Why Sara Payne should walk away

Why Sara Payne should walk away



Sara Payne starts work as Victims' Champion

"She insists that she will walk away if she is not achieving what she wants"
.

Sara Payne states: "I will do everything I can to make victims the forefront of people's minds. Let's look after those people. Because it's our job to, all of our jobs to, isn't it?".

"The applicant in the present case lost his right to vote as the result of the imposition of an automatic and blanket restriction on convicted prisoners’ franchise and may therefore claim to be a victim of the measure".

Sara Payne, how about championing this victim? If you are not up to the job...

Ministry of Justice in prisoner discrimination scandal

Ministry of Justice in prisoner discrimination scandal

Millions of Iraqis have voted in the first election since 2005, with hardly any violence reported in the first few hours of the vote.

Normally, I would not bother to blog about an election in Iraq. However, you may have noticed that I have got this bug up my arse at the moment in relation to the General Election and a citizen's human right to vote, which includes convicted prisoners. Last night, whilst conducting research, in the Baghdad Observer, I discovered this snippet of news.

"Today was special voting day. Prisoners with a term of five years or less, hospital employees and security forces went to the polls on Wednesday in advance of Saturday's provincial elections in Iraq".

Why I think it is important is because under US and UK rule, prisoners serving 5 years or less have been given the human right to vote. Whereas in the UK, the government is plotting to give our prisoners serving 12 months or less the human right to vote, if at all.

Perhaps, the Ministry of Justice would like to make a public statement to justify this discrepancy and state why our convicted prisoners are being subjected to such blatant discrimination?

A trip down memory lane

A trip down memory lane

Prisoners lose landmark court vote case

Three prisoners today lost their landmark High Court battle to be allowed to vote.

Their case, against the 1983 Representation of the People Act, was unanimously rejected by two senior judges in London.

Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Garland said the men's case had been too simplistic and the issue of prisoners voting "is plainly a matter for Parliament and not for the courts".

If successful, the case would have allowed the UK's 64,000 prisoners to vote at elections.

The inmates – a drug smuggler, an arsonist and a man serving life for manslaughter – said the 1983 Act was incompatible with their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, as set out in the 1998 Human Rights Act.

Lord Justice Kennedy said: "As the Home Secretary said, Parliament has taken the view that for the period during which they are in custody convicted prisoners have forfeited their right to have a say in the way the country is governed."

There was a "broad spectrum" among democratic societies over whether or not prisoners should have the vote, and the UK "falls into the middle of the spectrum".

The judge said that, in the course of time, the position might move – "but its position in the spectrum is plainly a matter for Parliament, not for the courts".

The prisoners who launched today's application for judicial review were Anthony Pearson, serving 10 years for importing drugs; Richard Martinez, serving life after being convicted in 1996 of arson with intent to endanger life; and John Hirst, serving life at Nottingham prison for manslaughter.

Edward Fitzgerald QC, for two of the inmates, asked for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal "because of the importance of the issues to many thousands of potential voters".

But the judge, who agreed that matters of "high constitutional importance" had been raised, rejected the application.


For those of you who are ignorant of this case, one thing is for sure the two judges were wrong to dismiss it as being too simplistic. I felt that the judges were trying to insult my intelligence, and not giving me any credit for my study of English law. However, let's put my feeling aside for now, because Charles Falconer later stated the case was anything but simplistic. "On 2 February 2006 the Lord Chancellor announced in a written statement that there would be a public consultation about prisoners’ voting rights following the recent ECtHR judgment:
The recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hirst, concerning prisoners' voting rights, has raised a number of difficult and complex issues which need careful consideration
". Charles Falconer was also wrong to make his claim.

I won't insult the judges intelligence. It should have been a simple matter for them to declare the obvious, that is, that section 3 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1983 is incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention. The former denies a human right which the latter has granted. Any fool can see the difference between them. Here we have two qualified, professional, judges who arrived at the wrong decision. In my view, it was not a mistake. Rather, it was a deliberate attempt by judges, who's job it is to dispense justice, to deny 3 prisoners justice. They went out of their way in order not to reach a legal or judicial decision, and instead made a political decision. If they had desired to reach a political decision why didn't they instead become part of the Executive rather than join the Judiciary? Under English law we have a Separation of Powers so that balances and checks are supposed to protect the citizen from abuse of power by an arm of the state. When the Executive and the Judiciary conspire to join forces against the individual citizen, I would suggest that other citizens start to get concerned. Because if it can happen to me it can just as easily happen to you.

Now, let's look at what Charles Falconer has said. There is nothing preventing the government from holding a public consultation exercise. However, if one is held then it has to meet certain legal standards of fairness and not be flawed. In my view, the one arranged by Charles Falconer is unlawful. I cannot state the reasons for this right now because it is to be the subject of a Judicial Review, and I have no intention of assisting the government lawyers by giving them the opportunity to prepare a defence until I am required by law to provide them with my grounds for them to peruse. Personally, I cannot see the point of a public consultation exercise in this particular case. The UK government has been bound to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights since 1953. Under the Convention, the UK must comply with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The Court has stated that section 3 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1983 is incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention. The UK is required to take the necessary steps to amend the law which has led to the violation of my human rights. The Court was quite specific that I was a victim. If the situation is not remedied in time for the next General Election there could well be over 50,000 such victims. What Charles Falconer should have said is that the government are trying to make it appear to be more complex and difficult than it really is. This is because MPs feel that by giving votes to prisoners, the MPs themselves will lose votes from their constituents. In other words, its not a vote winner for them. So, they have decided collectively to deny convicted prisoners their human right to vote for their own greedy ends. I will give the Courts and government until 17-19 March 2009 to remedy the situation or face the consequences.

Has the government denied Remand prisoners their legal right to vote?

Has the government denied Remand prisoners their legal right to vote?

The other day Simon Israel of Channel 4 News asked me if I knew how many Remand prisoners are entitled to vote and how many exercised this right. Compare the information immediately below provided by the government, a big fat zero!

A PQ on 13 October 2005 revealed that there were no records kept of the number of remand prisoners who are eligible to vote.

Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many remand prisoners were eligible to vote in each of the last three general elections; and how many exercised their right to vote in each.

