South West Norfolk selection: molehill, slag heap or mountain?
If Elizabeth Truss is deselected as the Tory candidate for South West Norfolk, how much blame should be attached to David Cameron and his blogger mouthpiece Iain Dale?
Iain Dale says he will try "to offer some mature reflection and analyse where this whole sorry saga may head next".EDP Column: Why Liz Truss Deserves the Support of SW Norfolk Tories
It maybe that the Eastern Daily Press column is only in the hard copy because I have been unable to find it online and Iain has not provided a link with the post.
Perhaps, it was not such a good idea to call those who seek to deselect Liz Truss as being like Neanderthals? Iain Dale also suggest that such Tories are homophobic. Moreover, he states that they are not fit to judge because they may have their own skeletons in the closet. According to Mr Dale: "The only person entitled to judge her is her husband". He is the person to judge her qualities as a wife, however, when it comes down to being selected to represent other people in Parliament that is not for her husband to judge.
Mr Dale states that Liz Truss' affair is a completely private matter. Given that it was published by the Daily Mail A-list Tory's affair with married Cameron high-flyer, it is difficult to see how he can claim that it is not a matter of public interest. Particularly to those seeking people of good character to represent them.
Because others have had affairs whilst in public office, Mr Dale tries to argue what she did wrong was not wrong if it does not ivolve the ability to do the job. Only problem with this is that the examples given are those of people already in post, and if it was discovered during the selection process would they have been appointed? Given Iain Dale's reputation for being both a hypocrite and a liar, it is no surprise that he can see no wrong in Liz Truss not being open and honest. To claim this is not about trust is to say "trust me, I'm a liar".
It was precisely because Mark Field breached trust that he lost his shadow cabinet post and was relegated to the backbenches. Under natural justice the selection process is flawed legally because the panel failed to take the issue into account in reaching its decision.
Liz Truss was parachuted in by David Cameron, and her past was deliberately withheld from the selection committee. Are there really no local yokels in Norfolk capable of representing the folk of Norfolk?
This is a case where it would have been best if the paracute failed to open, and Liz Truss had kept her legs closed save for her husband.
UPDATE:
Tory grassroots threaten revolt over female candidate
The market towns of Norfolk are an unlikely setting for a political row which could rock the sure-footed leadership of David Cameron.
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.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The man with no name relives horrors of Stasi
The man with no name relives horrors of Stasi
Wolfgang Arndt suffered the full force of the East German state's attempts to destroy his personality. He tells Tony Paterson about his ordeal, and why he is determined to forgive his torturers
The award-winning film The Lives of Others, which exposed the workings of East Germany's hated secret police, always seemed a bit of a joke to Wolfgang Arndt. The 50-year-old does not need to be told what the Stasi did. He was spied on by its agents since his school days, arrested and detained, beaten and drugged by its officers and subsequently jailed for six years.
That was 29 years ago. But Mr Arndt still suffers panic attacks whenever doors are closed on him. "What do I think of that film? Well it was a deliberately toned-down version of the Stasi designed not to offend cinema-goers too much," he said as he stood outside Berlin's former Stasi prison this week.
Mr Arndt was just one of the Stasi's estimated 250,000 political prisoners. He now works occasionally as a guide for the thousands of tourists and schoolchildren who visit the Stasi jail and interrogation centre in Berlin's outlying Hohenschönhausen district each year.
I wonder if the Stasi on Halloween's when picking up a suspect used to say "Trick or treat?".
Wolfgang Arndt suffered the full force of the East German state's attempts to destroy his personality. He tells Tony Paterson about his ordeal, and why he is determined to forgive his torturers
The award-winning film The Lives of Others, which exposed the workings of East Germany's hated secret police, always seemed a bit of a joke to Wolfgang Arndt. The 50-year-old does not need to be told what the Stasi did. He was spied on by its agents since his school days, arrested and detained, beaten and drugged by its officers and subsequently jailed for six years.
That was 29 years ago. But Mr Arndt still suffers panic attacks whenever doors are closed on him. "What do I think of that film? Well it was a deliberately toned-down version of the Stasi designed not to offend cinema-goers too much," he said as he stood outside Berlin's former Stasi prison this week.
Mr Arndt was just one of the Stasi's estimated 250,000 political prisoners. He now works occasionally as a guide for the thousands of tourists and schoolchildren who visit the Stasi jail and interrogation centre in Berlin's outlying Hohenschönhausen district each year.
I wonder if the Stasi on Halloween's when picking up a suspect used to say "Trick or treat?".
Dumb and Dumber
Dumb and Dumber
It cannot be good for democracy that one man's money can buy another man's way into Number Ten Downing Street.
Michael Ashcroft is funding David Cameron's entry into Number Ten Downing Street. The latter will be a bought man. What does Michael Ashcroft want in return for his money? I don't accept that he is giving the money out of the goodness of his heart.
It beggars belief that the Electoral Commission cannot pin down Michael Ashcroft's finances. It is obvious he is engaged in money laundering activities. If the likes of Al Capone could be prosecuted for tax evasion, why is Michael Ashcroft being given so much licence?
Michael Ashcroft is not a registered voter in this country. His company Bearwood Corporate Services Ltd does not pay taxes. All David Cameron is doing is taking money for the Tory party which should have gone into the public purse. This is even worse than expenses fiddling.
It cannot be good for democracy that one man's money can buy another man's way into Number Ten Downing Street.
Michael Ashcroft is funding David Cameron's entry into Number Ten Downing Street. The latter will be a bought man. What does Michael Ashcroft want in return for his money? I don't accept that he is giving the money out of the goodness of his heart.
It beggars belief that the Electoral Commission cannot pin down Michael Ashcroft's finances. It is obvious he is engaged in money laundering activities. If the likes of Al Capone could be prosecuted for tax evasion, why is Michael Ashcroft being given so much licence?
Michael Ashcroft is not a registered voter in this country. His company Bearwood Corporate Services Ltd does not pay taxes. All David Cameron is doing is taking money for the Tory party which should have gone into the public purse. This is even worse than expenses fiddling.
Friday, October 30, 2009
A prisoner seeks the vote: Conviction politics
A prisoner seeks the vote: Conviction politics
Oct 29th 2009
From The Economist print edition
One inmate’s appeal is thrown out, but changes beckon
“VOTES for paedophiles” is unlikely ever to be a popular rallying cry, and few mourned the dismissal of Peter Chester’s case before the High Court on October 28th. Thirty-two years ago Mr Chester raped and strangled his seven-year-old niece. Still in prison, he wants to vote, which the law currently forbids. He had hoped that the European Convention on Human Rights might allow him to claim that right, but Mr Justice Burton, judging the case, felt otherwise. Mr Chester and his fellow lags will remain disenfranchised.
Britain is unusual in Europe for applying a near-blanket ban on prisoners voting. According to the Prison Reform Trust, a charity which wants this reversed, the policy is shared by only six other EU countries, mainly eastern European ones. The rest either allow prisoners full voting rights or restrict the franchise only partially. This usually involves taking into account the length of the prisoner’s sentence (as also happens in Australia and New Zealand) or giving judges the discretion to impose a ban as an extra penalty. America, exceptional as ever in penal policy, bans inmates from voting in most states and even bans former inmates in a few.
The agitation of penal reformers is not shared by psephologists, who note the tiddly numbers involved. John Curtice, an election guru at Strathclyde University, points out that even if every prisoner were enfranchised and made use of his vote (which he doubts they all would), it would average only about 100 extra ballots in each constituency. “The emotional heat generated by this issue is in inverse proportion to the numbers involved,” he concludes, adding, when pressed, that prisoners’ votes would most probably be Labour-leaning. They would almost certainly be counted in prisoners’ home areas rather than in the constituencies where prisons are located, to avoid skewing results in areas with big jails.
Despite the small numbers and this week’s High Court ruling, the government is girding itself to act. A ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in 2004 found that Britain’s blanket ban breached democratic provisions laid down in the convention. Following an unsuccessful appeal in 2005, the government has spent four years pondering what changes to make, provoking a rebuke this summer from EU bigwigs about the “significant delay” in obeying the judgment. It has grudgingly proposed various options for partial enfranchisement based on sentence length, which it hopes will be enough to satisfy the European Court. As the chart shows, even the most radical restoration of rights, covering those serving up to four years, would give the vote to fewer than half of the 64,000 or so prisoners who are currently disenfranchised.
It seems decreasingly likely that inmates will get the chance to vote in Britain’s general election next year, which must take place by June 3rd. If that deadline is missed, the matter is likely to fall to the Tories. David Cameron’s party is no keener on votes for paedophiles than the current government, and prisoners can expect them to be no more generous.
They may in fact do even less. Senior Tories are talking about staging a parliamentary debate and vote (possibly a free one, in which Mps could vote according to their conscience rather than their party’s line) on the subject. This might be a useful way of offloading responsibility for a measure that is hardly a vote-winner. Strategists are hopeful that even a negative vote might be enough to keep the European judges at bay. One of the complaints the court made in its 2004 ruling was that Britain’s policy seemed to have emerged by accident rather than through democratic deliberation. A debate and decision by MPs might just satisfy that objection. Voting rights for prisoners could yet slip away.
Oct 29th 2009
From The Economist print edition
One inmate’s appeal is thrown out, but changes beckon
“VOTES for paedophiles” is unlikely ever to be a popular rallying cry, and few mourned the dismissal of Peter Chester’s case before the High Court on October 28th. Thirty-two years ago Mr Chester raped and strangled his seven-year-old niece. Still in prison, he wants to vote, which the law currently forbids. He had hoped that the European Convention on Human Rights might allow him to claim that right, but Mr Justice Burton, judging the case, felt otherwise. Mr Chester and his fellow lags will remain disenfranchised.
Britain is unusual in Europe for applying a near-blanket ban on prisoners voting. According to the Prison Reform Trust, a charity which wants this reversed, the policy is shared by only six other EU countries, mainly eastern European ones. The rest either allow prisoners full voting rights or restrict the franchise only partially. This usually involves taking into account the length of the prisoner’s sentence (as also happens in Australia and New Zealand) or giving judges the discretion to impose a ban as an extra penalty. America, exceptional as ever in penal policy, bans inmates from voting in most states and even bans former inmates in a few.
The agitation of penal reformers is not shared by psephologists, who note the tiddly numbers involved. John Curtice, an election guru at Strathclyde University, points out that even if every prisoner were enfranchised and made use of his vote (which he doubts they all would), it would average only about 100 extra ballots in each constituency. “The emotional heat generated by this issue is in inverse proportion to the numbers involved,” he concludes, adding, when pressed, that prisoners’ votes would most probably be Labour-leaning. They would almost certainly be counted in prisoners’ home areas rather than in the constituencies where prisons are located, to avoid skewing results in areas with big jails.
Despite the small numbers and this week’s High Court ruling, the government is girding itself to act. A ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in 2004 found that Britain’s blanket ban breached democratic provisions laid down in the convention. Following an unsuccessful appeal in 2005, the government has spent four years pondering what changes to make, provoking a rebuke this summer from EU bigwigs about the “significant delay” in obeying the judgment. It has grudgingly proposed various options for partial enfranchisement based on sentence length, which it hopes will be enough to satisfy the European Court. As the chart shows, even the most radical restoration of rights, covering those serving up to four years, would give the vote to fewer than half of the 64,000 or so prisoners who are currently disenfranchised.
