Conjob from editor of ConVerse

Conjob from editor of ConVerse

In the April edition of ConVerse, a prison newspaper edited by ex-prisoner Mark Leech, beneath the headline "'Roast a Muslim' Outrage at the racist who claims he speaks for you!" is the photograph of myself taken from the sidebar on my blog. The article begins "A lifer on licence, who claims to be the voice of prisoners, has escaped with a stern warning from police and the Probation Service over a racist rant".

The "Roast a Muslim" part is part of a satirical blog post I wrote, which was fully titled "Don't buy a turkey this Christmas, roast a Muslim instead".

Fair comment is a legal term for a common law defence in defamation cases (libel or slander). According to wikipedia "In the United States, the traditional privilege of "fair comment" is seen as a protection for robust, even outrageous published or spoken opinions about public officials and public figures. Fair comment is defined as a "common law defense [that] guarantees the freedom of the press to express statements on matters of public interest, as long as the statements are not made with ill will, spite, or with the intent to harm the plaintiff".

Because Mark Leech has written and published the article with ill will in mind, and in spite, and with the intent to harm me, he cannot rely upon fair comment in his defence.

It will be noted to begin with that Mark Leech has shortened the title of my blog post to suit his own ends, and to take it out of context to send out a different message to his readership (with its artificially inflated figures) than the message which went out to my readership.

Leech by name and leech by nature, refers to an "Outrage". Who was supposedly outraged? None other than police informant Mark Leech himself. As an ex-prisoner, Mark Leech, or should that be Nark Leech?, will know that in the prison world, being a grass is one of the lowest of the low in the prison hierarchy. When he informed on me to the police, he fully expected that once the police started to investigate me that I would be recalled to prison and that he would remain as the "anonymous informant" under public interest immunity. Admittedly, he was not my first suspect. I, along with other bloggers, suspected that another blogger was behind trying to set the police onto me. It was only when I read something by Leech on Leech's forum (which he has now deleted), that I realised it was him who had reported me to the police alleging racial incitement. In spite of Leech trying to delete the information, Google does have it in its cache for anybody interested in digging further into his dirty dealings.

Leech refers to "the racist", which he clearly is labelling and/or libelling me. Who is the judge in this case? Why, it's none other than Mark Leech himself! Leech has failed to declare he has an interest in this matter. Therefore, he cannot judge in his own cause because of the obvious bias. Why does Mark Leech want me locked up in prison? He does not simply just want me out of the way, he wants me out of his way. It is just as well that the law is not there just for Mark Leech's private purpose. The law is a two edged sword. Ok, let's duel.

Leech is playing prison politics in the wrong arena. Whilst he is playing to a captive audience, and trying to influence some in the legal profession and prison reformers, I write for a world wide audience and most of them are not a captive audience and they are free thinkers. Leech's influence is more in his own mind than it is in the real world. As one barrister emailed me in relation to Leech "more inaccurate scaremongering slander.....what a pitiful unfulfilled little man".

Then we have yet another wildly exaggerated claim from Leech about me "who claims he speaks for you!". An obvious problem with Leech is the old saying 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'. Professor David Downes in his book Contrasts in Tolerance - Post-war Penal Policy in the Netherlands and England and Wales recounts how "The publication of his Prisoners Speaks Out in 1958 was clearly an event of major importance in the history of Dutch post-war criminal justice...In 1958, a collection of letters was published in this spirit. These letters, written on request by prisoners, covered their experiences of the administration of criminal justice. Most contained considerable criticisms of judges and public prosecutors, but also of lawyers and probation workers. The result was a storm of public indignation: the different functionaries were, for the first time, confronted with the implications of their own actions and, for awhile, their self-confidence seemed to be shaken. What had been achieved in any case, was the first piercing of the hermetically closed prison situation. For the first time, prisoners could let their voices be heard from captivity...The Ministry of Justice first tried to suppress the book, thus perhaps guaranteeing an even greater impact. Even 20 years after its publication in a fresh edition in 1961, judges and prosecutors named this more than any other book as the source of their belief that too long a sentence of imprisonment would embitter and damage prisoners, both socially and psychologically". You would think that as a so-called prison reformer, Mark Leech, would favoured someone who assists in the prisoners voice getting to the outside world via my blog and legal challenges and media interviews? What separates Leech and myself is that he is out for what he can gain from the plight of prisoners, whereas I am not interested in cashing in on prisoners but assisting them to lead better and law abiding lives.

No such stern warning has been given to me at all by anyone in authority either from the police or probation service. What Leech would like to see happen in his little dream world, and the reality in the outside world are two separate things. I have no sympathy for him, he can wallow in his own shit.

There will be a follow up post going into more detail about Leech and his libellous article.