Ms Harman: The information sought is not available. The Representation of the People Act 2000 made it possible for prisoners on remand, who are otherwise eligible to vote, to register to vote from their place of detention. HM Prison Service records the total number of remand prisoners though no separate record is kept of those remand prisoners who are eligible to vote. Records are not kept of whether particular categories of voters have exercised their right to vote at UK elections
.

In complete contrast...

General election 2007: voting in Irish prisons
No. in prison on 15 May 2007 3,359
No. eligible to vote 3,202
No. registered 451
No. who voted 322
Percentage of eligible prisoners who voted 10.1%
Percentage of registered prisoners who voted 71.4%
Percentage of registered national population who voted 67.0%

Sources: Personal correspondence with Irish Prison Service and Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, April – July 2007
.

With such secrecy from the government, it is quite possible that Remand prisoners were denied the opportunity to exercise their right.

Friday, January 30, 2009

I'm confused I don't know about you

I'm confused I don't know about you


First...

Gordon Brown makes his racist remark: "Gordon Brown said in 2007... British jobs for British workers".

Then...

Brown warns countries against protectionism

Gordon Brown warned today that countries must not resort to protectionism to drag their respective economies out of the global downturn
.

"About 700 employees at the Ineos-owned Grangemouth plant on the Firth of Forth have begun an unofficial strike in solidarity with fellow energy workers at the Total Lindsey Oil Refinery on the North Lincolnshire coast...Although I’m told there are no redundancies arising from the contract going to the Italian company, if you are out of work, it can seem so unfair".

Sack the bloody lot of 'em! There's many who would be glad to work at the present time.

Lord Bach(side) because he talks out of his arse

Lord Bach(side) because he talks out of his arse



The charge:

"Lord Bach (Lords in Waiting, HM Household; Labour)

My Lords, I cannot give any guarantee to the noble Lord, sympathetic though I am to him usually. I cannot do any better than quote what my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, then the Lord Chancellor, said in the foreword to the first document that was published on this in December 2006:

"Successive UK Governments have held to the view that the right to vote forms part of the social contract between individuals and the State, and that loss of the right to vote, reflected in the current law, is a proper and proportionate punishment for breaches of the social contract that resulted in imprisonment
".

This is hot air, because although successive governments have maintained the view that convicted prisoners should be denied the franchise, it has nothing to do with the social contract and more to do with the status quo and keeping up the tradition. Moreover, it has been eloquently argued “Politicians who lie or mislead parliament break the social contract, but we do not ban them from voting", therefore Lord Bach(side) is merely spouting hypocrisy. Given that Lord Falconer spouted his nonsense immediately following the government's defeat in the ECtHR, this is sour grapes coming from Lord Bach(side). It is for the Judiciary to punish criminals and not the government. It is not an offence to break the so-called social contract. The ECtHR rejected the government's traditional view as being disproportionate. It remains for Lord Bach(side) to justify his present stance, not merely to break wind and expect everybody to breathe in the fumes and and pretend what they are smelling comes from roses.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Debate:Prisoners right to vote

Debate:Prisoners right to vote

"Background and Context of Debate:

Many countries restrict the right of those sentenced to imprisonment to vote in elections. For example, convicted prisoners are automatically banned from voting in Armenia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Luxemburg, Romania, Russia and the United Kingdom. In Australia, prisoners are only entitled to vote if they are serving a sentence of less than three years. Only two US states (Maine and Vermont) permit prisoners to vote, although Utah and Massachusetts also did so until 1998 and 2000 respectively. In France and Germany, courts have the power to deprive people of voting rights as an additional punishment, but this is not automatic. Eighteen European states, including Spain, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland, place no formal prohibition on prisoners voting. In practice, however, it is often difficult for prisoners in some of these countries to vote: in the Republic of Ireland, prisoners have the right to be registered to vote in their home constituency, but have no right to either a postal vote or to be released to cast a vote at a ballot box. Since 1999, South Africa has had no restrictions on the right of prisoners to vote. Canada’s Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that prisoners should not be denied the right to vote; the first federal election in which Canadian prisoners in federal jails (generally those serving sentences of two years or more) were permitted to vote was in 2004. The issue is particularly controversial in the United Kingdom and the USA. In April 2001, the British High Court rejected a case brought by John Hirst (a man serving a life sentence for manslaughter), who argued that the ban on prisoners voting was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. In March 2004, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British government was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights; the European Court’s Grand Chamber rejected the British government’s appeal in October 2005. As of June 2006, however, there has been no change in UK law on the matter. Much controversy in the USA results from the fact that, in some states, people who have been in prison are banned from voting for the rest of their lives, even after they have fully served their sentences. This is especially controversial in Florida, given the closeness of the 2000 presidential election result there and the fact that a disproportionately large number of ex-convicts are black or Hispanic (statistically, more likely to be Democrat voters). One in forty Americans of voting age are ineligible to vote because they are, or have been, in prison. The arguments below [Click on blue link above] relate directly to whether those currently serving prison sentences should be allowed to vote, but could readily be adjusted for a debate about whether ex-convicts should have this right".

n.b. Since this article was published, the Republic of Ireland passed a Bill to remove barriers to give all prisoners the postal vote.

"The truth is that Parliament has never debated this "morality" when renewing the ban on prisoners' voting rights, so these issues have not been thought through at all".

This point is succinct...

"The purpose of prison is the deprivation of liberty, not the disenfranchisement of its inmates".

As Parliament has declared itself to be too scared to debate this issue, I am happy to join the online debate. I have already kicked Jack Straw in the balls, now I intend to kick him up the arse to get him to spring into action.

Prisoners: Voting — Question

Prisoners: Voting — Question

House of Lords debates
Monday, 15 December 2008


2:36 pm

Lord Pannick (Crossbench) Link to this | Hansard source

To ask Her Majesty's Government why they have not implemented the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v United Kingdom of 6 October 2005 that the disenfranchisement for parliamentary and local government elections of all prisoners is a breach of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord Bach (Lords in Waiting, HM Household; Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, in response to the Hirst judgment, the Government committed to undertake a two-stage consultation: the first stage concluded in March 2007. We remain committed to a second-stage consultation, looking at how the judgment could be implemented. In doing so, the Government will need to take account of the wide spectrum of opinion on the issue, as well as the practical implications for the courts, for prison authorities and for the conduct of elections.

