Guido and Dizzy are both seeking a photo of David Abrahams and Gordon Brown together. Have I Got News For You guys look no further...
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Site Meter
Friday, November 30, 2007
Friday competition: Which is which?
Friday competition: Which is which?
Guido and Dizzy are both seeking a photo of David Abrahams and Gordon Brown together. Have I Got News For You guys look no further...
Guido and Dizzy are both seeking a photo of David Abrahams and Gordon Brown together. Have I Got News For You guys look no further...
The hard cell: Avignon to offer prison conversions
The hard cell: Avignon to offer prison conversions
By John Lichfield in Paris
Published: 30 November 2007
Des. res. for sale in the south of France. More than 200 rooms (mostly small and basic). Bathrooms need attention. Wonderful river views (despite bars on the tiny windows). Would suit very large family or could become luxury hotel.
The French government is inviting bids for a disused prison in the historic city of Avignon. An advertisement on the state property website says: "Benefiting from an exceptional situation beside the Papal Palace, with open views over the river Rhône. Living space of 10,280 square metres, including two sports halls, library, cinema room and women's detention area. Dilapidated and unfurnished."
It stipulates that the preferred buyer would be a hotel group willing to convert Saint-Anne prison into a luxury four-star hotel with at least 110 bedrooms. Eight other disused jails, in towns such as Lyons, Grasse and Nancy, will come on to the market in the next two years.
A clever entrepreneur could even launch a luxury chain, offering guests free striped pyjamas, porridge for breakfast and time off for good behaviour.
The government drive to sell off scores of surplus state-owned buildings has been accelerated by President Nicolas Sarkozy, as he attempts to trim the public debt.
The sale does not mean that crime is falling. France still has one of the highest prison populations in Europe. Modern, new jails are being built outside town centres, allowing 19th-century penitentiaries such as Saint-Anne in Avignon to be closed. The building is rather grim but has bags of potential. It is a three-storey, rectangular edifice with a central courtyard crowded with outhouses. Parts of the site date back to the 1400s.
There is no reserve price but the Economics Ministry is said to be expecting bids of more than ¿4m (£2.8m). Offers must be submitted by 23 January.
By John Lichfield in Paris
Published: 30 November 2007
Des. res. for sale in the south of France. More than 200 rooms (mostly small and basic). Bathrooms need attention. Wonderful river views (despite bars on the tiny windows). Would suit very large family or could become luxury hotel.
The French government is inviting bids for a disused prison in the historic city of Avignon. An advertisement on the state property website says: "Benefiting from an exceptional situation beside the Papal Palace, with open views over the river Rhône. Living space of 10,280 square metres, including two sports halls, library, cinema room and women's detention area. Dilapidated and unfurnished."
It stipulates that the preferred buyer would be a hotel group willing to convert Saint-Anne prison into a luxury four-star hotel with at least 110 bedrooms. Eight other disused jails, in towns such as Lyons, Grasse and Nancy, will come on to the market in the next two years.
A clever entrepreneur could even launch a luxury chain, offering guests free striped pyjamas, porridge for breakfast and time off for good behaviour.
The government drive to sell off scores of surplus state-owned buildings has been accelerated by President Nicolas Sarkozy, as he attempts to trim the public debt.
The sale does not mean that crime is falling. France still has one of the highest prison populations in Europe. Modern, new jails are being built outside town centres, allowing 19th-century penitentiaries such as Saint-Anne in Avignon to be closed. The building is rather grim but has bags of potential. It is a three-storey, rectangular edifice with a central courtyard crowded with outhouses. Parts of the site date back to the 1400s.
There is no reserve price but the Economics Ministry is said to be expecting bids of more than ¿4m (£2.8m). Offers must be submitted by 23 January.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Ferrets fighting in a sack
Ferrets fighting in a sack
24 hours in politics is a long time. Yesterday during PMQs David Cameron said "This goes to question the Prime Minister's integrity". I thought at the time, 'pot calling kettle black'. Tonight on Channel 4 News Diane Abbot, the Labour MP, said "No-one doubts Mr Brown's integrity". Did she not watch or listen to yesterday's PMQs? Although David Cameron did not expressly state that Gordon Brown was dishonest, I felt that it was clearly implied. In my view, David Cameron should either back up his charge with evidence or withdraw it.
Michael Shite was also on Channel 4 News, but I don't know why, as he hardly said anything, and when he did, he referred twice to someone called Abrahamson. My solicitor is called Elkan Abrahamson, he is a good one. This smug mug who kicked Guido all over the Newsnight studio did not even know that it was David Abrahams or David Martin, if you like, who is a central character in this Donorgate affair. All he could do was quote something he had read in the Daily Telegraph which hinted at a mystery figure behind David Abrahams donations to the Labour Party, and also referred to what Nick Robinson had blogged. In my view, he was a complete waste of time and space, and if Ch4 paid him, then also a waste of money.
Diane Abbott, who Michael Shite is no match for, on the other hand, stated that "Michael Watt broke the law". Perhaps, she should have waited for the police to complete their investigation before finding him guilty by trial by media? It might be argued that he cannot now get a fair trial. Furthermore, she stated that Jon Mendelsohn should go.
I thought it was interesting that it was reported that Chris Leslie, Gordon Brown's campaign manager, suggested that Harriet Harman seek a donation from Janet Kidd, in the full knowledge that he and Gordon Brown had refused a donation from the same source because they knew that there was something dodgy. I suppose that she was not Gordon Brown's choice for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party then. With friends like these who needs enemies? When Harriet Harman faced MPs today and said that Teresa May could "huff and puff", why did I immediately think of Iain Dale?
24 hours in politics is a long time. Yesterday during PMQs David Cameron said "This goes to question the Prime Minister's integrity". I thought at the time, 'pot calling kettle black'. Tonight on Channel 4 News Diane Abbot, the Labour MP, said "No-one doubts Mr Brown's integrity". Did she not watch or listen to yesterday's PMQs? Although David Cameron did not expressly state that Gordon Brown was dishonest, I felt that it was clearly implied. In my view, David Cameron should either back up his charge with evidence or withdraw it.
Michael Shite was also on Channel 4 News, but I don't know why, as he hardly said anything, and when he did, he referred twice to someone called Abrahamson. My solicitor is called Elkan Abrahamson, he is a good one. This smug mug who kicked Guido all over the Newsnight studio did not even know that it was David Abrahams or David Martin, if you like, who is a central character in this Donorgate affair. All he could do was quote something he had read in the Daily Telegraph which hinted at a mystery figure behind David Abrahams donations to the Labour Party, and also referred to what Nick Robinson had blogged. In my view, he was a complete waste of time and space, and if Ch4 paid him, then also a waste of money.
Diane Abbott, who Michael Shite is no match for, on the other hand, stated that "Michael Watt broke the law". Perhaps, she should have waited for the police to complete their investigation before finding him guilty by trial by media? It might be argued that he cannot now get a fair trial. Furthermore, she stated that Jon Mendelsohn should go.
I thought it was interesting that it was reported that Chris Leslie, Gordon Brown's campaign manager, suggested that Harriet Harman seek a donation from Janet Kidd, in the full knowledge that he and Gordon Brown had refused a donation from the same source because they knew that there was something dodgy. I suppose that she was not Gordon Brown's choice for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party then. With friends like these who needs enemies? When Harriet Harman faced MPs today and said that Teresa May could "huff and puff", why did I immediately think of Iain Dale?
Zvi Hefeitz may be money man behind David Abrahams
Zvi Hefeitz may be money man behind David Abrahams
Zvi Hefeitz, the former Israeli Ambassador, is thought to be the secret donor to the Labour Party who has used David Abrahams as the front man, who in turn has used several frontmen in an attempt to hide the source of the dirty money donated to the Labour Party.
Daily Telegraph story here.
Nick Robinson's take here.
Spitting image
Spitting image
MPs to grill Harman over donation
Will this be the end result?
The Guardian link to the story immediately produced the image of a spit roast in my mind, so I sought a supporting link on Google. Unfortunately, when I followed the link up in the Guardian someone had decided to substitute the word grill for quiz. For editorial purposes I took the liberty of re-substituting the original term used.
MPs to grill Harman over donation
Will this be the end result?
The Guardian link to the story immediately produced the image of a spit roast in my mind, so I sought a supporting link on Google. Unfortunately, when I followed the link up in the Guardian someone had decided to substitute the word grill for quiz. For editorial purposes I took the liberty of re-substituting the original term used.
Can a bear bear the name Muhammad?
Can a bear bear the name Muhammad?
Apparently not according to the Prophet Muhammad, pictured below, who accuses those who misuse his name of insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs.
So be it.
Apparently not according to the Prophet Muhammad, pictured below, who accuses those who misuse his name of insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs.
So be it.
Jon Mendelsohn to resign
Jon Mendelsohn to resign
Jon Mendelsohn, Labour’s chief fundraiser, is to resign. This prediction is made as the steady drip, drip, drip, like the Chinese water torture, of information is squeezed out of the Labour Party in relation to Donorgate and who knew what and when and who is involved in this murky affair.
Labour had hoped that the beheading of the sacrificial lamb, Pete Watt, the former Labour secretary general, would satisfy the bloodthirsty opposition and the media, however, this has proved just a taster and the hungry diners are demanding more. It is doubtful when Jon Mendelsohn's head is served up upon a plate that there will be enough to go around. More is required. A woman's touch. Perhaps, later today, when Harriet Harman is to face MPs in the House of Commons, she will come prepared with her resignation speech?
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
PMQs: Can you tell the difference between talk and stutter?
PMQs: Can you tell the difference between talk and stutter?
Apparently, Vince Cable can. Listen here.
Apparently, Vince Cable can. Listen here.
Simply beautiful
Simply beautiful
When politics is showing an ugly image at the present, here is a beautiful one instead.
