Speaking after the regime launched its crackdown on protesters, he called for a United Nations security council meeting to discuss the crisis.
At the Labour Party conference in Bournemouth, Mr Brown said: “The whole world is now watching Burma and its illegitimate and repressive regime should know that the whole world is going to hold it to account.”
A couple of high profile arrests were made by the military regime earlier this morning.
Zanagar, a comedian famed for his anti-government jibes was the first well-known activist rounded up, followed by U Win Naing, a 70-year-old veteran independent politician.
Burmese outside of the country have been sharing their fears about the situation with Telegraph.co.uk.
Myat Lay wrote today: "Thanks for your concern on our Burmese people. How I wish you guys will feel if you are in our shoes, very helpless, too much oppressed as in hell and nowhere to turn to.
"The cruel government shut down our lives as human. Our hands are tied, our lips are clipped, our ears were blocked with rock and our eyes were poked out."
George W Bush has called for an end to the "reign of fear" in Burma, amid increasing international pressure on the military regime.
President Bush announced new sanctions against the ruling generals and urged the United Nations to "help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom".
Speaking at the opening of the UN's General Assembly in New York, Mr Bush said the Burmese were denied "basic freedoms of free speech, assembly and worship".
This week's pro-democracy protests led by monks follows a smaller secular movement last month triggered by huge fuel price rises.
In Burma's last major uprising, in 1988, soldiers opened fire on crowds and killed an estimated 3,000 people.
Madeleine: Not a Cuddle Cat in hell's chance
Madeleine: Not a Cuddle Cat in hell's chance
Whoever this child is, she appears to be too young to be Madeleine McCann. And, Gerry and Kate McCann are not living in hope at this sighting in Morocco. This isn't the computer game second life. Madeleine hasn't come back from the dead.
UPDATE: It's not Madeleine claims the BBC.
UPDATED UPDATE: "The girl seen in Marocco by Spanish tourist Clara Torees is a Moroccon
citizen, called Bushra Binhisa. She lives in Zinat, she is five-years-old
and part of her family lives in Moleenbeek, Belgium. The attached picture
shows Bushra Binhisa with her grandfather, Hamid Bisnhisa".
Crystal ball sentencing
Crystal ball sentencing
By: Douglas Salmon is currently resident in HMP Chelmsford
Douglas Salmon offers a personal perspective on the highly contentious IPP sentence
Have you seen The Minority Report? Tom Cruise has got three psychics floating in a pool comatose. They make predictions about crimes that are going to be committed: mainly murders. Old Tom's in there live-o with his badge and gun before they happen and they're up on charges. The story is about people being arrested and tried for crimes they haven't yet committed, but are predicted to commit. The reality is, here in Britain, we have our very own equivalent: the Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection or IPP.
In April 2005, due to an increase in violent crime, there was a change in the sentencing law available to Crown Court judges. Instead of the automatic life sentence, people were being given a new type of sentence. The structure of the sentence is not known for sure by anyone within the prison service. I have had different versions of what it entails from my legal representative; prison staff; and inmates.
The IPP might be called a knee-jerk reaction to growing crime rates that is beginning to cause far more problems than it has solved. There are 50 to 100 people a week coming into custody with IPP sentences; clogging an already overcrowded prison system. Many see the IPP as a replacement for the old mandatory ‘two strikes’ sentence, which needed a repeat conviction for 11 specified offences. However the IPP covers no fewer than 157 offences, and can even be triggered by a first offence. As the specified offence that attracts an IPP sentence may in itself not be that serious, offenders are receiving relatively short tariffs, although they are still being classed as lifers.
What adds to the confusion is that judges are halving the minimum term for some offences, as well as deducting a period for guilty pleas. Over 50 per cent of IPP sentences are under two years, and the median tariff is around 30 months. By 2011 it is predicted that there will be 12,500 prisoners without a release date - 3,500 more than the current total. In December 2006 there were more people in prison serving indeterminate sentences than there were serving 12 months or under. Because the IPP covers 157 offences, judges are being drawn to it because it covers a wider spectrum than other sentencing laws. But the main problem affecting anyone involved in the prison system is that judges are recommending such small tariffs that offenders are being considered for parole almost immediately after sentence has been passed.
Then problems further down the line begin when prisoners stack up in the gateway jails in which they were received. They do not get the chance to undertake the various offending behaviour courses that will satisfy the parole board they are suitable for release. Also, spaces at Stage One lifer prisons are unavailable as the sudden change in the dynamics of the prison population was not foreseen by those who formulated the law.
IPP sentences have quadrupled the work for all the resources dealing with prisoners classed as lifers. There is also confusion amongst IPP-sentenced prisoners about how long they will have to serve before being eligible for parole. The answer is this: prisoners will have to serve the period up to their tariff as an absolute minimum.
Confusion for inmates also arises because the tariff corresponds to half of what they would have received if they had been sentenced to a determinate period. For example, a four-year determinate sentence is the equivalent of a two-year IPP, which means you will serve two years before being eligible for parole. But the confusion doesn't end there. As offenders are being considered for parole almost as soon as being sentenced, the prison service and other related groups are finding themselves unable to assess the individual and their needs. The parole board are then assessing someone for whom nothing has changed, as, in being sentenced to an IPP, they have only just been deemed a risk to the public.
The crucial point is: IPP sentencing laws set a new precedent in British justice in that people are sentenced on the basis of what they might do in the future rather than the case before the court. In effect, on an offence that they may well never commit. We're back to those three psychics floating around in a pool.
Also, the system that has now been created means that someone with a very small tariff, say 12 months for a not too serious crime, will end up doing about the same amount of time as someone doing a five-year IPP for manslaughter. Someone doing 12 months will take as long to get on, and complete, the relevant courses. With this message being sent out, people will see no need to limit the severity of their crimes due to the penalty incurred.
Another unforeseen factor of the IPP sentence is its effect on the families of people sentenced to an indeterminate term. They have no idea when they will be reunited. The IMB describes this as 'inhumane'. At one time in Britain, someone sentenced to a life term was not told their tariff. This was considered inhumane and the law subsequently changed. This old practice is now being repeated under the new guise of IPP. No one has yet been released on their tariff, so inmates know that this figure by no means represents the length of time they are likely to serve. There's no way they can tell how long they will be away.
And due to the increasing burden on the system, D-cat lifer / indeterminate prisoners are finding themselves unable to leave C-cat prisons. There are serious consequences involved in not moving these prisoners on. Local jails are not equipped to provide any of the relevant courses, leaving the prisoners unable to work on their sentence plan. This leaves their risk to the public high until they can reach a Stage One lifer jail. But once here the waiting lists to enrol on offending behaviour programmes will be long, and delays in starting, and completing, the courses, will be inevitable.