Lord Pannick (Crossbench) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can he please tell the House when consultation will begin on implementing the 2005 judgment of the European Court and will he please give the House an assurance that the Government are not seeking to delay implementation of that judgment until after the next general election?

Lord Bach (Lords in Waiting, HM Household; Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord when the second-stage consultation will begin. The second consultation will cover some very big issues, not least how voting rights might be granted to serving prisoners and how far those rights should be extended.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Spokesperson in the Lords (Discrimination Law Refrom), Women and Equality; Liberal Democrat) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House how it is that the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Ireland, which are not even parties to the Hirst judgment, managed to give effect to the judgment, giving postal votes in the case of the Republic of Ireland, without difficulty? Can he explain why it is that we remain among the top 10 countries in the Council of Europe that have delayed unduly, in leading cases, in giving effect under the convention to our international treaty obligations?

Lord Bach (Lords in Waiting, HM Household; Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I quote him. He said:

"Neither I nor the committee—

the Joint Committee on Human Rights—

"is suggesting that the Government have an overall bad record in terms of implementation of the judgments of Strasbourg. That is not the case".—[Official Report, 24/11/08; col. GC 143.]

I remind him that this Government have done more for human rights than any previous Government. I cite the Human Rights Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Access to Justice Act, the Constitutional Reform Act and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We have not just talked about it; we have actually done it.

Lord Woolf (Crossbench) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is very important that the Government maintain their reputation as supporters of human rights, not only for the furtherance of human rights in this country but also around the globe?

Lord Bach (Lords in Waiting, HM Household; Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord entirely. Of course it is important that our high reputation continues in this field for exactly the reasons that he gives.

Lord Waddington (Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, while clearly it is up to states which adhere to the convention to abide by the decisions of the court, some of us find it surprising that a bare commitment by signatories to the convention to hold free elections has been interpreted as a commitment to grant to people in prison the right to vote. In the light of that and other cases, may not the time have come to look at the convention to consider whether perhaps it needs amending, so that while continuing to safeguard basic freedoms, it does not go far beyond that and in some cases—I am not referring to the instant cases—even offend against common sense?

Lord Bach (Lords in Waiting, HM Household; Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, the European Convention on Human Rights, which was first formulated largely by British lawyers in the late 1940s and early 1950s, is something that both Governments have signed up to in the past. I presume that a Conservative Government in the future would support the continuation of it because it represents an important statement of rights. We introduced the Human Rights Act to support it and back it up and I hope that we have support from the Official Opposition for that.

Lord Dubs (Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, I am sure that what the Minister said about what the Government have done to further human rights in this country, including introducing the Human Rights Act, will be welcome. It is therefore a little disappointing that, in terms of this judgment, the Government seem to be dragging their heels. Does my noble friend agree that a simple device would be to give these prisoners postal votes and that could be done very quickly? I do not understand what the difficulty is. Can my noble friend explain?

Lord Bach (Lords in Waiting, HM Household; Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, I know that my noble friends feel strongly about this issue. It is not about the liberty of the individual in the sense that so many cases are decided by the European Court of Human Rights. It is at heart about policy—a policy that Governments of both colours have supported for many, many years and a policy that probably attracts public support—so of course it is unusually difficult to come up with a satisfactory solution to the judgment by the Grand Chamber. The Grand Chamber said at paragraph 82 of its judgment that the "margin of appreciation" is wide though not all-embracing. It is that margin of appreciation between national member states and the judgment that is so difficult in this particular case.

Lord Elystan-Morgan (Crossbench) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, this is about human rights and the rights of the individual. More than three years have elapsed since the Hirst judgment. In the light of the excellent record of Her Majesty's Government in relation to human rights, can the Minister give an undertaking that months rather than years will be allowed to elapse before this matter is resolved? Does he agree that, even in the case of prisoners in a prison, the delay of justice is a denial of justice?

Lord Bach (Lords in Waiting, HM Household; Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, I cannot give any guarantee to the noble Lord, sympathetic though I am to him usually. I cannot do any better than quote what my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, then the Lord Chancellor, said in the foreword to the first document that was published on this in December 2006:

"Successive UK Governments have held to the view that the right to vote forms part of the social contract between individuals and the State, and that loss of the right to vote, reflected in the current law, is a proper and proportionate punishment for breaches of the social contract that resulted in imprisonment".

That has been the policy of successive Governments. We have to find a way now of implementing the court's judgment.

It's oh so quiet...

It's oh so quiet...

I have visited my usual haunts, news sites and blogs, but failed to find anything which is deserving of a post. However, I have been thinking about ripping into this idiot Daniel Kawczynski MP and correcting both him and Speaker Martin in relation to Police Powers.

I have work in my in tray, an advice to prepare for the Prison Reform Trust on the Prisoners Votes Case: Where do we go from here? So, I suppose I can at least crack on with this given that it is quiet at the moment.

And, there is always housework to do like an early Spring clean.

This is in complete contrast to yesterday when I was prolific with about 10 posts.

UPDATE: Just found what the government is calling a response in the Prisoners Votes Case...

" Government response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights' 31st Report of Session 2007-08

Published on: 27 January 2009

A paper setting out the government's position on the implementation of human rights judgments, in response to a report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

The paper considers judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg against the UK under the European Convention on Human Rights and declarations of incompatability by the UK courts under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998".

Link here.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Dawn Butler has official car taken away and is now On The Buses

Dawn Butler has official car taken away and is now On The Buses



A Ron and John production.

Exclusive: Latest English version of the Lords Prayer

Exclusive: Latest English version of the Lords Prayer

Our Lord, who art in the House of Lords,
Dishonest be thy Name.
Thy bribe will come.
Hopefully, thy will be done,
In court, and not by thy brethren.
Give us this day our Sunday Times.
And forgive us our undercover reporters.
We don’t forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into damnation.
But deliver us from evil Peers.
For thine is the pig’s trough,
You should be in the Tower of London,
For ever and ever.
Amen to that!

Royal Mail involved in unlawful collective punishment

Royal Mail involved in unlawful collective punishment

Royal Mail bosses have defended a decision to suspend deliveries to a Bradford street after a postman was attacked by a dog.

The delivery ban started after an incident involving a bull mastif on Penfield Grove, Bradford.

The postman was not thought to have been bitten by the animal but had to jump over a fence.

