Jack Straw drags feet over prisoners' right to vote

Jack Straw drags feet over prisoners' right to vote

Government fails to act on European court ruling that Britain's ban was a breach of human rights

By Marcel Berlins




It's not a vote winner, and there is no public clamour for it. One can understand that a law allowing prisoners to vote in elections wouldn't be very high on any government's list of priorities. But for nearly six years the Labour administration has been under a legal duty to ensure that we have such a law – and has done nothing about it. This deliberate indolence looks likely to continue until the next election.

In March 2004, the European court of human rights (ECHR) ruled that Britain's blanket ban on giving prisoners the right to vote was a breach of the European convention on human rights.

What was then supposed to happen is clear. The British government was obliged to implement the court's ruling. That's what the rule says. Even allowing for the government's appeal against the decision (which it lost), and for time to think about and draft the new law – not a complicated matter – something should and could have been done by the end of 2006.

This week the Council of Europe's committee of ministers meets to discuss the cases of those countries that have failed to give effect to the ECHR's rulings. This will not be the first time that Britain's foot-dragging on prisoners' votes has come up before the committee.

Last June, following a complaint by the Prison Reform Trust, the committee "expressed concern about the significant delay … and recognised the pressing need to take concrete steps to implement the judgment, particularly in light of upcoming UK elections …"

The government's response was to carry out a short public consultation, which ended in September, since when nothing has been heard officially.

There has been the predictable but misguided outcry from those who cannot bear the thought of the vote being given to mass murderers and the perpetrators of other horrific crimes.

But the ruling of the Strasbourg court merely insisted that there must not be a total ban (on voting) on all prisoners. It would be perfectly acceptable – and many other countries have done it – to impose a cut-off point that excludes the most serious offenders. Indeed, the government's consultation document included several options along those lines.

I don't fully understand the government's reluctance. It cannot be for logistical reasons. It would not be difficult to make the arrangements for eligible prisoners to vote. Even at this late stage it would be easy to include the topic in the proposed constitutional reform and governance bill referred to in the Queen's speech. And votes for prisoners, if not an electoral winner, wouldn't be a loser either. There are many more important issues to sway the electorate.

The government, or at least Jack Straw, still seems to be wedded to the Victorian argument that voting is a privilege and an honour, to be refused to the undeserving. Today's reality is that it is a legal right. Exercising it can only help a prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. That is to the benefit of all of us. There is still time for the government to do the decent thing.

Meanwhile...

Public vote on youth punishments

People are being given the chance to vote for how young offenders in the north west of England are punished.

A government website has been set up allowing users to suggest punishments for criminals aged between 10 and 17.

Voters can choose from tasks including cleaning graffiti, repairing vandalism, working in libraries and charity work.

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Cressman family v Jane Andrews

Cressman family v Jane Andrews

The Sunday Telegraph is claiming that the Criminal Justice System has let down the family of Thomas Cressman, who was murdered by Royal aide Jane Andrews.

"Royal aide Jane Andrews was recaptured after little more than 48 hours on the run but her antics have raised serious questions over how Britain's criminal justice system has favoured a convicted murderer rather than those left to suffer from her vicious crime"
.



The first accusation is that East Sutton Park open prison is like a 5 star hotel rather than a prison.

The second accusation is that security is lax in the open prison.

The third accusation is that Jane Andrews should not have been transferred to East Sutton Park.

The fourth accusation is that as Jane Andrews sentence has progressed towards release back into the community the regime she suffers has beome softer.

The fifth accusation is that the Prison Service Life Sentence Process favours life sentence prisoners over the victim's family.

According to the Sunday Telegraph report: "Rick Cressman, the victim's brother and the family spokesman, is due to meet Jack Straw next month after demanding the Justice Secretary's resignation over the affair...Mr Cressman plans to raise a number of points with Mr Straw next month including the fact that the wishes of his family were ignored when he attended a parole board hearing this spring to consider Andrews' request to be moved to an open prison".