It seems decreasingly likely that inmates will get the chance to vote in Britain’s general election next year, which must take place by June 3rd. If that deadline is missed, the matter is likely to fall to the Tories. David Cameron’s party is no keener on votes for paedophiles than the current government, and prisoners can expect them to be no more generous.
They may in fact do even less. Senior Tories are talking about staging a parliamentary debate and vote (possibly a free one, in which Mps could vote according to their conscience rather than their party’s line) on the subject. This might be a useful way of offloading responsibility for a measure that is hardly a vote-winner. Strategists are hopeful that even a negative vote might be enough to keep the European judges at bay. One of the complaints the court made in its 2004 ruling was that Britain’s policy seemed to have emerged by accident rather than through democratic deliberation. A debate and decision by MPs might just satisfy that objection. Voting rights for prisoners could yet slip away.
Prisoners: Let them vote
Prisoners: Let them vote
Oct 29th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Even society’s worst offenders should not lose the vote when they lose their liberty
MOST rich democracies spend a lot of time and money trying to convince more people to exercise their right to vote. So it might seem strange that some of the same countries take some trouble preventing thousands of citizens from going to the polls. In 48 American states and seven European countries, including Britain, prisoners are forbidden from voting in elections. Many more countries impose partial voting bans (applying only to prisoners serving long sentences, for instance). And in ten American states some criminals are stripped of the vote for life, even after their release.
There is scant public sympathy for characters such as Peter Chester, a British child-killer whose bid to use human-rights legislation to win the right to vote from his cell was rejected on October 28th (see article). But voting should not require a character test. The punishment of monsters such as Mr Chester consists of the prolonged deprivation of liberty. Withdrawing the vote from them only hammers home what they already believe: that normal social rules do not apply to them.
The antisocial contract
Liberty is by no means the only right to be squeezed in jail, where second-order freedoms such as the right to privacy, to family life and so on inevitably take a battering. To some, the right to vote belongs in this category of minor, unavoidable privations. But it is neither. Those who believe in democracy ought to place the freedom to vote near the top of any list, and consider its removal a serious additional sanction. And losing the ability to vote is no longer a practical consequence of imprisonment, as it may once have been. Voting by proxy or post is easy nowadays; indeed, prisoners awaiting trial in jail (who are not banned from voting in most countries) do so already.
These changes point up the fact that the withdrawal of the franchise is often a hangover of history rather than a carefully thought out sanction. Take Britain, where the ban dates back to 1870 and makes little sense whichever side of the argument one is on. Prisoners may vote if they are doing time for non-payment of fines or, strangely, contempt of court. Those serving the new sentence of “intermittent custody” (which means prison on some days and home on others) may vote if the election falls on a day when they are outside, but not if they happen to be locked up. Prisoners who have done their time but remain banged up for reasons of public protection are still forbidden from voting even though the punitive part of their sentence is over. It is all too obviously a system based on habit rather than principle.
The principles retrospectively volunteered are wrong anyway. Some say that withdrawing the right to vote teaches jailbirds that if they don’t play by society’s rules they cannot expect a hand in making them. But it has yet to be shown that withholding the vote is an effective deterrent against offending. If anything, it is likely to militate against prisoners’ rehabilitation. One of the aims of imprisonment is to give miscreants a shove in the right direction, through job-training, Jesus or whatever does the trick. Allowing prisoners to vote will not magically reconnect them with society, but it will probably do more good than excluding them.
Serving prisoners are not numerous enough to swing many elections. But once a government uses disenfranchisement as a sanction, it is tempted to take things further. Consider those American states where the suspension of prisoners’ votes has morphed into a lifelong ban: in Republican-controlled Florida, for instance, nearly a third of black men cannot vote—enough to have swung the 2000 presidential election. Even those who don’t care much about prisoners’ rights should be wary of elected officials exercising too much say over who makes up the electorate.
Oct 29th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Even society’s worst offenders should not lose the vote when they lose their liberty
MOST rich democracies spend a lot of time and money trying to convince more people to exercise their right to vote. So it might seem strange that some of the same countries take some trouble preventing thousands of citizens from going to the polls. In 48 American states and seven European countries, including Britain, prisoners are forbidden from voting in elections. Many more countries impose partial voting bans (applying only to prisoners serving long sentences, for instance). And in ten American states some criminals are stripped of the vote for life, even after their release.
There is scant public sympathy for characters such as Peter Chester, a British child-killer whose bid to use human-rights legislation to win the right to vote from his cell was rejected on October 28th (see article). But voting should not require a character test. The punishment of monsters such as Mr Chester consists of the prolonged deprivation of liberty. Withdrawing the vote from them only hammers home what they already believe: that normal social rules do not apply to them.
The antisocial contract
Liberty is by no means the only right to be squeezed in jail, where second-order freedoms such as the right to privacy, to family life and so on inevitably take a battering. To some, the right to vote belongs in this category of minor, unavoidable privations. But it is neither. Those who believe in democracy ought to place the freedom to vote near the top of any list, and consider its removal a serious additional sanction. And losing the ability to vote is no longer a practical consequence of imprisonment, as it may once have been. Voting by proxy or post is easy nowadays; indeed, prisoners awaiting trial in jail (who are not banned from voting in most countries) do so already.
These changes point up the fact that the withdrawal of the franchise is often a hangover of history rather than a carefully thought out sanction. Take Britain, where the ban dates back to 1870 and makes little sense whichever side of the argument one is on. Prisoners may vote if they are doing time for non-payment of fines or, strangely, contempt of court. Those serving the new sentence of “intermittent custody” (which means prison on some days and home on others) may vote if the election falls on a day when they are outside, but not if they happen to be locked up. Prisoners who have done their time but remain banged up for reasons of public protection are still forbidden from voting even though the punitive part of their sentence is over. It is all too obviously a system based on habit rather than principle.
The principles retrospectively volunteered are wrong anyway. Some say that withdrawing the right to vote teaches jailbirds that if they don’t play by society’s rules they cannot expect a hand in making them. But it has yet to be shown that withholding the vote is an effective deterrent against offending. If anything, it is likely to militate against prisoners’ rehabilitation. One of the aims of imprisonment is to give miscreants a shove in the right direction, through job-training, Jesus or whatever does the trick. Allowing prisoners to vote will not magically reconnect them with society, but it will probably do more good than excluding them.
Serving prisoners are not numerous enough to swing many elections. But once a government uses disenfranchisement as a sanction, it is tempted to take things further. Consider those American states where the suspension of prisoners’ votes has morphed into a lifelong ban: in Republican-controlled Florida, for instance, nearly a third of black men cannot vote—enough to have swung the 2000 presidential election. Even those who don’t care much about prisoners’ rights should be wary of elected officials exercising too much say over who makes up the electorate.
Pictures of the day: 30 October 2009
Pictures of the day: 30 October 2009
Birth of the internet...
The computer from which the first message was sent on the Internet is displayed during a one-day conference celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Internet at the UCLA campus Picture: AFP/GETTY
A tractor drives on a road near Pitlochry in Scotland Picture: REUTERS
A swan swims on a lake surrounded by autumn colour near Brdo pri Kranju castle, north of Ljubljana, Slovenia Picture: REUTERS
Lightning strikes as a very long line of cars creeps down West Swan Lake Road in Bossier City, Louisiana Picture: AP
A tiny kingbird pecks at a red-tailed hawk's head to drive it away from its nest. Although small, the species can become very aggressive in the breeding season...
Picture: BNPS
...Amateur photographer Michael Parrish captured the duel at Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie at Elwood near Chicago, Illinois Picture: BNPS
Birth of the internet...
The computer from which the first message was sent on the Internet is displayed during a one-day conference celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Internet at the UCLA campus Picture: AFP/GETTY
A tractor drives on a road near Pitlochry in Scotland Picture: REUTERS
A swan swims on a lake surrounded by autumn colour near Brdo pri Kranju castle, north of Ljubljana, Slovenia Picture: REUTERS
Lightning strikes as a very long line of cars creeps down West Swan Lake Road in Bossier City, Louisiana Picture: AP
A tiny kingbird pecks at a red-tailed hawk's head to drive it away from its nest. Although small, the species can become very aggressive in the breeding season...
Picture: BNPS
...Amateur photographer Michael Parrish captured the duel at Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie at Elwood near Chicago, Illinois Picture: BNPS
Friday competition: Who does this look like to you?
Friday competition: Who does this look like to you?
Stunned farmer Zheng Dexun dug up a crop of fleeceflower, or Chinese knotweed, and found one shaped like a person, in Langzhong, China. The eerie-looking plant, measuring 62 centimetres tall, has clearly defined arms, legs, and head. Zheng said: "I don't know whether it is good or bad to dig out a Chinese knotweed that looks like a human. I'd better put it back in the earth!" Picture: WENN
Nine months later it gives birth and Michelle Obama was on hand to assist...
US first lady Michelle Obama holds a sweet potato as she and local elementary school students harvest vegetables from the South Lawn of the White House
Picture: REUTERS
Stunned farmer Zheng Dexun dug up a crop of fleeceflower, or Chinese knotweed, and found one shaped like a person, in Langzhong, China. The eerie-looking plant, measuring 62 centimetres tall, has clearly defined arms, legs, and head. Zheng said: "I don't know whether it is good or bad to dig out a Chinese knotweed that looks like a human. I'd better put it back in the earth!" Picture: WENN
Nine months later it gives birth and Michelle Obama was on hand to assist...
US first lady Michelle Obama holds a sweet potato as she and local elementary school students harvest vegetables from the South Lawn of the White House
Picture: REUTERS
Prison 'inevitable' for false rape claims
Prison 'inevitable' for false rape claims
Prison is "inevitable" for women who falsely cry rape because it "drives a nail" in to the rape conviction rate, senior judges have warned.
"However Lisa Longstaff, of Women Against Rape, said the sentence was "outrageous" and warned the judges comments risked putting women off reporting rapes".
So, what does she suggest? A slap on the wrist, you naughty girl, don't do it again?
Prison is "inevitable" for women who falsely cry rape because it "drives a nail" in to the rape conviction rate, senior judges have warned.
"However Lisa Longstaff, of Women Against Rape, said the sentence was "outrageous" and warned the judges comments risked putting women off reporting rapes".
So, what does she suggest? A slap on the wrist, you naughty girl, don't do it again?
Tony McNulty: I didn’t ‘fiddle’ my expenses
Tony McNulty: I didn’t ‘fiddle’ my expenses
Tony McNulty, the former Home Office minister who was forced to repay £13,000 after subsidising his parents from public funds, has insisted that he did not "fiddle" his expenses.
This sounds like "Sorry. I didn't fiddle my expenses".
Ok Tony, what did you do then? Or, what do you call it?
Let's look at the facts, shall we? You claimed expenses to the amount of £72,500 from the public purse to allow your parents to live rent free in your designated second home, which is 8 miles from your main home and only 12 miles away from Parliament.