Residents claim they have to travel six miles to collect their mail. Royal Mail said the action was a "last resort"
.

I think it can be argued that Royal Mail has declared war on those living in Penfield Grove, Bradford, therefore the Geneva Convention ought to be applied...

In any event, those who have paid for letters to be delivered should sue for a breach of contract, and those who have to collect their letters should order a taxi and bill the Royal Mail to recover the expense.

It is also a criminal offence to deliberately interfere with and/or delay the Royal Mail.

"Section 58 of the Post Office Act 1953, enacts that:

“(1) If any officer of the Post Office, contrary to his duty … wilfully detains or delays, or procures or suffers to be detained or delayed, any … postal packet [in course of transmission by post], he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and be liable to imprisonment [for a term not exceeding two years] or to a fine, or to both: …”

And by section 68 of the same Act:

“If any person solicits or endeavours to procure any other person to commit an offence punishable on indictment under this Act, he shall [*503] be guilty of a misdemeanour and be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”
".

Mother wins drive ban law change

Mother wins drive ban law change

A Teesside mother, whose daughter was killed by a drink-driver, has helped win a change in the law on bans served by jailed motorists.

Jan Woodward's daughter Kelly, 19, from Billingham, near Stockton, was killed by a speeding driver who was twice over the legal drink-drive limit in 2005.

Mrs Woodward called for a change in the law to stop prisoners being able to serve driving bans while in jail.

New rules mean driving bans can now be imposed after a sentence is completed.


I must say that I thought the law on this was absurd.

I don't suppose that Lord Ahmed took a bribe to assist this law's passage given that he might end up serving a prison sentence for dangerous driving? Somehow he has escaped justice in that he was not charged for causing death by dangerous driving, which is the real offence he committed. It causes me offence that his status appears to have influenced the decision not to throw the book at him.

I wonder if I still have that birthday card the Krays sent me?

I wonder if I still have that birthday card the Krays sent me?



Personal possessions of notorious gangsters the Kray twins have fetched more than £100,000 at auction.

"One of Ronnie's oil paintings, Crucifixion, which was given to a guard at Parkhurst prison, sold for £4,800".

Do I detect a whiff of corruption here?

Gordon Brown leads the race to run Britain to ruin

Gordon Brown leads the race to run Britain to ruin



Just when you need a bus there isn't one in sight...

Jailhouse lawyer denied medical appliance to block his law suits

Jailhouse lawyer denied medical appliance to block his law suits

By Dr. B. Cayenne Bird

An important part of the present prison reform should be oversight and protection of the jail house lawyers, paralegals and whistle blowers who exercise their rights while incarcerated.

No one is allowed to actually become a lawyer while serving a prison term, but those who have some legal training and attempt to stand up to a corrupt system are often very courageous and very talented. A prisoner is paid only 9 cents to 22 cents per hour, so very few of them can afford to hire attorneys.

These legal eagles are certainly mostly all patriots who are literally risking their lives in order to exercise their right to seek relief from the courts. They have no place to go for help when the prison administrators and guards frequently retaliate against them for filing 602´s, habeas corpus petitions and other legal actions such as lawsuits. Their chance at freedom and at the very least, humane treatment while in prison, depends on their ability to have access to the courts.

There is one such talented young man who earned his paralegal certificate from the Blackstone Institute while being incarcerated. [[K'napp]] Eric K'napp is at this very moment being tormented, blocked and denied his right to answer an important lawsuit that he filed over similar treatment at CSP Los Angeles County Lancaster. He has a deadline of July 17, 2008 to file objections to case CV 06-7702-JVS before US Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman.


But Salinas Valley Prison Warden Michael Evans and Asst. Warden Eric Moore have put him into ad seg "for his own protection", which is where most prisoner litigants do too much of their time. The punishment for prisoners who litigate are particularly harsh, especially when they win an action, which K´napp did recently. Can´t have that, a prisoner victory that points to the fact that the criminals are often wearing badges.

It is my opinion that Eric K'napp needs protection only from the guards and prison administrators, not from any inmate who allegedly wrote "an anonymous note" threatening his life over a group 602 that K'napp filed trying to get proceeds from the bottles and cans purchased by visitors to be given to the food vendor so that he would lower his prices. Eric K'napp is quite popular amongst inmates and their families on the B yard after having several recent successful legal actions, which is always grounds for prison administration's retaliation, particularly at Salinas Valley Prison. Because of that success, he will be moved out of the prison, especially with other actions against abuses at Salinas Valley Prison coming up in court. Every effort will be made to divide-and-conquer the many participants and supporters of solid and appropriate legal actions on behalf of all prisoners to prevent them from winning.

Several years ago, Eric K´napp was so determined to become a paralegal that he wrote tens of thousands of pages with a pen filler which permanently deformed his right index finger. He has a medically-mandated chrono for a personal typewriter that is supposed to be available to him no matter where he is housed, even in ad seg. The documentation makes it clear that K´napp is never to use a pen filler or another writing instrument in his right hand again. He cannot write quickly or legibily with his left hand at all, which blocks him from being ableto meet a legal deadline that is very important to him and to everyone concerned about abuses at CSP Los Angeles County, Lancaster.

By denying K'napp his medically-necessary appliance of a typewriter, Warden Michael Evans and Asst Warden Moore are violating the terms of the Armstrong class action lawsuit and 42 U.S.C. 12131 (Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act).

Not only is K'napp's well-documented need for a personal typewriter being denied but his cell has no electricity with which to use it. And he´s been hobbled in this situation for with no means to communicate and no electricity for three weeks. K'napp was given a 13" television set but not his medically-mandated typewriter. How ridiculous is that? In addition to several violations of the Armstrong class action lawsuit, which I will address in more detail in my next column, there are many violations of the Gilmore case which also impedes his access to the courts

In order for Eric K´napp, and every other prisoner trying to find relief in the courts from the Salinas Valley Ad Seg (hole) to be able to submit well-researched objections to meet legal deadlines, there needs to be books with case histories and/or a searchable database which is fully accessible to them. There is one computer in this poorly concocted wretched excuse for a legal library but the inmate may not search it himself.

He must ask a prison employee to look up a specific case, which he can rarely ever find because the books that he needs aren´t even in the library. If the inmate doesn´t know the name of the case he needs to reference, the clerk won´t use a keyword search on his behalf, meaning that he can´t submit a proper argument.