The courses available to IPP / lifers in Chelmsford, and many other local jails, are ETS and P-asro. If a place at a Stage One prison becomes available while the prisoner is engaged in ETS he will be expected to move, foregoing the course. But, despite this, the chances of a place coming up are unlikely (in the near future at least). Prisons are finding it difficult to process the increased rate of IPP-sentenced prisoners.
The prison service is not the only level that is unprepared for this increase, it also puts pressure on the parole board who are assessing prisoners for release when they have only just been sentenced. The prison service, probation service and parole board are finding themselves having to deal with a situation they are completely unprepared for.
The fundamental confusion at the heart of this sentence is that ministers responsible for the legislation covering IPP sentences do not consider IPPs as lifers. Neither do the courts. However, the prison service and the probation service do class IPPs as lifers. On top of this, most solicitors and barristers are unfamiliar with the guidelines concerning indeterminate sentences, and will offer a variety of different ways in which the sentence is structured and operates. There are also grey areas concerning how the IPP sentence joins to other sentences like recall, etc.
The IPP status has been successfully appealed because of confusion surrounding how it connects to other sentences. Depending on what the judge has said in court, appeals have been upheld on the basis that courts are unsure if these sentences can be served concurrently or consecutively.
Ultimately, the IPP sentence is an extreme addition to the sentencing laws. But what is surprising is how little it was discussed in parliament before its implementation. As a product of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, the IPP was mentioned only once during the second reading of the Bill. Members of the Bar council, as well as some MPs, feel that the new sentencing laws covered by IPP are too severe. But it would seem that the Government is waiting to see whether in practice the policy works or not. When the problems implicit in the theory come about, it may well be that the law is repealed. We can only wait and see.
* Douglas Salmon is currently resident in HMP Chelmsford
As human as our victims
As human as our victims
By: Ben Gunn
Lifer Ben Gunn wonders just how much and for how long society wants lifers to be punished
According to some brave anonymous screw in Wakefield, quoted in the papers, Ian Huntley has been complaining that Aramark had screwed-up his canteen order. The same screw found this to be an outrage beyond belief - Huntley should spend all his time writhing in guilt, not counting his chocolates.
This made me wonder about two things. Firstly, why is it that no investigation is ever launched by the Prison Service into the legions of screws who happily leak their venom onto the pages of the tabloids? And doubtless top up their beer fund in the process. It has never happened. Not once. At least I have the stones to put my name to what I have to say, and take any resulting lumps, whereas these guardians of our moral order skulk in the shadows like the spineless, spiteful wretches they are. There's nothing like standing up for what you believe in - and that type of conduct is nothing like standing up for what you believe in.
Secondly, it made me wonder - not for the first time - what it is that our victims want from us? I have to tread carefully here, not least because the last time I raised this issue I was given a friendly spanking by Tim Newell. But I think it is fair to delve into the issue. Nearly every day we are fed a diet of what are, so it is alleged, the views of victims. Psychology loves to do it. So does the Parole Board. The tabloids just can't stop doing it. Even the occasional screw does it. Once, when I was refusing compulsory exercise, a screw wandered into my cell and said, "Your victim can't do exercise." Whilst being true, what the hell did that mean? I asked if I should do two hours instead of one, to make up for it; which I thought was quick thinking but was really bemused indifference. What did he mean, really? That I should be grateful for my life, when I deprived him of his? Well, I don't need to kill someone to be grateful for my life - that comes with birth, part of the deal.
I don't doubt this screw was sincere in some way, he meant something by what he said. He just didn't make it clear. The same applies to our POA hero from Wakefield. Sincere, probably. Incoherent, definitely. Having committed our crimes, whatever they may be, we seem to be absolved forever from being afforded the status of 'human'. Otherwise, what is the problem with us complaining about Aramark? Not liking being robbed seems perfectly natural to me. So is the claim that, having killed, other people are entitled to screw with us? I'd like to suggest that we examine that chain of reasoning, but that doesn't comprise a coherent thought process. No more than my screw and his exercise problem.
And this is a large part of the problem that I have with victim issues - they seem to be incoherent. And incoherence is a lousy basis on which to build public policy. I may be being unfair, of course, because I recognise that the statements of victims and victim groups are mediated through journalists - who are superimposing their own agenda.
One thing has occurred to me lately. I suspect, given victims’ preoccupation with PlayStations and TV's, we are expected to spend all of our time tormented by our consciences. I don't know a single lifer who, in the still dark hours, does not twist and turn under the weight of his crime. You kill someone, it comes back to haunt you.
But this isn't every minute of every day. We also live as normal a life as we are able. We enjoy good TV, a funny joke, a nice brew. Our conscience does not dull our human qualities. Why should it? Because the pain our victims carry doesn't dull their human qualities either. They laugh, cry, go to work, watch TV. They are not in distress every minute of every day - and they are the ones who are said to be suffering.
Emotional pain, grief, just doesn't work like that. It is trite to claim that time heals all wounds, yet time does slowly relegate the pain and allow daily life to come increasingly to the fore. Whilst some victims say that it is they who have been given the life sentence, in the course of normal life this sentence gets easier. Everybody who has lost someone close to them recognises this.
Not that this is inevitably the case. There is an illness, pathological grief, in which the distress does not diminish. One of the parents of a Brady-Hindley murder was famous for this. Forever tormented both by the loss of her son and the baiting of the tabloids. Her grief was palpable; but still unusual. Oddly, as far as I can tell, the same is true for many lifers. The weight of the blood on our hands does not ease with the years. Perhaps the older we get, the more we appreciate the enormity of what we have taken.
But this is not recognised. Prison staff are never interested in exploring the effects of our offence on ourselves. As long as they can tick a box, 'victim empathy', they are happy. Perhaps they ought to wonder why a disproportionate number of prison suicides are lifers. Just a thought. Of course, if we do show distress at what we have done, we are instantly accused of faking it for the Parole Board. And if we top ourselves, like Dr Harold Shipman, then we are accused of ‘jumping ship’ and getting off lightly. That the people who make such inane comments are usually the ones who want to bring back hanging only highlights the bafflement that I face when trying to unravel victim issues.
We are as human as our victims. Daily life does intrude after a while, life returns to some sort of equilibrium. The same can be said of our victims. This shared humanity could provide a basis for a sensible exchange between offenders and victims; if only the debate wasn't framed by the screaming media hyenas.