It beggars belief that you can give an unreserved apology with a reservation that you have done no wrong.
If anyone else fiddles their expenses they are called a thief.
Tony McNulty you are a thief. You are an expenses fiddler. It would also appear that you have a serious mental condition, you appear to be in a state of denial.
Tony McNulty, the former Home Office minister who was forced to repay £13,000 after subsidising his parents from public funds, has insisted that he did not "fiddle" his expenses.
This sounds like "Sorry. I didn't fiddle my expenses".
Ok Tony, what did you do then? Or, what do you call it?
Let's look at the facts, shall we? You claimed expenses to the amount of £72,500 from the public purse to allow your parents to live rent free in your designated second home, which is 8 miles from your main home and only 12 miles away from Parliament.
It beggars belief that you can give an unreserved apology with a reservation that you have done no wrong.
If anyone else fiddles their expenses they are called a thief.
Tony McNulty you are a thief. You are an expenses fiddler. It would also appear that you have a serious mental condition, you appear to be in a state of denial.
Daily Telegraph caught out rehashing old news
Daily Telegraph caught out rehashing old news
Today's news: Murderers and rapists among 750 criminals on the run
News from 7 July 2009: Almost 1,000 criminals who should be in jail are missing
Today's news: Murderers and rapists among 750 criminals on the run
News from 7 July 2009: Almost 1,000 criminals who should be in jail are missing
Cheating benefit advisor jailed
Cheating benefit advisor jailed
A benefits officer who admitted falsely claiming over £75,000 has been jailed for 14 months at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court.
"Laqad Yacoob, 40, of Stretford, who worked for Manchester City Council, pleaded guilty to 11 counts of falsely obtaining benefits over five years.
Judge Hamilton said Yacoob had "cynically and dishonestly plundered the state benefits system".
The court heard colleagues saw him as an expert on welfare rules.
He was seen to pore over complex entitlement regulations and welfare rule-books while at his job but was also secretly claiming a host of payments for himself, his wife and children".
Right, now we have prosecuted and jailed a benefit cheat. When are we going to prosecute and jail some MPs who have cheated with their expenses claims?
A benefits officer who admitted falsely claiming over £75,000 has been jailed for 14 months at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court.
"Laqad Yacoob, 40, of Stretford, who worked for Manchester City Council, pleaded guilty to 11 counts of falsely obtaining benefits over five years.
Judge Hamilton said Yacoob had "cynically and dishonestly plundered the state benefits system".
The court heard colleagues saw him as an expert on welfare rules.
He was seen to pore over complex entitlement regulations and welfare rule-books while at his job but was also secretly claiming a host of payments for himself, his wife and children".
Right, now we have prosecuted and jailed a benefit cheat. When are we going to prosecute and jail some MPs who have cheated with their expenses claims?
A weekend behind bars showed me why this prison is precious
A weekend behind bars showed me why this prison is precious
HMP Grendon is the one facility of its kind that embraces that brave idea of redemption. It works. Don't let it be destroyed
By Libby Brooks
The man to my left is trembling as he sits down. He drapes one arm across the back of the adjoining chair, but can't seem to relax. "This is … this really is quite intimidating," he mutters, pinching the bridge of his nose with his other hand. The man to my right greets me warmly: "Thank you for coming." He is calm and assured, with grey-flecked hair and kind eyes. In a moment, as we work round the seated circle introducing ourselves, I will learn that Mr Anxious is a chronic alcoholic serving life for the murder of a drinking buddy; Mr Charisma the same sentence for rape. The windows of HMP Grendon's G Wing meeting room are open. It's a breezy afternoon, and the blinds flutter against the glass like captive birds.
Last weekend, I spent the extra hour afforded by the return to Greenwich Mean Time in a cold and bare shoebox cell, with supper's saved mini-muffin and a moulded polyurethane pillow that my head left no impression upon for company. I was a guest of Friends of Grendon, the charity staging this sponsored sleepover to raise money for the most compelling, controversial and resilient penal experiment in Europe. Unusually, the inmates themselves were as much drivers of the event, with greater cause than any to evangelise about a regime that is painfully but irrevocably changing their lives – and is now under threat.
Grendon opened as a psychiatric prison in 1962, at a time when rehabilitative optimism was enjoying a brief blossoming. It is unique because it is run as a therapeutic democracy. Inmates don't live on wings, but in communities, which meet every Monday and Friday to vote on administrative business. (The only reason I can report on the weekend's activities is because I was thus granted permission.) They then revert to smaller sessions the rest of the week for intensive group therapy. The excavation doesn't end there, though, continuing informally over pool tables and cups of tea with other prisoners and specially trained officers. Men must elect to come here, and undergo a rigorous assessment. The ethos is one of dynamic security – inmates police themselves, holding those who breach rules to account, and maintain the ultimate sanction of voting out habitual transgressors.
The majority of Grendon inmates are lifers, comprising some of the most dangerous and disruptive men in the system. Crucially, they have recognised that the tick-box brevity of cognitive behavioural therapy courses offered in conventional prisons don't work for them. They want to change, fundamentally. It isn't an easy ride.
"The 18 months I've spent here have been the hardest in 18 years inside," Craig tells me. "I was used to hiding behind bravado and violence. To show emotion was very hard. A lot of my development has come from hearing other people's stories. The feelings are very raw. I don't think many people come here knowing what it's going to involve. Every image of yourself is broken down. And none of it is done in private."
It is certainly perplexing to encounter such eloquent therapy-speak from a man whose alternate vocabulary is based around nonces, bang-up and beef. So is it yet more box-ticking? The fact is that Grendon works. Latest research shows that for prisoners who stay here for more than 18 months, the reconviction rate within two years of release falls to 20%, compared with almost 50% for those serving in conventional prisons. Just as significantly, the number of drug and violence-related offences is close to zero, compared with 120 annually for every hundred inmates elsewhere.
Despite this salutary record, recent and future cutbacks are strangling the regime. As the chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, noted in August, financial efficiency savings take little account of Grendon's role, reducing time out of cell and cancelling groups, while limiting the informal interaction with staff that supports the therapeutic process.
Grendon doesn't work for everyone, but, for those who survive it, the results are astonishing. So it's equally astonishing that, nearly 50 years on, it remains an experiment, viewed by the rest of the prison service as at best a fig leaf, at worst a major pain in the hole.
As for my own time inside, it's not that enlightening, as it lasted only a day and a night. But I did notice some things. First, how easy it was to cede responsibility. I was without a timepiece, so had to rely on barked commands telling me when to eat, mingle and sleep. I did not feel like Libby any more, carrying standard issue towels and plastic cutlery back to my cell. The unequivocal slam of the wing gate was horrible, even knowing it would be open again at 7am and that I'd done nothing wrong.
I was clearly never going to be an advocate for the prisons-as-holiday-camps school. But even I was shocked by how utterly erasing the most considerate of regimes can be. It is a choice we have, whether to meet man's inhumanity to man with hope or derision. Grendon is the one place in the country to practise this most dangerous and magical of beliefs – that bad and broken men can redeem themselves.
HMP Grendon is the one facility of its kind that embraces that brave idea of redemption. It works. Don't let it be destroyed
By Libby Brooks
The man to my left is trembling as he sits down. He drapes one arm across the back of the adjoining chair, but can't seem to relax. "This is … this really is quite intimidating," he mutters, pinching the bridge of his nose with his other hand. The man to my right greets me warmly: "Thank you for coming." He is calm and assured, with grey-flecked hair and kind eyes. In a moment, as we work round the seated circle introducing ourselves, I will learn that Mr Anxious is a chronic alcoholic serving life for the murder of a drinking buddy; Mr Charisma the same sentence for rape. The windows of HMP Grendon's G Wing meeting room are open. It's a breezy afternoon, and the blinds flutter against the glass like captive birds.
Last weekend, I spent the extra hour afforded by the return to Greenwich Mean Time in a cold and bare shoebox cell, with supper's saved mini-muffin and a moulded polyurethane pillow that my head left no impression upon for company. I was a guest of Friends of Grendon, the charity staging this sponsored sleepover to raise money for the most compelling, controversial and resilient penal experiment in Europe. Unusually, the inmates themselves were as much drivers of the event, with greater cause than any to evangelise about a regime that is painfully but irrevocably changing their lives – and is now under threat.
Grendon opened as a psychiatric prison in 1962, at a time when rehabilitative optimism was enjoying a brief blossoming. It is unique because it is run as a therapeutic democracy. Inmates don't live on wings, but in communities, which meet every Monday and Friday to vote on administrative business. (The only reason I can report on the weekend's activities is because I was thus granted permission.) They then revert to smaller sessions the rest of the week for intensive group therapy. The excavation doesn't end there, though, continuing informally over pool tables and cups of tea with other prisoners and specially trained officers. Men must elect to come here, and undergo a rigorous assessment. The ethos is one of dynamic security – inmates police themselves, holding those who breach rules to account, and maintain the ultimate sanction of voting out habitual transgressors.
The majority of Grendon inmates are lifers, comprising some of the most dangerous and disruptive men in the system. Crucially, they have recognised that the tick-box brevity of cognitive behavioural therapy courses offered in conventional prisons don't work for them. They want to change, fundamentally. It isn't an easy ride.
"The 18 months I've spent here have been the hardest in 18 years inside," Craig tells me. "I was used to hiding behind bravado and violence. To show emotion was very hard. A lot of my development has come from hearing other people's stories. The feelings are very raw. I don't think many people come here knowing what it's going to involve. Every image of yourself is broken down. And none of it is done in private."
It is certainly perplexing to encounter such eloquent therapy-speak from a man whose alternate vocabulary is based around nonces, bang-up and beef. So is it yet more box-ticking? The fact is that Grendon works. Latest research shows that for prisoners who stay here for more than 18 months, the reconviction rate within two years of release falls to 20%, compared with almost 50% for those serving in conventional prisons. Just as significantly, the number of drug and violence-related offences is close to zero, compared with 120 annually for every hundred inmates elsewhere.
Despite this salutary record, recent and future cutbacks are strangling the regime. As the chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, noted in August, financial efficiency savings take little account of Grendon's role, reducing time out of cell and cancelling groups, while limiting the informal interaction with staff that supports the therapeutic process.
Grendon doesn't work for everyone, but, for those who survive it, the results are astonishing. So it's equally astonishing that, nearly 50 years on, it remains an experiment, viewed by the rest of the prison service as at best a fig leaf, at worst a major pain in the hole.
As for my own time inside, it's not that enlightening, as it lasted only a day and a night. But I did notice some things. First, how easy it was to cede responsibility. I was without a timepiece, so had to rely on barked commands telling me when to eat, mingle and sleep. I did not feel like Libby any more, carrying standard issue towels and plastic cutlery back to my cell. The unequivocal slam of the wing gate was horrible, even knowing it would be open again at 7am and that I'd done nothing wrong.