These are clear violations of the Gilmore case and just one more way that prison employees do everything possible to block prisoners from really being able to defend themselves.

It´s ironic that the lawsuit that Eric K´napp needs to respond to is the one he filed for similar abuses at CSP Los Angeles County Lancaster in 2005. At that time, he was also put into the hole "for his own protection" "" which mysteriously always happens when the UNION holds a successful rally or has any of our important work televised. K´napp was denied even a pen filler or writing utensil of any kind then too, and was completely blocked off from mail or the ability to make phone calls. In order to get him out of the hole at CSP Los Angeles County, where he was starved, psychologically tormented and denied access to
the courts for many months, we had to bring more than 100 people to protest the prison. (link with photos below)


There had been five suspicious deaths there at CSP Lancaster during this time period in 2005, one of which happened while Eric was in the hole. The careless double-celling of Eddie Arriaga who was intentionally put in with a mentally ill, violent prisoner in a tiny ad seg cell predictably resulted in his death. Arriaga's cell mate stomped him to death after many hours of drawn out torture to which the guards did not respond.

There is a pattern to the abuse of prisoners who litigate, and that systemic pattern of unconstitutional treatment is taking place AGAIN right now. Eric K´napp must have full accessibility to his medically-mandated health care need of a personal typewriter or this important case will be thrown out.

People traveled to CSP-Los Angeles County, Lancaster in the middle of nowhere to draw media attention to Eric K´napp´s torment and five suspicious deaths the day the Pope died April 2, 2005. Hundreds of people from every occupation imaginable came to draw attention to the abuses that day including doctors, teachers, social workers, activists, journalists on and off duty, many of whom have a loved one in prison themselves. They all still want this lawsuit against the lawbreaking guards and prison administrators at CSP Los Angeles County, Lancaster to go forward. They want answers and accountability for those responsible for what happened at that dark, evil place where abuse is an everyday occurrence.

Nobody comes out of prison as a better person but some facilites are more adept at breaking people than others. CSP Los Angeles County Lancaster, Corcoran and Salinas Valley Prisons are even worse because they are occupied with prison guard gangs known as the "Green Wall" and another one called "The Guard Assault Task Force" who need to be exposed and brought to justice for what they do to the prisoners.

Right after our rally in front of CSP Los Angeles County over the suspicious deaths and abuse of Eric K´napp in April, 2005, the Inspector General Matt Cate did miraculously cause the Warden Michael Harrison to be demoted from Warden to a guard at Chino Prison. The head of "The Guard Assault Task Force, Lt. Charles Hughes was fired for his role in Arriaga´s death. Both should have been criminally prosecuted for the murder of Arriaga and others, not to mention the torture of Eric K´napp in my opinion and of all who witnessed what took place. This is one of the few times that any consequence at all was delivered to a warden and prison administrator by the Inspector General Matt Cate, but it certainly was no more than a slap on the wrist. When Assembly member Sharon Runner ran for office after Lt. Hughes was fired, she took money from him for her campaign. Obviously there is no oversight at CSP Los Angeles County when the prison guards own the state politicians from that area.

Eric K´napp's lawsuits are important. There is no good reason why he is being denied his medically-mandated typewriter and access to a properly set up legal library. We can only hope that the Judge gives him the extension that he needs and perhaps someone can step in who is monitoring Armstrong and Gilmore compliance and insist that the law gets respected. If Warden Michael Evans and Asst. Warden Eric Moore have their way, Eric K'napp will be tormented and blocked in the hole for 90 days. This is not the only legal action that he has in progress.

The primary goal of the prisons seems to be to break the body, mind and spirit of those being inhumanely and unconstitutionally sentenced and confined. If not for the courageous prisoners who litigate, who would ever know or care what they´re going through every day? All of this in the name of "God" and the name of "Justice" taking place in taxpayer-financed institutions beyond the radar of the media. Perhaps it is time for another protest at Salinas Valley Prison to make the point that people DO CARE about what happens to Eric K´napp and all jailhouse lawyers and whistleblowers. The safest way of course, is for the families of the prisoners to organize and hire lawyers on the outside who will take these cases forward. The families have the power of the vote and can end the oppressive prisons, or greatly cut back on their existence at any time that they decide to set up a funded voting lobby, but the uneducated and poor do not really understand how the system is set up.


Here´s the link to the day we protested over the suspicious deaths and torment of Eric K´napp at CSP Lancaster on April 2, 2005 after approximately six months of begging then Warden Michael Harrison to stop tormenting him. We want this lawsuit to bring justice to everyone who was a party to what happened.

http://www.1union1.com/Lancaster_protest_pictures.html

We want the terms of the Armstrong and Gilmore cases to be instituted and respected at every prison in California. There are prisoners in ad seg at Salinas Valley Prison who have been there for NINE MONTHS while being told they are awaiting a transfer. During this time, their access to courts, communication with their children and family members is cut off, they may not use the telephone. Their mail is blocked and tampered with. .. It appears that ad seg is cruelly being used as permanent housing.

This situation needs immediate intervention and there needs to be a place to go
for those who stand up for their rights and the rights of others via litigation in the future. There are more links at the bottom of this page. In spite of the pope dying that day, the television and newspaper people did give us some press coverage. This lawsuit is important to every California prisoner and the three million potential voters related to them. There is no reason why Eric K´napp should be blocked and abused for his talents.

My next column will deal with other violations of the Armstrong case that Eric K'napp is now suffering "for his own protection" including placement in a freezing cold room, stripped of all his clothing and put on display for 48 hours straight while being ridiculed by the guards. The "cold rooms" are another pattern of unconstitutional torment frequently used against prisoners who successfully litigate in an effort to break their spirits.

We can never have too many subscribers to the UNION Daily Newsletter who want to stand up against abuse, inhumane conditions and do actual campaigns and lawsuits.

email rightor1@yahoo.com to find out how can you can become an activist for change. 6500 people can change any law, elect or recall any politician from office, less workers cannot make the 150 day deadlines required to get initiatives on the ballot. Get off your apathy. Prison reform cost people a great deal of suffering and financial sacrifice which continues today.