· Ben Gunn is currently resident in HMP Shepton Mallet
Inner cities denied the vote at the next election
Inner cities denied the vote at the next election
Gypsy Rose Dale has examined his crystal balls and gives us his analysis "I now predict that by this time next week Gordon Brown will definitely have called an election". In his post he states: "Channel 4 News have a YouGov poll tonight showing an eleven point Labour lead". So, his prediction has some measure of justification. However, to the left of this post, in the sidebar, is an advertisement proclaiming that "Gordon Brown is the wrongman" and "Gordon isn't working". Obviously, there is no justification for this load of bollocks. The message this advert sends to me is that the Tory Party is talking a load of bollocks. And then, they wonder why they are not electable? Clearly, the 11 point lead shows that Gordon Brown is the right man. His job as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party is proof that Gordon is working.
The Tory Party is officially known as Her Majesty's Opposition. And yet, they are as big a cowards as the Italians and the French running from the Germans in the last war. We are assured that we live in a democracy, and yet nowhere in Gordon Brown's pre-election speech at the Labour Party conference did he mention the word democracy and what it means. Similarly, with the Tory Party, democracy is under threat by Gordon Brown and the Tory Party instead of fighting him on this issue, again like the French, they have become collaborators.
Recently, 250 bloggers united under the banner of freedom of speech against the Ubekistan gangster Alisher Ulmanov. Freedom of expression is a human right and it is a worthy cause. Part of exercising freedom of expression is being able to partake in the franchise. Universal suffrage is a human right in a 21st century democracy. And yet, a large section of the public in this country will be denied their human right to vote if Gordon Brown decides to go for an early election. And why is this? Because the Minister of Justice is not only denying them justice but he is also denying them their human rights. If the Tory Party are not even fit to be in opposition they are certainly not fit to govern.
It is not so much about when is the next election. It's about not denying those entitled to vote from exercising their human right.
It is a human right for convicted prisoners to vote. Neither Labour, Conservative nor Liberal Democrats have the courage of their convictions.
Gypsy Rose Dale has examined his crystal balls and gives us his analysis "I now predict that by this time next week Gordon Brown will definitely have called an election". In his post he states: "Channel 4 News have a YouGov poll tonight showing an eleven point Labour lead". So, his prediction has some measure of justification. However, to the left of this post, in the sidebar, is an advertisement proclaiming that "Gordon Brown is the wrongman" and "Gordon isn't working". Obviously, there is no justification for this load of bollocks. The message this advert sends to me is that the Tory Party is talking a load of bollocks. And then, they wonder why they are not electable? Clearly, the 11 point lead shows that Gordon Brown is the right man. His job as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party is proof that Gordon is working.
The Tory Party is officially known as Her Majesty's Opposition. And yet, they are as big a cowards as the Italians and the French running from the Germans in the last war. We are assured that we live in a democracy, and yet nowhere in Gordon Brown's pre-election speech at the Labour Party conference did he mention the word democracy and what it means. Similarly, with the Tory Party, democracy is under threat by Gordon Brown and the Tory Party instead of fighting him on this issue, again like the French, they have become collaborators.
Recently, 250 bloggers united under the banner of freedom of speech against the Ubekistan gangster Alisher Ulmanov. Freedom of expression is a human right and it is a worthy cause. Part of exercising freedom of expression is being able to partake in the franchise. Universal suffrage is a human right in a 21st century democracy. And yet, a large section of the public in this country will be denied their human right to vote if Gordon Brown decides to go for an early election. And why is this? Because the Minister of Justice is not only denying them justice but he is also denying them their human rights. If the Tory Party are not even fit to be in opposition they are certainly not fit to govern.
It is not so much about when is the next election. It's about not denying those entitled to vote from exercising their human right.
It is a human right for convicted prisoners to vote. Neither Labour, Conservative nor Liberal Democrats have the courage of their convictions.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Unjust punishment
Unjust punishment
Chris Langham is being bullied in jail: unsurprising in a system where intimidation dominates and the vulnerable suffer.
By Erwin James in Comment is free in the Guardian.
Prison bullies are making Langham's life hell, says wife from This is London.
I wonder what Christine Cartwright, the wife of jailed Chris Langham, thought about paedophiles and how they are treated in prison, and how she thought they should be treated, before this was all brought home to her? There is a argument that Chris Langham is not a paedophile. That is, that he did not actually physically sexually abuse a child. He got sexual pleasure by downloading child pornography from the internet.
I was actually physically sexually abused as a child. And yet, when I ended up in prison I saw how the sex offenders were treated and I did not agree with it and did not join in and sympathised with their predicament. What Christine Cartwright describes as hell is mild compared to what I have seen in the past. However, as Erwin James observes: "Regardless of the level of dreadfulness of his actions however, any abuse that Chris Langham experiences in prison from fellow prisoners or from staff (according to his wife Langham was told to "shut up" after wishing a prison officer a "good morning"), is in fact a great deal more than he deserves".
Erwin James states that he is unsurprised because Langham is in a system where intimidation dominates and the vulnerable suffer. But, isn't that the same by and large in the world outside of prison?
In any event, the article is worth reading and so are many of the comments which follow it.
Chris Langham is being bullied in jail: unsurprising in a system where intimidation dominates and the vulnerable suffer.
By Erwin James in Comment is free in the Guardian.
Prison bullies are making Langham's life hell, says wife from This is London.
I wonder what Christine Cartwright, the wife of jailed Chris Langham, thought about paedophiles and how they are treated in prison, and how she thought they should be treated, before this was all brought home to her? There is a argument that Chris Langham is not a paedophile. That is, that he did not actually physically sexually abuse a child. He got sexual pleasure by downloading child pornography from the internet.
I was actually physically sexually abused as a child. And yet, when I ended up in prison I saw how the sex offenders were treated and I did not agree with it and did not join in and sympathised with their predicament. What Christine Cartwright describes as hell is mild compared to what I have seen in the past. However, as Erwin James observes: "Regardless of the level of dreadfulness of his actions however, any abuse that Chris Langham experiences in prison from fellow prisoners or from staff (according to his wife Langham was told to "shut up" after wishing a prison officer a "good morning"), is in fact a great deal more than he deserves".
Erwin James states that he is unsurprised because Langham is in a system where intimidation dominates and the vulnerable suffer. But, isn't that the same by and large in the world outside of prison?
In any event, the article is worth reading and so are many of the comments which follow it.
McCanns accused of obstruction of justice
McCanns accused of obstruction of justice
A senior Portuguese judge has stated that the McCanns may face charges of obstruction of justice for hiring private investigators, against Portuguese law, supposedly to find Madeleine. The police say this is yet another distraction being employed by the McCanns.