When politics is showing an ugly image at the present, here is a beautiful one instead.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Harriet Harman has committed a criminal offence
Harriet Harman has committed a criminal offence
I know that Harriet Harman is a good lawyer. I also know that she is a bad politician. What I don't know is how long she can remain the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and a MP given that she has clearly committed a criminal offence under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The relevant section reads:
39
(a)
39
False statements: offence
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he knowingly or recklessly makes a statement to the Commission which is false in any material particular, and
(b)
the statement is made, or purports to be made, on behalf of a party for any purpose of this Part of this Act.
Twice in her statement to the media Harriet Harman claimed that she had accepted the dodgy donation "in good faith". Under normal circumstances acting in good faith negates having acted in bad faith. However, the charge is not that Harriet Harman acted in bad faith. Rather, it is that she acted recklessly. Gordon Brown and Hilary Benn have avoided this charge by not accepting a donation from David Abrahams via an agent Miss Janet Kidd. Furthermore, Hilary Benn took care to ensure that his donation came from and was declared as coming from David Abrahams. Because Harriet Harman failed to take care, which would normally be termed as being negligent, she was reckless.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Jail inspector criticises use of truncheons at immigration centre
Jail inspector criticises use of truncheons at immigration centre
"Staff in charge of an immigration centre housing failed asylum-seekers are regularly armed with wooden staves to keep order, despite the fact that such weapons are banned in low-security jails, the chief inspector of prisons has discovered".
Migrant detention centres use staves banned in low security prisons
"Staff in charge of an immigration centre housing failed asylum-seekers are regularly armed with wooden staves to keep order, despite the fact that such weapons are banned in low-security jails, the chief inspector of prisons has discovered".
Migrant detention centres use staves banned in low security prisons
Monday, November 26, 2007
MP quits Oxford Union in BNP row
MP quits Oxford Union in BNP row
"A senior Conservative MP has resigned his membership of the Oxford Union as the pressure mounted on the organisers of tonight's debate on free speech to withdraw an invitation to Nick Griffin, of the British National Party, and Holocaust denier David Irving".
And from the Guardian...
'Awful, abhorrent' - but Oxford insists the debate must go on
and this...
Students need to know what sort of dangerous people are out there
The Oxford Union was after easy publicity when it invited David Irving and Nick Griffin - but the debate can do no harm
The take from the Independent...
Critics line up to attack Oxford Union over 'free speech' debate
Hundreds of demonstrators are expected tonight outside the Oxford Union where two leading figures from the British far right are due to appear as speakers.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Flog it: For sale dead horse
Flog it: For sale dead horse
You would think it was in everybody's interests to solve the prisons crises. There is nothing new in this headline from the Sunday Telegraph "10,000 set free early from crowded prisons". I don't think it is a big deal to point out that only "300 were locked up again after they were caught reoffending or breaking the terms of their licences". Out of 10,000, 300 failures is something of a success story, especially given that we don't know how many of the 300 actually reoffended and what percentage merely were in breach of their licence conditions. It would appear to me that Jack Straw is not really tackling the problems when he promises 9,500 new prison places. Given that he has just had to release 10,000 prisoners earlier than usual, is 9,500 new prison places really going to make any difference? Not that I am advocating we embark upon a programme of prison expansion. For me, a successful Criminal Justice System policy would be based upon a small prison population not how many can be crammed into our prisons.
I don't think that Nick Herbert has anything new or sensible to offer here, again from the Sunday Telegraph, "We need modern prisons with a purpose". Yes, I agree that we need modern prisons with a purpose. However, other than the headline which sounds good, Nick Herbert in his comment fails to state how this is going to be achieved. The idea of selling off the Victorian prisons and replacing them with newer units is not new. And renaming prisons does just that and nothing more. I wonder if the Tory Party's new slogan "Labour's giving criminals a break" will come back to haunt them. Personally, I think it is about time that the poor old criminal was given a break. For too long now they have been the victims of knee-jerking politicians all seeking to get tougher and tougher upon them than previous Home Secretaries. Bottom line, it does not matter how many times you flog a dead horse it remains a dead horse.
The Sunday Times offers this "Tory call to sell off inner-city prisons", I have included it although I don't think that it offers any more to the debate.
You would think it was in everybody's interests to solve the prisons crises. There is nothing new in this headline from the Sunday Telegraph "10,000 set free early from crowded prisons". I don't think it is a big deal to point out that only "300 were locked up again after they were caught reoffending or breaking the terms of their licences". Out of 10,000, 300 failures is something of a success story, especially given that we don't know how many of the 300 actually reoffended and what percentage merely were in breach of their licence conditions. It would appear to me that Jack Straw is not really tackling the problems when he promises 9,500 new prison places. Given that he has just had to release 10,000 prisoners earlier than usual, is 9,500 new prison places really going to make any difference? Not that I am advocating we embark upon a programme of prison expansion. For me, a successful Criminal Justice System policy would be based upon a small prison population not how many can be crammed into our prisons.
I don't think that Nick Herbert has anything new or sensible to offer here, again from the Sunday Telegraph, "We need modern prisons with a purpose". Yes, I agree that we need modern prisons with a purpose. However, other than the headline which sounds good, Nick Herbert in his comment fails to state how this is going to be achieved. The idea of selling off the Victorian prisons and replacing them with newer units is not new. And renaming prisons does just that and nothing more. I wonder if the Tory Party's new slogan "Labour's giving criminals a break" will come back to haunt them. Personally, I think it is about time that the poor old criminal was given a break. For too long now they have been the victims of knee-jerking politicians all seeking to get tougher and tougher upon them than previous Home Secretaries. Bottom line, it does not matter how many times you flog a dead horse it remains a dead horse.
The Sunday Times offers this "Tory call to sell off inner-city prisons", I have included it although I don't think that it offers any more to the debate.
Row as Oxford Union votes to hear Irving
Row as Oxford Union votes to hear Irving
"The Oxford Union was accused last night of 'promoting anti-Semitism' after students voted to allow Holocaust revisionist David Irving and the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, to address students tomorrow.
Members of the Oxford Union Debating Society voted by a margin of two to one in favour of permitting the two right-wing figures to speak at a free-speech event, despite demands that they be banned".
For me this was a vote for common sense and I am pleased that it prevailed. I agree with the union's president, Luke Tryl, who argued "that it is possible to abhor the views of Griffin and Irving while accepting their right to be heard".
"The Oxford Union was accused last night of 'promoting anti-Semitism' after students voted to allow Holocaust revisionist David Irving and the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, to address students tomorrow.
Members of the Oxford Union Debating Society voted by a margin of two to one in favour of permitting the two right-wing figures to speak at a free-speech event, despite demands that they be banned".
For me this was a vote for common sense and I am pleased that it prevailed. I agree with the union's president, Luke Tryl, who argued "that it is possible to abhor the views of Griffin and Irving while accepting their right to be heard".
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Cabbaged or what?
Cabbaged or what?
I am not sure whether this is an argument that prison works in relation to reform, or whether it is an argument that prison turns inmates into a vegetative state.
Hat-Tip to Norfolk Blogger.
I am not sure whether this is an argument that prison works in relation to reform, or whether it is an argument that prison turns inmates into a vegetative state.
Hat-Tip to Norfolk Blogger.
Oxford votes on whether Irving and Griffin should address Union
Oxford votes on whether Irving and Griffin should address Union
"The issue at stake was whether an invitation to the Holocaust-denying historian David Irving and the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, to address a forum on free speech at the Oxford Union on Monday should be withdrawn".
I am more certain that the Holocaust occurred than I am that there is a God. There are some accounts of history that are not as truthful as they should be. Surely, any historian worth his salts must accept that the Holocaust did happen and that it was a shameful display of mans inhumanity towards man?
Legally, freedom of speech in this country is more limited than in the USA. We do not have the human right to absolute freedom of speech. I do not have a problem with anyone debating what I deem to be unacceptable views, their views could and should be defeated by counter arguments. I hope Oxford University can rise to the challenge rather than cop out by gagging speakers. I think it would be hypocritical to have a debate on free speech if those who pulled out dictated who should not be allowed a voice. Surely the students are mature enough to listen to both sides and vote on the debate rather than vote to silence views they are opposed to?
"The issue at stake was whether an invitation to the Holocaust-denying historian David Irving and the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, to address a forum on free speech at the Oxford Union on Monday should be withdrawn".
I am more certain that the Holocaust occurred than I am that there is a God. There are some accounts of history that are not as truthful as they should be. Surely, any historian worth his salts must accept that the Holocaust did happen and that it was a shameful display of mans inhumanity towards man?
Legally, freedom of speech in this country is more limited than in the USA. We do not have the human right to absolute freedom of speech. I do not have a problem with anyone debating what I deem to be unacceptable views, their views could and should be defeated by counter arguments. I hope Oxford University can rise to the challenge rather than cop out by gagging speakers. I think it would be hypocritical to have a debate on free speech if those who pulled out dictated who should not be allowed a voice. Surely the students are mature enough to listen to both sides and vote on the debate rather than vote to silence views they are opposed to?
14 year old Kurdish girl released from detention after health concerns
14 year old Kurdish girl released from detention after health concerns
By Chris Green and Robert Verkaik
Published: 24 November 2007
A 14-year-old Kurdish asylum-seeker who escaped deportation to Germany this week was finally released from detention last night after serious concerns were raised about her mental health. Meltem Avcil and her mother are understood to have left Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre in Bedfordshire before being taken to bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Kent.
The Home Office has been trying to deport Meltem and her mother to Germany, where their asylum application was first refused, despite the fact that for the past six years Meltem has been educated in the UK, and is now fluent in English.
Last week The Independent reported that an attempt to remove the mother and daughter using a private security escort team was abandoned after a British Airways pilot refused to let them fly on grounds of health and safety. In a second aborted removal attempt this week it is believed the Home Office had chartered a private jet.
But doctors who have examined Meltem in Bedford hospital said they were very concerned about her mental health. The Avcil family, originally from Turkey, were visited by the children's commissioner who is believed to have brought their case to the attention of the Home Office.
Meltem, who spent three months in Yarl's Wood, said she was "very happy" to be released and now intended to travel back to Doncaster where the family had lived for six years and where they could be reunited with friends and supporters. "I am so happy I think I will burst. This is my best moment ever. I want to say thank you to the children's commissioner for not forgetting me," she added.