Dr. B. Cayenne Bird is a 37-year veteran op-ed journalist and publisher. She volunteers her time as founder and director of United for No Injustice, Oppression or Neglect UNION since 1998. The UNION is active in prison reform and criminal justice

Wrong answer Mr Obama

Wrong answer Mr Obama



What happened to America on 9/11 was undoubtedly a tragedy. Unfortunately, America's response is a travesty of justice, the opening and operating Guantanamo Bay. The prisoners detained there, given the large scale breaches of human and civil rights, must be set free and paid compensation for the state abuse.

"If liberals believe they ought to go, maybe we ought to open Alcatraz," Congressman John Boehner, Republican leader in the House of Representatives, told NBC. "It's very secure".

Moving the problem around does not solve anything. At best it would only buy time. In my view, America is fast running out of time. Therefore, the problem calls for a more practical solution. If I wasn't against torture I might have suggested that Congressman John Boehner was subjected to waterboarding for his seemingly stupid solution.

The 9/11 attacks were wrong. America responses were wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. Only doing the right thing will make matters right. The detainees must be freed at whatever cost to America.

Related content...

Britain will not take Guantanamo prisoners despite plea by Barack Obama

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, has done his bit, as has Jack Straw, and I do not mean by taking released detainees. I mean their involvement in allowing the CIA flights of extra-ordinary rendition. So, when there is talk about hypocrisy let us not forget who are the real hypocrites in this affair. David Miliband and Jack Straw have been named and they should feel totally ashamed for their actions.

And this is to be expected...

Freed Guantánamo prisoners taunt US as closure plan falls apart

Monday, January 26, 2009

President Obama and the First Lady Dawn Butler

President Obama and the First Lady Dawn Butler





Latest news: Dawn Butler has official car taken away and is now On The Buses

Ideas by Jailhouselawyer
Photoshops by RonKnee

A bad law?

A bad law?

Go read for yourselves over at Cynical Chatter from the Underworld.

Sara Payne to become Government's first Victims' Commissioner

Sara Payne to become Government's first Victims' Commissioner

The mother of a murdered schoolgirl is to become the Government's first Victims' Commissioner.



Sara Payne will represent the interests of those affected by crime and will have an office at the Ministry of Justice. She will work three days a week as a paid consultant.

This appears to me to be a pointless appointment and a pointless waste of money.

Try this for comedy: prison policy run by clowns

Try this for comedy: prison policy run by clowns

The arts are a valuable tool in prisoner rehabilitation. Jack Straw should know better than to fly into a panic and ban them

By Libby Purves

Heard the one about the Justice Secretary who got frightened by a newspaper? He took too many tabloids. Not laughing? Me neither.

The joke is sour. For back in November, thanks to some mischievous creep in the system, it was reported that Whitemoor Prison was offering a well-established comedy course and that one of those enrolled was the terrorist Zia ul-Haq.

OK, it was a good story, especially given that ul-Haq is a trained architect who advised al-Qaeda on bombing buildings, thus enabling gags about “bringing the house down”. Irresistible to tabloid sensibilities. And I, for one, do not object either to putting delusional terrorists in jail or to red-top ranting. Both are part of life.

The real damage occurred when Jack Straw panicked. Without a moment's thought (he is actually proud of this, he used the word “immediately”) he cancelled the course and said that comedy in prison is “totally unacceptable” because it is not a “constructive pursuit”. He continued: “There is a crucial test: can the recreational, social and educational classes paid for out of taxpayers' money or otherwise [italics mine] be

justified to the community?”By which he means that if any knuckle-dragging, vindictive, opportunist media stirrer decides to stoke up ill-informed outrage, even if little or no tax money is involved, then it behoves a senior minister to roll over without a minute's reflection. Do you really want to be governed like this?

Anyway the whole group - not just the terrorist - went back to their cells and were never made to look at the world through the healing, balancing perspective of absurdity and the need to communicate benignly with fellow beings. Cut off, too, were other drama projects at Whitemoor, one by a company with 21 years' experience.

Indeed the track record of UK prison arts and theatre groups is stellar. From musical theatre to needlework, comedy to painting, organisations such as Pimlico Opera, Only Connect, Geese, the London Shakespeare Workout and Fine Cell Work provably change hearts and minds, giving point to incarceration. Some invite audiences, which has the double advantage of making the opera-going classes think about their responsibility for prisons while they queue at the barbed wire and hand in their mobile phones. “The arts,” concluded a government-backed report on 700 projects in 2003, “are associated with positive criminal justice outcomes.”

But the Whitemoor comedy panic was not enough to quench the burning indignation of Mr Straw. His office flung out a PSI - prison service instruction - which David Ramsbotham, former chief inspector, describes as “lunacy”. What the PSI says - I have it before me - is that all activities must “meet the public acceptability test”. It frets, not about what they are but how they “might be perceived by the public”. Moreover, “the type of prisoner” should limit what they may do.

Fear of media runs through it like a broad yellow streak. How on earth can you guarantee that any arts project - even the best - won't be hammered by some thoughtless git looking for a story? If in future years Karen Matthews gets a bit-part in Oklahoma, or a notorious thug is found to be enjoying needlework, it will just take one illicit mobile phone call, or one disgruntled officer to ring the papers, and a good scheme will be toast.

Many brave governors have stuck their necks out for the arts, seeing the benign results all through their prison, but now they must watch their backs and refer everything up. The new PSI gives brief lip-service to the value of art, but its net result has been to cancel or delay projects and to force others to adjust their titles to sound more educational. I suppose the comedy course might have fared better if it had badged itself a “perceptual incongruity workshop”.

But why should it? The poison of the PSI lies in that “public acceptability” concept and the timidity it enjoins: governors who know their prisons well are less trusted than pen-pushers at the Justice Ministry, who never met an inmate in their lives but who are scared of the press and the yob phone-ins. Unless the situation is clarified and reinterpreted, “fear of headlines will reduce prisons to human warehouses and staff to mere turnkeys”, as Juliet Lyon, of the Prison Reform Trust, put it.

Talks, meetings and pleadings are under way. Nobody in the prison arts world wants a dirty fight; and there is evidence further down the Whitehall food chain that below the level of the spontaneously combusting Mr Straw there is an awareness that the PSI goes too far. But departments take their tone from ministers, and if ministers take theirs from ranting hangers-and-floggers, God help us all.