This follows on from the disturbing news that a prosecution of the McCanns is unlikely unless the police find out where the McCanns hid Madeleine's body.
The Long March
The Long March
Thousands of Burmese monks and civilians today ignored threats from the country's military regime by taking part in another day of street protests.
Burma's rulers had threatened to act against the monks behind the week-long pro-democracy demonstration, but at least 10,000 people could be seen marching through the capital Rangoon this morning.
Numbers are expected to swell later.
Yesterday, Burmese civilians joined the monks en masse and up to 100,000 people thronged the streets of the capital, one of world's most repressed cities.
Burma Protest.
That's the way to do it
That's the way to do it
It is a pity that we don't take a leaf out of the Chinese book in relation to the BAE/Saudi scandal and the Cash for Honours scandal.
Omlet left with egg on his face.
It is a pity that we don't take a leaf out of the Chinese book in relation to the BAE/Saudi scandal and the Cash for Honours scandal.
Omlet left with egg on his face.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Waffle
Waffle
I couldn't help getting the impression listening to Gordon Brown's pre-election speech to the Labour Party Conference, that he was a leader speaking to his people who are going through World War II. We aren't going through the Blitz, but there is a small war with Iraq which I noticed was not mentioned by name and covered in just one sentence. I don't think that Gordon Brown got his priorities right by mentioning two failed terrorism attacks before the successful flood which caused such devastation. And, this appears to be in the wrong order too "My answer to crime and disorder - our policy - is to both punish and prevent". I think what Gordon Brown had to say can be best summed up in a word...
I couldn't help getting the impression listening to Gordon Brown's pre-election speech to the Labour Party Conference, that he was a leader speaking to his people who are going through World War II. We aren't going through the Blitz, but there is a small war with Iraq which I noticed was not mentioned by name and covered in just one sentence. I don't think that Gordon Brown got his priorities right by mentioning two failed terrorism attacks before the successful flood which caused such devastation. And, this appears to be in the wrong order too "My answer to crime and disorder - our policy - is to both punish and prevent". I think what Gordon Brown had to say can be best summed up in a word...
Gordon Brown's speech to Conference
Gordon Brown's speech to Conference
Gordon Brown has delivered his first speech to Conference as leader of the Labour Party.
Honoured and humbled by the trust you have given me, I speak to you for the first time at our Conference as Prime Minister and Leader of this Party.
No one could have foreseen all the events that Britain has been through since June.
But tested again and again the resilience of the British people has been powerful proof of the character of our country.
Early on a June morning, two cars were found parked and packed with explosives in Haymarket, London.
They were put there to bring terror and death to men and women who would do nothing wrong but be out with their friends, walk on our streets and visit our capital.
But from the bomb disposal experts who courageously risked their lives, to the Londoners who defiantly went on with their lives, that day the world witnessed the resolve and strength of the British people.
And when the terrorists tried to attack Scotland’s biggest airport, they were answered by the courage of the police and firefighters and a baggage handler named John Smeaton. He came to the aid of a policeman under assault from one of the terrorists.
Later John told me it was instinctive, he was doing what was right.
That man, that hero John Smeaton is here with us today and on behalf of our country – John, we thank you.
Every citizen who answered the call of the country – policemen and women, our security and emergency services, our health services – all left their mark on this island’s story by keeping us safe. They are the pride of Britain.
Just as our armed services with bravery and heroism every single day also make us proud. We mourn those who have been lost and we honour all those who in distant places of danger give so much to our country.
It was in these early weeks, in the wake of the worst flooding in almost 150 years, in county after county, we saw British people pull on their boots and pull out their boats to rescue neighbours and strangers.
And together they went to work to clean up the streets, sweep out the shops and reopen the schools. Long after the waters have receded the memory of their quiet strength remains.
They too showed the character of Britain: communities where buildings can be damaged and even destroyed but our spirit is indestructible. They too make us proud of the extraordinary resilience of ordinary British people.
And then on an early August morning in Surrey, a farmer went out to tend to his livestock and what he saw terrified him, made him remember back to 2001 when all across our countryside clouds of smoke scarred the sky and for many in farms and villages, family dreams were turned to ash.
During the outbreak this summer, our vets, scientists, and public officials in DEFRA cancelled their holidays. To fight the contagion farmers worked day and night. And they have done it all over again this month and continue to do so. Their actions live out our shared understanding that our countryside is more than the space that surrounds, it is the oxygen for our towns and cities.
And in order to be the country we should be, Britain must protect and cherish not just our cities, but our countryside too.
And as we saw again this summer there is no Scotland-only, no Wales-only, no England-only answer to the spread of disease or to terrorist attacks that can strike at any time, anywhere in any part of our country. And sharing this same small island, we will meet our environmental, economic and security challenges not by splitting apart but when we as Great Britain stand united together.
So my sense of talking to people in all parts of these islands is that instead of leaving us pessimistic, these three months make us more optimistic about what we the British people at our best can do.
Our response was calm and measured. We simply got on with the job.
Britain has been tested and not found wanting.
This is who we are.
And there is no weakness in Britain today that cannot be overcome by the strengths of the British people.
So don’t let anyone tell us Britain is not equal to every challenge.
We all know that in our society we do have real problems to solve, real needs to meet, but don’t let anyone tell us – the British people – that this country of ours, which has over centuries given so much to the world, has ever been broken by anyone or anything.
I am proud to be British.
I believe in British values.
My father and my mother taught me about family and the great virtues of hard work, doing your duty and always trying to do the right thing.
And I have never forgotten my father telling me to “treat everyone equally with respect”.
His optimism led him to find goodness in everyone.
My father was a minister of the church, and his favourite story was the parable of the talents because he believed – and I do too – that each and everyone of us has a talent and each and everyone of us should be able to use that talent.
And the values I was brought up with are not just what I learned; they are part of the fabric of the life I have led.
Not just where I come from but the experiences that have shaped me.
I attended the local state primary school in Kirkcaldy a few streets away from where I lived - and then I took the school bus to the local secondary school up the hill.
And I have school friends I have kept in touch with all my life who have shared the good times and comforted me in the bad times.
Today I have the greatest privilege of all - to have been chosen by them to represent in Parliament the place where we all grew up together.
The office where I hold my constituency surgeries is just across the road – a few yards from the house where I lived as a child.
I benefited from great and dedicated teachers.
And I was fortunate enough to get to university.
But as a teenager I saw close friends of mine who might have gone to college or an apprenticeship or to university who never did.
I know some could not to afford to stay on at school.