Robina Qureshi, director of Positive Action in Housing, who led the campaign, said: "We welcome and celebrate Meltem's release." She added that 1,583 supporters in Britain, Germany and France had written to express their outrage at her detention.
The release of Meltem and her mother followed criticism of the Government's use of detention in child asylum cases. A group of European MPs visiting three detention centres in the UK expressed concern over the length of time children were detained.
A Border and Immigration Agency spokesman said: "Detention is used only where necessary and this is especially true for families with children. Depending upon the individual circumstances of each case, we will always endeavour to keep families together."
By Chris Green and Robert Verkaik
Published: 24 November 2007
A 14-year-old Kurdish asylum-seeker who escaped deportation to Germany this week was finally released from detention last night after serious concerns were raised about her mental health. Meltem Avcil and her mother are understood to have left Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre in Bedfordshire before being taken to bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Kent.
The Home Office has been trying to deport Meltem and her mother to Germany, where their asylum application was first refused, despite the fact that for the past six years Meltem has been educated in the UK, and is now fluent in English.
Last week The Independent reported that an attempt to remove the mother and daughter using a private security escort team was abandoned after a British Airways pilot refused to let them fly on grounds of health and safety. In a second aborted removal attempt this week it is believed the Home Office had chartered a private jet.
But doctors who have examined Meltem in Bedford hospital said they were very concerned about her mental health. The Avcil family, originally from Turkey, were visited by the children's commissioner who is believed to have brought their case to the attention of the Home Office.
Meltem, who spent three months in Yarl's Wood, said she was "very happy" to be released and now intended to travel back to Doncaster where the family had lived for six years and where they could be reunited with friends and supporters. "I am so happy I think I will burst. This is my best moment ever. I want to say thank you to the children's commissioner for not forgetting me," she added.
Robina Qureshi, director of Positive Action in Housing, who led the campaign, said: "We welcome and celebrate Meltem's release." She added that 1,583 supporters in Britain, Germany and France had written to express their outrage at her detention.
The release of Meltem and her mother followed criticism of the Government's use of detention in child asylum cases. A group of European MPs visiting three detention centres in the UK expressed concern over the length of time children were detained.
A Border and Immigration Agency spokesman said: "Detention is used only where necessary and this is especially true for families with children. Depending upon the individual circumstances of each case, we will always endeavour to keep families together."
A suicide victim and the town that turned on her cyber-bully
A suicide victim and the town that turned on her cyber-bully
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 24 November 2007
For almost a year, the families that live on Waterford Crystal Drive kept quiet about the MySpace tragedy. Not any more.
When Megan Meier's family moved to the neighbourhood, a brand new family-oriented development near St Louis, they hoped that their troubled 13-year-old would make friends.
Like millions of teenagers marooned amid the malls of suburbia, Megan turned to the online networking site MySpace for friendship. When "Josh Evans" started to exchange messages with her, Megan, a 13-year-old suffering from depression and attention deficit disorder, was elated.
Their friendship lasted about a month. Then "Josh" brutally ended it, telling her that he had heard she was a bad person. That night, 16 October 2006, Megan hanged herself in her room.
When the truth about "Josh" emerged six weeks later, her devastated parents suffered another blow. It turned out that an adult neighbour called Lori Drew who had fallen out with her daughter had pretended to be the 16-year-old Josh to gain the trust of Megan.
Megan's parents, Tina and Ron Meier, asked their other neighbours to not to discuss what had happened, while waiting for the police to take action. But nothing happened: there is no law against being cruel and immature. Local papers refused to identify the Drew family, to protect their teenage daughter.
But now, bloggers have taken on Megan's cause, with an outburst of virtual vigilantism. The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that dozens of people have apparently been calling local businesses that work with the Drew family's company, which prints advertising. The Drews' home address, phone numbers, email addresses and photographs have also been posted on blogs such as RottenNeighbor.com and hitsusa.com. And there are reports that people are driving through the once tranquil neighbourhood in the middle of the night, screaming, "Murderer!"
To protect themselves to from vigilantes, the Drews, have placed security cameras on the roof of their house. They have also refused to talk to the media.
Megan's parents want to see the Drews prosecuted, and they want changes to the law to safeguard children on the internet. With cases of cyber-bullying being reported all over the country, their cause has the potential to become a nationwide movement.
Mrs Meier doesn't believe that anyone involved actually intended for her daughter to kill herself. "But when adults are involved and continue to screw with a 13-year-old, with or without mental problems, it is absolutely vile," she said.
Described as a "bubbly, goofy" girl who loved fishing with her dad, Megan struck up a friendship with "Josh" who told her that he was born in Florida and had recently moved to a nearby community called O'Fallon. Then he dropped her, telling her on 15 October last year that he had heard she wasn't nice to her friends.
The following day, Mrs Meier was taking another daughter to the orthodontist, and asked Megan to log off MySpace, where users must be at least 14. Megan called her mother, saying that messages were being posted about her saying: "Megan Meier is a slut. Megan Meier is fat."
After a row, Megan ran upstairs. Her father tried to reassure her that everything would be fine. Twenty minutes later, she was found dead. Mr Meier said he found a message the next day from "Josh", telling her she was a bad person and the world would be better without her.
Now police cars are patrolling Waterford Crystal Drive and prosecutors are trying to reopen the case.
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 24 November 2007
For almost a year, the families that live on Waterford Crystal Drive kept quiet about the MySpace tragedy. Not any more.
When Megan Meier's family moved to the neighbourhood, a brand new family-oriented development near St Louis, they hoped that their troubled 13-year-old would make friends.
Like millions of teenagers marooned amid the malls of suburbia, Megan turned to the online networking site MySpace for friendship. When "Josh Evans" started to exchange messages with her, Megan, a 13-year-old suffering from depression and attention deficit disorder, was elated.
Their friendship lasted about a month. Then "Josh" brutally ended it, telling her that he had heard she was a bad person. That night, 16 October 2006, Megan hanged herself in her room.
When the truth about "Josh" emerged six weeks later, her devastated parents suffered another blow. It turned out that an adult neighbour called Lori Drew who had fallen out with her daughter had pretended to be the 16-year-old Josh to gain the trust of Megan.
Megan's parents, Tina and Ron Meier, asked their other neighbours to not to discuss what had happened, while waiting for the police to take action. But nothing happened: there is no law against being cruel and immature. Local papers refused to identify the Drew family, to protect their teenage daughter.
But now, bloggers have taken on Megan's cause, with an outburst of virtual vigilantism. The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that dozens of people have apparently been calling local businesses that work with the Drew family's company, which prints advertising. The Drews' home address, phone numbers, email addresses and photographs have also been posted on blogs such as RottenNeighbor.com and hitsusa.com. And there are reports that people are driving through the once tranquil neighbourhood in the middle of the night, screaming, "Murderer!"
To protect themselves to from vigilantes, the Drews, have placed security cameras on the roof of their house. They have also refused to talk to the media.
Megan's parents want to see the Drews prosecuted, and they want changes to the law to safeguard children on the internet. With cases of cyber-bullying being reported all over the country, their cause has the potential to become a nationwide movement.
Mrs Meier doesn't believe that anyone involved actually intended for her daughter to kill herself. "But when adults are involved and continue to screw with a 13-year-old, with or without mental problems, it is absolutely vile," she said.
Described as a "bubbly, goofy" girl who loved fishing with her dad, Megan struck up a friendship with "Josh" who told her that he was born in Florida and had recently moved to a nearby community called O'Fallon. Then he dropped her, telling her on 15 October last year that he had heard she wasn't nice to her friends.
The following day, Mrs Meier was taking another daughter to the orthodontist, and asked Megan to log off MySpace, where users must be at least 14. Megan called her mother, saying that messages were being posted about her saying: "Megan Meier is a slut. Megan Meier is fat."
After a row, Megan ran upstairs. Her father tried to reassure her that everything would be fine. Twenty minutes later, she was found dead. Mr Meier said he found a message the next day from "Josh", telling her she was a bad person and the world would be better without her.
Now police cars are patrolling Waterford Crystal Drive and prosecutors are trying to reopen the case.
Friday, November 23, 2007
A Low Point for Craig Murray as he seeks to highlight a case of injustice
A Low Point for Craig Murray as he seeks to highlight a case of injustice
Jahongir Sidikov is still in detention at Heathrow, having offered passive resistance to the attempt to deport him today. Next time they will use staff authorised and equipped to use force.
I urge readers to support this cause in any way they can.
Jahongir Sidikov is still in detention at Heathrow, having offered passive resistance to the attempt to deport him today. Next time they will use staff authorised and equipped to use force.
I urge readers to support this cause in any way they can.
Inmate fails to cut cost of calls
Inmate fails to cut cost of calls
An inmate has failed to use human rights legislation to force a prison to charge him less for phone calls.
I think it is difficult to justify charging prisoners who earn wages which amount to children's pocket money more for their phone calls. However, I suspect that the legal challenge should have instead been mounted at private law and argued that prisoners are subject to an unfair contract term.
Businessman's killer found hanged
Businessman's killer found hanged
A killer who took part in the murder of a man he was sent to threaten by property tycoon Nicholas van Hoogstraten has been found hanged.
I suspect that it would not have taken very long for some wag in prison to announce the news that Croke has croked it...
Brazil shock at woman's jail rape
Brazil shock at woman's jail rape
Authorities in Brazil are investigating reports that a young woman was left in a police cell with some 20 men for a month and repeatedly sexually abused.
The governor of the state of Para, where the reported case took place, has promised a full inquiry.
Governor Ana Julia Carepa said the age of the woman, put variously at 15 and 20, was irrelevant as she should not have been jailed with male prisoners.
Women's rights groups in Brazil say it is not an isolated case.
According to reports in the Brazilian media, the number of men in the cell with the young woman varied from between 20 to more than 30.
Public anger
Media reports suggested that the girl was placed in a police cell in the town of Abaetetuba on suspicion of theft.