I was clearly never going to be an advocate for the prisons-as-holiday-camps school. But even I was shocked by how utterly erasing the most considerate of regimes can be. It is a choice we have, whether to meet man's inhumanity to man with hope or derision. Grendon is the one place in the country to practise this most dangerous and magical of beliefs – that bad and broken men can redeem themselves.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Nadine Dorries is so cheap
Nadine Dorries is so cheap
This idiot is claiming that Mad Nad has won substantial damages against Damian McBride.
According to the BBC Mad Nad accepted an out of court settlement for £1,000.
That is not substantial damages. It is peanuts which monkeys are paid.
'Smeargate' victim paid £1,000 by Brown aide
This idiot is claiming that Mad Nad has won substantial damages against Damian McBride.
According to the BBC Mad Nad accepted an out of court settlement for £1,000.
That is not substantial damages. It is peanuts which monkeys are paid.
'Smeargate' victim paid £1,000 by Brown aide
Ex-minister faces expenses rebuke
Ex-minister faces expenses rebuke
Former minister Tony McNulty is to be rebuked for his expenses claims following an inquiry and asked to repay about £13,000, the BBC understands.
Mr McNulty has been investigated by the parliamentary standards watchdog for claiming the second home allowance for a property in which his parents lived.
The Harrow property was eight miles away from his main central London home.
Who needs a second home 8 miles away from the main home? And, since when has it been up to the taxpayers to subsidise MPs parents standard of living?
This whole snout in the trough lark utterly disgusts me!
UPDATE: MPs' expenses: Tony McNulty subsidised his parents’ rent-free lifestyle
Given that McNulty has stolen £72,500 and is only paying back £13,000 that still leaves £59,500 unaccounted for. He knew full well what he was doing was a fraud.
Unless he repays the full amount he is still in the postion where crime pays!
UPDATE: The Telegraph must read my blog. As I was saying...
MPs' expenses: Tony McNulty allowed to keep £60,000
Tony McNulty has been allowed to keep almost £60,000 he claimed in expenses for a house where his elderly parents lived just eight miles from the "main" home he shares with his wife.
Former minister Tony McNulty is to be rebuked for his expenses claims following an inquiry and asked to repay about £13,000, the BBC understands.
Mr McNulty has been investigated by the parliamentary standards watchdog for claiming the second home allowance for a property in which his parents lived.
The Harrow property was eight miles away from his main central London home.
Who needs a second home 8 miles away from the main home? And, since when has it been up to the taxpayers to subsidise MPs parents standard of living?
This whole snout in the trough lark utterly disgusts me!
UPDATE: MPs' expenses: Tony McNulty subsidised his parents’ rent-free lifestyle
Given that McNulty has stolen £72,500 and is only paying back £13,000 that still leaves £59,500 unaccounted for. He knew full well what he was doing was a fraud.
Unless he repays the full amount he is still in the postion where crime pays!
UPDATE: The Telegraph must read my blog. As I was saying...
MPs' expenses: Tony McNulty allowed to keep £60,000
Tony McNulty has been allowed to keep almost £60,000 he claimed in expenses for a house where his elderly parents lived just eight miles from the "main" home he shares with his wife.
MPs' expenses: Gordon Brown to deny MPs vote on expenses overhaul
MPs' expenses: Gordon Brown to deny MPs vote on expenses overhaul
Gordon Brown is to force MPs to accept the proposed overhaul of parliamentary expenses in a move that could prompt a mutiny among backbenchers.
So, the expenses fiddling MPs are being denied the vote? Perhaps now they will appreciate what it is like for prisoners being denied the vote!
Gordon Brown is to force MPs to accept the proposed overhaul of parliamentary expenses in a move that could prompt a mutiny among backbenchers.
So, the expenses fiddling MPs are being denied the vote? Perhaps now they will appreciate what it is like for prisoners being denied the vote!
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The Sun pays damages to Labour MP Tom Watson
The Sun pays damages to Labour MP Tom Watson
Newspaper apologises after falsely alleging that Tom Watson was involved in a plot to smear the Conservatives
Judgment/Statement in Court.
Iain Dale and Paul Staines aka Guido Fawkes and Mad Nad should be shitting in their pants right now...
n.b. The nespaper day should of course be Wednesday and not Tuesday...
Mr Justice Burton is a disgrace
Mr Justice Burton is a disgrace
It is wholly inappropriate and offensive that Mr Justice Burton is allowed to be so corrupt and/or incompetent to judge the Peter Chester case.
"Dismissing Chester's argument on all grounds, the judge said the case would have cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds and amounted to an "impermissible" attempt to force the courts to interfere with Parliament".
This Prisoners Votes Case has already cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of pounds, because the government has stubbornly refused to give in on a case it cannot possibly win. If the game is to save the taxpayers money, then refusing to give prisoners the vote will cost the taxpayers between £60 and £120 million in compensation payouts to prisoners for being denied the franchise.
Parliament's job is to legislate. However, it cannot legislate unless a draft bill is put to Parliament. Jack Straw is refusing to do his duty. So, this is not the courts interfering with Parliament. This is the Executive interfering with Parliament. Just because Jack Straw is Mr Justice Burton's boss is not grounds to not decide against him. Mr Justice Burton is required to be an impartial judge and not working for the government.
It is offensive to constitutional principles that Mr Justice Burton refused to declare the Representation of the People Act 1983 incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The government has already conceded this position. The judge was required by law to give a ruling based on law and not a ruling which the editor of The Sun might write. What is hopeless is Mr Justice Burton and not Chester's chances of appeal.
Update: Yorkshire Post Lifer loses right to vote bid At least the headline is better than it was when the YP last reported on this case.
It is wholly inappropriate and offensive that Mr Justice Burton is allowed to be so corrupt and/or incompetent to judge the Peter Chester case.
"Dismissing Chester's argument on all grounds, the judge said the case would have cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds and amounted to an "impermissible" attempt to force the courts to interfere with Parliament".
This Prisoners Votes Case has already cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of pounds, because the government has stubbornly refused to give in on a case it cannot possibly win. If the game is to save the taxpayers money, then refusing to give prisoners the vote will cost the taxpayers between £60 and £120 million in compensation payouts to prisoners for being denied the franchise.
Parliament's job is to legislate. However, it cannot legislate unless a draft bill is put to Parliament. Jack Straw is refusing to do his duty. So, this is not the courts interfering with Parliament. This is the Executive interfering with Parliament. Just because Jack Straw is Mr Justice Burton's boss is not grounds to not decide against him. Mr Justice Burton is required to be an impartial judge and not working for the government.
It is offensive to constitutional principles that Mr Justice Burton refused to declare the Representation of the People Act 1983 incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The government has already conceded this position. The judge was required by law to give a ruling based on law and not a ruling which the editor of The Sun might write. What is hopeless is Mr Justice Burton and not Chester's chances of appeal.
Update: Yorkshire Post Lifer loses right to vote bid At least the headline is better than it was when the YP last reported on this case.
Millionth Moggie's worth a mint
Millionth Moggie's worth a mint
Lilac-liveried special that's one in a million is coming up for auction.
A Morris Minor that's literally one in a million could make more than £30,000 when it comes up to auction. That's more than 10 times what most Minors are worth.
Lilac-liveried special that's one in a million is coming up for auction.
A Morris Minor that's literally one in a million could make more than £30,000 when it comes up to auction. That's more than 10 times what most Minors are worth.
Gary Glitter hanged for sex offences against young children
Gary Glitter hanged for sex offences against young children
A new television drama will show convicted paedophile Gary Glitter, the former pop star, being executed for sex crimes against children.
A new television drama will show convicted paedophile Gary Glitter, the former pop star, being executed for sex crimes against children.
Prisoners votes and Radio 5 Live
Prisoners votes and Radio 5 Live
Radio 5 Live woke me up this morning to ask if I was prepared to do an interview in relation to this case at 12.30pm. Apparently, Mr Justice Burton is handing down his judgment in the High Court this morning.
I dread these kind of interviews because the level of debate tends to be in the gutter. The interviewer tends to play on stupid peoples ignorance and prejudices.
Meantime, Rocky needs his morning walk and I have to get some breakfast...
12pm Update: Radio 5 Live has called to say they no longer have time to cover this issue...
12.30 Update: Convicted murderer loses vote bid
A convicted murderer has lost a legal battle to be given the right to vote in elections while serving a prison term.
Peter Chester was jailed in 1977 for raping and strangling his niece and has so far been deemed too dangerous to be allowed out of jail on licence.
Lawyers had told the High Court his human rights were being breached.
Ministers are already considering changing the law after an earlier European Court ruling called for flexibility on votes for inmates.
Radio 5 Live woke me up this morning to ask if I was prepared to do an interview in relation to this case at 12.30pm. Apparently, Mr Justice Burton is handing down his judgment in the High Court this morning.
I dread these kind of interviews because the level of debate tends to be in the gutter. The interviewer tends to play on stupid peoples ignorance and prejudices.
Meantime, Rocky needs his morning walk and I have to get some breakfast...
12pm Update: Radio 5 Live has called to say they no longer have time to cover this issue...
12.30 Update: Convicted murderer loses vote bid
A convicted murderer has lost a legal battle to be given the right to vote in elections while serving a prison term.
Peter Chester was jailed in 1977 for raping and strangling his niece and has so far been deemed too dangerous to be allowed out of jail on licence.
Lawyers had told the High Court his human rights were being breached.
Ministers are already considering changing the law after an earlier European Court ruling called for flexibility on votes for inmates.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Policeman 'tried to rape woman'
Policeman 'tried to rape woman'
A policeman targeted vulnerable women he met on duty and later sexually assaulted them at their homes, a jury has heard.
Lee Rackham, an officer with Humberside Police, is accused of attempted rape and five charges of sexual assault between April and September last year.
Humberside Police has a bad reputation for abuse...
A policeman targeted vulnerable women he met on duty and later sexually assaulted them at their homes, a jury has heard.
Lee Rackham, an officer with Humberside Police, is accused of attempted rape and five charges of sexual assault between April and September last year.
Humberside Police has a bad reputation for abuse...
MP told to repay £63,250 expenses
MP told to repay £63,250 expenses
Tory MP Bernard Jenkin has been asked to pay back £63,250 by expenses auditor Sir Thomas Legg.
It is the highest amount known to have been requested after an audit of MPs' claims on second homes expenses.
Mr Jenkin had claimed expenses to rent a property in his North Essex constituency from his sister-in-law.
And then MPs wonder why the public do not want MPs families involved...
Tory MP Bernard Jenkin has been asked to pay back £63,250 by expenses auditor Sir Thomas Legg.
It is the highest amount known to have been requested after an audit of MPs' claims on second homes expenses.
Mr Jenkin had claimed expenses to rent a property in his North Essex constituency from his sister-in-law.
And then MPs wonder why the public do not want MPs families involved...
Readers' gallery: autumn arrives
Readers' gallery: autumn arrives
Monnow River, Wales/England border, UK by Will Hart: 'This photo was taken early one morning last week looking out over to the Welsh side of the Monnow River Valley from the English side. It's a magical part of the world.'