For others, their potential had never been nurtured.
When they heard about further education, they thought, or their parents thought, it was not for people like them.
And the reason I am here – the real reason I am here – is that I want their children and their grandchildren whom I also represent to have all the chances that were not available to my school friends when we were growing up.
That’s the reason I am here: I want the best of chances for all families.
So what first made me want to do something in public service?
I don’t recall all the sermons my father preached Sunday after Sunday.
But I will never forget these words he left me with: “we must be givers as well as getters”.
Put something back.
And by doing so make a difference.
And this is my moral compass.
This is who I am.
I am a conviction politician.
I stand for a Britain where everyone should rise as far as their talents can take them and then the talents of each of us should contribute to the well being of all.
I stand for a Britain where all families who work hard can build a better life for themselves and their children.
I stand for a Britain where every young person who has it in them to study at college or university should not be prevented by money from doing so.
I stand for a Britain where public services exist for the patient, the pupil, the people who are to be served.
I stand for a Britain where it is a mark of citizenship that you should learn our language and traditions.
I stand for a Britain where we expect responsibility at every level of society.
I stand for a Britain that defends its citizens and both punishes crime and prevents it by dealing with the root causes.
I stand for a Britain where because this earth is on loan to us from future generations, we must all be stewards of the environment.
So I stand for a Britain where we all have obligations to each other and by fulfilling them, everyone has the chance to make the most of themselves.
And these are the principles which I believe can guide us as we, the British people, meet all the new challenges ahead: global economic competition, the terrorist and security threat, climate change, the yearning for stronger communities, the pressures to balance work and family life, and most of all - something you can hear and sense in every part of the country - the rising aspirations of the British people.
Our purpose has always been to be the party of progressive change.
Once our struggle was to secure minimum standards, then to extend opportunity.
But we need to be honest: today the rising aspirations of the British people summon us to set a new direction.
As the world changes so we must change too.
And I believe that when you get something right, you build on it. But part of experience and judgement is to recognise that when you fall short, you listen, you learn and then you are confident enough to change.
In Britain today too many still cannot rise as far as their talents can take them.
Yet this is the century where our country cannot afford to waste the talents of anyone.
Up against the competition of two billion people in China and India, we need to unlock all the talent we have.
In the last century the question was can we afford to do this?
In the face of economic challenge, I say: in this century we cannot afford not to.
And the country that brings out the best in all its people will be the great success story of the global age.
Now think of the communities from where we have travelled here to Bournemouth. How many young people - young boys in particular - fail to develop the potential they have?
How many women still come up against a glass ceiling that blocks their advance?
How many men and women who hope to move up the ladder in mid career are deprived of the chance to upgrade their skills and jobs?
How much talent that could flourish is lost through a poverty of aspiration: wasted not because young talents fail to reach the stars but because they grow up with no stars to reach for?
And how many of our youngest children are still deprived of the early learning they need.
Why should we accept so many children destined to fail even before their life’s journey has begun?
So this is the next chapter in our progress. The next stage of our country’s long journey to build the strong and fair society.
I want a Britain where there is no longer any ceiling on where your talents and hard work can take you.
Where what counts is not what where you come from and who you know, but what you aspire to and have it in yourself to become.
Past generations unlocked just some of the talents of some of the people.
In the new Britain of this generation, we must unlock all the talents of all of the people.
Not the old equality of outcome that discounts hard work and effort.
Not the old version of equality of opportunity – the rise of an exclusive meritocracy where only some can succeed and others are forever condemned to fail.
But a genuinely meritocratic Britain, a Britain of all the talents.
Where all are encouraged to aim high.
And all by their effort can rise.
A Britain of aspiration and also a Britain of mutual obligation where all play our part and recognise the duties we owe to each other.
New Labour: now the party of aspiration and community. Not just occupying but shaping and expanding the centre ground. A strong Britain; a fairer Britain.
Putting people and their potential first.
You know, there was another day in the past few months, one that did not make the news.
It was a day I went to Hackney to Lauriston Primary School where I met a six year old boy called Max.
We walked through the library and then the classrooms. He sat with his teacher, Eddie O’Brien, and me.
He had a book in his hand and his hair was a little uncombed - which as far as I am concerned may be a good sign.
Max had been falling behind at school, struggling to read. But because of the ‘Every Child a Reader’ programme, he was now receiving one to one coaching, and he wanted to read us a story.
He did brilliantly as he read from a gripping narrative about “The Gingerbread Man” and he smiled as he finished.
In that classroom our mission for change was as clear and strong as the words being read by Max.
What he was really telling us is that every child has potential if given the chance.
Today in education, private schools offer one to one tuition. But why shouldn’t all pupils and not just some benefit from extra personal help?
And because I want every child to be a reader, every child to be able to count, we have decided that one-to-one tuition will be there in our schools not just for Max, but for 300,000 children in English and 300,000 in maths.
And because we want to unlock all the potential, not just the three R’s, for every pupil as we look ahead with pride to the Olympics we aim for the first time for five hours a week sport and time for arts and music too.
So whenever we see talent under-developed; aspirations unfulfilled; potential wasted; obstacles to be removed; this is where we – new Labour - will be.
Hear me when I say: No matter where you come from. No matter your background. No matter what school you go to. My message, our message, is and must be: if you try hard, we will help you make the most of your talents.
So for every secondary pupil a personal tutor throughout their school years - and starting with 600,000 pupils, small group tuition too.
Learning personal to each pupil.
Education available to all – not one size fits all but responding to individual needs.
This is the future for our public services. Accessible to all, personal to you. Not just a basic standard but the best quality tailored to your needs. Education is my passion.
And as we expand specialist, trust and academy schools it’s also time to make the biggest change in education in decades, a ten year children’s plan to make our schools, colleges and universities world class.
Instead of education from 5 to 16, we will be offering free universal education to every child – from nursery school at 3 to advanced studies or training right up to 18.
In just one decade we are doing what no government has ever done: moving the right to education from 11 years free education to 15 years.
But we will only make the most of this if every teenager who leaves at 18 can graduate with a good qualification.
So for every apprentice, a certificate of completion. For every college or school student, A-levels and diplomas and for all a clear pathway into skilled work. And we offer teenagers national youth community service - I want every young person in Britain to be able to say: this is my country. I contribute to it. I help make it better.
It’s wrong that anybody should be put off going to college or university by the fear it will cost too much.
So when the big new changes we are now making are fully in place, 300,000 students will receive full grants. 600,000 – that’s two thirds of students - will have grants. That’s the change: more students with grants than at any time in the history of university education.