Forgive some subjectivity here: but I have met and talked with men who, illiterate, learn Shakespeare lines off cassettes in their cells and say wonderingly: “That Leontes, what a plonker, I was just as stupid.” I have seen women who never had a chance to respect themselves until they danced in Chicago; watched a young man conduct the finale of Guys and Dolls while his mother sat in the audience, able to hope that he would change. I have talked over the years with inmates who certainly deserved their sentences but who then sewed, composed or performed their way clear of their narrow, angry hearts. I honour those who work with them.

One other line from the PSI. “Prisons,” it says sanctimoniously, “are places which are, rightly, under intense public scrutiny.” Rubbish. Prisons are under intermittent, sensationalist, vindictive, ignorant and shallow scrutiny. Most people have no idea how many inmates are illiterate, care leavers, mentally disturbed or minor recidivists whose crying need is for a doorway back into reasonable society. Most people don't know the figures on suicide, self-harm or the fact that 87 prisons are seriously overcrowded and that the constant “churn” of inmates sabotages rehabilitation. Intense scrutiny? Now that is a comedy line.

Prison reform is not seen as a vote-winner; talking tough is. Even at the expense of careful, proven, humanising work. But always hope, always fight for the right. I am happy to say that Wandsworth does West Side Story with Pimlico Opera next month. After agonising uncertainty, it got reprieved. My spare ticket is yours, Mr Straw, if you'll join me. Though I must warn you, Officer Strawpke - there's at least one funny song. Try to live with it.

A shameful war: Israel in the dock over assault on Gaza

A shameful war: Israel in the dock over assault on Gaza

By the time the shooting stopped, more than 100 Palestinians had been killed for every Israeli who died. Was every death lawful? And, if not, where does the fault lie?



Did Israel – or its enemy, Hamas – commit war crimes during 22 days and nights of aerial assault, rocket launches and ground fighting in Gaza? In one sense the question is academic, because Israel will not recognise the conflict as an international one, and has not signed the 1977 Geneva protocol designed to apply to the victims of internal conflicts. But international lawyers say general principles can be drawn from the laws of war, which may have been violated in several ways.

The main issues are these:

Proportionality

Up to 10 times as many Palestinians were killed as Israelis. The Palestinian Ministry of Health says 1,314 Palestinians were killed, of whom 412 were children or teenagers under 18, and 110 were women. On the Israeli side, there were 13 deaths between 27 December and 17 January, of whom three were civilians killed by rockets fired from Gaza. Of the 10 soldiers killed, four were lost to "friendly fire".

Even if the Palestinian figure is disputed, it is clear that the death toll was massively higher for Palestinians than Israelis. Proportionality is not simply a matter of numbers, however. There will also be a debate over whether the destruction wrought by Israel's huge land, sea and air arsenal was proportionate to the threat posed by Hamas militants to civilians – itself also a violation of international humanitarian law.

With foreign journalists barred from Gaza by Israel throughout the war, it is especially hard to come by hard information on the exact circumstances in which all civilian casualties were caused. But unofficial comment from senior military officers in the Israeli media have suggested that a deliberate choice was made to put the protection of its soldiers first, and that of civilians second. If true, it appears to have been successful, but even if it wasn't, the "collateral damage" inflicted on civilians appears to have significantly exceeded the norms even of previous Israeli operations in Gaza, suggesting looser rules of engagement for military operations.

The head of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, pointed out that there was an "expansive" definition of military targets, to include civilian government offices, police stations and the parliament building, on the grounds they at least indirectly helped Hamas.


I was surprised to learn that Israel "has not signed the 1977 Geneva protocol designed to apply to the victims of internal conflicts". It cannot be tolerated to allow a state a licence to abuse human rights. Surely, Israel is not laying claim to being civilised?

UPDATE: From Cherrypie in the comments "Amnesty International have a very interesting document explaining international humanitarian law, the law of occupation etc It goes on to explain the actions and the war crimes that have taken place during the latest conflicts".

It can be found here.

Mystery virus hits 15 million PCs around the world

Mystery virus hits 15 million PCs around the world

A mysterious computer virus, the purpose of which has yet to become apparent, is spreading so fast that it has already infected more than 15 million computers around the world. Some six million machines have been contaminated in the past three days alone by the virus, a worm known as Downadup, Conficker or Kido.

More than 3,000 British organisations – including hospitals, the Ministry of Defence, councils, and what are described as "well-known firms" – have been hit. They and the hundreds of thousands of other victim organisations in countries such as the US, Russia, China and India are now bracing themselves for the virus to be triggered and do whatever malicious work it has been designed to do.

There remains the possibility that it has no function other than to demonstrate its originator's skill, but security experts think it unlikely a worm so sophisticated has no ulterior purpose. Tom Gaffney, technical manager of F-Secure, says this could be to capture confidential information, such as online account details and passwords, but it is more likely to be a "rootkit", which gives the virus designer administrative access – effectively, control over the computer and then, perhaps, its network. He said that Conficker is the worst outbreak of this type seen for six years, since the Slammer worm ran amok in 2003.


As though we haven't got enough problems in the world...

Revealed: Labour lords change laws for cash

Revealed: Labour lords change laws for cash



LABOUR peers are prepared to accept fees of up to £120,000 a year to amend laws in the House of Lords on behalf of business clients, a Sunday Times investigation has found.

Four peers — including two former ministers — offered to help undercover reporters posing as lobbyists obtain an amendment in return for cash.

Two of the peers were secretly recorded telling the reporters they had previously secured changes to bills going through parliament to help their clients.

Lord Truscott, the former energy minister, said he had helped to ensure the Energy Bill was favourable to a client selling “smart” electricity meters. Lord Taylor of Blackburn claimed he had changed the law to help his client Experian, the credit check company.

Taylor told the reporters: “I will work within the rules, but the rules are meant to be bent sometimes.”

The other peers who agreed to assist our reporters for a fee were Lord Moonie, a former defence minister, and Lord Snape, a former Labour whip.

The disclosure that peers are “for hire” to help change legislation confirms persistent rumours in Westminster that lobbyists are targeting the Lords rather than the Commons, where MPs are under greater scrutiny.


No wonder there has been no movement to allow all convicted prisoners the vote, prisoners do not have the money to lobby or bribe those in the House of Lords to support the needed change in our legislation.

And from the Independent...