Photograph: Will Hart/guardian.co.uk
Cumbria, UK by Andrew Airey: 'I took this photo at dawn on Saturday 10 October from the shore of Ullswater in Cumbria.' Photograph: Andrew Airey/guardian.co.uk
Yat Rock, Herefordshire, UK by Juraj Mikurcik: 'Not all the leaves are brown ... trees at Yat Rock near Monmouth.' Photograph: Unassigned
Norfolk, UK by Dave Roberts: ''Victory V' walk at Felbrigg Hall in Norfolk (a National Trust property).' Photograph: Dave Roberts/guardian.co.uk
Southern California by Carolyn Sloane: 'This shot taken at about 5,000ft looking over the Inland Empire valley from near Lake Arrowhead in Southern California, shows the passing of a two-day autumn storm that's slowly dissipating into blue sunny skies.' Photograph: Carolyn Sloane/guardian.co.uk
North Yorkshire, UK by Debbie Scotson: 'Studley Royal Park. This was originally two images which I stitched together.' Photograph: Debbie Scotson/guardian.co.uk
Wiltshire, UK by Robert Tilleard: 'Wardour Castle and lake, Wiltshire. The surrounding landscape was designed by [Lancelot] 'Capability' Brown.'
Photograph: Robert Tilleard/guardian.co.uk
Northumberland, UK by Graham Arnold: 'Taken between Berwick and Coldstream at TwizelBridge with autumn colours reflecting in the water. Twizel Bridge was used in the nearby Battle of Flodden in 1513 when the English army had to cross the river Till with their artillery.' Photograph: Graham Arnold/guardian.co.uk
Southwest Scotland, UK by Jan Leeming: 'Moorland above Gatehouse of Fleet, southwest Scotland' Photograph: Jan Leeming/guardian.co.uk
Lincolnshire, UK by Stuart Barnes: 'This silhouette of a tree was taken during a weekend away in Lincolnshire.' Photograph: Stuart Barnes/guardian.co.uk
Monnow River, Wales/England border, UK by Will Hart: 'This photo was taken early one morning last week looking out over to the Welsh side of the Monnow River Valley from the English side. It's a magical part of the world.'
Photograph: Will Hart/guardian.co.uk
Cumbria, UK by Andrew Airey: 'I took this photo at dawn on Saturday 10 October from the shore of Ullswater in Cumbria.' Photograph: Andrew Airey/guardian.co.uk
Yat Rock, Herefordshire, UK by Juraj Mikurcik: 'Not all the leaves are brown ... trees at Yat Rock near Monmouth.' Photograph: Unassigned
Norfolk, UK by Dave Roberts: ''Victory V' walk at Felbrigg Hall in Norfolk (a National Trust property).' Photograph: Dave Roberts/guardian.co.uk
Southern California by Carolyn Sloane: 'This shot taken at about 5,000ft looking over the Inland Empire valley from near Lake Arrowhead in Southern California, shows the passing of a two-day autumn storm that's slowly dissipating into blue sunny skies.' Photograph: Carolyn Sloane/guardian.co.uk
North Yorkshire, UK by Debbie Scotson: 'Studley Royal Park. This was originally two images which I stitched together.' Photograph: Debbie Scotson/guardian.co.uk
Wiltshire, UK by Robert Tilleard: 'Wardour Castle and lake, Wiltshire. The surrounding landscape was designed by [Lancelot] 'Capability' Brown.'
Photograph: Robert Tilleard/guardian.co.uk
Northumberland, UK by Graham Arnold: 'Taken between Berwick and Coldstream at TwizelBridge with autumn colours reflecting in the water. Twizel Bridge was used in the nearby Battle of Flodden in 1513 when the English army had to cross the river Till with their artillery.' Photograph: Graham Arnold/guardian.co.uk
Southwest Scotland, UK by Jan Leeming: 'Moorland above Gatehouse of Fleet, southwest Scotland' Photograph: Jan Leeming/guardian.co.uk
Lincolnshire, UK by Stuart Barnes: 'This silhouette of a tree was taken during a weekend away in Lincolnshire.' Photograph: Stuart Barnes/guardian.co.uk
Children of prisoners 'ignored'
Children of prisoners 'ignored'
The charity Barnados has said nine out of 10 local authorities do not give prisoners' children the help they need.
The children's charity has urged the government to do more to protect the 160,000 youngsters estimated to have a mother or father in jail in the UK.
They are more likely to develop mental health problems and become offenders themselves, it warned.
Children's Minister Dawn Primarolo said there had been improvements but admitted help remained "patchy".
The charity Barnados has said nine out of 10 local authorities do not give prisoners' children the help they need.
The children's charity has urged the government to do more to protect the 160,000 youngsters estimated to have a mother or father in jail in the UK.
They are more likely to develop mental health problems and become offenders themselves, it warned.
Children's Minister Dawn Primarolo said there had been improvements but admitted help remained "patchy".
Monday, October 26, 2009
Ex-policeman jailed for joyride death
Ex-policeman jailed for joyride death
Malcolm Searles, a former policeman who killed a grandmother during a 100mph plus "hair-raising joyride", has been jailed for six-and-a-half years.
I think he got off light all things considered. He could and should have been charged with Taking Without Owners Consent, and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Malcolm Searles, a former policeman who killed a grandmother during a 100mph plus "hair-raising joyride", has been jailed for six-and-a-half years.
I think he got off light all things considered. He could and should have been charged with Taking Without Owners Consent, and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Man on trial for courtroom killing of Muslim woman
Man on trial for courtroom killing of Muslim woman
A police officer testifying in another courtroom ran to the scene and mistook Mrs Sherbini's husband for the attacker and shot him in the leg.
A police officer testifying in another courtroom ran to the scene and mistook Mrs Sherbini's husband for the attacker and shot him in the leg.
Prisoners denied justice in prisons
Prisoners denied justice in prisons
At a time when the Minister of Justice, Jack Straw, is cutting back on free legal advice for prisoners who wish to challenge inhumane conditions within our prisons...
Families bereaved by murder and manslaughter are to benefit from free legal advice and extra practical support via a new dedicated victims’ helpline, launched by the Ministry of Justice today.
The free telephone helpline is to be staffed by legal advisers who will provide legal advice to victims on everything from guardianship issues and settling an estate to accessing benefits.
At a time when the Minister of Justice, Jack Straw, is cutting back on free legal advice for prisoners who wish to challenge inhumane conditions within our prisons...
Families bereaved by murder and manslaughter are to benefit from free legal advice and extra practical support via a new dedicated victims’ helpline, launched by the Ministry of Justice today.
The free telephone helpline is to be staffed by legal advisers who will provide legal advice to victims on everything from guardianship issues and settling an estate to accessing benefits.
MAPPA: beacon of best practice in public protection
MAPPA: beacon of best practice in public protection
MoJ Press Release 26 October 2009
UK multi-agency teams that manage serious offenders in the community under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA) are being seen as beacons of best practice in public protection by countries around the world.
"MAPPA teams in England and Wales were put in place eight years ago to provide more robust management systems for those offenders who live in our communities through the sharing of information and expertise. The teams, comprising police, prison, probation and other relevant agencies ensure joint working and enhanced communication to effectively manage risk to the public".
Publishing the eighth MAPPA annual reports, Justice Minister Maria Eagle...
National Statistics for Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements Annual Reports 2008/09 (PDF 0.05mb 3 pages)
The Daily Telegraph sends out smoke signals...
Dangerous offenders under watch commit murder and rape
Dangerous offenders committed 48 murders, rapes and other serious offences while supposedly monitored last year, figures show.
And many thousand did not go on to reoffend, don't forget with all this alarmist nonsense from the Torygraph!
MoJ Press Release 26 October 2009
UK multi-agency teams that manage serious offenders in the community under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA) are being seen as beacons of best practice in public protection by countries around the world.
"MAPPA teams in England and Wales were put in place eight years ago to provide more robust management systems for those offenders who live in our communities through the sharing of information and expertise. The teams, comprising police, prison, probation and other relevant agencies ensure joint working and enhanced communication to effectively manage risk to the public".
Publishing the eighth MAPPA annual reports, Justice Minister Maria Eagle...
National Statistics for Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements Annual Reports 2008/09 (PDF 0.05mb 3 pages)
The Daily Telegraph sends out smoke signals...
Dangerous offenders under watch commit murder and rape
Dangerous offenders committed 48 murders, rapes and other serious offences while supposedly monitored last year, figures show.
And many thousand did not go on to reoffend, don't forget with all this alarmist nonsense from the Torygraph!
Seven firms to compete for new prisons contracts
Seven firms to compete for new prisons contracts
MoJ Press Release 22 October 2009
Seven suppliers have been invited to compete for inclusion on a framework which will allow firms to bid for contracts to design, build and run new prisons by the Ministry of Justice.
On the 4 August 2009, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) launched a competition via the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) to appoint up to seven suppliers to a PFI New Prisons framework, to build up to five new 1,500 place PFI prisons.
Now the lead consortia will be invited by NOMS to submit a tender for inclusion on the framework, following evaluation of Pre-Qualification Questionnaires issued as part of the procurement exercise.
The seven lead consortia competing for inclusion on the PFI (Design, Build and Operate) New Prisons framework are:
* G4S
* GEO Group
* Kalyx
* Mitie
* Reliance
* Serco
* Wates Construction.
This news comes after Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw announced plans in April for the first two of five new 1,500 place prisons - one on the site of the former Runwell Secure Psychiatric Hospital in Essex and one at Beam Park West, Dagenham.
All the new prisons in the building programme will be privately constructed and operated under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). The aim is to create 7,500 new prison places. The duration of the PFI contracts awarded under this framework will range between 20 and 40 years.
Notes to editors
* NOMS is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice.
* The OJEU notice announcing this PFI framework was issued on 4 August 2009 (Reference: 2009/S 149-21849).
* The deadline for PQQ responses was 17:00 on 17 September 2009.
There follows a full list of consortia leads together with their team members:
Consortium lead: G4S
Other consortium member: Carillion
Consortium lead: GEO Group
Other consortium member: Balfour Beatty
Consortium lead: Kalyx (Sodexo)
Other consortium member: Interserve
Consortium lead: Mitie
Other consortium member: Laing O’Rourke
Consortium lead: Reliance
Other consortium members: Bouygues, Bank of Scotland
Consortium lead: Serco
Other consortium members: Skanska, Catch 22, Turning Point
Consortium lead: Wates Construction
Other consortium members: Management and Training Corporation (MTC), GEPSA.
MoJ Press Release 22 October 2009
Seven suppliers have been invited to compete for inclusion on a framework which will allow firms to bid for contracts to design, build and run new prisons by the Ministry of Justice.
On the 4 August 2009, the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) launched a competition via the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) to appoint up to seven suppliers to a PFI New Prisons framework, to build up to five new 1,500 place PFI prisons.
Now the lead consortia will be invited by NOMS to submit a tender for inclusion on the framework, following evaluation of Pre-Qualification Questionnaires issued as part of the procurement exercise.
The seven lead consortia competing for inclusion on the PFI (Design, Build and Operate) New Prisons framework are:
* G4S
* GEO Group
* Kalyx
* Mitie
* Reliance
* Serco
* Wates Construction.