It is good that a knee-jerking politician is to be confronted by a member of the victim's family, especially after all this get tough talk on rebalancing rights in favour of the victim. However, Rick Cressman is not just some innocent victim but part of a pressure group which is designed to lobby for the rights of victims. Jane Andrews cannot lobby her MP for the simple reason that she is denied the vote. The Minister responsible for breaching Jane Andrew's human right to vote is Jack Straw. I would question why is Rick Cressman attempting to pervert the course of justice by trying to influence Jack Straw in the treatment of Jane Andrews? And, why is Jack Straw allowing this meeting which may give rise to the appearance of bias against Jane Andrews?

Does anyone really want me to answer the 5 silly accusations?

Friday, November 27, 2009

Ferrets Go Fishing 2010 calendar

Ferrets Go Fishing 2010 calendar


From the people behind the best-selling Guinea Pig Games calendar, comes Ferrets Go Fishing, in which Humphrey and Boris, residents of Ferkin village, escape for a few days fishing

Follow Humphrey and Boris as they search the waterways and coastline of England to find Moby Trout, rumoured to be the daddy of all the river fish
Picture: www.maverickartsclub.com

Ferrets Go Fishing 2010 is beautifully photographed and captures not only the charm of ferrets, but also the majesty and beauty of Britain’s countryside, making the wall calendar great for those with a love of wildlife
Picture: www.maverickartsclub.com

No ferrets or fish were harmed in the making of this calendar - a bit of Photoshop trickery never hurt anyone. Picture: www.maverickartsclub.com
Picture: www.maverickartsclub.com
Picture: www.maverickartsclub.com

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Murderers to be jailed for longer

Murderers to be jailed for longer

Killers could have to spend the rest of their natural lives behind bars after appeal court judges increased the minimum prison term for murder.



The judges said the 12-year minimum sentence which was often imposed in murder cases was generally too lenient.

And they said the worst killers should spend longer than 30 years in prison - the previous maximum sentence.

The judges issued the new guidelines in response to an appeal by Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC.


While I can accept the argument for increasing the tariff within a life sentence when it is deemed to be too low, however, it makes a mockery of justice when it goes too far, for example, "He said it would be open to a sentencing judge in a murder case "to specify a period which was in excess, even well in excess, of the offender's anticipated lifespan"". This is overkill! What do they intend doing, leaving a dead murderer in a prison cell until his time is up and then bury the bones? The death penalty has been abolished, all this will do is bring it back in through the back door.

The Big Picture photography competition: round 78

The Big Picture photography competition: round 78


This week's Big Picture winner - and recipient of a Nikon Coolpix P90 camera worth £379.99 - is Chris Moore from Billinge, Lancs, for this colourful shot of Mount Fuji taken from Kawaguchiko Town.


Vicunas on the plains in Peru - Steve Towler from Thornton-Cleveleys, Lancs

Man jailed for racist row killing

Man jailed for racist row killing

A 22-year-old man has been jailed for killing a Qatari student during a racist row in East Sussex.



George Austin, from south London, who was convicted of manslaughter at an earlier hearing at Lewes Crown Court was jailed for four-and-a-half years.

Mohammed al-Majed, 16, died after he was punched in the face and hit the pavement in Hastings on 22 August 2008.


Given that this attack was racially aggravated, and that being drunk is no excuse the sentence does not appear to reflect the seriousness of the crime. Especially, if it is taken into account that he will only serve 2 years and 3 months for taking a life.

"Mohammed died in hospital three days after being assaulted outside a kebab shop on Hastings seafront during a row which began with racist taunts.

He suffered a brain haemorrhage and fractured skull, and died after going into cardiac arrest".

"Defence counsel Susan Rodham asked if Austin's sentence could reflect that the death followed a single punch.

She said: "It was not premeditated in any way, it was an indirect injury that was not foreseeable in the circumstances"".

If someone is knocked unconscious it is reasonably forseeable that they will fall to the ground and be unable to break the fall and therefore more likely to receive a greater injury with the head striking the pavement. I am not happy with this nonsense about the sentence should only reflect a single punch. It is not a case of accidental death. In my view, he got off very light in the circumstances.

