First they came...

First they came...

Prisons can only run with the good will of prisoners. Therefore, it is not very politically wise for Jack Straw to start a war against prisoners he cannot possibly win. When prisoners remove their good will this is what can happen.

Justice is not sending offenders to prison for breaking the law, if it includes them suffering by being subjected to the unlawful conduct by the MoJ and prison authorities.

There is no lawful authority to break the law.

If the authorities do it then they can rightly be classed as offenders.

Because there is no lawful authority to break the law, prisoners can lawfully engage in rebellion against this.

What we have here is a power struggle between right and wrong.

The prisoners have right on their side, they have the law on their side, they hold the moral high ground.

Jack Straw must surrender and back down.

Prisoners by law are only required to be governed by lawful authority. Do not misconstrue that by prisoners taking the law into their own hands they are acting like vigilantes. Merely asserting their legal rights. "There is a need for public power and its efficient exercise: there is a need for protection against abuse of power" (Foulkes). Prisoners are entitled to protect themselves, even against the Secretary of State responsible for prisoners if he is caught breaking the law.

There is no room in a so-called liberal democracy for inner cities not to be fully a part of that democracy. Our prisons cannot be beyond the pale. They cannot be lawless. A regime run by outlaws? Not in my name! History shows that the rioters of 18th and 19th Britain realised that the law is a double-edged weapon. History is repeating itself in a land locked away from general public view. This place is kept in the Dark Ages by the authorities. Sometimes the general public are afforded a glimpse inside. Take a peek here.

Jack Straw, let the "Prisoners Speak Out"(Rijksen), or else!

If Ben chooses to do the Last Post, it must be his decision and not one made by either Jack Straw, Phil Wheatley, or any prison governor, including Nick Evans, Governor of HMP Shepton Mallet, or any of his staff.

Whilst Labour can be praised for introducing the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the European Convention, Labour can be fairly criticised for breaking the laws which they introduced. Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.

The MoJ is claiming that Ben should exercise his freedom of expression through a gag imposed by the MoJ. If it remains in place then Ben cannot impart his information and ideas to the general public. Because he is deprived of his liberty by the imposition of a sentence handed down by a judge, he is not in a position to go and say his piece at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park. However, if he can blog then he would settle for this. He is in safe custody, therefore he is not posing a risk to the public by speaking out from inside. If anything, the risk to the public is posed by the MoJ attacking civil liberities.

Turning now to the points "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". The Prison Service claims that Prison Service Order 4411 - Prisoner Communications Correspondence (which has no legal status) is compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention. The General Secretary of the Association of Prisoners, Ben Gunn, disputes this. As the Legal, Political, and Media adviser to the AoP, I agree with Ben. We claim that the restrictions are not in accordance with either the law or necessary in a democratic society. The prison environment may not be democratic, nevertheless prisoners are members of society, members of the public, just not at large, and as such are entitled to the rule of law and democracy.

Because convicted prisoners are still denied their human and legal right to the vote, they have no voice in Parliament. One view expressed recently in Inside Time is worthy of closer examination "Former Conservative councillor Daniel Smy was sent to prison for fiddling his expenses and wonders why there have been no MPs put on trial for fiddling their expenses". Nobody is above the law. Nor is there one law for them, and one for the rest of us. Everybody is equal under the law. The government claims that prisoners have lost the moral authority to vote. However, this argument was lost before the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v UK(No2). Recently, Parliament was accused of not having the moral authority to govern. Parliament has so far not answered this charge. What can we infer from this silence? Parliament has passed laws to allow juries to infer guilt from silence.

If Ben is silent it is not because he is guilty. It is because he has been gagged by his accusers. This is like torturing someone into a confession and then pronouncing that they are guilty. But this is not freedom of speech. It has to be unrestricted of legal violation.

If freedom of speech is killed off in this country, if anyone is allowed to leave will the last person leaving switch off the light? There is an alternative, people can light beacons giving a warning of the threat.

First they came...