But human-rights groups say there is uncertainty about what offence the girl was accused of and she was not formally charged.
They say that she was raped relentlessly and forced to have sex in order to obtain food.
The girl's father has now alleged that he has been threatened by police who tried to force him to provide a birth certificate showing that the girl was 20 years of age - a document which he said did not exist.
The police are said to have believed at one stage that the girl was not under age.
Gov Carepa said the girl's age did not matter.
"Whether she was 15, 20, or 100 doesn't matter. A woman should never be left in a jail with men," she said.
"I am shocked and indignant, as a woman and as a governor," Gov Carepa said, promising that those responsible would face "exemplary punishment" and that such an incident would not be allowed to happen again.
Jails in Brazil are notorious for overcrowding and appalling conditions, and this is not the first time that there has been a controversy over a female prisoner being detained alongside men.
However, on this occasion, the seriousness of the allegation has caused shock and considerable public anger, the BBC's Gary Duffy in Sao Paulo says.
Women's rights groups in Para state quoted by the Globo website say there have been at least three cases of women being put in cells with men.
Authorities in Brazil are investigating reports that a young woman was left in a police cell with some 20 men for a month and repeatedly sexually abused.
The governor of the state of Para, where the reported case took place, has promised a full inquiry.
Governor Ana Julia Carepa said the age of the woman, put variously at 15 and 20, was irrelevant as she should not have been jailed with male prisoners.
Women's rights groups in Brazil say it is not an isolated case.
According to reports in the Brazilian media, the number of men in the cell with the young woman varied from between 20 to more than 30.
Public anger
Media reports suggested that the girl was placed in a police cell in the town of Abaetetuba on suspicion of theft.
But human-rights groups say there is uncertainty about what offence the girl was accused of and she was not formally charged.
They say that she was raped relentlessly and forced to have sex in order to obtain food.
The girl's father has now alleged that he has been threatened by police who tried to force him to provide a birth certificate showing that the girl was 20 years of age - a document which he said did not exist.
The police are said to have believed at one stage that the girl was not under age.
Gov Carepa said the girl's age did not matter.
"Whether she was 15, 20, or 100 doesn't matter. A woman should never be left in a jail with men," she said.
"I am shocked and indignant, as a woman and as a governor," Gov Carepa said, promising that those responsible would face "exemplary punishment" and that such an incident would not be allowed to happen again.
Jails in Brazil are notorious for overcrowding and appalling conditions, and this is not the first time that there has been a controversy over a female prisoner being detained alongside men.
However, on this occasion, the seriousness of the allegation has caused shock and considerable public anger, the BBC's Gary Duffy in Sao Paulo says.
Women's rights groups in Para state quoted by the Globo website say there have been at least three cases of women being put in cells with men.
We lock people up with no thought and to little effect
We lock people up with no thought and to little effect
Appetite for vengeance coupled with political expediency has led to an overcrowded prison system that doesn't work
Ian Loader
Friday November 23, 2007
The Guardian
On Wednesday Jack Straw delivered a speech on the future of penal policy to the Howard League for Penal Reform. It was widely expected that the secretary of state for justice would say something significant, partly in response to the lord chief justice's recent acknowledgement that sentencing policies are placing an intolerable strain on our prisons. In fact, Straw's speech was benignly neutral. In the midst of the Northern Rock crises and the Revenue & Customs discs scandal, the risk of being depicted as "soft on crime" was too great and had to be avoided. Word from the Ministry of Justice was that "the political landscape has hardened".
Once again, political expediency foreclosed much-needed public debate about penal policy. We live in a society that punishes a great deal but thinks rather less about why it does so. As a result our prisons are bursting with 81,547 inmates, an outcome that few in government planned and fewer have a tenable strategy for resolving. It is an issue the Commission on English Prisons Today, established by the Howard League, is determined to do something about.
The question of why we punish brings forth a standard menu of justifications. We do so in retribution for past wrongs, to deter future crimes, incapacitate the dangerous, rehabilitate offenders or repair broken bonds. Yet this age-old scrutiny is today disconnected from the decision-making that determines the size and operations of the penal system, and from public sensibilities towards punishment. The result is a high-minded debate about ideals that exercises little purchase over penal culture and practice, and justifications which decorate rather than guide the system.
It may be better, instead, to start with public philosophies of punishment, locating the debate in places where citizens, professionals and politicians are, rather than where one might wish them to be. The noisiest such philosophy wants a system that does harm, in response to the harm offenders have inflicted on victims, or to signal that the behaviour being punished is not to be tolerated. The overarching rationale here is public protection, the dominant emotions crime-related anger and fear, vengeance towards criminals and, lest we forget, audience pleasure at the punitive spectacle. Offenders are typified as dangerous, set in their ways, not "one of us"; their interests stand in a zero-sum relation to those of victims and wider society. This is the philosophy that has in recent years underpinned spiralling incarceration rates, the criminalisation of young people, indeterminate sentences and public distaste for parole - indeed, for any disposal deemed "soft". It may be no accident that this punishment-centred vision of a safe society captured the imagination of our rulers at precisely the moment when they lost faith in political utopias of a more socially inclusive and generous kind. Safety has become the ideology of the post-ideological age; prison its modal institution.
High among the costs of this penal utopianism is its cost. There are here no limits to the size and scope of the system, no resources to prevent 81,547 inmates becoming but a station on the track to US-style mass imprisonment. This is the jumping-off point for an alternative public philosophy - one that wants the penal system to make good.
This perspective pinpoints the fact that the population under penal supervision is disproportionately from poor family backgrounds, with little education, and typically with drug and mental health problems - in other words, "troubled" as well as "troubling". On this view, the penal system should be a site, not merely of punishment but for providing the educational, health and related services that improve the chances of an individual leading a "good and useful life" (to cite prison rule number one) on returning to society.
Sometimes this philosophy is premised on the idea that society bears some responsibility for the breakages that have resulted in offending and has an obligation to repair the damage. In today's climate, it more often claims the mantle of public protection, contending that without remedial intervention the prison doors will keep revolving. The relationship between offenders, victims and wider society can, after all, be positive sum. The former may lack the material and psychological ingredients of a law-abiding existence, but they remain amenable to programmes that can enhance their life chances or change their behaviour. There is, in short, hope.
This has a powerful appeal. Yet it is not without pathologies. It can license interventions into the lives of offenders that are intrusive and disproportionate and deny rights. A benign system can also, paradoxically, encourage greater resort to penal measures, inflating expectations and leading it to deliver services that are better provided elsewhere.
Here the way is open for a third public philosophy. This rests on the observation that the penal system in general is a perennially failing institution. The watchword here is parsimony. We are wise to treat the penal system as a control agency of last resort. Better also to limit its necessarily damaging effects by creating institutions that treat inmates with dignity and respect. Offenders are, after all, citizens, and should have their human rights protected.
One variant of this position comes with a Treasury mindset: we should spend no more of the public purse than strictly necessary on a system that routinely fails to meet its crime reduction goals. Another highlights the truism that penal institutions play an important but ultimately peripheral role in the maintenance of social order, and that secure societies are sustained by wider processes of inclusion and regulation. In either case, the task has become one of talking people down from their attachment to a prison solution to crime. And in the current climate, it is a hard sell.
Yet this is the task that confronts us. We need to think much harder about the benefits of, and how to create the conditions for, a minimum necessary penal system. More than ever, we need to reflect on how - and how many and how much - to punish, so as to stimulate debate about the expansive penal system we have so carelessly created. For the way we treat offenders communicates a great deal about the kind of society that Britain is, or aspires to be.
· Ian Loader is professor of criminology at the University of Oxford and a member of the Commission on English Prisons Today
ian.loader@crim.ox.ac.uk
Appetite for vengeance coupled with political expediency has led to an overcrowded prison system that doesn't work
Ian Loader
Friday November 23, 2007
The Guardian
On Wednesday Jack Straw delivered a speech on the future of penal policy to the Howard League for Penal Reform. It was widely expected that the secretary of state for justice would say something significant, partly in response to the lord chief justice's recent acknowledgement that sentencing policies are placing an intolerable strain on our prisons. In fact, Straw's speech was benignly neutral. In the midst of the Northern Rock crises and the Revenue & Customs discs scandal, the risk of being depicted as "soft on crime" was too great and had to be avoided. Word from the Ministry of Justice was that "the political landscape has hardened".
Once again, political expediency foreclosed much-needed public debate about penal policy. We live in a society that punishes a great deal but thinks rather less about why it does so. As a result our prisons are bursting with 81,547 inmates, an outcome that few in government planned and fewer have a tenable strategy for resolving. It is an issue the Commission on English Prisons Today, established by the Howard League, is determined to do something about.
The question of why we punish brings forth a standard menu of justifications. We do so in retribution for past wrongs, to deter future crimes, incapacitate the dangerous, rehabilitate offenders or repair broken bonds. Yet this age-old scrutiny is today disconnected from the decision-making that determines the size and operations of the penal system, and from public sensibilities towards punishment. The result is a high-minded debate about ideals that exercises little purchase over penal culture and practice, and justifications which decorate rather than guide the system.
It may be better, instead, to start with public philosophies of punishment, locating the debate in places where citizens, professionals and politicians are, rather than where one might wish them to be. The noisiest such philosophy wants a system that does harm, in response to the harm offenders have inflicted on victims, or to signal that the behaviour being punished is not to be tolerated. The overarching rationale here is public protection, the dominant emotions crime-related anger and fear, vengeance towards criminals and, lest we forget, audience pleasure at the punitive spectacle. Offenders are typified as dangerous, set in their ways, not "one of us"; their interests stand in a zero-sum relation to those of victims and wider society. This is the philosophy that has in recent years underpinned spiralling incarceration rates, the criminalisation of young people, indeterminate sentences and public distaste for parole - indeed, for any disposal deemed "soft". It may be no accident that this punishment-centred vision of a safe society captured the imagination of our rulers at precisely the moment when they lost faith in political utopias of a more socially inclusive and generous kind. Safety has become the ideology of the post-ideological age; prison its modal institution.