The dumb Blond

The dumb Blond



The homophobic and racist Phillip Blond is Director of ResPublica, a Tory think tank funded by such as Michael Ashcroft and Rupert Murdoch. It is claimed that the think tank is independent, in the same way that Iain Duncan Smith claims the the Centre for Social Justice is independent of Tory influence.

Last night, the homosexual Tory mouthpiece for David Cameron, Iain Dale, on Newsnight, stated it did not matter that Blond is homophobic. Launching ResPublica yesterday, "A spokesman for Mr Cameron said: 'The fact that David Cameron is appearing at this event doesn't mean that he endorses all of Phillip Blond's views.'

So, the homophobic and racist views are not endorsed by the Tories. They remain the sole property of the Red Tory and not part of the Nasty party. In the same way, one presumes, that Polish Law and Justice Party MP Michal Kaminski's racist and homophobic views have been ignored by Iain Dale and David Cameron when it suits them.

This quackery from the dumb Blond reminds me of Rasputin. The red mist is descending. Perhaps, balance could be restored by Blue Labour?

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Mark Leech joke: Ho, ho, ho

Mark Leech joke: Ho, ho, ho



On 11th of November 2009, I went to the book launch of the 2009/10 edition of Insideinformation. It is priced at £35.00 RRP, however, organisations etc can purchase it for £25.00.

Therefore, I was rather tickled by the desperate actions of Mark Leech.

"SAVE £50 THIS CHRISTMAS AND
PURCHASE THE PRISONS HANDBOOK 2009 (normally £85.00)
FOR JUST £34.99 inc p&p!!".



Mark Leech on his so-called forum states:

"For the next 21 days we are offering prisoners, their families and
legal advisors the chance to buy the Prisons Handbook 2009 at £50 off
- just 34.99 inc p&p".

Samina Ahmed asked:

"Is this 2010 version or 2009?".

Mark Leech responds:

"Hi Samina
Its the 2009 edition - the 2010 edition is not out for another six months yet
Mark".

So, we can buy the latest Insideinformation prison directory 2010 edition for £25.00 from Inside Time, or an outdated 2009 edition from Mark Leech for £35.00?

I think Mark Leech would make a good stand up comedian.

British banks win landmark overdraft ruling

British banks win landmark overdraft ruling

Britain's Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the High Street banks in a row over overdraft fees, delivering a blow for thousands who had hoped to recoup charges.



Seven major banks and a building society had challenged High Court and Court of Appeal decisions that the charges come under "unfair contract" rules and are therefore subject to regulation by the Office of Fair Trading.

Today's result was awaited by tens of thousands of customers whose refund claims have been frozen while the test case went through the courts.

Handing down the unanimous ruling, Lord Phillips, president of the Supreme Court, said: "It may be open to the Office of Fair Trading to assess the charge under other criteria."

This is a blow for me. I was hoping for hundreds of pounds in refunds. Once again the banks get away with robbing the customers. And yet when the banks almost went bust it was public money which bailed them out. As Jonathan Ross would say they are a bunch of Wankers!

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Jack Straw talks the talk but he cannot walk the walk

Jack Straw talks the talk but he cannot walk the walk

Constitutional change and the future of parliamentary democracy

24 November 2009

Magna Carta Institute, Brunel University




An abridged version of a lecture given by Jack Straw at Brunel University's Magna Carta Institute on Monday 23 November 2009.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Just a couple of interesting photos

Just a couple of interesting photos

A tornado photographed in Colorado, USA Picture: CHRIS HARLAN / NATIONAL

HMS Gloucester sails past king penguins and elephant seals during a tour of the South Atlantic during a mission to help scientists assess environmental changes and locate unexploded ordnance left over from the Falklands War, Picture: PA

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Is 3 years for this yobbo a mockery of justice?

Is 3 years for this yobbo a mockery of justice?



The BBC is reporting that "A boy who drove a stolen car into a pedestrian just hours after he was released from a youth detention centre has been jailed indefinitely".