This news comes after Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw announced plans in April for the first two of five new 1,500 place prisons - one on the site of the former Runwell Secure Psychiatric Hospital in Essex and one at Beam Park West, Dagenham.
All the new prisons in the building programme will be privately constructed and operated under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). The aim is to create 7,500 new prison places. The duration of the PFI contracts awarded under this framework will range between 20 and 40 years.
Notes to editors
* NOMS is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice.
* The OJEU notice announcing this PFI framework was issued on 4 August 2009 (Reference: 2009/S 149-21849).
* The deadline for PQQ responses was 17:00 on 17 September 2009.
There follows a full list of consortia leads together with their team members:
Consortium lead: G4S
Other consortium member: Carillion
Consortium lead: GEO Group
Other consortium member: Balfour Beatty
Consortium lead: Kalyx (Sodexo)
Other consortium member: Interserve
Consortium lead: Mitie
Other consortium member: Laing O’Rourke
Consortium lead: Reliance
Other consortium members: Bouygues, Bank of Scotland
Consortium lead: Serco
Other consortium members: Skanska, Catch 22, Turning Point
Consortium lead: Wates Construction
Other consortium members: Management and Training Corporation (MTC), GEPSA.
FactCheck: BNP on Question Time
FactCheck: BNP on Question Time
Nearly eight million people watched BNP leader Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time last night. How did the claims they heard check out?
The claim
"I'm very happy for [a non-white audience member born in Britain] to stay here. What we've said is that we believe it's time to shut the door because this country is overcrowded. That criminals, bogus asylum seekers and people who aren't loyal to this country should be deported and everyone else can stay."
Nick Griffin MEP, BBC One's Question Time, 22 October 2009.
The analysis
Griffin omits to mention a significant and contentious part of his party's immigration policy - to "offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently".
The party's statement that "we want Britain to remain - or return to - the way it has traditionally been" is hard to square up with the sense that British people from ethnic minorities would be welcomed in a BNP-run Britain.
The sources
BNP immigration policy
Hat-Tip to Nich Starling, Norfolk Blogger
Nearly eight million people watched BNP leader Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time last night. How did the claims they heard check out?
The claim
"I'm very happy for [a non-white audience member born in Britain] to stay here. What we've said is that we believe it's time to shut the door because this country is overcrowded. That criminals, bogus asylum seekers and people who aren't loyal to this country should be deported and everyone else can stay."
Nick Griffin MEP, BBC One's Question Time, 22 October 2009.
The analysis
Griffin omits to mention a significant and contentious part of his party's immigration policy - to "offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently".
The party's statement that "we want Britain to remain - or return to - the way it has traditionally been" is hard to square up with the sense that British people from ethnic minorities would be welcomed in a BNP-run Britain.
The sources
BNP immigration policy
Hat-Tip to Nich Starling, Norfolk Blogger
From Niki Adams, English Collective of Prostitute in response to Denis MacShane MP
From Niki Adams, English Collective of Prostitute in response to Denis MacShane MP
The “war” with Denis MacShane on Newsnight was not about statistics but about the policies the statistics were invented to justify. New Labour legislation would increase police powers against both sex workers and clients. Now that the figures have been discredited, MacShane calls them ‘futile’.
Paxman was not “hostile”; he was Paxman. But MacShane was confronted with experience and arguments he could not answer.
He now admits that, “I don’t know how many girls [women, please, MacShane] are trafficked into Britain.” Why didn’t he say that in the Commons? He mentions Amnesty International as a possible source for the statistics that 25,000 women have been trafficked into the British sex industry. Where is Amnesty’s research saying that?
Rahila Gupta did not “demolish” the Nick Davies Guardian report. There is no parallel between figures of trafficking and “other subterranean issues such as domestic violence or rape”. Statistics on rape are based on serious (both independent and Home Office) research over years; all had similar results. The problem Nick Davies documents is that trafficking research (like the Iraq dossier on weapons of mass destruction) was “sexed up” to produce the “right” results, i.e. invented. With rape, police aren’t recording thousands of crimes; with trafficking Davies found 122 were made up.
And if rape research was based on proving that all sex with men is rape, as seems to be the position on prostitution of feminists like MacShane, would its findings be credible? We have always said that in rape as in prostitution consent is the issue. But feminists are now on a crusade alongside Christian fundamentalists who even oppose sex outside of marriage. Once again women are a source of evil, and women who support our families by prostitution are vilified.
We have never heard of the “Esso outfit” which claims that “only 2% of women choose freely to work in the sex industry”. We’d be glad to know where their statistic comes from and what they mean by “freely”. Are we “free” when we lack money to feed children and pay rent?
We have always campaigned for safety and economic support so no-one is driven into prostitution by poverty or other violence. We started in 1975, taking our lead from prostitutes who went on strike all over France after the police responded to a series of murders by arresting the women. In 1980 we picketed the Old Bailey to highlight the discriminatory conduct of police and prosecution in the Yorkshire Ripper case (the then attorney general famously said that “Most of the victims were prostitutes but sadly some were not”). In 1981 we conducted an academically structured and monitored survey which uncovered how criminalisation made sex workers vulnerable to attack. In 1982 we took sanctuary in a King’s Cross church for 12 days after the police responded to a rape by arresting the woman’s Black boyfriend and targeting Black sex workers. In 1995 with Women Against Rape and Legal Action for Women, we helped two sex workers to bring the first successful private prosecution for rape – one woman was supporting her children, the other her disabled husband. In 2003 we pressed the government to give victims of trafficking the right to stay so they could report violence. No takers. In 2008, in the aftermath of the Ipswich murders, we initiated the Safety First Coalition which brought together the Royal College of Nursing, anti-rape and anti-poverty advocates, probation officers, prison and drug rehabilitation projects, church people and Ipswich residents, and others.
We work with organisations which oppose immigration and welfare laws that impoverish women to the point of destitution. They agree with us that anti-trafficking laws are being used as immigration control.
When I mentioned on Newsnight that “safety has been our priority from the start”, MacShane replied “And that’s why so many get killed.” Typical of “gutter tactics”, as Gary McKinnon's mother called them. But this time he didn’t get away with it.
He now complains about Newsnight’s “self-appointed experts indulging in a futile war of statistics in which the victims are voiceless”. Why did he agree to go on? He’s certainly no “expert”. We can introduce him to many voiceless victims, including of trafficking: the women and men drafted into agricultural and domestic work under conditions of slavery. Why reduce trafficking to sex work?
We organised for MPs and peers to meet with mothers working to support disabled children who are institutionalised in prostitution by a criminal record; immigrant women who send money home to their families; rape victims dismissed by the authorities; nurses and church people who work directly with prostitute women (and men). We invited the government to hear from New Zealand’s five-year successful experience with decriminalisation, and how it has increased, not trafficking or prostitution, but women’s health and safety. Neither MacShane nor anyone in government was interested. It didn’t fit their repressive criminalising agenda.
What seems to upset MacShane is that we are an independent women’s organisation, not a Home Office front. Unlike the Poppy Project we’re not funded by the government to the tune of £9.5m. And unlike those professional feminists who reduce prostitutes to victims so they can tell us what’s good for us, the Wages for Housework Campaign (WFH) makes a way for all grassroots women and believes that we have a lot in common whatever work we do.
Selma James, widow of CLR James, was our first spokeswoman – she was happy to listen, learn and represent those of us who could not be public. As an anti-racist working class housewife, she felt strongly that women were not to be punished for the ways we find to support our families. She agreed with Virginia Woolf that brain prostitutes were more dangerous than body prostitutes.
It will be news to the Internationalist Marxist Group that they gave birth to WFH and the ECP. Another false claim. Is it not conceivable that we are just a women’s organisation? Do we need to have men behind us to be successful?
MacShane’s track record doesn’t bear scrutiny. He strongly supported the Iraq war and was against an inquiry into the war. (Has he shown any concern that prostitution in Iraq has skyrocketed since his invasion?) As a Foreign Office minister he welcomed the military coup against Venezuela’s democratically elected president Hugo Chavez. (The coup was reversed and the British government had to backtrack.) He is a known apologist for Israel, equating criticism of its war against Palestinians to anti-Semitism. (So much for concern for victims of violence.) And of course he over-claimed on expenses…
Finally, on the Policing and Crime Bill. Why are MacShane and the government only mentioning the clauses in the Bill that criminalise clients? What about those that target street workers for arrest and ‘rehabilitation’ under threat of prison, and encourage raids on premises so our hard won earnings can be seized and kept?
And what about the Welfare Reform Bill being pushed through Parliament at the same time? It abolishes Income Support, the only benefit single mothers and other carers have been able to rely on. We know from experience that most prostitute women are mothers, especially single mothers. How many will be driven into prostitution with benefit cuts? How about telling the whole story, MacShane, of driving women onto the streets with one bill, and arresting them with another?
Hopefully the House of Lords will be more scrupulous with the facts.
The “war” with Denis MacShane on Newsnight was not about statistics but about the policies the statistics were invented to justify. New Labour legislation would increase police powers against both sex workers and clients. Now that the figures have been discredited, MacShane calls them ‘futile’.
Paxman was not “hostile”; he was Paxman. But MacShane was confronted with experience and arguments he could not answer.
He now admits that, “I don’t know how many girls [women, please, MacShane] are trafficked into Britain.” Why didn’t he say that in the Commons? He mentions Amnesty International as a possible source for the statistics that 25,000 women have been trafficked into the British sex industry. Where is Amnesty’s research saying that?
Rahila Gupta did not “demolish” the Nick Davies Guardian report. There is no parallel between figures of trafficking and “other subterranean issues such as domestic violence or rape”. Statistics on rape are based on serious (both independent and Home Office) research over years; all had similar results. The problem Nick Davies documents is that trafficking research (like the Iraq dossier on weapons of mass destruction) was “sexed up” to produce the “right” results, i.e. invented. With rape, police aren’t recording thousands of crimes; with trafficking Davies found 122 were made up.
And if rape research was based on proving that all sex with men is rape, as seems to be the position on prostitution of feminists like MacShane, would its findings be credible? We have always said that in rape as in prostitution consent is the issue. But feminists are now on a crusade alongside Christian fundamentalists who even oppose sex outside of marriage. Once again women are a source of evil, and women who support our families by prostitution are vilified.
We have never heard of the “Esso outfit” which claims that “only 2% of women choose freely to work in the sex industry”. We’d be glad to know where their statistic comes from and what they mean by “freely”. Are we “free” when we lack money to feed children and pay rent?
We have always campaigned for safety and economic support so no-one is driven into prostitution by poverty or other violence. We started in 1975, taking our lead from prostitutes who went on strike all over France after the police responded to a series of murders by arresting the women. In 1980 we picketed the Old Bailey to highlight the discriminatory conduct of police and prosecution in the Yorkshire Ripper case (the then attorney general famously said that “Most of the victims were prostitutes but sadly some were not”). In 1981 we conducted an academically structured and monitored survey which uncovered how criminalisation made sex workers vulnerable to attack. In 1982 we took sanctuary in a King’s Cross church for 12 days after the police responded to a rape by arresting the woman’s Black boyfriend and targeting Black sex workers. In 1995 with Women Against Rape and Legal Action for Women, we helped two sex workers to bring the first successful private prosecution for rape – one woman was supporting her children, the other her disabled husband. In 2003 we pressed the government to give victims of trafficking the right to stay so they could report violence. No takers. In 2008, in the aftermath of the Ipswich murders, we initiated the Safety First Coalition which brought together the Royal College of Nursing, anti-rape and anti-poverty advocates, probation officers, prison and drug rehabilitation projects, church people and Ipswich residents, and others.