High among the costs of this penal utopianism is its cost. There are here no limits to the size and scope of the system, no resources to prevent 81,547 inmates becoming but a station on the track to US-style mass imprisonment. This is the jumping-off point for an alternative public philosophy - one that wants the penal system to make good.
This perspective pinpoints the fact that the population under penal supervision is disproportionately from poor family backgrounds, with little education, and typically with drug and mental health problems - in other words, "troubled" as well as "troubling". On this view, the penal system should be a site, not merely of punishment but for providing the educational, health and related services that improve the chances of an individual leading a "good and useful life" (to cite prison rule number one) on returning to society.
Sometimes this philosophy is premised on the idea that society bears some responsibility for the breakages that have resulted in offending and has an obligation to repair the damage. In today's climate, it more often claims the mantle of public protection, contending that without remedial intervention the prison doors will keep revolving. The relationship between offenders, victims and wider society can, after all, be positive sum. The former may lack the material and psychological ingredients of a law-abiding existence, but they remain amenable to programmes that can enhance their life chances or change their behaviour. There is, in short, hope.
This has a powerful appeal. Yet it is not without pathologies. It can license interventions into the lives of offenders that are intrusive and disproportionate and deny rights. A benign system can also, paradoxically, encourage greater resort to penal measures, inflating expectations and leading it to deliver services that are better provided elsewhere.
Here the way is open for a third public philosophy. This rests on the observation that the penal system in general is a perennially failing institution. The watchword here is parsimony. We are wise to treat the penal system as a control agency of last resort. Better also to limit its necessarily damaging effects by creating institutions that treat inmates with dignity and respect. Offenders are, after all, citizens, and should have their human rights protected.
One variant of this position comes with a Treasury mindset: we should spend no more of the public purse than strictly necessary on a system that routinely fails to meet its crime reduction goals. Another highlights the truism that penal institutions play an important but ultimately peripheral role in the maintenance of social order, and that secure societies are sustained by wider processes of inclusion and regulation. In either case, the task has become one of talking people down from their attachment to a prison solution to crime. And in the current climate, it is a hard sell.
Yet this is the task that confronts us. We need to think much harder about the benefits of, and how to create the conditions for, a minimum necessary penal system. More than ever, we need to reflect on how - and how many and how much - to punish, so as to stimulate debate about the expansive penal system we have so carelessly created. For the way we treat offenders communicates a great deal about the kind of society that Britain is, or aspires to be.
· Ian Loader is professor of criminology at the University of Oxford and a member of the Commission on English Prisons Today
ian.loader@crim.ox.ac.uk
Thursday, November 22, 2007
If you ever wondered why America celebrates Thanksgiving Day...
If you ever wondered why America celebrates Thanksgiving Day...
This is definitely cause for celebration.
This is definitely cause for celebration.
Why am I not surprised?
Why am I not surprised?
Concern over prison overcrowding
"Scotland's jails are more overcrowded than ever, according to the chief inspector of prisons".
Man 'attempted sex with fence' in London park
Man 'attempted sex with fence' in London park
"A drunken man broke into a central London park and attempted to have sex with a fence, a court heard.
Daniel French, 24, made "sexual motions" towards metal railings in Leicester Square Gardens after being challenged by police in the early hours of Sunday morning, Westminster Magistrates' Court was told.
"He said words to the effect of: 'I'm going to have sex with that fence'," said Philip Lemoine, prosecuting".
Recently, we have had man has sex with a goat, man has sex with a pavement, and man has sex with a bike. Is there some kind of sexual revolution going on?
Peter Tobin attacked in prison
Peter Tobin attacked in prison
"Peter Tobin, the man charged with murdering Scottish schoolgirl Vicky Hamilton, has been attacked in prison.
The 61-year-old was taken to hospital yesterday with cuts and bruises after he was set upon in Edinburgh's Saughton jail by fellow inmates.
A Scottish Prison Service spokesman would only confirm that an incident took place at Saughton jail and that a prisoner has been taken to hospital".
One has to wonder why guards are paid to guard and yet they failed to guard against this?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
A victory for terrorism?
A victory for terrorism?
I think it is a disappointing that the House of Lords has ruled it as lawful for a terrorist suspect and his lawyer to be excluded from a hearing before a judge where an application for extending detention was being made.
I fail to see how a suspect or a legal representative can argue against a case which is heard in secret and denies them the opportunity of knowing the case against them that they have to meet.
In my view, its a victory for terrorism.
Hat-Tip to Head of Legal.
I think it is a disappointing that the House of Lords has ruled it as lawful for a terrorist suspect and his lawyer to be excluded from a hearing before a judge where an application for extending detention was being made.
I fail to see how a suspect or a legal representative can argue against a case which is heard in secret and denies them the opportunity of knowing the case against them that they have to meet.
In my view, its a victory for terrorism.
Hat-Tip to Head of Legal.
Legal Opinion: Verdict of the jury on the workings of the jury system
Legal Opinion: Verdict of the jury on the workings of the jury system
The jury system has long been lauded as the soundest means of securing a just verdict. But why, wonders Robert Verkaik, Law Editor, hasn't anyone bothered to check?
One of the great mysteries of our criminal justice system is what happens when the jury is shut away in the deliberation room considering its verdict. Centuries of received wisdom holds that trial by jury is the fairest and safest means of deciding between guilt and innocence. But if we haven't done the research to support this universally recognised truth, how can we be so sure?
Politicians have long realised that anything which risks undermining the jury has the potential to bring down a pillar of our criminal justice system. So it is perhaps little wonder that governments have been reluctant to open this particular Pandora's box.
The last politician to try was Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the previous Lord Chancellor, who in 2005 inched the door open to allow limited academic research of the deliberation process. But his proposal has yet to bear any fruit.
The most recent attempt to provide an understanding of the workings of the jury looked at how race affects verdicts. The results of the study were published in June this year and showed that black and ethnic minority jurors tend to show more leniency to black defendants than their white counterparts in court.
Yet this study was commissioned as long ago as 2002 and still failed to tackle the thornier question of how all-white juries view black and Asian defendants.
A survey published last week by the Courts Service has now thrown a little more light on the experience of jurors who were asked to gauge their own satisfaction of the court process. Researchers for Mori found that nearly 90 per cent of jurors polled were either very or fairly satisfied with their overall treatment by the Jury Central Summoning Bureau (JCSB).
Ninety-nine per cent of jurors were satisfied that they received their jury summons in good time, 91 per cent found it easy to complete, 97 per cent found the accompanying guidance helpful and 90 per cent received a response to their summons in good time.
And when the summoned jurors finally got to court they were equally satisfied with the treatment they received from court staff (93 per cent), the politeness of court staff (95 per cent), the helpfulness of court staff (95 per cent) and court staff treating them fairly and sensitively (92 per cent).
But as soon as the researchers started probing into more complex areas of jurors' experience the satisfaction levels started to fall. Of those jurors who had questions about their role, only 87 per cent were satisfied with the ability of court staff to deal with their query there and then. Of greater concern was that only 39 per cent of jurors were satisfied with the time they spent waiting to be selected for trial, although 75 per cent were satisfied that they were kept informed of any delay and 70 per cent were satisfied with information provided about the time spent waiting to be selected for a trial.
As soon as the questions start to get interesting the survey comes to abrupt halt. Would it really have offended the rules of contempt to ask an anonymous juror whether they had been satisfied with their own contribution to justice or even whether they thought the judge had given them clear directions? Such omissions gives the impression that the Courts Service has missed a trick. Or could it be that there is just too much at stake to risk any tampering with the jury system?
r.verkaik@ independent.co.uk
The jury system has long been lauded as the soundest means of securing a just verdict. But why, wonders Robert Verkaik, Law Editor, hasn't anyone bothered to check?
One of the great mysteries of our criminal justice system is what happens when the jury is shut away in the deliberation room considering its verdict. Centuries of received wisdom holds that trial by jury is the fairest and safest means of deciding between guilt and innocence. But if we haven't done the research to support this universally recognised truth, how can we be so sure?
Politicians have long realised that anything which risks undermining the jury has the potential to bring down a pillar of our criminal justice system. So it is perhaps little wonder that governments have been reluctant to open this particular Pandora's box.
The last politician to try was Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the previous Lord Chancellor, who in 2005 inched the door open to allow limited academic research of the deliberation process. But his proposal has yet to bear any fruit.
The most recent attempt to provide an understanding of the workings of the jury looked at how race affects verdicts. The results of the study were published in June this year and showed that black and ethnic minority jurors tend to show more leniency to black defendants than their white counterparts in court.
Yet this study was commissioned as long ago as 2002 and still failed to tackle the thornier question of how all-white juries view black and Asian defendants.
A survey published last week by the Courts Service has now thrown a little more light on the experience of jurors who were asked to gauge their own satisfaction of the court process. Researchers for Mori found that nearly 90 per cent of jurors polled were either very or fairly satisfied with their overall treatment by the Jury Central Summoning Bureau (JCSB).
Ninety-nine per cent of jurors were satisfied that they received their jury summons in good time, 91 per cent found it easy to complete, 97 per cent found the accompanying guidance helpful and 90 per cent received a response to their summons in good time.
And when the summoned jurors finally got to court they were equally satisfied with the treatment they received from court staff (93 per cent), the politeness of court staff (95 per cent), the helpfulness of court staff (95 per cent) and court staff treating them fairly and sensitively (92 per cent).
But as soon as the researchers started probing into more complex areas of jurors' experience the satisfaction levels started to fall. Of those jurors who had questions about their role, only 87 per cent were satisfied with the ability of court staff to deal with their query there and then. Of greater concern was that only 39 per cent of jurors were satisfied with the time they spent waiting to be selected for trial, although 75 per cent were satisfied that they were kept informed of any delay and 70 per cent were satisfied with information provided about the time spent waiting to be selected for a trial.