And to those who say more going to university must mean worse standards, let us stand up for opportunity. In many other countries the majority of young people now go to university. In Britain just 42 per cent; just 10 per cent from low income backgrounds. So for 16 year olds from low income families who stay on at school, we will make a new five year offer - we will finance you through college or university, right through to 21.
Merit rewarded in a Britain not divided by class but united by aspiration. Showing a class-free society is not a slogan but in Britain can become a reality.
Every fifty seconds in Britain a child is born.
Who knows what might happen to that child? Who knows if they could someday start a thriving business, become a proud nurse, a good football player, or a great scientist? Who knows if they will exceed all of their parents’ hopes to see them get on, have a good job and a loving family?
So every child deserves the best possible start in life.
We have lifted 600,000 children out of poverty. We are doubling child benefits. We have trebled maternity allowances. And 6 million families now benefit from the Child Tax Credit.
None of this happened before a Labour Government.
But we are not satisfied.
And the Pre Budget Report will set out our next steps because our goal for this generation is to abolish child poverty and let me reaffirm that goal today.
And I say to the children of two parent families, one parent families, foster parent families; to the widow bringing up children: I stand for a Britain that supports as first class citizens not just some children and some families but supports all children and all families.
We all remember that biblical saying: “suffer the little children to come unto me.” No Bible I have ever read says: “bring just some of the children.”
Because no child should ever be written off, for mothers of infants, we will expand the help of nurse-family partnerships.
And for families and teenagers in trouble, new one-to-one support led by the voluntary sector that, up and down the country, we know can make all the difference.
And because its unfair to the children that fathers walk away from their responsibilities, we will insist on new powers to name absent fathers on birth certificates and to pay their share: maintenance deducted from benefits as we return them to work.
And let me also say that I am now understanding the daily pressures all families and all parents are under to do everything on time: make breakfast, get the kids to school with their homework done, make sure no one forgets their P.E. kit or a school play rehearsal. And of course fit in your own life and work and make sure it all fits in 24 hours.
I have heard the call for change and we must respond to the rising aspirations of parents.
Because we, a Labour government, introduced six months paid maternity leave, the take up has risen from 25 per cent to 90 per cent. And so it is right this year to raise it to nine months for all mothers on the road to 12 months paid maternity leave.
All this is part of the revolution in services for parents and the under fives: now 7,000 extended schools, moving from zero to 3,500 sure start children’s centres, the doubling of nursery education – two-thirds of a million more child care places.
This is the next stage in the transformation of public services. Our aim high quality care not just available to some but to all and tailored to parents needs when they need it and at a price they can afford.
A growing number of parents who care for their children now also care for elderly relatives. I want our new carers commission to hear the call for change from millions of carers – and this government will now do more for respite care, for training of carers, for better pension rights and to give new priority to caring for disabled children.
And I pay tribute to our Deputy Leader Harriet Harman who by her campaigning work is pioneering this cause of equality. No discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, age, or faith. And no discrimination against the disabled.
We know that all parents are under more than the pressure of time.
Today amongst the biggest influences on children are the Internet, TV, commercial advertising. And like many parents I feel I’m struggling to set the boundaries so that children can be safe – and that’s why we have asked Dr Tanya Byron to look at how families can make the most of the opportunities new technology gives while doing our duty to protect children from harmful material.
And to honour those who raised us, I can affirm our commitment to restore the link between the Basic State Pension and earnings.
It’s time also to make public services personal to the needs of the elderly: more control over personal social care budgets; more choice managing chronic care; a wider range of services from home helps to district nurses. Better personal care so that older people can choose to stay in their own homes.
I want to ensure for all those who have served the community all their lives – respect, dignity and security in old age.
And everything we build -- we build on a strong foundation of economic stability.
Our commitment to stability has been tested again and again over ten years: the Asian crisis; the Russian crisis; the American recession; the trebling of oil prices. And in the last month a wave of financial turbulence that started in America and then Germany and has impacted on all countries including the United Kingdom and tested the stability of our financial system.
Yesterday Alistair Darling set out how we will continue to respond with the same calm vigilance that he has demonstrated over recent weeks.
And it is because of the strength of the British economy that we are able to steer a path of low inflation, low interest rates and stable growth.
Ten years ago before a Labour government we were 7th in the G7 for income per head. Now we are second only to the USA - above Germany, above France, above Italy, above Japan, above Canada - with the longest uninterrupted period of economic growth in the history of our country.
And in Britain where once there were three million unemployed, there are today more men and women in jobs than ever in our history - for the first time over 29 million people in work.
And we will continue to intensify the reform of the new deal, remove every barrier, show we can have flexibility and fairness together to advance to a Britain of full employment in our generation.
And we will build on one of the greatest achievements of our Labour and trade union movement – the National Minimum Wage. Next week we will again raise the National Minimum Wage to £5.52 an hour and because we will do more for vulnerable workers, in all companies and in all places the minimum wage will be enforced without exception.
And next week for the first time on top of holiday entitlement 4 days paid public holidays guaranteed.
We should take pride that, under a Labour government, Britain - this small number of people on this small island - is the fifth largest economy in the world.
As we set out on the next stage of our journey this is our vision: Britain leading the global economy – by our skills and creativity, by our enterprise and flexibility, by our investment in transport and infrastructure – a world leader in science; a world leader in financial and business services; a world leader in energy and the environment from nuclear to renewables; a world leader in the creative industries; and yes – modern manufacturing too – drawing on the talents of all to create British jobs for British workers.
There is another aspiration I have heard across the country.
I’ve met too many young couples who’ve told me - we work hard, we save, we play by the rules, we want to get on and yet we can’t afford to buy or even rent our first home.
So we plan to help first time buyers and we will increase house-building to 240,000 new homes a year - in places and ways that respect our green spaces and the environment. My aim by 2010 two million more homeowners than in 1997.
And for the first time in nearly half a century we will show the imagination to build new towns - eco-towns with low and zero carbon homes. And today because of the response we have received we are announcing that instead of just 5 new eco towns, we will now aim for ten eco towns ---- building thousands of new homes in every region of the country.
And for affordable housing and for social housing we will now invest £8 billion. This will mean a 50 per cent increase in funds for social housing. I call on all housing associations and councils of all political parties not only to support shared equity for first time buyers, but to help us build more social homes for rent, more homes for key workers and more homes to cut the unacceptable levels of overcrowding. Good homes to rent and buy for the British people.
A strong Britain is a Britain of strong communities where by accepting our mutual obligations to each other we can make our homes, our streets and our neighbourhoods safe.