Judge Anthony James Hammond jailed him indefinitely, describing him as a danger to the public.

He must serve at least three years before being considered for parole and banned for applying for a driving licence for five years.

The judge said: "You are a defendant who is highly likely to commit further dangerous offences and you are highly likely to cause death or serious harm to others."


Whilst accepting that he must serve at least 3 years does not necessarily mean he will only serve 3 years, nevertheless I am puzzled why the judge did not impose a sentence of Her Majesty's Pleasure? If any offence and any offender warranted a life imprisonment it was this case. It is cases like this which make a mockery of justice and lead to claims that sentences do not say what they should say. In my view, this person should not see light of day for at least 15-20 years.

US senator calls for return of Lockerbie bomber to jail

US senator calls for return of Lockerbie bomber to jail

A US senator has written to Gordon Brown, demanding the immediate return of the Lockerbie bomber to prison. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi's early release from Greenock jail in Scotland on compassionate grounds was granted on the assumption that he had only three months to live because he was suffering from prostate cancer.

But three months had now elapsed since he was freed on 20 August and there was "speculation" that the severity of the Libyan's condition had been exaggerated, the senator said. He went on: "The bottom line is Megrahi should have never been released in the first place but it would be even more outrageous if he were to be able to live a long and free life after his release." In his letter to the Prime Minister he said: "Justice in this case was life in prison, no exceptions." Megrahi, who has now returned home to Tripoli, was serving a life sentence for the 1988 jumbo jet bombing which claimed 270 lives.


This headline should have read US senator makes a complete fool of himself. As I understand it, Gordon Brown has got nothing to do with the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. The jurisdiction rested with Kenny MacAskill the Scottish Justice Minister.

It is not up to this stupid Yank, Charles Schumer, to start telling other jurisdictions what justice entails. I note that he has added the provision "no exceptions". In both the English and Scottish legal systems we have the provision of compassionate release.

If I was Gordon Brown, I would respond to Charles Schumer's publicity seeking bollocks with MYOB Mind Your Own Business!

Man gets away with murder...

Man gets away with murder...

A man who strangled his wife during a nightmare in the belief he was attacking an intruder walked free from court today after the case against him was withdrawn.

Brian Thomas, 59, of Neath, South Wales, killed his wife Christine, 57, while they were holidaying in West Wales in July 2008.


Meanwhile, down under...

'Weak little bastard' husband jailed for strangling wife

I have had nightmares, and woke up fighting in my sleep. However, given the amount of energy and time it takes to strangle someone I have to say it takes some suspended belief to accept he committed murder in his sleep. I cannot wait for the headline Man robs bank whilst sleepwalking!

Damn the bloody taxpayer

Damn the bloody taxpayer



The woman paid out of taxpayers money to look after a MP's love nest also paid for from taxpayers money has stated when questioned "Damn the bloody taxpayer!".

This just about sums up the attitude of the Tory MP for Skipton and Ripon, David Curry. And, to think that this twat was the chairman of the parliamentary standards and privileges committee!

Taser gun used on 10-year-old girl who 'refused to take shower'

Taser gun used on 10-year-old girl who 'refused to take shower'

A police officer used a Taser stun gun to subdue a 10-year-old girl in her own home.



The officer had been called to the girl's home in Ozark, Arkansas, by her mother because she was behaving in an unruly manner and refusing to take a shower.

In a report on the incident the officer, Dustin Bradshaw, said the mother gave him permission to use the Taser.


I hardly think To Protect and Serve includes allowing a mother to call the police just because her 10 year old daughter is refusing to take a shower! Now the girl is to face disorderly conduct charges! In my view, it is the mother who should be facing child neglect charges and the police officer for assault.

Walking in a Wiltshire wonderland

Walking in a Wiltshire wonderland


A spectacular autumn display at the National Trust's Stourhead estate Photo: PHIL YEOMANS

Wiltshire is the richest area of Britain for prehistoric remains Photo: GETTY