As soon as the questions start to get interesting the survey comes to abrupt halt. Would it really have offended the rules of contempt to ask an anonymous juror whether they had been satisfied with their own contribution to justice or even whether they thought the judge had given them clear directions? Such omissions gives the impression that the Courts Service has missed a trick. Or could it be that there is just too much at stake to risk any tampering with the jury system?
r.verkaik@ independent.co.uk
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
McCannorama
McCannorama
Last night I watched "The Mystery of Madeleine McCann" - A Panorama Special. I was not disappointed because I fully expected that it would be biased in favour of the McCanns version of events. The BBC did make a little bit of an effort to create some semblance of balance, but overall the scales were weighted in favour of the McCanns.
The McCanns opted for trial by media, the old best form of defence is attack approach, it meant that the Defence speaks out before the Prosecution state its case. This unusual get in first approach raises the question why. I suspect it has to do with guilt. I find it annoying that the McCanns chose to go to the media, and then criticise the media when the media starts questioning the McCanns version of events and judging them.
Jane Tanner did not come across as a witness who could be believed. She has switched her story more times than a chameleon changing colour. And, I find it odd that Gerry McCann went to play tennis at 6pm with Jeremy Wilkins and then asks him to look in on Kate and the children at 6.30pm. Why? Especially, when Gerry McCann returned to the apartment at 7pm. It would appear that Gerry could not trust Kate to look after the children for half an hour without checking up on her.
What a surprise that the private detective agency employed by the McCanns have come up with a lead that leads the chase away from the McCann camp.
Last night I watched "The Mystery of Madeleine McCann" - A Panorama Special. I was not disappointed because I fully expected that it would be biased in favour of the McCanns version of events. The BBC did make a little bit of an effort to create some semblance of balance, but overall the scales were weighted in favour of the McCanns.
The McCanns opted for trial by media, the old best form of defence is attack approach, it meant that the Defence speaks out before the Prosecution state its case. This unusual get in first approach raises the question why. I suspect it has to do with guilt. I find it annoying that the McCanns chose to go to the media, and then criticise the media when the media starts questioning the McCanns version of events and judging them.
Jane Tanner did not come across as a witness who could be believed. She has switched her story more times than a chameleon changing colour. And, I find it odd that Gerry McCann went to play tennis at 6pm with Jeremy Wilkins and then asks him to look in on Kate and the children at 6.30pm. Why? Especially, when Gerry McCann returned to the apartment at 7pm. It would appear that Gerry could not trust Kate to look after the children for half an hour without checking up on her.
What a surprise that the private detective agency employed by the McCanns have come up with a lead that leads the chase away from the McCann camp.
Langham says child porn viewings compassionate
Langham says child porn viewings compassionate
The comedy actor Chris Langham today claimed he was being "compassionate and sympathetic" when he looked at the child porn that put him in prison.
It would appear that prison did not work in the case of Chris Langham. He did not serve long enough to address his offending behaviour. He still sees himself as the victim. I suspect that this is a classic case of being in self-denial. It is a pity that Chris Langham missed the opportunity to engage in group therapy sessions which are undertaken at H.M.Prison Grendon Underwood. He should have been thrown into the thick of it rather than enjoy an easy ride.
The comedy actor Chris Langham today claimed he was being "compassionate and sympathetic" when he looked at the child porn that put him in prison.
It would appear that prison did not work in the case of Chris Langham. He did not serve long enough to address his offending behaviour. He still sees himself as the victim. I suspect that this is a classic case of being in self-denial. It is a pity that Chris Langham missed the opportunity to engage in group therapy sessions which are undertaken at H.M.Prison Grendon Underwood. He should have been thrown into the thick of it rather than enjoy an easy ride.
Shooting victim is jailed for refusing to help police
Shooting victim is jailed for refusing to help police
A shooting victim who repeatedly misled police because he was terrified about retribution from his attackers was jailed yesterday for perverting the course of justice.
Sanjeev Bhanot, who was almost killed when a bullet tore through his stomach a year ago, had to be helped to the court cells after a judge was told that he still refused to tell the truth about the incident in the north London suburb of Harrow.
Article continues
Sending the 29-year-old businessman to prison for three months, Judge Christopher Elwen said a prison sentence was essential "in the current circumstances of gun crime in London".
A shooting victim who repeatedly misled police because he was terrified about retribution from his attackers was jailed yesterday for perverting the course of justice.
Sanjeev Bhanot, who was almost killed when a bullet tore through his stomach a year ago, had to be helped to the court cells after a judge was told that he still refused to tell the truth about the incident in the north London suburb of Harrow.
Article continues
Sending the 29-year-old businessman to prison for three months, Judge Christopher Elwen said a prison sentence was essential "in the current circumstances of gun crime in London".
Khmer Rouge prison chief faces court
Khmer Rouge prison chief faces court
The head of the Khmer Rouge's most notorious prison appeared in front of a tribunal in the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh, today, accused of crimes against humanity.
It was the first public appearance before the UN-backed court by a top Khmer Rouge official since the regime inflicted mass slaughter on its own people 30 years ago.
The head of the Khmer Rouge's most notorious prison appeared in front of a tribunal in the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh, today, accused of crimes against humanity.
It was the first public appearance before the UN-backed court by a top Khmer Rouge official since the regime inflicted mass slaughter on its own people 30 years ago.
Police chief steps down over cash inquiry
Police chief steps down over cash inquiry
An outspoken chief constable has retired after it emerged that he was being investigated over financial irregularities. Terry Grange, 58, stood down as the head of Dyfed-Powys Police with immediate effect. He had held the post since March 2000.
A statement from the force's governing police authority said yesterday: "Mr Grange had indicated that he had allowed his private life to interfere with his professional role as chief constable. This has led the authority to consider the chief constable's position and it was considered to be appropriate to accept his retirement."
The announcement came as the Independent Police Complaints Commission confirmed it was investigating alleged financial irregularities and misuse use of the force's computers.
Last year, Mr Grange was criticised by children's charities after he argued that men who had sex with girls of 13 or over should not be classed as paedophiles. He also reportedly said all drug barons should be "put up against the wall and shot".
Lembit Opik, the Liberal Democrat MP for Montgomeryshire, said he was "gobsmacked" by Mr Grange's decision to retire, adding: "I wish Terry the best for the future."
An outspoken chief constable has retired after it emerged that he was being investigated over financial irregularities. Terry Grange, 58, stood down as the head of Dyfed-Powys Police with immediate effect. He had held the post since March 2000.
A statement from the force's governing police authority said yesterday: "Mr Grange had indicated that he had allowed his private life to interfere with his professional role as chief constable. This has led the authority to consider the chief constable's position and it was considered to be appropriate to accept his retirement."
The announcement came as the Independent Police Complaints Commission confirmed it was investigating alleged financial irregularities and misuse use of the force's computers.
Last year, Mr Grange was criticised by children's charities after he argued that men who had sex with girls of 13 or over should not be classed as paedophiles. He also reportedly said all drug barons should be "put up against the wall and shot".
Lembit Opik, the Liberal Democrat MP for Montgomeryshire, said he was "gobsmacked" by Mr Grange's decision to retire, adding: "I wish Terry the best for the future."
Dominic Lawson: The progressive case for imprisonment
Dominic Lawson: The progressive case for imprisonment
To withhold a jail sentence on grounds unrelated to the law is not justice but hotel management
You can't please all of the judges all of the time. The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Phillips, has declared that too many people are being sent to prison, and that the system cannot cope. "We can not go on like this" he thunders.
Yet earlier this year, when Dr John Reid told judges that they should send only "the most dangerous" criminals to prison, because of the overcrowding of our jails, the then Home Secretary was immediately attacked by judges outraged at his suggestion. Judge Richard Bray of Northampton Crown Court was typical of these, declaring "I am well aware that there is overcrowding in the prison and detention centres; that is not going to stop me passing proper sentences in each case."
Lord Phillips and Judge Bray are both right. Our prisons are full to bursting point; but to refrain from giving a custodial sentence on grounds which have nothing to do with the law is not justice but hotel management. Actually, hotel owners would have been much more rational. If they had instituted policies which were going to increase the number of people dropping in, they would simultaneously have invested to increase the number of beds available, such as by building a large number of new hotels.
Over the past 10 years the Labour Government has introduced no fewer than 24 Criminal Justice measures, many of which have had the effect of increasing sentences – but has been strangely amazed by the extent to which such measures have increased the prison population. What is especially bizarre is that it had decided to maintain the approach to dealing with crime pioneered by Mr Michael Howard – "Prison works" – while cutting back on the prison building programme which the Conservatives had planned.
Successive Labour Home Secretaries have complained privately that they have wanted to build more prisons, but that the then Chancellor Gordon Brown had refused to allocate the necessary funds. Indeed, Charles Clarke, when he was Home Secretary, told me that he had fought off a move by the Treasury which would have forced judges to consider "the financial cost of any likely sentence" before making their decision. Can you imagine what our judges would have made of that suggestion?
Yet Lord Phillips, in his speech last week, surprisingly seemed to endorse this dangerous notion that punishment should fit the fiscal purse rather than the crime. He warned that locking up a murderer for 30 years means investing £1m in his punishment. I fear that Lord Phillips is being slightly disingenuous here: in an earlier speech he indicated his disgust at such long sentences for even the most violent of crimes, arguing that in future such lengthy terms of imprisonment would be seen to be "as barbaric as the cat o'nine tails."
Well, barbarism comes in many forms. For example, there is the case of Damien Hanson, who had been sentenced to 12 years for attempted murder (with a machete), but released after six years by the Parole Board – they were most impressed by the anger management course he had attended. A few months after his release in 1994, during a carefully planned burglary, he repeatedly stabbed John Monckton and his wife Homeyra – in front of their little daughter. John died, and Homeyra survived – but with appalling injuries. Perhaps I am over-sensitive, because John was my wife's cousin, but I don't regard the 36-year sentence which was subsequently passed on Hanson as "barbaric" – and it was certainly less barbaric than the consequences of his early release, however much that might have appealed to Lord Phillips' refined sensibilities.