We work with organisations which oppose immigration and welfare laws that impoverish women to the point of destitution. They agree with us that anti-trafficking laws are being used as immigration control.
When I mentioned on Newsnight that “safety has been our priority from the start”, MacShane replied “And that’s why so many get killed.” Typical of “gutter tactics”, as Gary McKinnon's mother called them. But this time he didn’t get away with it.
He now complains about Newsnight’s “self-appointed experts indulging in a futile war of statistics in which the victims are voiceless”. Why did he agree to go on? He’s certainly no “expert”. We can introduce him to many voiceless victims, including of trafficking: the women and men drafted into agricultural and domestic work under conditions of slavery. Why reduce trafficking to sex work?
We organised for MPs and peers to meet with mothers working to support disabled children who are institutionalised in prostitution by a criminal record; immigrant women who send money home to their families; rape victims dismissed by the authorities; nurses and church people who work directly with prostitute women (and men). We invited the government to hear from New Zealand’s five-year successful experience with decriminalisation, and how it has increased, not trafficking or prostitution, but women’s health and safety. Neither MacShane nor anyone in government was interested. It didn’t fit their repressive criminalising agenda.
What seems to upset MacShane is that we are an independent women’s organisation, not a Home Office front. Unlike the Poppy Project we’re not funded by the government to the tune of £9.5m. And unlike those professional feminists who reduce prostitutes to victims so they can tell us what’s good for us, the Wages for Housework Campaign (WFH) makes a way for all grassroots women and believes that we have a lot in common whatever work we do.
Selma James, widow of CLR James, was our first spokeswoman – she was happy to listen, learn and represent those of us who could not be public. As an anti-racist working class housewife, she felt strongly that women were not to be punished for the ways we find to support our families. She agreed with Virginia Woolf that brain prostitutes were more dangerous than body prostitutes.
It will be news to the Internationalist Marxist Group that they gave birth to WFH and the ECP. Another false claim. Is it not conceivable that we are just a women’s organisation? Do we need to have men behind us to be successful?
MacShane’s track record doesn’t bear scrutiny. He strongly supported the Iraq war and was against an inquiry into the war. (Has he shown any concern that prostitution in Iraq has skyrocketed since his invasion?) As a Foreign Office minister he welcomed the military coup against Venezuela’s democratically elected president Hugo Chavez. (The coup was reversed and the British government had to backtrack.) He is a known apologist for Israel, equating criticism of its war against Palestinians to anti-Semitism. (So much for concern for victims of violence.) And of course he over-claimed on expenses…
Finally, on the Policing and Crime Bill. Why are MacShane and the government only mentioning the clauses in the Bill that criminalise clients? What about those that target street workers for arrest and ‘rehabilitation’ under threat of prison, and encourage raids on premises so our hard won earnings can be seized and kept?
And what about the Welfare Reform Bill being pushed through Parliament at the same time? It abolishes Income Support, the only benefit single mothers and other carers have been able to rely on. We know from experience that most prostitute women are mothers, especially single mothers. How many will be driven into prostitution with benefit cuts? How about telling the whole story, MacShane, of driving women onto the streets with one bill, and arresting them with another?
Hopefully the House of Lords will be more scrupulous with the facts.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Miss Piggybanks Goudie in expenses fiddle
Miss Piggybanks Goudie in expenses fiddle
A close friend of the prime minister who lives with her husband in a £1.5m house in London has claimed £230,000 in expenses by saying a flat in Glasgow is her main home.
Forgive my ignorance but I have never heard of her before until now. So, her input into politics is that she is a friend of Gordon Brown. And somehow this entitles her to claim £230,000 out of the public purse for expenses for her main home which is not her main home at all!
"On Friday Goudie acknowledged she did not spend much of her time in the Glasgow flat, although she was there “frequently”. She said she needed a “main residence” in Scotland because it was the base of her non-parliamentary activities".
As I understand it, expenses are for parliamentary activities and not for non-parliamentary activities whatever they may be.
This is a clear case of obtaining money by deception which is a criminal offence.
I trust that this meets the test of An Inspector Calls?
A close friend of the prime minister who lives with her husband in a £1.5m house in London has claimed £230,000 in expenses by saying a flat in Glasgow is her main home.
Forgive my ignorance but I have never heard of her before until now. So, her input into politics is that she is a friend of Gordon Brown. And somehow this entitles her to claim £230,000 out of the public purse for expenses for her main home which is not her main home at all!
"On Friday Goudie acknowledged she did not spend much of her time in the Glasgow flat, although she was there “frequently”. She said she needed a “main residence” in Scotland because it was the base of her non-parliamentary activities".
As I understand it, expenses are for parliamentary activities and not for non-parliamentary activities whatever they may be.
This is a clear case of obtaining money by deception which is a criminal offence.
I trust that this meets the test of An Inspector Calls?
Rats in a sack
Rats in a sack
Nick Griffin attacked by his own BNP supporters over Question Time
Party's legal officer accuses leader of failing to press home his attack on 'the sanctimonious, hypocritical middle classes'
"The leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, found himself the victim of an extraordinary attack from his own supporters last night following his controversial appearance on the BBC's Question Time.
As a public postmortem into one of the most divisive broadcasts in the corporation's history attempted to gauge its impact on the party's fortunes, Lee Barnes, the BNP's legal officer, accused Griffin of "failing to press the attack" during the televised debate, which was watched by a record 8 million people. Others sympathetic to the BNP's views expressed dismay at Griffin's flustered attempts to appeal to the mainstream".
Nick Griffin attacked by his own BNP supporters over Question Time
Party's legal officer accuses leader of failing to press home his attack on 'the sanctimonious, hypocritical middle classes'
"The leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin, found himself the victim of an extraordinary attack from his own supporters last night following his controversial appearance on the BBC's Question Time.
As a public postmortem into one of the most divisive broadcasts in the corporation's history attempted to gauge its impact on the party's fortunes, Lee Barnes, the BNP's legal officer, accused Griffin of "failing to press the attack" during the televised debate, which was watched by a record 8 million people. Others sympathetic to the BNP's views expressed dismay at Griffin's flustered attempts to appeal to the mainstream".
Saturday, October 24, 2009
The Trough Report: MPs fiddle whilst prisoners denied the vote
The Trough Report: MPs fiddle whilst prisoners denied the vote
MPs' expenses: wives demand watering down of ban on family members
A wide-scale revolt by spouses of MPs may force the watering down of proposals to ban parliamentarians from employing family members, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.
The difference between prisoners familes who are innocent of any crime, and MPs families who are paid out of the public purse and benefit from the expenses fiddles are aiding and abetting in these crimes and therefore are not innocent. MPs familes are not a class of person in the eyes of the law. All it requires is for Parliament to rush through legislation making it illegal for MPs families to benefit from the public purse. Job done.
MPs' expenses: wives demand watering down of ban on family members
A wide-scale revolt by spouses of MPs may force the watering down of proposals to ban parliamentarians from employing family members, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.
The difference between prisoners familes who are innocent of any crime, and MPs families who are paid out of the public purse and benefit from the expenses fiddles are aiding and abetting in these crimes and therefore are not innocent. MPs familes are not a class of person in the eyes of the law. All it requires is for Parliament to rush through legislation making it illegal for MPs families to benefit from the public purse. Job done.
Prisoner's High Court battle for the right to vote
Prisoner's High Court battle for the right to vote
If newspaper reports accurately reflect Mr Justice Burton's comments in the Prisoners Votes Case, it would appear that the judge has not got a grasp of the situation and that he is totally out of his depth. If this is the case, then it does not bode well for justice. Personally, I would have more faith in the system if Mr Justice Elias had instead been given the case.
Peter Chester is arguing that as a post-tariff lifer, he should be entitled to vote. The argument is based upon the government's position that those undergoing punishment should be denied the vote. Once a lifer has served the punitive element of a sentence, the tariff, the lifer is no longer officially being punished. The justification for continued detention is based upon continuing risk to the public if released. Therefore, there is a legal distinction between those lifers serving their tariffs and those in the post-tariff stage.
Unfortunately, in my case the European Court of Human Rights left the question unanswered.
However, the problem really stems from the failure of the High Court judges in my case. There was a clear abdication of responsibility. All that was required was for the judges to declare that section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 was incompatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights. Instead, the judges deferred to Parliament. The ECtHR begged to differ.
At the very least, Mr Justice Burton must declare s.3 of RPA 1983 is incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The government concedes this position. This case not only requires that the judge has full knowledge of the subject, but also has the courage to do the right thing in the face of government opposition. It means Mr Justice Burton ruling against his boss Jack Straw, the Minister of Justice and Lord Chancellor.
In those countries which allow prisoners to vote, they do not vote in the constituency where the prison is located, so as not to skew an election result, but instead vote in the constituency of their last known address upon being charged. Therefore, in this respect, Mr Justice Burton's fears are ungrounded "Mr Justice Burton said in places such as Wakefield, West Yorkshire, where Chester is being held along with 740 other prisoners, allowing all prisoners the vote would tip the electoral balance in the inmates’ favour in council elections. He said: 'If the entire population of Wakefield Prison were allowed to vote in that district, that would make quite a difference to an election in Wakefield, particularly if, like Peter Chester, they have the time to sit down and read the newspaper.'".
The judge should not concern himself with such issues as what if this and what if that.
It may also be that Chester's legal representative, Hugh Southey, has not got a full grasp of the case too. However, as I have not seen the grounds for judicial review I must at this stage give him the benefit of doubt. If he has not challenged and sought the quashing of the consultation exercise then he has acted negligently.
If newspaper reports accurately reflect Mr Justice Burton's comments in the Prisoners Votes Case, it would appear that the judge has not got a grasp of the situation and that he is totally out of his depth. If this is the case, then it does not bode well for justice. Personally, I would have more faith in the system if Mr Justice Elias had instead been given the case.
Peter Chester is arguing that as a post-tariff lifer, he should be entitled to vote. The argument is based upon the government's position that those undergoing punishment should be denied the vote. Once a lifer has served the punitive element of a sentence, the tariff, the lifer is no longer officially being punished. The justification for continued detention is based upon continuing risk to the public if released. Therefore, there is a legal distinction between those lifers serving their tariffs and those in the post-tariff stage.
Unfortunately, in my case the European Court of Human Rights left the question unanswered.
However, the problem really stems from the failure of the High Court judges in my case. There was a clear abdication of responsibility. All that was required was for the judges to declare that section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 was incompatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights. Instead, the judges deferred to Parliament. The ECtHR begged to differ.