Those who choose to disobey the laws of our land - their crimes, the pain they inflict, that danger and immorality - threaten the rights and security of every citizen.
No parent should ever have to endure the suffering of the family of Rhys Jones, the young boy callously murdered in Liverpool on Wednesday August 22nd.
And the reason the people of Britain have been so shocked is that amongst the vast majority of us there is an abhorrence of guns in our society.
That is why we took the right decision to ban handguns. And now we need to deal with the illegal supply of guns.
Two thirds of deaths from gun crime occur in just four cities. In the last few weeks Jacqui Smith and I have focussed on the specific areas in these cities where as I saw on Saturday at first hand the police will now: match intensive uniformed patrolling and extensive undercover work; with the use of stop and search powers and dispersal powers; reinforced by new hand-held weapon detectors; and all backed up at a national level by the work of the organised crime agency and our border force rigorously targeting and stopping the illegal entry of guns.
My answer to crime and disorder - our policy - is to both punish and prevent.
To punish: for anyone over 18 illegally carrying a gun, a five-year sentence.
To prevent: in our schools intensive education warning about guns and knives and teachers encouraged to use new powers to confiscate weapons. And in our communities ex gang members helping us pull young people out of gangs.
To punish the evil of drug pushers who poison our children: I want the tough new powers that have already closed over one thousand crack houses in some areas of the country to be used in all areas of the country.
And to encourage local police to use new powers to confiscate drug profits, more of the confiscated funds will go direct to the police and local communities.
To prevent addiction: we will extend drug education and expand drug treatment and we will send out a clear message that drugs are never going to be decriminalised.
There are now 139,000 police officers and 16,000 Community Support Officers – more officers than ever before.
And by April 7th next year, every community will have its own neighbourhood policing team. And I can announce that we will provide hand held computers - 1,000 now, by next year 10,000 right across the country – cutting paper work so that officers can log crimes on the spot, stay on the beat and not waste time returning to the station to fill out forms.
So yes we will strengthen the police. Yes we will strengthen our laws. But preventing crime for me also means all of us as a community setting boundaries between what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour – with clear penalties for stepping over the line.
Boundaries that reflect the words I was taught when I was young – words upon which we all know strong communities are founded: discipline, respect, responsibility.
Bullying is unacceptable – and unacceptable too is disrupting a classroom.
So to punish: we will give teachers the support they need to exclude.
To prevent: parents held accountable – fined if they fail to supervise. And so that these young people are not left to hang around street corners, councils and authorities obligated to maintain their education and supervision.
Binge drinking and underage drinking that disrupt neighbourhoods are unacceptable.
To punish: let me tell the shops that repeatedly sell alcohol to those who are under age – we will take your licences away.
To prevent: councils should use new powers to ban alcohol in trouble spots and I call on the industry to do more to advertise the dangers of teenage drinking.
I’ve met young people and pensioners alike who say they want to feel safe when they go out but also that young people need somewhere to go and something to do.
So respect must be a two way street.
As we take action against anti-social behaviour, so too we must take action that could transform our communities, by providing the kind of facilities young people want and need.
So we will use unclaimed assets in dormant bank accounts to build new youth centres, and we will invest over £670 million pounds so that in every community there are places for young people to go. With youth budgets let us say to young people: for the first time you will have a say over how the money is spent.
I believe we have not done enough in the last ten years to emphasise that in return for the rights we all have, there are responsibilities we all owe.
New rights to better health care but you have to show up and not miss your appointment. New rights to educational maintenance allowances but you have to show you are working hard. New rights to higher maternity allowances but you have to meet with a health visitor. The right for company boards to make their own decisions, but obligations to the rest of society too. And an understanding that if you come to our country you not only learn our language and culture: you must play by the rules.
In July I announced a new unified border force. And already the first elements are in place - a stronger uniformed presence at ports, customs officers targeting illegal immigration, stronger security checks at passport control, by next year ID cards for foreign nationals and we will start to count people in and out.
And we will move forward with our new Australian-style points-based approach to immigration. So Britain will continue to benefit from skilled workers from abroad and they will understand their responsibilities to earn the right to settle in Britain.
But let me be clear any newcomer to Britain who is caught selling drugs or using guns will be thrown out. No-one who sells drugs to our children or uses guns has the right to stay in our country.
And to achieve a Britain of mutual obligation, I am convinced that we need a new kind of politics.
I continue to reach out to all those who work hard and play by the rules, who believe in strong families and a patriotic Britain who may have supported other parties but who like me want to defend and advance British values and our way of life.
All of the challenges we have to face can only be met by listening to and involving the British people themselves. And I have no doubt that the best answer to disengagement from our democracy is to renew our democracy.
And that means more change:
Change to make the executive more accountable. That’s why parliament will make the final decisions about peace and war;
Change to strengthen our liberties to uphold the freedom of speech, freedom of information and the freedom to protest;
Change to strengthen local democracy with new powers for economic development and bus services and I pay tribute to the work of our local Labour councillors across the country.
Change within our own party, now for the first time to decide our policy one member one vote;
And yes: change to the House of Lords - and we will in our manifesto commit to introduce the principle of elections for the second chamber.
Perhaps the biggest challenge for the new politics is to show how we as a community can join together to safeguard the environment, to turn the silent, rising tide of global warming.
And I am proud that Britain will now become the first country in the world to write into law binding limits on carbon emissions. But I am not satisfied: so I am asking the new independent climate change committee to report on whether the 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050, which is already bigger than most other countries, should be even stronger still.
And by investing in energy efficiency, renewables, carbon capture, clean fuels and new environmental technologies, I want Britain to lead in carbon-free vehicles, carbon-free homes and carbon-free industry. And I want the new green technologies of the future to be the source of British jobs in British businesses.
And I commit to work tirelessly for a new post-Kyoto UN climate change agreement with - yes - to help the poorest, binding targets for all the richest countries.
And let me say: we in Britain cannot be good stewards of the environment unless we are good internationalists and that means being good Europeans too.
At all times we will stand up for the British national interest.
And I accept my responsibility to write in detail into the amended European Treaty the red lines we have negotiated for Britain.
And whether it’s environmental, economic or security cooperation, we will hold fast to the partnerships with our closest ally America, our membership of the European Union, the Commonwealth and our commitment to the United Nations.
You know, there is a golden thread of common humanity that across nations and faiths binds us together and it can light the darkest corners of the world. And the message should go out to anyone facing persecution anywhere from Burma to Zimbabwe: human rights are universal and no injustice can last forever.
People will look back on events in Darfur as they did in Rwanda and say why did you the most powerful countries in the world fail to act, to come to the aid of those with the least power?