The Lord Chief Justice is also being disingenuous when he protests that sentencing ought to reflect the overcrowded nature of our prisons. It already does: the very first commandment in the Compendium of the Sentencing Guidelines Council – of which he is chairman – states that "in view of the dangerous overcrowding of prisons, where a sentence of imprisonment is necessary, it should be as short as possible, consistent with public protection." Indeed, it is for the same reason that all those who have sentences of four years or less are automatically released after serving half their time, regardless of their conduct in prison.
One of the consequences of this is that a very large number of criminals now serve sentences of a year or less, which Lord Phillips and many others regard as a pointless and disruptive exercise. He and they may well be right – but are they seriously suggesting that nobody should be given a prison sentence of less than a year? Or two years? Let them tell us what they think should be the minimum term of incarceration. I hope it will not be too barbaric.
On the day after the Lord Chief Justice's speech I had the interesting experience of addressing a seminar entitled "Britain Behind Bars", held by the liberal think-tank CentreForum. I had the impression that I might have been the only person there who did not feel that a high prison population was the manifestation of a deeply reactionary policy. I suggested to "Britain Behind Bars" that there is another way of looking at it. The Government Survey of Personal Incomes shows that the bottom 50 per cent of earners contributes 10 per cent of all income tax, with the other 90 per cent coming from the highest-earning 50 per cent. By contrast, crime and its costs fall disproportionately – massively so – on the poorer areas of our towns and cities. Given the undeniable fact that when a criminal is in jail he cannot continue to attack his community, it is clear that an increase in prison spaces is the most dramatic way in which the better off in society can pay to make the lives of the least-well-off more bearable.
The thought of so many people in prison seems a bleak indictment of our society – but there is no such thing as an optimum level of incarceration. Our rate of imprisonment per 1,000 crimes is actually below the European average. Lord Phillips appears to argue that one of the sources of our greater criminality lies in the collapse of the family unit: he said that we should devote "more effort to tackling family breakdown". In this, he is absolutely right – but don't judges have enough to worry about, without becoming social workers in wigs?
d.lawson@ independent.co.uk
To withhold a jail sentence on grounds unrelated to the law is not justice but hotel management
You can't please all of the judges all of the time. The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Phillips, has declared that too many people are being sent to prison, and that the system cannot cope. "We can not go on like this" he thunders.
Yet earlier this year, when Dr John Reid told judges that they should send only "the most dangerous" criminals to prison, because of the overcrowding of our jails, the then Home Secretary was immediately attacked by judges outraged at his suggestion. Judge Richard Bray of Northampton Crown Court was typical of these, declaring "I am well aware that there is overcrowding in the prison and detention centres; that is not going to stop me passing proper sentences in each case."
Lord Phillips and Judge Bray are both right. Our prisons are full to bursting point; but to refrain from giving a custodial sentence on grounds which have nothing to do with the law is not justice but hotel management. Actually, hotel owners would have been much more rational. If they had instituted policies which were going to increase the number of people dropping in, they would simultaneously have invested to increase the number of beds available, such as by building a large number of new hotels.
Over the past 10 years the Labour Government has introduced no fewer than 24 Criminal Justice measures, many of which have had the effect of increasing sentences – but has been strangely amazed by the extent to which such measures have increased the prison population. What is especially bizarre is that it had decided to maintain the approach to dealing with crime pioneered by Mr Michael Howard – "Prison works" – while cutting back on the prison building programme which the Conservatives had planned.
Successive Labour Home Secretaries have complained privately that they have wanted to build more prisons, but that the then Chancellor Gordon Brown had refused to allocate the necessary funds. Indeed, Charles Clarke, when he was Home Secretary, told me that he had fought off a move by the Treasury which would have forced judges to consider "the financial cost of any likely sentence" before making their decision. Can you imagine what our judges would have made of that suggestion?
Yet Lord Phillips, in his speech last week, surprisingly seemed to endorse this dangerous notion that punishment should fit the fiscal purse rather than the crime. He warned that locking up a murderer for 30 years means investing £1m in his punishment. I fear that Lord Phillips is being slightly disingenuous here: in an earlier speech he indicated his disgust at such long sentences for even the most violent of crimes, arguing that in future such lengthy terms of imprisonment would be seen to be "as barbaric as the cat o'nine tails."
Well, barbarism comes in many forms. For example, there is the case of Damien Hanson, who had been sentenced to 12 years for attempted murder (with a machete), but released after six years by the Parole Board – they were most impressed by the anger management course he had attended. A few months after his release in 1994, during a carefully planned burglary, he repeatedly stabbed John Monckton and his wife Homeyra – in front of their little daughter. John died, and Homeyra survived – but with appalling injuries. Perhaps I am over-sensitive, because John was my wife's cousin, but I don't regard the 36-year sentence which was subsequently passed on Hanson as "barbaric" – and it was certainly less barbaric than the consequences of his early release, however much that might have appealed to Lord Phillips' refined sensibilities.
The Lord Chief Justice is also being disingenuous when he protests that sentencing ought to reflect the overcrowded nature of our prisons. It already does: the very first commandment in the Compendium of the Sentencing Guidelines Council – of which he is chairman – states that "in view of the dangerous overcrowding of prisons, where a sentence of imprisonment is necessary, it should be as short as possible, consistent with public protection." Indeed, it is for the same reason that all those who have sentences of four years or less are automatically released after serving half their time, regardless of their conduct in prison.
One of the consequences of this is that a very large number of criminals now serve sentences of a year or less, which Lord Phillips and many others regard as a pointless and disruptive exercise. He and they may well be right – but are they seriously suggesting that nobody should be given a prison sentence of less than a year? Or two years? Let them tell us what they think should be the minimum term of incarceration. I hope it will not be too barbaric.
On the day after the Lord Chief Justice's speech I had the interesting experience of addressing a seminar entitled "Britain Behind Bars", held by the liberal think-tank CentreForum. I had the impression that I might have been the only person there who did not feel that a high prison population was the manifestation of a deeply reactionary policy. I suggested to "Britain Behind Bars" that there is another way of looking at it. The Government Survey of Personal Incomes shows that the bottom 50 per cent of earners contributes 10 per cent of all income tax, with the other 90 per cent coming from the highest-earning 50 per cent. By contrast, crime and its costs fall disproportionately – massively so – on the poorer areas of our towns and cities. Given the undeniable fact that when a criminal is in jail he cannot continue to attack his community, it is clear that an increase in prison spaces is the most dramatic way in which the better off in society can pay to make the lives of the least-well-off more bearable.
The thought of so many people in prison seems a bleak indictment of our society – but there is no such thing as an optimum level of incarceration. Our rate of imprisonment per 1,000 crimes is actually below the European average. Lord Phillips appears to argue that one of the sources of our greater criminality lies in the collapse of the family unit: he said that we should devote "more effort to tackling family breakdown". In this, he is absolutely right – but don't judges have enough to worry about, without becoming social workers in wigs?
d.lawson@ independent.co.uk
Monday, November 19, 2007
Believe me. This is a crisis
Believe me. This is a crisis
Experts keep warning us of the overcrowding crisis in UK jails. Don't switch off - they're right
People must be sick and tired of hearing about the crisis in our prisons. Many must think that things have been exaggerated, it can't have been that bad for that long, or that the prison service has simply found a way of coping with the pressure it is under, somehow or another it will always manage to keep the lid on. After all, the prison system as a whole has been overcrowded in every year since 1994. Now though, as the Lord Chief Justice has just warned, the social and economic costs are become just too great to bear. It's come to the crunch on prison costs and prison numbers.
Experts keep warning us of the overcrowding crisis in UK jails. Don't switch off - they're right
People must be sick and tired of hearing about the crisis in our prisons. Many must think that things have been exaggerated, it can't have been that bad for that long, or that the prison service has simply found a way of coping with the pressure it is under, somehow or another it will always manage to keep the lid on. After all, the prison system as a whole has been overcrowded in every year since 1994. Now though, as the Lord Chief Justice has just warned, the social and economic costs are become just too great to bear. It's come to the crunch on prison costs and prison numbers.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Birthday today
Birthday today
Invited out to dinner at 6pm. For now a bath and a shave before suiting up.
No more blogging today.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
McCanns: Prosecuted for child neglect
McCanns: Prosecuted for child neglect
I am glad to see that someone has decided to launch a private prosecution against the child killers of Rothley, Gerry and Kate McCann, for child neglect. The couple left their 3 year old daughter and 2 year old twins for 3 hours unsupervised by any adult whilst they went out for a meal and drinks session at a Tapas Bar.
The summons ordering Gerry and Kate McCann to appear in the Magistrate's court has been issued by Anthony Bennett, 60, who is a solicitor. He got fed up of the authorities failure to act against the McCanns even though there is evidence that they have committed at least 8 criminal offences.
Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns spin doctor, claims that the couple have not committed any criminal offences under UK or any other country's law. However, he would claim that because that is what he is paid to say by the McCanns. Clarence Mitchell is a spin doctor and not a lawyer.
Mr Bennett is hoping that the prosecution would be taken on by Leicestershire County Council Social Services department or by Leicestershire Police.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Blogsclusive: "The Odd Couple" Blair and Prescott team up again in Hull
Blogsclusive: "The Odd Couple" Blair and Prescott team up again in Hull
"The Odd Couple", Tony Blair and John Prescott have got back together again tonight in Hull to attend a fund raising dinner organised by Alan Johnson.
"The Odd Couple", Tony Blair and John Prescott have got back together again tonight in Hull to attend a fund raising dinner organised by Alan Johnson.
Abu Hamza could face extradition
Abu Hamza could face extradition
The Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri can be extradited to the US to face terrorism charges, a court has ruled.
Egyptian-born Hamza is currently serving a seven-year jail term in the UK for inciting murder and race hate.
The 49-year-old from west London is wanted by the American authorities on 11 charges.
The City of Westminster Magistrates Court approved the extradition, but the decision has to be ratified by the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith.
Guardian report here.