At the very least, Mr Justice Burton must declare s.3 of RPA 1983 is incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The government concedes this position. This case not only requires that the judge has full knowledge of the subject, but also has the courage to do the right thing in the face of government opposition. It means Mr Justice Burton ruling against his boss Jack Straw, the Minister of Justice and Lord Chancellor.
In those countries which allow prisoners to vote, they do not vote in the constituency where the prison is located, so as not to skew an election result, but instead vote in the constituency of their last known address upon being charged. Therefore, in this respect, Mr Justice Burton's fears are ungrounded "Mr Justice Burton said in places such as Wakefield, West Yorkshire, where Chester is being held along with 740 other prisoners, allowing all prisoners the vote would tip the electoral balance in the inmates’ favour in council elections. He said: 'If the entire population of Wakefield Prison were allowed to vote in that district, that would make quite a difference to an election in Wakefield, particularly if, like Peter Chester, they have the time to sit down and read the newspaper.'".
The judge should not concern himself with such issues as what if this and what if that.
It may also be that Chester's legal representative, Hugh Southey, has not got a full grasp of the case too. However, as I have not seen the grounds for judicial review I must at this stage give him the benefit of doubt. If he has not challenged and sought the quashing of the consultation exercise then he has acted negligently.
LibDems could lose third place to BNP
LibDems could lose third place to BNP
One in five 'would consider voting BNP' after Nick Griffin Question Time appearance
More than a fifth of the public would consider voting for the British National Party, according to the first opinion poll taken since the appearance of its leader, Nick Griffin, on Question Time.
It would appear that the badly staged managed QT performance has led to the BNP gaining the sympathy vote. I think this is called sympathy for the devil.
One in five 'would consider voting BNP' after Nick Griffin Question Time appearance
More than a fifth of the public would consider voting for the British National Party, according to the first opinion poll taken since the appearance of its leader, Nick Griffin, on Question Time.
It would appear that the badly staged managed QT performance has led to the BNP gaining the sympathy vote. I think this is called sympathy for the devil.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Somebody has to say it so I will: Some Muslims are paedophiles
Somebody has to say it so I will: Some Muslims are paedophiles
"Under Sharia law, criminal responsibility starts with the end of puberty – defined as 14 years and seven months for boys, and eight years and nine months for girls".
I am not claiming expertise in this area. However, there is a clear discrepancy here between what Sharia law claims is the end of puberty for young girls and that being given by wikipedia.
"Puberty is the process of physical changes by which a child 's body becomes an adult body capable of reproduction...Although there is a wide range of normal ages, girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10, boys at age 12. Girls usually complete puberty by age 16 or 17, while boys complete puberty by age 17 or 18".
Age of criminality in English law begins at 10 years of age. However, a girl cannot legally consent to sexual relations until 16 years of age.
There are Muslims in this country who under Sharia law are having sexual relations with under age girls, which is in violation of English law. As far as they are concerned English girls of 12,13 or 14 years of age are fair game.
UPDATE: Why do Muslims worship a paedophile prophet?
Charles Moore sees things differently...
To me, it seems anachronistic to describe Mohammed as a child-molester. The marriage rules of his age and society were much more tribal and dynastic than our own, and women were treated more as property and less as autonomous beings.
Whilst I accept his different times in a different land argument, some Muslims are still practising this in our land at the present time. Therefore, if the law states that I cannot claim, in relation to child protection, "Muslims are a threat to Britain" then the law is not only wrong but it is an ass!
"Under Sharia law, criminal responsibility starts with the end of puberty – defined as 14 years and seven months for boys, and eight years and nine months for girls".
I am not claiming expertise in this area. However, there is a clear discrepancy here between what Sharia law claims is the end of puberty for young girls and that being given by wikipedia.
"Puberty is the process of physical changes by which a child 's body becomes an adult body capable of reproduction...Although there is a wide range of normal ages, girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10, boys at age 12. Girls usually complete puberty by age 16 or 17, while boys complete puberty by age 17 or 18".
Age of criminality in English law begins at 10 years of age. However, a girl cannot legally consent to sexual relations until 16 years of age.
There are Muslims in this country who under Sharia law are having sexual relations with under age girls, which is in violation of English law. As far as they are concerned English girls of 12,13 or 14 years of age are fair game.
UPDATE: Why do Muslims worship a paedophile prophet?
Charles Moore sees things differently...
To me, it seems anachronistic to describe Mohammed as a child-molester. The marriage rules of his age and society were much more tribal and dynastic than our own, and women were treated more as property and less as autonomous beings.
Whilst I accept his different times in a different land argument, some Muslims are still practising this in our land at the present time. Therefore, if the law states that I cannot claim, in relation to child protection, "Muslims are a threat to Britain" then the law is not only wrong but it is an ass!
The Establishment v the BNP
The Establishment v the BNP
The LibDems picked a light weight, Chris Who?, to represent them. The Tories chose their token Paki whom they made a baroness because she failed to get selected to become an MP, Sayeeda Warsi. Labour went for the war criminal and law breaker Minister of Justice, Jack Straw. The BBC stuck with the regular presenter David Dimbleby, who appeared to have lost his moral compass on the way to the BBC studio. The BNP chose their one-eyed monster, Nick Griffin MEP, and he handled being the victim very well. The British Museum sent one of its exhibits, Bonnie Greer, and apart from Dimbleby she was the only non-politician on the panel.
It was an error of judgement to change the format of Question Time. Normally, the audience would submit topical questions from the day's or recent news. This time, every question was either about the panelist Nick Griffin or the BNP's policies. Even the so-called non-BNP question, which was not topical because it was last week's news, was meant to highlight the BNP's homophobia.
Nick Griffin deserves to be congratulated for standing up to the concerted bullying he was subjected to.
The Establishment including the BBC should hold its collective head in shame.
Rather than damage the BNP, I feel that this episode has done more to strengthen the BNP. There is the so-called British sense of fair play, and Nick Griffin was fouled. In my view, it was a victory for the BNP against the odds.
UPDATE:
Nick Griffin to lodge formal complaint with BBC over Question Time
BNP demands BBC give Nick Griffin second Question Time appearance, 'in correct format', outside multicultural London
I would uphold the complaint in relation to the deviation from the normal format, and find against a change of venue on the ground that Britain is multi-cultural. Wanting a venue in an area which maybe 70% or 80% white would provide a bias in favour of Griffin.
The LibDems picked a light weight, Chris Who?, to represent them. The Tories chose their token Paki whom they made a baroness because she failed to get selected to become an MP, Sayeeda Warsi. Labour went for the war criminal and law breaker Minister of Justice, Jack Straw. The BBC stuck with the regular presenter David Dimbleby, who appeared to have lost his moral compass on the way to the BBC studio. The BNP chose their one-eyed monster, Nick Griffin MEP, and he handled being the victim very well. The British Museum sent one of its exhibits, Bonnie Greer, and apart from Dimbleby she was the only non-politician on the panel.
It was an error of judgement to change the format of Question Time. Normally, the audience would submit topical questions from the day's or recent news. This time, every question was either about the panelist Nick Griffin or the BNP's policies. Even the so-called non-BNP question, which was not topical because it was last week's news, was meant to highlight the BNP's homophobia.
Nick Griffin deserves to be congratulated for standing up to the concerted bullying he was subjected to.
The Establishment including the BBC should hold its collective head in shame.
Rather than damage the BNP, I feel that this episode has done more to strengthen the BNP. There is the so-called British sense of fair play, and Nick Griffin was fouled. In my view, it was a victory for the BNP against the odds.
UPDATE:
Nick Griffin to lodge formal complaint with BBC over Question Time
BNP demands BBC give Nick Griffin second Question Time appearance, 'in correct format', outside multicultural London
I would uphold the complaint in relation to the deviation from the normal format, and find against a change of venue on the ground that Britain is multi-cultural. Wanting a venue in an area which maybe 70% or 80% white would provide a bias in favour of Griffin.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Lifer says voting ban "infringes his human rights"
Lifer says voting ban "infringes his human rights"
A man who raped and strangled his niece has begun a legal challenge against the Government claiming that preventing him from voting in elections breaches his human rights.
If Peter Chester is successful it would lead to every murderer and dangerous criminal in the country being given the vote.
Chester, 54, was jailed for life for murdering his seven-year-old niece Donna Marie in 1977 and has repeatedly been considered too dangerous to be released on parole, despite serving 32 years in jail.
Yesterday, at the opening of a judicial review, his lawyer, Hugh Southey, asked a judge at the High Court to scrap the blanket ban on serving prisoners voting - which dates back to 1870 – in order to make the law "compatible" with the European Convention on Human Rights.
He said preventing Chester from voting was unfair because he had already served the “punitive” element of his sentence – the 20-year minimum tariff laid down – and was only in jail now because of the threat he posed to the public.
Arguing he would be allowed to vote if out on license, he said preventing him whilst he was in jail was an unnecessary sanction for which there was “no reasonable or objective justification”.
BBC report here.
Blackpool Gazette here.
Yorkshire Post's rabid reporting of the story.
A man who raped and strangled his niece has begun a legal challenge against the Government claiming that preventing him from voting in elections breaches his human rights.
If Peter Chester is successful it would lead to every murderer and dangerous criminal in the country being given the vote.
Chester, 54, was jailed for life for murdering his seven-year-old niece Donna Marie in 1977 and has repeatedly been considered too dangerous to be released on parole, despite serving 32 years in jail.
Yesterday, at the opening of a judicial review, his lawyer, Hugh Southey, asked a judge at the High Court to scrap the blanket ban on serving prisoners voting - which dates back to 1870 – in order to make the law "compatible" with the European Convention on Human Rights.
He said preventing Chester from voting was unfair because he had already served the “punitive” element of his sentence – the 20-year minimum tariff laid down – and was only in jail now because of the threat he posed to the public.
Arguing he would be allowed to vote if out on license, he said preventing him whilst he was in jail was an unnecessary sanction for which there was “no reasonable or objective justification”.
BBC report here.
Blackpool Gazette here.
Yorkshire Post's rabid reporting of the story.
New York '9/11 hero police chief' jailed
New York '9/11 hero police chief' jailed
A former New York police chief, Bernard Kerik who was hailed a hero after the September 11 2001 attacks, has been jailed after a federal judge revoked his bail ahead of a corruption trial.
"He has become the first police chief in the city's history to be thrown into jail.
In a hearing in White Plains, New York, Judge Stephen Robinson said he was revoking the $500,000 bail granted to Kerik, 54, who led the police under the previous administration of then-mayor Rudolph Giuliani".
If New York can jail an ex-police chief for corruption, why cannot we jail corrupt MPs who have fiddled their expenses?
A former New York police chief, Bernard Kerik who was hailed a hero after the September 11 2001 attacks, has been jailed after a federal judge revoked his bail ahead of a corruption trial.
"He has become the first police chief in the city's history to be thrown into jail.
In a hearing in White Plains, New York, Judge Stephen Robinson said he was revoking the $500,000 bail granted to Kerik, 54, who led the police under the previous administration of then-mayor Rudolph Giuliani".
If New York can jail an ex-police chief for corruption, why cannot we jail corrupt MPs who have fiddled their expenses?