Who can fail to be moved by the mother in Darfur who saved her two youngest children from militias and hid them away? She rushed back to her village to find her husband and older son murdered - and then was repeatedly raped by the Janjawid.
All for being a member of the wrong tribe, all for acting upon that shared human impulse to protect her own children.
Her story touches our deepest conscience and summons us to act. In my first weeks I went to the United Nations where we fought for and secured a clear and unequivocal UN-resolution. We have sent a message directly to the government of Sudan: make progress or face tougher new sanctions. And we will not rest until there is an end to the aerial bombings, a ceasefire, a lasting political settlement and justice for the women and children of Darfur.
One of the great challenges we now face is to work for peace and security in the Middle East. Tony Blair - for thirteen years the Leader of our Party - is now leading in the middle east peace effort and let me here acknowledge the contribution he is making now and the debt we owe as a party and as a country to Tony Blair.
And as the Northern Ireland Assembly meets, thanks also to the work of Tony Blair, let us celebrate that Northern Ireland is now building prosperity because it is now enjoying peace.
And working internationally for understanding and reconciliation across borders, Neil Kinnock, here with us today, is chairing the British Council and let me also acknowledge the debt of gratitude we in this party owe to him.
Because we will do our duty and discharge our obligations, we will work in Iraq and Afghanistan for three objectives: security, political reconciliation and economic reconstruction, and at all times we will do everything to ensure the security of our dedicated armed forces.
Let me say: there should be no safe haven, no hiding place anywhere in the world for Al Qaida and terrorism.
To prevail in this struggle will require more than military force and we will work with our allies to isolate extremism and win the battle of hearts and minds.
I tell you today: there is a global poverty emergency.
Today 80 million children do not go to school. I want us, inspired by Nelson Mandela’s lead to take a campaign to every corner of the world - so that we will be the first generation to ensure every child in every country in every continent has the right to go to school.
Every year 10 million die from diseases we could have the medicine and science to prevent and cure. If in the 20th century human ingenuity could put a man on the face of the moon, then surely in this 21st century human compassion can lift the pain from the face of a suffering child. So let us be the first generation to ensure that every infant child and mother is protected against, and that we eliminate, the scourges of tuberculosis, polio, diphtheria, malaria - and HIV/aids.
For sixty years Britain has shown the way to health care not as a privilege to be paid for but as a fundamental human right.
Better than any other endeavour the NHS expresses our mutual obligation to each other: because all of us need help some of the time, it is the best insurance policy in the world.
I’ve been round the country and I’ve been visiting hospitals, GP surgeries, health centres.
I have listened to and I have heard the British people.
They know when they have a medical emergency the NHS is there for them and at its best. They tell me of their huge admiration for our doctors, our nurses and our NHS staff - and we do not thank them enough, and we should do so now.
I know too there are real concerns about basic things that need to change: getting in to see your GP when you need to; being confident the ward in your hospital will be clean; and at every stage being treated as an individual with respect.
So yes there is work to do.
But let us be clear: the British people do not want to remove the NHS bit by bit; they want to improve the NHS year by year.
And why shouldn’t all British people and not just some be able to see their Doctor at the time they want, at the hospital or clinic they want - not at a time someone else wants.
So let me set out how we take the NHS into a new era.
Our great achievement of the 1940s was a service universal to all. In 2007 we need a service that is accessible to all and personal to all.
Our great ambition now: a National Health Service that is also a personal health service.
And we now have to make big practical changes to set a new standard of service.
MRSA and C-Difficile are this century’s hospital diseases which every modern country is now having to root out.
And to make sure every hospital is clean and safe, following best practice around the world, there will be new funds direct to every hospital for a deep clean of our wards.
We will more than double the number of hospital matrons to 5,000. We will give matrons and ward sisters in all 10,000 wards the powers to report cleaning contractors and safety concerns directly to hospital boards and a stronger health care commission.
And I can announce that matrons will have the power to order additional cleaning and send out a message - meet the highest standards of cleanliness or lose your contract.
I want an NHS: personal to you because you are seen by a consultant in a matter of days, not months; personal to you because there is a right to be given x-ray results quickly and time to discuss your treatment; personal to you because we know that being unwell is not just a nine to five problem.
And so we will make GP hours more friendly to families, open up opportunities to see a GP near your place of work as well as your home, expand walk in centres, medical services at pharmacies and ensure a better service from NHS Direct.
I know the most worrying time for women is whenever breast cancer is suspected. That’s when you need an NHS personal to you.
On best medical advice, we will now extend the ages for breast cancer screening by six years, treat every suspected breast cancer as urgent and guarantee your consultant can fast track you.
And we will also extend colon cancer screening right up the age scale into your seventies.
I can also say that, following the review by Professor Darzi, my aim for the next stage of an NHS personal to you: for every adult a regular check up on the NHS.
In July I met Liam Fairhurst, a twelve year old boy who won the Diana Princess of Wales medal for raising money for cancer and leukaemia research. And he was raising money in memory of a childhood friend who died from cancer even as he himself is fighting the disease.
And I believe this too is a mission for our generation.
Over the next ten years: I am proud to announce that through the medical research council and the NHS together, Britain will invest more than ever before - £15 billion of public money - financing the genius of British researchers and doctors as they convert breakthroughs in genetics, stem cell research and new drugs into cures and vaccines to combat cancer and the deadliest of diseases.
My vision of the NHS – an NHS that is both pioneering new cures and personal to you.
And why do I believe so strongly in the NHS?
When I was at school it was football, rugby, running, sports: these were what I did all the time and so I was fitter then.
But when I was sixteen, when I was playing for my school rugby team against our former pupils, someone accidentally kicked me near my eyes. And from the age of 16 to 21, I spent a lot of time in hospital as the NHS worked to save my sight.
I learned that with a simple twist of fate life can change.
It was the skills of a surgeon, the care of wonderful nurses, the attention and yes, the love and care of the NHS staff that managed to save one of my eyes.
And it is because of the NHS that I can see the words I read today.
The experiences we live through shape the way we think of the world. Experiences like these have made me the person I am.
Sometimes people say I am too serious and I fight too hard and maybe that’s true.
But these experiences taught me what families all across Britain know: that things don’t always come easy and there are things worth fighting for.
Like so many people across this country I have the best of reasons to believe in the life-saving power of the NHS - and the liberating power of education - and for making them both the best they can be.
So this is my pledge to the British people:
I will not let you down.
I will stand up for our schools and our hospitals.
I will stand up for British values.
I will stand up for a strong Britain.
And I will always stand up for you.