Investigation into 'amendments for cash' allegations

Labour's leader in the House of Lords said today she would investigate allegations that four peers offered to help undercover reporters posing as lobbyists obtain amendments to legislation in return for cash.

The Sunday Times named four Labour peers who it claimed offered to help its reporters for a fee, two of whom the paper said were secretly recorded.

The House of Lords Code of Conduct states that peers "must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence".

Afghanistan's 'Guantanamo' poses new prison problem for Barack Obama

Afghanistan's 'Guantanamo' poses new prison problem for Barack Obama

As Guantanamo Bay prepares to close, President Barack Obama will have to deal with a new problem with suspected terrorist detainees, this time at Bagram in Afghanistan.



More than 600 detainees are held at the US Bagram Theatre Internment Facility - known by campaigners as "the other Guantanamo". Not only are there no plans to close it, but it is in the process of being expanded to hold 1,100 illegal enemy combatants; prisoners who cannot see lawyers, have no trials and never see any evidence there may be against them...

...According to human rights lawyers the prison also holds scores of innocent people, many seized after tip-offs from feuding tribal rivals. The alleged offences are never tested in court.


Good morning Mr President, I trust you slept well? I suppose you are a very busy man starting a new job and all that. Sorting out the priorities. I would have thought that tackling this large scale human rights abuse committed by America under the Bush regime might be a good starting point. Whilst this blot on the landscape is present America the land of the free from universal condemnation is not possible. It remains for me to say, sort it.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Has the statue of justice fallen down?

Has the statue of justice fallen down?

There was me thinking that a 8 year sentence was too severe for Karen Matthews only to read this morning that the Family of Shannon Matthews condemn her mother's 'lenient' sentence. It is difficult trying to mentally balance the scales of justice when the following tragic case also hits the news on the same day and same news bulletin A father who killed four of his seven young children when he crashed a Land Rover he part-built has been jailed for two years. Outside the court the mother of the dead children said "I don't think the prison sentence for Nigel is enough for my children's lives".

In relation to the Shannon Matthews case, I can sympathise with the view that if the McCanns were not even charged, let alone sentenced, and scammed over a million pounds from the public, then Karen Matthews got a raw deal.

With Nigel Gresham, he was stupid and reckless but he also suffered the loss of his own 4 children. Others have been sentenced to the same for the loss of 1 life or even more in some cases, and perhaps the sentence would have been more severe had the fatalities not been related. It does seem as though human life is cheap with such offences. Lord Ahmed could be in line for a 3 month suspended sentence for only killing 1, and perhaps the judge might also award him £5 out of the poor box.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Watch this space

Watch this space

I had just rolled out of bed at 9.30 this morning and was sat on the edge smoking a roll up when Victors called me on my mobile. He said that he was in the city centre and that he would be calling into see me in about 20 minutes. He gave me my belated Christmas present that he had bought in Argos, a gold Sekonda watch. He also brought a bottle of Russian vodka and a couple of cartons of black grape juice to drink with it. Whilst he cracked open the bottle of vodka, I drank a cup of tea. Then we took Rocky for his morning walk, and I popped into my butcher's shop on Newland Avenue for 2lb of bacon that does not shrivel up in the pan when fried. And, we popped into a jeweller's and Victors paid the £4 to have some links taken out of the strap to make the watch fit my slim wrist. Rocky is still limping on his right paw and I need to ring up the PDSA for an appointment for them to investigate what is causing him the distress. I fry some bacon for breakfast and join Victors for a drink. When the bottle of vodka is empty, Victors announces he is going home because he is drunk. I am not drunk just merry. I will not try to keep up with Victors alcohol intake. When he goes I can get back to my blogging.

UPDATE: Rocky has an appointment for 12.30pm on Monday.

Fraud

Fraud



My staff wrote 'Barack Obama tribute', junior minister Dawn Butler admits

Dawn Butler, a Labour MP and Government whip, has admitted that her staff wrote a tribute to her supposedly written by Barack Obama
.

Like with Speaker Martin in Greengate, it's always somebody else to blame never the MP themselves. When are MPs going to carry the can when something goes wrong?

Police constable 'smacked' child

Police constable 'smacked' child

A policeman described in court as having a Dickensian attitude has been given a suspended jail sentence after he hit a primary school-age child.

I am somewhat puzzled why the BBC is reporting 'smacked' in quotation marks when the copper has admitted the offence and it is no longer just an allegation and therefore can be reported without the need to protect against a writ for libel?

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Tomato to the cause


Tomato to the cause

Following on from this, it did take me exactly an hour to walk to Priory Road police station getting there at 2.05pm. Detective Constable Gooder greeted me in reception and was pleased that I was punctual. He said that my solicitor had phoned to say he would be there in a few minutes. He was 5 minutes late arriving at 2.20pm! Jeff Toolman spent about 5 minutes with the police getting the gist of the alleged racist material on my blog, and then the police left the room and I was then for the first time able to see what all the fuss was about. See my original post here. And plod update here.

The post which had led the police to investigate me is here. But, nothing to do with the original complaint, the police also questioned me in relation to this post.

In relation to the first it was suggested that I might be trying to stir up racial hatred, and in the second case that I was being offensive and it is immaterial whatever my intent if racial hatred is actually stirred up and somebody is offended by what I have written.

I got the impression that the police were just going through the motions because somebody had complained. And, the police said that the file would be sent off to the Crown Prosecution Service to see if I am to be charged. My solicitor said that they wouldn't dare because it would turn me into a martyr.

At least I managed to get my solicitor to give me a lift home. However, I did leave my woolly hat and gloves on some car in the car park after I came out and rolled my first fag since the third degree.

Third degree

Third degree

I'm just having the condemned man's last cigarette before embarking on the 40-60 minute walk to the police station to be interviewed in relation to the alleged racist material on my blog.

Evil witch whips Labour MPs into line at the trough

Evil witch whips Labour MPs into line at the trough



Labour MPs 'will be forced to vote in favour of withholding details of expenses'

No accountability? I want to hold all MPs to account for dipping into the public purse. I do not trust MPs to be honest because their previous track record has shown that they cannot be trusted not to steal taxpayers money. A government committed to holding benefit cheats to account and yet seeks not to be accountable for expenses cheating themselves is pure hypocrisy of the worst kind.