Personally, I don't agree with America setting itself up as the world court on such issues. And, I think it is questionable that a judge in this country is prepared to extradite someone to America with its bad human rights record in relation to murder, kidnapping and torturing of inmates held without charge and trial in Guantanamo Bay.
The Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri can be extradited to the US to face terrorism charges, a court has ruled.
Egyptian-born Hamza is currently serving a seven-year jail term in the UK for inciting murder and race hate.
The 49-year-old from west London is wanted by the American authorities on 11 charges.
The City of Westminster Magistrates Court approved the extradition, but the decision has to be ratified by the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith.
Guardian report here.
Personally, I don't agree with America setting itself up as the world court on such issues. And, I think it is questionable that a judge in this country is prepared to extradite someone to America with its bad human rights record in relation to murder, kidnapping and torturing of inmates held without charge and trial in Guantanamo Bay.
Barry George wins appeal over Dando murder
Barry George wins appeal over Dando murder
Barry George has won an appeal against his conviction for the murder of TV presenter Jill Dando. He will now face a re-trial.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Brown: You will do as I say or else go West
Brown: You will do as I say or else go West
If the government has compelling reasons for extending internment from 28 to 56 days, then why has it not been made public?
This morning one of the government of many talents the Security minister Lord West told the Today Programme "I want to be totally convinced because I am not going to go and push for something that actually affects the liberty of the individual unless there is a real necessity for it".
Lord West was then summoned to Number Ten Downing Street and told to either go straight outside and change what he had said by 180 degrees or face the sack. He chose to keep his job but lost his integrity in the process.
If Lord West was able to be convinced after half an hour at Number Ten, why is the House of Commons going through this charade of a consultation process? It is patently clear that Gordon Brown has already made up his mind on this issue.
Therefore, I feel that if he feels so strongly about depriving people of their liberties then he should make it a vote of confidence.
'Virtual theft' leads to arrest
'Virtual theft' leads to arrest
A Dutch teenager has been arrested for allegedly stealing virtual furniture from "rooms" in Habbo Hotel, a 3D social networking website.
Now, let me get this right. Some idiot pays someone £2,840 for non-existent furniture to put into a non-existent hotel. Some kid comes along and is accused of stealing the non-existent furniture and the police are investigating the non-existing theft. With all the crimes in the real world to solve wouldn't the police be better investigating these than wasting time getting involved with a virtual world?
Man who had sex with bicycle sentenced
Man who had sex with bicycle sentenced
A "cycle-sexualist" caught half-naked in a compromising position with his bicycle has been put on probation for three years.
Obviously a Bone Shaker...
I don't think this is what Norman Tebbit had in mind when he said get on your bike.
Ga-ga over gas?
Ga-ga over gas?
I am wondering what is happening. The last half a dozen or so times lately, I have forgotten to turn the gas off on the cooker after I have used it. I used to do this automatically before I removed the pan or the food from the pan. As it is only on low heat it does not waste much money, or the cooking oil doesn't burst into flames. Still, its a worrying development and has me wondering if I am beginning to go slightly ga-ga.
I am wondering what is happening. The last half a dozen or so times lately, I have forgotten to turn the gas off on the cooker after I have used it. I used to do this automatically before I removed the pan or the food from the pan. As it is only on low heat it does not waste much money, or the cooking oil doesn't burst into flames. Still, its a worrying development and has me wondering if I am beginning to go slightly ga-ga.
Phone calls 'cut jail suicides'
Ministers win Darfur court appeal
Ministers win Darfur court appeal
Ministers have won an appeal against a court ruling which could have widened the grounds for being given asylum.
The Law Lords upheld Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's complaint about the Court of Appeal's decision to overturn a tribunal ruling.
The tribunal said sending refugees to camps in the Sudanese region of Darfur was not "unduly harsh" resettlement.
Ministers have won an appeal against a court ruling which could have widened the grounds for being given asylum.
The Law Lords upheld Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's complaint about the Court of Appeal's decision to overturn a tribunal ruling.
The tribunal said sending refugees to camps in the Sudanese region of Darfur was not "unduly harsh" resettlement.
Yahoo settles jailed Chinese journalists lawsuit
Yahoo settles jailed Chinese journalists lawsuit
Yahoo has settled a lawsuit with two Chinese journalists who were jailed for ten years after the internet company provided Chinese authorities with information about their online activities.
This is, indeed, good news. It is a pity that Yahoo had to be shamed in Congress before the company accepted moral responsibility for its actions. Yahoo countered that "the US government should do more to lobby for political prisoners". I agree, but let's not forget the political prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay. And whilst we are at it, China should be made to realise that sending emails advocating democratic reform and a multiparty system in the Peoples Republic of China does not constitute an "incitement to subvert state power".
The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has misled Parliament
The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has misled Parliament
According to Jacqui Smith her dilemma was;
'What should I do about it?' versus 'What should I say about it?'.
"Concerns were first raised in April by the Border and Immigration Agency, after it found 44 illegals working for a security company, including 12 who were guarding locations for the Metropolitan Police".
So, the Home Office was aware at least as early as April of this year that some illegal immigrants were working as security guards. In May 2007, John Reid announced his intention to resign from the post of Home Secretary and the Cabinet when Tony Blair left office, and stated he planned to return to the Labour backbenches. Jacqui Smith was appointed Home Secretary in Gordon Brown's first Cabinet reshuffle of 28 June 2007. The next day there was the failed terrorist attack in London, and the day after that the bit more successful terrorist attack at Glasgow Airport. I think it is quite reasonable during these incidents not to drag skeletons out of the cupboard.
However, I think that the Guardian is being rather too generous to talk about Jacqui Smith being informed within weeks of her taking up her post. I would argue that she was informed within days. If she was not briefed heads would roll. Quite apart from that, there is this "On July 2, the SIA introduced a new check on the immigration status of all non-Europeans applying for a licence to work as a security guard, resulting in the rejection of 740 out of 32,500 applicants since that date". It is clear evidence that the Home Office was already addressing the question of 'What should I do about it?'. It is obvious that the revelation is politically embarrassing. It is equally obvious that the Home Office sought to cover this up. And the evidence is contained in the emails published by the Daily Mail. So, we come to Jacqui Smith's second question 'What should I say about it?'. The advice she received said "say nothing". She followed this advice until the emails were leaked, and as Jeremy Paxman put it on Newsnight, "She was dragged kicking and screaming to make her statement in the House of Commons".
In my view, Jacqui Smith has misled Parliament and the public with the false either or questions. True, the Home Office may not know the scale of the problem. However, given the protecting the public policy the problem should not have occurred in the first place. It is sidestepping the issue to blame private security firms, although I find it incredible that part of the employment process did not include a 10 year checkable work history as standard. The fact remains that the Home Office has driven a coach and horses through its own security policy and breached security. As the minister responsible is Jacqui Smith she must resign.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Blogger against extending detention limit
Tory Party distances itself from Aitken by setting up a separate inquiry into prisons
Tory Party distances itself from Aitken by setting up a separate inquiry into prisons
"The Conservative party is to launch an official inquiry into the failing prison system that is separate to the one being led by the disgraced cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken. The official party inquiry will examine overcrowding, and how more of the mentally ill and drug abusers can be kept out of prison, so reducing the pressure on the jail population".
It would appear that the Tory Party has lost its bottle over the controversial appointment of Jonathan Aitken to chair an inquiry into prisons by the Tory think tank the Centre for Social Justice. I don't see the purpose of setting up a separate inquiry save for its damage limitation value.
Instead of a product on a supermarket shelf with the added or no added sugar variety, we can have the prison inquiry with the added Jonathan Aitken or the no added Jonathan Aitken.
Perhaps, the Tory Party cannot bear to support a measure which is supported by the Guardian here?
"The Conservative party is to launch an official inquiry into the failing prison system that is separate to the one being led by the disgraced cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken. The official party inquiry will examine overcrowding, and how more of the mentally ill and drug abusers can be kept out of prison, so reducing the pressure on the jail population".
It would appear that the Tory Party has lost its bottle over the controversial appointment of Jonathan Aitken to chair an inquiry into prisons by the Tory think tank the Centre for Social Justice. I don't see the purpose of setting up a separate inquiry save for its damage limitation value.
Instead of a product on a supermarket shelf with the added or no added sugar variety, we can have the prison inquiry with the added Jonathan Aitken or the no added Jonathan Aitken.
Perhaps, the Tory Party cannot bear to support a measure which is supported by the Guardian here?
Can Smith see off 'spin' charge?
Can Smith see off 'spin' charge?
"It is hard to keep count of the number of Home Office ministers who have found themselves hauled before the Commons to explain themselves over one "crisis" or another. It seems to go with the territory".
I can't help thinking that if the Home Office had concentrated more on checking the security credentials of illegal immigrants obtaining jobs in the private security sector, and concentrated less on the effort to increase internment for suspected terrorists from 28 to 56 days, then they might have seen the wood rather than the trees?
Monday, November 12, 2007
Peers help themselves to £300 a day tax-free
Peers help themselves to £300 a day tax-free
"Hundreds of peers are exploiting a loophole on expenses to give themselves a tax free income of up to £48,000 a year, The Times has found.
Rules agreed by Parliament allow members of the House of Lords to claim up to £308 a day to pay for meals, hotels, taxis and other travel expenses associated with their role.
But peers do not have to submit receipts and an analysis of their expenses shows that nearly two thirds automatically claim the maximum almost every time they visit the Lords".
It's alright for some. Nice work if you can get it. This is not just fiddling a few bob on expenses. This is bloody daylight robbery.
"Hundreds of peers are exploiting a loophole on expenses to give themselves a tax free income of up to £48,000 a year, The Times has found.
Rules agreed by Parliament allow members of the House of Lords to claim up to £308 a day to pay for meals, hotels, taxis and other travel expenses associated with their role.
But peers do not have to submit receipts and an analysis of their expenses shows that nearly two thirds automatically claim the maximum almost every time they visit the Lords".
It's alright for some. Nice work if you can get it. This is not just fiddling a few bob on expenses. This is bloody daylight robbery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)